Kent & Sussex Courier, Friday 30 August 1878.

Our public houses.

The following report was laid before the Justice's on Tuesday by Superintendent Kewell:- Kent County Constabulary, Tunbridge division, 27th August, 1878.

Beer house at Brenchley, kept by Alexander Joy, who was on the 12th February, 1878, fined £2. and 10s. costs.

Kent & Sussex Courier, Friday 9 March 1906.

The "Castle," Brenchley.

This was a similar case to the last. (Of which had been objected to, on the grounds that the previous landlord have been convicted for permitting drunkenness.)

Mr. Cripps appeared for the tenants, and Mr. A. T. Simpson, Messrs. Stone, Simpson and Mason, Tunbridge Wells, for the Brewers, Messrs. Smith and Co., Lamberhurst.

Sergeant Tilly proved a conviction for permitting drunkenness against the house landlord, in 1888.

P.C. Woodlett proved another against a different landlord, in May, 1905.

Cross-examined:- He had not been able to find out whether the landlord served any beer to the man who was on his premises, drunk. The landlord denied that he had.

Superintendent Styles, in answer to Mr. Cripps, said the present tenant's testimonials were excellent and the house was well conducted.

The Chairman said that was the worst case that had come before them, but having regard to the circumstances and the new tenants, the house would be renewed. He thought he ought to make the remark on the brewers and those interested in the those kind of houses should take care as far as they possibly could with regard to the character of the tenants. The Bench observed that as soon as there was a conviction away went the tenant, and a new case was put in. That might be very desirable, but the brewers should look very carefully into the character of their tenants and the conduct of the houses generally, as it was by the conduct of a house that its character was attached.

Mr. Cripps said there they were all interested in the due and proper conduct of those houses. He suggested that if any little expression could be made by the Bench to the police, suggesting there concerns the brewers a hint when they saw anything wrong with the conduct of a house, it might lead to the better conduct of it. The policeman in a village know better than anybody else if there was a good or bad landlord, and if they could duly give the brewers some little hint it would be of advantage to all, and would aid enormously in the interment of temperance and morality in the district.

A Magistrate:- Then out we'll go the tenants, as now?

Mr. Cripps:- No sir.

Superintendent Style said the police frequently gave hints to the landlords.

Mr. Deacon said he had hardly ever heard of a case where at the police had not cautioned the tenant.

Mr. Cripps:- Yes, the tenant.

Mr. Decant said he thought the brewers ought to look after their own business. In London the brewers kept inspectors to go round to their houses.

Mr. Cripps said there were no houses in the country worse conducted then some of the London houses. The tenant was a manager. He hoped they would never have the conduct of the London houses held up as a model for the way they should conduct their houses in the country.

Mr. Deacon:- I don't hold a brief for the London brewers, but I know it does lead to the houses being better conducted.

Kent & Sussex Courier, Friday 25 April 1930.

FARMER'S BAD SEASON.

In the case of Frederick Henry Moore, farmer, of Gordon Place, Paddock Wood, and carrying on business at Eastlands Farm, Paddock Wood, his gross liabilities he estimated at £9,664 5s. 10d., and of this £5,643 17s. 6d. was expected to rank. There were 27 unsecured creditors at £4,256 18. 5d. His assets totalled £184 11s. 8d., and his deficiency was thus £5,459 5s. 10d. He attributed his failure to "Bad seasons, depreciation on market prices of produce and stock, and want of capital.

From 1896 to 1905, he stated, he was employed at Woolwich Arsenal, and in the latter year he took over the "Castle In," Brenchley, the capital of £300 being provided by his father for payment of the ingoing valuation. The money was neither a loan not a gift, for although the business was in his name he carried it on under the direction of his father. He relinquished the business in 1908, when the balance of the outstanding valuation, after paying off outstanding liabilities, was paid to his father.

 For the following eight years he managed Eastlands Farm, Paddock Wood, for his father, from whom he took it over in 1916 on the understanding that the agreed value of £220 live and dead farming stock and any money advanced during the first year's trading should be deducted from his share under his father's will. He could not say what was advanced to him before his father's death in 1917, but it was about £300 or £400. Under his fathers will his mother was entitled to a life interest in the estate, and when she died in February, 1919, her executors claimed the right to deduct about £625 advanced by his father from the £850 which he received as his share. He contended that portions of this £625 included liabilities incurred on behalf of his father, but he did not protest because he did not want to cause unpleasantness in the family.

In 1917 the Government Inspector required him to plough up his hop land about 15 1/2 acres, for the cultivation if grain crops, and as a result the value of the bines and the poles were lost, to the extent of about £400. In October, 1921, he received notice to quit Eastland Farm, and accordingly purchased it for £5,500, which he did not think was more than it was worth then. On this sum £3,400 was obtained on a first mortgage, and the balance from his hop factors under an agreement to place the whole of his hops with them for sale. Since 1921 his farming operations had been unsuccessful.

He became a member of English Hop Growers Ltd., in about March, 1925. They were unable to sell all their hops, and he thus lost about £2,000. In February, 1927, the first mortgagee required payment of her debt, which was paid off with an advance from the Public Works Loan Board of £3,915.

No books were kept and no trading and profit and loss accounts or balance sheets were at any time prepared. He was aware of his insolvency in September, 1924, since then practically the whole of his indebtedness had been contracted in the hope that his drops would turn out better.

All the household furniture, of an estimated value of £50, was claimed by his wife as having been purchased with her earnings previous to marriage or as gifts from her father. His son claimed a shed and poultry, which had been acquired with money which he earned himself.

The examination was adjourned until May 20th.