From the Canterbury Journal and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 6 October, 1906.

THE SHADES, WHITSTABLE.

In the case of the "Shades," Whitstable, Mr. Stuart Sankey appeared for the owners, the Whitstable Charities, and Mr. Percival Hughes for the lessees and tenant of the house, while Mr. R. F. Gibbon represented the Licensed Justices of the Home Division.

Mr. Gibson explained that the Justices considered that at least nine licensed houses in Whitstable should be reported, but instead of sending nine they had sent six. In Whitstable there was a licence to every 200 persons. The house was in a very congested area, and there were ten other licences within ten yards and six others within a short distance. It was structurally deficient and not easy of police supervision.

Alfred Goldfinch, Surveyor to the Whitstable Urban District Council, produced the ordnance map of the district.

Superintendent Jacobs, of the Home Division, stated that he knew the "Shades," which was situated in the High Street, Whitstable. The "Hoy" was six yards away, while the "Royal Navy Reserve" was opposite, the "Prince of Wales" thirty-two yards off, while the "Bear and Key" and "Duke of Cumberland" hotels were about eighty-two yards away. There were forty five licensed houses in Whitstable. The "Shades" was the most inconvenient house in the congested area. A very respectable young man kept the house, but the trade was very small.

Mr. Hughes called the tenant, James Arthur Lindus, who stated that he had been in the house since April 1905. he should think the disappearance of the "Hoy" would help keep his business. He should like the licence renewed.

Mr. Stuart Sankey said the trustees of the Whitstable Charities did not oppose the abolition of the licence of the "Shades" if proper and liberal compensation was given.

The Committee refused to renew the above licence.