DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated Folkestone:- Sunday, 07 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton & Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1880

Agnes

Latest 1974

 19 Broadmead Road

Folkestone

Former Agnes off license 2009

Above Google image, May 2009.

 

Open as an off licence as early as 1889 and finally closed as late as 1974.

 

Folkestone Express 2 October 1880.

Wednesday, September 29th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister, M. J. Bell and W. J. Jeffreason Esqs.

This was the adjourned annual licensing day, and the following application was considered:

Abraham Huntley applied for a license for a house, No. 1, Garden Terrace. He said the rent of the house was 25 a year, and it contained a club room, four bedrooms, and three rooms downstairs. This application was refused.

Applicant then asked for a license to sell off the premises, which was granted.

Note: This pre-dates information given in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1881.

Saturday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Gen. Cannon, Capt. Carter, Ald. Caister, J. Clark, W. Jeffreason, J. Holden, and F. Boykett Esqs.

LICENSES.

A beer license was refused to Abraham Huntley, Agnes Inn, Cheriton Road.

 

Folkestone Express 1 October 1881.

Licensing.

Abraham Huntley applied for a beer license to sell on the premises, at the Agnes Inn, Garden Terrace, Cheriton Road. Mr. Ward supported the application, and produced a memorial in its favour. The license was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 May 1882.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Cowell v Huntley: This was a claim for 2 13s. 6d. for beer account.

The dispute between the two parties was, as to the price the beer should be charged at, the plaintiff contending that the agreement was 1 7s. 6d. a barrel cash, and 1 10s. credit.

His Honour gave judgement for defendant, with costs.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1882.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Cowell v Huntley: Claim for 10s. 6d., balance of a beer account. The case came on at the last court, but was adjourned in order that the defendant might have an opportunity of going through the plaintiff's books. This, however, had not been done, the plaintiff refusing to allow the defendant to do so.

His Honour ordered the plaintiff to let the defendant go through his books then, and after a lapse of some little time they returned into court.

Mr. Mowll, who appeared for the defendant, said that his client had been charged 1 10s. a barrel for beer and disputed the claim on the ground that, according to a verbal agreement, the charge was only to be 1 7s. 6d.

The plaintiff stated that he had supplied the defendant with beer amounting to over 100, and that they had a verbal agreement that the charge for the beer should be 1 7s. 6d. per barrel for cash, and 1 10s. for credit. The present claim was for credit.

The defendant disputed this and stated that it was an agreement only for 1 7s. 6d. a barrel to be charged, and that when the invoices were sent in he told plaintiff that he should not pay 30s. a barrel.

The plaintiff said that it was a rule of the trade to charge 30s. for credit and 1 7s. 6d. for cash. They could find several of the defendant's receipts with the 2s. 6d. taken off.

The receipts were then referred to, and the plaintiff found to be correct.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1882.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before J. Clarke, J. Holden. J. Boykett Esqs., and Ald. Caister.

This was the Annual Licensing Day.

Mr. Mowll appeared in support of an application made by Abraham Huntley for a license to sell on the premises at the Agnes Inn, Garden Row.

Mr. Mowll observed Mr. Holden on the Bench wearing the Blue Ribbon, and objected to his adjudicating, for although he had a perfect right to his own convictions, yet in this case he could not bring that fair and independent judgement to bear upon the case, which, as a magistrate, he was bound to do.

r. Clarke said that he was a member of the Army, and it was only by accident that he did not wear it that day.

Mr. Holden was sorry that Mr. Mowll stooped so low as to make those remarks.

Mr. Mowll suggested that the Bench should adjourn the hearing of the cases until the next licensing day.

Mr. Holden said, as Mr. Mowll had thought proper to make these remarks, he certainly should be present at the adjourned meeting.

The Clerk said that if the hearing was adjourned he would endeavour to procure the attendance of every member of the Committee.

The case was then adjourned.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1882.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before J. Clark, F. Boykett and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Licensing Day.

Application For New Licence.

Mr. Mowll appeared in support of an application made by Abraham Huntley, for a license to sell on the premises at the Agnes Inn, Garden Row.

Mr. Mowll asked Mr. Holden if he intended to sit and adjudicate.

Mr. Holden: Why do you put the question?

Mr. Mowll, addressing the chairman, said: One of the magistrates on the Bench is a member of the Blue Ribbon Army, and is wearing his badge. He is perfectly right, of course, to be guided by his own convictions, but I must object to his sitting to decide these applications.

Mr. Holden said he must take exception to Mr. Mowll's remarks.

Mr. Mowll said he would venture to submit, with every respect to the Bench, that Mr. Holden could not bring that fair and independent judgement to bear upon the case, which as a magistrate he was bound to do.

Mr. Clark said he must plead guilty to the same charge. He too was a member of the Blue Ribbon Army, and it was only a matter of accident he was not wearing the blue ribbon. He was quite willing to withdraw from the Bench if it would be agreeable.

Mr. Holden was sorry Mr. Mowll had stooped so low as to make the remarks he had done.

Mr. Clark said he threw himself into the same scale with Mr. Holden.

Mr. Mowll said what he wished to ask was that the Bench would adjourn the hearing of the applications until the adjourned licensing day. He knew the chairman would as far as possible bring a fair and unbiased mind to bear upon the question, but when a man took an extreme view of a subject, it was above human sense to believe he could bring an independent and unbiased mind to bear. It must, in a measure, clash with their principles. He would therefore simply ask those members of the Bench who were members of the Blue Ribbon Army not to undertake to decide the case, because he did not think they could entirely disassociate their principles from it, and it would therefore be unfair to his client.

Mr. Holden again protested against Mr. Mowll's remarks. He had been a total abstainer for between 30 and 40 years, and he was sorry Mr. Mowll had cast such a reflection upon him. It was below him.

Mr. Boykett said the question was “Was there any legal objection.”

The Magistrates' Clerk said there was no legal objection, but Mr. Mowll was quite within his rights in taking the objection.

Mr. Mowll said there were some members of the Bench not acting there that day, because they were holders of licenses. And why? Because it was considered they might be prejudiced in the view they took of such matters. And, although it was not provided for by the Act, it was a very reasonable thing to ask that others, who would be likely to take a prejudiced view, should not adjudicate upon such applications. He also said that he himself was strongly in favour of the Blue Ribbon Army principles, but in the interest of his clients he must ask the Bench to adjourn the hearing of the cases.

Mr. Holden said, as Mr. Mowll had thought proper to make those remarks, he should certainly be present at the adjourned meeting.

Mr. Mowll said he could not help that. He was merely entering his protest.

The Clerk said that Mr. Mowll's application was simply that the hearing should be adjourned. If the Bench would do that, he would endeavour to secure the attendance of every member of the committee.

The Chairman said he had no objection to that.

Mr. Minter said he appeared to oppose the application, and he would very much prefer that it should be heard by the magistrates sitting (Laughter).

Mr. Mowll said that remark strengthened his argument.

The case of Huntley, and also that of Mrs. Tyas, which was a similar application, then stood adjourned.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 August 1882.

Annual Licensing Session.

This session was held on Wednesday.

On the application for new licences (indoor) being made by Mr. Abraham Huntley, Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road, and Mrs. Tyas, the Bradstone Tavern, St. John’s Road, Mr. Mowll, who appeared on behalf of both applicants, asked if Mr. Holden intended to sit on the bench during the hearing of these applications, as he (Mr. Mowll) saw that he wore the badge of the Blue Ribbon Army. He could not bring to bear upon the cases that fair and unbiased judgment that a gentleman who did not belong to the Blue Ribbon Army could; and therefore, on behalf of the two applicants he supported, he entered his protest against Mr. Holden’s presence.

Mr. Clark, who occupied the chair, said he was also a member of the Blue Ribbon Army, although he did not happen to be wearing it that morning. If it were considered that he would not act fairly he was willing to retire, but he could assure them that it would make no difference to him.

Mr. Mowll asked if the cases might be adjourned. He had known the chairman and had found him to be of a fair and unbiased mind, but when a chairman took a strong view in connection with a matter, it was only in common sense for him to protest. He was sorry to make any remarks about the Bench, but he was sure they would wish to avoid even the appearance of evil. He would ask those on the Bench who were members of the Blue Ribbon Army to retire.

Mr. Holden said he had been a teetotaller for several years, and had never been objected to before.

Mr. Bradley said there was no legal objection to Mr. Holden remaining on the bench, but he thought Mr. Mowll was quite right in making the protest.

Mr. Mowll farther said that some of the magistrates were not present that morning because they were holders of licences, or were interested in them, and they thought it might be considered they would be biased. He thought that the same thing would hold good in connection with the Blue Ribbon Army. Therefore he asked that the two applications should be adjourned.

Mr. Holden said that Mr. Mowll, having made the remarks he had, he (Mr. Holden) should be present at the adjournment.

In the end both oases were adjourned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 September 1882.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Ald. Caister, F. Boykett, J. Clarke and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. Mowll applied for a license for Abraham Huntley, the Agnes Inn, Garden Terrace, and Mr. Ward applied for a license for Harvey Parks, Alexandra Tavern, New Bridge Street, which Mr. Mowll opposed.

The Bench refused the applicants.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1882.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before W. Bateman, F. Boykett, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Application For New Licence.

Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of Abraham Huntley for a beer license to sell on the premises at the Agnes Arms (sic), and urged that it was a case in which the Bench might very properly grant one. He was not asking for a new license, but merely to sanction the sale of beer and porter for consumption on the premises as well as off. The house was situated close by the three or four brick fields, the gas works, and large market gardens, and was also close to a road leading from the Downs, and Huntley had frequently been applied to by pedestrians for refreshments which he could not supply. He knew it was the feeling of the Bench – a feeling with which he himself cordially agreed –that the present licenses should not be increased, but this was merely an application for a license to sell on the premises that which the applicant already sold off. He put in a petition in favour of the license signed by several influential gentlemen.

The applicant was called and examined by Mr. Mowll. He said he had held an off license for two or three years, and there had been no complaint made against him. He had frequently been applied to for refreshments by persons coming off the hills. His house was rated at 25.

The Bench decided to hear all the applications before giving their decision.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that there were already too many licenses, and it was only under very exceptional circumstances that they would be inclined to grant another. All the applications would be refused.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 September 1882.

Licensing Meeting.

An adjourned licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday morning, the magistrates present being Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, Messrs. J. Clark, F. Boykett, and J. Holden.

Abraham Huntley, of the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road, applied for a licence to sell beer and porter on his premises, he already having an off licence. Mr. Mowll and Mr. Ward appeared on behalf of Huntley, and the former gentleman, in supporting the application, explained that he did not think there was any opposition to the granting of the licence, as it was a fair and proper case for their decision. It was not an application for a new licence, as Huntley already had an off licence. The applicant’s premises were situated close to three or four brickfields, the gasworks, and a large market garden, as well as close to a road from the hills.

Thomas Henry Parks, of the Alexandra Tavern, New Bridge Street, also applied for a licence to sell beer and porter to be consumed on the premises. Mr. Ward, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, said Parks had resided for some time in New Bridge Street at the bottom of Alexandra Street, and had every accommodation for an indoor licence.

Mr. Mowll, who opposed the application, said there were about half-a-dozen public-houses within 200 yards of the Alexandra.

The Bench were of a unanimous opinion that there was no reason for granting either of the applications. They considered that there were already too many licensed houses, and only under exceptional circumstances would they grant another. They, however, regretted not being able to grant the applications because both applicants were very respectable men.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1883.

Wednesday, August 22nd: Before R.W. Boarer, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason, and J. Clark Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Annual Licensing Day.

The ordinary business of renewing licenses having been concluded, the following application was heard:

The Agnes Inn.

Abraham Huntley applied for a license to sell beer on the premises at the Agnes Inn, Garden Terrace. Mr. W. Gregory, of Bromley, supported the application, and Superintendent Taylor opposed on the ground that there were several houses in the immediate neighbourhood. The Bench refused the application.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1883.

Local News. Licensing Business.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, before F. Boykettt, R.W. Bearer, T. Caister, and J. Clark, Esqs., the annual licensing session was held.

An application by Mr. Gregory, of Bromley, for a licence to sell on the premises at the Agnes beer-house, in Ford Road, occupied by Mr. Abraham Huntley, was opposed by the police superintendent and refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1884.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The annual granting of public house and other refreshment licenses took place on Wednesday morning in the Session House, before The Mayor and other Magistrates.

A. Huntley renewed an application to the Bench, which he has made in former years, for a full license for a beerhouse in Wildey Lane, Foord. Mr. Minter supported the application, and Mr. Wightwick, for the Temperance Society, opposed it.

The Bench decided that the six houses already existing fully supplied the public wants.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1884.

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. The magistrates present were The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Clark Esq., and Alderman Caister.

The following application for new licence was heard:

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. Abraham Huntley again applied for an on licence for the Agnes Inn, Garden Terrace. Mr. Minter supported the application, and Mr. Wightwick opposed.

Mr. Minter produced a memorial signed by several persons residing in the neighbourhood in favour of the licence being granted, among whom were Dr. Perry, Dr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Penfold, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Salter, Mr. Kingsford, Mr. Medhurst, and many others. He urged that the neighbourhood had very much increased during the past few years, and that his client, having made several previous applications, was entitled to a licence if the Bench decided to grant one in that locality.

Evidence having been given in support of the application, Mr. Wightman contended that there were already several houses in the neighbourhood, and that another would be likely to cause a nuisance. He put in a memorial against the granting of the application.

Phineas Fox was called, and said he took round the memorial against the licence. In reply to Mr. Minter, he said he was a teetotaller, but not a prejudiced teetotaller. He thought there should be one house licensed in the neighbourhood.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone News 30 August 1884.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Fletcher, J. Clark Esq., and Aldermen Sherwood and Caister.

Licensing Day.

Mr. Huntley, of the Agnes Inn, near Darlington Arch, applied for a licence to sell liquor to be drunk on the premises.

Mr. Minter said the application had been made for several years, and the neighbourhood was growing so much that it was absolutely necessary for the convenience of persons living there that the licence should be granted. He presented a memorial signed by Dr. Perry, Dr. Fitzgerald, Messrs. Pledge, Simpson, Kingsford, Penfold, Wedderburn, Salter, Medhurst and others. There might be a memorial from those bigoted people who wished people to do as they did, and not, like other people to do as they did not, but he hoped that the Bench would not be influenced by any petition from teetotallers, otherwise they might refuse to grant any licences at all. However humble the neighbourhood might be, the convenience of those living in the neighbourhood was just as much to be studied as that of those living in more stylish quarters.

Mr. Huntley then gave his opinion upon the need for the house.

Mr. C. Dray, farrier, gave evidence to the effect that the licence would be a great convenience.

Mr. Thomas Fox, called for the opposition said that he considered that the licence was not wanted, as there was an inn at nearly every corner in that part of the town. In reply to Mr. Minter, he said he was a teetotaller, and had been such from his birth. He thought one house was needed in a neighbourhood for supplying drink.

The Bench were unanimously of opinion that it was not necessary to grant the licence.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 September 1884.

Brewster Sessions.

These sessions were held on Wednesday, before the Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Clark, and T. Caister, Esqs.

An application by Mr. A. Huntley for a full licence for his house in Wiltie Lane was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1885.

Wednesday August 26th:

The Annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Capt. Carter, Alderman Caister, F. Boykett and J. Clark Esqs.

Application For New Licence.

Abraham Huntley applied for a licnece to sell on at the Agnes Inn. Mr. Bannon, of Romney, supported the application, and said there had been a considerable increase in the number of houses in the neighbourhood, and it had been ascertained that the number of people passing the house daily was 2,550, and the number of vehicles 320. The Cheriton Arch Station had been opened since last year, and the recreation ground would in the course of it's laying out employ a large number of men, who would require refreshments. He produced a memorial, numerously signed, in favour of the granting of the licence.

The applicant said he had held an off licence at the Agnes Inn for five years, and that it was specially erected for a public house. The rent was 25.

Mr. Wightwick opposed on behalf of several ratepayers, and also on the part of the Temperance Society, and called the Rev. Mr. Martin, Vicar of Foord, who said in his opinion there was ample accommodation for the sale of liquor.

In reply to Mr. Bannon he said he had known the district for about five months. (Laughter).

The Bench considered there was no alteration in the neighbourhood which would justify them in granting the licence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 August 1886.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough.

I, Abraham Huntley, beerhouse keeper, now residing at the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road, otherwise Garden Terrace, in the township of Folkestone, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall, in the said Borough, on the Twenty Fifth day of August next ensuing for a certificate of Justices for the grant of an excise license to sell by retail beer, cider and perry, in pursuance of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, and the Wine and Beerhouse Act Amendment Act, 1870, to be drunk or consumes in the House and Premises thereunto belonging, situate at No. 15, Broadmead Road, otherwise Garden Terrace, in the township and borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of the Agnes Inn, of which said premises I am the owner, and which I intend to keep as a beerhouse.

Given under my hand this twenty fifth day of July, one thousand, eight hundred and eighty six.

A. HUNTLEY.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1886.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs., and Capt. Carter.

This being the Annual Licensing Day the magistrates attended at ten o'clock in order to prepare for the issue of licenses at eleven o'clock. Upwards of 100 licenses were granted.

New Licences.

Abraham Huntley applied for a licence to sell on the premises at the Agnes Inn, for which he now holds an off licence.

Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant, and stated that it was the sixth time he had applied for a full licence, and looking at the increase in the neighbourhood he thought the time had arrived when they would see fit to grant the application. He handed in a memorial signed by a number of owners of property in the neighbourhood. Refused.

Mr. Wightwick opposed on behalf of Mr. Spencer Hayward, a builder, and a Temperance Society.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1887.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough.

I, Abraham Huntley, Beerhouse Keeper, now residing at the Agnes Inn, No. 15, Broadmead Road, otherwise Garden Terrace, in the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Twenty Fourth day of August next ensuing, for a certificate of Justices for the grant of an excise licence to sell by retail beer, cider and perry, in pursuance of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, and the Wine and Beerhouse Act Amendment Act, 1870, to be drunk or consumed in the House and Premises thereunto belonging, situate at No. 15, Broadmead Road, otherwise Garden Terrace, in the Township and Borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of the Agnes Inn, of which said premises I am the owner, and which I intend to keep as a Beerhouse.

Given under my hand this 25th day of July, One thousand eight hundred and eighty seven.

Abraham Huntley.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1887.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before Alderman Caister, W. Bateman, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day.

Wm. Huntley applied for a licence for the Agnes Inn, Garden Terrace.

Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant, and there was no opposition.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1888.

Licensing.

The annual Brewster sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were The Mayor, H.W. Poole, F. Boykett, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

The Agnes Inn.

Abraham Huntley applied for a six day licence to sell on the premises. Mr. Minter supported the application.

He said he was afraid to say how many years Mr. Huntley had applied. But year by year the neighbourhood had grown, and an application for a licence had been made by a person who proposed to build a house in the neighbourhood. Mr. Mowll, he believed, would oppose, but on behalf of whom he did not know. In previous years a gentleman then on the Bench had opposed.

Mr. Bradley: Who are you referring to, Mr. Minter?

Mr. Minter: To Mr. Wightwick. Mr. Huntley made a most pathetic appeal to me to object to his adjudicating, bit I have the utmost confidence in Mr. Wightwick, and that he will exercise fair and impartial judgement.

The applicant said he had been landlord of the Agnes Inn for eight years, holding an off licence, and during that time the neighbourhood had extended greatly. There were no licensed houses nearer than Foord and Darlington, and in his belief there was a need for a licence such as he had applied for. His house was valued at 25, and there were nine rooms in it.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, applicant said there had been three or four houses built close by his house since he made his last application.

Mr. Mowll remarked that the changes were a little bit rung. They were only asking for a beer licence, and that for six days instead of seven. They were two little baits flung to the Bench to induce them to grant the application. He read a memorial from residents at Radnor Park against the licence being granted. It was signed by the Rev. C. Bosanquet, the Rev. G. Martin, and others. He characterised the application as impertinent, and asked the Bench not only to refuse the application, but to order payment of costs to mark their sense of his conduct.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 29 December 1888.

Saturday, December 22nd: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, J. Holden, J. Sherwood and E.T. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Agnes Inn was transferred from Abraham Huntley to William Stockton.

Note: Date of transfer is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 February 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

A sitting of this Court was held at the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Friday, before Mr. Registrar Furley.

Re. Abraham Huntley, Folkestone: The debtor was late beerhouse keeper, but is now out of business. There is 7 4s. 5d. to meet 460 0s. 10d. debts. The case was adjourned till 1st March.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 March 1889.

Local News.

A sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court was held on Friday before the Registrar (Walter Furley Esq.). The Official Receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll) was also in attendance.

Re. Abraham Huntley. Licensed Victualler, Folkestone: This case was further adjourned for a fortnight.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 March 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

At a sitting of this court on Friday (before Mr. Registrar Furley) the case of Abraham Huntley (late of the Agnes Inn, Folkestone) again came on, the debtor attending for his adjourned public examination.

The Official Receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll) said it would be remembered that the bankrupt had entered into a contract with Mr. Belgrave, brewer, of Folkestone, for the sale of a public house, and there had besides been a security given to Mr. Idenden for a past debt just before the bankruptcy. An offer had been made to him that if he did not upset the sale of the public house, and would confirm the contract, the other side would give up the security which had been given to Idenden, which practically meant 200 to the creditors. He had satisfied himself upon independent valuation that they were giving a fair price for the public house, and, therefore, he had assented to the terms, and there would be no private examination.

The Registrar then allowed the debtor to pass.

He was told by the Chief Clerk to sit down and read through the notes of his public examination, but the debtor said he could not read.

The Registrar: Then you ought to be ashamed of yourself to say so. You ought not to lose another day – another hour, but go and learn at once. It is a disgraceful thing. It is no misfortune. It is a fault nowadays not to be able to read. A man like you with health and brains should learn at once. If you were an agricultural labourer there might be some excuse, but there is none for a man like you.

 

Folkestone Express 30 March 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

A sitting of this Court was held on Friday last, before the Registrar, Mr. Walter Furley.

Re. Abraham Huntley, Licensed Victualler, Folkestone.

The Official receiver (Mr. Mowll) said he had no further questions to ask the debtor, and he was allowed to pass. The debtor washanded the shorthand writer's transcript to read over. He informed the Registrar that he could not read. The Registrar said a man of debtor's age and respectability ought to learn to read at once. He ought not to lose another day before he began to learn. It was not a misfortune in his case – it was a fault. This was not like the case of an agricultural labourer. Debtor was in a respectable position, and it was a positive disgrace.

The Official Receiver said it was extraordinary, but there was one thing to be said in the debtor's favour. It was many years now since he was at school, and in his young days they were not so particular. He mentioned that wives of agricultural labourers often came to him complaining about the education of their children. They seemed to think that because their husbands had no education it was a hardship that the children should be compelled to go to school.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1891.

Saturday, September 19th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Major Poole, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Frank Stockton, landlord of the Agnes Inn, was summoned for allowing liquor to be consumed on the premises by William Finch on the 12th inst., he not being licensed to sell beer for consumption on the premises.

P.S. Lilley said he watched the Agnes Inn on Saturday morning in company with Sergeant Swift. At 10.50 he saw four men enter the house. They remained about two minutes and then they all came out. One went away, and one brought out some liquor in a pot. All three of them drank it on the footway. They were about two feet from the door. The man took the pot back and they went away. At 11.25 he saw a man enter and come out with a pint pot. He stood on the footpath, leaning against the wall, and drank the contents. He afterwards took the pot back. At 11.50 he saw a carter named Kennett draw up at the door.

Mr. Hall, who appeared for defendant, objected to such evidence. It had nothing to do with the charge.

Mr. Bradley: I suppose he is leading up to Finch.

Mr. Hall: Well, I must object to it.

Mr. Bradley: He is entitled to state what he saw.

Witness, continuing, said he went into the house with Swift and called for two bottles of ginger beer. He was served by Mrs. Stockton, and whilst they were drinking it a man named Finch came in and called for half a pint of porter with a bottle of ginger beer mixed, and half pint of beer in another pot. It was drawn by Mrs. Stockton. Finch nodded to her and said “That's to me”. She replied “All right”. Finch took them outside and he and another man drank them on the pavement, close to the door. Kennett brought his pot back and put it down on the counter. Witness took it up and said to Mrs. Stockton “This man has had a pint of beer in this?” She replied “No, half a pint”. Witness told her they were two police officers, that they had been watching the house, and that they should report her for allowing drink to be consumed on the premises. She said “No. They have all had it outside”.

By Mr. Hall: We watched the house from a lodge about fifty yards from Wiltie Lane. The other men might have drunk ginger beer. Finch did not close the door when he went out. It was a double door and one was open. They stood close outside. There was a window to the door. Defendant's wife was about five feet in height, and he would hardly think she could see anyone on the pavement. There was a private road at the side of the house, and there was a considerable amount of building going on close by. There was no blind to the window.

Mr. Hall: But the door was shut, wasn't it?

Witness: I could see through the window.

P.S. Swift corroborated the evidence of the last witness, and in answer to Mr. Hall, said there was a small red blind on the window of the door – about eight inches deep. He should think Mrs. Stockton could see over that.

William Finch, a bricklayer's labourer, said he was working on some buildings opposite the Agnes Inn. He was in the habit of getting beer and ginger beer from the Agnes. He fetched it in his own pot. He fetched some on the 12th inst. There were two men present who said they were police officers. Witness went out and shut the door after him. He would swear that. He and Handford went to the gate, which was lettered “Private Road”, and drank the liquor. He was positive about that. It took him about a minute and a half to drink it. It did not take a working man long to drink a pint of beer when he was dry. (Laughter) The policemen were false-speaking men. They couldn't have seen them drinking because they were ten feet away from the door. They must have seen through a brick wall if they did. It was drunk on the private road which the owner could lock when he liked.

Harry Handford, a carter, said he was employed on some new buildings near the Agnes Inn. He often had beer from the Agnes. It was generally taken across to the buildings. Witness drank the beer near the gate on the private road. There was a barrier across the road, and it had a lock and key to it. It would not have been possible for anyone to see them drink the beer from the bar.

George Belgrave said he was a brewer, and owner of the house. The road in question had nothing whatever to do with the Agnes Inn. Mr. John Norrington claimed it as his private property, and objected to his tenants using it.

Mrs. Annie Stockton said the workmen frequently sent across for beer, and when she served Finch she did not know where he was going to take it. The road was a private one, and she had seen the barrier put across.

According to the Act no person is allowed to consume liquor on the premises or on the public highway adjoining, or near the premises with the knowledge and permission of the landlord.

Mr. Boykett said the Bench preferred to believe the evidence of the policemen, and fined defendant 2 10s. and 14s. costs, and ordered the licence to be endorsed at once.

Mr. Hall said he hoped the Bench would reconsider the matter of the licence. It would be very hard on Mr. Belgrave.

Mr. Boykett said there would be no change of decision.

At the Police Court on Wednesday Mr. Hall gave notice of appeal, which will be heard at the next Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 26 September 1891.

Saturday, September 19th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole, F. Boykett and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred Stockton was summoned for selling liquor to William Finch to be drank on the highway outside his premises, he not being licensed to sell beer for consumption on the premises.

Sergeant Lilley said on Saturday the 12th he watched the Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road. At 10.50 he saw four men in the house, who remained two minutes. They all came out, and one went away. One man took something out in a pot and the three that remained stood on the footway and drank from it. They were only a foot or two from the doorway. The man took the pot back and left it. At 11.25 he saw another man enter, come out with a pint pot, stand on the footway, leaning against the house, and drank from it, returning with the pot to the house. At 11.50 he saw a carter named Kennett draw up.

Mr. Hall objected to any evidence, except as it related to Finch.

Witness said Kennett came out with a pint pot. He and Sergeant Swift then entered the house, called for two bottles of ginger beer, and drank them. While they were there, William Finch came in and had a pint of beer and half a pint of porter and a bottle of ginger beer mixed. It was drawn by Mrs. Stockton in two pint pots. Finch nodded and said “That's to me”. She replied “All right”. Finch took them outside and drank them with another man outside the door. Kennett brought his pot back and set it down on the counter. Witness took it up and said to Mrs Stockton “This man has had a pint of beer in this jug”. She said “No, half a pint”. He told her they were two police officers who had been watching the house for some time, and she had been allowing drink to be consumed on the premises. She replied “No, they have all had it outside”.

By Mr. Hall: I was in a lodge 50 yards from the houses in Wiltie Lane. Finch did not close the door when he left.

Sergeant Swift corroborated Lilley's statement.

In reply to Mr. Hall, both the sergeants said Mrs. Stockton could see the men drinking, as the door was half open.

Mr. Hall contended that there was no offence on the part of the defendant, and called William Finch, a bricklayer's labourer, who said he was working on some new houses alongside the Agnes Inn. He was in the habit of fetching beer from the Agnes in his own pot. On Saturday he fetched a pint of beer and porter. Two men were in there. He took the beer away and drank it on private premises. He shut the door when he left. He drank the beer about ten feet from the premises, where there is a gate marked “Private Road”. He was about a minute and a half drinking it. It did not take a working man long to drink a pint of beer when he was dry. (Laughter) It was impossible for the police sergeants to see him drink the beer unless they could see through a brick wall. When he took the jugs back, the constables asked his name, and he told them. It was from eight to ten feet from the high road, and they leaned on a gate and drank the beer. One pot was his own, and the other the landlord's.

Henry Handford, a carter, said he was employed at the new buildings near the Agnes Inn, and from time to time had beer there. Most of the beer was brought across to the building. On Saturday he saw Finch bring out some beer across the road to the wall, into a private road where there was a bar. No-one in the inn could have seen them drinking the beer.

Mr. George Belgrave, brewer, owner of the Agnes Inn, said the road was private property, belonging to Mr. John Norrington, who had objected to his tenant using the road.

Mrs. Stockton, wife of defendant, said she did not see Kennett drink the beer with which she served him. If he had stood on the pavement in front of the open door she would have seen him.

Mr. Boykett, as Chairman, said the Bench received the evidence of the two police sergeants as positive, and they therefore came to the conclusion to fine the defendant in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs. They also endorsed the licence.

Mr. Hall appealed to the Bench to alter the latter part of the decision, but they declined.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day. The Conviction of Stockton.

Notice of appeal against the conviction in the case of the Agnes Inn having been given, Mr. Belgrave entered into recognisances to pay the costs.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 September 1891.

Local News.

On Saturday a peculiar case under the Licensing Act was heard before the Folkestone magistrates, when Mr. Stockton, the landlord of the Agnes Inn, was summoned for allowing beer to be consumed on the premises, the defendant only holding an off-licence.

The house was watched by two police officers, who stated that a man named Finch purchased a pint of beer, took it outside the premises and drank it on the pavement. The clause under which the proceedings were instituted states that no liquor shall be drunk on the premises or on the public highway near or adjoining.

Finch and three other witnesses were called, and stated that that the liquor was drunk on a private road adjoining the house.

The Chairman (Mr. Boykett) said the Bench were disposed to believe the evidence of the two policemen in preference to that of the defendant’s witnesses, and imposed a fine of 50s. and 14s. costs, at the same time ordering the licence to be endorsed. There had been no previous conviction against the defendant, or in respect of the house, and the judgment created considerable surprise.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 14 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

The Quarter Sessions on Monday occupied seven hours – an unusual time for Folkestone.

An appeal was heard by the Recorder against the judgement of the Borough Magistrates in the conviction of Mr. Stockton, landlord of the Agnes beerhouse, which has an off licence, for allowing beer to be drunk on the premises. Mr. Hume William was for the appellant, and Mr. Glyn supported the conviction, which rested upon the evidence of Police Sergeants Lilley and Swift.

For the appeal there was considerable evidence adduced, which was in direct conflict with the facts sworn to by the police. The speeches of the learned Counsel occupied some time, and the Recorder reserved judgement until this (Wednesday) morning at ten o'clock.

Mr. Hume Williams said that he would be unable to be present, but in a certain contingency he asked that a case might be stated, so that the appellant might take it to a higher Court.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 16 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

An appeal against the conviction recorded against him for allowing beer to be consumed on the high road outside his premises was made by Alfred Stockton, holder of the licence of the Agnes Inn. The grounds on which the appeal was based was that the beer was drunk on a private road, and not on the pavement outside the house. A lot of contradictory evidence was given, and the Recorder reserved his judgement till Wednesday, when he gave judgement, upholding the decision of the justices.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 October 1891.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Monday, before the learned Recorder (J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.), the appeal against the decision of the Borough Justices in the case of the Agnes Inn came on for hearing. Mr. Hume Williams appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. L. Glyn represented the respondent justices, who, on the 19th of September, fined the appellant fifty shillings and ordered the licence to be endorsed.

The case was briefly opened by Mr. Williams, and Mr. Glyn remarked that Alfred Stockton held an off licence in respect of the Agnes Inn – that was to say, a licence to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises. The charge against him was that he had, contrary to the Act of Parliament, sold liquor to a person named Finch, who drunk the contents of the pot immediately outside of the premises and on the highway. The old section of the Act did not stop people from drinking outside, but it was thought necessary to alter it, and it now stated that if any person drank it on the premises, or on the highway adjoining or near the highway, with the privity and consent of the landlord, he would be subject to the penalty. It was necessary for him to prove the sale and that it was consumed either on the premises, or near the premises adjoining, and also with the privilege of the holder of the licence, or the manager, which, in this case, was the holder's wife. If the justices believed the evidence of the policemen they were bound to convict the defendant, and he should contend that Mrs. Stockton wilfully closed her eyes to the fact that the liquor was being drunk on the highway.

Police Sergeant Lilley was then called and stated that he watched the Agnes Inn on the 12th of September, in company with Sergeant Swift, in plain clothes.

Mr. Williams said he presumed the officer was going to give evidence as to four other people who entered the house. He contended that it could not be given as evidence against Finch. There was a specific, plain charge of unlawfully selling beer to Finch, knowing that he was going to consume it on the premises.

Mr. Glyn contended that it ought to be given as evidence.

The Recorder said he was anxious not to exclude evidence which showed privity and consent on the part of the publican. He was, therefore, of opinion that it should be allowed.

Sergeant Lilley then went on to state that at 10.50 he saw four men enter the house, remain about ten minutes, and then brought some liquor out in a pot and drank it on the footway close to the door. At 11.25 he saw another man enter and come out with a pot. He stood against the wall of the house, close to the doorway, and drank it. He then took the pot back. Witness afterwards saw a carter named Kennett enter. He came out with a pint pot, and drank a portion of it on the footway close to the door. Before he had finished witness and Swift entered the house. Mrs. Stockton was behind the counter. She could have seen him if she liked. The door was about two feet from the counter. Witness called for two bottles of ginger beer. Whilst they were drinking it Finch came in. He called for a pint of beer and porter, and half a pint of porter and a bottle of ginger beer mixed. It was drawn and served by Mrs. Stockton in two pint pots. Finch took them out on the footway, and he and another man drank them. Mrs. Stockton could see what they were doing. Kennett then came in and set the pot down on the counter. Witness said to Mrs. Stockton “We are police officers. You have been allowing beer to be consumed on the premises”. She said “No; outside”. It was not true that they consumed it round by the private road.

By Mr. Williams: They were watching from a lodge about sixty yards from the house. It belonged to Mr. Simpson, but he did not tell Mr. Simpson's daughter that there had been a robbery at the harbour and he wanted to keep his eye on someone from the lodge. Kennett stood partly in the doorway when he drank the beer. Finch and the other man drank at the right hand corner of the door. Finch was employed on some buildings opposite. There was a small red blind about eight or nine inches deep above the woodwork of the door. The woodwork was three feet deep. Mrs. Stockton stood behind the bar. It was a general shop.

Police Sergeant Swift was called and said he corroborated the evidence of Lilley.

By Mr. Williams: Kennett was leaning against the half door, which was closed.

That was the respondent's case.

William Finch was then called and stated that on the 12th of September he was working on some houses that were being built opposite the Agnes Inn. Twelve o'clock was his dinner hour, and he was in the habit of sending over to the Agnes Inn for beer. He fetched the beer in pots of his own. On the day in question he went to get a pint of beer and porter and half a pint of porter and ginger beer mixed. A friend named Hanford waited outside in the private road, leaning against the gate, which parted the private road. He joined Hanford there. He did not drink any of it until he got to Hanford. They were about eight or ten feet from the public highway.

By Mr. Glyn: It was more convenient for him to drink it in the private road. He shut the door of the Agnes Inn when he came out and opened it when he went back.

Henry Hanford said he was a carter, employed on the same buildings as Finch. Finch went into the Agnes Inn and purchased some beer. He waited in the private road whilst he fetched it and they drank it together. It was false to say Finch drank it on the pavement.

By Mr. Glyn: Did not know it was an offence to drink it on the pavement.

Mr. Neil Murray said he was a civil engineer. He was the owner of the houses being constructed opposite the Agnes Inn. Finch was in his employment as a labourer. He remembered being on the buildings on the Saturday in question and had a conversation with Finch when he came back from the Agnes Inn. He saw Finch go into the house and noticed Hanford standing just inside of the private road. He saw Finch come out of the Agnes Inn. He was not sure that he had anything in his hand. He went up by the side of the private road and he saw them drinking something. Finch did not stop on the pavement. He walked straight to the private road. If he had stopped and drunk anything on the pavement he must have seen him. Witness was on the scaffolding of the building and had a clear view.

By Mr. Glyn: He was not called before the justices. He knew that Stockton would be charged because his man had been summoned. He knew what the charge would be, but he did not care to interfere with matters that did not concern him. He certainly did not care to interfere with such things until he was asked. He remembered the day quite distinctly, because when Finch came back from the Agnes Inn he said he had had a row with the constables. At quarter to one on the same day he went over to the Agnes Inn and also had a conversation with Mrs. Stockton. The other day Mrs. Stockton spoke to him about the matter. He told her what he knew, and she communicated it to her solicitor.

Mrs. Stockton, the wife of Frank Stockton, said she remembered the policemen going to her house on the 12th of September. She did not see the men drink the beer on the pavement and did not know where they were going to drink it. She did not see Kennett drink it against the door. She would have seen him if he did. She thought Finch was going to take it over to the building. It was not drunk outside of the door.

By Mr. Glyn: She did not know it made any difference whether it was drunk on the public highway or in the private road so long as it was taken out of the house.

By Mr. Williams: They did not do it by my leave.

This was the case and the Recorder said he should withhold judgement until Wednesday.

Mr. Williams said if the case went against him he should ask the Recorder to state a case.

The case was resumed on Wednesday, when the Recorder delivered judgement at great length. Having repeated the evidence of the witness Lilley, he remarked that he had considered the facts very carefully, and although it came before him as an appeal it was a re-hearing of the case. He attached much importance to the evidence of the police sergeants. He was unable to credit the evidence of Finch. He was asked why he went into the private road and he said the reason was that he was afraid of being run over. Such a statement discredited the evidence he gave. The same observation applied to Hanford. He said the beer was taken to the private road in order to be drunk off the premises, and subsequently said because the gate was open. As regarded Mr. Neil Murray it was evidence of a cogent and important character. He was a civil engineer and the owner of the houses then being constructed. He said that he saw the man Finch drinking in the private road and that he had a conversation with Mrs. Stockton at the Agnes Inn. He was aware, on the 12th of September, of the nature of the charge, and yet he considered the interests of justice were best served by him staying away. He disbelieved the evidence of Mr. Murray and believed the police sergeants. He (the Recorder) was unable to yield to the argument of counsel with reference to Mrs. Stockton not knowing of it. She said herself, in cross-examination, that she knew that people had been in the habit of drinking beer on the pavement outside, but she did not know it was an offence. She thereby admitted that she knew people were in the habit of drinking beer on the pavement, but her ignorance of the law was no excuse. In the face of evidence of that kind it was impossible for him to come to any other conclusion but that Mrs. Stockton was aware that drinking was going on outside the premises. He, therefore, affirmed the conviction. The justices were quite right, and he dismissed the appeal, with costs.

Mr. F. Hall, who instructed Mr. Williams, asked the Recorder to state a special case on two grounds, viz., “That legally there was no evidence to show that such liquor was consumed by the said William Finch on the highway with the privity and consent of Stockton. The second point would be as to the reception of evidence. That evidence of other cases ought not to have been admitted of other persons than William Finch.”

Mr. Minter, on behalf of Mr. Glyn, asked the Recorder not to state a case. The only ground upon which they could have asked was upon a point of law, but no point of law arose. The question as to the privity and consent of Mrs. Stockton was a question of fact. The other ground, viz., the acceptance of facts of other cases, that would be a point of law, and upon that the Recorder would be able to state a case, but upon the finding of the Court it was not wanted.

Mr. Hall said he was rather surprised that objection should have been taken, because his counsel distinctly asked for a case to be stated if it went against him. With regard to privity and consent, he contended that it was a point of law.

The Recorder said he would state a special case.

 

Folkestone Express 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 11th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Alfred Stockton, holder of the off licence of the Agnes Inn, appealed against the conviction recorded against him for allowing beer to be consumed on the high road outside his premises, when he was fined 50s., and the licence was ordered to be endorsed.

Mr. Hume Williams, instructed by Mr. F. Hall, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Glyn, instructed by Mr. Minter, for the respondent. The hearing of the case, which was practically a repetition of what took place before the Magistrates, with the addition of legal technicalities and arguments, occupied the entire afternoon.

Mr. Glyn opened the case at some length, briefly recapitulating the facts, and remarking that he could not conceive, if the justices believed the evidence before them, what possible objection could be raised. The constables were watching the house, and they might infer they had some reason for it, or they would not have done it.

Mr. Hume Williams objected to that part of the evidence relating to what the constables saw prior to entering the house, and was not strictly confined to Finch's case being admitted, but the Recorder held that it was rightly admitted.

Mr. Glyn contended further that unless the landlord's wife wilfully shut her eyes, she must have been cognisant of what was going on, and the evidence of the constables was that she could have seen Finch and his companion drinking in the highway as near as he could possibly be to the house. When the constables entered the house and said “You have been selling this man a pint of beer to be drank inside”, she replied “No, outside”, showing that she knew where it had been drank. It might be said that at the time she did not know that she was committing an offence, but then she was bound to know the law, and whether she knew it or not she was bound to obey it. The appellant's witnesses said the liquor was not drunk in the highway, but in a private road. If that was so, he quite admitted there was no offence under the Act. The question for the Court was which was to be believed – the evidence of the constables or that of the appellant's wife and the man Finch.

Sergeant Lilley repeated his evidence, which was that he and Sergeant Swift were watching the Agnes Inn on the 12th September, and saw several people stop, go in, come out with jugs, and drink something. They then went in and had some ginger beer, and while they were there Finch went in, called for a pint of beer and porter, half a pint of beer and a bottle of ginger beer mixed, which they stood outside on the pavement and drank.

Sergeant Swift corroborated this evidence, and both said positively that the men did not go round the corner.

Mr. Williams put in a plan showing the position of the Agnes Inn, and cross-examined the sergeants upon it. He then called William Finch, who swore that he took the liquor on to the private road, whereto Hanford was standing, and there they drank the beer, and Henry Hanford corroborated his evidence.

A new witness was also called, in the person of Mr. Neal Murray, of 43, Bradstone Avenue, owner of two houses being constructed in Broadmead Road, who said Finch was in his employ as a bricklayer. He was in his premises on the 12th September when Finch returned from the Agnes Inn. He had gone over to Hanford, who was standing in the private road. He saw Finch come out of the inn and go up the private road, and stood there with Hanford drinking something. When he left the inn he did not stop and drink on the pavement, but walked straight to the private road.

Mrs. Stockton, in the course of her cross-examination, said she was not aware that it was an offence to allow beer to be drank outside.

Mr. Hume William then addressed the Recorder, first on the point whether the liquor was drunk on a private road or on the public highway, and secondly whether ther was privity on the part of the appellant or his wife. He asked whether the unsupported testimony of the police sergeants was to be taken in preference to that of Mr. Murray, and the two men who were dinking together, and whose testimony was very clear that the liquor was not drank on a public highway. Then, as to the question of privity on the pat of the applellant, assuming the Recorder was against him on the first point, it was expressly laid down that the drinking must be with the privity and consent of the person who held the licence. He cited the case of “Cross and Watts”, which was the only conviction reported, and in which it was shown that the holder of the licence placed a form outside for the accommodation of people, and served them with liquor through the window.

The Recorder remarked that Mrs. Stockton admitted that she did not know that she was committing an offence, and that she had known beer to be drank outside.

Mr. Williams contended that she was not responsible. None of the witnesses said that the landlady knew what was done with the beer.

Mr. Glyn replied on the whole case, and dealt with the evidence of Mr. Murray by assuming that he had mistaken the date, and that what he saw might have occurred on some other day.

The Recorder said he would deliver judgement at ten o'clock on Wednesday.

Mr. Williams said, supposing the judgement to be against him, he should ask His Honour to state a case on the points he had raised.

The Recorder delivered judgement on Wednesday morning. After stating the case, he recapitulated the evidence of Sergeant Lilley, as corroborated by Sergeant Swift. Although, he said, it was suggested that there was a conflict as to where the men were, yet he did not find that there was any discrepancy, and it was confirmed by the evidence of Mrs. Stockton. He was unable to credit the evidence of Finch, or that of Hanford. With regard to Mr. Neal Murray, who swore that he saw the men go into the private road, he said that on the same day he had a conversation with Stockton in reference to the charge that was going to be made, and he was perfectly well aware of the nature of that charge. Mr. Stockton was represented by a solicitor, and it was incredible to him to suppose that if the evidence was truthful, that he would not have been called before the justices, because there was a little bit of paper that would have fetched him, whether he wished to come or no. The evidence of Mrs. Stockton was strongly corroborative of Sergeant Lilley. Mrs. Stockton said she did not know that it was an offence for beer to be drank on the pavement, and she admitted that she was aware that people were in the habit of drinking beer outside, but he need hardly say that ignorance of the law could not excuse Mrs. Stockton. He commented on the case of “Bath and White”, which had been quoted, and said that was very different, and Lords Linley and Lopes said there was no evidence that the landlady connived, or the conviction might have been upheld. In his judgement the facts showed that the appellant did connive at the drinking on the highway, therefore he should affirm the conviction by the justices, and disallowed the appeal with costs. With regard to a special case, if application was made to him in London he would settle a case.

Mr. Hall said he was not quite certain whether the application should not be made to His Honour there. It was extremely likely his client would apply for a case. It would be in no way in disparagement of His Honour's decision, but there were only two cases decided, and he should imagine there was hardly any section of the statute that there was so little case law upon, and therefore they might wish to appeal. Therefore he thought he had better make application then on two points, first that there was no evidence to show that the liquor was consumed by Finch on the highway with the privity and consent of Stockton, and, second, as to the reception of evidence – that evidence ought not to have been admitted of the sale on that day to other persons than Finch.

The Recorder said special cases were often applied for and the Court put to considerable inconvenience, and then the cases were never proceeded with. On the last occasion when a case was applied for, it was never set down. He did not know what became of it.

Mr. Minter said it was withdrawn.

Mr. Hall said subject to the opinion of counsel, he intended to proceed with the case.

Mr. Minter appealed to His Honour not to grant a case. It was entirely in his province. The only ground on which the appellant could ask for a case was on a point of law, and no point of law arose. His Honour had decided that he was satisfied from the evidence of the police constables that the drinking took place on the highway with the privity and knowledge of Mrs. Stockton, who was looking on. As to the evidence of other drinking, which it was said ought not to have been accepted, that would undoubtedly be a point of law upon which he would be justified in stating a case, but as it turned out that evidence was a surplusage, because as a fact it was not wanted.

After further argument, His Honour said he would grant a case – he supposed Mr. Hall was not in a violent hurry.

Mr. Bradley said six months were allowed.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions. Monday, October 12th:

An important case occupied the whole of the afternoon. Alfred Stockton, landlord of the Agnes Inn, and holder of an off licence, was convicted by the Magistrates, and fined 50s. for allowing beer to be drunk in the high road outside his house. From this decision he appealed.

The Recorder delivered judgement on Wednesday against the appellant, upholding the decision of the Justices.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 16 August 1893.

En Passant.

The Licensing Justices have announced through Mr. Holden – and we suppose he was not speaking without his book on Wednesday – that they intend to adhere to the threat they held out at the last annual licensing meeting of reducing the number of houses, and with that determination in view the Superintendent of Police has been requested to see the brewers and ask them to come to some arrangements among themselves to carry this into effect without the need of Magisterial interference.

That Folkestone, when it's population is considered, has quite as many houses as are necessary goes without saying, but what we would ask is whether the peculiar surroundings of the place do not call for a larger number than would suffice for an inland town of the same magnitude. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we have the Camp close upon our borders, and that with the shipping that comes to the harbour a large number of aliens are imported who remain with us for longer or shorter periods.

We presume that it is intended if possible, and the Magistrates will bear in mind that their decision can be appealed from, to close some of what are known as low houses. If this is done what will be the result? Why, that a state of things we now happily can keep in our alleys and back streets will find it's way into our chief thoroughfares, and complaints will be doubly as rife as they are now as to ears and sensibilities being shocked by vulgar language and rough behaviour.

We also hope the Magistrates will bear in mind that by closing a man's place of business they are virtually throwing him and his family upon the parish. These small publicans do not make fortunes. They rub along content to make a modest living, and if they are turned into the street they are, as a rule, absolutely worthless for any other occupation.

That these measures at all promote the cause of temperance has long ago been exploded. The working of the Liquor Laws in Wales, Scotland, and America have proved beyond all possibility of doubt that restriction does not mean a diminution in consumption. If men want a glass of beer they will have it. Supposing, again, that Vegetarianism came to the front, and it was proposed to shut up a number of butchers' shops, what would our rulers say to that? And yet vegetarians tell us that the consumption of meat is responsible for more crime and misery than alcohol itself.

Yet one more point. We ask the Magistrates to avoid if they can the ill-feeling that this interference with what the people rightly or wrongly call their liberties must entail. We have seen the attitude the trade papers are taking up. Magistrates might think they can afford to snap their fingers at them; but they cannot. When mud is freely thrown a certain portion is bound to stick, and it will not add to the dignity of our rulers in their office.

There are three applications coming forward at the next licensing meeting which we venture to think the Magistrates will not hesitate to grant. Messrs. Wampach and Carlo Maestrani apply for licenses to sell wines, spirits, ales, &c., upon their premises. This does not mean the creation of a new house, but simply granting to the visitors the convenience of being able to be served with a glass of liquid refreshment without being subjected to the bother and the loss of time necessitated by the present state of things, which requires the visitor first to pay for what he wants and then to wait until it has been fetched from a neighbouring hotel. When we look at that palatial building, the Wampach Hotel, we should think the required permission would at once be granted, seeing that it is really for the benefit of visitors, for whom it behoves us to make everything as comfortable and convenient as possible. As things at present stand Mr. Wampach would be unable to provide anyone with a drop of brandy, however badly it may be needed, without first sending for it. Surely this state of affairs is simply ridiculous, and only needs to be pointed out to be remedied.

The third application is by Mr. Edward Bayliss, of the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road, for an indoor licence. Here again we venture to think the Magistrates will turn a friendly ear. Mr. Bailey is a very respectable man, his house is situate a long distance from any other, and there is no doubt that in that rapidly growing district the public, and it is they who have to be considered, not private leanings, demand it. If it is granted, we venture to say that before long a first class hotel will rise up in the place of the present inn which shall be an ornament to that part of the town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1893.

Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge, Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.

The Opposed Licenses.

Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police, he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the hearing of these cases – say the 15th of September. No doubt it would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on Saturday night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the mass of facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did not think there would be any objection to the adjournment.

The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and a special sitting would be held on the 13th September at 11 o'clock.

The Superintendent's Report.

Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Application Adjourned.

At the request of Mr. Mowll the application for a new licence by Mr. Bailey, of the Agnes Inn, was allowed to stand over until the adjourned session on the 27th September, the other legal gentlemen appearing therein concurring with the arrangement.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1893.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H. Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad Esqs.

The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants were Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.

Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr. Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application to make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to prepare facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been objected to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is that you will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13th September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases. Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may at once state that the houses objected to are the Jubilee, Radnor Street; the Harbour Inn, Harbour Street; the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; the Granville, Dover Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Royal George, Beach Street; the Victoria, South Street; the Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; the Wonder, Beach Street, the British Colours, Beach Street; the Ship, Radnor Street; the Oddfellows, Radnor Street; and the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street. There are 13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the facts and statements connected with every case are different, and it is necessary that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench before they give their decision.

The Chairman: Will the 13th be the adjournment?

Mr. Bradley: No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will be on the 27th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll's application?

Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18th?

Mr. Mowll: I am in the Bench's hands entirely as to the day. The 13th would be the most convenient day.

Mr. Boykett: The 13th is on Wednesday.

Mr. Bradley: This day three weeks.

The Chairman: The Bench will grant your application, Mr. Mowll.

The Superintendent's Report.

The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:-

“Borough of Folkestone Police, 23rd August, 1893.

Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, our obedient servant, John Taylor, Supt. To The Licensing Committee”.

The Chairman: Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Magistrates for that report. You have only been acting on the directions of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken and the report you have presented.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll: The Bench will not object to me having a copy of the report. I don't know whether the shorthand writers took it – the Superintendent read it very rapidly.

Mr. Bradley: There is no objection to that at all.

The unopposed licenses were then granted.

New Application.

Mr. Hall: I appear in support of Mr. Bailey. I may mention that I was prepared to go into the merits of the case, but it would be rather absurd of the Bench were to grant Mr. Mowll's application for adjournment and proceed with this case. I submit that there is a further ground for granting the application. Mr. Bailey is at the present moment the holder of a beer licence. I am not in a position today to do what I should like to have done – to put in the plans showing exactly what is proposed to be done, and the alteration proposed to be made, which will involve an expenditure of from 750 to 1,000. The adjournment will enable me to show your worships what we are going to do and to put in plans in support of the application.

Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting would be held in the large room.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 August 1893.

Police Court Notes.

On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J. Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H.W. Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.

The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr. Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance, inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application reported below, the question was postponed until the 13th September, and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that had been looked forward to by the resident community.

There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr. Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).

The Black List.

The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being given also:- (1) British Colours, 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley; (2) Cinque Ports, 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead; (3) Folkestone Cutter, 24, Dover Street, ---- Warman; (4) Granville, 63, Dover Street, F.G. Stickles; (5) Harbour Inn, South Street, S. Barker; (6) Jubilee Inn, 24, Radnor Street, J.L. Adams; (7) Oddfellows, The Stade, G. Whiddett; (8) Queen's Head, 11, Beach Street, W. Tame; (9) Royal George, 18, Beach Street, A.J. Tritton; (10) Ship Inn, 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman; (11) Tramway Tavern, 4, Radnor Street, J. Bayliss; (12) Victoria Inn, 26, South Street, J. Watson; (13) Wonder Tavern, 13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13th of September. No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.

The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench): Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.

Superintendent's Report.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of the report, and the application was at once acceded to.

The remaining licenses were then renewed.

New Applications.

Mr. Mowll asked that the Bench should adjourn the consideration of a full licence to Mr. Maestrani, Mr. Wampach, and Mr. Bailey, and the other solicitors offering no objection, the Bench fixed September 13th for the hearing.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 30 August 1893.

Police Court Notes.

It was thought on Wednesday last that we were going to have a grand field day, but everything went off in a little puff of smoke, the contest between the landlords and their opponents being by mutual agreement deferred until September 15th. This was done on the application of Mr. Worsfold Mowll, who appeared for the publicans whose licenses had been objected to, and who put it to the Bench whether it was possible in seven days to get up all the particulars necessary to meet the objections to 17 houses (sic). The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark (Chairman), J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, E.W. Poole, and J. Hoad.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor submitted the following report, which will no doubt be read with interest: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. (this locality mentioned by the Superintendent is in the immediate vicinity of the harbour, and the quarters of a considerable fishing population) No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman explained that the Superintendent had only acted upon the instructions of the Licensing Committee, and the Magistrates all felt very much obliged to him for the trouble he had taken.

Mr. Holden, J.P.: Very much obliged.

The only applications before the Bench were by Mr. Carlo Maestrani for a full refreshment house licence; Mr. C.E. Wampach for a similar licence for a private hotel; and Mr. Edward Bailey for a full beer-house licence to the Agnes Inn, now an off-licensed house. The hearing of these applications was deferred till the 27th prox.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Wednesday before Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Major Poole, Mr. F. Boykett and Mr. J. Fitness.

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. F. Hall applied for a full licence for the Agnes Inn, on the grounds that within the last year or two a large number of houses have been erected in the immediate neighbourhood. Mr. M. Bradley, Mr. Blaxland, and Mr. Hall (barrister) opposed, urging that there was no necessity.

The Bench retired shortly before four, and after an absence of twenty minute returned, the Chairman stating that they had decided to refuse the application.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

Wednesday, September 27th: before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, F. Boykett, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The application for a full licence for the Agnes Inn was heard, the applicant being Edward Bailey, for whom Mr. F. Hall appeared. It was an application for a full licence, and in the alternative for a beer licence.

Applicant said he held a licence to sell beer off. He paid 30 a year, and the owner was Mr. Belgrave. The nearest house to it was the Eagle, 150 yards away, and the next the Prince of Wales, 100 yards further off. The Shakespeare was 500 yards off, and the Castle 250 yards further. In the other direction there was no house till Cheriton was reached. He had held the house for 22 months, and his trade had increased 20 times. He had frequent applications for beer and spirits, especially travellers on Sundays. He put in a memorial in favour of his application. The premises consisted of a small bar at present. If the licence was granted the premises would be considerably enlarged. A new estate of 100 houses had recently been built upon, and other property had recently been built in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Bradley said the rent was said to be only 30 a year, and that was not a sufficient qualification, and the premises were not structurally qualified for a licence.

Mr. Bromley explained the plans which he had prepared for the enlargement of the house. He said about 800 would be expended. House property had considerably increased in the neighbourhood, a good class of houses having been erected.

Mr. W.C. Hall opposed on behalf of the Vicar and churchwardens of the parish.

Mr. M. Bradley also opposed on the ground of the unfitness of the premises.

The Magistrates then retired to consider the application. When they returned the Chairman said “All I have to say is that the Bench have refused the application”.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 September 1893.

Licensing.

On Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the licensing Justices for the Borough of Folkestone held a court, by special appointment, for hearing the applications for new licences. The adjudicating Magistrates were: Mr. J. Clarke, Mr. H.W. Poole, Mr. F. Boykett, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. J. Pledge, with the Justices' Clerk, Mr. Bradley.

Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road.

Mr. Hall, solicitor, appeared in support of a full licence to this house, and the application was opposed bt Mr. Clarke Hall and Mr. Montague Bradley.

After an interval devoted to private consultation the Justices returned into court.

The Chairman: All I have to say is that the Bench have refused the application.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 30 September 1893.

Local News.

An important licensing meeting was held at Folkestone on Wednesday, when an application was made for a new licence for the Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road.

The application was strongly opposed, and the Magistrates refused to grant it.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 5 October 1893.

Hall Of Justice.

Before Justices Clarke, Fitness, Pledge, Boykett, and Poole, who sat as the Licensing Committee.

There were four applications: Mr. Maestrani, of Sandgate Road, Mr. Bailey, the Agnes Inn, Mr. Wampach, Castle Hill Avenue, and a public company for the proposed grand hotel on the Polo Field.

There was a very large array of counsel, solicitors, hotel keepers, and others present. For some extraordinary reason, although the Twon Hall was unoccupied, the cases were heard in the badly ventilated Magistrates' Room, and all sorts and conditions of men were packed in like herrings in a barrel. Whoever is responsible for this ought to offer some explanation to the public.

There was a great deal of legal argument and evidence.

Mr. Poland, Mr. Minter, Mr. Hall, and others argued for and against with very great clearness, but the Bench did not seem to pay so much attention as the public, for they seemed to have made up their minds that no more licenses should be granted in Folkestone, and in less than twenty minutes during which they retired, they were able to condense, consider and digest all the wisdom that had been demonstrated before them.

The Chairman briefly addressed the court on their return with “All I have to say is that the Bench have refused all the applications for licenses”.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 8 August 1894.

Kaleidoscope.

At the Brewster Sessions on August 29th, Mr. Edward Bailey, proprietor of what is usually known as the Agnes Inn, will make an application for a full licence. The inn, which at present has an off licence, is situated in one of the most growing districts of Folkestone, and at some distance from the town and from any other licensed house. Mr. Bailey is well known and much respected by all classes in the neighbourhood, and his application is strongly supported.

We have recently been informed that the Licensing Magistrates are not guided in their decisions by public opinion, and that the act quite independently. We fear that is in a great measure true, but it is a state of things which the public will not allow to exist much longer. These gentlemen are supposed to be chosen for their special fitness for the pose, and the law, rightly, refuses to allow anyone directly or indirectly connected with the liquor trade to sit as a Licensing Magistrate, but, unfortunately, it cannot insure that those who are chosen are not guided in their decisions by personal prejudices and predilections. Instead of rejoicing at the fact that the Magistrates represent no-one but themselves, we see in this state of things a distinct danger to the interests of the community, and a strong argument in favour of some form of local opinion.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1894.

Notes And Notions.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor's report of the working of the licensing laws in Folkestone, presented at the Brewster Sessions on Wednesday was eminently satisfactory. In so far as it testified to the absence of any increase in cases attendant upon the abuse of stimulants. As Mr. Taylor very properly pointed out, such a state of affairs is equal to a positive decrease in these unfortunate cases when the increase in the twon's population is taken into consideration. True friends of Temperance must rejoice at the steady decline of intoxication which is generally noticeable. Everything tends to prove that alcoholic excess – terrible evil as it undoubtedly is – does not grow greater, but rather diminishes with time. At the same time total abstinence is probably not more general. The golden mean of Temperance is being more and more realised. There are different reasons alleged for this ameliorated condition of things. We, of course, have our own. Without dogmatising, we argue that the spread of national education, the possession of the franchise, and the permeation of practical religious truth and teaching are responsible for the spirit of self respect and equality which keeps the masses more and more as the years roll on from the evils of undue indulgence in intoxicating liquors.

We do not hesitate to express our sense of warm sympathy with the promoters of the Memorial presented before the Bench opposing the granting of the licences for which application was made. At the risk of incurring displeasure, we deliberately place this feeling on record. As was said in these columns three weeks ago, the principle is worth something in the consideration of these licensing questions. It was the evident duty of those who signed the memorial, holding the opinions which they do upon the role in intoxicants, not to let the Bench remain in ignorance upon their views on the business to be brought forward. It was a duty imposed upon them both as local ratepayers and as Temperance reformers. And the cheap sneer directed against these signatories by the Queen's Counsel, who supported the application, would have been much better left unsaid. The presiding Magistrate does not, it is to be hoped for the credit of his colleagues, possess a monopoly of the politeness of the Bench. The memorialists, if they really meant at all to be effective, should have secured a representation of counsel.

Licensing.

The annual Brewster Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, when the following members of the Licensing Committee were present: Captain Crowe, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Herbert, Captain Carter, Mr. Wightwick, and Mr. Fitness. The only member absent was Mr. E.T. Ward. Great public interest was manifested in the proceedings, and the Court was unpleasantly overcrowded.

Superintendent Taylor's Report.

The business commenced with the reading of the report of the Superintendent of Police, which was as follows:-

To the Chairman and Gentlemen of the Licensing Committee.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that the number of licences issued in the Borough is 133, of which 82 are “full”; 13 beerhouses “on” and four beerhouses “off”; nine spirit dealers; seven wine “off”; seven wine “on”; and nine grocers'.

In November last one publican was fined for a breach of the Licensing Laws and the licence endorsed. Another tenant shortly afterwards took the premises and as this and the other licensed houses in the Borough have been conducted generally in a fairly satisfactory manner the police do not oppose the renewal of any of the existing licences.

I have the honour to be Gentlemen, your obedient servant,

29th August, 1894, John Taylor, Supt.

The Chairman asked if there had been any increase in drunkenness during the past year.

Superintendent Taylor replied that the number of cases of drunkenness had not altered more than three or four for the last four or five years, and when they took into consideration the increase in the population it would be seen that there was really a decrease.

A Memorial.

The Rev. Foster Jeffrey asked to be allowed to present a memorial against the granting of the licences which were applied for.

The Chairman said he did not think the Bench wanted to receive any memorial.

Mr. Jeffrey said he asked for the courtesy of the Bench in this matter. A copy of the memorial had been forwarded to the members of the Licensing Committee.

The Chairman said if it had been forwarded to all the members that was all that was necessary. He agreed with a great deal that was said in the memorial, but they had a great deal of business to attend to.

Mr. Jeffrey pointed out that the memorial was signed by persons who represented the Christian communities and the Temperance bodies, and went on to remark that he thought they already had a great deal too many licensed houses in the town.

The Chairman: We are as thoroughly alive to the evils of intemperance. We cannot allow you to make a speech.

Mr. Jeffrey said they also had a strong feeling that the police had a great claim on the support of the Bench and the Watch Committee. He then went on to read the memorial list.

The Chairman said they had all received a copy of it and there was no occasion to read it.

(The memorial, which was extremely lengthy, was printed, and of a purely general character).

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. Edward Bailey, the landlord of the house, which at present possesses an off licence only, applied for a full licence.

Mr. Hume Williams appeared on behalf of the applicant, and stated that the house, which was situated in Broadmead Road, was in the centre of what he termed “a new colony” which had sprung up within the last few years. A fully licensed house was badly required in that neighbourhood, and he put in a memorial signed by most of the residents in the immediate district.

The applicant was called as a witness and stated that if the licence were granted, Mr. Geo. Belgrave, the brewer, who supplied the house, had undertaken to make extensive alterations in the premises, at a cost of 700.

Frederick Fulham, clerk to Mr. Bromley, architect, gave evidence as to the plans for the proposed alterations, and Mr. Ninington was also called, stating that a full licensed house was greatly needed in the neighbourhood.

The Bench retired to consider their decision. They were only absent fifteen minutes, and upon resuming their seats the Chairman said they were of opinion that there was already a sufficient number of public houses within a reasonable radius to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood, and consequently did not think it necessary to grant any further licence.

 

Folkestone Express 1 September 1894.

Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Captain crowe, Captain Willoughby Carter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, and J. Pledge Esqs. Mr. Ward was not present.

The Superintendent reported that in November last one publican was convicted for breach of the licensing laws, but as another tenant had been found, and the other public houses in the borough had been well conducted, he did not oppose the renewal of any of the licences.

Captain Crowe: In your opinion drunkenness has not increased in proportion to the population?

Superintendent Taylor: The figures have only varied three or four for some years. Allowing for the increase in population, the figures show a decrease of drunkenness.

Mr. Fitness: Taking into consideration the increase of population.

Superintendent Taylor: The figures remain calm at stationary as regards drunkenness.

The whole of the existing licences were then renewed.

The Rev. R.F. Jeffrey was sitting in the Court, and Captain Crowe asked: What does Mr. Foster Jeffrey want? I don't think we desire to receive any memorial. I suppose it is the Temperance question which you wish to bring forward, is it not? Our views are pretty much the same.

Mr. Jeffrey: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, I ask the courtesy of being allowed to present a memorial, a copy of which I understand has already been furnished to each member of the licensing Bench.

Captain Crowe: Then you need only present it. A copy has been received by all the Magistrates. There is a good deal in it of which I personally approve, but at the same time we have a good deal of business to do, and I think that the memorial having been received, there is nothing more to say.

Mr. Jeffrey: I am in the hands of the Bench. It is usual in such cases to extend such an act of courtesy to a gentleman wishing to present a memorial publicly, and I now desire to do so. There are only three sentences I desire to say in presenting the memorial, the number of names upon which are few, but I think they will be found to be largely representative of Temperance organisations. Secondly, the memorialist feel there are by far too many licensed houses.

The Chairman: You are making a speech. Confine yourself to presenting the memorial. We are in possession of the facts, and we are fully alive to the evils of intemperance, but we have a great deal to do today.

Mr. Jeffrey: I have no intention of making a speech.

He went on to say that the police and those who administered the law had a very difficult duty to perform, and they had a strong claim on the support of the community, and also the active support of the Watch Committee and of the Bench. There were one or two trifling alterations in the petition.

Capt. Crowe: Is it necessary to read it? It has already been presented to the Bench – we have each had a copy of it. It is perfectly useless taking up our time and the time of the public in reading it.

Mr. Jeffrey: I understood I had your permission.

Capt. Crowe: I have allowed you to go so far. I think you have said enough. We are quite as much alive as you are to the evils of intemperance or as any of the signatories to that memorial. Personally I agree with a great deal that is in it, but we have other things to do.

Mr. Jeffrey: Do I understand ...........

Capt. Crowe: There is no occasion to read it.

Mr. Jeffrey: I still urge my claim on the courtesy of the Bench to be allowed thus publicly to present our memorial.

Captain Crowe: You have presented it to the Bench. We have all received copies.

Mr. Jeffrey thanked the Bench and sat down, but remained an interested spectator.

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. Hume-Williams, instructed by Mr. F. Hall, appeared in support of an application by Mr. William Bailey for a licence for the Agnes Inn, in Broadmead Road, which the owner, Mr. Belgrave, proposed to rebuild at a cost of about 700. Plans of the proposed new building were put in, and also a memorial from 60 or 70 residents in the locality, in which it was set forth that within the last few years about 140 new houses, with a population of about 800 persons, had been added, while no fresh licence had been granted. The memorialists also testified to the excellent character of Mr. Bailey, the applicant.

Mr. Bailey gave evidence as to the increased outdoor trade, and Mr. Pulham, assistant to Mr. Bromely, put in plans of the building, which would be erected if the licence were granted. Mr. Norrington, owner of property near the Agnes Inn gave evidence as to the necessity of a licensed house in the neighbourhood.

The Magistrates retired to consider it.

Captain Crowe said the Bench were of opinion that there was a sufficient number of public houses within a small radius of the house, consequently they did not think it necessary for the accommodation of the inhabitants to grant another licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 September 1894/

Editorial Extract:

There is one other application to which we ought to refer, that in connection with the Agnes Inn, at the corner of Wiltie Road, leading to Radnor Park Station from the Darlington Arch in Guildhall Street.

The application for a full licence was based chiefly upon the great development of building operations on the adjacent estate of the Kent and Sussex Building Society. The erection of about a hundred and fifty new houses, and the subsequent introduction of a population of eight hundred people, were relied upon as the chief grounds for granting a full licence to the Agnes Inn, which has at present an off beer licence.

The Licensing Committee failed, however, to see the necessity of granting the application, but probably another year it will be renewed under circumstances of greater urgency.

Local News.

The Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone was held on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the sitting Justices being Captain Crowe, Mr. J. Fitness, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Pledge, Captain Carter, and Mr. W.H. Herbert. Mr. J. Ward was the only absent member of the Committee. The Committee sat at ten o'clock so as to get through the signing of the licences that were renewed in the absence of opposition. At eleven o'clock the Court was thrown open to the public, and the other business was proceeded with.

The Superintendent's Report.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that the number of licences issued in the Borough is 133, of which 82 are full, 13 beer houses on, four beer houses off, 9 spirit dealers, 7 wine off, 7 wine on, and 9 grocers'. In November last one publican was fined for a breach of the Licensing Law, and the licence was endorsed. Another tenant shortly after took over the premises, and as this and the other licensed houses in the Borough have been conducted generally in a fairly satisfactory manner, the police do not oppose the renewal of any of the existing licences. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant. John Taylor, Superintendent.

The Chairman asked whether, in the opinion of the Superintendent, there had been a decrease or increase of drunkenness.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor replied that the charges of drunkenness had remained about the same figure for the past three or five years, notwithstanding that there had been an increase of the population during that period. As far as drunkenness was concerned, the figures seemed to be almost stationary.

The holders of renewed licences were now called up in succession, each taking his or her licence on depositing the usual fees. This process occupied a considerable time.

A Temperance Manifesto.

The Rev. R. Foster Jeffrey, Baptist Minister, then rose to address the Committee, whereupon the Chairman remarked: I don't suppose that we require to receive any memorial. I suppose it is a Temperance question that you wish to bring forward.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Bench, I ask the courtesy of being allowed to present a memorial, a copy of which, as I understand, has been already forwarded to the members of the Licensing Bench.

The Chairman: You mean a printed one?

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Yes; on behalf of a number of clergy and ministers.

The Chairman: A memorial has been received by all the Magistrates, including the members of the Licensing Committee. There is a good deal in it, I may tell you personally, that I approve of, but at the same time I think that the memorial having been received by us, there is nothing more to be said.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I am, of course, in the hands of the Bench. It is usual on such occasions, I submit, to extend permission to gentlemen wishing to present a memorial publicly.

The Chairman: That can be done in a minute.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Certainly, and there are only three suggestions I desire to offer in presenting it. The first is that the number of names, though few, will be found to be largely representative of the Christian communities and Temperance organisations of the town and district. The second is that your memorialists feel that in expressing the opinion that we have by far too many licensed houses in the Borough they are expressing what is the prevalent opinion of the members of the community ..........

The Chairman: You are making a speech. Please confine yourself to the presenting of the memorial. We are as much alive to the evils of intemperance as you can be.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I had no intention of making a speech. If I may be permitted another observation, we have likewise a strong feeling that the police, in their administration of their very difficult duties in matters connected with the licensing laws, have a strong claim upon the support of the community, and also the active support of the Watch Committee, and also of your Bench. The following is the memorial, and I may say that there are one or two verbal alterations that do not interfere with the sense ........

The Chairman: You need not read it. It has been presented to the Bench. We have each got a copy of it, and it is perfectly useless taking up our time and that of the public reading it.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I understood, sir, that I had your consent to presenting it.

The Chairman: I allowed you to go so far, and you have presented it. We thoroughly understand it, and we are quite as alive to the evils of intemperance as you can be, or any of the other signatories, and I personally agree with a great deal of it. Will you now allow us to go on with our business?

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Certainly, sir; but I claim, by the courtesy of the Bench, to be allowed to present the memorial.

The Chairman: You have presented it to the Bench. We have all received copies.

For the information of the public we here append the text of the memorial, which was a document emanating from the Folkestone and District Federation of Temperance Societies. It was as follows:

To the Worshipful the Magistrates of Folkestone Licensing Division, in Annual Brewster Sessions assembled, August, 1894. May it please your Worshipful Bench, the memorial of the undersigned ratepayers of the Borough of Folkestone respectfully sheweth;

That, encourages by your Worships' courteous and sympathetic reception of all appeals which have for their object the welfare of the inhabitants of the town, we beg to call your attention to the continued excessive licensing of this town and district, and the consequent abuses connected with the traffic in strong drink in our midst, and earnestly beg your Worships to use the great powers vested in you to lessen the temptation to excessive drinking by refusing to renew superfluous licences, and ordering that the Licensing Laws shall be more thoroughly enforced than they are.

We beg respectfully to remind your Worships that the Act of Edward VI, which formed the basis of our licensing system, was passed to enable Justices “to remove, discharge, and put away the common selling of ale and beer in common tippling houses” where the Magistrates “should think meet and convenient, forasmuch as intolerable hurts and troubles to the Commonwealth of this Realm doth daily grow and increase through such abuses and disorders as are had and used in common ale houses and other houses called tippling houses”.

The present machinery of the law is so simply framed that by a decision of your Worships the remedy, which all parties agree will prove effectual, can be readily applied by the “putting away” of the common sale of intoxicants, or very largely diminishing the facilities for obtaining them.

Your Worships have probably observed from the public press that the Middlesex Magistrates, having recently become alarmed at the increase of drunkenness in their County, appealed to the Home Secretary asking him to impress upon the Commissioner of Police the desirability of keeping a strict watch upon publicans.

The Home Secretary, in reply, promised increased watchfulness on the part of the police, at the same time pointing out that the Magistrates were, to no inconsiderable extent, responsible for the state of things of which they complained, because they “have not infrequently felt compelled to dismiss charges against publicans on technical grounds or side issues”, and that in dealing with drunkenness “the Justices had abstained from using to the full power possessed by them for the punishment of offenders.

The Home Secretary intimated to their Worshipful Bench that arrangements have now been made by which the Commissioner of Police will in future in any case, where he considers it advisable, direct the prosecution of a publican for “permitting” drunkenness, to be conducted by the solicitors of the Police Force.

There is a general consensus of opinion that the number of drink shops is very largely in excess of any legitimate requirements of the population, and constitutes in itself a very considerable stimulant to the evils which your Worships, no less than ourselves, deplore.

In the course of a recent discussion of this point in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor expressed his firm conviction, derived from extensive experience in the Law Courts, that there were too many public houses, and that the reduction of the number would reduce drunkenness. Further, His Lordship said “He did not think it would be any interference with personal liberty or individual rights if a considerable step were taken in the direction of reduction. But to his mind it was absolutely essential that if anything of the kind were to be done that it should be done in accordance with the wishes and desires of the people in a particular locality.

Mr. Chamberlain has also said in the House of Commons, with respect to Drink Licences “I am perfectly certain that any community that might be entrusted with the control of this traffic would, as a matter of course, reduce the number by one half”.

It is satisfactory to note that the Parliamentary statistics go to show that Magistrates all over the country are becoming more an more alive to the necessity of refusing the renewal of old licences, and it is a very rare thing to find a new one granted. The number of licences refused a renewal as not being required during the last year, according to the Parliamentary Return, was 333 against 244 for the former year.

It will be interesting to your Worships to know that during 1892, the latest statistics we have, over 14,000 licence holders were convicted for offences against the Licensing Act of 1872.

We know there are powerful interests opposed to the course which we believe to be the right one for your Worships to adopt. We recognise the grave responsibility which rests upon you, but The Times says: “These profits in which liquor sellers now claim a vested interest are realised, to a vast extent, at the cost of popular degradation, vice, and misery; and the question is whether the Legislature of a country is not justified in placing, with due consideration, the welfare of the people above the gains of a trade”.

Lord Wolesley has recently said: “There are yet some great battles to be fought, some great enemies to be encountered by the United Kingdom, but the most pressing enemy at present is drink. It kills more than all our newest weapons of warfare, and not only destroys the body, but the mind and soul also.

It is to be regretted that there has been no appreciable diminution of the grave evils resulting from the excessive number of Public Houses within your Worships' jurisdiction, as shown by the large number of cases brought before the Bench, most of which are directly traceable to drink.

With the greatest respect we beg to submit that the licensing business of this town has in the past been administered too largely in the interests of the trade, and without due regard to the requirements and well-being of the inhabitants.

In all cases where your Worships have convicted persons for drunkenness, punishment has fallen upon the poor dipsomaniacs, whom the law is framed to protect, recognising as it does that they are quite irresponsible when they become the victims of the disease of an inordinate love for strong drink, while the persons who sold them the drink, and practically made them drunk, so far have gone entirely free, though they were certainly the persons who ought to have been punished.

It is not necessary to remind your Worships that while the law fixes the merely nominal fine of not exceeding 10s. for the first, and not exceeding 20s. for the second offence for “being” drunk, the penalty for “permitting” drunkenness is not exceeding 10 for the first, and not exceeding 20 for the second offence, with the conviction recorded on the licence in every case unless the convicting Bench shall direct otherwise.

We would earnestly represent to your Worships that the time has fully come when the law should not be administered in this one-sided fashion. The fining and imprisoning drunkards is of absolutely no avail in curing them of their vicious habits; whereas if the Trade understood that “permitting” drunkenness would certainly be visited by the rigours of the law, the end that we, and your Worships alike, have in view, viz., the reducing to a minimum the abuse of strong drink, would immediately result.

Will your Worships not therefore order the police to use their best endeavours to bring before you, not only the drunkards, but all such licence holders who “permit” drunkenness by selling the drink to the men until they are drunk?

We think the police might well be reminded that it is no defence for licensed persons, or their servants, or both, to say they did not know that a person was drunk when they served him. It has been held that if the person really was drunk the responsibility for discovering the fact rests with the licence holder.

Again, as your Worships are probably aware, it was long ago decided that “permitting” drunkenness does not necessarily involve finding a person drunk on licensed premises. Where the only evidence is that a person has been drinking in a licensed house, and three quarters of an hour later is found drunk a hundred yards distant, there is evidence upon which your Worships may convict the keeper of the licensed house.

In view of these two points we think there should be no difficulty in discovering where the abuses complained of take place, and in bringing the offenders to justice.

Finally, your Memorialists wish your Worships to feel that in the discharge of your delicate and difficult duties in the matter of Licence Law administration, and in your endeavours to act righteously in view of the claims and the welfare of the whole community, you have the sympathy and support of all good citizens.

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. Hume Williams (instructed by Mr. Hall), supported the application of Mr. Edward Bailey, landlord of the Agnes Inn (Beer off), north of the Darlington Arch, for a full licence. On behalf of the brewers who own the house it was stated that if the application were granted they would expend 700 in making the house adequate for it's extended purposes. Plans of the proposed enlargement, prepared by Mr. Bromley, were submitted, and were spoken to by Mr. Fulham, one of his clerks, Mr. Bromley being abroad on his holidays. Stress was laid upon the new colony which has sprung up in the immediate vicinity of the Agnes Inn, on the estate of the Kent and Sussex Building Society, one of whose rules is that a public house is not to be erected on the property.

After a full inquiry the Bench refused the application for two reasons, (1) that there is a sufficient number of public houses within a short radius; and, (2) that, in the opinion of the Bench, the granting of a further licence was not necessary for the accommodation of the inhabitants.

 

Southeastern Gazette 4 September 1894.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday: Before Captain Crowe, Captain Carter, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, W.J. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert, Esqs.

The Police Superintendent’s report was a very satisfactory one. The number of licences in existence in the borough is 133, of which 82 are full, and there are 13 beer-houses (on licences), 14 beer-houses (off), 9 spirit dealers, 7 wine (on), 7 wine (off), and 9 grocers.

ll the existing licences were renewed in the usual formal manner.

Mr. Hume Williams made an application on behalf of Mr. Belgrave, owner of the Agnes Inn, for an on-licence, and stated that an entirely new colony of about 800 people had sprung up in the vicinity. If the application was granted Mr. Belgrave would undertake to spend 700 on improvements.

A memorial in favour of the application was presented, and Mr. E. Bailey, occupier of the house, was called, and testified to the need of an on-licence. Mr. J. Norrington, a house owner in the neighbourhood, also gave similar evidence.

The Bench, after private consultation, refused the application, they being of opinion that there were sufficient public houses in the vicinity of Agnes Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 December 1894.

Local News.

Last Saturday at the Borough Police Court, before Messrs. Banks, Herbert and Pledge, the licence of the Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road, was temporarily transferred to T.W. Player, tea dealer, Rendezvous Street.

 

Folkestone Express 22 December 1894.

Saturday, December 14th: Before Aldermen Banks and Sherwood, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Transfer of Licence.

The licence of the Agnes Inn was temporarily transferred to Mr. T.W. Player.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 January 1895.

Local News.

At the Town Hall on Wednesday, before Messrs. Banks, Gilborne and Wightwick, transfer of licence was granted to the following – T.W. Player to the Agnes Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1896.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Sessions were held on Wednesday, the Magistrates sitting being Messrs. W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert.

The whole of the old licences were renewed.

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. F. Hall applied on behalf of Mr. Theodore Wm. Player for a full licence for this house – as our readers are aware, repeated applications have been refused.

Mr. Hall went over all the old ground, and claimed that the licence was really needed in that neighbourhood.

Mr. Player handed in a memorial signed by about 80 persons residing in the neighbourhood.

There was no opposition.

Mr. Bromley gave evidence in support of the application, but it was refused.

The Chairman stated that the Bench failed to see any necessity for the licence.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1896.

Annual Licensing Day.

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were W. Wightwick, James Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs. The old licences were all renewed. A very large number of the publicans did not attend to receive their certificates.

The Agnes Inn.

Mr. Theodore Wm. Player applied again for a full licence for this house. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the applicant, and produced a plan prepared by Mr. Bromley showing the alterations proposed to be made in the building. He said that application had been made by previous tenants, which were not successful. Still he hoped to be able to convince the Bench that there was a want for such a house in that district, as there had been a large development of the North Ward. In 1881, the number of burgesses numbered 515, and in 1896 they were 1,213. He described at length the locus in quo. He estimated that within the last few years there had been 250 houses erected there, which would give a population of 1,500, and no new licence had been granted. The nearest house was the Eagle Inn, at Darlington, and the Prince Of Wales, the latter only a beerhouse. In the other direction were the Red Cow and the Imperial, and on the north and west there was no public house at all within a distance of two miles. For many years the Magistrates had granted no new licences, but in the West Ward, within the last year or two, they had granted them to the Wampach and others. His application was entirely unopposed, and it was supported by a number of inhabitants living in the neighbourhood. The present rateable value was 40, and the present owners, The Army And Navy Brewery Company, were quite alive to the necessity of improving the building, and it was proposed to expend 600 or 700 on the building.

The Magistrates carefully examined the plans.

Applicant submitted a memorial signed by seventy or eighty people in the neighbourhood, in which there were about 250 new houses. The nearest place was the Eagle, a small public house. He knew that the owners were prepared to spend a considerable sum of money in improving the place.

Superintendent Taylor said he should like to see the plans. At present the place was not fit for a public house, and he had another objection, on the ground that there was a side entrance into a private road.

Mr. A. Bromley, architect, gave technical evidence as to the plans, and said that the door opening into the private road could be closed.

Mr. Hall said he would undertake to have the plans amended in that respect, and he asked the Bench to grant the licence provisionally until the alterations were carried out.

The Bench said they could see no necessity for another house in that neighbourhood, considering the public houses they had already got, and they could not think of granting a provisional licence. They therefore refused both a spirit licence and also the beer licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 August 1896.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Before Mr. Wightwick, Mr. Herbert, and Alderman Pledge.

The business of the Annual Licensing Meeting was transacted on Wednesday morning before the above-named Justices, but the proceedings were devoid of general interest.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor made no complaint as to the manner in which the licensed houses in the Borough had been conducted during the year, and the Court renewed all the licences, accordingly, without comment.

Application was made again for a full licence in respect of the Agnes Inn, on behalf of the Army and Navy Co-Operative Brewery Company, Mr. Hall appearing in support of the landlord, Mr. Player. It will be remembered that a similar application has been frequently made, but on the present occasion it was again refused.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 29 August 1896.

Local News.

The Folkestone Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday. The old licences were all renewed. An application for a full licence for the Agnes Inn was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 22 December 1900.

Wednesday, December 19th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Patrick McBrine pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of drunkenness.

P.C. Sales said he was in plain clothes just under Darlington Arch about 10.56 p.m. on the 8th inst. He saw the defendant walking towards Broadmead Road and behaving indecently. He refused to give witness his name and address, and in consequence witness followed him to the Agnes public house, where Sergt. Dunster was on duty. Witness stated the facts to him, and Sergt. Dunster asked the defendant for his name and address, but he persistently refused until he was told he would be taken to the police station and there detained.

Sergt. Dunster corroborated, and added there was no doubt as to his drunkenness.

Supt. Reeve reported that there were two previous convictions against him, both for similar offences.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 10s. and 10s. costs, levied by distress, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 August 1901.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, Herbert, and Hamilton.

The Chief Constable said: I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences, the holders generally appearing desirous of conducting their houses in accordance with the law. I have received notice from four persons of their intention to apply for new licences.

Mr. Hoad (the Chairman) asked the Chief Constable if, in his opinion, any new licences were required.

The Chief Constable: I do not think so, sir. There are, in my opinion, already too many.

Mr. Hall's last application was for a spirit and beer licence in respect of the premises, No. 15, Broadmead Road (the old Agnes Inn), the applicant being Mr. Theodore Wm. Player.

Mr. Haines and Mr. Bradley opposed on behalf of their respective clients.

The usual evidence was taken, and the Bench decided that the necessity for the licence was shown, and granted the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1901.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, C.J. Pursey, W. Wiightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

The Agnes Inn.

Theodore W. Player, of the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road, applied for a spirit and wine off licence.

Mr. Haines, for the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and Mr. Bradley, for the Temperance Council, opposed.

Mr. Hall supported, and said the application was to authorise him to sell by retail spirits and wine on a grocers' licence.

Mr. Player said he was a grocer and general dealer in Broadmead Road. Since he had been there – seven years – the district had developed greatly, and his customers often asked for spirits and wine.

The Chief Constable said everything was satisfactory, and the licence was granted.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1901.

Brewster Sessions.

The annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, before J. Hoad, Esq., and other Magistrates.

Theodore William Player, a grocer at No. 15, Broadmead Road, made a successful application for a spirits and wine (off) licence to sell in his shop. Mr. Hall represented the applicant.

 

Folkestone Express 24 December 1904.

Saturday, December 17th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Alderman Salter, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and J. Stainer Esq.

Francis Stone Spencer, of 2, Broadmead Road, was summoned for selling a bottle of gin contrary to law on December 7th, and Edward Dumont was summoned for aiding and abetting him. Mr. Rook, who appeared for the defendants, pleaded Not Guilty.

Edward Pinnex, an officer of the Inland Revenue, said a retail wine and spirit licence had been granted to Mr. Spencer for his premises at 2, Broadmead Road.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said on December 7th he saw a man enter the premises, 2, Broadmead Road, of which the defendant is the occupier. They were known as the Broadmead Wine And Spirit Stores. After the man had left the shop, he went to the side entrance of the premises, used as a wine and spirit store and barber's shop. Witness followed, and saw the man enter a door on the right hand side of the passage. Witness also went through the door, which led into the back portion, which was fitted up as a gentlemen's first class hairdressing slaoon. Smith, the man who witness followed, was being shaved by the defendant Dumont. The man eventually left the premises. The shop was about 25ft. long and 14ft. wide, and was divided by a wooden partition seven feet high, leaving an open space from the top of the partition to the ceiling of about five feet. At one end of the partition there was an opening of about two and a half feet wide, and anyone could go into the fore portion of the shop which was used as the wine and spirit department. He asked Dumont if he held a licence for the sale of wines and spirits, and he replied “No, Mr. Spencer holds the licence. I rent the shop, but sub-let it to Mr. Spencer. I manage his business for him during his absence. I do not receive any salary”. Witness then told him he was committing an offence against the licensing law, and Dumont then said “I manage the business for Mr. Spencer, who journeys to Maidstone every day, and while he is away I look after the wine and spirit department”. Witness told him he should report the matter to the Chief Constable. About half past four, witness was again in Broadmead Road. When he saw a man named Stanley enter the front portion of the shop. He also saw Dumont come through the opening from the barber's shop into the wine and spirit department. After a minute or so he handed Stanley something wrapped in paper. When Stanley got outside, witness examined the paper and found it to contain a bottle of Hollands gin. He accompanied witness back into the shop, and Dumont said the man had bought the gin and paid 2s. 9d. for it. He also said he had already told witness the business had nothing to do with him. Later in the evening he saw Mr. Spencer, who told him Dumont had nothing to do with the business except that he managed it in his absence, and that he (Spencer) would take the whole responsibility. Over the shop front was painted “The Broadmead Wine And Spirits”. Fixed to one side of the house was a barber's pole. There was also a hanging sign bearing the word “Shaving”. Another hanging sign bore the words “Wines and Spirits”. On the other side of the shop leading towards the Central Station was a hanging sign with the words “Hairdressing and Shaving”, and under it another hanging sign on which were the words “Wines and Spirits”. When he was in the shop he noticed a mirror attached to the side of the opening in the position, and in it he could see a man sitting in a chair with his face lathered.

Cross-examined, he said he did not know that heinous offence was reported to the police by a gentleman named Player. The whole substance of the case depended upon the communication between the wine shop and the hairdressing saloon.

Chief Constable Reeve said a fortnight previous to the report being received, the defendant Dumont called at the Police Office and asked if he would be allowed to have a tobacconist business, as Mr. Spencer, of Maidstone, had obtained a licence to sell spirits and wines there. Witness told him under that licence no other business could be carried on on the premises. In consequence of what he heard he instructed Burniston to make enquiries. On the evening of December 7th, the defendant Spencer called at the Police Office and said it was his business. Witness told him that a report had been submitted to him stating that two businesses had been carried on on the premises. He also told him that he had told Dumont that it would be illegal to do so. Mr. Spicer said he would see that the partition was closed up.

Cross-examined, he said he had given no warning to Mr. Spencer previous to the day of the offence. The complaints were not only received from Mr. Player, but from other people as well.

Mr. Rook said after the evidence he felt bound to advise his clients that a technical offence had been committed. He, however, desired to point how Mr. Player was misled by the licence, which stated that no other trade could be conducted on the same premises. There was no trade, but a business was carried on. Nothing was sold in the hairdressing saloon. Since the complaint had been made the premises had been completely separated, and it was impossible to go from the wine merchant's into the hairdressing saloon without going out of the shop by the front entrance. These proceedings would never have been heard of had it not been for the jealousy of Mr. Player opposite, who had so much annoyed Mr. Spencer in the conduct of his business that he had been restrained by the Court. He asked the Bench to consider it a purely technical offence, and impose a nominal fine.

The chairman said the Magistrates could not consider it a purely technical offence. The defendants were liable to a fine of 50, but they would be fined 5 and 10s. costs each.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 December 1904.

County Court.

Tuesday, December 12th: Before Sir William Lucius Selfe.

Mr. J.H. Rook, on behalf of Frank Spencer, wine merchant, of Broadmead Road, made an application for an interim injunction to restrain Mr. Theodore William Player, and the Misses Nellie Player and Millicent Player, his daughters, from inciting small boys to cause annoyance to plaintiff.

In opening the case, Mr. Rook explained that the summons had been issued on Monday against the defendants. Plaintiff was a wine merchant, and had carried on business with his father at Maidstone for fifty years. He had recently opened a branch establishment at Broadmead Road, and opposite to his premises Mr. Player occupied a shop, in the management of which he was assisted by his two daughters, who were the co-defendants in the action. The opening of that branch establishment had very much annoyed the Player family, who had taken a course which was certainly most extraordinary and reprehensible. Not having the courage themselves to attack Mr. Spencer or the premises, they had incited children to pull his bills down, and to bang crackers on the doorstep of the shop. Eight or nine bills had been destroyed, while customers and the manager had been startled and annoyed by the banging of crackers, which were set off on the doorstep, and thrown into the premises. The boys who had done that were in Court, and Mr. Spencer was very desirous not to proceed against them under the Towns and Police Clauses Act. Because he considered that the persons responsible were really Mr. Player and his daughters. They had incited the children to mischief, and the children were only too glad to come forward and carry it out. No doubt the object was to annoy, and place obstacles in the way of Mr. Spencer. Under these circumstances, and if those facts were proved, he should have a strong claim to the order for which he was asking. He was quite prepared to treat that application as the trial of the action.

His Honour: What is the value of the premises?

Mr. Rook: About 30 or 40 a year.

His Honour (to defendant): What have you to say?

Defendant: I deny it.

His Honour: I will hear the evidence.

Edward Dumont, the manager of Mr. Spencer's establishment, said that his employer carried on business as a wine merchant in Broadmead Road. The premises were situated directly opposite to those of Mr. Player. On the 19th November the shop was opened, and bills were exhibited outside the premises containing extracts from Mr. Spencer's wine list. The bills were put up on the afternoon of Monday, the 5th December, and about half past six the same evening they were torn down. At first they could not find out who had pulled them down, but on Wednesday some bills of a smaller kind were affixed to the premises, and they, too, were spoiled and torn off. On Saturday, December 3rd, boys kept continually coming to the shop door and letting off crackers. Witness saw Mr. Player, Mrs. Player, and their two daughters enjoying the fun. The last occasion on which he heard “shooting” was on Saturday.

Defendant asserted that he was subject to the same annoyance by boys letting off caps.

Witness: But you have supplied the boys with the caps.

Defendant: I have not.

Reginald Smallfield, aged 12, of No. 65, Broadmead Road, said that on Wednesday of last week he was in Broadmead Road, with a boy named Chadwick, and he went into Mr. Player's shop. He went to get something for his mother, and after that they went to Mr. Spencer's and pulled the bills down.

Mr. Rook: Why did you pull the bills down? – Nellie Player told me to.

What happened when you tore them down? – A lady opened the window, and we ran away, but Mr. Spencer caught me, and took me back to his house.

Then did you tell him what had happened? – Yes.

Did you know of any bills being pulled down before that afternoon? – I knew that Fred Player had been pulling them off.

How did you know that? – I saw him.

On being told to tell His Honour what he knew, the witness said that on Saturday week the Players gave him a penny to get a cracker, and crack it on Mr. Spencer's wall. They spoke to a boy named Eustace Adams, and told him to throw one in the door, and then they would give him another one. They told Fred Player o go and crack a cracker on the wall. He had several at the time. On Friday of last week he was in Mr. Player's shop, and Nellie and Millie Player were in there. They then called him a coward for telling of anybody else.

Horace Chadwick, aged 12, stated that he was at Mr. Player's shop on Saturday week. Nellie Player told him to go and crack crackers on Mr. Dumont's shop. She told Eustace Adams and Smallfield to do the same thing. On Wednesday of last week he was in teh shop again, when Nellie and Millie Player told him to go and pull the bills down at the side of the shop. Witness did so, and then ran away. The following Friday he was in the shop, and both of the female defendants asked him not to “tell on anybody”, and Mrs. Player added that they would be cowards if they did. They also said that they would club together and pay a fine if they were fined for what they did.

His Honour: Supposing you went to prison, what then? Would they club together and go to prison? (Laughter).

Walter Crouch, aged 11, of Tontine Street, said that he was in Mr. Player's shop in Broadmead Road the previous Wednesday, when Nellie Player asked him to bang some crackers in front of Mr. Spencer's shop. She also told him to throw mud on the bills, and she would let him wash his hands afterwards. He did so, and spoilt one of the bills, which contained the prices of wines and spirits which were sold.

Cross-examined by Mr. Player: He went in the shop afterwards and washed his hands.

Theodore William Player denied having anything to do with the case, or that he had ever spoken to the boys.

His Honour: What about the family?

Witness: As far as I know they did not do anything. The first I heard of it was when I received a letter from Mr. Rook in which he said “it appeared I had incited children to cause an annoyance, and destroy bills on the wall”. Spencer is a bit spiteful because I have the means of making him carry out the Licensing Act as he should do.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rook: He did not know that there had been any annoyance. There had been as many bangers on his step as on Mr. Dumont's. He had stood outside and looked on, but he had not laughed at it, nor did he ask any of them to do it again.

His Honour: Now let us hear the ladies.

Nellie Player was the next witness. She asserted that she had seen a lot of boys outside Mr. Spencer's shop, and added, I said “What fun it would be to pull hi bills off”, but I didn't tell them to do it. (Laughter) I didn't say it to anyone in particular. (Laughter).

His Honour: Did you tell them to throw crackers in his door?

Witness: I told them not to go on his door, but to keep off the path, for then he could not stop them.

His Honour: Did you suggest to Crouch that he should throw mud at the things?

Witness: No.

His Honour: Did you let him in to wash his hands after he threw the mud?

Witness: Yes.

Millicent Player emphatically denied that she knew anything of the matter or that she had heard her sister tell the boys to do anything.

Mr. Player was again called forward, and His Honour asked him if he would undertake that Mr. Spencer would not be annoyed by his family any more.

Mr. Player: Certainly.

His Honour: We cannot have Nellie Player encouraging boys in this way, and I don't want to have to send her to prison. (Laughter) When lovely women stoop to folly it is a pity. (Laughter) Do you agree to this being a trial of the action?

Mr. Player: What about the costs?

His Honour: You will have to pay them.

Mr. Player: But I don't agree to that.

His Honour: If you don't agree to it, it doesn't matter a bit. The order will still be made. If you wish to have the case fought again, you can have it tried again. I shall have to grant an injunction to last until the next Court. If you give an undertaking that the annoyance shall cease, I shall dispose of the case now.

Mr. Player: But I was not aware of this. I will give the undertaking.

His Honour: Will you agree to this being treated as the trial of the action?

Mr. Player: I cannot say any more than I have said. I am innocent of all of this.

His Honour: Very well (writing down his decision) “Defendant agreeing to take this application as the hearing of the action, and undertaking for himself and family not to interfere with or annoy the plaintiff in the conduct of his business, no order except that the plaintiff will pay the costs of this application within fourteen days will be made.” The costs would be subject to a taxation on the 20 scale.

His Honour, calling Miss Nellie Player forward, said: Miss Nellie Player, you must not talk to these boys in his way, and suggest things to them. “Don't nail his ears to the pump” for you know that means he is likely to go and do it. Do not encourage these boys to interfere with Mr. Spencer again. In the meantime I will grant no injunction, so that you will be able to spend Christmas in the bosom of your family. (Laughter).

 

Southeastern Gazette 31 December 1904.

Local News.

At Folkestone Police Court on December 24th Frank Stone Spencer, wine and spirit merchant, was summoned for selling a bottle of gin in contravention of the terms of his licence, and Edward Dumont was summoned for aiding and abetting. The case excited a good deal of interest on account of recent proceedings in the County Court in which Mr. Spencer was the applicant. Mr. H. Rook appeared for the defendants, and formally pleaded not guilty.

Detective-Sergeant Burniston deposed as follows: At 11 a.m. on Thursday, the 7th inst, I saw a man named Smith enter the shop at No. 2, Broadmead Road. The defendant Dumont occupies the premises as a shop and dwelling-house. A moment later the man left the shop and went to a private entrance at the side of the premises. I followed the man in by the private entrance, and saw a door on the right hand side of a passage, which took me into the back portion of the premises, a first-class hairdressing saloon. Smith was being shaved by Dumont, whom he paid and left the premises. The shop is about 25ft. long and 11ft, wide, and there is a wooden partition about 7ft. high between the saloon and the wine shop, which leaves an open space about 5ft. from the ceiling. At one end of the partition there is a space about 2 ft . wide, and it can be used as an entrance to the hairdressing saloon from the fore part of the shop (ihe wine and spirit department). I said to Dumont: “Do you hold a licence for the sale of wines and spirits here?” He replied: “No, but Mr. Spencer holds the licence. I rent the premises from Mr. Castle, and sub-let the shop to Mr. Spencer. I manage the business for him in his absence, but do not receive any salary.’’ I told him that he was committing a breach of the Licensing Laws. He then said “I manage the business for Mr. Spencer. He journeys to Maidstone every day, and while he is away I look after the wine and spirit department.” I told him that I should report the matter to the Chief Constable. Witness went on to prove that at 4.3O on the same day a man named Standing was served by Dumont with a bottle of Hollands gin. He again interviewed Dumont, who said “I have already told you that the business has nothing to do with me.” Later in the evening, continued witness, I saw Mr. Spencer, who told me that Dumont had nothing to do with the business, but managed it during his (Mr. Spencer’s) absence, He would take the whole responsibility. Over the shop front is painted the, words “The Broadmead Wines and Spirits.” There is a fixture at the side of the house, and a barber’s pole and hanging sign, with the word “Shaving” thereon. There is a hanging sign below, with the words “Wines and Spirits.”

Mr. Rook: Did you know of any objection which had been made as to the conduct of the business?

Witness: No. I received instructions from the Chief Constable.

Mr. Rook: Do you know that, the matter had been reported by a gentleman named Player?

Witness: The reports were not made to me.

Chief Constable Harry Reeve said: About 11 days previous to this report being received the defendant Dumont called upon me at the Police Office and asked me if he would be allowed to carry on the business of a tobacconist at No. 2, Broadmead Road, as Mr. Spencer, of Maidstone, had obtained a licence to sell wines and spirits there. 1 told him that under that licence no other business could be carried on on the premises. In consequence of what came to my knowledge I instructed Detective-Sergeant Burniston to keep observation upon the premises. On Thursday, the 7th, in the evening, Mr. Spencer called upon me and said “I understand that one of your men has visited my premises.” I told him that a report had been submitted to me concerning two businesses being carried on upon the same premises. I said “I have already told Mr. Dumont that it would be illegal, while there was any connection between the wine and spirit, department and the saloon”. Mr. Spencer said “That should have been remedied, and will be now.” I told him that it was quite illegal and he said “I’ll see that the partition is carried across.”

Mr. Rook: I suppose there is no objection in saying that the report came from Mr. Player?

Witness: Not Mr. Player alone. I have had others.

Mr Rook, addressing the Bench, said that in the face of the evidence he must advise his clients to plead guilty to a technical offence. Detective Sergt. Burniston had agreed with him that the offence was only a technical one. His clients had been somewhat misled by the wording of the revenue licence itself. On the licence it said that no trade should be carried on upon the premises except that for which the licence was granted. Dumont did not sell anything or expose anything for sale in the wine arid spirit shop. He did not carry on a trade, but a business, and the word business was not mentioned upon the licence. However, the Act did state “trade or business." The action was a simple one, purely technical, and would never have been taken had it not been for Mr. Player, who traded opposite the defendant’s premises. It. was common knowledge that quite recently Mr. Flayer had been restrained from annoying the defendant. Having pleaded guilty, he trusted that the Bench would regard the offence in its real light, viz., a purely technical one.

In announcing the decision of the Bench, the Chairman said: We find the case proved, and cannot regard it wholly as a technical offence. Both defendants are liable to a fine of 50, but the Bench have decided to reduce that to a tenth part. The fine will be 5, and 10s. costs in each case.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1908.

Local News.

We regret to record the death of Mr. Theodore William Player, which sad event occurred on the 9th inst., in London. The deceased, who was the proprietor of the Agnes, Broadmead Road, had resided in the borough for about twenty years. He leaves a widow and several children. Mr. Player was respected by a large circle of friends. The internment took place at the cemetery, Mill Hill, London, on Monday.

 

Folkestone Daily News 2 December 1908.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Fynmore, Swoffer, Linton, and Boyd.

An application was made for the transfer of the off-licence of the Agnes, Broadmead Road.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 5 December 1908.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and W.G. Herbert.

The off beer and wine licence of the Agnes, Broadmead Road, was transferred from the late Mr. Player to his widow.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 December 1908.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, J. Stainer and G. Boyd.

Mrs. Player, widow of the late Mr. Player, was granted the transfer of the off licence of the Agnes Inn in Broadmead to herself.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1917.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the Police Court: the Agnes off licence, Broadmead Road, from Mr. H.J. Bowen, who has joined up, to his wife.

 

Folkestone Express 1 March 1919.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred at the Police Court on Wednesday: The Agnes Inn, Broadmead Road, from Mrs. Bowen to Mr. H.J. Bowen, her husband, who had returned from naval service.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 March 1919.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Magistrates consented to the transfer of licence as follows: The Agnes, Broadmead Road, from Mrs. Bowen to Mr. H.J. Bowen, present licensee's husband, he having returned from service with the R.N.A.S.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1939.

Local News.

On Friday Herbert Jackson Bowen, 19 Broadmead Road, Folkestone, was summoned at Folkestone Police Court that he, being the holder of an Excise and Justices' Licence allowing him to sell intoxicating liquor, sold a lesser quantity than a one pint bottle, namely one half pint bottle of spirits, on August 3rd. Defendant's sixteen year old daughter, Miss Eva Bowen, was summoned for aiding and abetting her father.

Mr. J.N.B. Laine prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The position of a retailer of spirits, he said, in holding an Excise and Justices' Licence was that he must not sell a quantity of spirits less than one pint bottle. The defendant was the holder of a Justices' and Excise licence. On the 3rd August, at about 12.45 p.m., an Excise officer entered the defendant's premises at 19, Broadmead Road and asked for a small bottle of John Haig. The defendant's daughter was behind the counter and she enquired whether he wanted a 3/6 size, a quarter bottle, and when he said “Yes”, sold it to him. The officer wrote to the defendant, Mr. Bowen, asking for an explanation. The defendant called upon him the following day and said he was sorry he had acted illegally. He also stated that he knew he was not allowed to sell such a quantity, but occasionally supplied regular customers, and no doubt his daughter was also anxious to oblige such customers. The point of the Act was to protect on-licensees, publicans, who were privileged to sell these small bottles.

Mr. A. Atkinson, who appeared for the defendants and pleaded guilty on their behalf, said it was, as his friend had said, a technical offence. They could buy five quarter bottles from such a shop, but not one. It seemed that Mr. Bumble’s opinion of the law was sometimes justified. Defendant’s shop was a small one and he had to leave it to go on his rounds. When he did so, he left his daughter in charge and she was ignorant of the licensing laws and was anxious to oblige.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said they had better hear Miss Bowen in the witness box.

Miss Bowen said she was not told by her father that she was not allowed to sell the quarter bottles.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said Bowen would be fined 2 and the case against his daughter would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 September 1939.

Local News.

"Mr. Bumble's opinion of the law is sometimes almost justified”, was the statement of a defending solicitor at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday last week in a case in which a Folkestone off-licensee and his daughter appeared for a breach of the Licensing Act.

Herbert J. Bower, of 19, Broadmead Road, Folkestone, was summoned for selling a single quantity of spirits less than that allowed him as the holder of an off-licence. Eva Agnes Bowen, his daughter, was summoned for aiding and abetting the offence. Defendants, who were represented by Mr.. A. Atkinson, pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.N.B. Laine, prosecuting on behalf of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, said the position was that off-licensees were by law entitled to sell no quantity of liquor by itself of less than a quart measure. There was an exception in the case of licensees holding a Justices’ Licence, and they were entitled to sell quantities of not less than one pint. The facts were that defendant’s daughter was serving in the shop on August 3rd when a Preventive Officer, Mr. Dalby, asked her for a small bottle of whisky. She asked him if he would take a 3/6d. bottle and he said “Yes”. That day the officer wrote to the defendant stating the occurrence and informing him of the offence, and defendant called to see him the next day. Defendant explained that he sometimes obliged regular customers with a quarter bottle of whisky. He knew that he was not allowed to do so by the law.

Addressing the Magistrates, Mr. Atkinson said defendant had gone out and whilst he was away from the shop his daughter, aged 16, had supplied the bottle, thinking she was doing no harm. There had been no intentional offence by either party.

Miss Bowen stated on oath that she had never been told that it was not permissible to sell quarter-bottles of whisky.

Defendant was fined 2, the summons against Miss Bowen being dismissed with a caution.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

HUNTLEY Abraham 1881-88 Bastions

STOCKTON George 1888-89 Bastions

STOCKTON Alfred 1889-91Bastions (also grocer age 44 in 1891Census)

BAILEY Edward 1891-95 Next pub licensee had Bastions

PLAYER Theodore 1895-1908 Bastions

PLAYER Charlotte 1908-12 Bastions

BOWEN Herbert 1912-17 Bastions

BOWEN Amelia 1917-19 Bastions

BOWEN Herbert 1919-58 Bastions

BOWEN Eva 1958-1974 Bastions

http://evenmoretales.blogspot.co.uk/Agnes

 

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML