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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.