|
9 (15) Beach Street
Folkestone
Addressed as Seagate Street in 1862.
Has been referred to as the "Anchor" but as often the local papers used
to use the colloquial term, and this has led to some confusion.
|
Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.
General Sessions 24 June 1793.
Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), John Harvey, Thomas Farley, and John
Minter.
John Hogben appeared and prayed to have the licence granted to
Richard Inge at the Blue Anchor assigned to him, which was granted
on his entering into a recognisance with two sureties pursuant to
the late Act of Parliament, when he proposed John Wingfield and
James Mullett, who were accepted.
|
|
Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.
General Sessions 22 July 1794.
Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), John Minter, John Castle and Jacob
Stredwick.
The licence of the Blue Anchor was transferred to William Durban.
|
|
Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811,
General Sessions 11 October 1796.
This day James Hall petitioned to have licence to sell ale, etc.,
under the licence granted to William Durban, until the next general
licensing day. Ordered accordingly.
|
|
Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.
General Sessions 6 December 1801.
Before Thomas Baker (Deputy Mayor), Joseph Sladen, and Edward
Andrews.
Richard Hambrook, a freeman of this Corporation, petitioned to have
the licence of the public house called the Blue Anchor, late
occupied by James Hall, transferred to him, he having paid the same,
which was granted accordingly when he and his sureties attended and
entered into recognisances.
|
|
Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.
General Sessions 25 April 1808.
Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Joseph William Knight, John Castle,
John Gill, John Bateman and James Major.
The following person was fined for having short measures in their
possession, viz.:
Ric Hambrook for one pint 2/6
|
|
Kentish Gazette 27 August 1811.
The King v Richard Hambrook.
Assizes, Civil Side, Thursday, August 22, before Lord Chief Justice
Ellenborough.
This was an indictment against the defendant for aiding in the
escape of prisoners of war from Chesterfield, and for that purpose
harbouring them in his house at Folkestone.
Mr. Serjeant Shepherd opened the case on behalf of the prosecution.
The prisoner kept a small public house, called the Blue Anchor, so
the question to be decided was whether the defendant was aiding in
the escape of the prisoners in question, named Chanmont, Latardie,
Jessileux, J.B. Marten, Laddie, Nutali and Bouet.
Mr. John Bouser, agent for the French prisoners of war at
Chesterfield, deposed that all the above-named persons, except Bouet,
were on their parole at Chesterfield, and absented themselves on the
18th of September last. The prisoners were brought into court and
identified.
Lieut. Christie, of His Majesty's sloop Cordelia, saw a boat on the
night of the 22nd Sept., which they brought to, after having fired
at, although the person in it answered on being hailed that it was a
Folkestone boat. There was a jar on board with some ale in it, and
bread and rum, together with a large deal box. Next morning the
witness sent them to the flagship on the Downs.
James Butler deposed that he was chaise driver at the Fountain Inn,
in Canterbury, and on the evening of the – Sept., three gentlemen
came there in a chaise, and the witness was desired to drive them to
the "Blue Anchor," an inferior inn at Folkestone. He there saw the
landlord, the defendant, who told the gentlemen, who had got out of
the chaise, that he had got lodgings for them (on the question being
put to him), but not in his own house. He had made no previous
enquiry of them, or had any other conversation. The deal box they
brought, they left till the landlord came back, when he paid the
witness for the chaise, and desired him to put the box into his
house. He also asked if the witness knew if there were any more
coming, to which he replied in the negative. The witness had seen
the box taken out of a boat at sea, which was the same as that he
carried in the chaise.
Sherwood, another driver at the "Fountain Inn," at Canterbury, said
that on the 19th Sept., a chaise came in from Sittingbourne, and the
witness drove them to Folkestone. The witness took them to the
"Folkestone Arms," but they were shown down the road to the
"Blue
Anchor" by Janeway, the son of the landlord of the "Folkestone Arms."
When they got out he saw that they were foreigners and he recognised
none of them.
James Janeway conducted the foreigners from the "Folkestone Arms" to
the "Blue Anchor." They were all gone to bed, but Hambrook opened the
door, and the gentlemen went in without having any conversation. The
"Blue Anchor" was a small ale-house.
Sally Newman, servant to Hambrook, deposed that they had only one
spare room in the house, that she remembered the foreigners coming,
and identified the deal box taken from the chaise.
Thos. Mantell Esq., resident Agent for the Transport Board at Dover:
He went on board the Guard ship on the Downs, hearing that the
foreigners' boat, the Cat, had been taken. He saw the gentlemen and
M. Bouet, who had made his escape.
Mr. Gurney made a most able address to the Jury on behalf of the
defendants. He maintained that there was not the slightest evidence
to affect the defendant, or to say that he was aiding those men in
escaping. If Hambrook could be found Guilty, he would venture that
there was not an innkeeper between Chesterfield and Folkestone who
furnished a post-chaise or a lodging for the night who might not be
indictable. Under the maxim of English law, that all men were deemed
innocent till it were proved they were Guilty, were to be laid
aside, the Jury could not come to the dreadful conclusion that the
defendant was the base, disloyal subject to assist the enemies of
his King and country. He then entered into the particulars of the
evidence to show that there was nothing in it which showed that the
defendant was aiding and assisting in the escape of prisoners of
war.
Lord Ellenborough detailed the evidence delivered, dwelling
particularly on the expressions used by the landlord, which His
Lordship thought very equivocal, and he left it to the Jury to draw
what inference they thought proper. His Lordship was much surprised
that the French prisoners had not been called for the defendant.
Verdict: Guilty on the first count of concealing and secreting
French prisoners of war.
|
|
Kentish Mercury 15 June 1839.
About half past six on Saturday morning last Mr. James Swain,
labourer, aged 33 years, died of an eruption of one of the blood
vessels in the heart. It appears that on the morning in question he
got up in apparently good health and, as was his usual custom, went
to the "Blue Anchor" public house and took half a pint of beer, and
from thence was proceeding to his garden, near the lower Sandgate
Road, with a load of manure. A person named Clout coming along at
the time, seeing the deceased fall, ran to his assistance. He sighed
twice, and expired. The deceased has left a wife and three children
to lament his loss. We hear that he was talking to a gentleman but a
minute before, when he appeared to be in good spirits. An inquest
was held on the body the same day, when a verdict of “Died by the
visitation of God” was passed.
|
|
Dover Chronicle 15 June 1839.
Inquest: On Saturday afternoon last an inquest was held by J.J. Bond
Esq., Coroner for Folkestone, and a respectable jury, on the body of
James Swain, a young man, 33 years of age, who suddenly dropped down
dead early that morning.
It appeared in evidence that the deceased, about six o'clock in the
morning, was drawing a truck with a small load of dung, which he was
taking to his garden on the Lower Sandgate Road, and in an instant
fell down and was dead, ere surgical assistance could be procured.
He had taken a glass of beer only five minutes before at the
"Blue
Anchor" public house, and then seemed in perfect health and
complained of no ailment. Mr. Major, the surgeon, was called in to
see the body, and was examined on the inquest, but was unable to
give any satisfactory opinion as to the cause of death of the
deceased.
The Coroner then recommended that the body should be opened to
ascertain the cause of death, but the Jury being decidedly averse to
that proceeding, and it appearing by the evidence of a
brother-in-law of the deceased that Mr. Knight had attended him five
years ago, the Jury expressed a wish to have him examined, and he
was accordingly sent for.
Mr. Knight stated that about five years ago he attended the
deceased, who then complained of pain about the region of the heart.
And difficulty of breathing, but whether the complaint arose from
organic disease or a sympathetic affection from a disordered state
of the stomach and liver, he could not determine. Witness had not
attended him medically since that time, but about six or seven
months ago deceased overtook him coming up Denton Hill, six or seven
miles from Folkestone, and he then complained of the same symptoms
as formerly. Witness directed him to come to the surgery on the
following morning, that he might, by means of the stethoscope,
ascertain more correctly the nature of the complaint, but he did not
come. Witness further stated that he had inspected the body of the
deceased, and from the previous symptoms, and his past knowledge of
the deceased, he was of opinion that death was occasioned by rupture
of the blood vessels of the heart.
Upon this the Jury, without consulting, returned a verdict
accordingly, that deceased “Died by the visitation of God”.
The deceased was an industrious, hard working man, and has left a
wife and three children.
|
|
Dover Chronicle 17 November 1849
Marriage: Nov. 3, at Folkestone, Mr. Jeffries to Miss Jordan,
stepdaughter of Mr. Thos. Richardson, Blue Anchor Inn, Folkestone.
|
|
Dover Telegraph 24 November 1849
Marriage: Lately, at Folkestone, Mr. Jeffries to Miss Jordan,
stepdaughter of Mr. Thomas Richardson, Blue Anchor Inn, Folkestone.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 10 February 1866.
Wednesday February 7th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J.
Tolputt Esq.
James Peel, the landlord of the Blue Anchor public house, Queen
Street, appeared to answer an information charging him with selling
beer during the prohibited hours on Sunday the 4th instant.
P.C. Swain said on Sunday morning last about quarter past eleven
o'clock, he went to the defendant's house, called the Blue Anchor,
in Queen Street, and after knocking at the door for a few minutes he
was admitted. He then saw a man leave the tap room, and on following
him saw him go into a small room at the back of the house, and close
the door after him. Witness knocked at the door and they refused to
open it. He then put his shoulder against the door, and on pushing
it partly open found there was a man standing behind it, who upon
his asking what he did there replied “Nothing”. There were six men
in the room, four of whom were sitting down and two standing up.
There was a quart pot on the table, and a glass, both of which
contained beer. Witness knew the men, and they were all living in
Folkestone. He asked them what they were doing there, to which they
made no reply. In the tap room, from which came the first man he
saw, there was a quart mug standing on the table, which also
contained beer, and a glass. He asked for the landlord, and a woman
told him he was not at home.
Defendant said he left home on the Saturday and went to London, and
his wife being also away the house was left in charge of his wife's
mother, to whom he gave strict injunctions not to draw during the
hours prohibited on Sunday, but it would appear that those men had
prevailed upon her to do so.
Capt. Kennicott asked if there had been any previous complaint
against the defendant.
Supt. Martin replied had had no complaint against the house since
defendant had been there, but different complaints having been made
he ordered the constable to pay a visit to all the houses, and this
case was the result.
The magistrates cautioned the defendant, and told him he had
rendered himself liable to a fine of £5. Under the circumstances,
however, and from the fact that there had been no previous complaint
against him, they were disposed to deal leniently with him this
time, but he must be careful for the future.
Fined 5s with costs, making together 14s, which was paid.
Note: More Bastions gives the landlord as John Peel. The address
given in the report is wrong, and should read Queen Square.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 24 February 1866.
Monday February 19th:- Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.
John Peel, landlord of the Blue Anchor public house, Queen's Square,
appeared on a summons charged with having committed an assault on
Rosa Milton on the 16th instant. It appeared defendant was brother
to the complainant and his relations, not approving of his marriage,
were constantly annoying him by sending him filthy letters, and on
the day in question he received a most disgusting letter. Believing
it to have been sent by his sister and her friends he went to the
house to see if he could not put a stop to these annoyances, when
they accused him of sending complainant an obscene Valentine, and
spat in his face. Defendant admitted that being very much
exasperated, he did slap complainant's face, but did not strike her
in the side as complained of.
The magistrates considered the assault proved. There had no doubt
been extreme provocation, but defendant had no right to take the law
in his own hands. They should, however, only fine him 10s and costs;
in default 14 days.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 27 February 1866.
Local News.
On Monday John Peel, the landlord of the Blue Anchor public house,
Folkestone, was summoned (before J. Kelcey and R. Boarer, Eaqrs.)
for having assaulted Rosa Milton, on February 16th.
The defendant, who was complainant’s brother, admitted the assault,
and said, as his marriage did not suit his relations, they were
continually annoying him, and sent him filthy letters like one he
produced. Defendant went up to see if he could not put a stop to it,
and they (complainant and others) spat in his face, which so
exasperated him that he did slap her face, but it was an
exaggeration to say that be struck her in the aide.
The magistrates said they knew it was disgraceful to send such
letters as the one he had received, but still he was-not justified
in committing an assault. They consequently fined him 10s. and
costs.
|
|
Folkestone Express 2 May 1885.
Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and
Sherwood, Captain Fletcher, J. Fitness, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason
and J. Holden Esqs.
The licence of the Blue Anchor was transferred to Mr. Huson.
|
|
Folkestone News 2 May 1885.
Local News.
At the Police Court on Monday, before The Mayor, Captain Carter, J.
Fitness, T. Caister, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Sherwood and J.
Holden Esqs., the Blue Anchor was transferred to Mrs. Huson.
|
|
Folkestone Express 21 May 1887.
Saturday, May 14th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General
Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and H.W. Poole Esq.
The licence of the Blue Anchor was temporarily transferred to James
Snelling.
Note: This transfer appears as William Snelling in More Bastions.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 23 June 1888.
Saturday, June 16th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Major Poole, Surgeon
General Gilbourne, W. Wightwick and J. Brooke Esqs.
William James Snelling, landlord of the Blue Anchor Inn, was
summoned for unlawfully opening his house for the sale of
intoxicating liquors during a prohibited hour, at twenty minutes
past eight on Sunday morning. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant,
who pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Dawson stated that he found two men – Flicker and Richardson –
in the defendant's house. Witness knocked at one door while P.C.
Lilley stood at the other. Witness told the landlord that the men
had been in the house ten minutes. Flicker said he lodged there, but
in answer to witness the landlord said he did not. They had come in
there for some beer, but he would not draw it for them. Drew the
defendant's attention to a pint glass, which was standing on the
counter amongst some other glasses. Witness said it had contained
fresh beer. It was quite wet, and witness could see the head of the
beer on it.
By Mr. Minter: There is no back door to the house. Both doors opened
into the main streets, so that the defendant would have to open one
of the doors to shake his mats.
P.C. Lilley gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Minter, in defence, stated that the defendant was cleaning out
the bar and shaking the mats. The front door being open the men
walked in and asked the defendant to serve them with beer, but he
refused to do so. They stood there arguing until the constables came
in. The glasses had all been there the previous night, and not a
drop was drawn that morning. It was merely a question whether the
beer in the glass was fresh or not, and he presumed policemen were
no judges of beer. (Laughter)
The defendant gave evidence, bearing out Mr. Minter's statement.
Supt. Taylor said the defendant had had the house for seventeen
years, and no complaint whatever had been reported against it.
In consideration of defendant's good character, and as there was a
doubt in the case, it was dismissed.
Note: The seventeen years was a reference to Snelling's time as
landlord of both the Prince Albert and the Blue Anchor.
|
|
Folkestone Express 23 June 1888.
William James Snelling was charged with having his premises open
during prohibited hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors.
P.C. Dawson said that at twenty minutes past eight on Sunday morning
he saw two men in Beach Street. He missed them, and waited until
another constable came, and he walked round the block of buildings.
From what he said, witness went to one door, and Lilley to another
of the defendant's house, the Blue Anchor. Upon entering the house,
he saw P.C. Lilley and two men, Richardson and Flicker, in the bar.
Flicker stated that he lodged there, and on asking Snelling if it
was true, he said “No. They came in here for some beer, and I would
not serve them”.
P.C. Lilley corroborated.
The defendant went into the witness box and stated that he had held
a licence in Folkestone for 17 years, and had never before had a
complaint made against him. On the morning in question he had just
been shaking his mats when two men walked in. He did not draw them
any beer.
The Bench dismissed the summons.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 25 June 1888.
Local News.
At the police court on Saturday, William James Snelling was summoned
for having his house, the Blue Anchor, open for the sale of
intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours.
The case was dismissed.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 30 December 1893.
Local News.
A mariner named James Noble was charged at the Police Court on
Wednesday with being drunk and disorderly in South Street.
P.C. Lawrence stated that he was called to the Victoria Inn, where
he found the prisoner in the bar. He was very drunk and he was
banging his fist down on the counter, stating that he would fight
the landlord. When witness was requested to eject prisoner he said
he would not go out for him, and if he would take his coat off he
would like to fight him.
In answer to the Bench the prisoner said he got most of the drink he
had had at the Victoria.
The Magistrates' Clerk: Landlords let men get drunk in their houses
and then have them turned out by the police, and naturally they get
angry.
Supt. Taylor said it was a common occurrence for landlords to allow
men to get drunk and then have the police to turn them out. The
landlords did not avail themselves of the clause in the Licensing
Act by which they could prosecute a man for refusing to quit
licensed premises, but they preferred the police to do their dirty
work. He should have to consider whether he should not take
proceedings in this case for allowing drunkenness on the premises.
Mr. Watson, the landlord of the Victoria, said when the prisoner
entered their house he said he had had “fourteen pints” at another
house, and no man could drink fourteen pints without being drunk.
The Mayor said the Bench had decided to look upon the case in a
lenient manner, and would fine the prisoner 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs,
or in default seven days imprisonment.
|
|
Folkestone Express 30 December 1893.
Wednesday, December 27th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and
Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.
James Noble was charged with being drunk and disorderly in South
Street on Boxing Day. He pleaded Guilty.
P.C. Lawrence said the defendant was very drunk at the Victoria, and
Mr. Watson asked witness to eject him. He refused to leave South
Street, and was therefore taken into custody.
The Magistrates' Clerk (to defendant): What time did you go to the
house? – In the afternoon.
Were you sober when you went? – Yes.
You were there all the afternoon, till you got drunk? – I went out
and came back again. I can't remember when. I remember Watson
striking me.
Where did you get drunk? – I got most of the drink in his house.
Superintendent Taylor said that it was a case in which he thought it
necessary to send for the landlord. It was a very common occurrence
for men to go to a public house and remain till they got drunk, and
then, because they got noisy, the landlord sent for the police and
had the offenders put into the street, where, being naturally
annoyed at being ejected, they became disorderly, and often
assaulted the police. In that case he sent for the landlord, and he
was in court. He should have to consider whether or not it was a
case in which he should have to summon him for permitting
drunkenness on his premises.
James Wilson, the landlord, said when the defendant entered his
house he said he had drunk 14 pints of beer in the Blue Anchor, and
he could not have drunk 14 pints of beer without being pretty well
drunk.
Mr. Bradley: If you are going to be summoned, you had better keep
your mouth closed.
Defendant said he never went into the Blue Anchor on the previous
day.
The Mayor said the Bench had decided to look on the case in a very
lenient way. Defendant would be fined 6s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14
days'.
|
|
Folkestone Express 6 January 1894.
Local News.
Mr. C. Norman, of the Blue Anchor Inn, writes to say that the man
Noble, convicted of drunkenness in South Street last week, had not
been in his house that day, and that Noble's statement to that
effect was quite true. He adds that he always has conducted his
house in an orderly manner, and would not knowingly serve a drunken
man.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 21 April 1894.
Local News. Transfer.
The following transfer was granted at the Police Court on Wednesday:
Blue Anchor, Beach Street, to James Hamilton.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 7 December 1894.
Local News.
At the Police Court on Wednesday two mariners named Hart and Mackay
were each fined 5s. and 9s. costs for being drunk at the Blue Anchor
on Tuesday the 27th ult.
They were found by P.C. Knowles, who proved the charge.
|
|
Folkestone Express 8 December 1894.
Wednesday, December 5th: Before J. Fitness and J.R. Davy Esqs.
Benjamin Hart and John Macey, seamen, were charged with being drunk
on licensed premises on the 27th November. Defendants pleaded Not
Guilty.
P.C. Knowles said he was called to the Blue Anchor in Seagate
Street, and saw the two defendants rolling about in the bar, drunk.
The landlady pointed to the defendants and wanted them put out. They
refused to go, and he ejected Hart and then went back and ejected
Mackay (sic).
Mrs. James Hamilton, the landlady of the Blue Anchor, was called by
the defendants, and said she knew the defendants, who went to her
house at about 5.30 on the 27th November and remained about one hour
and a half, and during that time they were served with a pint and a
half of beer. They were perfectly sober, and all she sent for the
constable for was because they were singing and would not leave the
house.
The Bench considered the case proved, and fined them each 9s. and
5s. costs, or in default 7 days hard labour.
One of the defendants asked for time to pay, but the Superintendent
objected and pointed out to the Bench that this was one of those
cases in which the police were made fools of, and when proceedings
were instituted, the charge of drunkenness was denied. He would make
a special report of this case at the next licensing sessions.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 8 December 1894.
Local News.
At the Borough Court on Wednesday, John Mackay and Benjamin Hart,
young seamen, were convicted of having been drunk on the night of
the 27th ult., on the licensed premises of Mrs. Hamilton, Blue
Anchor Inn, Beach Street.
P.C. Knowles, who had been sent for, ejected the men.
Each was fined 5s., with 9s. costs. Paid.
|
|
Folkestone Visitors' List 14 August 1895.
Police Court Jottings.
A case of considerable interest to local traders was heard by the
Borough Magistrates on Saturday morning.
It appears that Mrs. Hartley, a wholesale china and earthenware
merchant at Dover sold a quantity of glass to Mr. Beaton, landlord
of the Blue Anchor public house, at Folkestone. The local Inspector
of Weights and Measures, in the course of his round, discovered that
the glasses had been stamped with the number of the Ramsgate
district, and this stamp was found to be a forgery. A summons was
consequently issued against Mrs. Hartley, and on Saturday she was
represented by her son, who acts as manager in the business.
Mr. Minter, solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the Town Council, and
Mr. Welch, the Inspector of Weights and Measures for the Borough of
Folkestone, stated that for some time he had had suspicion that in
several houses in teh town glasses were used that were not properly
stamped. Amongst other public houses he called at, he went to the
Blue Anchor, and found a quantity of pint and half pint glasses
which bore the stamp of the Ramsgate and Sandwich division, and
which turned out to be a forgery. He eventually saw the defendant's
son, and manager, who stated that the glasses had been stamped by a
man named Solley, who was in their employ as traveller. The stamp
itself was a crown, with the letters “V.R.”, and the number “353”,
which indicated the Sandwich district. The Folkestone number was
“573”. These marks were made on the glass by means of an India rubber
stamp and an acid. After he saw the defendant at Dover, the manager
called on him at the Weights and Measures office at Folkestone, and
admitted that the stamps were at the shop, that they belonged to
Solley, and eventually they were sent to witness by post.
Henry John Luckhurst, Inspector for the Sandwich division of the
county, stated that the number was that of his district. No person
had any authority except himself to use that number. The stamp on
the glass found at Mr. Beaton's premises was a forgery. He was
certain of this, because he had never stamped any glasses in his
district – in fact he had no machine or rubber for doing so.
Thomas S. Morgan, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for the
county of Kent, produced a list of the divisions in the county,
together with the order of the Board of Trade approving the said
schedule of districts and numbers. The Ramsgate number was 353, and
the Folkestone number 573.
John Mark Hartley consented to be sworn and give evidence for the
prosecution. He admitted that the glass found at Mr. Beaton's had
been supplied from his mother's warehouse. He charged more than the
ordinary price because they had been stamped by Solley. He had paid
Solley for doing so, and therefore received no benefit from the
stamping.
Capt. Carter, who was in the chair, said that the offence was a very
serious one, and it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Bench
that the defendant had supplied glasses bearing a mark and number of
the County Council, that had been a forgery. The Bench had come to a
conclusion that the defendant must be punished, and she was liable
to a fine of £10. As the costs in this case were, however, somewhat
heavy, the Bench would take this into consideration and fine the
defendant only £3, with costs £4 5s. 3d., or in default one month's
imprisonment with hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 16 August 1895.
Local News.
On Saturday last, before the Folkestone Borough Bench, a remarkable
and novel case was heard, when Mrs. Hartley, glass dealer, 17.
Cannon Street, Dover, was charged with selling a number of half pint
glasses bearing a forged stamp. The charge was made under the
Weights and Measures Act, 1878, section 32. The prosecution was
taken up by Mr. Welch, Inspector of Weights and Measures for the
Folkestone Corporation, and was legally supported by Mr. John
Minter, solicitor. Defendant had not the assistance of legal
representation.
Her son, John Hartley, appeared for her, and said his mother
suffered from heart disease, and was not strong enough to attend,
whilst he had entire management of her business, the details of
which she was not conversant with.
Mr. Minter explained that the glasses were sold to a man named
Beaton, who was the landlord of the Blue Anchor Inn. Beaton had been
summoned to attend that Court and give evidence in support of the
charge, but his medical man had just informed the prosecution that
Beaton was not in a state of health which would permit his
attendance. Beaton was an important witness, as without his evidence
he did not see how the prosecution would be able to prove that the
glasses had been sold.
Harley said he would admit selling the glasses to Beaton, and would
admit, too the service of the summons upon his mother to attend.
Dr. Murray was then put into the witness box, and said: I am
attending Beaton, who is not fit to be present here today, as he is
suffering from complete nervous prostration, owing to illness among
his family lately, and other causes. He is confined to his bedroom,
and will not be able to attend the Court until after 10 days or a
fortnight's time.
Mr. Minter said the case was taken for the prosecution under the
Weights and Measures Act, 1878, section 32, which stated that any
person who sold or offered for sale a measure bearing a false stamp
was liable to a fine not exceeding £10. The defendant, Mrs. Hartley,
of 17 Cannon Street, Dover, was a glass merchant, employing
travellers to sell glasses, and one of her travellers had called
upon Beaton, a publican in the town, and sold some glasses to him
which required to be stamped with the Government stamp, and which
had since been delivered to Beeton by a carrier named Anderson, who,
at the request of Beaton, took the money for the glasses, and gave
him the receipt for them. The Folkestone Inspector of Weights and
Measures had had his suspicions for some time that forged stamps
were being used on glasses in the town, and called at Beaton's
house, where he found glasses bearing a stamp which was an undoubted
forgery. It appeared that defendant had been employing a man named
Solley to forge these stamps. Proceedings were not being taken
against the defendant for forging the stamps, a penalty of which was
not exceeding £50, because that offence had not been committed in
the Folkestone district, and it would be for the Dover authorities
to deal with that. The prosecution that day was for selling the
forgery, and he should produce evidence to prove that the stamp was
certainly a forgery.
Stephen Anderson, carrier from Folkestone to Dover and back, said:
In April last I received a crate of glass from Mrs. Hartley for
delivery to Mr. Beaton at the Blue Anchor in this town. I also
received this invoice from John Hartley of “One dozen stamped fluted
pints, and one half dozen ditto half pints”. I received the sum of
7s. 10½d. from Beaton, and receipted the invoice, and took the money
back to Dover, giving it either to Mr. Hartley or to the lady in
charge of the shop.
Hartley asked witness no questions, and Anderson was allowed to
leave the Court, at his request, to attend to his business.
The next witness called was James Stephen Welch, Inspector of
Weights and Measures for the Folkestone Corporation. He said: I went
to the Blue Anchor Inn of Friday, July 5th last, where I seized four
half pint glasses (produced) which bear a stamp with a crown and
“V.R. 353”. The stamp is made on the glass by means of an
India rubber stamp and an acid.
By a Magistrate: What does the number represent?
Mr. Minter: It is the number of the Inspector of Sandwich district,
Folkestone being 573.
Witness (continuing): I went to defendant's premises, No. 17, Cannon
Street, Dover, where I saw John Hartley, and before I left I
informed him who I was, and told him I had a number of glasses which
I had seized from various public houses in Folkestone bearing a
forged stamp, which had been supplied by him. John Hartley soon
after called on me in Folkestone, and said he did not want to be
brought into a police court, and after first saying he knew nothing
of the stamping, admitted that the glasses had been stamped by the
man Solley on his premises. Two days afterwards Harley sent the
rubber stamps (produced) by post.
Henry John Luckhurst, Inspector of Weights and Measures for the
Ramsgate and Sandwich districts, said: The stamping number of my
district is 353, and no-one else is entitled to use them according
to the Kent County regulations, approved by the Board of Trade. The
glass produced bears a copy of the stamp employed in my district,
which is undoubtedly a forgery, no-one having authority to use it
but me. I have never stamped any glasses at all, and have not got
the apparatus for doing so.
Thomas H. Morgan, Chief Inspector of Weight and Measures for the
County, said: The number of the Ramsgate district is 353 according
to the Board of Trade.
Inspector Welch, re-called, said he had no conversation with Hartley
as to the case of Beaton.
John Hartley admitted the glass was one sold by his mother's firm.
He was thereupon sworn, and said: I believe the glass to have been
sold by us to Mr. Beaton. It was stamped by Solley, with the stamps
sent on to Mr. Welch. We charged extra for the glasses – just what
Solley charged us for stamping them – but made no extra profit on
them. I may say I have paid Solley for all the work he has done for
me, and that I have derived no benefit from any stamping that he or
anyone else has done for me.
Captain Carter, the presiding Magistrate, said the offence was a
serious one, and the costs entailed were heavy. The Bench would take
the amount of costs into consideration in estimating the fine, but
under the circumstances the least fine they could impose was one of
£3 3s., with £4 5s. 5d. costs.
Mr. Minter asked that the advocate's fee should also be allowed, as
the case was one where a solicitor was necessary, and he did not
think it would be right for the town to have to bear that expense.
The Bench concurred in this opinion, and allowed solicitor's costs.
The money was paid.
|
|
Folkestone Express 17 August 1895.
Saturday, August 10th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Captain Willoughby
Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, T.J. Vaughan and J. Holden
Esqs.
Mrs. Jane Harley, of Dover, was summoned for selling glasses to a
publican, bearing a forged stamp.
Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution. The defendant's son, who is
the manager of the business, appeared for her, and was not
represented by a solicitor. Mr. Minter said the glasses were sold to
a person named Beeton, who was ill and unable to attend, and he was
afraid therefore they would have to adjourn the case.
Mr. Harley said he was prepared to admit the glasses produced were
sold to Beeton. He had authority from the defendant to do so, but
she knew nothing at all about the case.
Mr. Minter then called Dr. Murray to prove Beeton was unable, owing
to the state of his health, to be present. As it was a Corporation
prosecution, only Captain Carter and Mr. Fitness adjudicated.
Mr. Minter gave an outline of the case, and called the following
evidence:-
Stephen Anderson, a carrier from Folkestone to Dover, said he
received a crate of glass from Mrs. Harley for delivery to Beeton,
at the Blue Anchor, Folkestone, and he also received a number of
stamped fluted pint glasses, and also half a dozen fluted half pint
glasses from Mrs. John Harley, and received 7s. 10½d. from Beeton,
which he took to Mrs. Harley's at Dover.
James Welch, the Inspector of Weights and Measures, said he went to
the Blue Anchor on Friday, July the 5th, and there seized four half
pint glasses. That produced bore the stamp, a crown, V.R. 353, made
by means of an India rubber stamp and an acid.
Mr. Minter said that indicated Sandwich district.
Witness said the Folkestone district was numbered 573. He went to
Cannon Street, Dover, and saw Mr. Harley. He did not tell him who he
was at first, but did after. He told Mr. Harley he had seized a
number of glasses in Folkestone which had been stamped with a forged
stamp, and supplied by him. The day after, Mr. Harley called on him.
He said he would rather it was not brought into a police court. He
said he had not stamped the glasses, but afterwards he admitted that
they had been stamped on his premises by a man named Solly. There
were two methods of stamping – by a sand instrument and by an acid.
Harley admitted that the glasses were stamped with an India rubber
stamp by Solly. Witness asked him to hand the stamps over, and
Harley sent them by post. There were several other cases, but that
was the only one he had taken.
Mr. Minter said he could get the whole paraphernalia for about 15s.
Henry John Luckhurst, Inspector of Weights and Measures for the
Sandwich and Ramsgate Divisions under the Kent County Council, said
the Ramsgate district was 353. (Mr. Minter produced the regulations
made by the Kent County Council, and referred to Section 9, by which
the model regulations of the Board of Trade were adopted.) The glass
produced was stamped with a copy of the design of the Ramsgate
district, and was forged. No-one but himself had authority to use
it. He had never stamped any glasses at all in either division. He
had no sand machines, and no rubber stamps.
Mr. Bradley: They are very good reasons.
Mr. Minter: Very good, indeed.
Thomas H. Morgan, Chief Inspector of the County of Kent, residing at
Ashford, said the number allotted to Ramsgate was 353.
Mr. Welch was re-called, and said he could only say from what Mr.
Beeton told him that the glass produced was stamped by Mr. Harley.
Mr. Harley admitted the glass was stamped at his premises. He went
into the box and gave evidence to that effect. He also said they
only charged the actual cost of stamping charged by Solly. He had no
doubt he delivered the crate of glass to Anderson.
Mr. Minter said if the Dover authorities did their duty they would
look after Solly, who had been stamping thousands of glasses.
Defendant's son said he paid Solly for stamping the glasses, and got
no benefit whatever from it.
Mr. Bradley: It seems you got them stamped by the wrong person.
The Bench imposed a fine of £3 3s., and costs £4 5s. 5d., and
Captain Carter said it was a serious case, the maximum penalty being
£10, and if the costs had not been so heavy, the fine would have
been greater.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 17 August 1895.
Police Court Jottings.
Mrs. Jane Harley, Cannon Street, Dover, was charged with selling
glasses on which a forged stamp had been used. Mr. Minter,
solicitor, prosecuted.
In opening the case he said that the witness who purchased the
glasses was unable to be present; his name was Beeton, and he was
landlord of the Blue Anchor Inn, Beach Street.
John Harley, who represented his mother, said he admitted the
selling of the glasses.
Dr. Murray stated that he was attending Mr. Beeton, who was
suffering from nervous prostration, and was not able to attend.
Mr. Minter said that Mrs. Harley carries on the business of a glass
and earthenware merchant at Cannon Street, Dover. Mr. Beeton gave an
order for some glasses, which were delivered by a carrier named
Anderson, who received the money. The Inspector of Weights and
Measures suspected that forged stamps were being used in the town,
and at the Blue Anchor he found several glasses that appeared to
bear the stamp of the division, but on examination they were found
to be forgeries. The defendant had been employing a man named Solly
to do this stamping. As the defendant lives out of this district,
they could not prosecute her for the stamping, but they could for
selling the glasses here.
Stephen Anderson deposed that he is a carrier between Dover and
Folkestone. He received the package of glasses to deliver to Mr.
Beeton at the Blue Anchor; also an invoice for a dozen pint and a
dozen half pint glasses from Mr. John Harley. Witness took the money
back.
Mr. J.S. Welch, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said that on July
5th he went to the Blue Anchor public house and seized four half
pint glasses. The impression was made by an Indiarubber stamp and an
acid. The stamp on the glass bore the number of the Sandwich
Inspector, 353. Witness went to the defendant's premises after the
seizure, and told Mr. John Harley that he had seized some glasses in
Folkestone which bore a forged stamp, and were supplied by
defendant. He called at witness's office and said he would rather
not appear at a police court, but admitted that they had been
stamped in his shop by a man named Solly, who owned the stamp, which
was kept in Harley's shop.
Mr. Kuckhurst, Inspector of Weights and Measures for Sandwich and
Ramsgate, said the number for the Ramsgate district was 353. No-one
else was entitled to use that number. The glass produced was stamped
with a copy of the design of witness's district, and was forged.
Witness said he had not yet stamped any glasses in either of the
divisions. He had not a rubber stamp.
Mr. John Harley, called as a witness, and examined by Mr. Minter,
said he was manager in the shop for his mother. The glasses were
stamped by Solly. They charged extra for glasses which were stamped.
He had sent the stamp to Mr. Welch. Witness was authorised to make
the admissions he had made. With regard to the stamping, he had paid
Mr. Solly for doing this.
Fined £3 and £4 5s. 3d. costs, or one month's imprisonment.
|
|
Folkestone Up To Date 17 August 1895.
Hall Of Justice.
On Saturday last an important case was heard under the Weights And
Measures Act.
It appeared that an earthenware dealer of Dover had sold to a
Folkestone publican some glasses bearing a stamp similar to that
which ought to be in use in the Ramsgate division. As a matter of
fact there is no stamp in use at present in that division.
There is no doubt, from the evidence given, that the earthenware
dealer was acting in blissful ignorance of the provisions of the
Weights And Measures Act. This ignorance of the law cost him ten
pounds.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 31 July 1897.
Friday, July 30th: Before Messrs. Pursey and Salter.
John Pearce was in custody on a charge of being drunk and disorderly
on the previous day.
P.C. Stannage stated that at seven o'clock, by request, he proceeded
to the Blue Anchor Inn, where he was asked by the landlord to assist
in ejecting prisoner, who was there drunk. The man was very violent,
and used disgustingly obscene language. It took five men to get him
to the office, and policemen had to be stationed outside the office
to warn people not to loiter near, as, the ventilators being open,
his swearing and cursing could be heard all over the Market Place.
Prisoner expressed deep regret for what had happened. He had joined
a ship the previous day, and did not want to lose it; he therefore
asked the Bench to allow him time to pay the fine of 5s. and 9s. 6d.
costs imposed.
This, however, they were not prepared to do, and Pearce was removed
to the cells.
|
|
Folkestone Express 7 August 1897.
Friday, July 30th: Before C.J. Pursey Esq., and Alderman Salter.
John Pearce, a sailor, was charged with being drunk and disorderly
in Beach Street on Thursday evening.
P.C. Strange said he was called by the landlord of the Blue Anchor
to eject prisoner. He used very abusive language, and on taking him
into custody it took five men to get him to the Police Station.
Superintendent Taylor said for hours after Pearce was locked up he
kept up such a fearful row of obscenity that they had to warn people
not to go through the Market Place.
The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default
seven days' hard labour. Prisoner went to prison.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 13 November 1897.
Local News.
Yesterday Thomas Riley was remanded until Monday on a charge of
stealing a rabbit, the property of Wm. Stone, 21, Mill Bay.
|
|
Folkestone Express 20 November 1897.
Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W.
Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly was charged with stealing from a hut on the 8th
November a live tame rabbit, value 4s., the property of William
Stone, of 21, Mill Bay.
Prosecutor, a labourer, said the rabbit produced was his, and it was
kept at the back of his house in a hutch in Mill Bay in the yard. He
saw it on Monday evening at seven o'clock. At nine o'clock he saw
the door of the hutch was open, and on going to look for the rabbit
found it was gone. He saw it again on Thursday in the possession of
a man named Bell, at 38, Bradstone Road. Its value was 4s. The yard
was open to several houses, and prisoner had been there several
times.
William John Bell, of 38, Bradstone Road, a mariner, said he bought
the rabbit of prisoner at the Blue Anchor about a quarter to nine on
Monday night. Prisoner asked half a crown for it, and witness bought
it for 2s. and a pint of beer. Prisoner said it was his rabbit, but
he had no convenience for keeping it.
Sergeant Dunster apprehended the prisoner and charged him with the
theft. He said “Yes. I bought the rabbit from a man they call
“Chalky Harry””. Afterwards he said he bought it from a man called
“Bricky Tom”. At the police station, when charged, he said he did
not steal the rabbit – ho bought it from another man and gave 1s.
for it.
Prisoner persisted that he bought it, but did not know whether he
could find the man from whom he bought it. He was remanded
till Monday.
Monday, November 15th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly, who had been remanded on Friday, was charged with
stealing a rabbit.
Joseph Compron, of 14, Radnor Street, said he was in the bar of the
Wonder Tavern on Monday evening, when he saw “Navvy Tom” speaking to
prisoner. Afterwards they went out, and when they came in prisoner
was carrying a parcel. Prisoner gave Tom a shilling and called for a
quart of beer.
Adelaide Warman, of the Providence Inn, said that “Navvy Tom” came
into the bar one night, and asked her if she wanted to buy a tame
rabbit. She said “No”.
The Chairman: Well, prisoner, although you have called these
witnesses, there seems no doubt that you stole the rabbit. We might
send you to prison, but we think a fine will answer the purpose. We
shall fine you £1, and in default you will have to go to prison for
14 days.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 20 November 1897.
Police Court Record.
Thomas Riley was charged on remand with stealing a live, tame
rabbit.
In addition to the evidence previously taken as to the rabbit being
missed from a hutch in the back yard of William stone, 21, Mill Bay,
labourer, Joseph Compton, a labourer, 14, Radnor Street, deposed
that on the night of the 8th inst. he saw a man known as “Navvy Tom”
speak to defendant in the Wonder Tavern and hand him a parcel. The
defendant returned later and gave “Navvy Tom” a shilling, which
“Tom” handed to another man, and called for a quart of beer.
The daughter of the landlady of the Providence deposed that one
night a watercress seller (known as “Navvy Tom”) asked her if she
wanted a tame rabbit, and she replied in the negative.
The defendant's defence at the first hearing of the case was that he
got the rabbit from another man.
The Bench fined defendant £1, or 14 days' hard labour.
The man called “Navvy Tom” was then charged with stealing the rabbit
from a hutch.
In view of the Bench's decision in the previous case, Superintendent
Taylor asked that the charge might be withdrawn.
This was agreed to by the Bench.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1898.
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G.
Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Mrs. Worsley was granted the transfer of the Blue Anchor, formerly
held by her late husband.
Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 17 September 1898.
Police Court Record.
On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mrs. Worsley, Blue Anchor.
|
|
Folkestone Up To Date 17 September 1898.
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Ald. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G.
Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Transfer was made to Mrs. Ellen Worsley, Blue Anchor Inn (Mr. Watts,
solicitor, for applicant).
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 21 January 1899.
Wednesday, January 18th: Before Messrs. Willoughby Carter, Pledge,
Vaughan and Holden.
Licence Transfer.
Blue Anchor, Seagate Street, from Ellen Worsley to James Bugg.
|
|
Folkestone Express 21 January 1899.
Wednesday, January 18th: Before Capt. Carter, James Pledge, John
Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.
Mr. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Blue
Anchor, Seagate Street, to Mr. James Budd. Granted.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 21 January 1899.
Folkestone Police Court.
On Wednesday last transfer was granted to the following: Mr. Berg
(sic), Blue Anchor.
|
|
Folkestone Up To Date 21 January 1899.
Wednesday, January 18th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J.
Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.
On the application of Mr. Haines, the Blue Anchor, Seagate Street,
formerly kept by Mrs. Worsley, to Mr. James Budd (sic).
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 17 November 1900.
Friday, November 16th: Before J. Fitness and J. Stainer Esqs.
Mr. Walter Whiting, late of Ashford, was granted temporary authority
to sell at the Blue Anchor, Beach Street.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 17 November 1900.
Friday, November 16th: Before Messrs. Fitness and Stainer.
The licence of the Blue Anchor public house, Beach Street, was
temporarily transferred to Walter Whiting.
|
|
Folkestone Express 8 December 1900.
Wednesday, December 5th: Before J. Hoad, W.C. Carpenter, T.J.
Vaughan, J. Stainer, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and G. Peden Esqs.,
and Lieut. Col. Westropp.
Mr. Arthur Whiting was granted a transfer of the Blue Anchor
licence.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 8 December 1900.
Wednesday, December 5th: Before Mr. J. Hoad, Lieut Col. Westropp,
Alderman Pledge, Councillors Carpenter and Peden, and Messrs.
Wightwick, Vaughan, and Stainer.
The following licence was transferred: Blue Anchor from James Bugg
to Walter Whiting.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 20 April 1901.
Saturday, April 13th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Herbert, Swoffer,
Salter, and Wightwick, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
Alfred Smith appeared to answer a summons charging him with being
drunk on licensed premises. Defendant pleaded Guilty.
P.C. Prebble said that on Monday evening he was called to the Blue
anchor at 6.30 to put prisoner out. Again at 9.30 he was called to
the house of Walter Whiting for the purpose of ejecting defendant.
Fined 9s. and 5s. costs.
|
|
Folkestone Express 20 April 1901.
Saturday, April 13th: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, and G.I.
Swoffer Esqs., and Alderman Salter.
Alfred Smith was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, the
Blue Anchor, on April the 8th.
He pleaded guilty, and in answer to Mr. Wightwick said he had been
about in various public houses.
Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.
|
|
Folkestone Express 24 May 1902.
Saturday, May 17th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Colonel W.K.
Westropp, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.
Emily Small, a well-known character, who did not appear, was
summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.
Walter Whiting, landlord of the Blue Anchor Inn, in Beach Street,
said on Wednesday the defendant entered the bar and asked for a man
who was not there. She then caused a disturbance, throwing beer
about and breaking the utensils. He told her to leave, and as she
refused he sent for a policeman, but as one was not forthcoming he
ejected her himself. She was the worse for drink, but he had not
served her with any.
P.C. Prebble said about 8.45 p.m. on Wednesday he saw a large crowd,
in the centre of which was the defendant, who was trying to gain an
entrance into the Blue Anchor public house. She was very violent,
and struck several blows at the landlord, but he guarded them off.
Eventually she went away, after creating a disturbance.
Ten previous convictions were proved, including no less than six
sentences of fourteen days.
The Bench imposed a fine of 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 24 May 1902.
Saturday, May 17th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Mr. W. Chas. Carpenter,
and Colonel Westropp.
Emily Small was convicted in her absence of having refused to quit
the Blue Anchor Inn, Beach Street, on the previous Wednesday
evening. She was very disorderly, and a policeman (Prebble) was
called to eject her. Ten previous convictions. Fined 10s. and costs,
or 14 days'.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 5 July 1902.
Wednesday, July 2nd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and
C.J. Pursey.
James Flemming appeared to answer a summons for assaulting Walter
Whiting, landlord of the Blue Anchor.
Mr. Whiting said defendant came to his house at 10.30 p.m. on the
26th of June. Witness refused to serve him, upon which came a volley
of bad language. After defendant had refused to quit the house on
three successive requests a policeman was sent for. When the
constable came defendant was outside the house, and on his name and
address being taken defendant butted witness with his head.
The Chairman: Butted you like a ram, eh?
Witness: Yes. (Laughter) The defendant, he added, came round next
day and apologised.
P.C. Johnson corroborated.
Defendant said that he was drunk, but he did not commit any assault;
he simply fell up against the complainant. He could not have put
himself in a fighting attitude, as his missus got locked up the same
night and he had to take the baby.
Fined 10s. and 10s. costs, or 14 days'.
Defendant: I'll have to do the 14 days, I suppose.
|
|
Folkestone Express 5 July 1902.
Wednesday, July 2nd: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and C.J.
Pursey Esqs.
Walter Whiting, landlord of the Blue Anchor, summoned James Flemming
for assault.
Complainant stated that prisoner came into his house about 10.30
p.m. on the 26th June, and he refused to serve him. As he persisted
in using bad language and complainant had asked him to quit the
premises three times, he went for a policeman. When he came back
defendant was standing outside. As the policeman was taking his name
and address, defendant butted complainant with his head.
The Chairman: He butted you like a ram? – Yes (Laughter)
Defendant came round the next day and apologised.
P.C. Johnson said he was called about 10.50 p.m. on the 26th June by
the last witness, who stated that defendant had been using bad
language on his licensed premises. Witness went into Beach Street,
and while taking defendant's name he put himself into a fighting
attitude and tried to strike Mr. Whiting, but was prevented by
another constable. He then charged at the complainant.
Defendant: Why didn't you stop me?
The defence was that he was intoxicated and fell against
complainant. He could not have put himself into a fighting attitude
because he had a baby in his arms.
The constable, re-called, denied this.
Defendant: I can bring hundreds of people to prove I had. The missus
got locked up the same night, so I had to take it.
The Magistrates imposed a fine of 10s. and 10s. costs, in default 14
days' hard labour.
Defendant: I suppose I shall have to do the 14 days.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 5 July 1902.
Tuesday, July 1st: Before Mr. Wightwick, and Aldermen Herbert and
Salter.
James Fleming was summoned for assaulting Walter Whiting.
Complainant said the defendant came into his house, the Blue Anchor,
and he refused to serve him because he had used bad language on
previous occasions, and requested him to quit. Witness then went for
a policeman, and when he came back defendant was outside. As the
policeman was taking his name and address, defendant butted
complainant with his head. Defendant came round and apologised the
next morning.
P.C. Johnson also proved the assault.
Defendant said that he was intoxicated and fell against complainant.
Fined 10s. and 10s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment.
|
|
Folkestone Express 14 March 1903.
Letter.
Dear Sir,
May I crave a small space in your valuable paper to protest against
a wrong which I, with many others, consider unjustifiable.
At the Licensing Sessions held in February the stipulated fee of 8s.
6d. was charged for the renewal of a full licence, and at the
Adjourned Sessions in March 9s. 6d. was charged for the same.
Is it because they were put to the inconvenience of briefing
Counsel, likewise the anxiety and worry through no fault of their
own? I know of no statute authorising the same, and fail to see how
it could legally be charged. It seems to me like adding insult to
injury.
Perhaps some of your numerous readers might be able to enlighten me.
Apologising for encroaching on your valuable time and space.
I remain, dear sir,
Yours sincerely,
Walter Whiting,
Blue Anchor, Folkestone.
|
|
Folkestone Express 8 October 1904.
Thursday, October 6th: Before E.T. Ward, Ald. Vaughan, and Liuet.
Col. Fynmore.
James Butcher was charged with stealing a quantity of gin, value
sixpence, from the Blue Anchor Inn, Beach Street.
Walter Whiting, the landlord, said the previous afternoon he was in
a back room at the rear of the bar, and on coming through the
communicating door he saw the prisoner leaning across the counter,
turning a tap on of a gin cask on the private side of the bar. He
had a glass in his hand, which was also his (landlord's) property.
On asking prisoner what he was doing, he (prisoner) drank the gin
off and ran out of the bar, leaving the glass behind. Witness
followed, and as a constable was passing, gave information to him.
P.C. Sales said about 3.30 p.m. the previous afternoon, from
information received, he went in search of prisoner, and
subsequently found him in the Eagle Tavern, where he charged him
with the theft. Prisoner said he had not stolen anything, and was
not going to the police station. Witness eventually took him there
with assistance.
Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily.
He mad a rambling statement, which, however, soon fell through.
The Chairman said the prisoner had a very bad record. He had been
there constantly, and would have to go to prison for 14 days with
hard labour. He cautioned him about coming again, as they would have
to commit him for trial as a vagabond.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 8 October 1904.
Thursday, October 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan,
and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.
James Butcher was charged with stealing a quantity of gin, value
6d., from the Blue Anchor Inn, Beach Street.
Walter Whiting, landlord of the Blue Anchor Inn, stated that shortly
after three o'clock he saw the prisoner in the bar turning on the
tap of a gin barrel. There was nobody else in the bar. Witness said
to prisoner “What are you at?”, whereupon Butcher drank a quantity
of the neat gin and ran out of the bar, exclaiming “Catch me if you
can”.
P.S. Sales proved searching for the prisoner for three quarters of
an hour on Wednesday afternoon, and finding him in the Eagle Tavern,
High Street. There he charged him with the theft. He replied “I
haven't stole nothing, and I shan't go to the police station”. With
the assistance of P.C. Johnson, he was taken to the station and
again charged.
Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and denied that he had
stolen the gin. He refused to sign the ordinary for of declaration,
and created much amusement by detailing to the Bench by detailing
his adventures of the previous day and by his futile attempt to
obtain witnesses from the back of the Court to support him in his
plea of Not Guilty.
The Chairman: James Butcher, I have heard a very bad record against
you. You have constantly been up here. The Bench sentence you to 14
days' imprisonment. If you come here again you will be sent for
trial as a vagabond.
Prisoner: Thank you, sir.
|
|
Folkestone Express 22 July 1905.
Wednesday, July 19th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey
and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
The licence of the Blue Anchor was temporarily transferred from
Walter Whiting to George Walter Stoner.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 22 July 1905.
Wednesday, July 19th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. C.J. Pursey,
Mr. Stainer, and Colonel Hamilton.
The licence of the Black Anchor Inn was transferred from Wm. Stone
to George Waller.
Note: A misreporting of the 1st order. This is the Blue Anchor from
Whiting to Stonar!
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 30 August 1905.
Wednesday, August 30th: Before Ald. Herbert, Messrs. Carpenter,
Salter, Fynmore, Vaughan, Westropp, and Hamilton.
An application for the transfer of the Blue Anchor from Joseph
Whiting to George Edward Stoner was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 2 September 1905.
Wednesday, August 30th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols.
Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Aldermen Salter and Vaughan.
Alderman Vaughan did not adjudicate.
The Blue Anchor: Temporary authority having been previously granted,
Mr. G.W. Stonar applied for the transfer of the licence of the Blue
Anchor from Walter Whiting.
Mr. Loftus Banks (an agent) proved the service of the usual notices,
and the application was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Express 2 September 1905.
Wednesday, August 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Aldermen Vaughan
and Salter, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, and W.C.
Carpenter Esq.
Application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Blue
Anchor from Walter Whiting to George Walter Stone (sic).
The Chief Constable explained that the temporary transfer was
granted in June.
The application was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 2 September 1905.
Wednesday, August 30th: Before Aldermen W.G. Herbert, W. Salter, and
T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and
Westropp, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.
The licence of the Blue Anchor was temporarily transferred from
Walter Whiting to G.W. Stonar.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1906.
Annual Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey,
Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.
The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone
Chronicle)
Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases of
drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police
in carrying out their duties.
The Welcome public house was objected to on the ground of
misconduct. The Hope, the Channel, the Providence, the Tramway and
the Blue Anchor were objected to on the ground that they were not
required. All the other licences were granted.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1906.
Annual Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G.
Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C.
Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.
On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual
report, which was as follows:-
“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present
within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of
intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer
“off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5,
Confectioners 3.
This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one
licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326
persons.
Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a
chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for
the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to
133, or one to every 230 persons.
At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the
renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee
for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four
of the licences were refused and two renewed.
The licences which were refused were:- the Victoria Inn, South
Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street;
and Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each
case and the houses closed.
Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been
transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.
During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the
justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not
ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary
time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls,
dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.
During the year ended 31st December last 183 persons (135 males and
48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were
convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons
proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the
previous year.
Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz.,
the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and
costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has
since transferred the licence and left the house.
Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in
accordance with the Act of 1902.
There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for
public billiard playing.
With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in
a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I
offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome
Inn, Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the
renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing
Meeting.
I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail
themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer
the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the
Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there
are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the
requirements of the neighbourhood.
I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested
area, also the public houses within the area.
Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with
42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house
to every 109 persons.
There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for
sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine
on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership
of 898”.
The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief
Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had
been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the
preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The
Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop
excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious
circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no
information where the drink was obtained.
The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then
renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover
Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve
notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other
instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of
objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the
houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope, Fenchurch
Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.
|
|
Folkestone Express 10 February 1906.
Annual Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett,
Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J.
Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.
The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone
Chronicle for details)
The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the
licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one
conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year
there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough.
They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much
as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing
where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence
holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their
premises.
All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief
Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and
owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were
not necessary; The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch
Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and
the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices
with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of misconduct.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 10 February 1906.
Annual Licensing Sessions.
The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The
Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the
general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut.
Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr.
R.J. Linton.
The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see
Folkestone Chronicle)
It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions the
licences of the Blue Anchor, the Providence, the Welcome, the
Tramway, the Channel, and the Hope would be opposed, on the ground
that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood.
The licence holders of those houses received this information as
they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 13 February 1906.
Local News.
The annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were
held on Wednesday, before E.T. Ward Esq., in the chair.
The Chief Constable reported that there were 136 premises licensed
for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz., full licenses 85, beer
“on” 9, beer “off” 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12,
chemists 5, and confectioners' 3. This gave an average, according to
the census of 1901, of one license to every 225 persons, or one “on”
license to every 326 persons. Three of the “off” licenses (two held
by spirit dealers and one by a chemist), would not be renewed, as
the premises were no longer used for the sale of drink, thus
reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230
persons. During the year ended 31st December, 183 persons (135 males
and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were,
convicted and 19 discharged. This was an increase of 12 persons
proceeded against, and 8, convicted as compared with the preceding
year. Only one license holder had been convicted during the year.
All the licenses were granted with the exception of six. The Chief
Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and
owners of the following houses on the ground that they were not
necessary: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street;
the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor Beach Street; and the
Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notice with
regard to the Welcome Inn, on the ground of misconduct.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 24 February 1906.
Saturday, February 24th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, G. Spurgen, T.
Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.
Mr. George Stonar appeared to answer a complaint of letting his
chimney catch fire.
P.S. Lawrence stated that on Tuesday he saw a chimney on fire at the
Blue Anchor, Beach Street, kept by the defendant. He went into the
bar and saw a small fire, with soot falling down. Defendant's wife
was trying to put the fire out, and witness assisted her. He told
her he should report the circumstance. She informed him that there
had been no fire previously in the grate during the seven months
they had occupied the house.
He was fined 2s. 6d., costs remitted.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 5 March 1906.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
Monday, March 5th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, C.J.
Pursey, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col.
Hamilton.
The Blue Anchor.
This licence was opposed on the grounds of its not being required,
and the Bench decided to refer it to Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Mercer appeared in the above case for the owners.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 10 March 1906.
Adjourned Licensing Meeting.
The Adjourned Annual General Licensing Sessions were held at the
Town Hall on Monday, when the Chief Constable opposed the renewal of
five licences on the ground of redundancy, and one on the ground of
misconduct. The evidence was of the usual technical order, where a
whole host of police witnesses testified to an extraordinary state
of things which had apparently gone on for years. The sitting lasted
from 11 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., and was only relieved by one little
light episode when Mr. Mercer on two occasions quoted the Folkestone
Herald as bearing upon a case heard at the Court, and on each
occasion the Chairman saying that the report was wrong, whereupon
Mr. Mercer intimated that he should give up taking the Herald.
The Bench sitting on Monday morning were Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman
W.G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey,
Mr. W. Linton, and Major Leggatt.
The Blue Anchor.
This house is next door to the Providence, is the property of
Messrs. Ash and Co., and the tenant is George Walter Stonar.
Mr. Mercer again appeared for the brewers and tenant to oppose the
application for the non-renewal of the licence. The facts as to
statistics relating to the congested area were the same as the last
case, and admitted without reiteration.
The Chief Constable said there was an entrance to the house on both
sides. The accommodation for the public was a bar and tap room. The
licence had been transferred eight times in 12 years. There appeared
to him to be a very small trade done, and in his opinion the renewal
of the licence was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood.
By Mr. Mercer: The house was well conducted.
Mr. Mercer, addressing the Magistrates, wondered why the Chief
Constable had got the idea that the house was not wanted. They had
an average of 175½ barrels and 77½ gallons of spirits for a five
years' average, besides extra profits, such as from teas (laughter)
and refreshments. Only that morning, when viewing the property, he
had seen a man emerge from one of the houses with a large piece of
bread, etc. There was a very good trade with this class of
refreshment.
The Chairman: The Bench have decided to report to Quarter Sessions.
|
|
Folkestone Express 10 March 1906.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday, when the six
licences which were adjourned from the Brewster Sessions were
considered. On the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore,
Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton
Esqs.
The Blue Anchor.
The licence of the Blue Anchor Inn was next considered. The tenant
and the owners were represented by Mr. Mercer.
The Chief Constable said the house was situate in Beach Street, and
the licensee was George Walter Stoner, who obtained a transfer of
the licence on August 30th last year. The registered owners were
Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value was £20. The
house was one of the block to which was referred in the last case,
and it adjoined the Providence. The licence had been transferred
eight times within the past twelve years. There appeared to him to
be a very small trade done at the house, and in his opinion it was
not in accord with the requirements and needs of the neighbourhood.
In answer to Mr. Mercer, the Chief Constable said the house was well
conducted. There had been three changes of the licence within seven
years, and two within six.
Mr. Mercer said he could not imagine a place where they had better
provision for police supervision. In that case he would like to hear
why the licence was not wanted. The trade done at the house averaged
175½ barrels and 77½ gallons of spirits for the past five years.
The Chairman: You will have to go to the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Mercer: I am afraid I shall be busy if I go on.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 10 March 1906.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
Monday, March 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr.
R.J. Linton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Mr. T. Ames.
The Blue Anchor.
In the case of the "Blue Anchor" Mr. Mercer also appeared for the
owner's.
The Chief Constable said the house was situated in Beach Street. The
present licensee was George Walter Stoner, who obtained a transfer of
the licence on 30th August last year. The registered owners were Messes.
Ash and Co. Canterbury. The rateable value was £20. The house was also
one of the block referred to in his last evidence, and adjoined the "Providence."
There was an entrance on each side of the house. The accommodation
consisted of the bar and Tap Room for the use of the public. The licence
had been transferred 8 times in the past 12 years. Within a radius of
100 yards, there were 21 other on licences, within a radius of 150
yards, 31, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 33. The house
appeared do a very small trade, and, in his opinion, the licence was
unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The house has been well conducted.
There had been two changes in six years.
Mr. Mercer said his house had a back entrance, and he could not
imagine any position better for the police supervision. The trade was
175 1/2 in five years, and seventy seven and a quarter gallons of
Spirits. That was good enough.
The chairman said the case would have to go to quarter sessions, but
Mr. Mercer was right in saying that it was very hard to choose one house
among so many.
|
|
Folkestone Express 30 June 1906.
Friday, June 22nd: Before W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
Edward Sings was charged with being drunk and disorderly the
previous night in Beach Street. Defendant admitted the offence.
P.C. Smith said at ten minutes past nine the previous evening he was
called to the Blue Anchor public house, where he saw the prisoner
sitting just outside. The landlord was ordering him out as he was
drunk. However, he refused to leave, so he (witness) ejected him.
When outside he began to use very bad language, and refused to go
away when requested. He caused a large crowd to assemble, so witness
had to take him into custody. Owing to his violence prisoner had to
be handcuffed in order to get him to the police station.
Inspector Lilley said the prisoner had not been before the
Magistrates for the last six years.
Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.
Prisoner's wife was in the Court and refused to pay the fine.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 30 June 1906.
Saturday, June 30th: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. Herbert,
Swoffer, Leggett, and Stainer.
George Walter Stonar was charged with permitting drunkenness at the
Blue Anchor.
Mrs. Sings deposed that she went to the Blue Anchor in Beach Street,
and saw her husband leaning at the counter of the bar. He was very
drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and her husband's beer was
on the counter. Her husband swore at her, and she took the glass of
beer and threw it out the door. She told the landlady she should
fetch a policeman.
Cross-examined: It was my husband's beer that I threw away.
P.C. Smith deposed that he went to the Blue Anchor, and saw the beer
had been thrown away. He went into the bar and found Sings very
drunk. The landlady was behind the counter, and there was an empty
glass on the bar. The landlord said “I want this man outside”. Sings
said he was a better man than witness. Witness, however, ejected him
and took him to the police station, where he was charged with being
drunk.
By Mr. De Wet: Mrs. Sings said “Here he is”. I asked him to leave
the house. When he got outside he called his wife a bad name. I told
him to go away. A man and a boy were singing. The other men had
beer.
Sergt. Osborne said he was at the police station when Sings was
brought in drunk.
G.W. Stonar, landlord of the Blue Anchor, deposed that Sings came
into his house with two other men. They hadthree pints of beer, and
were all sober. Some others came in, and they went on chatting for
an hour. Sings then became excited. Mrs. Sings came in, and left to
fetch a policeman. Witness asked Sings to go. The policeman came,
and then Sings went out himself. Mrs. Sings came to the house three
months since and complained of drunkenness, and said if they served
her husband with drink she would report them.
Mrs. Stonar, landlady, deposed that between 6 and 7 she served the
three men with a pint of beer each. She said to Sings “Teddy, you
had better go, or your wife will come and swear you are drunk”, as
she had previously threatened to do. Sings had two pints and a half
of beer. Mrs. Sings went for a policeman, who came and took Sings
into custody.
The Chairman: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that the case is
proved. He defendant knew perfectly well that the man was in teh
habit of getting drunk, therefore his conduct was very bad. The
penalty is £10, but the fine will be 50s. and 13s. costs, or one
month.
The fine was at once paid.
|
|
Folkestone Express 7 July 1906.
Saturday, June 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggett, and J.
Stainer Esq.
George Walter Stonar, the landlord of the Blue Anchor public house,
was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on
June 21st. Mr. De Wet represented the defendant.
Emma Sings, of 9, St. John's Road, said she was the wife of Edward
Sings, a pilot and boatman. On Thursday, June 21st, she went to the
Blue Anchor in Beach Street between eight and nine o'clock. She went
into the bar, where she found her husband leaning on the counter. He
was very drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and there were
three other men in the bar. Her husband had a pint glass half full
of beer in front of him. She asked him if he was going home and he
swore at her. He took up the glass and drank some of the beer, and
then stood the glass on the counter, and she took it up and threw
the contents out into the street. She told the landlady she should
fetch a policeman. Her husband had been there frequently drunk. She
went and fetched P.C. Smith, who was at the bottom of the Tram Road.
She took him to the house, and on the way she showed him the beer
which she had thrown out of the door. The constable went into the
bar, and as her husband abused him he put him out. Outside there was
a disturbance and a large crowd collected, and eventually her
husband was arrested. When she saw her husband leaning on the
counter, she could tell he was drunk by his attitude.
Cross-examined, she said she was not aware that it was someone
else's beer her husband was drinking. She had had a lot of trouble
with her husband. She went into the Blue Anchor three months ago and
told the landlady not to serve him. She denied calling the landlady
a bad woman. She had threatened to fetch a policeman before if they
served her husband with drink. She had known him go into the house
sober, and come out drunk.
Re-examined, she said she did call the landlady a bad woman for
trusting her husband to the amount of 35s. for beer.
P.C. Smith said the last witness came to him on the evening of June
21st and made a complaint to him. In consequence he went to the
public bar of the Blue Anchor with her. On the path outside the
house he saw a wet mark, and Mrs. Sings made a statement with regard
to it. He entered the public bar, which was a very narrow one.
Inside he found Edward Sings with three other men. The defendant was
behind the bar. Sings was drunk, and was standing about a foot away
from the counter. There was an empty glass opposite to where he was
standing. As he entered the house, the landlord pointed to Sings and
ordered him out. He (witness) asked him to go out quietly. As he
refused to go, he ejected him on account of his disorderly conduct,
and at the landlord's request. Outside the house the prisoner became
disorderly, so he took him into custody. Anyone could have noticed
he was drunk.
Cross-examined, he said when outside he told Sings to go away
quietly. Sings was of an excitable nature when he was drunk. A boy
was singing, and a man was playing outside the Queen's Head. The
landlord told him he wanted Sings out of the house. He certainly
ejected him.
P.S. Osborne said shortly after nine o'clock on June 21st, Sings was
brought into the police station by two constables. He was very
drunk.
Cross-examined, witness said Sings was not charged with being found
drunk on licensed premises, but with being drunk and disorderly in
Beach Street. He was convicted for the latter offence.
The defendant went into the witness box. He said he had held the
licence since July 9th of last year. Previous to that he had held an
off licence in Sharlston, near Wakefield. Sings came into his house
on June 21st with two other men, Philpott and Peden. His wife served
them with a pint of beer each. All three were perfectly sober. Two
others came in, and they all began chaffing one another. They bagan
to ask Sings questions about his work as a pilot, and also suggested
that he could not do certain things. Sings became excited, and it
went on for an hour, when the two who had come in last went into
another room, because they were asked to stop the chaffing as Sings
was making too much noise. His wife also said to Sings “You know
what your wife has promised to do. You had better get out before she
comes”. Soon after that Mrs. Sings came. The beer which was by the
side of Sings on the counter was his (defendant's) beer, for which a
customer had paid. After Mrs. Sings went out he asked her husband to
go, so as not to get them into any bother. Sings then turned stupid
or stubborn, and said he would stop there until his wife returned
with the constable. He advised Sings to go when the policeman came,
and he went out without being ejected. When he got to the door he
said all the policemen in Folkestone could not lock him up. When his
wife came Sings got agitated, and he did not know whether he was on
his head or his feet.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said the chaffing went on
for an hour. Sings' wife made him stupid, and added to his
excitement. He had read in the papers that Sings pleaded guilty to
being drunk and disorderly. He saw Sings supplied with a pint and a
half after the first pint of beer.
Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar said on June 21st she served Sings and his two
companions with a pint of beer each. She corroborated her husband as
to the chaffing, and said it went too far. Shortly after, Mrs. Sings
came and said she would fetch a policeman and swear he was drunk.
She also said she (witness) encouraged him there, and further said
she was a bad woman. The man was only served with two pints and a
half during the time he was in the house. Sings was only excited,
and became more excited when his wife came and threw the beer into
the street. There was no truth in the statement that he owed 30s.
for beer.
Mr. De Wet alluded to the fact that Sings was not charged with being
drunk on licensed premises. That case was an act of spite on Mrs.
Sings' part. He urged that every reasonable step was taken by the
defendant that drunken people should not be served, and he thought
the evidence of Mrs. Stonar would show that everything possible to
be done was done.
The Chairman, in announcing their decision, said they thought the
defendant knew perfectly well Sings was in the habit of getting
drunk, and they considered his conduct was very bad. They were
unanimously of opinion that the case was proved. They could fine him
£10, but they would mitigate the penalty to a quarter of that
amount, 50s., while he would also have to pay 15s. costs.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 7 July 1906.
Saturday, June 30th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett,
and Mr. J. Stainer.
George Walter Stonar, landlord of the Blue Anchor, was summoned for
permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. De Wet appeared on
his behalf, and denied the offence.
Mrs. Sings, 9, St. John's Road, deposed that her husband was a
pilot. On Thursday, 21st June, she went to the Blue Anchor, in Beach
Street, a few minutes nine o'clock. She saw her husband inside at
the counter of the public bar. He was leaning against the counter,
and was very drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and there were
three other man on the same side of the bar as her husband. He had a
pint glass, half full, close to him on the counter when witness went
in. She asked him if he was coming home, and he swore at her – a
thing he usually did when he was like that. He took the glass up and
drank some beer, and when he put it down on the counter witness took
it up and threw the contents out of the bar, saying he was very
drunk, and ought not to have any more beer. She then told the
landlady she would fetch a policeman, as she could not stand it any
more, and she should fetch one because the landlady had served her
husband with the beer, and he was very drunk. She could not tell
what answer the landlady made, because she did not wait to hear. She
found a policeman (P.C. Smith) at the bottom of the Tram Road, and
took him to her husband inside the bar. Mr. Sings would not go out
when the policeman asked him to. He was accordingly put out, and as
there was a disturbance outside, her husband was eventually
arrested. She could tell her husband was drunk by the attitude in
which he was leaning against the bar counter.
Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: She was not aware it was someone
else's beer she threw away. If it had been, the landlady would have
told her. She had had a great deal of trouble with her husband. She
remembered going into the Blue Anchor about three months ago. She
called Mrs. Stonar a bad woman, and said at that time “If ever he
comes in here again I will fetch a policeman, and I shall report you
for serving my husband when he is drunk” Her husband might have
called her a bad name, and said it was all her fault when the
policeman put him outside. It was outside that he was arrested.
Re-examined by the Chief Constable: They had had a most unhappy life
through her husband's drunkenness. When she called Mrs. Stonar a bad
woman, she was referring to her trusting her husband for the money
for the beer.
P.C. Smith deposed that he went with Mrs. Sings to the Blue Anchor.
He entered the public bar; it was a very small and narrow one.
Inside he found Edward Sings with three other men. Defendant was
behind the bar. Sings was drunk, and was standing just inside the
bar when witness entered. An empty glass was on the counter opposite
Sings. As witness entered the house the landlord pointed to Edward
Sings, ordering him out, and said “I want this man outside”. Witness
told Sings to go outside quietly. The landlord did not say why he
wanted Sings out. The latter refused to go, and said “I am a better
---- man than you are”. Witness accordingly ejected him. Outside
Sings became disorderly, and witness took him into custody. Sings
was in such a state of drunkenness that anyone could notice it. His
conduct caused such a crowd to assemble that the street was blocked
up. It was necessary for witness and another constable to handcuff
Sings on the way to the station.
Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Mrs. Sings did not say “That is him”.
Witness did not say “Come along, Ted, and get off home”. When Sings
got out of the house, he turned round to his wife and called her a
bad name. Sings seemed all right when he was sober, but was rather
excitable when he was drunk. Witness was aware there was a boy
singing and playing outside the Queen's Head at the time, and there
were several people listening. He only saw one empty glass on the
counter, but there were others containing beer.
P.S. Osborne deposed that he was on duty at the police station on
the night that Sings was brought in by the last witness and another
constable. Sings was very drunk, and had handcuffs on.
George Walter Stonar, the defendant, called by Mr. De Wet, said he
was the licence holder of the Blue Anchor, and had held it since
1905. Previously he had had an off licence in another part of the
country for several years. He had never before been summoned for any
contravention of the licensing laws. He knew Sings, and saw him come
into his house on the 21st June. He came in with two other men.
Witness's wife served them with three pints of beer. This was
between 6.30 and 7 p.m. The men were perfectly sober, and there was
nothing to lead one to suppose that they were otherwise. They
remained there “talking and chaffing”, and afterwards someone else
came in. They were asking Sings certain seafaring questions,
suggesting he could not do this and that. The chaff went on for
about an hour. The two men, Hart and Featherbe, then went into
another room. During the whole time Sings was in the bar witness
personally did not serve him. The other men had excited Sings too
much by their chaff, and witness asked them to stop it, as he was
getting too excited. Witness's wife said to Sings “Well, look here.
Ted, you know what your wife has promised to do, and you had better
get off before she comes”. Witness was not there when Mrs. Sings
entered, but came in when she had gone to fetch a policeman, and
said to Sings “Don't get us into any bother; your wife has gone to
fetch a policeman, and you be outside when he comes”. What with the
chaffing, and the excitement of his wife's coming, Sings had turned
stupid-like, and refused to go. Witness was advising him to go when
the policeman came and ordered him out. Sings was not ejected, but
went out of the house himself, and when he got to the door he said
that all the policemen in Folkestone could not lock him up. What
with the chaffing, and his wife throwing the glass away, he did not
know whether he was on his head or his heels, and he made a dirty
remark to his wife. About three months ago Mrs. Sings came into the
house seeking her husband, and said she had had too much drunkenness
at one place and another, and if she saw him in the Blue Anchor
again she would fetch a policeman at once. On that occasion her
husband was there. The day on which Sings was ejected was the first
time Mrs. Sings had been to the Blue Anchor and found her husband
there since the threat. She had, however, been in three or four
times, and not found him there. He had given his wife instructions
as to the requirements of the Licensing Act. They were that if
anyone came in the worse for drink she was not to serve them, and
also if she thought it was better that they should not have any more
she was not to serve them.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Sings had never been indebted
to him to a greater extent than a shilling at one time for drink.
The man's excitement had been on for about an hour. He did not think
the drink had anything to do with that, because he had not had
enough. Witness was not present in Court the next day when Sings was
brought up, but he saw in the paper that he pleaded Guilty to being
drunk and disorderly in Beach Street.
Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar, the wife of the defendant, said that on June
21st she was in the bar. She corroborated her husband's evidence as
to the chaffing taking place. It went a bit too far, and she asked
the other people to desist, saying if Sings' wife came in she would
swear he was drunk, as she had threatened to. Mrs. Stonar also
confirmed her husband's testimony as to Mrs. Sings' threat about
three months before. She was the only person who served Sings on
this occasion, and he had two pints and a half of beer altogether.
It was very usual for a person to come into a house and buy a glass
of beer, and remain in the house for about an hour with that one
glass. The witness then detailed the scene in the house. When the
policeman came she said “This is nothing to do with us”. In her
opinion Sings was only in a very excited condition. There was no
truth in the statement that at one time Sings owed her 30s. for
drink.
Cross-examined: Sings was very excited and became stupid. He became
more excited when the policeman came. Two and a half pints of beer
should not make him excited. She supposed that as he was excited the
policeman was justified in arresting him outside. She asked him to
go outside before the policeman came.
Re-examined: She asked him to go before Mrs. Sings came.
Mr. De Wet contended that in view of the seriousness of the charge
and inconclusiveness of the evidence, the Bench should give his
client the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case. He had
intended to call one of the three men concerned to prove the
chaffing, but they were at sea.
Alderman Herbert said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that
the case was proved, and that defendant knew perfectly well that
Sings was in the habit of getting drunk. It was a very bad case, and
defendant would be fined 50s. and 13s. costs.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 1 October 1906.
Canterbury Licensing Sessions.
At the Canterbury Licensing Sessions today the question of the
renewal of the licences of The Hope, The Tramway, The Providence,
and The Blue Anchor came up for hearing. Lord Harris presided. The
Folkestone Licensing Justices were represented by Mr. T. Matthew,
instructed by Mr. H.B. Bradley.
The case occupied some time, and eventually the justices unanimously
decided not to grant the renewal of either of the licences, but to
uphold and confirm the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Bench.
The question of compensation will come up for consideration at a
later date.
|
|
Folkestone Express 6 October 1906.
Local News.
On Monday last the East Kent Licensing Bench at Canterbury
considered the question of renewing the licences of the Providence,
the Hope, the Tramway Tavern, and the Blue Anchor, public houses
referred to them by the Folkestone licensing justices. In each case
they decided to refuse the granting of the licence, and the next
matter for them to consider will be how much compensation is to be
paid to the brewers and holders of the licences for the closing of
the houses.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 6 October 1906.
Local News.
The Compensation Authority for East Kent sat at Canterbury on Monday
and Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding.
Amongst the 31 houses scheduled, there were four from Folkestone.
These were; The Providence, Blue Anchor, the Hope, and the Tramway.
In the cases of the Blue Anchor and the Tramway, the owners and
tenants did not seek for renewals.
In the cases of the Providence, Blue Anchor and the Hope, the fixing
of the compensation was adjourned to a subsequent meeting.
|
|
Folkestone Daily News 16 October 1906.
Tuesday, October 16th: Before Messrs. Stainer, Ames, and Leggett.
Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.
Mrs. Stonar deposed that she was the landlady of the Blue Anchor.
The prisoner came into the bar and begged of two customers. She
asked her to go, and she threw a glass at her. It just touched her
face. Two men held her till her husband came, when she went for a
constable and gave her into custody.
Mary Ann McCarthy said nothing.
The Chief Constable said she was a nuisance to East Kent. She had
numerous convictions against her.
She was sentenced to a month's hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Express 20 October 1906.
Tuesday, October 16th: Before J. Stainer Esq., Major Leggett, and T.
Ames Esq.
Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with assaulting the landlady of the
Blue Anchor Inn the previous evening, and also with being drunk on
licensed premises.
In answer to both charges she said she did not know anything about
them whatever. She had certainly had a drop of drink.
Elizabeth Stoner, the landlady of the Blue Anchor public house, said
the previous evening the woman came to her house about ten minutes
to seven. She was drunk, and went up to two customers in the bar and
asked for some coppers, so that she could get a night's lodgings.
Witness requested her to leave the house, in answer to which
McCarthy picked up a half pint glass and threw it at her. The glass
hit her on the cheek, and was broken by catching on the shelf behind
her. She then fetched a policeman and gave the prisoner into
custody.
P.C. L. Johnson said about seven the previous day he was called to
the Blue Anchor public house, where he saw the prisoner in the
public bar drunk. The last witness told him she wanted to give her
into custody for assaulting her. He took prisoner to the police
station, where she was charged with the two offences.
Prisoner said she did not wish to say anything.
The Chief Constable said the woman was a nuisance to the whole of
East Kent, and she had been convicted in almost every Court. She was
only before that Court a week ago, and was liberated from prison the
previous day. He had seven convictions in his book against her at
Folkestone, Dover, and Margate, but there were a number of others
throughout the county.
For being drunk on licensed premises, McCarthy was fined 10s. and
4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days hard labour, and for the assault she was
sent to prison for 14 days' hard labour, the sentences to run
consecutively.
Prisoner: I have no money whatever. I will do the time.
|
|
Folkestone Herald 20 October 1906.
Tuesday, October 16th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Major Leggett, and Mr.
T. Ames.
Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with being drunk on licensed premises,
and also with assaulting Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar, of the Blue Anchor,
Beach Street.
Mrs. Stonar said the prisoner, who was drunk, came to her house. She
did not ask for any drink, but asked two men in the bar for coppers
to keep her for the night. As prisoner was going out she took up a
half pint glass (the remains of which were produced), and threw it
at witness. It caught the side of her face, and hit the shelf
behind. One of the customers took hold of prisoner till her husband
came, and witness fetched a policeman.
P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that at about 7 p.m. on Monday night he
went to the Blue Anchor, where he saw prisoner in the public bar,
drunk. The last witness said to him “I wish to give this woman into
custody for assaulting me”.
Prisoner, on being asked if she had anything to say, replied in the
negative, adding that she did not know anything at all about it.
The Chief Constable said prisoner was a nuisance to the whole of
East Kent. There were seven convictions against her at Folkestone,
Dover, and Margate, and there were numbers of others throughout the
county.
The Chairman said the prisoner was an old offender and would be
fined for being drunk 10s. and 14s. costs, or 14 days', and for the
assault she would have 14 days' imprisonment, the sentences to run
consecutively.
Prisoner said she could not pay, and “would have to do it”.
|
LICENSEE LIST
BROWN Edward 1717+
FULLER William c1741+
TOLPUTT Stephen c1765-69
TOLPUTT Sarah 1769-72
TOLPUTT Elizabeth 1772-73
MARKS Thomas 1773-79+
INGE Richard to 1793
HOGBEN John 1793-94
MATSON John 1794
DUNBAR William 1794-96
HALL James 1796-1801
HAMBROOK Richard 1801-20
RICHARDSON Thomas 1820-41+ (age 65 in 1841 )
RICHARDSON Thomas John to 63 (also fish-dealer age 57 in 1861)
      
WARMAN G 1863-66
PEEL John 1866-70
VYE John 1870-78
(age 48 in 1871)
SMITH Stephen 1878-79
MARCH Thomas 1879
BRICE Richard 1879
DRURY John 1879-82
STYLES William 1882
SAUNDERS Joseph 1882-85
KINGSFORD-HOUSON Caroline 1885-87
SNELLING William 1887-88
NORMAN Christian 1888-94
(age 42 in 1891)
HAMILTON James 1894
HAMILTON Jane 1894-95
BEATON William 1895-96
WORSLEY Henry 1896-99
BUGG Jim 1899-1900
WHITING Walter 1900-05 (age 49 in 1901)
 
STONAR George 1905-06
From the Pigot's Directory 1823
From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29
From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34
From the Pigot's Directory 1839
From the Pigot's Directory 1840
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From the Post Office Directory 1862
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Kelly's Directory 1903
From More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney
|
