Folkestone Express 12 January 1895.

Advertisement.

Channel Inn and Restaurant To Let, situate in a good position in the High Street, Folkestone, comprising: Basement; Cellar and Kitchen; Ground Floor; Restaurant, Saloon Bar; First Floor; Club Room and Bedroom; Second Floor; Two Attics and Boxroom. Extensive alterations have been made, and the house offers a good opportunity for a pushing man. For full particulars apply Hythe Brewery.]

Folkestone Express 22 August 1896.

Wednesday, August 19th: Before J. Banks, W. Wightwick, and J.D. Stock Esqs.

Mr. Haines applied on behalf of Mr. Winch for a duplicate licence of the Channel Inn, the former occupant having refused to deliver it up, and also for temporary permission to sell.

The Bench granted the application.

Note: No mention of Winch in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 26 September 1896.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, General Gwyn, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, and H. Stock Esqs.

Mr. Haines applied for a renewal of the licence granted to Mr. Winch for the Channel Inn, which was granted, and the licence transferred temporarily to Mr. Haycroft (sic), who was stated to have been a member of the Kensington Vestry.

Note: No mention of Winch in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 31 October 1896.

Wednesday, October 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Salter, and J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Channel Inn to Mr. Acrell.

Folkestone Express 12 December 1896.

Monday, December 7th: Before The Mayor, General Gwyn and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Henry Crampton, who, it appears, was expelled from France last Friday, was charged with stealing a jacket, a waterproof cape, and a pair of gloves from the Tontine Hotel, Folkestone on the same day.

P.C. Johnson gave evidence as to receiving the prisoner from the Dover police, with the cape he was charged with stealing from the Tontine Hotel, Tontine Street. Prisoner, when charged, said “That's right. But I don't know where it was”. On the way to Folkestone prisoner said “I'll show you where it was when I get there, where I left the jacket. It was the Campbell or Cannell, or some such name as that”, and on coming up High Street prisoner pointed to the Channel Inn and said “That's the house”. He took prisoner in, and they saw the landlord and asked him for the jacket prisoner left there on the previous night, and Mr. Ackrell gave him the jacket produced, and said the man went into the bar and had a drink and asked for another. He then said he would leave the jacket and call for it the next day, and also pay for the drinks. He told prisoner he could not take the garment as a pawnbroker. Prisoner was taken by witness to the police station, and on searching him he found a document of expulsion from France, dated at Boulogne on the 4th December, 1896.

Arthur John Ackrell, landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, said the prisoner went to his house on Friday evening. He was a stranger. Witness's wife called him, saying there was a strange looking man in the bar. He went in and heard prisoner talking to another man and saying he had been illegally detained for four months in a French prison, for which he meant to make the French Government pay. He said he was a publican in Mile End Road, and had telegraphed to his wife and friends to send his clothes and some money down. He paid for what he had to drink. To the best of witness's recollection it was two glasses of brandy. He went away, and returned at about 8.30 with a jacket. After calling for drinks for himself and another man, he asked witness to lend him 2s. on the jacket, which he refused to do, saying he did not want the jacket. Prisoner then said he had no money to pay for the drink, and witness replied that he could put up with the loss of the money, but did not want the jacket. Half an hour after, he asked witness to mind it for him, and he took it and threw it on a chair behind the bar, where it was lying when the constable came in with the prisoner. He regarded the jacket in no way as security for the money for the drink. He did not remember advancing prisoner any money, but would not swear he did not give him 2d., and say “Call it 6d.”. The drinks were 4d.

The Bench: It is a very simple question. You say you made it up to 6d. Did you offer to make it up to a shilling by giving him the change? – I cannot say. I was very busy at the time, and my house was full of soldiers.

Then you will not swear that you did not make it up to a shilling? – I can swear I did not let him have anything on the coat, and before he went I offered him his coat back. But I believed his story that he was a publican in Mile End Road.

After taking the coat from him? – Yes.

And when Police Constable Johnson called, you made a statement to him and handed the coat to him? – Yes.

Herbert James Grey, boots at the Tontine Temperance Hotel, Tontine Street, identified the jacket and gloves as his property, and the cape as the property of Mr. Clarke, his employer, the proprietor of the hotel. The value of the whole was 35s. 6d. He saw the articles safe at 6.30 on Friday evening in the luggage room on the ground floor. He gave information to the police on Saturday morning. He did not know the prisoner, and had never seen him before.

Prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, had no questions to ask. He said he had been illegally detained in a French prison. He had had delirium tremens, and had been seasick, and was almost starved, so that a little drink had a great effect upon him. It was “quite an accident”.

The Bench sentenced him to two months' hard labour.

The Mayor told Mr. Ackrell he had done very wrong in letting the man have the drink, and in detaining the coat, but he was rather inclined to think he did it in ignorance. He was not at all sure he was not liable to a heavy penalty under the Pawnbroker's Act, and it might be brought up against him at the next licensing day. He must be very careful in future.

Superintendent Taylor: It shows the facility there is for disposing of stolen property. Here is a case of a coat only stolen an hour before being disposed of over a bar.

The Bench (to Mr. Ackrell): You had no right to advance him one penny, and no right to keep the coat as you did.

Mr. Ackrell repeated that it was all done in good part by him. He was willing to lose the money, and did not want prisoner to leave the coat.

Folkestone Express 25 February 1899.

Wednesday, February 22nd: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, and Geo. Spurgen Esqs., and Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Channel Inn, High Street, was transferred to Mr. Frederick Ashford.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Fitness and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Channel Inn was transferred to Mr. Ashford from Mr. Acrell.

Folkestone Express 19 August 1899.

Saturday, August 12th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, Geo. Spurgen, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Daisy Thompson was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Friday night.

P.C. Frank Lawrence said he ejected her from the Channel Inn, where the landlord refused to serve her. She became very violent and screamed, and they had to carry her to the police station. There were two previous convictions.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 12 January 1901.

Monday, January 7th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Pte. Edward Lorden, 4th Batt. Dublin Fusiliers, was charged with being concerned with stealing a quantity of clothing valued at £2, with a seaman, not yet arrested.

James Matthews, an ordinary seaman, said on Friday the 4th inst., he was one of the crew of the S.S. Christopher, of Whitstable, and took his discharge with the rest of the crew. He left his box, containing clothing, in the forecastle of the ship. It was locked. About 12 o'clock noon on Saturday he went to the ship in Folkestone Harbour and noticed the box had been broken open, and on further searching he missed articles of clothing, which were two blankets, 3 pairs socks, pair stockings, one gold ring, seven brushes, knife, fork, and spoon, and other things in a small case, one silk muffler, blue serge coat, three shirts. He valued them altogether at 40s. He saw the prisoner in High Street, who was carrying a silk wrap, which witness recognised as his property. He also identified a small box inside the silk muffler, which prisoner carried. Witness had known prisoner for about three weeks, and kept company with him at night. When witness saw him in High Street, he asked him where the police station was, and prisoner walked up with him towards the station. On the way witness told him he had had his box broken open, but said nothing as to the property he was carrying. At the top of the street, witness left prisoner and went to the police station. About half an hour afterwards witness accompanied a police constable and they went to the Cinque Ports Arms. While they were in the bar the prisoner came in, but did not have the handkerchief or the box. P.C. Kettle then arrested the prisoner.

In reply to prisoner, witness said on Friday night he went to the barracks with a dragoon. He was only wearing one gold ring and one silver ring on his hand in the Cinque Ports Arms.

Charles Charington, mate on the Christopher, now lying in the harbour, said he saw the prisoner on board the ship about ten o'clock in the morning with one of the seamen who had been discharged the previous day. He remained on board till 11.45 p.m. Witness did not see him below, but always on deck. He might have gone without witness seeing him. Witness went at that time to have a drink, and on his return he met the seaman, who had a kit bag under his arm, in company with the prisoner.

Fredk. Ashford, landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, said about noon on Saturday the prisoner, who was in uniform, went in for some refreshment. He sat down at one of the tables and brought out two spoons, and remarked they were a present for his mother.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said about 12.30 p.m. he was in the churchyard of the Parish Church, where he saw the prisoner, who was carrying a brown and white striped wrapper, and a small parcel similar to the one described.

Supt. Reeve asked for a remand until next Saturday so that he might make further enquiries and arrest the other man.

The prisoner raised no objection, and he was remanded accordingly.

Folkestone Express 19 January 1901.

Saturday, January 12th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., and others.

Pte. Edward Lorden, of the Dublin Fusiliers, and Aaron Hall, a seaman, were both charged with being concerned in stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, a gold ring, a silk muffler, and six spoons in a case, all the property of James Matthews, a seaman on the Christopher.

Supt. Reeve said the soldier was remanded on Monday to allow time to arrest the other prisoner, who was brought up on Friday, and on Saturday morning they were both charged with the theft.

The prosecutor repeated his evidence, which was to the effect that he was discharged on Friday the 4th inst., with some of the other crew. He left his box quite safe in the forecastle of the Christopher, which was then lying in Folkestone Harbour. The man Aaron Hall was one of the crew. His box contained jewels, and was properly locked. He went next morning and found the box had been broken open and a quantity of clothing and jewellery was missing. Since the last trial he had missed, as well as the articles mentioned last week, eight pencil cases and a photograph frame, one box, two pairs trousers, three neckties, and he valued the whole of his goods at 38s. He walked up High Street to give information to the police, when he met the soldier prisoner, who had under his arm a silk muffler wrapped around a case containing six spoons, which he identified as his property. He did not mention anything about his property, and left the prisoner as soon as he was near the police station. Soon after on the same day he accompanied P.C. Kettle to the Cinque Ports Arms, where the prisoner was subsequently arrested. In answer to prisoner Hall, witness said he had a silver watch belonging to the prisoner in his box.

Supt. Reeve said none of the property had been recovered from the prisoner Lorden.

Fredk. Ashford, landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, said the prisoner came in for a drink, and sat down at the table. The prisoner then brought out a case containing six spoons, and said to witness “This is a present for my mother”.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said on Saturday he was in the Parish Churchyard, when he saw the prisoner with a brown and white striped muffler under his arm. He also noticed a case with some spoons. He did not stop the prisoner.

P.C. Albert Kettle said from information received on the 5th inst., about 12.40 p.m., he accompanied the prosecutor to the Christopher, and in the forecastle he saw a box broken open, and in consequence of his enquiries he went with the prosecutor to the Cinque Ports Arms, where he arrested the soldier prisoner and charged him. About 11.30 p.m. on the 10th inst. he received prisoner in custody at Hayward's Heath, Sussex. In the presence of the prisoner, P.C. Gilbert told witness that the prisoner had in his possession two brushes, two Oxford shirts, two pairs of socks, one pair of stockings, one silk muffler, two blankets, and other articles, not subject to the charge. P.C. Gilbert continued that he arrested the prisoner on the 9th inst., and he asked the prisoner where he obtained the property, and prisoner replied he bought them off a soldier for six shillings. He waited whilst the soldier fetched them off the ship. He knew they belonged to a man named “Scotty”.

Prisoner Hall pleaded Guilty, and the prisoner Lorden replied Not Guilty.

Supt. Reeve said with reference to the health of Lorden, he had received from the surgeon of Canterbury prison a certificate that the prisoner had a wound in the left thigh caused by a bullet received at Spion Kop, and was not fit for prison.

An officer present said his defaulters' sheet and documents were out in South Africa, so he was unable to give his character. During his stay at Shorncli9ffe the prisoner Lorden had spent his time in hospital and furlough. He ought to have been in Ireland, as he had been granted a furlough to that destination.

The Bench sentenced each prisoner to six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1903.

Saturday, May 23rd: Before Aldermen Penfold, Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, G. Peden, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge and J. Stainer Esqs.

Rose Thompson was summoned for being drunk while in charge of a child under seven years.

P.C. Minter stated that about two o'clock on Tuesday afternoon he was passing the Channel Inn, when he heard the landlady tell defendant to leave the premises as she would not serve her. Defendant refused to quit, and witness had to eject her. At the time she had a child two years of age in her arms.

Defendant, who had five previous convictions against her, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs; in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 10th February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139 – an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last year's return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers' Arms, Granville, and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31st December last year, 154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with 1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).

The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary powers they would at this year's meeting decide in a fair and equitable spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament last week it was announced in the King's speech that the Government intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and Channel Inn.

With regard to the Railway Tavern, Dover Street (sic), and the Channel Inn, High Street, we direct that the holders of the licences shall, within seven days, prepare and deposit with the Clerk a plan of the licensed premises.

Mr. Minter said with regard to the Channel Inn, he understood that the Magistrates required a plan of the ground floor. He was informed that the urinal in the passage was in an offensive state. Immediately it was reported to the owners as to the objectionable nature of the urinal, they gave orders that water should be laid on, and it was probably done. The Magistrates did not require a plan of the whole house.

The Chairman said they required a plan of the ground floor leading from High Street.

Mr. Herbert also remarked that in the case of the Channel Inn, the Bench required a plan of the ground floor and basement as well.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1904.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp, W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The Channel Inn.

Mr. J. Minter explained that in this case the Bench ordered a plan, and some alterations to be carried out in regard to the urinal. These had been done and completed, and he believed the Magistrates had inspected the plan, and were satisfied that everything had been properly carried out.

The Chairman: The Bench consider that a gateway at the back should be stopped.

Mr. Minter: Which is that?

The Chairman: At the top of the steps.

Mr. Minter pointed out that if the gateway were stopped it would mean a great inconvenience to the tenant (Mrs. Ashford), in carrying water and other things from the basement upstairs. He further stated that the gateway or doorway was not used for trade purposes of any kind.

The Chairman: Well, it might be.

Mr. Minter: I don't think anyone would try to mount the steps.

The Chairman: The Bench think that this doorway ought to be stopped.

Mr. Minter: I do hope the Bench will overlook it, as it would greatly inconvenience those living on the premises.

The Chairman: We have decided to make an order to close the doorway.

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 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 Channel Inn.

The Channel Inn was the next one to be considered. Mr. Minter appeared for the owners and tenant.

The Chief Constable said the present tenant was Mrs. Ashford, who obtained the transfer on March 5th, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Company, of Hythe. The rateable value was £32. There were three on licensed houses in High Street, two of them being fully licensed. There were two entrances from High Street, and there was one serving bar with four different compartments. Within a radius of 100 yards there were seven other on licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 24, and within 200 yards there were 34. The trade he considered a very small one indeed. There was a right of way to two houses and through into Tontine Street through the house.

Without calling upon Mr. Minter, the Chairman said they need not trouble any further as the licence would be granted.

This concluded the business.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Fynmore, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, T. Ames, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Major Leggett.

Alice Ashford was summoned for a breach of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty so far as the word “knowingly” was concerned.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at a quarter past eleven on Tuesday morning, 27th November, he was in High Street, where he saw a boy, Thomas Henry Venner, leaving the Channel Inn. He was carrying a pint bottle, containing half a pint of beer. The bottle had no cork or seal. He stopped the boy and questioned him as to his age, and from what he told witness he took him back to the private bar, where he saw defendant behind the counter. Witness asked her if she served the boy with the half pint of beer, and she replied “Yes”. Defendant said she did not ask his age; as he looked fourteen she did not trouble. Witness told her he should report her.

Mrs. Louisa Venner said she was the wife of Joseph George Venner, and lived at 8, Mill Bay. The boy, Thomas Henry Venner, was her son. He was born 27th May, 1895.

The Chief Constable put in the certificate of birth.

Mrs. Ashford then went into the witness box. She said she remembered the boy coming in on the day in question. He asked for half a pint of beer and produced a bottle. She never asked the boy his age. She thought he was fourteen. She knew the law as to serving children under fourteen.

Mr. Haines, in addressing the Bench, said it was not the continuous practice of defendant, and asked them to deal with the case on its merits.

Defendant was fined 5s. and 14s. 7d. costs.

Elizabeth Harris was summoned for unlawfully sending the boy to fetch the beer in an unsealed vessel. She pleaded Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at 11.30 on 27th November, on leaving the Channel Inn, he accompanied the boy to No. 14, Mill Bay, and there saw defendant. In answer to witness, she said she sent the boy for half a pint of beer. She knew she was liable to be prosecuted.

Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs. She was given a week to pay in.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 6th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty 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, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and 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 within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The Chief Constable said the next business was to consider the opposition to five licences. The first on the list was the Channel Inn, High Street.

Mr. Haines represented Mrs. Ashford, the tenant, and Mr. Minter represented Messrs. Mackeson, and the Chief Constable said he first of all put in a plan, on which he had marked the congested area, which embraced really the whole of the older portion of the borough, commencing at the harbour, going along by the Pavilion Hotel, South Street, up the Bayle Steps, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road, up to the Raglan Hotel, and then turning into Dover Street, and along Radnor Bridge Road to the sea. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,620, which was reckoning five per house. There were 37 on licensed houses and eight other premises licensed, making a total of 45 licensed houses for the sale of drink within that area. That gave a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, or one on licence to every 24 houses, or every 124 persons. For the borough at large there were 89 on licences and 32 other licensed premises, making a total of 121 licences for the sale of drink by retail. That gave a proportion of one licence to every 344 people. According to the Census of 1901 the population was given at 30,750. There were also within the congested area three registered clubs, with a total membership of 830. During the past year there had been 131 charges of drunkenness dealt with by the Magistrates, and of that number he found 53 were from the small congested area.

Dealing with the Channel Inn, he put in a copy of the notice of his objection to the licence on the ground that the said licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. He also produced the register of the house. The Channel Inn was situate in High Street and the present licensee was Alice Ashford, who obtained a transfer of the licence on March 5th, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co. Ltd. The rateable value of the house was £32. He put in a plan showing the premises.

Mr. Minter: I have not seen it. Who is it prepared by?

The Chief Constable: It is the one you put in yourself to the Justices two years ago.

Mr. Minter: I will admit it then.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said there were three on licensed houses in High Street, two fully licensed and one beerhouse. The Eagle beerhouse was on the opposite side of the street to the Channel Inn, about twelve yards away. There were two entrances to the Channel Inn from High Street. There was one bar, which was divided into four compartments, the centre one being small and dark. Within a radius of 200 yards of that house there were 29 other on licensed houses. There was also a right of way to the back of the premises from Tontine Street. The trade appeared to him to be a small one and very few, if any, of the residents of the street used the house. The present licensee was convicted on December 3rd last for delivering beer in an unsealed vessel to a child under 14 years of age, and was fined 5s. and costs. Beyond that, he had no complaint to make as to the conduct of the house. In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, Mr. Reeve said beyond the conviction that was the only complaint he had to make about the house. He had taken the Channel as the centre of his 200 yards radius. When he spoke of the requirements of the neighbourhood, he referred to the residents. He passed up and down the High Street several times a day, and he very rarely saw the residents of that neighbourhood either going in or coming out of the house. He quite agreed that it was not possible for a passer-by to judge accurately the trade of a house. Mrs. Ashford's husband obtained the licence of the house on March 8th, 1899, and it was transferred to her on his death in 1902. With regard to the right of way at the back of the house, the Bench three years ago decided that certain alterations should be made. The Justices ordered that a small brick wall should be built at the top of a staircase because it led out of the public bar into the back yard. The requirements were carried out by Messrs. Mackeson. The Licensing Justices instructed him to select that house, and his opinion was that it was inferior to the other three houses from a police point of view. He felt there were too many houses down there and also that the Channel Inn was the least suitable to be allowed to continue. He was directed to oppose the renewal of the licence last year, but when it came up the licence was renewed.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said in the course of his duty he visited the house. From what he had seen he did not consider the licence to be necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. It appeared to him that a very small trade was done there. In the event of the licence being refused he considered there would be ample and sufficient accommodation in the remaining houses for customers to be supplied.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, Burniston said very few people visited the house during the day. He had visited the house a good many times during the past year.

Mr. Minter addressed the Justices on behalf of his client, and then asked them to allow the licence to continue.

Mrs. Ashford then went into the box. She said the takings of the house varied. In the winter they were £7 or £8 a week, while in the summer they were from £10 to £12 a week. She would not have been in the house so long if she had not got a living out of it. Since she had been there she had spent £100 in various fitting and fixtures. The back way was not used by customers. She would remain in the house if they would let her. In the summer she had found a considerable demand for food, and she would cultivate that trade even more than she had done. She paid £150 in valuation. In 1905 she paid £262 to the brewers, and £300 in 1906.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he thought that was a most unjustifiable attempt to get rid of that house, and it was not doing justice to the landlords. It was an attempt to give the go-by to the Act of Parliament, inasmuch as they would find on reference to the section that once a house had been brought before the Bench and alterations had been ordered, no further alterations could be ordered for another five years, therefore that licence was safe for five years, provided there was no offence against the licensing laws. Two years ago they ordered certain alterations to be done to that house, and they were done. Therefore the house should be safe for five years. With regard to the back way from Tontine Street, there was no entry from that to the premises except for coal being taken in. In seemed to him somewhat of an anomaly that the Superintendent should object to that house and not to some of the others in the street.

The Chief Constable said the alterations referred to by Mr. Minter were done in 1904.

The Chairman: That was before the Act came into force.

The Justices retired, and on their return into Court, the Chairman said they were of opinion that the house should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Sessions.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1907.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to the houses being closed and compensation given.

The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the others will be compensated.