DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, July, 2022.

Page Updated:- Thursday, 21 July, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1894

(Name from)

Channel Inn

Latest 1908

53 High Street

Folkestone

 

Formerly the "Fountain" and changed name in 1894.

Unfortunately closed some time after 1908 and was converted into a watch-maker's and jewellery shop.

 

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 Chronicle 11 July 1896

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Sherwood, and T.J. Vaughan.

Emily Moore was summoned for obstruction in High Street on the 4th July. She pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Harman stated that about 10 p.m. on Saturday night he saw a crowd completely blocking the street near the Channel Inn. Defendant was in the centre of the crowd shouting out, and desiring to fight some other women. When requested to move she refused, and it was with difficulty she was prevented from committing an assault.

Defendant said she had had a few glasses and had “got upset”. It was the first time, and she hoped it would be the last.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs. She was given till Saturday to pay the money.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 August 1896.

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

Mr. Haines applied for a duplicate licence for the Channel Inn, High Street, the late occupier having refused to hand the licence over.

This was granted, and also temporary permission to sell.

Note: I presume the Haines mentioned was the solicitor by that name.

 

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 Chronicle 26 September 1896.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Messrs. J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, H.D. Stock, and J. Pledge.

Mr. Haines applied that the licence of the Channel Inn should be renewed to Mr. Winch, he already having been granted temporary permission to sell. This was acceded to. Later, Mr. Haines asked that temporary permission be given to Mr. Arthur Haycroft (sic), a former member of the Kensington Vestry, to sell at the same house, Mr. Winch being described by Mr. Bradley as simply “a warming pan”. The matter having been explained to the Bench, the necessary permission was granted.

Note: No mention of Winch listed 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 Chronicle 31 October 1896.

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

Arthur John Acrell was granted a temporary authority in respect of the Channel Inn.

 

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 Visitors' List 9 December 1896.

Kaleidoscope.

Having been expelled from France, Henry Crampton decided to make for his native country, and arriving at Folkestone he committed a larceny “all by accident”.

The prisoner was charged with having stolen a waterproof cape, a tweed jacket, and a pair of gloves, the whole being of the value of thirty five shillings, from the Tontine Street Temperance Hotel. These articles belonged to the “boots!, a young man named Gray, and he having missed these on Friday night, gave information to the police on Saturday morning.

P.C. Johnston received the prisoner in custody from the Dover police on Saturday afternoon,, brought him to Folkestone, and on the way up High Street pointed to the Channel Inn as the place where he left the jacket. They called to receive the jacket, which was produced, and then proceeded to the police station.

The landlord of the Channel Inn told the Bench that the prisoner called at his house on Friday evening and had some refreshment in the way of brandy, stating that he was a publican in Mile End Road, London, but that he had been “illegally imprisoned in France”, and that this accounted for his somewhat unpresentable appearance. He had, however, telegraphed to his “wife” or “friends”, witness could not remember which, to send on his clothing.

After some time had elapsed he again called, had some more brandy, and “treated” a customer in the bar. Having done all this he told the landlord that he had no money, and asked him to advance him two shillings on the jacket, which he promptly declined to do. Mr. Crampton was “expecting any amount of money by wire”, he said. Witness told him he could put up with the loss of the drinks, but that he could not advance anything on the jacket. Half an hour later he again called and asked him to keep the jacket until he would call for it later.

Mr. Ackrill, the landlord, had no recollection having given the prisoner any money, and if he did it was not more than the price of a glass – certainly nothing was advanced on the jacket.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty, but stated that it was “quite by accident” he took these articles, having been “strung up” to a “high pitch of nervousness and excitement” through “various causes”. The Bench sentenced him to two months imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 December 1896.

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

Henry Crampton, said to have been expelled from France last Friday, was charged with stealing a jacket, a waterproof cape, and a pair of gloves from the Tontine Hotel on the same day.

P.C. Johnson gave evidence as to having received the prisoner from the Dover police, with the cape he was charged with stealing from the Tontine Hotel. Prisoner, when charged, said “That's right. But I don't know where it was”. On the way to Folkestone he 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 it”. He took the prisoner in, and asked the landlord for the jacket prisoner left there on the previous night. Mr. Achrell restored it to him, and said that prisoner, after having a couple of drinks, said he would leave the jacket and call for it next day, and also pay for the drinks. He told prisoner he could not take the garment as a pawnbroker. Witness took prisoner to the police station, and on searching him found a document of expulsion from France, dated at Boulogne, on 4th December, 1896.

Arthur John Achrell, landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, said he heard prisoner talking to another man in the bar, 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 his wife and friends to send his clothes and some money down. He paid for what he had to drink, went away, returned at about 8.30 with a jacket, and, after calling for drinks for himself and another man, asked witness to lend him 2s. on the garment, which he refused to do. Prisoner then said he had no money to pay for the drinks, and witness replied that he could put up with the loss of the money, but did not want the jacket. Half an hour later 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 could 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?

Witness: 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.

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.

Prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, repeated the story as to his detention in France, and said he had had delirium tremens, had been seasick, and was almost starved, so that a little drink had a great effect upon him. It was “quite an accident”.

Sentenced to two months hard labour.

The Mayor advised Achrell to be more careful in future.

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

Mr. Achrell said 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 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 Herald 12 December 1896.

Police Court Record.

On Monday – The Mayor presiding – Henry Crampton was charged with stealing on the 4th inst. a Macintosh cape, a pair of gloves, and a brown tweed jacket, value 35s. 6d.

P.C. Johnson deposed that at 5.40 p.m. on Saturday, 5th inst., he received prisoner in custody at Dover from the Dover police, also receiving from the police the cape and gloves. He was charged with stealing the Macintosh cape, pair of gloves, and a brown tweed jacket from the Tontine Hotel, Tontine Street, Folkestone. Prisoner said “That's right. I don't know where it was”. Witness conceyed the prisoner to Folkestone, and the prisoner said “I will show you the house when I get there where I left the jacket”. He said it was called the Channel Inn, and was in a very narrow street. On going up High Street, the prisoner pointed to the Channel Inn and said “That's the house”. Witness took him into the bar and asked the landlord for the jacket which the prisoner had left on the previous night, and it was handed to him from over the bar. The landlord said the prisoner came into the bar, had a drink, and asked for another drink, and said he would leave the jacket and call for it the next day, and also pay for the drinks the next day. He told the prisoner he was not a pawnbroker, but he kept the jacket. Witness afterwards brought the prisoner to the police station, and on searching him found on him an expulsion certificate from France, dated 4th December at Boulogne.

Mr. Ackerell, the landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, deposed that he recognised the prisoner, who was a stranger to him. He came to the house on the previous Friday evening, and witness' wife served him, and called witness to the bar. The prisoner got into conversation with another customer, and told him he had been detained in a French prison for four months, and meant to make the French Government pay for it, and he was a publican in London. The prisoner also said he had sent to his wife and friends to send him clothes and money. He had consumed two glasses of brandy, which he paid for and left. The prisoner returned at about half past eight, and he had a tweed jacket on his arm. After having a drink and treating another man, he asked witness to lend him some money on a jacket, as he had none, which witness refused to do, telling the prisoner he did not want the jacket, but could put up with the cost of the drinks, as the prisoner said he had no money. The prisoner then asked him to mind the jacket for a little time, and witness took it and kept it. He did not see any more of the prisoner till the officer brought him in on the following evening. He regarded the jacket in no way as security for the drinks. He did not remember lending the prisoner any money, but he could not swear that he did not. The cost of the drinks which the prisoner owed for was 4d., and witness might have made up the difference to 6d., but the house was very busy at the time, being full of soldiers, and he could not remember.

Questioned by the Chairman, witness said he could not swear he did not make the amount owed by defendant up to a shilling. When the prisoner was leaving the house, witness offered him the coat back.

Herbert James Grey, the boots of the Tontine Temperance Hotel, identified the stolen articles as his property. The articles were hanging up when witness last saw them safe, about half past six on Friday evening. He missed them at eight o'clock on the same night, and gave information to the police on the next morning. Witness had never seen the prisoner before now.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty to the charge, and asked the Bench to take into consideration the time he had been in prison in France. He had no money or means, but had had delirium tremens, was seasick coming across, and was upset, being in a very excitable state. It was a pure accident.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to two months' hard labour in Canterbury gaol.

The Chairman called Mr. Ackerell, and said the Bench thought he had put himself in a very awkward position. The matter might be brought against him when he made his next application for a licence; he did not say it would. They believed he did this in ignorance, but in future he should be very careful.

 

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 Herald 11 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday, transfer was granted Mr. Frederick Ashford (Channel).

 

Folkestone Up To Date 11 March 1899.

Friday, March 10th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following licence was transferred:

Channel Inn, 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 Up To Date 19 August 1899.

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

Daisy Thompson, a young woman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous evening.

Daisy was disorderly at the Channel Inn, shouting and screaming vociferously, and generally acting in such a manner as to make it necessary to call in the police. Eventually P.C. Lawrence appeared upon the scene, and was obliged to take her into custody.

She pleaded Guilty, and was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, in default seven days'. Time was allowed to pay.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 January 1901.

Hall Of Justice.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday, Edward Lordon, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, was charged before Messrs. Banks, Wightwick, Hamilton, Herbert, Swoffer and Fitness, with stealing a quantity of clothing, a knife and fork, and other articles, of the value of 2, from the screw steamship “Christopher”, of Whitstable, which was lying in Folkestone Harbour.

The Chief Constable said that another man was concerned in the robbery, but the police had not yet succeeded in arresting him.

James Matthews, an ordinary seaman on the “Christopher”, said that he left his box in the forecastle of the vessel on Friday when he went ashore. He found on returning at noon on Saturday that the box had been broken open and an overcoat, three shirts, three pairs of socks, a gold ring, a knife and fork, seven spoons, a silk muffler, a serge overcoat, and other articles had been abstracted. He went to the police station, and on the way saw prisoner in High Street with a small box wrapped in his (witness's) silk handkerchief. The box looked like one that was missing, and which contained six of the spoons. He knew prisoner, having kept company with him at nights during the three weeks in which the ship had been in the harbour. When passing prisoner he asked him where the police station was, and prisoner explained, walking part of the way up with him. Witness did not mention about prisoner having his handkerchief and box, but went on to the station. Shortly after, witness was in the Cinque Port Arms with Police Constable Kettle, when prisoner came in. He had neither the box nor the handkerchief with him then. Kettle arrested him.

John Carrington, mate of the “Christopher”, saw prisoner on board the vessel with one of the seamen at ten o'clock on Saturday morning. The seaman in question had been discharged. About a quarter to twelve witness saw prisoner and another man on the road leading from the ship. The seaman had a bag under his arm.

Edward Ashford, the landlord of the Channel Inn, said prisoner was in the bar on Saturday at noon with some spoons, and heard him say they were a present for his mother.

P.C. Lennard Johnson was in the churchyard at about half past twelve on the morning in question, when he saw the prisoner carrying a parcel wrapped in a striped muffler.

The Chief Constable applied for and obtained a remand until Saturday, in order that further enquiries might be made, and also for the purpose of arresting, if possible, the missing seaman.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 January 1901.

Monday, January 7th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. Pursey, Herbert, Swoffer, and Wightwick.

Edward Lordon, a smart-looking young Irishman, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, was charged with being concerned with another man, not in custody, with stealing a quantity of clothing, valued at 2, from the steamer Christopher.

James Matthews, an ordinary seaman, said: Up to Friday I was a member of the crew of the S.S. Christopher, of Whitstable. On that day I was discharged with the rest of the crew. I left a box (locked), containing my clothes, in the forecastle of the ship. On the following day (Saturday), about noon, I went to the ship and noticed that the box was broken open. On examination I missed the following articles of clothing: three pairs of socks, two blankets, one pair of stockings, one gold ring, set of brushes, knife, fork, and spoon, six spoons in case, one silk muffler, blue serge coat, and three shirts, total value 2. On the way to the police station I met the prisoner in High Street, carrying a silk wrap, which I recognised as the one taken from my box, while a case, similar to the one I had missed, was sticking out from the corner of the handkerchief. I had known the prisoner for three weeks, and been about with him at nights. I asked him where the police station was and he directed me. I went in, and prisoner walked past. On the way to the station I told him I had had my box broken open, but I did not say anything about the handkerchief and box he was carrying, being afraid he might strike me. Shortly afterwards I was in the bar of the Cinque Ports Arms in company with P.C. Kettle. The prisoner came in and Kettle took him into custody. I have not seen any of the property since. He had not the handkerchief with him when he came into the bar.

By the prisoner: On Friday night I was in the bar of the Cinque Ports Arms with three other sailors, yourself, and a man of the 7th Dragoon Guards. I had on one gold and one silver ring.

John Charrington, mate of the Christopher, proved seeing the prisoner on the boat on Saturday morning, two or three times, with a seaman. Witness saw them go away together, the seaman carrying a bag.

Edward Ashford, landlord of the Channel Inn, deposed to the prisoner coming to the bar on Saturday morning. He laid one or two spoons on the table, and said they were a present from his mother.

P.C. Johnstone proved seeing the prisoner in the churchyard on Saturday at 12.30, carrying a brown and white striped wrap with something in it.

At this stage the Chief Constable asked the Bench to grant a remand until Saturday to enable further enquiries to be made in respect to the missing seaman.

An officer in the prisoner's regiment was understood to say that he would not be responsible for the prisoner's appearance if bail were granted. He was accordingly remanded in custody.

 

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 Herald 12 January 1901.

Monday, January 7th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. Swoffer, Wightwick, Herbert, and Pursey.

Edward Lordon, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, was charged with being concerned with another man, who as yet had not been arrested, in stealing a quantity of clothing to the value of 2 from the screw steamer Christopher.

James Matthews, ordinary seaman, said up to Friday last he was a member of the crew of the steamship Christopher, of Whitstable, and on that day was discharged with the rest of the crew. He left a bag containing his clothes in the forecastle of the ship. The box was locked. On the following morning, Saturday, about 12 noon, he went to the ship. He went into the forecastle and noticed that his box was broken open, and on examination he missed the following articles of clothing: two blankets, three pairs socks, one pair stockings, one gold ring, seven brushes, knife, fork, and spoon, half a dozen spoons in case, one silk muffler, blue serge coat, and three shirts, to the total value of 2. He left the ship to go to the police station, and on the way met prisoner in High Street. Prisoner was carrying a silk wrap, which witness recognised as the one from his box. There was a case similar to the one he had missed, sticking out from the corner of the handkerchief. Witness had known prisoner for three weeks, and had gone about with him at nights. When he saw prisoner on the Saturday morning he asked him where the police station was. Prisoner directed him, and witness went into the station, prisoner walking straight past. On the way he told prisoner he had had his box broken open, but did not say anything about the handkerchief and box which he was carrying, as he was afraid he might get struck.

The Chairman: A still tongue makes a wise head sometimes.

Witness, continuing, said shortly afterwards he was in the bar of the Cinque Ports Arms with police constable Kettle. Whilst there prisoner came in, and the policeman arrested him. Witness had not seen any of the property since. When prisoner came into the bar he had not the handkerchief with him.

By prisoner: On Friday night he was in the bar of the Cinque Ports Arms with three sailors, prisoner, and a man of the 7th Dragoon Guards. He had on one gold and one silver ring.

John Charrington, mate of the Christopher, deposed that about 10 o'clock on Saturday morning he saw prisoner on board the ship with one of the seamen, whose name he did not know. He remained on board, to his knowledge, until about 11.45. Witness did not see him leave. He did not see prisoner down below, but he could have gone down without witness seeing him. At about 11.45 witness had been to get a drink, and on returning met prisoner and a seaman coming from the direction of the ship. The seaman had a kit bag under his arm.

Edward Ashford, landlord of the Channel Inn, High Street, said about noon on Saturday prisoner came into his bar for some refreshment. Prisoner sat down alongside the table, and witness saw him with one or two spoons on the table. He heard prisoner say they were a present for his mother.

P.C. Johnson said he was on duty in the churchyard about 12.30 on Saturday last, when he saw prisoner carrying a brown and white striped wrap in his right hand. There was some small article wrapped in it.

At this stage the Chief Constable asked for a remand until Saturday so as to make further enquiries, and, if possible, another arrest.

This was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 January 1901.

Saturday, January 12th: Before Mr. J. Banks, Mr. Wightwick, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, and J. Herbert.

Edward Lorden, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, and Aaron Hall, a seaman, came up on remand charged with being concerned in staeling a quantity of clothing, valued at 2, the property of James Matthews, lately an ordinary seaman on S.S. Christopher.

Lorden was remanded on Monday last to enable the police to make further enquiries. This they did to very good purpose, for on Friday the second prisoner, Hall, made his appearance in the dock, and was remanded to come up on the following day with Lorden.

James Matthews repeated his evidence as given on Monday, stating that he was a seaman of the S.S. Christopher, of Whitstable. On Friday the 4th, with the rest of the crew, he was discharged. He left a box, which was locked, containing his clothes, in the forecastle of the ship. On the following day, about noon, he went to the ship, and noticed that the box was broken open. He missed various articles, which included three pairs of socks, two blankets, one pair of stockings, one gold ring, a set of brushes, knife, fork, and spoon, six spoons in case, one silk muffler, blue serge coat, three shirts, etc., valued at 2. On the way to the police station he met the prisoner Lorden carrying a silk wrap, which he recognised as the one taken from his box, whilst a case similar to the one he had missed was sticking out of the handkerchief. He had known the prisoner about three weeks, and had been about with him at night. Shortly after, with police constable Kettle, he (prosecutor), went in the bar of the Cinque Ports, and the prisoner Lorden came in, and Kettle took him into custody. The property now produced he identified as that which was stolen from the box on the S.S. Christopher.

P.C. Albert Kettle stated that, in company with Matthews, he visited the Cinque Ports public house, and when Lorden came in prosecutor said “I have seen you with my silk muffler”. He (the constable) asked prisoner what he had done with it. He replied “I never had any”. He was taken into custody and warned at the station. Prisoner replied “You can charge me if you like”. At 11.30 on the 10th inst. he (Kettle) received the prisoner Aaron Hall into custody from the police at Hayward's Heath. In the prisoner's presence the property produced was handed to him by P.C. Gilbert of that division.

Gilbert said that when he arrested the prisoner on the previous day the property produced was in his possession. He was cautioned, and then charged with being concerned with Lorden in stealing the goods, the subject of the charge.

Lorden pleaded Not Guilty, and Hall Guilty.

Lorden, in defence, said he had been eight years in the British Army. He had not stolen anything during that time, and was not going to begin now.

An officer in Lorden's regiment said that he could not produce the defaulters' sheet as the regimental papers had been lost in Natal. He was afraid, though, that he could not give him a good character. Since he had been home he had been most of his time in hospital, and at the time of his arrest he should have been in Ireland, as a furlough had been granted to enable him to go there.

The Chief Constable mentioned that he had received a certificate from the Medical Officer of the prison, who stated that Lorden was suffering from a bullet wound received at Spion Kop, and that he was more fit to be in hospital than in prison.

The Bench ordered each of the prisoners to undergo six weeks' hard labour.

 

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 Herald 19 January 1901.

Saturday, January 12th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. Wightwick, Herbert, and Swoffer.

Edward Lordon, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, and Aaron Hall, lately a seaman on board the ship Christopher, were brought up on remand charged with being concerned together in stealing certain articles of clothing to the value of 2 from the ship mentioned.

The evidence given by James Matthews (prosecutor), James E. Ashford, and constables Leonard Johnson and Kettle, which was fully reported in our last issue, was repeated. Both prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. All pleaded Guilty, and Lordon Not Guilty.

Lordon said he had been eight years in the British Army and never stole anything yet, and he was not going to begin stealing now.

An officer in the Dublin Fusiliers appeared, and said he was sorry he could not give Lordon a character because the papers were lost in Natal.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) stated that he had a certificate from the medical officer at the prison, which showed that Lordon had a wound in his left thigh, said to be a bullet wound received at Spion Kop, and was more fit to be in hospital than prison.

Each of the prisoners was sent to gaol for six weeks' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1903.

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

Rose Thompson pleaded Guilty to being upon licensed premises in a drunken condition while in charge of a child under the age of 7.

P.C. Minter said that about 3 p.m. on Tuesday, when passing the Channel Inn, High Street, he heard the landlady (Mrs. Ashford) trying to peruade a woman to leave the house. The woman, who turned out to be the defendant, refused to go, and witness had eventually to eject her. The landlady told him that she had refused to serve the woman, who was accompanied by a child about two years of age.

Defendant said that as a rule she did not take the child out with her, but on the afternoon in question someone brought the child up to her.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the defendant had been convicted five times previously – once for assault, and four times for drunkenness.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days', and allowed three days to find the money in.

 

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 Chronicle 13 February 1904.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report, which contained interesting figures with regard to drunkenness, etc. No person in Folkestone had yet been convicted a sufficient number of times to be placed on the “black list”. The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and asked that the consideration of this licence might be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

The Chairman then read the Justices' Report, which stated that the number of licensed houses in Folkestone, and especially around the harbour, was out of all proportion to the population. The number of licences had not been reduced, owing to the fact that a Bill amending the Licensing Laws was shortly to be introduced in Parliament. Certain public houses – the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, the East Cliff Tavern, the Victoria, the Lifeboat Inn, the Duke Of Edinburgh, and the Channel Inn had been inspected by the Justices, and recommendations with regard to their sanitary improvement and closing of back entries were made.

Mr. John Minter said that water had been laid on at the Channel Inn since the report on the bad state of the sanitary arrangements. Mr. Minter also suggested with regard to the Imperial Brewery Tap that a public bar should be made with an entrance from Mill Bay.

The Bench decided, however, that the orders made in the report should be adhered to.

Licences were then granted to the lessees of public houses and licensed premises.

 

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 Herald 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonels Hamilton, Fynmore, and Westropp, Messrs. J. Ward and C.J. Pursey.

The Chief Constable first presented his annual report (for which, see Folkestone Express 13 February 04).

The Chairman then addressed his colleagues (for which, see Folkestone Express 13 February 04).

Mr. Minter, referring to the Channel Inn, asked if the Justices required only a plan for the ground floor. Immediately after the visit of the Justices to the house, the owners at once, hearing of the objection, gave orders for the work to be done.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 March 1904.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Hamilton, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Mrs. Ashford for the renewal of the licence of the Channel Inn. The Bench granted the licence with the stipulation that certain alterations, for which an order was made, should be carried out.

 

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 Herald 12 March 1904.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Channel Inn.

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

The first case taken was that of the Channel Inn, of which Mrs. Ashworth (sic) is the landlady.

Mr. Minter appeared for the tenant, and reminded the Bench that they had required plans for alterations with regard to a convenience to be submitted. This had been done, and the alterations had been carried out, and been inspected by the Bench, who, the speaker believed, were satisfied with them.

The Chairman said that the Bench considered that the gateway at the back entrance should be stopped up.

Mr. A. Bromley, architect, pointed out that if the tenants wanted to bring water up from the basement to the ground floor they would have to bring it through the bar parlour if they could not use the back way. This would be very inconvenient.

Mr. Minter: It is not used for trade purposes.

The Chairman: It might be. The Bench must make the order to stop the gateway up. We will renew the licence, but this must be done.

 

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 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 Channel Inn.

The licence was opposed on grounds of redundancy.

Mr. John Minter appeared for Messrs. Mackeson and Co., the owners, and elicited in cross-examination that the house had been well conducted by the present tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and her former husband.

Mr. Minter was asking a few more questions when the Chairman, addressing him, said they would not trouble him further, as they had unanimously decided to grant the licence.

 

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 Channel Inn.

The Channel Inn was also opposed on the ground of redundancy. Mr. Minter appeared for the tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe.

The Chief Constable's opposition to the renewal was on the same grounds as in the other cases – that the licence was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. The licence was transferred to the present tenant on the 15th March, 1903, her husband (deceased) having previously held the licence. The house was rated at 32, and was formerly known as the Fountain. There were three licensed houses in High Street, two full and one beerhouse. From High Street there were two entrances to the house, one serving bar with four different compartments. Within a radius of 100 yards there were seven other licensed houses, 150 yards 24 licensed houses, and 200 yards 34 licensed houses. In 1904 an order was made by the Magistrates for a wall to be built, cutting off a back entrance by a passage to High Street. There had been six transfers in 12 years. The lady (Mrs. Ashford) and her former husband had held possession for seven years.

Mr. Minter: What has been the conduct of the house?

The Chief Constable: Satisfactory to me.

Mr. Minter: There is a house opposite. Why did you not select that?

The Chief Constable: The beerhouse has no back way to it.

The Chairman said the Bench would not trouble Mr. Minter any further, as they had decided to renew the licence.

 

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 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.

Channel Inn.

Mr. J. Minter represented the owners in this case.

The Chief Constable said the present tenant was Alice Ashford, who obtained the transfer of the licence on 5th March, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The rateable value of the house was 32. There were three on-licensed houses in High Street, two full and one beerhouse. There were two entrances to this house from High Street. There was one serving bar between four compartments.

Within a radius of 100 yards there were 7 other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards there were 24; and within a radius of 200 yards there were 34. The trade he considered a very small one indeed, and the licence unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. There was also one thing to which he must draw the special attention of the Bench, that was to a right of way that existed from the house through a passage into Tontine Street. There was a right of way to this house, also to the houses adjoining, one on the right and the other on the left. In 1904 an order was made to build a wall across a flight of steps leading from the public bars of this house down to the passage at the back; that was done. There had been six transfers in twelve years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The present tenant had conducted the house in a satisfactory manner. There was a beerhouse opposite. He did not select that one because there was no back way.

The Chairman said that the case need not be proceeded with further, as the Bench had decided to grant the licence.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Messrs. W.J. Herbert, Fymore, Hamilton, Linton, Leggett, Ames, Stainer, and Pursey.

Mrs. Ashford, of the Channel Inn, was charged with serving children with intoxicating liquors. Mr. Haines appeared for the defence.

Detective Burniston deposed that at 11.15 a.m. on the 27th November he saw a boy leave, carrying a pint bottle containing half a pint of beer. He asked the boy his age, and from what he said he took him to defendant in the bar. She said she had served him, but did not ask his age as he looked fourteen, so she did not trouble.

Louisa Venner, wife of J.G. Venner, of 8, Mill Bay, said the child was born on the 27th May, 1895.

In reply to Mr. Haines, she said she had not sent her boy to the Channel Inn for beer.

Mrs. Ashford deposed that the boy came in and asked for half a pint of beer. She served him, but did not ask him his age. She thought he was 14. She had never seen him before.

In reply to the Chief Constable, she said that she knew the law, and honestly believed the boy was 14. She did not do much jug trade.

Defendant was fined 5s. and 14s. 6d. costs.

Elizabeth Davis, of Mill Bay, was summoned for sending the boy for the beer, and pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Burniston deposed that he saw defendant, who admitted the offence, saying her daughter was out.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, and allowed a week to pay.

 

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 Herald 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.

Alice Ashford was summoned for selling beer in an unsealed bottle to a child under 14 years of age, on 27th November last. Mr. Haines appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

D.S. Burniston deposed that at 11.15 on the morning of the 27th November he saw the boy, Thomas Henry Venner, leave the public bar of the Channel Inn, carrying a pint bottle containing half a pint of beer. The bottle (produced) had no cork or seal. Witness stopped the boy, and questioned him as to his age, and from what he told witness he took him back into the private bar, where he saw defendant behind the bar, serving customers. He said to her “Did you serve this boy (meaning Venner) with this half pint of beer?” She said “Yes”. Witness then said “Did you ask his age?”, and she replied “No, as he looked 14 I did not trouble”.

Mrs. Louisa Venner, wife of George Joseph Venner, of 8, Mill Bay, said that the boy (her son) was born on May 27th, 1895.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: She did not allow her boy to go for beer for the neighbours. He had gone occasionally to get a bottle, but it had always been sealed. Previously he had got it from the Eagle, and he had never been to the Channel before.

Mrs. Ashford, defendant, examined by Mr. Haines on oath, said the boy asked for half a pint of beer, and produced a bottle. She never saw him before in her life. She did not ask him his age because she thought he was 14. She did not do any jug trade in the house scarcely. In future she would know what to do, and could assure the Bench she would be particular in that way.

Mr. Haines briefly addressed the Bench on the case, urging that it was a question of common sense as to whether the boy appeared to be under 14 or not. He regretted that the law on the subject did not go far enough. It provided that children under 14 years of age, if served with beer, must be served with the liquor in sealed receptacles. The Act did not, unfortunately, keep the children from the contamination of public houses.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion could not have thought the boy was over 14. She would be fined 5s. and 14s. 7d. costs, in default 14 days'.

Eilizabeth Harris pleaded Guilty to sending the boy Venner.

D.S. Burniston gave evidence.

Defendant said she was very sorry. She sent the child with never a thought that she was doing wrong.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'. A week was allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Tuesday, February 5th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such offences.

The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were illegal. Every licence holder must understand that they were to be immediately removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be removed.

The renewal licences for the Black Bull Hotel, the Railway Inn, the Chequers, Queen's Head, Channel Inn, Alexandra Tavern, Perseverance, and Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, were adjourned till the 4th March, some on account of convictions, and some for the consideration of closing them under the Licensing Act. The other applications were granted, a full report of which will appear in our next issue.

 

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 Herald 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for details see Folkestone Express report).

The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory, and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny, pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful, and not create nuisances with these machines.

The licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen's Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition being given on the ground of redundancy.

The renewals of the licences of the Black Bull Hotel, Alexandra Tavern, Imperial, and Railway Hotel were all adjourned till the adjourned sessions for reasons not given.

The Justices fixed the 4th March as the date of the adjourned licensing meeting.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.

There were seven licences to be considered: The Black Bull, Railway Tavern (sic), Railway Hotel, Perseverance, Chequers, Channel Inn, and Queen's Head.

The Channel Inn.

Mr. Haines appeared for the tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and Mr. Minter for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Chief Constable put in a plan in which he had marked out the area, showing the number of public houses. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population of 4,600. There were 37 on-licensed houses, and eight other premises licensed also, making a total of 45 houses licensed for the sale of drink in that area. This gave a proportion of one licence for 20 houses, or every 102 persons, and one on-licence to every 24 persons (sic). For the whole borough there were 89 on-licensed houses, and 42 other houses licensed, making a total of 131 licensed for the sale of drink by retail. This gave a proportion of a licence for 233 persons, or one on-licence to every 344 persons. This was according to the census of 1891, when the population was given as 31,160. There were also within that congested area three registered clubs, with a total membership of 830. During the past year, 1906, there were 131 cases of drunkenness dealt with by the Borough Magistrates, and of these 53 were from this congested area.

With reference to the Channel Inn, he proposed to oppose the renewal of the licence on the ground that the licence was not required for the area. The Channel Inn was situated in High Street, and the present tenant was Mrs. Ashford, who obtained a transfer of licence in 1902, the owners being Mackeson and Co., of Hythe. The rateable value was 22. There were three on-licensed houses in High Street. The trade was small, and the residents did not appear to use the house. The present licensee was convicted for serving a child under fourteen years of age, and fined 5s. and costs. Beyond that he had no complaint to make against the house. In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Haines: Do I understand you make no complaint?

The Chief Constable: I do not object to the house on this conviction.

Mr. Haines: With regard to those other houses, they are outside this area? – Yes.

If we took another area, say near the Town Hall, that would not be a congested area? – Well, no.

When you speak of the requirements of the neighbourhood, you speak simply of the residents? – I rarely see any of the residents go into the house.

If you were asked to give evidence as to the trade done, you could not estimate it by simply passing the house? – Well, no. It is impossible to tell the amount of trade done by simply passing the house.

When you said this house did little business, on what do you base your opinion? – By the number I see going in as I pass.

Mr. Minter did not cross-examine.

Detective Burniston corroborated the Chief Constable in the main facts, and said the remaining two houses were quite sufficient.

Mr. Haines cross-examined – The only business was the supplying of soldiers in the evening, which he arrived at by passing and also visiting. He had no dates, although he had visited it more than a dozen times during the year, at all times of the day. His visits were on business as a detective, and had nothing to do with the opposing of the licence.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench on the question of the opposition. The owners had complied in every way with the orders of the Bench. The Chief Constable said the house was well conducted. The tenant had put the whole of her money into the business, and his client would tell them that there had been a great demand for eating as well as drinking, and she hoped to improve the trade. He asked the Bench to consider whether it was necessary to take away the licence, as they had already taken away several licences in this particular area.

The tenant, Mrs. Ashford, gave evidence as to the trade of the house. The trade in the winter was about 6 or 7, and from 10 to 12 in the summer. She had spent a lot on improvements, and managed to get a living. The backway was never used by customers, and she was quite content to remain there. She had often sold food to visitors, and had sometimes sent them away. She had 150 in going in. There had been an increase in the trade.

Mrs. Ashford could not give the names of her customers who came to her. She did not set out any tables for visitors who wanted something to eat.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he thought it was a most unjustifiable attempt to get rid of the licences, and was an injustice to the owners. He said it was an attempt to evade the Act of Parliament which said that if certain things were done, nothing should be done for another five years. This meant that that house was safe for five years, provided that nothing occurred against the house. The same Bench two years ago gave notice that certain alterations should be made, and the alterations had been examined by the Bench. What fresh facts had arisen since then? Nothing. Then why should an attack be made on this particular house? The backway referred to was absurd, for there was no entry to the premises by the back, except for coals. The whole facts were in the knowledge of the Magistrates, who knew that everything had been done which they had ordered. Then, according to the Act, the Magistrates could not condemn the house. But why should they take away their licence? It seemed somewhat of an anomaly that the Chief Constable should pitch upon them he did not know, but he supposed the Chief Constable must do his duty. The owners had complied in every way with the orders of the Bench, and he therefore contended that the Magistrates had no right to take away the licence of the Channel Inn, and he asked them to grant the renewal.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licence would be referred to the Licensing Committee.

 

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 Herald 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.

Channel Inn.

The first of the opposed licences to be considered was that of the Channel Inn. Mr. Haines appeared for the tenant, and Mr. J. Minter for the owners.

Chief Constable Reeve put in an ordnance plan, on which he had marked out an area which embraced the old part of the borough, round from Radnor Bridge Road, Dover Road, High Street, and the Harbour. In that area there were 920 houses with a population approximately of 4,600 (that was reckoning five per house). There were 37 on-licensed houses and 8 other premises licensed, making a total of 45 houses licensed for the sale of drink in 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-licensed houses, and 42 other premises licensed, making a total of 131 licences for the sale of drink by retail. That gave a proportion of one licence to every 233 persons, or one on licence to every 344 persons. That was according to the census of 1901, when the population of the borough was given as 30,650. There were also within the congested area 3 registered clubs, with a total membership of 830. During the past year, 1906, there were 131 charges of drunkenness dealt with by the borough Magistrates, and of these 53 were from the small congested area shown on the plan.

Coming to the house in question, witness produced the notice of intention to oppose the licence on the ground that it was not necessary.

The Channel Inn was situated in High Street, the present licensee being Alice Ashford, who obtained a transfer of the licence on 5th March, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., of Hythe. The rateable value of the house was 32. Witness handed in a plan of the house.

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

Witness: It is a plan you deposited with the Justices two years ago, sir. (Laughter)

Mr. Minter: All right.

Continuing, witness 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, and was about twelve yards away. There were two entrances to the Channel from High Street, and one bar, which was divided into four compartments. The centre one was small and dark. Within a radius of 200 yards of the 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 be a small one, and very few, if any, residents of the street used the house. The present licensee was convicted in December for delivering beer unsealed to a child under 14 years of age. Beyond that witness had no complaint 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: He did not object to the house on the ground of the conviction. The area he had alluded to was formed in his mind. The house was not quite in the congested area. The area as one came further west was not so congested, but he had taken the Channel Inn as the centre of a 200 yards radius. It was impossible for an outsider to accurately judge the trade of the house. In 1899 the present tenant's husband took the house, and it was transferred to Alice Ashford on his death. Two years ago the Bench considered the question of the right of way, and the only alteration was the making of a brick wall. The requirements of the justices were carried out. His opinion was that the Channel Inn was inferior to the other houses for police supervision. Neither of the other two had a back right of way. The Channel Inn was put back last year for opposition, but it was renewed without the case being gone into. The only fresh fact since that was the conviction. He could not suggest that any of the 53 drunks came from that house. He could not say what trade a house should do; he judged by the people going in and out.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that in the course of his duties he visited a great many licensed houses in the town. He would say that the Channel Inn was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and a very small trade appeared to be done there. In the case of the licence being refused, there would be sufficient accommodation for the customers in the remaining two houses.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He had visited the house a good many times, in the morning, afternoon, and evening, having gone there on duty. When he went in he had no idea that the licence was to be opposed. He would say that the house did about two barrels of beer a week.

Mr. Haines referred to the actions of the owners in the past in carrying out the desire of the Bench as to structural alterations. He pointed out that the Bench had already refused the renewals of eight licences in the district, and that made a difference.

Alice Ashford, the licensee, stated that in the winter she took from 8 to 10 a week, and in the summer from 10 to 12. She got a living, and she had spent already more than 100 out of her profits. The back way was never used by her customers. She would be content to remain there. She had often thought of cultivating the eating trade in that house, for she often had people wanting refreshment of that kind. When she went into the house she paid 150 on valuation. She did not get a great many residents in the house. Last year she paid 260 to her brewers, and this year she had paid 300.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: She could not give the name of a resident in the neighbourhood who used the house. It was in the summer that her own food was eaten up, but she did not set out any tables. There would be sufficient accommodation in the other 29 houses in the 200 yards area to supply the wants of her customers.

Mr. Minter contended that it was an unjustifiable attempt to get rid of the house, and was not doing justice to the house. It was an attempt to give the Act of Parliament the “go-by”, as the Section said that once the Licensing Committee had called upon an owner to remedy certain structural defects, if that was done no further alteration should be required from the owners for another five years. Two years ago the Bench ordered certain structural alterations, and these were carried out.

In reply to the Bench, the Chief Constable said that the alterations were made in 1904.

Mr. Ward: That was before the Act came into force.

The Bench decided to refer the licence to the East Kent Licensing Committee.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 July 1907.

Local News.

Our readers will remember that at the recent Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer the licences of the Channel Inn, High Street, the Queen's Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, to the County Licensing Authority. At a meeting of this body on Thursday the question came up for consideration, and eventually it was decided to withdraw the licences of the Channel Inn, the Perseverance, and the Queen's Head. The licence of the Railway Inn was renewed. Compensation will, of course, be granted to the owners and tenants of the closed houses.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 July 1907.

Local News.

Lord Harris presided at the principal meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Thursday.

The Committee had referred to them twenty four houses, including four from Folkestone, viz., the Channel, High Street; the Railway Inn, Beach Street; the Perseverance, Dover Street; and the Queen's Head, Beach Street.

The Channel Inn.

Mr. Matthew appeared to support the action of the Licensing Justices, and Mr. Bodkin was for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

Chief Constable Reeve gave evidence as to the congested area in the old part of Folkestone. In this area there were altogether 45 licences. From the High Street district they had more charges of drunkenness than from any other part of Folkestone. Within 200 yards of the Channel Inn there were 29 other on-licences. The house was used chiefly by soldiers and girls.

In reply to Mr. Bodkin, witness said there had been an improvement effected at the back of the premises, at the request of the Justices. He was not suggesting that an illegitimate trade was done at the back premises. Since the congested area had been dealt with ten licensed houses had disappeared, eight with compensation, and two without. This house was considered last year by the Justices, and renewed.

Detective Sergeant Burniston gave corroborative evidence, and said that very few residents used the house.

Mr. Bodkin contended that the Justices, having required structural alterations to be carried out at the premises, which had at once been done by the brewers at an expense of about 50, ought not to require the house to go within nine months of doing such improvements. It seemed that because the Justices had been successful in getting ten houses closed in this congested area, they were hoping to be as successful in this case, although it was a house where a lady had been getting a respectable living for the past eight years. He did not know what the lady would do if the Committee refused the licence.

The tenant gave evidence as to the house having been carried on by her husband and herself for eight years. In summer she sold ten or twelve barrels a week, and in winter seven or eight. It was her sole means of livelihood. Her husband paid about 160 when they went in.

Mr. Henry Mackeson said his firm were the freeholders of the premises, and long before they knew the house was to be referred to that Committee they had made arrangements to have it rebuilt and made into a large licensed restaurant.

The Committee decided to renew the Railway Inn, but to refuse those of the Channel, Perseverance, and Queen's Head.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

HOLLAND James 1984-95 Bastions

LECKIE Hannah 1895-96 Bastions

WINCH Mr 1896 Bastions

ACRELL Arthur James 1896-99 Kelly's 1899Bastions

ASHFORD Frederick 1899-1902 BastionsKelly's 1903

ASHFORD Alice 1902-07 Bastions

 

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room