DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1861

Cinque Port Arms

Latest 1905

2 Seagate Street

Folkestone

 

I have only recently added Folkestone to this site. The information gathered so far is from "Old Folkestone Pubs" by C H Bishop M.A. Ph.D. and Kevan of http://deadpubs.co.uk/

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.

The fourth applicant was Mr. J. W. Mullett, for a license to a house called the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street.

Mr. Minter opposed the application and said the remarks which he had previously made respecting Mr. Hogben's house applied with equal force to this one. It was not at all necessary, as the Chequers stood next door but one to it, and it was surrounded by licensed houses in the neighbourhood. It was a small house, and till lately used as an eating house, and it was not the proper class of house to which a spirit license ought to be granted.

The court was then cleared for a short time, and on the re-admission of the public Captain Kennicott said the magistrates had decided to refuse the application.

Notes: No record of Mullett at the Cinque Ports appears in More Bastions. Was this house already licensed and applying only for the addition of a spirit license as in the case of the Gun?

 

Folkestone Express 16 January 1869.

Gas Summons.

Saturday, January 9th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N. and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Abraham Allcorn, proprietor of the Cinque Ports Arms, in Seagate Street, appeared to answer a summons for balance of account owing to the Folkestone Gas Company.

Mr. S. Page said: I am a collector of gas rents for the Folkestone Gas Company. Defendant owes the company 19s. 6d. for gas supplied to his house, the Cinque Ports Arms, for the quarter ending September 30th; 1s 6d. is for the hire of meter. I have demanded payment of the amount. The original bill was 1 19s. 6d., and I have received 1 on account. I took the state of the meter about the 3rd or 4th of October; it stood at 39,200, against 31,600 in the previous quarter, showing a consumption of 7,600 feet, which at 5s. per 1,000 feet will amount to 1 18s., and 1s. 6d. for the hire of meter.

The defendant said the reason he did not pay was because he thought the amount excessive, and he had an impression that the meter was a bad one and registered more gas than was actually consumed.

The Bench said they must make the usual order, the money to be paid in seven days, or distress; in default of distress, 14 days.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 September 1869.

Thursday, September 9th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq.

Henry Grayling was charged with being drunk and assaulting Thomas Murch in Seagate Street on the 8th instant.

Prosecutor said he was a stoker on board the S.E.R. steamboats. The prisoner came into his house, the Cinque Port Arms about half past nine or ten o'clock on Wednesday evening. He was in drink. Witness ordered him out. Prisoner up fist and hit him on the eye, tore his waistcoat and shirt off him, and broke two panes of glass and tried to throttle him. He gave him in the custody of P.C. Ovenden.

Henry Hart, a lodger at plaintiff's house, gave corroborative evidence.

P.C. Ovenden proved taking him into custody from Murch.

Prisoner said he meant no harm to the complainant, and was very sorry for what he had done. He was not solely to blame for this assault.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk, and sentenced him to 21 days' hard labour for the assault.

 

Folkestone Observer 16 October 1869.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before R.W. Boarer, John Gambrill, John Clark, and – Dashwood Esqs.

Mr. Murch applied for a transfer of the licence granted to Mr. Mercer to sell beer at the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Cinque Ports Arms beerhouse, from Mr. Mercer to Mr. March.

Note: More Bastions lists no record of a Mercer at the Cinque Ports.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 December 1869.

Wednesday, December 15th: Before R.W. Boarer and John Gambrill Esqs.

Alfred Offen was charged with stealing on the 6th inst. a blue cloth jacket and scarf of the value of 1 0s. 6d., the goods and chattels of Thomas Reynolds.

The prosecutor, a seaman lodging at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, deposed he knew the prisoner, who also lodged in the same house, and slept with him. On Monday morning when he got up, he missed a blue monkey jacket and a check sea shawl – the jacket from his bedroom, and the scarf from the kitchen. The prisoner got up before witness awoke. Yesterday he went to Dover with P.C. Swain and found prisoner at Mr. Bryson's, the baker in Market Square. He gave prisoner into custody and returned to Folkestone. He next went with Swain to Webb's, the rag and bone man on The Narrows, where they found the jacket and scarf produced, which witness identified as his property. The jacket was worth 1, and the scarf sixpence.

Fanny Linkink, servant at the Cinque Ports Arms, deposed to prosecutor and prisoner lodging together at the house. She called the prisoner at half past five on Monday morning, the 5th inst., and saw him leave the house at seven with prosecutor's coat on, and asked him what business he had with it. He replied that prosecutor lent it to him. She heard prosecutor tell him on the Friday night previous that he was not to wear the coat any more. The scarf she had to wash on the Saturday, but had not time to wash it, and left it on the window sill in the kitchen, where prisoner washed, and cleaned his boots. It was there at half past six, and gone at half past seven o'clock.

Henry Webb, marine store dealer, said prisoner came to him on Wednesday the 8th inst. between six and seven in the evening and said “Mr. Webb, I've passed the doctor, and my sergeant tells me it's no use taking the jacket to the Camp, so I may as well sell it here as there”. Thereupon he gave him 3s. for the coat, and 2d. for the scarf. He saw prisoner at the Shakespeare on Monday wearing the coat, which he then offered to sell, but witness refused to buy it.

P.C. Swain said he went to Dover with prosecutor, and found prisoner working at a confectioner's shop in Biggin Street. He charged him and took him into custody. He made no reply. Afterwards he said he had sold it to Mr. Webb, the last witness.

Prisoner was formally cautioned, and pleading guilty, was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 December 1869.

Local News.

On Wednesday a lad named Alfred Offen was sent to Petworth for six weeks’ hard labour for stealing an overcoat. He lodged at the Cinque Ports Arms, with a seaman named Thos. Reynolds, and on the 7th inst., got up first and went off with a monkey jacket and a scarf belonging to his bed-fellow.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1871.

Friday, January 6th: Before R.W. Boarer, C.H. Dashwood and J. Clarke Esqs.

Andrew Keogh was charged with being drunk and riotous in Seagate Street.

John Pound, of the Cinque Ports Arms, said the prisoner lodged at his house. After he and his wife had retired to rest they had a row, and knocked the furniture about.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The charge was being drunk in Seagate Street. Was there any disturbance in the street?

Witness: No, it was in my house.

The Clerk: There is no law for charging a person getting drunk in a house.

The charge of being drunk and riotous was dismissed, and the prisoner was then charged with wilfully damaging the furniture to the extent of 1s.

The prisoner said he could repair the damage if any was done.

This charge was also dismissed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

Wednesday, October 1st: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The following house was qualified by rating according to the Wine and Beerhouse Act:

James Hyam, Cinque Ports Arms.

 

Folkestone Express 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Cinque Ports Arms.

Tuesday, September 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

The application of James Hyham was adjourned from the annual meeting for the purpose of ascertaining the annual value of the house. Mr. Banks having proved that it was 23, the application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 21 July 1877.

Saturday, July 14th: Before J. Clarke Esq., Alderman Caister, and General Armstrong.

William Hutchins applied for a temporary authority to sell beer at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street. Granted.

Note: No record of this listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 18 August 1877.

Advertisement.

Notice To Tradesmen And Others. I hereby give notice that I will not be answerable for any debt or debts my wife, Mary Brough, late of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, may contract after this date.

John Brough,

Folkestone, 17th August, 1875.

 

Folkestone Express 31 August 1878.

Monday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, and Captain Carter.

Thomas Jeffery was charged with being in unlawful possession of a fowl on the 24th inst.

Sergeant Reynolds said that on Saturday evening he was standing by the Wonder tavern and se saw the prisoner pass him very quickly with a fowl under the tail of his coat, kicking and struggling. He ran after him and stopped him in Radnor Street. The fowl's neck had been broken, but it was not dead. He asked him where he had obtained it, and he replied that he had just given a man 2s. for it. He took him into custody and walked into the Tram Road, when prisoner asked him if he would go to the Cinque Ports Arms. He went and saw the landlady, who is the prisoner's sister, and asked her if she had lost a fowl. She said she didn't know, but thought the one produced belonged to her.

Superintendent Wilshere applied for a remand until the next day, which was granted.

Tuesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, and Captain Carter.

Thomas Richardson Jeffery was brought up on remand charged with being in unlawful possession of a fowl.

William Fletcher, landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, and brother-in-law of the prisoner, was called, and he asked not to give evidence as he did not wish to press the charge.

The Bench, however, said it was a duty he owed to public justice to give evidence.

He then said that he kept a number of fowls, but he could not say of what kind they were. His wife missed some fowls.

The Mayor again cautioned him that being a licensed victualler he was bound to assist the police in protecting property.

Witness said he would speak the truth, and that he only knew what his wife had told him. His wife, Elizabeth Fletcher, was then sent for, and said the prisoner was in their house on Saturday evening. He left about eight. He had been gone about a quarter of an hour when he returned in company with Sergeant Reynolds. The Sergeant had a fowl with him and he asked witness if it was hers. She took it in her hand and said it was not hers. She, however, went to see if one was missing, but she did not miss one then, but afterwards. The fowls were kept in a yard. She could not swear to the fowl produced. The wings of her fowls were clipped.

Prisoner wished the case to be tried by the Bench, pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1879.

Saturday, March 8th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

Amelia Spearpoint appeared to a summons charging her with threatening Elizabeth Fletcher, who asked that she should be required to find sureties to keep the peace. Mr. Wightwick appeared for the defendant.

Complainant said her husband was landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street. She, however, left him about a fortnight ago, and was lodging at the Albert Edward. On the 5th February she saw defendant in the street outside the Albert Edward, and hearing her name mentioned by Mrs. Spearpoint, she asked whether she wanted her. She replied by using “very ungrateful language”, and accused her of being in the company of her husband the night before. Mrs. Spearpoint also attempted to strike complainant and said “I'll do for you or you shall do for me”. She then sent for a policeman and P.C. Knowles came.

Thomas Rough Cryer, of the Albert Edward, said the complainant was now lodging at his house. On the 5th inst. Mrs. Spearpoint came and asked if Mrs. Fletcher was in. He told her she was not. Just at the time, complainant came out of the next door, and Mrs. Spearpoint abused her and called her foul names. He also heard her say “I'll do for you when I catch you out”.

Emily Goodchild, sister of the defendant, who was present when the occurrence took place, was called for the defence and denied that defendant used any threats. Both women were very much excited. Mrs. Spearpoint did raise her hand, but did not strike complainant, because “she did not get nigh her”. (Laughter)

Defendant was ordered to find one surety in 10 to keep the peace for three months.

Note: The Albert Edward is a complete mystery. Initial reaction was that the reporter got the name of the Prince Albert wrong (there had been reports about the new cross-Channel steamer running out of Folkestone – called the Albert Edward), but no record of Mr. Cryer being at the Prince Albert – or indeed any pub – exists. It may be that the Albert Edward was a lodging house, but so far no records of that have come to light. Update: It appears that this was a coffee tavern, located next to the Royal George.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1882.

Licensing Day.

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

All the old license were renewed with the exception of three – that of the Skylark, the George, and the Cinque Port Arms – against which there were complaints, and the consideration of the applications was postponed till the adjourned licensing day.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 August 1882.

Annual Licensing Session.

This session was held on Wednesday.

On the tenants of the Skylark, the George Inn, and the Cinque Port Arms applying for a renewal of their licences, Supt. Taylor said he had received information from Inspector Gosby that all three houses were meeting places for women of ill-fame, and the Bench decided to adjourn each case till the 27th Sept.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1882.

Licensing Day.

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

All the old licenses were renewed with the exception of three – that of the "Skylark," the "George," and the "Cinque Port Arms" – against which there were complaints, and the consideration of the applications was postponed till the adjourned licensing day.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 September 1882.

Disorderly Houses.

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

Opposition was made to the granting of the licenses to the George, George Lane, the Skylark, and the Cinque Ports, on the ground that they harboured bad women.

The Bench administered a severe caution, but especially to the landlord of the George, impressing on them that they would lose their licenses if the offence was repeated.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1882.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

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

The granting of the licenses to the George, the Skylark, and the Cinque Port Arms was adjourned at the last meeting, the Superintendent of Police opposing their renewal on the ground that women of bad character were allowed to resort there.

Inspector Gosby was called, and said he occasionally visited the houses and found prostitutes at the bar. They went in for refreshments, but hung about the house. A month ago there were some of these women lodging at the Cinque Ports.

The Superintendent said in the cases of the George and the Skylark there had been a great improvement since the annual licensing meeting.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on behalf of the licensees of the George and the Skylark, urging that they were doing their best to conduct their houses properly, and the Bench renewed all three, but with a strong caution in the case of the Cinque Ports.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 September 1882.

Licensing Meeting.

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

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of G.L. Quin, of the George Inn, Robert Carter of the Skylark, and William Lywood of the Cinque Ports, explained that the cases had been adjourned from the last court in order that Inspector Gosby, of the Metropolitan Police, might be present. The cases were of a similar nature, and he asked that the evidence in all three should be taken together. The suggestion was that the houses were the resorts of fast women. Evidence was called, and Messrs. Mowll and Ward addressed the Bench on behalf of the tenants.

The magistrates, after a short deliberation, said that in the cases of the George and Skylark they were quite satisfied that it was the intention to discontinue any irregularities. The other case was a very different one, for it appeared if the tenant had been prosecuted for having women of that class in his house he would have been convicted. If the tenant allowed such women to live in his house, he would have his licence taken away, but the Bench would not do so on this occasion. They, however, desired to caution him that if the practice was not discontinued his licence would be taken away.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1883.

Advertisement.

To Let: The Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone. Doing a good trade, and rent very low. Apply Steam Brewery, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 23 June 1883.

Wednesday, June 20th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

The transfer of the license for the Cinque Ports was confirmed.

 

Folkestone News 8 March 1884.

Monday, March 3rd: Before W. Bateman, J. Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs.

Upon application the licence of the Cinque Port Arms was transferred to James Stickles, formerly of Dover.

 

Folkestone Express 6 December 1884.

Advertisement.

To Let: The Cinque Port Arms Public House, Seagate Street, Folkestone. Rent and Valuation to incoming tenant low. For particulars apply to Messrs. Nickoll and Furner, Steam Brewery, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1885.

Wednesday, January 28th.

Licence Transfer.

At the Police Court on Wednesday morning the following transfer of licence was effected:

The Cinque Ports Arms: to Charles Caseley.

Note: No mention of Caseley in More Bastions. Most likely a mishearing of Kerslake.

 

Folkestone Express 31 January 1885.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Hoad, W. Bateman and F. Boykett Esqs.

The Licence of the Cinque Port Arms was transferred to William Kerslake.

 

Folkestone News 31 January 1885.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Hoad, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Boykett.

Mr. William Carsley (sic) obtained a transfer to himself of the licence of the Cinque Ports Arms.

 

Folkestone Express 17 April 1886.

Saturday, April 10th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Capt. Carter, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Herman Lyons to carry on the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

 

Folkestone News 17 April 1886.

Saturday, April 10th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Capt. Carter, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Herman Lyons to carry on the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

 

Folkestone News 1 May 1886.

Wednesday, April 28th:

Transfer was granted as follows: H. Lyons, Cinque Ports Arms.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 November 1886.

Saturday, October 31st: Before Colonel De Crespigny, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Martha Ann Fuller was charged with committing an assault on Mary Ann Lyons, whose husband keeps the Cinque Port Arms. Mr. Ward prosecuted.

Mrs. Lyons stated that on Sunday evening defendant's husband was quarrelling with another man in the bar, and her husband asked them to leave the house, but they refused. He then turned Fuller out. There was a scuffle, and as she went round to save the glasses from being broken the defendant struck her in the eye and made use of bad language.

The defendant was fined 2s. 6d., and 11s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 14 December 1889.

Transfer.

Wednesday, December 11th: Before Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Ward applied for a transfer of the licence of the Cinque Ports Arms from A. Farr to Robert Weatherhead, and the transfer was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 February 1892.

Wednesday, February 17th: Before J. Holden Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Robert Weatherhead, landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, was charged with allowing prostitutes to remain on his premises longer than the time required for refreshments.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Harman said on Tuesday the 9th inst., about quarter past nine in the evening, he watched the Cinque Ports Arms in Seagate Street. He saw several women go in, and at quarter to 10 he visited the house, where he saw a prostitute named Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter standing in the bar drinking. About 15 soldiers were around them, and several civilians. He left the house then, and at half past 10 he saw Mrs. Spearpoint come out with a soldier belonging to the Dragoons. About a quarter of an hour afterwards – quarter to 11 – she returned to the house. At five minutes to 11 witness visited the house again, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter in company with 15 or 20 soldiers, and another prostitute sitting on a seat with a soldier, who had his arm round her waist. Defendant's wife and her daughter were behind the bar. The defendant afterwards came up, and witness said to him “You know those women are prostitutes? I shall report you for harbouring”. He said “I don't know how they get their living”. He had frequently seen prostitutes in the house. It was almost a nightly occurrence.

By Mr. Watts: Mrs. Weatherhead was serving when he went in. He had never timed women staying there before.

Sergt. Swift said he accompanied Sergt. Harman to the house at 10.30, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint leave with a soldier. She returned about ten minutes afterwards. Witness and Sergt. Harman went into the house at 10.30 and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter in front of the bar with eight or ten soldiers round them. On the previous night he watched the house from 10.55 until 11, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter leave. They did not enter during the period. On two occasions within the last six weeks he had had to go to the house at 11.20, and had found Spearpoint and some soldiers on the premises.

By Mr. Watts: It was a very low neighbourhood, but he had never seen any other prostitutes frequent the house.

Mr. Watts said he would be obliged to dispute the facts, and called the defendant as a witness: He stated that he went into the house at 10.40, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint go in with two soldiers. Witness went down into the kitchen, and was almost immediately called up by Sergt. Harman, who said “Are you aware you are serving prostitutes?” and he said “No”.

Mrs. Weatherhead stated that Mrs. Spearpoint came in at 9.20, had a glass of beer, and went out. Miss Spearpoint came in at 10.40 with two soldiers. Her mother came in directly afterwards, and before she had time to serve her “the two Sergeants came in like lions”. (Laughter)

By Mr. Bradley: She was in the bar all the evening. Sergt. Harman came in at 9.45, but it was untrue that there were any women in the house then. There were only four soldiers in the house when Harman came in the last time.

Henry Morley, an able seaman, said he was at the Cinque Ports Arms all the evening on the 9th, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter go into the house at 9.30. They stayed about three minutes, and went out. The women came in again about 20 minutes to 11. Mrs. Spearpoint called for a glass of beer, but before she could be served the policemen came in.

Mr. Bradley: What were you doing in the house all that time? – I'm a teetotaller, sir. I was drinking ginger beer all the time. (Laughter)

Stephen Moore, a mariner, said he was in the house from 8.30 to 11. He saw the two Spearpoints come in about 9.20, and remain two or three minues. The youngest came in again about 20 minutes to 11 with two soldiers, and they were served with a quart of beer. The elder one followed. They had been there two or three minutes when the police came in. They were not in the house at 10.30.

Mr. Holden said they fully believed the case to have been proved. They were perfectly satisfied with the evidence of the two Sergeants, who were honourable men. They would not come there and give false evidence; they knew them too well. The defendant's house was constantly open to receive prostitutes, although it was not so bad as some of them. The maximum fine was 10, but that would be mitigated to 40s. and 14s. costs.

Defendant: I shan't pay it!

The Chairman: One month in default. You may think yourself very well off.

 

Folkestone Express 20 February 1892.

Wednesday, February 17th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, Geo. Spurgen and J. Holden Esqs.

Robert Weatherhead was summoned for allowing his house, the Cinque Ports Arms, to be used as a resort for reputed prostitutes, and allowing them to remain longer than was necessary for them to obtain refreshment.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defendant.

Sergeant Harman said on Tuesday, the 9th inst., he watched the defendant's house. He saw several women go in. At a quarter to ten he went into the house and saw Mrs. Spearpoint, a widow, and her daughter standing in the bar drinking. They were surrounded by a number of soldiers – there were about fifteen in the house, and several civilians. He left the house, and at half past ten saw Mrs. Spearpoint leave with a Dragoon and go down Dover Street and along Harbour Street. She returned in about a quarter of an hour, and again went into the house. At five minutes to eleven he visited the house with Sergeant Swift, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter with about 15 or 20 soldiers in the public bar, and another woman named Hopkins sitting by the side of a soldier. Defendant's wife and daughter were behind the bar. He had some conversation with them, and asked for defendant, who came up from the kitchen, and in the presence of Mrs. Spearpoint he told them he knew they were prostitutes and he should report him for harbouring them. Defendant replied “I don't know how they get their living – You can report it”. The whole company left the house at eleven o'clock. Mrs. Weatherhead also said she did not know how they got their living. He had frequently seen the Spearpoints and Hopkins there.

Sergeant Swift gave corroborative evidence. On two occasions he had had to go to the house a few minutes past eleven, and on each occasion saw the Spearpoints there.

Robert Weatherhead, the defendant, was called by Mr. Watts, and said when he went into the kitchen there were no women there. About twenty minutes to eleven he saw Mrs. Spearpoint's daughter go in, followed by two sergeants. A few minutes after, he was called up by the Sergeant, who asked him if he was aware he was serving prostitutes. He replied that he did not know. Nothing of the sort had happened before.

Fanny Weatherhead, defendant's wife, said the woman went in and had a glass of beer, but did not stay more than three minutes. The young woman went in again about twenty minutes to eleven with two soldiers, and the other woman followed. She did not know them to be prostitutes.

Henry Morley said he was in teh Cinque Ports Arms all the evening on the 9th of February. He saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter go in at 9.30, have a glass of beer, and go out. They were not there more than about three minutes. He saw them go in again about twenty minutes to eleven. Sergeant Harman and Sergeant Swift followed them in. He was a teetotaller and drank nothing but ginger beer all the time. There were not fifteen soldiers in the bar at any time – only about six.

Stephen Moore, a seaman on the diving boats, said he was in the Cinque Ports from 8.30 till 11, and saw the woman go in at 9.20, have a glass of beer, and go out. The younger one returned about twenty minutes to eleven with two soldiers, who called for a quart of beer. The older woman went in a minute or two after and asked for a glass of beer. Before it was drawn the police sergeants went in. He only knew the women by sight. They were not in the house at half past ten.

Mr. Holden announced the decision of the Bench. They were satisfied the case was proved by the two sergeants, who were honourable men and would not come to give false evidence. The house, it was proved, was habitually open to prostitutes – it was not as bad as some. The Magistrates would not deal with the licence, nor impose the maximum fine of 10. Defendant would be fined 40s. and 14s. costs, or one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 August 1892.

Saturday, August 6th: Before Messrs. J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, W.G. Boykett, and Alderman Pledge.

Robert Weatherhead, the boatman, was charged with having a quantity of tobacco, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt asked that the case might be adjourned so that he might have an opportunity of communicating with the Honourable Board of Customs. They had very grave information that tobacco was being landed in very quantities.

Defendant said he would rather have the case disposed of at once, as he wished to go to London on Wednesday.

The Bench adjourned the case until Saturday.

 

Folkestone Express 13 August 1892.

Saturday, August 6th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Robert Weatherhead was charged with having a quantity of tobacco, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt said he should ask for the case to be adjourned. They had very grave information that tobacco had been landed in large quantities, and he desired to communicate with the Honourable Board of Customs and await further instructions.

The case was therefore adjourned until Saturday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Session.

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing

Wednesday, August 24th: Before Mr. J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that they might know the Society's views upon the subject, to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

Adjournments.

The Superintendent of Police having reported that convictions for offences against the Licensing Act had been obtained against the following in the course of the past year, the Bench decided to refer their applications for renewals to the Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28th: Chidwell Brice, Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren Inn; Laslett, Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday, Wheatsheaf Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Day.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer's licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Adjourned Applications.

The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of September.

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1892.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The Adjourned Licensing Session for the Borough was held at the police Court on Wednesday morning, on which occasion considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings by reason of the fact that the renewal of the licenses of several well known and old established houses in the town was opposed by the Superintendent of Police, acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee of the Bench.

The Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.

Mr. Martyn Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the objections of the police, and Mr. J. Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared on behalf of the claimants.

At the opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the business commenced he wished to make one announcement. It referred to something which had been done in other towns, and which the Committee thought it best to do in Folkestone. It was the opinion of the Committe that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they therefore suggested that the owners of the houses should talk the matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to which houses it would be best to close. If nothing was done before the next Licensing Session, the Committee would be obliged to suppress some of the licensed houses themselves. But if the owners would talk the matter over amongst themselves and agree upon the houses to be closed it would save a great difficulty.

The Cinque Ports Arms.

Robert Weatherhead applied for the renewal of this licence.

The ground of objection in this case was that the defendant had been convicted of allowing his house to be frequented by prostitutes, and further that he had been charged with having a quantity of uncustomed tobacco on the premises. In this case there were 15 other houses within a distance of 100 paces.

Mr. Hall appeared for the claimant.

In reply to Mr. Wightwick, the Superintendent of Police said he did not consider the house to be of a disorderly character now.

The Chairman said the Bench were not unanimous in their decision with reference to this case, but the majority of the Magistrates were in favour of the licence being renewed, but the claimant must be on his guard, for should there not be any alteration in the house he would stand a chance of having the licence refused next year.

 

Folkestone Express 1 October 1892.

Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The Cinque Ports Arms.

Robert Weatherhead applied for a renewal of the licence to this house. Mr. Mowll opposed, and said the grounds of opposition were somewhat different in this case. The applicant was convicted on the 17th February for harbouring prostitutes, and on the 5th August the applicant was charged with having uncustomed tobacco on his premises. The charge was withdrawn, the case being settled by the Custom Authorities. There was a third ground – that the licence was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were 15 other houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor was called to prove the charge of harbouring tobacco being preferred and withdrawn.

Mr. Hall, who appeared for the applicant, objected to the evidence. He also elicited from the Superintendent that the applicant did his best to conduct the house properly, but he was very much away from home.

In reply to Mr. Wightwick, the applicant said the house was conducted better now, and he did not consider it a house of a disorderly character.

Mr. Hall said the fine of only 40s. showed that the Bench did not consider it a very serious offence – it was for allowing women to remain longer than was necessary. They were entitled to be served, and it was extremely difficult to decide what the time was. Mr. Belgrave, the owner, felt it would hardly be fair to turn the man out under the circumstances, otherwise he would have got another tenant.

The Chairman said the Bench were not unanimous in that case, but there was a majority in favour of renewal. The applicant must be on his guard, because probably his was one of the licenses that would be suppressed at the next licensing day.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 October 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

Considerable interest was manifested on Wednesday in the proceedings at the adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing Committee had instructed the police to serve notices of six objections. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the police in their opposition by instruction of the Watch Committee.

The Chairman, Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been suggested that the same plan adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was the unanimous opinion of the Licensing Committee that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone and they would suggest that the owners of licensed houses should talk it over among themselves and agree, before the next annual meeting, which houses should be dropped out. The Licensing Committee felt compelled to suppress some of the houses in the town, and if the owners would carry out that suggestion it would do away with a great difficulty and relieve the Magistrates of an invidious task.

The Cinque Ports Tavern was objected to on the ground that the landlord had been convicted for harbouring dissolute women. Mr. Hall made an earnest appeal on behalf of the tenant, and the licence was renewed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 May 1893.

Thursday, May 4th: Before Major Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

James Butler was charged with stealing three cigars, the property of Robert Weatherhead, valued at sixpence.

Harriett Crocker, living at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, said she was coming downstairs that morning shortly after nine o'clock, when she saw the prisoner behind the counter, close to a recess where the cigars were kept. She called out and asked the prisoner what he was doing there, when he jumped over the counter and ran out of the house.

Fanny Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms, said she knew prisoner as a customer. She had served him with a pint of beer and a “screw” of tobacco that morning and left him in the bar alone. The last witness called her and she saw the prisoner run out of the house.

P.C. Keeler apprehended the prisoner in the Lower Sandgate Road, and on searching him found the three cigars produced.

In defence, prisoner said he was not in want of three paltry cigars, and made a rambling statement that he bought them in Radnor Street, at a shop “round the corner”, and that his witness, whose name he did not know, lived at a lodging house in Radnor Street.

The Magistrates did not believe the prisoner's statement, and sent him to prison for 21 days with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 10 May 1893.

Police Court Jottings.

Three twopenny cigars, which involve seven days' hard labour, constitute a rather dear smoke, especially when the cigars have also to be handed over before what enjoyment there may be in a twopenny regalia can be obtained. Such was the lesson learnt by James Butler, a travelling musician, who on Thursday was charged before Major Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne with stealing the above articles from the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street.

The prisoner had gone into the house about nine in the morning and had been served with a pint of beer and a “screw”. He was left alone in the bar, but, the servant coming down the stairs rather suddenly, he was discovered behind the counter. Seeing that he was observed he jumped over it and ran away, and when, shortly after, he was apprehended by P.C. Keeler, the cigars were found on him. His statement was that he had bought them “at the little shop around the corner”, but unfortunately for him he could not further identify it, nor was his witness to the transaction present.

The Magistrates declined to accept his version of the affair as a sufficient explanation of his gymnastic performance over the counter, and characterising it as a paltry theft, awarded him twenty one days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it's walls at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it's tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it's everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o'clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen's Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen's Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some 1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than 305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen's Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

Beer Houses.

With regard to the British Colours, Cinque Ports and the Wonder beer-houses, Mr. Glyn said they existed before 1869, and no objection could be made unless it was suggested that there had been impropriety. Evidence as to the dates of the existence of the licenses was given by Mr. F. Nops, Supervisor of the Inland Revenue, and the matter was not gone further into.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision.

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates' Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was 1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than 305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The British Colours.

Mr. Glyn said this was a house which had existed before 1869. There was nothing against it.

Francis Nops, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, said the British Colours, the Cinque Ports, and the Wonder were all licensed before 1869.

Superintendent Taylor said he proposed to give evidence as to disorderly conduct at teh British Colours.

It was ruled that it could not be given.

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients' licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of 15. The lowest value was put at 800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices' predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices' Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing.

It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen's Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices' Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John's Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this getleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen's Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth 1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than 305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don't know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen's Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

The cases not eliminated by this decision were then proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were called.

The British Colours.

Mr. Glyn said this was a beerhouse which existed before 1869, and therefore no objection could be taken to it, unless the Superintendent suggested that there had been any impropriety in the house.

Mr. Francis Knops, Superintendent of Inland Revenue proved that the licences of the British Colours, Cinque Ports, and Wonder existed before 1869.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three? I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients' property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of 10 or 15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is 800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o'clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 January 1896.

Monday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. Banks and Wightwick.

Thomas Baker was charged with stealing a piece of pork from the Cinque Port Arms, on Saturday, January 11th, the property of George Piddock.

The prosecutor said he was in the Cinque Port Arms on Saturday evening. He had a piece of pork with him. While he was receiving some money from the landlady, the pork was taken. He did not see the prisoner. There were a lot of people in the room.

Elizabeth Weatherhead, daughter of the landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said she saw Piddock come into the house on Saturday. He complained before he left that he had lost a piece of pork. Prisoner was there. He came in before Piddock. He was not there when the prosecutor complained of losing the pork.

P.S. Swift said that about quarter to nine on Saturday night, he went to 25, Bennett's Yard,. He saw the prisoner there. Witness asked him where the pork was he took from Piddock's basket in the Cinque Ports. He replied “I've got it”. In the back room he pointed out the pork produced, in a recess, wrapped in paper. He handed it to witness and said he was going to take it back – he only took it for a game. Witness showed the pork to the landlady of the house in prisoner's presence. She said it was not hers, the prisoner brought it in. He was brought to the police station, and charged by the prosecutor. He replied “I only took it for a game. I should have brought it back”.

Prisoner elected to be tried summarily. He said he was not guilty of stealing the pork, he only took it for a joke. It was handed to him by another man. A witness he desired to call was not present.

The prosecutor said he did not wish to press the charge. It might have been a joke. He understood it was since.

The Mayor said they had carefully considered the case, and would give him the benefit of the doubt. It should be a lesson not to play jokes of that sort. He was then discharged.

 

Folkestone Express 18 January 1896.

Monday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Thomas Baker was charged with stealing a piece of pork, value 3s., the property of George Piddock.

Prosecutor said he was a pork butcher at 25, Dover Street. About nine o'clock on Saturday night he was in the Cinque Port Arms. He took some potatoes for the landlady, and a piece of pork in a basket. He stood another piece of pork on a table behind him in the bar. He stood taking his money from the landlady, and on turning round the pork was gone. He did not see prisoner there, nor did he know him. The pork weighed 5lbs. or 6lbs, and the value he put at 3s. There was a lot of people in the bar.

Elizabeth Matilda Weatherhead, daughter of Robert Weatherhead, landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said she was in the bar on Saturday night, and saw Piddock go in with his basket, and was there when he left. He complained before leaving of having lost a piece of pork. She saw prisoner in the bar. He entered just before Piddock, and she did not see him leave. He was not there when Piddock complained of losing the pork.

Sergeant Swift said about a quarter to nine on Saturday night, he went to 25, Bennett's Yard, Fenchurch Street, and saw prisoner there. The house was tenanted by man named Marshall, a fisherman. He asked prisoner “Where is the pork you took from Piddock's basket at the Cinque Ports?” He replied “I've got it”. He went into the back room with him, and he pointed at the pork which was lying on the table, wrapped in paper. He said “I was going to take it back. I only took it for a game”. Witness showed the pork to Mrs. Marshall in prisoner's presence, and asked her if she knew anything about it. She said “No. It's not mine – he brought it in”. Prisoner was charged at the police station with stealing the pork, and he again said he only took it for a game.

Prisoner said he was not guilty of stealing the pork. It was handed to him out of the basket. He wished to call Mrs. Weatherhead to prove that she saw someone take the pork and give it to him.

Piddock said he did not wish to press the charge. He believed it was only done in a joke.

The Bench dismissed the charge, but cautioned him not to take things again in a joke.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 January 1896.

Police Court Jottings.

On Monday Thomas Baker was charged with stealing about 5lbs. of pork, value 3s., on the 11th January.

George Piddock, pork butcher, 35, Dover Street, stated that at nine o'clock on the day in question he was in the Cinque Port Arms. He left a basket containing pork on the table, and went into the bar-room for the purpose of taking money for what the landlady had bought of him. When he returned, the basket and pork had gone. There were plenty of people in the room.

Elizabeth Matilda Weatherhead, daughter of the landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said that she was in the bar on Saturday night. She saw the last witness bring a basket into the house. Before leaving he complained of having lost his basket of pork. Witness saw the prisoner come in on that night, before the last witness. She did not see the prisoner leave the house.

P.S. Swift stated at about a quarter to nine on Saturday night, from information received, he went to No. 25, Bennett's Yard, where a man named Marshall lived. He saw the prisoner, and asked him where the pork was that he took from the Cinque Port Arms. He replied “I've got it”. They then went to the back room, where the pork was on a table in a recess. Prisoner said “I was going to take it back. I only took it for a game”. Mrs. Marshall said that the prisoner had brought the pork in. When charged at the police station, the prisoner said “I only took it for a game. I should have brought it back”.

The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and added that the pork was handed out of the basket to him. Mrs. Weatherhead was present at the time, and would prove it. He had worked at Mr. Francis' for 18 months.

Mrs. Weatherhead was not in Court.

The prisoner was discharged, there being, in the opinion of the Bench, a doubt in the case.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 June 1898.

Wednesday, June 15th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mrs. Weatherhead was granted the licence of the Cinque Port Arms, her husband having died.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 June 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday transfer was granted Mrs. Weatherhead for the Cinque Ports Inn.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 18 June 1898.

Wednesday, June 15th: Before J. Hoad, and Justices Pledge and Vaughan.

Transfer was granted to Mrs. Weatherhaed, widow of the late Mr. Weatherhead, of the Cinque Port Arms.

Mr. Hall appeared on behalf of Mrs. Weatherhead.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 September 1898.

Monday, August 29th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Salter and T.J. Vaughan.

John Weatherhead was charged with breaking four panes of glass, the property of his mother, Fanny Weatherhead, in Seagate Street, on the previous day.

The mother said prisoner lived with her at the Cinque Port Arms. At half past two on Sunday he came home the worse for drink. Witness said “Make haste, Jack, and get your dinner and go to bed”. After partaking of dinner he tried to cut witness's throat. He afterwards went out and smashed the windows with his fists.

Prisoner, in defence, said his mother induced his brother to knock him about “something awful”. He had fits and couldn't get a word in anyhow.

Fined 5s., costs 4s. 6d., and the cost of the glass, 16s., or 14 days' hard labour. He was given a week in which to pay the money.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 September 1898.

Police Court Record.

On Monday, John Weatherhead was charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking four squares of glass, the property of Annie Weatherhead.

The prosecutor, defendant's mother, deposed that defendant lived with her at Seagate Street. The previous day he got a knife and tried to cut her throat. He said he would go out and not come back again. Witness shut the door, and heard the smashing of the window. She saw him smash two or three. She saw him through the window. He did it with his fist.

Defendant said that he suffered from fits. He was right enough if they would let him alone. He could not do hard work.

Fined 5s., 16s. damage, 14s. 6d. costs, of 14 days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 April 1900.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon a young man named Weatherhead (son of Mrs. Weatherhead, of the Cinque Ports Arms) fell into the harbour basin, and the tide being low he received a compound fracture of the thigh. He was immediately conveyed to the Victoria Hospital, and on inquiry later we were informed that favourable progress was being made by the injured leg. There is a coincidence in this accident. Some years since, another son of Mrs. Weatherhead fell over the harbour and broke his leg, with the result that the limb was considerably shortened. This son died a year or two afterwards, but his death was attributed to weakness following the shock of the fall.

 

Folkestone Express 3 November 1900.

Friday, October 26th: Before C.J. Pursey Esq., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

John Wildash Bedwell was charged with stealing a purse containing about 14s. in money, two sleeve links, and other articles, the property of Mr. Cook, of Cheriton, on October 15th. Supt. Reeve said the facts were rather out of the ordinary.

Mary Cook, the wife of a blacksmith, residing at 17, Stanley Road, Cheriton, said she had known the prisoner since she was a child. She was in Folkestone on Monday, the 15th October, and about eleven o'clock that night she got into a bus to go to Cheriton. The prisoner got in at the same time and sat next to her on the right. They entered into conversation, and prisoner, who said he had no money, asked her to pay his bus fare, which she did. The fares were called for just by the Central Station. She took her purse from the pocket of her dress and paid the two fares. She put the purse back in her dress pocket. Prisoner was still seated on her right hand side. Her purse contained about 14s. in silver and bronze, a County Court summons bearing the full name and address of her husband, a receipt for 5s. from Messrs. Gosnold's on a printed draper's billhead bearing her full name and address. She paid this 5s. as a deposit on a hat which she had ordered from Messrs. Gosnold. There were also a pair of sleeve links in the purse. The bus stopped near the White Lion, Cheriton, and she got out. The prisoner got out at the same time. She accompanied some friends down Risborough Lane, but the prisoner was not with them. When she got to the arch she felt for her purse, and missed it for the first time. Prisoner came up directly afterwards and she told him she had lost her purse, and there was a fortnight's rent in it. He said “I'll help you look for it”. She told him it was a red leather purse, and had “A present from Seabrook” printed outside. He struck several matches to see if he could find it. She walked down as far as the White Lion with him and bid him “Good night”. They both looked in the road as they walked down but could see nothing of the purse. On Thursday Detective Burniston showed her the purse and the links now produced, which she identified as the same she lost. The links were worth 1s. 6d.

By prisoner: You sat on my right hand. I was neither drunk nor sober – I had had a glass. He landlady of the Cinque Ports asked prisoner to see me up the road. I went into the field near the arch with two soldiers who were friends of mine. I missed the purse before I went into the field.

George Edward Gosnold, carrying on business at 56, Tontine Street, said he recognised the prisoner, who came into his shop on the morning of the 16th of October, between 9.30 and 10. He produced one of their billheads, bearing the words “Mrs. Cook, 17, Stanley Road, Cheriton”, also “One hat 8s. 11d. Deposit 5s.” There was no signature. He requested him to refund him 4s. 6d. He asked him to do him a favour and give him back 4s. 6d. of the deposit as he had no money to pay the rent, and his wife had taken his money (5s.) which he had put aside for that purpose. He represented himself as the husband of Mrs. Cook. He told him he was an entire stranger to him, and as he did not know Mrs. Cook's husband he could not return him the money until he had satisfied himself that he was her husband. He said “But my having the bill would be sufficient proof that I am her husband”. He replied that that was no proof at all. He then told him definitely that he did not feel inclined to let him have the money. He left and took the bill away with him.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said from information received on the 20th he made enquiries, and at 2.15 on Thursday he saw the prisoner at Mr. Salter's stores in Park Road. He said “You answer to the description of a man who presented a stolen bill at Gosnold's shop in Tontine Street on the 16th of this month with intent to obtain 4s. by means of false pretences. I am going to take you to the police station for the purpose of identification” He said “It is quite right. I own I have done wrong. I had not got any money, so I took the bill to Gosnold's and tried to get 4s. on it. It had the name of Mrs. Cook, 17. Stanley Road on it. I told them at Gosnold's I wanted to get the money back to pay my rent. The assistant then questioned me very closely about the bill, and finding I could not get any money I left the shop. I told them my name was Cook”. He asked prisoner where he got the bill. He said “I found it in Risborough Lane last week. It was in a purse which contained a County Court summons, five shillings in money, and a pair of cuff links”. He brought him to the police station, where he was identified by Mr. Gosnold, and charged with stealing the purse. He replied “I cannot say any more than I have told you, which is the truth”. The purse and cuff links produced he received from prisoner's sister, Mrs. West and brother-in-law Arthur John West.

Arthur John West, prisoner's brother-in-law, a railway signalman, living at Shorncliffe, said he was walking from Shorncliffe to Folkestone when prisoner gave him a pair of links and afterwards showed him a red leather purse, which he said he found in a field near a stable at Cheriton.

Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and said he was Guilty of finding the purse and spending the money. He was called into the Cinque Ports Arms and asked to see the prosecutrix home. She was treating soldiers in the public house to gallons of beer at a time. When she got off the bus she went straight off with some soldiers. It would be about two o'clock when she went home, and he went to the cook-house at the Camp. He stayed there until five o'clock and was looking for his pipe next morning when he found the purse. What he ought to have done was to have taken the purse to the police station.

The Chairman said they would inflict a fine of 20s. or fourteen days'. He was allowed a week to pay, and told by the Magistrates' Clerk that he might have been charged with a much more serious offence of endeavouring to gain money by false pretences.

 

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.

Monday, January 14th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pursey, Herbert, Fitness, Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

James Brien, a private in the Dublin Fusiliers, was charged with stealing about 8s., the property of Mrs. Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms.

Annie Weatherhead said at twenty minutes to seven on Monday evening the prisoner came into the bar for a pint of beer, which was served, and the money put with the rest of the money on the shelf in a little glass dish. She went downstairs, and subsequently heard a noise in the bar. She sent her son up. He said it was only the soldier calling some men to give them some beer. No-one came into the bar while the prisoner was there. Five minutes after he left, two men came into the bar, ordered some beer, and paid for it. When she went to put the money in the glass dish, she found all the money gone. Her daughter, whom she sent after the prisoner, found him at the Wellington, and brought him back. The money she had missed wa six sixpences, two separate shillings, a half crown, and some coppers. Asked if he had taken the money, prisoner said “No” and threw his money out on the counter. There were five sixpences, one shilling, and two half crowns, and one and three in bronze. She then sent for the police, and at the station he was charged.

Lily Weatherhead, daughter of the last witness, corroborated as to finding prisoner, and James Weatherhead, the son, also gave evidence.

P.C. Sharpe stated that, when arrested, prisoner stated that he had been paid 12s. that day. There were five sixpences, one shilling, three half crowns and one and three in bronze on the counter. Prisoner was taken to the police station, and charged by Mrs. Weatherhead.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He said he would take his oath he never took the woman's money. He was paid 7s. on the previous day, and won 5s. 4d. playing “banker”.

The Chief Constable said he had ascertained that prisoner was paid 7s.

The Bench considered the evidence insufficient, and discharged the prisoner, ordering the money found in his possession to be returned to him.

 

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.

Tuesday, January 15th: Before J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Pte. James Brien, Dublin Fusiliers, was charged with stealing 8s., the money of Mrs. Weatherhead, of the Cinque Ports public house.

Fanny Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports public house, Seagate Street, said about 6.40 p.m. on the 14th inst., the prisoner entered the house and called for a pint of beer, and for payment he gave sixpence. Witness gave him fourpence change. Witnes put the money in a glass bowl in a little recess. She did it in the presence of the prisoner. Witness went downstairs to get a cup of tea, and the prisoner followed her. Soon he went straight upstairs through the bar. As soon as this happened, witness heard a noise. She sent her boy up, and he shouted out “It's only a soldier calling some men to give him his beer”. Prisoner then left the house. During the whole time no-one was in the bar. Subsequently other customers went in, and when she went to put the money in the dish she found it was empty. She had six sixpences, half a crown, and sixteen coppers. She immediately sent her daughter after the prisoner, and she brought him back. Witness asked him if he stole any money, and he threw down money similar to that stolen. Witness sent to the police station, where he was charged with theft. No-one could have come in without her knowledge.

Lily Weatherhead, daughter of the last witness, said she assisted her mother, and about 7.10 p.m. on the day in question she went in search of the prisoner, and found him in the Wellington, and she called him outside and asked him to go up to her mother's, where he was told he was suspected of stealing the money. The prisoner replied “I haven't taken it”, and simultaneously produced the coins.

George Weatherhead proved as soon as he heard a noise he went upstairs and saw the prisoner handing his beer to some labourers. When it was emptied, he handed the glass to witness.

P.C. Sharpe said from information received he went, in company with P.C. Eason, to the Cinque Ports public house, where he arrested the prisoner. When charged the prisoner said “Here's my money. I was paid 12s. today”. He then took him to the police station.

The prisoner said he was not guilty, and he could swear he did not touch a halfpenny of the money. He was paid 7s. for wages, and won 5s. playing banker.

The Bench dismissed the charge as there was not sufficient evidence.

 

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.

Tuesday, January 15th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Herbert, and Wightwick.

James Brice, a private in the Army, was charged with stealing 8s., the money of Mrs. Weatherhead, of the Cinque Ports Arms.

Fanny Weatherhead, the prosecutrix, said at about 6.40 p.m. the previous night prisoner entered the house and called for a pint of beer. He paid 6d., and she gave him four penny pieces change. She then put the 6d. in a little glass dish in a recess behind the bar. He asked her to have a glass of beer, but she refused, saying she was going to have a cup of tea. With that she went downstairs, and he followed her. Afterwards he went straight upstairs into the bar, and there a noise attracted her attention. She sent her boy upstairs, and he came down and said it was only the soldier calling some men to have some beer. There was no-one else in the bar all the time he was there. About five minutes afterwards she went into the bar and found another soldier and an old gentleman. The prisoner had gone. She went to the dish and found the money gone. When she gave prisoner the change there were six sixpences, two shillings, a half crown, and some coppers in the dish. Prisoner afterwards came back, and in reply to her question he threw his money on the counter. The coins were five sixpences, one shilling, two half crowns and 15d. in coppers. She said “Your sixpences look like mine”, and then her daughter went for the police. No-one could have gone to the bar without her knowledge.

Lily Weatherhead said she assisted her mother in her business. On Monday night she went in search of and found prisoner in the Wellington Hotel. She called him outside, and asked him to go with her, which he did. When he got into the bar she told him her mother had lost some money, and as he was the only man in the house they suspected him. He replied “I have not taken it” and then put out his money on the counter.

James Weatherhead, son of the prosecutrix, said at 6.45 the previous evening he was downstairs with his mother, and heard a noise in the bar. He went upstairs in the bar and found it empty, but prisoner was outside. Prisoner handed the glass to witness, and went away.

P.C. Sharpe said at 7.15 p.m. on the previous night he went to the Cinque Ports Arms in company with P.C. Easton, and Mrs. Weatherhead said she had had some money stolen, and that she suspected prisoner of having it. Prisoner pointed to the money laid on the counter and said “There is my money. I was paid 12s. today”. There were five sixpences, one shilling, two half crowns and 15d. in bronze.

The Bench considered the case not fully proved, and discharged prisoner.

 

Folkestone Express 16 March 1901.

Saturday, March 9th: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Richard Spearpoint, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, to which offence he pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Varrier deposed that on the 2nd inst., about 5.45 in the afternoon, he was called to the Cinque Port public house in Seagate Street, and in the public bar he saw the defendant drunk. At witness's request he left the premises. He saw the landlady, who told witness that she did not serve him with any liquor, but the defendant had the habit of entering the house when intoxicated.

The Bench fined the defendant 10s. and 9s. costs, and allowed him a fortnight to pay the amount.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 March 1901.

Saturday, March 9th: Before Messrs. J. Stainer, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Richard Spearpoint appeared to answer a charge of having been drunk on licensed premises on the 2nd March.

P.C. Farrier said about 4.45 in the afternoon he was called to the Cinque Ports Arms and found defendant drunk in the front room. He was called to the house by the landlady, who said he had gone in drunk. He used very disgusting language owing to her refusing to serve him.

A fine of 10s. and 9s. costs was imposed, or fourteen days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 March 1901.

Monday, March 18th: Before Messrs. Pledge, Carpenter, Peden, Stainer, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Oswald Chilcock, a private in the West Kent Regiment, on Saturday evening visited the Cinque Ports public house at Seagate Street. Later on, when going up High Street, Detective Sergeant Burniston, seeing that his pockets appeared bulky, stopped the soldier and asked him what he had in his pockets. The indignant reply was “What's that to do with you?” The detective sergeant evidently thought it had a lot to do with him, and searched “Tommy's” pockets, wherein he found two pint glasses, each bearing the name “F. Weatherhead” (the landlady of the Cinque Ports.) Subsequently Chilcock was charged with stealing the glasses.

Annie Crocker, a married daughter of Mrs. Weatherhead, said that she was in the bar of the Cinque Ports on Saturday evening, and saw the prisoner there. The value of the glasses was 8d. each.

The prisoner admitted that he had a drop of drink, and that he took the glasses more in a lark than anything else.

An officer of the Provisional Batallion, who was present, did not give the accused a very bright character.

Fined 10s., or seven days'. He said he would do the seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 23 March 1901.

Monday, March 18th: before Alderman J. Pledge, G. Peden, W. Carpenter, T.J. Vaughan and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Pte. Oswald Chilcott, West Kent Regt., stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing two pint glasses, valued at 1s. 5d., the property of Mrs. Fanny Weatherhead, of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, to which offence he pleaded Guilty.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said about 10.55 p.m. on Saturday evening, the 16th inst., he saw the prisoner in company with two other soldiers in the High Street. As he passed, witness noticed his pockets were bulky, and in consequence he followed him. When in Rendezvous Street, witness stopped him and asked him what was in his pockets. He replied “What's it to do with you?” Witness then felt them, and saw the two pint glasses produced. Witness then took him to the police station and charged him, when he replied “All right”. On examining the glasses, witness saw the name “F. Weatherhead” stamped on them.

Harriet Crocker, daughter to Mrs. F. Weatherhead, the landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms, said she assisted her mother on Saturday. The prisoner and another soldier entered about nine p.m., and his companion called for two pints of beer. They then went into the taproom where there were many other soldiers. About 10.30 p.m. the prisoner became noisy, and witness told him and his companion to go outside, which they did. She subsequently went to the police station about 11.30 and saw six soldiers paraded, and from among them she identified the prisoner. She recognised the glasses, which belonged to her mother, and all the pint glasses were marked “F. Weatherhead”.

An officer present said the prisoner's defaulters' sheet was free from civilian crime.

The Bench fined him 10s. and remitted the costs, with the alternative of seven days', which he accepted.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 March 1901.

Monday, March 18th: Before Alderman Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. Carpenter, Vaughan, Stainer, and Peden.

Oswald Chilcott, a private in the West Kent Regiment, was charged with having stolen two pint glasses from the Cinque Ports beerhouse.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at 10.45 on Saturday he saw the prisoner in company with other soldiers in High Street. As they passed him, he noticed prisoner's pockets were rather bulky, and he followed him into Rendezvous Street, where he stopped him. As prisoner refused to tell him, he felt in his pockets and found two pint glasses. On examining the glasses he found the name F. Weatherhead stamped on each.

Harriett Crocker, 6, St. Michael's Square, said Mrs. Weatherhead, the landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms, was her mother. On Saturday she was assisting her mother in the bar. She saw prisoner and another soldier come into the bar at about 9 o'clock. The other man called for two pints of beer, with which she served him. They left the house just after 10.30. She identified the glasses, which cost 8d. each, produced.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said it was done for a lark.

An officer attended, and said prisoner had only two entries on the sheet against him.

A fine of 10s., or seven days' hard labour was imposed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 17th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Peden, Pledge, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Fanny Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports public house, was summoned for refusing to admit the police. Mr. Minter represented the defendant.

Inspector Swift said that on the night following Easter Monday he saw lights burning and heard loud talking and laughing in a front room of the Cinque Ports Arms. He tried the door of the house, and found it locked. The talking and laughing then ceased. He knocked at the door for about ten minutes, when the defendant put her head out of the window. He asked her to admit him to the house, but she refused three times, and he told her he should report her.

The Chief Constable said that the house was watched all night, and soldiers, who should have been at Shorncliffe Camp, were seen to leave in the morning.

Mr. Minter said that there had been a misapprehension on the defendant's part. She had no wish to evade the law, but on the night in question there had been a wedding party, and guests had been invited. The advocate, in a powerful defence, invited the Bench to say that if an offence had been committed at all it was only a technical one, done in ignorance. Therefore he suggested a nominal penalty, and also that the licence be not endorsed.

Mr. Minter proposed to call evidence that the party was a legitimate one, but the Magistrates' Clerk said it was not necessary as the charge was one of refusing to admit the police.

The Chief Constable said that he did not wish to labour the case, but the men who left the house all gave wrong names, and they ought to have been in barracks at Shorncliffe.

The Chairman said that the Bench decided that a technical offence had been committed, but they were of opinion that defendant had no intention of evading the law. There would be a fine of 10s. and 9s. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Express 20 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 17th: before The Mayor, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Fanny Weatherhead, the landlady of the Cinque Ports beerhouse, was summoned for refusing to admit the police on the 9th inst. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Messrs. Leney, and Mr. J. Minter represented the defendant, who pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Swift said at 12.15 midnight on Monday, the 9th inst., he accompanied P.C. Sales to Seagate Street, and saw a light burning in the defendant's house, the Cinque Ports Arms, and he heard talking, laughing, and singing by men in the front room on the first floor. He tried the doors and found they were fastened. He knocked, and the noise ceased. He continued to knock, and after ten minutes the defendant opened the window, put her head out, and asked who it was. Witness told her, and she said “Nobody is here”. Witness said he had reason to believe that some persons were in there who had no right, and when he asked her to let him in, she replied “I will do no such thing”. He then told her she was liable to prosecution, and she again replied “Yes, I have nobody here”. He again asked her, but she absolutely refused, and he then told her he would report her for refusing to admit the police when requested, and to that the defendant made no reply.

The Chief Constable said the house was watched, and early in the morning several soldiers were found there when they ought to have been in Shorncliffe Camp.

Mr. Minter said that was perfectly true, but the defendant was under a slight misapprehension, yet her answer to the police was quite truthful in view that the soldiers who were in there consisted of a bona fide private party and they were not customers purchasing beer. He asked the Bench to take into consideration that the defendant had held the licence for thirteen years without any previous conviction against her. Although the house was largely patronised by soldiers it was quite respectable. On this occasion there had been a wedding and these soldiers had been invited the day previously, and a private party was being held.

The Bench said they were perfectly satisfied that a breach had been committed, but they considered that there was no intention to evade the law. They therefore fined the defendant 10s. and 9s. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 17th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Vaughan, Peden, Pledge, and Stainer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Fanny Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms, was summoned on a charge of having refused to admit the police. Mr. Minter defended, and Mr. Haines appeared on behalf of Messrs. Leney, the brewers.

Mr. Minter said they must plead Guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the Justices.

Inspector Swift said at 12.35 midnight on Monday, the 9th inst., he was in Seagate Street and saw lights burning and heard several men's voices in the front room of the first floor of the Cinque Ports beerhouse. He knocked, and the noise ceased. After continuing the knocking about ten minutes the landlady put her head out of the window and said there was no-one in the house. In reply to his demand, she said she would not open the door. He then told her she was liable to a prosecution for refusing to admit the police, and as she still refused to admit him, told her she would be reported.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the house was watched all night and early in the morning soldiers, who should have been at the Camp, came out.

Mr. Minter said defendant was acting under a misapprehension. On that night she was having a party to celebrate her daughter's wedding. A licence holder had a right to have a party. She was wrong in not admitting the police, but it was done under misapprehension, and he could only plead that it was not intentional, and would not occur again. The house was much used by soldiers, and was what was known as a “soldiers' house”. One of the soldiers was courting an unmarried daughter, and he was a bit indignant that the police should interrupt the course of true love. She was wrong in not admitting the police, but he could promise that she would conduct the house in the future in the same way as it had been conducted during the thirteen years she had been there.

The Chief Constable said five soldiers found in the house gave false names and numbers, and were absent from the Camp without leave.

Mr. Minter said the soldiers told defendant they had got their passes until the next day.

The Magistrates believed there was no intention to evade the law, and a fine of 10s. and 9s. costs was imposed.

The licence was not endorsed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 24th: Before Messrs. Pledge, Stainer, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Five smart looking Dragoons were charged under the Licensing Act 1872 with giving wrong names and numbers to the police.

The case arose out of a charge which was made against the landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms for refusing to admit the police. The defence on that occasion was that a wedding party had been held, and the soldiers, who were on the premises, were invited guests. The Bench believed the defence, and a nominal fine was inflicted. The five defendants who now appeared, when they left the premises on Easter Tuesday morning, were requested by the police to give their names and regimental numbers. They complied with the request and gave wrong names and numbers.

A Sergeant Major present said that the defendants had been already dealt with by the military authorities for being from barracks without leave.

They were now fined 2s. 6d. each, including costs.

 

Folkestone Express 27 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 24th: Before Alderman Pledge, J. Stainer and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel W.K. Westropp.

Thomas Shields, Samuel Childs, Thomas William Hinds, Charles Hampton Morgan, and Ernest Chester, all privates in the 7th Dragoon Guards, were summoned for being seen on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and, when requested, with giving false names and addresses, which was a breach of the Licensing Act.

Supt. Reeve said as the prisoners had all pleaded Guilty he would not call any witnesses. He explained that Mrs. Weatherhead, the landlady of the Cinque Ports beerhouse, was fined for refusing to admit the police on Easter Monday, when requested by Inspector Swift, who heard men's voices. In consequence the house was watched, and early on the following morning the five defendants were found there, and when Sergt. Lawrence demanded their names and addresses they gave him false ones. On making enquiries at the Camp they were found to have been out all night without leave.

Lieut. Colonel Westropp: Have they been dealt with for that offence by the Commanding Officer?

A sergeant, who had the custody of the defendants, said they had.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. on each, and the costs were remitted.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 April 1901.

Wednesday, April 24th: Before Alderman Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Messrs. Stainer and Vaughan.

Five Dragoons, named Thomas Shields, Samuel Childs, Thomas Wm. Hines, Chas. Hampton Morgan, and Ernest Chester were charged together with having given false names when found on licensed premises during prohibited hours on Easter Monday. Each defendant pleaded Guilty.

The Chief Constable said perhaps it would be as well if he explained the case, instead of calling evidence. The landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms was recently summoned for refusing to admit the police. Shortly after midnight on Easter Monday Inspector Swift heard voices in the Cinque Ports Arms. He demanded, but was refused, admission. The house was watched all night long, and early in the morning the five defendants were found there. When asked by Sgt. Lawrence the men gave false names. Inquiries were afterwards made at the Camp, and it was found that the men were absent without leave.

The men were fined 2s. 6d. each, including costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 June 1901.

Saturday, June 15th: Before Messrs. Ward, Peden, Pledge, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The licence of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, was transferred from Mrs. Weatherhead to Samuel Webster, a late employee of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners of the house.

 

Folkestone Express 22 June 1901.

Saturday, June 15th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman J. Pledge, G. Peden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Lieut Col. W.K. Westropp.

Mr. Samuel Webster was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Cinque Port Arms, in Seagate Street. He was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1901.

Saturday, June 15th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Pledge, Councillors Peden and Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, was transferred until the next transfer day to Samuel Webster.

 

Folkestone Express 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Cinque Ports Arms to Mr. Samuel Robert Webster.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Cinque Ports Arms was transferred from Mrs. Weatherhead to Stanley Robert Webster.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 March 1903.

Saturday, March 21st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. S. Penfold, G. Peden, J. Pledge, E.T. Ward, T.J. Vaughan and G.I. Swoffer.

Thomas Woods was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Thomas Sales said at 10.45 on the evening of the 16th he was called to the Cinque Ports Arms. As he arrived, defendant, who was drunk, left the premises. Soon afterwards witness saw the defendant at the bar of the Duke Of Edinburgh. He was leaning against the counter. The landlady refused to serve him.

Woods pleaded Guilty. He said he was very sorry, and had never been in a Court before. For the last six years he had been working on the harbour.

Fined 1s. and 9s. 6d. costs, or seven days', time being allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 28 March 1903.

Saturday, March 21st: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Peden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thos. Woods was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales said about 10.45 on the night of the 16th inst. he was called to the Cinque Ports Arms, where he saw defendant in a drunken condition leaving the premises. About 10.55 he saw defendant in the bar of the Duke Of Edinburgh, leaning against the counter. The landlady said “You get outside. I shan't serve you”. Defendant refused to leave the place, and witness had to eject him.

Fined 1s. and 9s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 4 July 1903.

Saturday, June 27th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

William Spearpoint was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, and on appearing in Court it was at once plain that he had again been imbibing from “the cup that cheers”.

P.C. Allen stated that the previous afternoon he was in Seagate Street, when he saw defendant, who was the worse for liquor, enter the bar of the Cinque Ports Arms. Witness followed, and heard the landlord refuse to serve defendant.

At this stage Spearpoint burst out laughing, and despite his appeal to the Magistrates, which was interspersed with many hiccoughs, to settle the case then as he wanted to go to sea, they remanded him in custody until Monday, in order that he might thoroughly “sober down”.

Monday, June 29th: Before Lieut Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Spearpoint was charged on remand with being drunk on licensed premises.

Prisoner told the Magistrates that two strangers asked him the best place to get a drink, and he showed them into the bar.

Mr. Wightwick: Perhaps you do not recollect quite clearly.

The Bench imposed a fine of 5s.and 10s. costs; in default seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 16 April 1904.

Monday, April 11th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

William Spearpoint, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday night in Seagate Street.

P.C. Ashby said about 8.30 p.m. he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, being ejected from the Cinque Ports public house. He used obscene language, and when requested by witness to go away, refused to do so. He had to be carried to the police station when taken into custody. Witness had cautioned him a quarter of an hour before for his conduct, and he said he was going home. Prisoner had not been served at the Cinque Ports, and he had also been refused at the Perseverance.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He had been teetotal for two or three months, and he met a friend last night. He had some spirit which upset him.

The Clerk: It's the same story every time he comes here.

The Chief Constable stated prisoner had been convicted 14 times previously.

The Clerk: Within the last twelve months he has been here four times. He is liable to be put on the “Black List” and sent to the Quarter Sessions to be tried.

Prisoner hoped they would look over it this time and give him another chance.

The Chairman said prisoner was in an awkward position. He was liable to be put on the Black List and sent to the Quarter Sessions, but the Magistrates had decided to send him to prison for 14 days' hard labour.

Prisoner: I don't want to go to prison.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1904.

Monday, April 11th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

William Spearpoint was charged with being drunk. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashby stated that prisoner was ejected from the Cinque Ports Arms. He was very drunk, and using obscene language. He requested him to go away, but as he refused, he took him into custody, and with the assistance of P.C. Kettle and a military policeman, conveyed him to the police station.

Prisoner said he had been a teetotaller for two or three months.

The Chief Constable recorded fourteen previous convictions against him.

The Chairman told prisoner he was liable to be put on the Black List and sent to Quarter Sessions for trial. In this instance, however, he would be sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 February 1905.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.

The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.

Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8th, 1905. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or one on licence to every 313 persons.

Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year, viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence was transferred twice during the year.

The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.

Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since transferred his licence and left the house.

Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant, and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.

For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case a conviction being recorded.

For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17 persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.

Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42 occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.

The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the renewals be refused.

The houses situate in this congested area which in my opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn, Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

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

The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in their power to prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief Constable Reeve's report that there are a very large number of licensed houses in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable's report, viz., The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these houses are closed the owners will be compensated.

 

Folkestone Express 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable's report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6th.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Chronicle for details).

The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year. With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses, viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those houses would be compensated.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.

The Cinque Ports.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the owner and occupier.

The Chief Constable repeated his evidence as to the area, and described Seagate Street as 43 yards long, with no houses on one side and only four houses on the other. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 public houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 39 public houses. The accommodation at the Cinque Ports was bad, and there was very little trade.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: There are many streets without licensed houses. I made no complaint of the house, and out of the numerous cases of drunkenness none were caused by this house.

Referred to the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr. W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance, tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.

The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory's objections were practically the same as those which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours with the advocates' objections who represented the other houses.

Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a man's licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates' consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.

After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent back to Quarter Sessions for reference.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The next licence dealt with was that held by Samuel Robert Webster for the Cinque Ports Arms. Mr. W.R. Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co. He admitted receiving the notice of objection.

The Chief Constable repeated the particulars of the number of “on” licensed houses in the area given in the previous objection. The house in question was situate in Seagate Street. The present licensee obtained the transfer on the 7th August, 1901. The registered owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., Dover. The rateable value was 24. He should say it was only a beer “on” licence – one of the ante 1869 houses. The street was 47 yards long, running from Dover Street to Beach Street. Entering the street from Dover Street there were no houses at all on the left hand side, but simply a wall and stables, etc., belonging to the Pavilion Shades, a fully licensed house situate in Tram Road. On the right hand side of the street there were four houses and a stable. The first was a boot shop. Next to that was the Cinque Ports Arms. Adjoining that was a stable, and then they had a fully licensed house, the Chequers Inn, and next to it the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards, 32, and within 200 yards there were 39. The accommodation provided for the public consisted of a front bar, one end partitioned off to form a small bottle and jug department, and a tap room at the back behind the bar. The accommodation provided for the licensee was very bad, and the urinal provided for the customers was situate in a yard in the basement, which was approached by a narrow, nasty, dark staircase, which was approached from the front bar. At the licensing meeting in 1903, plans were called for by the licensing justices, but no order for structural alterations had been made for the same. There appeared to him to be very little trade doing at the house. The present licensee was a basket maker by trade, and very often worked. He considered the house to be quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said the trade done was very small, and very few residents used the house. He frequently visited the house and generally found an empty bar during the day. There might be a few in there in the evening. He did not consider the licence to be necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll said they did not wish to lose their licence. The house had been a protected beer-house – an ante '69 house. It was situate in a district where there were a good many licensed houses. He did not know whether it was quite fair to assume that the people in that district were the only persons who used the licensed houses in that district. In all probability a large number of people who resided in other parts of Folkestone where there were no licensed houses came for their refreshments in the evening, which was a very proper time to take refreshment. He asked the justices on behalf of the owner and tenant to renew the licence.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that they must report the house to the Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Mowll: Then you will provisionally renew it?

The Chairman: Yes.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in which they were situated.

The case of the Cinque Ports Arms (Mr. S.R. Webster, landlord), Seagate Street, was next taken. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the licensee.

The Chief Constable repeated the statistics given in the last case as to the entire area. The house in question was situated in Seagate Street, and Mr. Samuel R. Webster was the licensee, having obtained the transfer of the licence in August, 1903. Messrs. Leney were the owners of the house, which was an ante 1869 beerhouse, and its rateable value was 24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and ran from Dover Street to Beach Street. Entering the street from Dover Street there were no houses on the left hand side, but on the right hand side there were four houses and a stable. The first was a boot shop, the next was the Cinque Ports Arms, next came two fully licensed houses, viz., the Chequers Inn and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 other on-licensed houses, within 150 yards 32 other on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards 39 other on-licensed houses. The accommodation for the public consisted of a front bar, with one end partitioned off for a jug and bottle department, and there was a tap room behind the bar. The accommodation provided for the licensee was very bad, and the convenience at the back was in a basement, and was approached from a nasty, dark, and narrow passage. In 1903 plans were called for by the Licensing Justices, but no order was made for structural alterations. There seemed to be very little trade at the house, and the licensee was a basket maker, who occasionally worked at his trade.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rutley Mowll: The house was an ante 1869 one. Witness made no complaint at all as to the conduct of the house by the present licensee.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed that very little trade was done at the Cinque Ports Arms. He frequented the house a great deal on duty, and found empty bars during the day, and a few people there at night. The house was not required for the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll contended that it was not fair to say that the people residing in the congested area were the only ones who visited the house. He asked for a renewal of the licence.

The Bench decided to report this case also.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 March 1905.

The adjourned licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq. (in the chair).

Mr. Minter applied for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant a provisional license in the meantime.

Mr. Mowll next applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster. After hearing the evidence, the Bench came to a similar decision.

They also referred the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs. Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor Else.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 May 1905.

Local News.

We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the 15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and four from Elham.

The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The Star.

The Committee have decided that there is no need to interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.

It was decided that the principal meeting to be held pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the East ent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard: Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown, High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.

 

Folkestone Daily News 26 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports in Seagate Street came up for hearing.

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs. Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.

Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases were proceeded with on their merits.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.

Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation is settled.

The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with at present.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were: Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic), Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr. Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the tenants.

Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective Sergt. Burniston.

Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for the last few years.

As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and paid 180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference between 180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house, when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this year and one last year?

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph, had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of trade, and was of use to the locality.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited, and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria.

Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King's Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin's contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

The Cinque Ports.

Mr. Mowll said with reference to the Cinque Ports, Messrs. Leney and Co. had instructed him to say that they had more valuable interests in Folkestone. He did not propose to call any evidence before them. If they renewed the licence, all well and good, but if they took it away they would get the compensation, so they left it in the Committee's hands.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

Yesterday the Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent, to whom the local authorities had referred the licences of five Folkestone houses, under the licensing Act of 1904, sat at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, and considered the reports which had been presented to them, as well as the reasons advanced in favour and against the renewal of the respective licences. Sir William Lucius Selfe was the Chairman of the Committee.

The houses in question were the Victoria, South Street, the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, the Star Inn, Radnor Street, the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, and the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

Mr. Pitkin, barrister, appeared for the Licensing Justices, Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria, the Perseverance, and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.), Mr. Hohler was for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. G.W. Haines represented the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) appeared for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitkin said that at the annual licensing meeting this year the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licences named, and one other, that of the Providence. The notices were served on the people who required notices under the Act, and at the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and his Detective Sergeant gave evidence, while evidence was also called on behalf of the licensees of the houses. At that meeting it was proved that in the area which the Chief Constable had marked out on the map, namely, from South Street, up High Street, down Grace Hill, to the railway arches, and across to the sea, there were in all 916 houses to a population of 4,580. Of these 46 were on-licensed and 6 were off- licensed. That was one licence to rather more than every hundred of the population, and if that was so there could be no doubt that that was a case in which some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority were unanimous in referring the whole of the five licences under discussion. At the preliminary meeting it was decided that the case of the Providence should not be proceeded with. The Chief Constable would tell them that in selecting those five houses he was guided by the fact that the houses were those which were doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared to be the worst of each cluster.

Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, repeated the figures as to population, etc. He said in the whole borough there was one on-licence to every 313 people. During the year 1904 there were 171 cases of drunkenness in the borough, and 94 of those arose within the specified area.

With regard to the Cinque Ports Arms, it was one of a block of three licensed houses in Seagate Street. The owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the tenant was Samuel Webster, who had held it since August, 1901. The rateable value was 24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and on one side of the street was a dead wall, and on the other there were four houses, the first of which was a boot shop. Then came the Cinque Ports house, with a stable, the Chequers public house, and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 houses, within 150 yards there were 32 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses, all of which were on-licensed. The tenant was a basket maker, and very often worked at his trade. Very little trade was done at that house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the Licensing Justices that he received instructions.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: In 1903 the Magistrates called for plans of the Cinque Ports Arms, and no order was made. The tenant had conducted the house properly.

Re-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness had based his opinion that the trade was small at the five houses from his observations. The statistics as to the growth of the town applied to houses outside the congested area.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was under that particular provision of the Act upon which the Committee sat, precisely the same powers as under the old conditions of appeal to Quarter Sessions. He would submit that there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry in reference to the issue to each house as there ever had been under the Licensing Act of 1838. The chief case upon which one must rely in interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case, and in that case a statement was made by the Master of the Rolls, which really gave the key to the whole of the decisions. The Justices in that case formed themselves into a Committee, or appointed a Committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry, made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular houses which they might oppose prima facie before going round and making an inspection, and so finding out what they considered to be absolutely unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was decided as being the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question. Instead of giving notice of objection to individual cases selected out of Court, if he might so express it, they gave notice of objection to every single house in their area. What the Master of the Rolls said was “They (the Justices) were of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all of them might be formally inquired into, and for that purpose authority was given to the Justices' Clerk to object to such renewals on the general ground that the houses were not required, and also on the special grounds set out in that notice. That course gave everyone concerned their opportunity, and the Justices had the opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That is one course that might be taken, and it seems to me the reasonable and proper course”. That procedure had not been adopted in that case. It was very far from it. The procedure in this instance apparently had been to adopt the view of a particular official, the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notices of objection solely on the houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show, by way of comparison of trade, accommodation, situation, the state of repair, and matters of that kind, how discrimination by the Justices should be made, and which should be referred to Quarter Sessions. In doing so, he submitted the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper and legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notice on all houses in that selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions, sitting 50 or 100 miles away from a town, to distinguish between those and other houses in a selected area? A great many of the compensation authority would be absolutely ignorant of the locus in quo. Before any legal decision could be given in reference to any one property, in accordance with the procedure conducted by the Folkestone Justices, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood. The case of Howard and King in Parliament was followed by the Raven and Southampton case, in which it was contended that the procedure adopted in the Farnham case was a reasonable one so that the course adopted by the Folkestone Justices was not equivalent.

The Chairman said that he would advise the Committee that the action of the Committee was sanctioned by an action in the King's Bench Division. For the purposes of that day they would not act under the decision of the King v Tolhurst. If the King's Bench had considered that the hearing in the Tolhurst case carried the case any further than the Raven case, they would no doubt have followed the decision in the Raven case.

Mr. Hohler said that he had acted for the Justices in that case, and they said that they had not only acted on the police evidence, but they had also acted upon their own local knowledge. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgement, had referred to that.

The Chairman said the Tolhurst case had decided that the evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrates referring the matter to that Court.

Mr. Bodkin asked the Committee to state a case on that decision.

The Chairman: No, certainly not.

Mr. Bodkin said that he had no authority to say so, but he had every reason to believe that that decision was to be appealed against.

The Chairman replied that the Committee could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of his clients, and he then called his evidences.

The Cinque Ports.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he had been instructed by Messrs. Leney and Co. to appear there to see if the reference of the Folkestone Justices were carried out. Therefore he did not propose to call any evidence before them. If they renewed the licence the brewers would have it, and if not – well, they would have lost it.

After retiring to consider their verdict, the Committee, through their Chairman, announced their decision. Sir William Selfe said that in the course of Mr. Bodkin's arguments on the question of law, it had been said that the procedure of the Justices below in referring the licences for the consideration of that Court was not in accordance with the law. He (the Chairman) expressed the opinion that it was. The Committee had considered each case separately, without regard to any of the other cases that had been heard, and they had decided to refuse the renewal of all the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Committee.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday and Saturday. At the first day’s sitting, Judge Sir W. L. Selfe presided.

There were five applications from Folkestone, viz., in respect of the Victoria, the Perseverance, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Star, and the Cinque Port Arms. The licensees were represented by Mr. Bodkin, K.C., Mr. Hohler, Mr. Rutley Mowll and Mr. Haines, while Mr. Pitman appeared for the justices of Folkestone, and Detective Sergt. Bumiston having given evidence, Mr. Bodkin contended that the fact that compensation was now to be given did not affect the question, as to whether a license should be renewed or not, and the onus upon those who came there to prove that a license should be refused on the ground that it was not required was just as great as if they were acting last year instead of in the present year, and he thought it was necessary to bear this in mind because one heard in various quarters views expressed that now compensation was payable, these licensing cases might be got through in as short, and, if he might say so, as perfunctory a way as possible, without any enquiry of any sort, or careful attention given to the interests involved. Mr. Bodkin further argued that the primary duty of the Licensing Justices was that laid down in the Farnham case, viz., that they should personally select the houses which they deemed were not required, instead of leaving such selection to the discretion of the Chief Constable.

All the licenses were refused, with the exception of that of the Perseverance.

 

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 15 July 1905.

Compensation for refused licences.

The Compensations Authority for East Kent sat at the sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, to hear applications as to the amount of compensation to be fixed in respect of the licences which were recently refused. Lord Harris presided. In the case of the "Cinque Port Arms," Folkestone the court were asked to award a sum of 375, which the tenant, it was stated, had agreed with the owners to accept 50. Lord Harris said the whole situation was so novel, and the evidence they heard had been all on one side, that they had come to the conclusion that they ought to have further information from another source, without in any way doubting the veracity of the gentleman who had presented figures. Before the justices could come to a decision in any of the cases they must have the advice of an independent expert as to the value of the houses when licensed and at the present time; also information showing the value of the business to licensees in recent years from evidence based on the profit on the sale of liquors. The court appointed Messrs. Cobb as official valuers, and suggested a conference with the values for the applicants, so as to arrive at some common figures between them. Subsequently the court adjourned for the presentation of further evidence.

 

Folkestone Express 22 July 1905.

Local News.

The question of the amount to be awarded in respect of the licences which have been cancelled by the Court of Quarter Sessions came before the Licensing Committee last week. The first case taken was that of the Cinque Port Arms, at Folkestone, Messrs. Leney and Co. being the brewers, and Mr. S.R. Webster the tenant. Mr. Rutley Mowll said the amount of compensation agreed upon between the parties interested was 375, of which the tenant would receive 50. The Committee considered the matter in private, and on their return the Chairman said that they had been considering the matter, and the whole situation was so novel, and the evidence they had heard had been all on one side, that they had come to the conclusion that they ought to have further information from another source, without in any way doubting the veracity of the gentleman who had presented the figures. The Bench felt that they ought to have further information as to the value, since of the house as a licensed house, and its value since the licence had lapsed, and also some information based upon the value of the house to the licensee from evidence taken from the profits from the sale of liquor. The Chairman also mentioned that the Bench had under the power given to them by the Act, appointed Messrs. R.L. and H. Cobb to act as their valuers in the matter, and they were prepared if the gentlemen of the law present desired it to adjourn the hearing of any further cases, so that they could consider their point of view.

 

Southeastern Gazette 5 December 1905.

East Kent Licensing Committee.

This Committee sat at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Wednesday, to award compensation in the cases of those licenses which had not been renewed. Lord Harris presided.

In the case of the Cinque Ports, Folkestone, the Committee awarded the owners 325, and the tenant 50.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GOORD Mary 1861+ (widow age 60 in 1801Census)

BIRD Henry c1862-66 Bastions

MULLETT J W 1866

ALLCORN Abraham 1866-69 Bastions

MARCH James 1869-70 Bastions

POUNE J 1870-72 Bastions

HYHAM James 1872-74 Bastions

COURT Richard 1874-76 Bastions

BROUGH John 1876-77 Bastions

HUTCHINS William 1877

FLETCHER William 1877-80 Bastions

NEWMAN Henry 1880 Bastions

GREGORY Daniel 1880-81 Bastions

LYWOOD William 1881-83 Bastions

DORRELL Henry 1883 Bastions

NETHERCORN Henry 1883-84 Bastions

STICKLES James 1884-85 Bastions

KERSLAKE William 1885-86 Bastions

LYONS Hermann 1886-88 Bastions

FARR Albert 1888-89 Next pub licensee had Bastions

WEATHERHEAD Robert 1889 Bastions

WEATHERHEAD Fanny 1898-1901 Bastions

WEBSTER Samuel 1901-05 Bastions

 

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