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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Express 12 January 1901.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 19 January 1901.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.