Folkestone Express 2 March 1895.

Friday, February 21st: Before J. Fitness Esq., and Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge.

John Thomson Riddell, a discharged soldier, was charged with stealing about three shillings from a till at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, on Thursday afternoon.

Mary Ann Pickerdike, housekeeper to Mr. Gower, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said she saw the prisoner in the bar about half past four on Thursday afternoon. He asked for half a pint of beer, and was served. He said he wanted the beer to “put him straight”. He drank half of the beer, and then laid down on a seat in the bar, and said he had a bad headache. She left the bar and went into the room behind, and while there she heard a chink of money, and in consequence went into the bar and saw prisoner with his right hand in the till. He had passed round from the outside to the inside of the counter. He put his hand up as if to hit her, and she called to Mr. Gower. Prisoner turned to get out of the bar. She tried to prevent him by catching hold of his coat. He got away and shut her arm in the door. She followed him into the street and cried “Stop thief”, but in Peter Street she lost sight of him. She was sure he was the man.

Prisoner: I am almost certain you have made a mistake. I don't remember being in your house yesterday.

Henry Gower, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said he heard his housekeeper call out and ran into the bar, where he saw prisoner trying to get out of the bar. As he went out, witness had a good view of his face. In the evening witness went with Sergeant Dawson to the Railway Tavern in Dover Road, and there saw prisoner sitting with his head in his hands, and he gave prisoner into custody. After prisoner had left the bar he examined the till, and missed about three shillings worth of coppers. He had seen prisoner in the bar on three or four days recently.

Prisoner said he had only been in Folkestone two days.

Sergeant Dawson said when he took prisoner into custody he replied “Sure, you've made a mistake, man”. When charged at the police station, he said “Can the gentleman prove it?” When searched 9d. in bronze was found on him, some army discharge papers, a pawn ticket, and an empty purse. The pawn ticket was dated February, 1895.

Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and after hesitation said “I am Guilty according to the evidence”. He said he was a pensioner, and if convicted it would have a very detrimental effect upon him. He had had sunstroke in India, and had served 18½ years. At Margate he was instructor in a college.

The letters were examined by the Magistrates, and after long consideration they said they would be sorry if prisoner were to lose his pension. They therefore fined him 10s. and in default seven days'.

Prisoner said he was very thankful, and that he could get the money.

Folkestone Express 1 June 1895.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before W. Wightwick and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. Gower, of the Clarence Inn, was granted an occasional licence to sell on Whit Monday in the football field.

Folkestone Express 3 August 1895.

Wednesday, July 31st: Before Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Permission was granted to Mr. Gower, of the Clarence Hotel, to sell on the football field on Bank Holiday.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1895.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, T.J. Vaughan, and R.J. Fynmore Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel from Mr. H. Gower to Mr. W.B. Warner.

Superintendent Taylor said with reference to the structural arrangements of the house that there were five rooms let to two separate families, from each of which access could be gained to the two bars.

Mr. Haines said that the owners of the house, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., were quite willing to adopt any suggestion that the Bench might think proper, either by blocking up one door, or giving the tenants notice to quit.

The application was granted, on Mr. Haines' undertaking to see that the occupiers of the rooms were removed immediately, and that the premises were not sub-let again.

Folkestone Express 26 September 1896.

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

A music licence was granted to the Clarence Inn.

Folkestone Express 25 August 1900.

Thursday, August 23rd: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.

William Smith was charged with stealing from the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, on Wednesday evening, one pint glass, value 6½d.

Prisoner went to the house and had a bottle of stout. He was charged 3d. for it, which he thought was a halfpenny too much, and ultimately walked off with the glass.

Prisoner said he had no intention of stealing the glass.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, G. Peden and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Timothy Murphy was summoned for obtaining 15s. from William Richard Warner by means of false pretences.

William Richard Warner, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said on Saturday, the 27th December, defendant came to the saloon bar about 10 a.m., and asked witness to lend him 5s., which he did. In the evening he returned and asked witness if he could change a cheque. Witness replied he could only change a small one owing to being short of change. Defendant asked witness to give him 15s., and he would write a cheque for £1, which would make the money right he had borrowed in the morning. Witness gave him 15s., and defendant wrote out a cheque in his presence. He paid the cheque into his account on the 29th December, but it was returned marked “account closed”, together with a letter from the Manager.

Defendant: Did I send a message asking you to keep the cheque? – Yes, but I had sent the cheque to the bank.

Joseph Harrison, a clerk in the Capital and Counties Bank, said defendant was a client of the Bank, and he produced a certified copy of his account. By direction of the manager, witness wrote a letter to defendant on the 12th December asking him to call at the Bank. He did so on the 15th December, and witness informed him that 5s. 7d. was required to clear his account. Defendant paid the money, and that closed the account.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, witness said he did not tell defendant that no further cheques would be honoured.

Defendant: Did I tell you that I expected a sum of money shortly? – Yes.

Mr. Bradley: If a cheque had been presented to the credit of the account you would have taken it? – Quite so.

The letter received by prosecutor from the Bank Manager was then handed to the Bench, and after a short consultation the Chairman said the case had not been made out, and the summons would be dismissed.

Folkestone Express 16 January 1904.

Monday, January 11th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Jas. Charles Hardy, Arthur Frederick Cushing, William Geo. Duddy (soldiers), and Margaret Smith and Mabel Richards were brought up in custody charged with being concerned together in stealing six ale glasses from the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road the previous Saturday evening, the property of Walter Warner.

Prosecutor stated that at a quarter to eleven on the night in question the prisoners went into his bar and called for drinks, Cushing paying for three bitters and two stouts. About three minutes from closing time Hardy ordered half a gallon of beer and a pint of stout, which they took away with them. Shortly after the prisoners left he missed six glasses off the counter, and those now produced by the police were his property. Each bore his name and address.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said: From information I received from the prosecutor I made inquiries. At 15 minutes past ten last night I went, in company with P.C. Johnson, to No. 84A, Marshall Street, where in a front room on the first floor I saw the prisoners Hardy, Cushing, Smith, and Richards. They were seated around a table on which were the glasses produced, some containing beer. I examined the glasses, and then informed them that they would be charged together with stealing them. I cautioned them, and Smith said “I took one glass”, and Hardy remarked “We took them between us. There is a man named Duddy in it”. The prisoners were taken to the police station, and when formally charged neither made any reply. At nine o'clock this morning I saw the prisoner Duddy at Shorncliffe Camp, and when I charged him he said “I was present when they took the glasses, and I have a slight recollection of having a glass in my pocket”.

With the exception of Cushing the prisoners pleaded Guilty.

Cushing called the prisoner Richards, who stated she that was a servant, and Cushing did not take any of the glasses from the bar.

The three soldiers were given a good character by the Officers in Court, while Supt. Reeve informed the Bench that there were no previous convictions against any of the prisoners.

The Bench took this into consideration, and ordered each to pay a fine of 10s., or seven days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 4 March 1905.

Wednesday, March 1st: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Warner to Mr. F.G. Gray.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench considered several applications for the transfer of licences, and granted the following: The Clarence from Mr. W.B. Warner to Mr. F.G. Gray.

Folkestone Express 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.J. Linton Esq.

The following licence was transferred: The Clarence Inn, from Frederick George Gray to Thomas George Jenkins.

Folkestone Express 21 April 1906.

Local News.

On Good Friday Mr. Gray, the late landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was carrying a case of mineral waters up some steps, when he fell down and seriously injured his back.

Thursday, April 19th: Before G. Spurgen Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

John Bernard Sherran was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly after ten o'clock he was in Dover Road, in plain clothes, when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, standing in the doorway of the Clarence Hotel. He was challenging the landlord, who was about to eject him, to fight, and struck the landlord. Prisoner used very bad language, and, when taken into custody, he became very violent. With assistance witness brought him to the police station.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

Folkestone Express 21 March 1908.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and C. Jenner Esq.

Harry Ripley was charged with being drunk and incapable in Dover Road the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Lilley said the previous night just before 11 o'clock, he was informed there was a fight in Dover Road. On going there he saw a crowd of people outside the Clarence Hotel, who dispersed upon seeing him. He saw the prisoner lying on the footpath, and on going to him he appeared to be in a drunken fit. He (witness) found he was too drunk to stand, and he had to obtain a stretcher to get him to the police station. Ripley was bleeding from his nose and mouth.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was there fifteen months ago for a similar offence.

Prisoner, who appeared to have no idea what took place the previous night, was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, but in default he went to prison for seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1909.

Monday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

George S. Weatherhead appeared, with his left eye bandaged up, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Laurence said at about 8.30on Saturday evening he was in Tontine Street, when he was called to Dover Road, where he saw the defendant, drunk, surrounded by a large crowd. He had his coat off, and offered to fight anyone, using very bad language. One of his companions wanted to help him on with his coat, but the defendant would not let him do so. Witness asked him to go away, but he became very disorderly. He, therefore, took him into custody, when the defendant became very violent. He threw himself down on the ground and commenced to kick.

Defendant (pointing to his eye): Just look what they did for me. I had to go to the hospital, and shall have to go again tomorrow.

Sergt. Laurence, continuing, said the defendant tried to throw him down and kicked him. Witness eventually handcuffed him, and with the assistance of P.C. Smith, brought the defendant to the police station. There was a crowd of 500 or 600 people collected around them.

Daniel Deverson, of the Clarence Tap, said the defendant came to his house on Saturday evening. He told Weatherhead that he had had sufficient, and to go out at once. He immediately wanted to fight witness, and when he got outside he used filthy language. The defendant was drunk, and that was why he refused to serve him.

The Chairman enquired what as wrong with defendant's eye.

Sergt. Laurence said the defendant had evidently been fighting before he got there. He was marked on the face when he first saw him.

The defendant said when they got him in the police station he was hit in the eye with the handcuffs. He denied being drunk, and he had only had two glasses of beer. All the people cried “Shame” on the police.

P.S. Dunster said when the man was brought in he was fighting and making an awful row. He had blood on his face and had apparently been fighting.

Defendant: I never was fighting, because I had no-one to fight with.

The Chief Constable said there were nine previous convictions against the defendant, the last on Dec. 11th, 1908. For wilful damage.

A fine of 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs was inflicted, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

Defendant: Will you allow me a week to find the money?

The Chief Constable: I shall object to any time. The defendant is one of the worst behaved men in the town when he is drunk.

The defendant was taken below.

Folkestone Express 23 October 1909.

Wednesday, October 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

George Henry Smith, a seaman, was summoned by his wife for assaulting her. He denied the offence.

Mrs. Smith said she had been married for 21 years. On Oct. 15th, when she went home from work, her husband told her she had not come straight home. He told her he would split her brains open. She went to the Clarence Hotel, and in a short time her husband came in and struck at her with a bottle. She put her hand up and the bottle hit it. She never gave her husband any provocation. Later he assaulted her in the house. He also threatened to settle her and to put a piece of steel through her. She denied striking her husband in the public house.

The prosecutrix called Mrs. Weathehead as a witness, but great amusement was caused by that lady stating that she was there and did not know anything about it.

The defendant explained that he objected to his wife going to the public house. He went out to get something for supper, and when he returned his wife had not come back. He, therefore, went to the Clarence, but he did not strike his wife.

The Bench ordered him to be bound over in the sum of £10 to be of good behaviour for three months, and to pay the costs, 8s. 6d., or one month's hard labour in default.

Folkestone Express 26 February 1910.

Saturday, February 19th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore and Mr. R.J. Linton.

Elizabeth Anne Pepin was summoned for sending her child, Reginald Pepin, under 14 years of age, to the Clarence Inn, for the purpose of fetching beer in an unsealed vessel, and Annie Elizabeth Harwood was summoned for aiding and abetting the offence. Mrs. Pepin pleaded Guilty, and Mrs. Harwood Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly before eleven o'clock on the night of the 12th inst. he was in Belle Vue Street, in company with another constable, when he saw a boy, apparently under the age of fourteen years, open the door of the Clarence In Tap and look inside. At the same time he was handed a jug and bottle from inside the bar. The boy went away into St. John's Road, and witness followed him. He saw him go into 13, St. John's Road, which was a fried fish shop. Mrs. Pepin lived there. Witness followed him in, and he then saw the defendant, Mrs. Pepin. He asked her if that was her boy who had just gone in, and she replied “Yes”. He asked her how old he was, and she said “Thirteen”. Witness then told her that he had just fetched some beer from the Clarence Inn Tap. Defendant replied “Yes, but he didn't go inside, did he? Mrs. Harwood was going to get it for him”. Witness said it was handed to him by someone inside the bar. He examined the contents of the jug and found it contained beer. The bottle was a quart bottle of ale, and was sealed. Witness took her name and address, and told her he should report her. The boy's name was Reginald Pepin. He afterwards went to the Clarence Inn Tap, to the bar where the jug and bottle were handed to the boy. He then saw Mrs. Harwood, who was called outside. He said to her “You handed some beer to a lad named Pepin a few minutes ago from this bar?” She replied “Yes, for his mother”. Witness told her he was not fourteen years of age. Defendant said she thought he was fourteen, but he did not go inside. Witness took her name and address and told her he should submit a report. Defendant replied “You are surely not going to report it?” Mrs. Harwood did not keep the Clarence Inn Tap. She was a customer.

The Bench dismissed the summons against Mrs. Harwood, and fined Mrs. Pepin 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Dwoffer, and R.J. Linton.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the Clarence Inn from the executors of the late Mr. Jenkins to the widow. The house was, perhaps, one of which a woman should not have charge, and it might be a difficult one to manage. Mrs. Jenkins had practically been managing the house for some considerable time during her husband's illness, and she had had experience all her life. The executors thought it was better that the licence should be transferred to her during the time she remained there, as she was on the spot and had a practical man managing with her and looking after the premises. Subsequently the licence would be transferred when Mrs. Jenkins had had time to look round. In the meantime he asked them to transfer the licence from the executors to the widow.

The Chief Constable said, as it was only a temporary transfer, he should offer no objection, but he certainly should if Mrs. Jenkins intended to remain there.

The Chairman said it was understood Mrs. Jenkins would seek another house.

Mr. Haines replied in the affirmative and under those circumstances the transfer was granted.

Folkestone Express 2 April 1910.

Saturday, March 26th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

John Seddon and Alfred Edward Paul, the latter belonging to the King's Royal Rifles, were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons. Seddon pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said at about 10.25 on the night of the 19th inst. he was called to Belle Vue Street, where he saw the two defendants, who were fighting. Seddon had his coat and hat off, and there was a large crowd of people. With the assistance of the military police he caught hold of Paul. Seddon ran away, but was stopped by P.C. Butcher higher up the street. He obtained his name and address, and also Paul's. Seddon complained that Paul went to his house and insulted or assaulted his wife.

Seddon said he was in the Clarence, when he was told that a soldier had been trying to get into his house. Paul came down the street, and when he got to the bottom he struck Seddon, who struck him back.

Paul explained that he made a mistake with respect to the girl, whom he thought he knew.

Defendants were each bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for three months.

Folkestone Express 22 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 19th: Before Aldermen spurge and Vaughan, Lt. Col. Fynmore, and Alderman Jenner.

The licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Jenkins to Mr. James Schleselman.

The Chief Constable said he hoped the incoming tenant would do his best to conduct the house in a satisfactory manner. It was used by soldiers and hawkers, and required a great deal of care and attention.

Mr. Schleselman said he would do his best.

Folkestone Express 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: Channel Inn (sic), Dover Road, from Mrs. Jenkins to Mr. James Schlesschman.

Folkestone Express 21 October 1911.

Tuesday, October 17th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Ernest Edward Williams was summoned for assaulting Robert Henry Charles Dobbs on Oct. 13th.

The witnesses remained outside the court.

Robert Henry Charles Dobbs, a labourer, of 49, Canterbury Road, said on Friday, Oct. 13th, just after eleven o'clock in the evening, he was going home through Queen Street in company with his wife and two friends, when defendant's wife stopped his (witness's) wife and knocked her down. He did not know what for. He went to stop them, and defendant came up and knocked him down. Defendant also bit him through the finger while on the ground.

Defendant: Who did? – You did.

Williams (excitedly): You are a liar.

The Clerk rebuked defendant, who replied that he had a right to question the witness and was going to have justice.

The Clerk (turning to the Magistrates) said if defendant did not behave himself, he would be remanded in custody.

Williams at length became quiet, and the case was resumed.

The complainant, continuing his evidence, said defendant, as he got up from the ground, kicked him on the head and made a wound. Witness got up and asked P.S. Prebble to take defendant into custody, but Williams ran away.

Defendant (cross-examining Dobbs): Where was I when my missus and your missus started rowing? – You were up the street.

What did I do? – You knocked me down.

Did I not pull my missus away from your missus? – I cannot say.

And with that did you not come for me? – No, I did not.

Didn't you fight at all with me? – No.

John William Fidge, of 11, Peter Street, said he was in Queen Street on Friday night, in company with Dobbs and his wife. The first thing he saw was defendant's wife with Dobbs's wife. Dobbs went to separate them, and he saw defendant hit Dobbs and knock him down. After that Williams kicked him in the head and bit his finger. P.S. Prebble came along, and defendant and his wife ran away. Dobbs had no chance to strike, or defend himself.

Williams then called Albert Moore, a carpenter, of 28, Bournemouth Road, who said he left the Clarence Tap at eleven o'clock, in company with defendant and his wife. They went up Peter Street towards Queen Street. He was in conversation with defendant, and the latter's wife was following on behind. They had got about half way up Queen Street when witness heard a disturbance by the Council School. He looked round and saw that Mrs. Williams was not with them. From what he said to defendant, he turned round and ran down the street. He followed him, and saw Mrs. Williams and Dobbs's wife struggling. Williams caught hold of his wife and endeavoured to pull her away. Dobbs then struck at defendant and knocked his cap off. Williams stuck back, and both began to fight. Witness watched them until a policeman came up and stopped them. They were then on the ground rolling over another. Williams got up and ran away. He should say Dobbs got the worst of the fight by his appearance.

The Chairman, addressing defendant, said the Bench had very seriously considered that matter, and they had come to the conclusion that the evidence was so conflicting that they could not convict, and the case was dismissed.

Dobbs was ordered to pay 3s. costs.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1911.

Inquest.

A shocking tragedy was enacted in the Warren on Wednesday of last week, when a Belgian, named Casimir Leorant Munton, committed suicide in a most determined manner by cutting his throat, and afterwards his dead body rolled down the cliff into a deep pond, in which he was found floating on Friday afternoon. The circumstances connected with the shocking affair were of a particularly sad nature, by the fact that Munton was staying with his wife in Folkestone on their honeymoon, and thus within three weeks of the wedding day deceased's wife became a widow, while her lot was made the more piteous by the fact that her husband left her absolutely penniless in a strange land and not able to speak a word of the language. From the evidence which was given at the inquest on Saturday evening, conducted at the Town Hall by Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner), there was very little doubt that the excessive drinking of absinthe had led the unfortunate man in a fit of frenzy to take his life. Naturally the unfortunate wife was in a pitiable condition following upon her husband's shocking death,, although, through an interpreter, she readily answered the questions put by the Coroner.

Edwin John Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said the body viewed by the jury was that morning identified in his presence by Mr. J. Schlesselman as that of Casimir Munton, who had been staying at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, since a week the previous Monday. On Friday afternoon, at three o'clock, he received information that there was the body of a man lying in a pond at the Warren, and it was impossible to get it out, as the water was so deep and the cliffs so steep. He proceeded to the spot with P.C. Bourne. On arrival there, about 500 yards on the Dover side of Little Switzerland tea gardens, he saw the body in a pond full of water about 12ft. or 14ft. deep (about 50 yards across it on the side near the cliff the bank is precipitous), the man floating face downwards. They climbed down the cliff and got the body out. It was that of a man fully clothed, with an overcoat on, serge suit, boots on and properly laced up, but nothing in his hands. There was a very deep wound in the throat, which extended from ear to ear. On getting him to the bank the wound bled considerably. The bak was very steep, and about 3ft. from the pond he found the razor (produced), which was about three parts open, and there were blood stains upon the blade. The body was stiff, and must have been in the water some hours. With P.C. Bourne he examined the cliff, and there were no bloodstains on the bank, nor near the spot where the razor was found. The cliff was of soft chalk and very slippery. For about 20ft. up from the pond the slippery condition continued, and there he found a cap, which was marked inside “Sansier, Calais”. In the water there was an umbrella, which Scamp got out. He conveyed the body to the mortuary, where he undressed the deceased. On searching his clothes he found in the waistcoat pocket a keyless oxydised watch, which had stopped at two o'clock, and a steel chain. In his other pockets he found a purse, quite empty, a card case, quite empty, a pair of new kid gloves, a pipe, and tobacco pouch, but no money. The man was wearing cuffs with links.

George Scamp, of 61, Bridge Street, said he was a greengrocer. About ten minute to three the previous afternoon he was passing the pond, and saw the body of a man floating in the water. He went down to the bank, and seeing it was impossible to get the body out without assistance, he went to the Town Hall and gave information. He was in the Warren on Tuesday.

James Schlesselman, a licensed victualler, said he carried on business at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He identified the deceased in the presence of Mr. Chadwick as that of Casimir Munton. Deceased came to his house on Tuesday week with his wife, and asked for rooms and board. He paid for two days, and he owed him £6 12s. 7d. for about six days' board and lodgings. The money included the cost of a large quantity of absinthe, which he thought was really the cause of the whole affair. As far as he could see the deceased and his wife agreed. They went out very little. It was not until after the deceased had disappeared on Wednesday that he heard he had threatened his wife. When he first came to witness he understood he had plenty of money. Deceased did not tell him where he came from, although he told him he was a merchant in Belgium, and was there on his honeymoon. He had no letters. On Wednesday deceased and his wife went out at ten o'clock in the morning, and they went up Dover Road, so he was informed by the barmaid. The wife came back, so he was told by his wife, at about a quarter to four, and asked for her husband. Mrs. Munton was in a sober condition, and when she found her husband was not there she appeared to be very distressed. According to her story, her husband left her suddenly on the Leas at half past two, as he said he saw some friends at the bottom of the cliff, and asked her to wait for him while he went down. She waited until she was wet through, and then came home, hoping to find him home before her. He had never seen the razor (produced) before. He had searched the deceased's trunk, but could find no letters. Deceased's wife said she had never seen the razor.

Dr. F.J. Lidderdale said that day he had examined the body of a man then lying at the mortuary. The first thing he noticed was that the throat had been cut right through the hyoid bone, and the cut extended beyond that to the surface of the spine. All the great vessels of the neck had been divided on both sides. On the right side there were four nicks in the skin apart from the main incision, which pointed to the fact that the cut was done by the left hand. On the front of the spine there were four cuts which went down to the actual bone, and which seemed to have been done by the right hand. There was nothing abnormal about the body, except that deceased had suffered from gallstone. There was no evidence of drowning, so that he must have been dead when he went into the water. The cut could have been done by the deceased. It was a case of as determined a suicide as they could possibly think of.

The Coroner: Supposing anyone else had done it from behind, would the cuts have displayed any other symptoms or features?

Dr. Lidderdale: I don't know that anyone could say definitely, except that in a murderous cut you would not get the “nicks”, which was always an evidence of suicide. The person was generally nervous with the first cuts.

The Coroner: Then the wounds might have been self-inflicted?

Dr. Lidderdale said he did not think there was any doubt about it. There were no wounds on the hands and no sign of a struggle.

Madame Munton, who gave her evidence through an interpreter, said she came from Wandre, near Herstael, Liege, Belgium. She was the wife of the deceased, Casimir Leorant Munten, of Herstael, who was employed as the chief clerk in a coal office. He was 30 years of age. They were married on the 26th October that year, and had come to Folkestone for their honeymoon. She had known the deceased two years before she married to him. She could not say whether he was of sober habits, but he did not drink any more in Folkestone than he was in the habit of doing. He had never threatened to take his own life, but on Sunday night previously he had tried to strangle her. On Wednesday, at ten o'clock in the morning, she went out with her husband. They went in the direction where they had to keep climbing.

Mr. Schlesselman, who interpreted the witness's evidence, said that meant the two went up Dover Road way.

The widow, continuing, said her husband left her near a small cafe or house, and said to her he was going down the cliffs for a few minutes. He asked her to wait for him. Deceased gave her an excuse for leaving her. He went straight down the path. It would be about half past two or a quarter to three when he left her. She waited about an hour and then returned home, thinking he had come by another way. She had never seen the razor (produced) before. Her husband always shaved with a safety razor. When they left the house in the morning her husband had £3 or £4 in his pocket. She saw it, for he counted it out and put it into his purse. He did not spend any money that morning. He told her he was expecting about 150 francs from his parents. She had no money in her possession, and her husband gave her none. She told her husband she wanted something, and he said “All right, give me the money and I will buy it”, at the same time taking all the money she had. She was now absolutely penniless. She asked him to pay the hotel bill that morning, and he said he would do so after they came back from their walk.

Dr. Lidderdale, again questioned by the Coroner, said he had no doubt in his mind that the wounds in the throat were self-inflicted.

The Coroner, in summing up, said it was for the jury to say whether the wounds were self-inflicted or done by some other person. In the latter event it would be a case of murder. They, however, had the medical evidence that the cut throat might have been self-inflicted, although it wanted a very powerful and determined man to do it in the manner deceased's throat was cut. There was no doubt that the razor was the weapon with which the throat was cut. He must have been on the bank and have gone into the pond. They had earlier history of the deceased. He had been drinking absinthe in considerable quantities, and the effect of absinthe was that it greatly excited the person taking it. Deceased had attempted to strangle his wife on the previous Sunday, but whether it was with intent to try and kill her, or merely the outcome of frenzy of an alcohol drinker they could not say, but the latter was more than probable. They had in that a clue as to the reason for taking his life. There was no evidence of any signs of a struggle, and generally when an individual's throat was cut by a second party, it was found the hands bore signs of a struggle. There was nothing of the kind at all in that case.

P.C. Bourne, called by the Coroner, said that he saw the purse opened by the Coroner's Officer, and there was nothing in it. There was nothing in the pockets.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst of unsound mind, caused through drinking absinthe excessively”.

Folkestone Express 30 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 27th: Before W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Charles Smith was charged with stealing a handbag from the cloakroom at the Harbour Railway Station. Mr. Myers, solicitor, defended.

Wm. Joseph Shorter, clerk in the cloakroom, Harbour Railway Station, said on Saturday afternoon he was in charge of the cloakroom at the Harbour Station, when the handbag (produced) was brought to him at about 4.30 and deposited in the cloakroom by a gentleman who gave the name of Hake. Witness gave him the usual receipt, numbered 779,025. The same evening witness left the cloakroom at 9.35. he locked the door and left the key in the lock, while he went to attend to the boat train. He returned to the cloakroom at ten o'clock, and a few minutes after Mr. Hake called for his bag. Witness searched for it and found it was missing. He then communicated with the police.

Cross-examined, witness said it was the practice to leave the key in the lock of the cloakroom. A man was stationed about 150 yards from the cloakroom, whose duty it was to look after the room during witness's absence.

Winifred Elizabeth Schlesselman, wife of the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said she recognised the prisoner, who came to the hotel on Saturday evening about a quarter to ten, and engaged a bedroom from witness for a night. He had with him a portmanteau and the two bags (produced). He took the two bags into his room, and then went out. He returned about eleven o'clock, and retired to his room about a quarter to twelve. Witness called him at nine o'clock the following morning, and he came down and had breakfast. He left the house at ten o'clock, saying he was going to Dover, and should return about two o'clock. Witness next saw prisoner on Monday morning, when he again had breakfast in the house. Later he left the hotel, and returned on Tuesday evening about nine o'clock. Shortly afterwards he was arrested in the house.

Witness was shown a foreign railway guide and some papers, which she said she found in the sitting room on Sunday morning after the prisoner had left for Dover. They were on a chair near where he had been seated. On the following morning witness showed them to the prisoner, and he said they were of no use.

Cross-examined, witness said prisoner had stayed at the hotel once before, twelve or fourteen months ago. When he came on Saturday he did not seem confused or nervous, neither was he nervous when she showed him the papers.

Detective Officer Johnson said at about 7.45 the previous night, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he was in Dover Road, where he saw the prisoner carrying the bag produced. He followed him into the saloon bar of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He said to him “We are two police officers making some enquiries respecting a bag missed from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on Saturday night”. Prisoner said “I bought it in New York about two months ago”. Witness told him he should take him to the police station to make enquiries. He did so, and afterwards returned to the Clarence Hotel, and in the bedroom pointed out to him by the landlord as the one which had been occupied by the prisoner he found the small bag (produced), which had been identified by the witness Shorter. Witness took possession of it, and later charged the prisoner with stealing it from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on the 23rd inst. He cautioned him, and prisoner made a statement which was taken down in writing in witness's presence. At the station he searched prisoner, and found in his possession the cigar case (produced).

Inspector Swift said he had been instructed to ask for a remand.

Mr. Myers asked that the prisoner might have the money found in his possession, but the request was refused.

Prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday next.

Folkestone Express 6 April 1912.

Wednesday, April 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and J.J. Giles Esqs., Colonel Owen and Captain Chamier.

Charles Smith was charged on remand with stealing a handbag from the cloakroom of the Harbour Station, value 15s., the property of the S.E. Railway Company's Managing Committee. Mr. F. Fraser appeared on behalf of the S.E. and C. Railway Co., and Mr. Myers defended.

The Chief Constable said as a result of the inquiries which had been made he had a few additional witnesses to call.

Two bags, a large and a small one, were produced in Court.

The evidence given at the previous hearing was read over, and also a statement by the prisoner. It was to the effect that he met a man outside the Harbour Station. They went into a public house to have a drink, and after the other man had gone prisoner found the bag, which he took to his hotel.

Thomas Cornelius Hall, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, Harbour Street, said he was on the premises about 9.20 p.m. on Saturday, 23rd March. He was in the hotel entrance passage, when he saw the prisoner enter the passage. He was a stranger to witness. Prisoner was alone, and carrying two or three brown bags, similar to the two bags produced. He said to witness “Could you get me a man to carry my bags up?” He said he wanted to go up Dover Street. Witness said he would see if he could get a man in the public bar. He spoke to some men in the bar, and obtained the services of a man named Tiddy, who went with witness to the prisoner. He introduced prisoner to Tiddy, who had a drink with him. Each had a glass of ale. They then left together. Witness was in the passage just before prisoner arrived, and there were no bags in the passage or in the bar.

James Tiddy, 17, East Street, a carpenter, said on Saturday, 23rd March he was in the public bar of the Harbour Hotel, between nine and ten in the evening, when the landlord said something to him. He had then been in the hotel about a quarter of an hour. In consequence of what Mr. Hall said he went into the passage, where he saw prisoner, who was alone. Prisoner had the two handbags and the portmanteau produced. He asked prisoner if he was the gentleman who required a porter, and he agreed to carry the bags to a house up Tontine Street. Witness carried the portmanteau and the larger bag. The prisoner carried the other. At the Brewery Tap they each had a drink. Witness then took the portmanteau and prisoner the two bags. When they got to the Clarence Hotel, prisoner said that was the house he wanted. They both went into the saloon bar, taking the bags with them. They had another glass of ale each, and then Mrs. Schlesselman came into the bar and prisoner arranged with her to stay in the house. Mrs. Schlesselman showed prisoner to his room, and the bags were taken upstairs. He returned in a few minutes, and said he was going out for a little run. He did not have the bags with him. During the whole time witness was with prisoner, witness did not see anyone with him, or speak to him. On the way to the Clarence Hotel, prisoner told him he had arrived that evening by the Boulogne boat. He ought to have gone by the Calais boat to Dover, and was going to Dover. He showed him a book of tickets, similar to the one produced, dated March 23rd.

This concluded the case, and Mr. Myers said that Smith would go for trial.

Smith said he did not desire to call any witnesses, not make any statement.

He was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Bail was fixed at prisoner in £20, one surety of £20, or two of £10 each.

Mr. Myers said there was a gentleman at Falmouth who was quite willing to be bail for prisoner.

The Clerk said when the proper recognisances had come from Falmouth, Smith would be bailed out at Canterbury.

Smith was allowed to have a small sum of money found in his possession.

Folkestone Express 20 April 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Mr. Charles Smith, 26, a traveller, was indicted for stealing a leather brief bag, valued at 15s., the property of the S.E. and C. Railway Company Managing Committee, on March 23rd. Mr. Gordon prosecuted on behalf of the Railway Company, and Mr. A.E. Wetton (instructed by Mr. H.J. Myers) defended.

Smith was on bail, and when his name was called out at the opening of the Court no response was made to it.

Mr. Wetton said he had not the slightest idea where Smith was.

It transpired that Canon Hitching, who was at Falmouth, stood as bail for Smith in the sum of £20.

The Recorder said all he could do was estreat the recognisance.

Mr. Wetton said it was just possible Smith might turn up later.

The Recorder decided to postpone taking any step until lunchtime.

Eventually Smith turned up, and when he answered to his name the Recorder questioned him as to the reason he was late. He replied that he journeyed as far as Hastings the previous night and he thought he had plenty of time to get there that morning. He had to change at Ashford, where he had to wait for over an hour, and he did not arrive until half past eleven.

The Recorder said his recognisances had already been estreated.

Smith pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

William Joseph Shorter, clerk in the cloakroom at the Harbour Railway Station said on March 23rd a gentleman named Hake left the leather brief bag (produced) with him. He produced the counterfoil of the receipt for it. He placed the bag on the shelf. He left the room about half past seven in the evening and the bag was on the shelf. He turned the key in the door and left it in the keyhole.

The Recorder said that was a most extraordinary thing to do.

Witness, continuing, said he returned in a few minutes. He left the room again about half past nine, locking the door and leaving the key in the door. He went to the pier to attend to the boat, and returned to the room about ten o'clock. Mr. Hake arrived a few minutes afterwards, and the bag was then missed.

Cross-examined, witness said he followed the usual custom in locking the door and leaving the key in it.

Henry Reader, a shunter, of 24, Thanet Gardens, said he saw the bag on the shelf between half past eight and nine o'clock on March 23rd.

Harry Jordan, a ticket collector at the Harbour Station gave evidence as to the boat arriving at 9.40 on the evening of March 23rd.

Detective Johnson said on March 26th he saw the prisoner in Dover Road carrying a large bag. He was with P.C. Butcher, and he told the prisoner that he was making inquiries as to a bag taken from the Harbour Station cloakroom. He took the prisoner to the police station while he made inquiries, and then went to the Clarence Hotel, where he was shown a bedroom which was occupied by the prisoner. He there found the bag (produced), which was later identified by Shorter. When charged, the prisoner made a statement, which was taken down by the Chief Constable, and which was to the effect that as he was coming off the boat he met a man who asked him where he could be put up. Hey then went to the first public house in Tontine Street where they had a drink. He told the man that he was stopping at the Clarence. The man went out and left the bag standing in the corner. After waiting for a time he took the bag with his own bags and went to the Clarence.

Evidence was given by Mr. T.C. Hall, landlord of the Harbour Inn, of the prisoner coming to his house and inquiring if anyone would carry his bags to his lodgings, and James Tiddy, a carpenter, told the Court how he acted as porter for the prisoner. He described how the prisoner asked him if he wanted a drink, and continuing, said “I, of course....”

The Recorder: Refused. (Laughter)

Tiddy: No. Being an Englishman, I had one. (Renewed laughter)

Winifred Schlesselman, the wife of the landlord of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, told the Court how the prisoner came to the house and engaged a bedroom, and also that on Sunday morning he went to Dover. She further stated that after he had gone on Sunday morning she found in the room where the prisoner had breakfast a small brown paper parcel, which contained several documents bearing the name of Hake. A postcard, addressed to William Hake, Harringay Park, Crouch End, was amongst them.

Prisoner gave evidence on his own behalf, and said he had been in the Army. He had since acted as a chauffeur. Last year he went to Boston and New York, returning from there because of the death of his mother. In January he went to stay with some friends at Brighton, and later he went to Paris to learn the language. Living was so dear he could not stay. Canon Hitching was paying for him to be there. He came to Folkestone on the 23rd March, arriving about twenty minutes to ten by the boat. When he landed he simply hurried along to where he was going to stay. He last stayed at the Clarence fifteen months ago. He was just turning the corner near the Pavilion Hotel when a man about thirty years of age, a little taller than himself, stopped him and asked him where he could be put up. He told him he was going to put up at the Clarence Hotel. They went into the Clarendon Hotel to have a drink. The man left the place, and the bag was left in the corner where they had been standing. He waited for a time for the man's return, and as he did not come back he took the bag with him. He went to the Harbour Hotel and got a man to help him with the three bags to the Clarence. On Sunday and Monday he went to Dover in order to get letters which were addressed to him there. The papers came out when he opened the bag, and he did not know they were addressed to Mr. Hake. He expected the man to call for his bag, as he knew where he was going to stay. That was the reason he did not give information to the police.

Mr. Gordon cross-examined the prisoner at some length.

Both counsel addressed the jury, Mr. Wetton, for the defence, stating that the prisoner was the plant of an expert luggage thief, who got rid of the bag in the manner the prisoner had described by giving it to an innocent man.

After the Recorder had summed up, the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, announced that they found the prisoner Not Guilty. The Recorder thereupon told Smith he could go.

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the following licence: The Clarence Hotel to Mr. Mooring.

Folkestone Express 9 August 1913.

Monday, August 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, A Stace, and E.T. Morrison Esqs.

Horace Summers Fitch was charged with begging. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Allen said at 3.45 on Saturday afternoon he saw the prisoner in Tontine Street, accosting foot passengers. He heard him ask a gentleman for a copper, saying he was hard up. The gentleman gave him something, and he went straight into the Clarence Hotel and had a glass of beer. On returning to the street, he commenced to accost other foot passengers, from whom he saw him receive some money. He therefore took him into custody. Prisoner had tenpence in coppers in his possession.

Prisoner said he had done no work for four days, and was making his way to Ashford.

The Mayor said the Magistrates were perfectly satisfied that if the prisoner liked to work he could get work, and was strong enough to do it. He would have to go to prison for twenty one days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 1 November 1913.

Monday, October 27th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and A. Stace Esqs.

Cecil Coward was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of Mr. Moring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel.

John Melbourne Moring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said the prisoner was in his employment as potman, entering his service about September 23rd. On October 1st, about half past six in the evening, he handed the prisoner a sovereign and told him to go to Mr. Ross to get a pound's worth of coppers in exchange for it. He left his house at once, as if to go on the errand, but he never returned. He had not seen the prisoner since until that day. He took out a warrant on October 2nd for the prisoner's arrest. He had no knowledge of the prisoner before he took him into his employment. Coward was on the road at the time. He supplied the prisoner with clothing, and paid him 4s. a week and his board and lodgings to start with.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said about four o'clock the previous afternoon he saw the prisoner at the Southampton police station and told him who he was. He asked the prisoner his name, and he replied “Cecil Coward”. He told him he had a warrant for his arrest, and read it over to him. Prisoner replied “Quite right. I did not think they would find me up here”. He brought him to the Folkestone police station, where, on being charged, he made no reply.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he would like, if the Bench were satisfied with the evidence against the prisoner, to strongly impress upon them the necessity of dealing with the prisoner in a rather different manner to which they did the majority of such cases. As they saw, prisoner was a strong, healthy, and sturdy youth. He had been driven away from home, and for the past two years he had been drifting about the country, staying in lodging houses. He had been convicted of three or four trivial offences, and he (Mr. Reeve) felt most strongly that was a case which should be dealt with by the Borstal treatment. Coward's parents would not have anything to do with him. It seemed to him a very great mistake to give the prisoner a short sentence – a month or six weeks.

The prisoner belonged to Yorkshire, and his father was a respectable working man.

Committed to the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 29 November 1913.

Wednesday, November 26th: Before W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, G.I. Swoffer and J.J. Giles Esqs.

James Powell, a private in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was charged with breaking three panes of glass, valued at £1, at the Clarence Hotel, and with assaulting the landlord. He pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

John Albert Morley said he was the landlord fo the Clarence Hotel. The previous evening, about 10.50, the prisoner went in with two other soldiers and ordered three beers. He refused to serve him, as he thought he had had enough. Thereupon prisoner became very disorderly, and would not leave the premises. Witness went out to look for a constable, but could not find one. When he returned he saw prisoner deliberately break the glass with his clenched fist, and he then hit witness twice, drawing blood. He then left the bar, leaving his comrades, and witness followed him. When he arrived at Harvey Street he gave him in charge. He had not done anything to defendant to annoy him, and only refused him drink. He valued the glass at £1.

Sidney Morley, son of the last witness, corroborated his statement, and added that prisoner had tried to climb into the bar, but he pushed him back.

P.C. Thorne said about 11.10 the previous evening he was on duty in Harvey Street, when he saw the prisoner being followed by Mr. Morley, who spoke to him, and prisoner ran away. In consequence of what Mr. Morley told him, he gave chase and caught defendant in an alley in Charlotte Street. Prisoner said “I'll come with you”, and on being charged at the police station he said “The landlord did it with a pint” – meaning a measure.

Prisoner said he broke the glass accidentally, for the landlord's son had a ring on his finger, and he struck him, the ring hurting him. He went to hit back, and accidentally put his fist through the glass.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoner's character was bad. There were no previous civil convictions.

The Chairman said the prisoner would have to pay £1 for the damage and 6s. 6d. costs, or 21 days' imprisonment, and for the assault 21 days without the option of a fine.

Prisoner said he could not pay, so he went to prison for six weeks.

Folkestone Express 10 January 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Cecil Coward, 19, seaman, pleaded Guilty to feloniously stealing £1, the property of John Melbourne Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, on October 1st.

Mr. J.A.L. Wardley prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and stated Coward went to the Clarence Hotel at the end of September, and Mr. Mooring took him on as a potman. On Oct. 1st Mr. Mooring told him to take a sovereign to Mr. Rozzi's and get change for it. He did not come back, and the prosecutor had neither the sovereign, nor the change. When arrested at Southampton, prisoner said “All right. I did not think you would find me up here”. The prisoner had no character with him when Mr. Mooring took him in his employ.

Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said the prisoner was 19 years of age, and for some time had been tramping the country. He came to Folkestone and obtained employment with Mr. Mooring, who provided him with clothing and gave him a good start. He made enquiries after the prisoner had absconded, and for some time was unable to find any trace of him, until he was found in a lodging house at Southampton. He ascertained that prisoner's father was a very respectable working man employed by the Great Northern Railway at Doncaster. For some time his parents had had nothing to do with him owing to his conduct. In 1906 he was taken before the Doncaster Borough Justices by his parents as being beyond their control, and he was sent to a training ship until he was 18 years of age. At 16 a situation was found for him, from which, however, he absconded. He returned home, and his parents placed him in a Sailors' Home at Newcastle-on-Tyne. He, however, ran away, and was knocking about the country for some time. He was eventually found sleeping out at Doncaster. On that occasion, when before the Magistrates, he was discharged with a caution. He went off again on tramp, and on December 27th, 1911, he was charged at Liverpool with stealing a quantity of old iron. He was bound over and handed over to the probation officer, who sent him back to Doncaster. On January 4th, 1912, he was charged with stealing a pair of boots at Doncaster, and sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. On 18th June, 1913, after tramping the country for some time, he turned up at Morpeth, and obtained a situation with a fishmonger, who sent him one day with a cart load of fish to an adjacent village. The prisoner sold one barrel of fish, turned the horse and cart loose in a field, and absconded with the money. For that he was sentenced to seven days' hard labour. He the appeared to have gone on tramp, and was next heard of in Folkestone.

Major Knox, the Governor of Canterbury Prison, was called, and said he had made enquiries in that case. He had a little additional information to that given them by the Chief Constable. The prisoner had told him that in between those periods when he was on tramp, he once did three month's work in a colliery. His father had written to say that he was very sorry to say his son would not reform, for he had tried him many times. The prisoner was 19 years old on June 2nd, 1913.

The Recorder: I suppose the longer period in Borstal is the better?

Major Knox said that would be the better course for the prisoner, who, if he did all right, could get out sooner. It was not necessary for him to be there the full period.

The Recorder said he had heard from several judges that three years was a much better period than two years.

Major Knox: That is so.

Prisoner had nothing to say.

The Recorder said he regretted that one bearing such an honoured name as his own should stand in the dock before him, and that he should have to sentence him. The prisoner had pleaded Guilty to felony. What he (the Recorder) was going to do was in his (the prisoner's) best interests. He might not think so, but possibly a year hence, when he had time for reflection, that it was the best thing he could do. They wanted to save him, to make him lead an honourable life again, and hold his head up as a good citizen. He was going to send him to Borstal, where he would be detained for a period of three years. It might seem a long time to him, but it would pass pleasantly if he tried to lead a new life, and tried to become a good citizen, and learned the trades that would be taught him. If the Governors of Borstal prison were of opinion that he had earned his liberty, and was fit to become a good citizen, he would be released in a much shorter period.

Folkestone Express 7 February 1914.

Friday, January 30th: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises of the Clarence Hotel. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Fox said at about 10.30 on the 24th he was called to the Clarence Hotel and in the public bar he saw the defendant, who was drunk, staggering about. The landlord told him that the defendant had been turned out of the house three times, but had come back again. He (witness) advised the defendant to go out, but he refused, so he assisted in his ejection. A man took the defendant home. A few minutes later he saw Tappenden go into the same bar. He (witness) heard the landlord request him to leave, but as he would not go he ejected the man. A woman came up and took Tappenden away.

Defendant said he owned he had had a few drinks.

Mr. Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, said the defendant came into the public bar drunk, and asked to be served. Seeing he was the worse for drink he would not serve the defendant, whom he requested to leave, He refused, and it took three quarters of an hour before they got defendant into the street. Defendant returned twice after, so he sent for the police.

The Chief Constable said there were 14 convictions recorded against the defendant since 1896. The last was in October, 1913, and there were three altogether last year. Tappenden was a local man, and was a good workman when he liked to work. When he was drunk he was a perfect fool. He (Mr. Reeve) had had numerous complaints from licence holders about the man refusing to leave their premises when he was in drink.

The Chairman said the defendant had a very bad record. By his action he put the licence holders in jeopardy, when they had a very serious and difficult duty to perform. Men like the defendant gave them a lot of trouble, and also put them in danger of being punished. They were going to give the defendant a salutary lesson. He would be fined 10/- and 10/- costs, or 14 days' hard labour, and he would also be bound over in the sum of £5 himself, and one surety of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months. In default of finding a surety, he would have to go to prison for one month, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant would be allowed until the following day to get the money and find the surety.

Addressing Mr. Mooring, the Chairman said the Bench thought he had behaved very well in taking the action he did, and also for not serving him. He thought they could safely say the Bench did their best to assist the licence holders.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1914.

Monday, 30th March: Before Aldermen Vaughan, Spurger and Jenner, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Louise Elgar (on bail) was charged with being drunk in charge of two children under the age of seven years on Saturday night in Dover Road.

Inspector Lawrence said on Saturday night he was near the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road when he saw a perambulator standing near the kerb in front of the hotel. Two children were in it and were crying. He went to the door of the bar of the hotel, and on opening it he saw Mrs. Elgar standing there. He asked her if she was in charge of the children, and she said she was. She came out of the house, and was very abusive to him. He then found she was drunk, and not fit to take charge of the children. With the assistance of P.C. Smoker he brought her to the police station. The ages of the children were two years and nine months.

Defendant: Had the Inspector any right to wrench the perambulator out of my hand and stand it in the kerb?

P.S. Burniston said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was drunk.

Inspector Lawrence, re-called, said the woman could walk without assistance, but she was unfit to take charge of the children.

Defendant had nothing to say.

The Chairman characterised it as a very sad case, and said the defendant would have to pay a fine of 5/- and 5/6 costs.

Folkestone Express 3 April 1915.

Monday, March 29th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Andrew Whitehouse, a private in the South Staffordshire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 7.45 on Saturday evening he was in Dover Road, when he was called to the Clarence Hotel, where he found the prisoner drunk and fighting with another soldier. Whitehouse was ejected by some other soldiers, but when outside he continued to fight and make use of obscene language.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. It was the first crime he had against him, and it was the first time he had ever been in a police court.

Mr. Mooring, the landlord, said on Saturday evening his barmaid called him into the bar, as there was likely to be a fight between some soldiers. He went there, and noticed the prisoner amongst the men. He saw there was a squabble, and he tried to persuade the prisoner to go out. He would not go out, so he (witness) went to see if he could find a policeman. His barmaid refused to serve Whitehouse.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were very glad to hear that the man had been refused drink.

An officer from the regiment said that was the first time they had had the slightest trouble from Whitehouse. There was probably some misunderstanding, and it was very unfortunate that the prisoner got a little too much drink.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said that was the first case from the regiment.

The Magistrates discharged Whitehouse with a caution to behave better in future.

Folkestone Express 17 April 1915.

Tuesday, April 13th: Before R.J. Linton, A. Stace, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John M. Mooring was charged with allowing children under 14 years of age to be on his premises at the Clarence Hotel during the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that Mr. Haines was defending, and as he was engaged at the Quarter Sessions, he asked for an adjournment till Friday.

The case was adjourned till Friday.

Angelina Sutton and Mary Ann Bradford were summoned for allowing their children, under 14, to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. They pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Sales said about 6.35 p.m. on April 5th he was on duty in Dover Road with P.C. Kennett, when he saw two empty perambulators outside the Clarence Hotel. He went into the hotel, and there, in a room at the back, he saw the two defendants with their children, with a glass of stout each. There were several soldiers in the room. He asked them what they were doing there with the children, and they said “We were asked in by the barmaid”. He told them that he would report them.

Defendants said they were asked in out of the rain by the barmaid.

The Chairman said it was a serious offence, but they were going to deal leniently with them. They would be fined 5/- each, and allowed a week to pay.

Folkestone Express 24 April 1915.

Friday, April 16th: Before G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton. G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

James Milburn Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, was charged with permitting a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises.

P.S. Sales said at 6.35 p.m. on the 5th inst. he was in Dover Road when he saw two empty perambulators on the roadway near the Clarence Hotel. He, with P.C. Kennett, visited a room at the Clarence Hotel, and saw three women and four children. He saw Mrs. Sutton in charge of her child, named Angelina, who was apparently about three years of age. As he went into the room he saw the barmaid leave it. He had a conversation with Mrs. Sutton, and he sent for the landlord (the defendant), who came into the room. He asked him what the children were doing there, and he replied “They have no right in here”. He then told the defendant that the woman had informed him that the barmaid had asked them in, and he replied “I am sure she did not; she knows her business better than that”. The barmaid came into the room, and he said to her “These women say you asked them into this room”, and she replied “I asked them into the passage”. He told the landlord he should report him, and he replied “I did not know they were in here”. A passage from the Belle Vue Street entrance separated the room from the bar, and he should describe the room as a tap room. He had visited the room on a number of occasions, and he had always found people in it drinking.

Cross-examined, witness said the day was Easter Monday, and it was raining. There were four bars in the house, three of them being on the Dover Road side of the house.

Defendant went into the box. He said he knew the provisions of the Children's Act. He kept a barmaid, barman and potman and his wife and himself also helped, in addition to the servant, Lilian Wooston. In the room was the notice (produced) intimating that no child under the age of 14 was allowed in it. A similar notice was exhibited in all the rooms. On Easter Monday he was visiting the various rooms, and he saw P.S. Sales in the room. What he said was correct. What was done on that occasion was without his knowledge, and if he had known the child was there he should have ordered it out of the house. The barmaid was behind the bar. There was no-one in charge of the room that evening. It was the barmaid's duty to attend to the room, and a servant was there to wash up and collect the glasses. He had given the barmaid instructions not to allow children on the premises. For anyone in the room to get served with drink they would have to come out into the passage and knock at the wicket. It would be possible for a woman to get a drink at the wicket without the barmaid knowing who was in the room.

Louisa Brookes, the barmaid, said she had received instructions not to allow children on licensed premises, and had always acted up to those instructions. People in the particular room had to come to the wicket in the passage to get served. On the evening in question she remembered the two women coming in, but there were no children with them. They were friends of Lilian Wooston, for whom they asked. Wooston was washing glasses at the time. She did not serve anyone in the bar from the room. Mr. Mooring at the time had just gone up to the Peter Street bar, and was visiting all the rooms in the house.

Lilian Wooston said she was a domestic at the Clarence Hotel. On Easter Monday she was washing up in the bar. She had instructions to serve when they were busy. At half past six Mrs Sutton, who was a relative, came into the passage and asked her if she could lend her an umbrella or a Mackintosh, as it was raining, and her child was outside. She said she had not an umbrella or a Mackintosh, and just afterwards went down into the kitchen. Five minutes later she saw the two women with the children, and she told them to bring the children into the private passage, as it was pouring hard. Previous to that she served the women with a glass of stout each. She left the women and children in the private passage.

Mr. Haines contended that it must be proved that the defendant had knowledge that the children were there, and such knowledge had not been brought home to him. He submitted that the master was not responsible for the acts of his servant if done outside of the scope of their authority and against his distinct instructions.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the defendant had committed an offence, and he would be fined £1, or in default 14 days'.

Mr. Haines asked the Magistrates to state a case, as the defendant would probably appeal.

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Friday, June 18th: Before J. Stainer Esq., and other Magistrates.

John Tappenden was summoned for refusing to quit the Clarence Hotel when requested to do so. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.M. Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Inn, said on Monday the defendant came into the house. He was very noisy, and wanted some drink. He told the barmaid not to serve him, and he also asked him to leave the premises. He would not do so. The barmaid then pushed the defendant out of the house, but he returned, so he (complainant) sent for the police. Tappenden left the house before the police arrived. He considered the defendant had had enough to drink.

Louisa Brooks, barmaid in the employ of Mr. Mooring, said she was in charge of the bar on Monday when the defendant came in the worse for drink. She asked him to leave the bar, but he asked for a drink. She refused to serve him, He got noisy, so she pushed him out of the bar and bolted the door. He, however, struck the glass panel in the door and broke it. Defendant had been in the house about half past nine in the morning, but he only had one drink then.

Tappenden said he was very sorry. He had the toothache and took one more drink that he thought to have done.

Inspector Simpson said the defendant had been there several times, but the last occasion was in January, 1914, when he was fined 10s. and bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months. That was for being drunk on licensed premises.

The Magistrates imposed a fine of £10, or 14 days' hard labour, the Chairman remarking that they were determined to protect the licensed victuallers.

Folkestone Express 2 October 1915.

Friday, September 24th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, H.C. Kirke Esq., and Alderman Pepper.

John Milburn Mooring was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Order, ordering the closing of licensed premises at eight o'clock, inasmuch as he permitted intoxicating drink to be consumed on his licensed premises after eight o'clock p.m. on September 16th. Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

All witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court.

Police Sergeant Burniston said on Thursday evening, the 16th of September, about 9.45, he saw outside the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Corporal Russell, of the Canadian Military Police. Defendant was the licensee of the Clarence. In consequence of something Corporal Russell told him, he went to the side entrance of the Clarence, in Bellevue Street. The door was locked, so he rang the bell, and the door was opened by Mr. Mooring. He said to him “This officer (meaning Corporal Russell) informs me that six soldiers and one woman have entered your premises since eight o'clock”. Corporal Russell was standing near at the time. Mr. Mooring replied “Not to my knowledge. See my wife”. Mrs. Mooring came into the passage, and he repeated to her what he had said previously. She said “I have taken in three soldiers who are on pass, and they have gone to bed”. He then said “We are going to make a search”. The Corporal, Mr. and Mrs. Mooring and he went upstairs, and on the second floor they went into bedroom No. 12, and found lying on two beds Pte. Alfred Baker and Pte. William Scobay, of the Canadian Mounted Rifles. The only clothing they had off was their tunics and boots. Corporal Russell asked them if they were on pass, and they said they had not one. He looked round the room and found a quart bottle which was half full of fresh ale. It was under the bed. There were also two glasses, which were standing on the washstand in the room, and each contained fresh froth of beer, indicating that they had been drunk out of. Mrs. Mooring told him that when the soldiers engaged the room they told her they were on pass. He had no doubt that the bottle and the glasses contained fresh ale. He went to No. 11 bedroom, the door of which was locked. He knocked at the door, which was opened by a woman named Bennett, a prostitute, in her nightdress. They entered the room, and under the bed, which had apparently been occupied, they found a Canadian Scot, named Lce. Corpl. Clement Tyler, who was in his shirt. Between the sheets of the bed he found the man's uniform. On the dressing table he found the bottle (produced), which contained a quantity of fresh ale. There were two glasses nearby, and he should say from the froth on them that they had recently been drank from. There was also a small bottle containing whiskey on the table. Whilst in the room, Mrs. Mooring said “This woman (meaning Bennett) has been occupying the room for nine weeks as a visitor, and she must have smuggled this soldier here”. Mr. Mooring made no comment. They proceeded to No. 13 bedroom, and found a Canadian soldier on pass. The three men without a pass were arrested by the military police for being absentees. The Corporal tasted the contents of each bottle, and he (witness) said to Mr. and Mrs. Mooring when on the landing “This ale is fresh, and the liquor found in the glasses is fresh. How do you account for it?” <rs. Mooring said “It must have been left there by the people who occupied the bedroom (No. 12) last night”. No reference was made to the drink found in the other rooms. He took possession of the bottles of drink. He did the same as the Corporal with regard to the tasting of the ale, which was quite fresh.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said the two men did not give any explanation of the drink being in the room. He did not know the two soldiers had paid for the room. The public bars of the hotel were in darkness, and he should say business was not going on in them.

Questioned by the Clerk, Sergt. Burniston said the soldier in the room No. 13 made no assertion that he had taken the room for the night.

Corporal William Russell, Canadian Military Police, said on Thursday, September 16th, he saw the bars of the hotel closed at eight o'clock. About ten minutes past eight he saw two soldiers go to the side door of the hotel in Bellevue Street. One of them rang the bell, and a minute later the door was opened and they were admitted. Afterwards the lights were switched off and the door was locked. About fifteen or twenty minutes after, a soldier and a woman went to the side door and rang the bell. They were admitted and the door was locked after them. The next thing he saw was the lights in the two rooms above the side door were switched on and off several times. He could not swear whether those were the same rooms he visited later with Sergt. Burniston. Twenty minutes after the woman and soldier entered, three more soldiers went to the door and were admitted. Altogether he saw six soldiers and one woman enter the house after closing time. At a quarter to ten, until which time he kept observation on the house, he saw Sergt. Burniston, with whom he went to the house. Witness then corroborated the Sergeant's evidence. He further stated that in the course of the conversation Mr. Mooring said that they had had trouble with the woman bringing a soldier there before, and she had apologised for doing so, and said it would not occur again. He did not know who opened the side door when the soldiers went there.

P,C, aylor said on Thursday evening, September 16th, at about 9.50, he was standing in Bellevue Street, opposite the Upper Clarence Tap, where there was a public bar, when he saw the door opened to two soldiers dressed in khaki come out and hurry towards the Dover Road. A few minutes previously he had left Sergt. Burniston in Bellevue Street.

Cross-examined, witness said he had no idea Sergt. Burniston was going to search the premises.

Clement Tyler, a private in the 48th Battalion, said until recently he was lance-corporal. On Thursday, September 16th, he was in teh Clarence Hotel, where he met a woman named Bennett in the bar about half past seven. They probably had two drinks. They left the front bar together ten minutes later, and went to the side entrance. The woman opened the door, and they went upstairs to a bedroom. Directly after they got into the room the woman went out, and was away about two minutes, returning with a small bottle of whiskey, similar to the one produced, and two quart bottles of beer. He drank some whiskey and beer, and the latter was fresh. He only opened one bottle of beer, and he did not think the other one was opened. Before the police came someone knocked at the door, and he heard a woman's voice. The woman Bennett got out of bed and opened the door, and she then brought a tray containing some meat and tomatoes and bread, which she consumed. There was no drink on the tray. That was about a quarter of an hour before the police came.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said when he left the bar he was the worse for drink. Two nights before he met the woman in the house, but he did not go to any other part of the house. He left the bar with the woman before closing time. He gave the woman no money at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that only one plate was put on the tray, and only one knife and fork. He was positive that he did not mistake one bottle for two, although he was not sober. (Laughter)

The Clerk: What made you get under the bed?

Witness: The woman told me to.

Had you any intention to stay for the night in the hotel until you met the woman? – No.

Answering further questions, witness said he saw Mr. Mooring in the bar, but he did not ask him if he could have a bed there for the night.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that was a most serious case to his client, and it might involve, if the Magistrates convicted, some legal points being considered so that the defendant could appeal. The Quarter Sessions were fixed for Monday, which would only allow a few days. Therefore he asked the Magistrates to adjourn the case until after the Quarter Sessions.

The case was then adjourned until Wednesday.

On Wednesday, E.T. Ward Esq. and other Magistrates sat for over two hours hearing the evidence for the defence.

Mr. Mooring was the first witness called. He said he knew of the Suspension Order, by which a licence holder was not allowed to sell intoxicating liquors or allow the consumption of them after eight o'clock. He had given all his employees instructions not to sell or serve anyone after eight o'clock, and he always closed his premises at that hour. On September 16th his son, his wife and himself were working in the lower bar, and his barman was engaged in the upper bar in Bellevue Street. His wife managed the hotel portion of his business. There were seven bedrooms altogether for letting. He closed the doors on September 16th at eight o'clock. Shortly after eight o'clock he answered the door, he believed, to a soldier, who had arranged with his wife to have a room in the house. He let the man go upstairs by himself. He believed that was the only time he answered the door that night. After eight o'clock he supplied no-one in the house with any intoxicating liquor of any kind. He supplied beer in half pint, pint and quart bottles, but on that particular night he did not do so, for he had ran short, and he was sold out of bottled beer of every description.

In reply to the Clerk, the defendant said the bottles produced were Messrs. Mackeson's, but there was nothing on them to show whether they were from his stock.

Defendant further stated that the woman Bennett had occupied a room in the house for about seven or eight weeks. She had no occupation. She left on September 17th. She had occupied the room in which she was found for six or seven weeks. She said she was the wife of an invalided soldier, and she had only occupied the room one night with a man, who, he understood, was her husband. She paid 14/- a week for the room, and paid in addition for her breakfast and supper, which she had on the premises. He was in the bar from six o'clock on September 16th. The woman Bennett came in between seven and seven thirty, but he could not say with whom she was sitting. He did not notice Private Tyler there at all. He did not see Bennett leave the bar, so he could not say what time she left. Tyler was not the woman's husband, and not the man who had occupied the room with her on a previous occasion. His barmaid did not serve any drink that evening. Dinners were supplied in the hotel, but there was not a separate hotel bar to the place. He did not admit more than one soldier, and he was not quite sure whether he had admitted him. After closing time he was down in the cellar for about half an hour. After the washing up was done he did his accounts in a little room nearer Ramell's. He heard the bell at the side door ring between eight and nine once or twice. He did not go to the door to answer the ring. He did not think he let Sergt. Burniston or Corporal Russell into the house. He did not know that the woman Bennett was in the house before the arrival of the police. He did not think anyone could get any drink from the bar without him knowing it after eight o'clock, because he locked the door. His wife and son could not have served any drink before nine o'clock.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, defendant said the barman locked the door of the upper bar in Bellevue Street at about twenty minutes past eight. There was access from the landing where the bedrooms were to the upper bar without going downstairs at all. Therefore, if he (defendant) was downstairs he would not know what was going on upstairs. He did not give the officers any explanation of the two bottles of beer found in the bedrooms, and he could give no explanation that day.

Re-examined, defendant said the rooms were frequently let, and the house was very often full up.

Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Mooring said he kept no account or register of his lodgers. In addition to the people mentioned in the house they had a lady friend staying with them. Two of the rooms were double-bedded.

Mrs. Amy Mooring, the wife of the defendant, said she mostly attended to the hotel part of the business. She had good cause to remember September 16th. In the morning two cyclists, one of whom was a middle-aged man, and the other a young man, came into the hotel between ten and eleven. They said they had come from somewhere near London, and asked if they could have a bedroom, as they were going to stay the night. The elderly man expressed himself as being overdone, and wanted a rest. He thereupon went up to his bedroom, which was the room where the two soldiers were found. It was in the front of the house, and was known as the blue room because of the blue carpet. The younger man went out and bought some postcards, returning sometime in the afternoon. He then asked for a bottle of beer, and she gave him a quart bottle of Mackeson's. He also had two glasses, and she thought perhaps he took it upstairs to his friend. Later the younger man said his friend felt much better and they would go on to Dymchurch instead of staying the night. They left between six and seven o'clock. She did not go into the bedroom afterwards. The barmaid, who assisted her in the housework, did not go into the room, for it was her afternoon out. Her only suggestion for the bottle and the two glasses being found in the room was that they were left there by the two cyclists. She served no-one with drink after eight o'clock on the 16th. The side door was generally locked, or they would have soldiers walking in. Mrs. Bennett nor anyone else had a key. After eight o'clock she was engaged in washing up and answering the door. There were two rooms over the side door, one of which was the room in which they lived. She went in and out of that room, and switched the light on and off several times after eight o'clock. A little after eight o'clock she heard the bell ring, so she went to the door. She then saw the two soldiers who were found in the room. They asked her if she could put them up for the night. She said she could, and they paid her 4/- in advance. They then asked her where they could get supper, and she directed them to Tontine Street. They then went out of the house again within three minutes. They might have been gone an hour before they returned. She answered the bell again. They asked her if they could have some cigarettes, and she got them from the bar. She asked them if they were on pass, and one of them said “Would you like to see it?”, and put his hand up to his pocket. She replied “I have not my glasses, but I will trust to your honesty”. She thought he had a pass. She did not show them to their room, because they said they had been there before, and that it was the room with two beds in. She thought they were going into the back bedroom. Later, she answered the door to a soldier with a red cross on his arm. She opened the door to the soldiers, and her husband had nothing to do with it. The last soldier had a pass. He asked if she had a room to let, and she eventually showed him to the room. It was not until then that she found the other soldiers were in the front room. She also let a woman in who was helping her to do the work, but she did not remember the time exactly. She only had three soldiers come in the house, and two of them went out and returned again. With regard to Mrs. Bennett, she called out and asked her if she could have some supper, so she took it up to her. That was about half past eight. Mrs. Bennett generally occupied the next door to the blue room, and they generally called it the white room. Mrs. Bennett generally came in about nine o'clock, but when she had her supper it all depended on the time she came in. She did not see Mrs. Bennett on that particular night for she called over the banisters to know if she could have some supper.

Mr. Haines: Did she say for how many?

Mrs. Mooring: I took it up for one. I did not expect there was anyone else there.

What did she say when you went upstairs with her supper? – When I knocked at the door, she shouted “It's all right; put it down”, so I put it down.

Where did you put it? – On the mat outside.

How long after that did the police arrive? – About half an hour.

Did you sell or serve any intoxicants that night after eight o'clock? – No-one asked for it.

The Chairman: Did you let Mrs. Bennett in that night?

Witness: No, I did not.

Answering the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she had not seen Bennett or Lance Corpl. Tyler in the bar before closing time. Mrs. Bennett very seldom had anything to drink with her supper. She did not open the door of the room when she took the supper up to her. She had no knowledge whatever that there was anyone in the room with Mrs. Bennett. She did not know that Bennett was in the house until she called for her supper. The door of the bar was locked by Mr. Mooring, who had the key. When she got the cigarettes for the soldiers the key was in the door. There was no-one else in the house in addition to Mr. Mooring and herself. The barman left the house about a quarter past eight. He returned about half past nine or ten. She did not know whether he was in the house when the police arrived. Her son went out about ten minutes past eight, and returned about ten o'clock. She knew nothing about the two bottles of Mackeson's ale.

Can you account for one of them being found in Bennett's bedroom? – She had one sometimes in the morning.

What about the bottle of whiskey? – I do not know anything about that at all.

Replying to further questions by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she used the words to the Sergeant “She (Bennett) must have smuggled the soldier in”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve, witness said sometimes Mrs. Bennett had a pint bottle, but at others had a quart bottle of ale. She thought she had last served Bennett with a quart bottle on the morning of the 16th. Mrs. Bennett always paid for her drink on delivery. She always paid for her lodgings a week in advance. She paid for her supper when she had breakfast next morning. She simply paid 14/- a week for her bedroom. She never had dinner or tea in the house. She did not know Bennett was in the house till she called her for supper. She was sure she was in before closing time, because she could not have got in without her (witness) seeing her, as the door was locked and she had no key. The last time she had seen Mrs. Bennett that day was when she served her with the bottle of beer. The reason she had a quart bottle that day was because they had no pints in stock. She could not say when the woman took the bottle of beer up to her room. She swore that Bennett and the soldier that night were not let in by the door after closing time, for no-one answered the door but herself that night. Mrs. Bennett could have got out from her room to the bar in Bellevue Street without witness knowing it. She did admit a woman – Mrs. Blakey – who was helping her to do the work. That woman had been staying in the house from the previous Wednesday, the 15th. She was a woman about 50 years old, and could not very well be mistaken for Mrs. Bennett. Before the police came she also admitted a French madame, who was lodging with them. She did not know the madame's name, for she never gave it to her. She had been staying with witness several weeks, and she stayed in the house on the 16th. When the woman came to the house first she asked her to fill up the usual form, but madame replied that she had been up to the Town Hall, and it was not necessary for her to fill up the form as they knew where she was coming. Gefore she left she gave her the form to fill up, and she said she would, but she went away without doing so. The woman was about 33 years of age. That woman had room No. 10, and it looked into Bellevue Street. She entered the house between eight and nine. The two cyclists were strangers to her. She showed them up to their bedroom. The bottle of beer was taken upstairs about five or half past, and the man left the house between six and seven.

The Chief Constable: Are you certain the younger man took the bottle upstairs?

Witness: I am not sure about it.

Proceeding to reply to the Chief Constable, witness said she saw a glass in Mrs. Bennett's room. She was not quite whether she picked it up and emptied the contents in the wash bowl. She saw the glasses in the blue room, and froth was adhering to them. Froth sometimes hung around glass for a long time. She told the police that the beer and glasses must have been left in the room by some cyclists who came for the night. She was positive she told the police officer about the cyclists being in that room.

Questioned by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she did not think they had a bottle like the small whiskey bottle like the small whiskey bottle, which was not one of theirs. Mrs. Bennett drank whiskey, and she (witness) had often sold her whiskey in a bottle, but not of the shape like that. Mrs. Bennett told her she had the whiskey because she did not feel well in the night. She was absolutely certain she did not sell her any whiskey that day.

Mr. Haines argued that the prosecution had not proved their case. The onus was on them to prove that the defendant had sold the drink, and that it was consumed after eight o'clock. He contended strongly they had not done so.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench had very carefully considered the case, which was one of some difficulty, but they thought there must be a conviction.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the defendant was summoned on April 16th for allowing a child to be on licensed premises, and was fined £1.

The Chairman said in that case the penalty would be £10, leviable by distress, or a month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 15 January 1916.

Wednesday, January 12th: Before E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, R.G. Wood, E.T. Morrison and J.J. Giles Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel to Mr. W.J. Hindley from Mr. Mooring. He stated that temporary authority had been granted by the Magistrates to Mr. Hindley.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he had no objection to the transfer, but he must remind Mr, Haines that he was not tying himself down to any action which might be taken at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Hindley: You were warned when you obtained the temporary authority, and you take it at your own risk.

Mr. Hindley: Yes.

The transfer was then granted.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1916.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: I have the honour to report that there are at present 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences, 71, beer on, 7, beer off, 6, beer and spirit dealers, 15, grocers etc. off, 7, confectioners wine on 3, chemists wine off, 6. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons.

During the past year 13 of the licences have been transferred. For the year ended 31st December last, 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 129 were convicted and 49 discharged. Of the persons proceeded against, 57 were residents of the borough, 30 members of the naval and military forces, 66 persons of no abode, and 21 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 96 persons (64 males and 32 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

During the past year two convictions have been recorded against the licensee of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, viz.: 5th April, fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 16th September, fined £10 for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his licensed premises during prohibited hours. A conviction has also been recorded against the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street, who was fined £5 on the 6th January for selling a bottle of whisky to a person acting as an agent to a soldier contrary to an Order made by the competent military authority for this district on the 11th December last. The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was also convicted on the 4th inst., and fined £10 for supplying intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, contrary to the Order made by the Liquor Control Board. Three other licence holders were proceeded against, but the cases were dismissed. One unlicensed person was proceeded against, and fined £25 for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

At a special meeting of the Borough Justices held on 17th July last, the Order made by them on the 8th September, 1914, closing the licensed premises and registered clubs at 9 p.m. was revoked, and a new Order closing the premises at 8 p.m. every day, and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. every Saturday was made, and approved by the Secretary of State on 30th July. An Order made by the Liquor Control Board closing licensed premises and clubs, except between 12 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. every weekday, and between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. on Sunday, came into operation on the 10th January.

I ask that the renewal of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road; the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street; and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane be withheld until the adjourned licensing meeting. With few exceptions, the houses generally have been well conducted.

The chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as usual. Drunkenness had increased. There had been 129 convictions last year as against 65 in the corresponding period of 1914. There had also been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, however, that with a few exceptions the houses had been well conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue that state of affairs, and to do all that they could to prevent drunkenness. With regard to the three houses that had had convictions against them, they would be adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions. With regard to the Clarence Hotel, the Chief Constable had mentioned he would oppose the renewal of the licence on the grounds of misconduct, and they would instruct him also to oppose it on the grounds of redundancy. All the other licences would be renewed.

The Justices fixed March 6th as the date of the adjourned licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs., Alderman Jenner and Colonel Owen.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of the owners (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.) and the occupier (Mr. J.W. Hindley) made a formal application for the renewal of the Clarence Hotel, it having been adjourned from the annual licensing sessions.

The Chief Constable said in that case the Justices would remember at the annual licensing sessions he told them that he intended to serve a notice of objection to the renewal of the licence on the ground of misconduct. They then instructed him to oppose the licence on the ground of redundancy. Both notices had been served, and he had given very careful consideration to the matter. He had interviewed Mr. Haines with regard to it, and with the permission of the Bench he proposed to proceed on the grounds of redundancy, withdrawing the notice of misconduct.

Mr. Haines said there was going to be no active opposition to the application on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Reeve said the house was situate on the main Dover Road, and at the corner of Bellevue Street. It had a frontage in Dover Road and the side frontage extended from Dover Road to St. Peter Street. The present licensee was Mr. W.J. Hindley, who obtained the transfer on January 12th that year. On that occasion the licensee admitted he knew the whole of the circumstances connected with the house, and was prepared to take over the responsibility. That was the sixth tenant in eleven years. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The Hotel and premises were rated at £75 10s. The accommodation for the public consisted of two public bars, one facing Dover Road, and the other facing St. Peter Street. It had a frontage of 31ft. 6in. in Dover Road, 21ft. in Peter Street, and about 126ft. in Bellevue Street. There were three entrances from Dover Road, one into the saloon bar, which is about 13ft. 6in. by 9ft., one into a private bar 8 ft. square, and one at the corner of Dover Road and Bellevue Street, which opened into a public bar running parallel with Bellevue Street about 21ft. 6in. long by about 7ft. wide. In Bellevue Street there was a door leading to a passage which led into the back yard. There were doors in the passage leading into a public bar and a smoke room, both of which were about 12ft. square. At the corner of Bellevue Street and St. Peter Street a door opened into a bar about 21ft. long, and another door in St. Peter Street opened into an adjoining bar 15 ft. long. Those two bars were divided by a partition about 7ft. 6in. high. At the rear of the first bar there was a small smoke room about 11ft. 6 in. square. At the rear of the two bars on the same level there was a long club room running parallel to Bellevue Street, extending over some stabling and also the archway leading from Bellevue Street into the back-way. The club room was about 42ft. 6in. long and 15ft. wide. At the Dover Road end of the premises there were seven bedrooms and a sitting room. At the St. Peter Street end of the premises there were four bedrooms. Owing to the peculiar construction of the premises it was, in his opinion, most difficult for the licensee to give the necessary supervision to both parts of the premises, and also rendered them difficult to proper police supervision. For seven years the house had been largely used by soldiers in the evening. On October 14th last an Order was made by the competent military authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations closing the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of H.M. Forces. That Order still remained in force. The next house in the Dover Road to the east of the Clarence was the Harvey Hotel, 120 yards away. The rateable value of that house was £84. In the opposite direction the nearest house was the Imperial Brewery Tap, belonging to Messrs. Mackeson, 190 yards away, and the rateable value was £64. Both those houses had large public bars and were doing a similar class of trade to the Clarence. In addition there were about 100 yards from the Clarence Hotel off the main road three other on-licensed houses, the Honest Lawyer, a beerhouse, the Mechanics Arms and the Belle Vue in St. John's Street. In his opinion the licence of the Clarence was unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood, and the other houses he had already named provided ample accommodation for the legitimate needs of the locality. In his judgement the premises, even without the licence, owing to their situation and frontage, would be a valuable asset. There were two convictions recorded last year, one on April 5th for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on the premises, the then licensee being fined £1, and on December 15th for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises after hours, the licensee, Mr. Mooring, then being fined £10.

Mr. Haines said he would like to point out that a number of the entrances to which the Chief Constable had referred were blocked up.

The Chairman said the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority for consideration.

Folkestone Express 30 September 1916.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Councillor Morrison, Councillor G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer Esq., J. Stainer Esq., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Folkestone Express 18 November 1916.

East Kent Licensing.

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Committee was held at Canterbury on Monday, Lord Harris presiding, for the purpose of settling shares in connection with the compensation for scheduled houses.

No agreement could be arrived at in the case of the Clarence, Dover Road, Folkestone, of which the brewers are Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., Hythe, and the tenant, Mr. William Joseph Hindley.

Mr. W. Cobay, of Hythe, on behalf of the brewers, said he was sorry he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Cobb. He was quite willing to agree if Mr. Cobb would open his purse strings a little, but he could not entertain his present figures.

Lord Harris: You are really out for War values?

Mr. Cobay said he maintained they were entitled to some War value, over and above the ordinary compensation. He had based his figures on the Hardy case, and had taken the years 1913-14-15, which was a year and a half before the War and a year and a half of War.

Lord Harris: Will you submit a figure?

Mr. Cobay said he would submit £5,000 without prejudice.

Lord Harris (to Mr. Cobb): Are you prepared to amend your figures, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. Cobb: Not to that figure, or anything like it, my Lord.

Lord Harris: Then the matter must go to Somerset House for settlement.

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or £100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month's time.

Mr. Haines mentioned the case of the Clarence Inn, the amount of compensation for which had not yet been fixed. He asked for the renewal of the licence until the amount was decided.

The Chairman said the licence would be renewed until that time.

Folkestone Express 18 August 1917.

Friday, August 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mrs. Amy Hindley, of the Clarence Hotel, was summoned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for serving an Overseas soldier with intoxicating drink.

The police evidence showed that a Highland soldier was in the bar on the 4th inst. with a glass of beer in his hand. When spoken to, defendant said she asked all the soldiers if they had passes and stated that she did not serve the man. The soldier said no-one had asked him for a pass; in fact he had not got one. Other soldiers were refused by the defendant. The constable said to the soldier “You had better not drink any more of that beer”, and he replied “What! After paying for it?”

Evidence was also given as to the identity of the soldier in question.

Defendant stated that a Canadian soldier gave the Highlander a pint of beer, and she could call evidence as to this if the case was adjourned.

The case was adjourned until Monday.

Monday, August 13th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs.

Amy Hindley, the licensee of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared before the Magistrates on a summons for serving an overseas soldier with intoxicating drink. The case was adjourned from Friday.

A Corporal of the C.M.P. said he accompanied P.C. Fox to the Clarence Hotel, and saw the Scotch soldier there with a pint glass containing beer. He did not see the soldier drink any of it. He corroborated P.C. Fox's evidence as to the conversation he had with the soldier and Mrs. Hindley.

Defendant said she did not serve the soldier, who said that the other woman (her mother) had served him. She, however, denied that she had served him. She (defendant) had told several overseas soldiers that they could not be served, and there was a notice up in the bar to that effect.

Mrs. Foulkes said she resided with her daughter. When the man said she served him she told him that she asked him for his pass. She did not remember seeing the man's face before, but she would not swear that she did not serve him or that she did serve him. She had supplied some Scotch Canadians.

Charles Gilham, a mariner, said on Saturday night week he was in the Clarence Hotel bar. He heard the landlady refuse five Scotsmen, and when another one came in a Canadian Scotsman handed him a pint of beer. He told the constable and the military police what had occurred when they got out.

The Chairman said they thought the defendant did not take sufficient care. There was no doubt she had refused several soldiers, and owing to that fact the fine would not be so heavy. She would have to pay a fine of £2.