Folkestone Express 8 January 1870.

Granting Licenses.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, C. Dashwood, J. Clarke, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

William Swain applied for power to sell beer at the house of Charles Drew, in Tontine Street.

Mr. Minter supported the application, and stated that Drew had absconded, taking the license granted by the Magistrates at the last annual meeting with him.

The applicant was sworn, and deposed to serving the necessary notices.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1881.

Saturday, August 20th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and F. Boykett Esq.

George Jull was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Duke Of Edinburgh beershop, and also with using obscene language on the 10th inst. He pleaded Guilty, and evidence having been given as to the facts of the case he was fined 10s. for refusing to quit the house, and 8s. costs, and 5s. and 8s. costs for using obscene language.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1885.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Fletcher, J. Fitness, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the Duke Of Edinburgh was transferred to Mr. H.W. Bridges.

Folkestone Express 21 July 1888.

Saturday, July 14th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole Esq., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Temporary authority was granted to John Harrison to sell at the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1891.

Advertisement.

To Let: The Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone. Capital beerhouse, under good brewers. Apply T.J. Harrison, Auctioneer and Valuer, 20, Alexandra Gardens, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 25 April 1891.

Transfer.

Wednesday, April 22nd: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Holden and E.T. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, was transferred to Mr. F. Ralph.

Folkestone Express 18 July 1891.

Thursday, July 16th: Before Alderman Dunk and J. Fitness Esq.

James McCarthy was charged with stealing a quantity of house linen, value £5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell, from a house in Brockman Road.

P.C. Walter Down said he went on Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, and there saw a bundle containing the property now produced. Prisoner afterwards came in, and he asked if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said it did, and he bought the goods in Folkestone, but declined to say where he got them.

Prisoner: I object to leading questions. It is against all order. It don't give me a chance. I haven't got much as it is.

Witness: He said he came by them honestly, but declined to say where he bought them, or who he bought them of. At the police station Superintendent Taylor asked prisoner where he got the clothes. Prisoner replied “In the ordinary way of dealing, but I decline to tell you where”. The bundle contained ten sheets, two tablecloths, a towel, a toilet cover, 16 pillow cases, two pairs of curtains, four valances. They were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets upon them.

Henry Robus said on the 17th July, 1889, he attended a sale of the effects of Mr. D. Owen, at 67, Brockman Road, and purchased through Smith, a broker, lots 215 to 225, and afterwards made them up into a bundle, and took them to a house in Brockman Road belonging to Miss Mary Campbell. There was no other furniture in the house at the time. The house was in his charge – securely locked and the windows were fastened. He was in the house on Sunday at 11.30, and the articles were then safe, just as he put them there two years ago. He went to the house on Wednesday, and the goods were then missing. He examined the house, and found the glass of the storm sash at the back of the drawing room broken, and also the glass of the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

Prisoner: Where did you get your information?

Witness declined to answer.

Prisoner: Could a man of my size get in the window? – Yes. I could get in.

Jane Davis, wife of a labourer, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said she saw the prisoner there on Wednesday morning. He asked her to go down into the scullery and see his night's work. She went down, and he untied the bundle of linen. He gave her 18 towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell to get a drink. She was to ask 2s. for them. She returned and told him Mrs. Carter refused to buy them, saying they were stolen property.

Stephen Bailey said on Wednesday he saw the prisoner in the scullery at the Oddfellows. He showed him a bundle, and asked “What do you think of my night's work?”, and asked him to feel the weight of it. He opened it and showed him the sheets and pillowcases, and offered to sell him a pair of sheets for a shilling, and also asked him to stand a drink. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent him for a constable.

Lucy Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows Inn, said the prisoner was staying at her house three weeks ago, and remained 10 days. He went away and returned on Saturday evening, and slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. He was absent all night on Tuesday, and came in about seven o'clock on Wednesday. She went into the scullery and saw prisoner there with a large bundle of linen. She asked him to show her the things he had to sell. He opened the bundle and showed her tablecloths and shirts. She told him he had not come by them honestly, and that he was to take them away. She then sent for a policeman. Prisoner left the house with some of the articles in a handbasket.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her private bar on Wednesday with some towels, which he asked her to buy. She bought ten for 1s. 10d.. She saw they were marked “Owen”, and took them to the police station.

Jemima Davison, of 6, South Street, produced two towels which she purchased of prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner said he wished to be remanded or committed for trial, and then he would make a statement to the police which would very likely clear him, which it would not do if he spoke it in open court. He believed he was quite justified in selling the things, and came by them in a perfectly honest manner. He expected someone would have been present when they knew he was in trouble, to say how he came by them.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Sessions.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 11th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, was indicted for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, and which articles were left in an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

Mr. Glyn, instructed by Mr. Minter, prosecuted.

P.C. Down said on the 15th July he went to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and was there shown the bundle of things produced. He saw the prisoner come in and asked him if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said “Yes”, and added that he came by them honestly - he bought them in Folkestone. Witness asked him to go with him to the place where he bought them, and he said “No”. He then told prisoner he should take him to the station on a charge of stealing them.

By the prisoner: You took the matter lightly and good-humouredly, as though there was nothing in it. You went into the Rendezvous and had a drink while I stood outside.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go into a public house and have a drink while you had him in charge? – He was determined to go, sir.

Supt. Taylor said he had a conversation with the prisoner at the police station. He asked him to account for the possession of the goods. He said “I bought them. I am a dealer”. He asked who he bought them of, and he did not say – he said he came by them honestly.

Prisoner asked for the statement he made before the Magistrates, and a letter he wrote from Canterbury to the Superintendent to be produced and read to the jury.

Supt. Taylor put in a long statement made by the prisoner after his committal, and the Recorder read it. It's purport was that he received the articles of a soldier belonging to the 17th Lancers, who, he said, was an officer's servant, and wanted to find a purchaser for them, and on his (prisoner's) suggestion he was allowed to carry the bundle to the Oddfellows. Next morning he sold some of the towels quite openly to get a drink. The Recorder also read a long letter written by the prisoner from Canterbury, in which he said he had been the landlord of a public house at Devonport. He married the landlady and they separated by mutual consent. His wife had allowed him upwards of a guinea a week. He had also received two small legacies, and had written stories for weekly journals, and had won money in newspaper prize competitions, so that he had no necessity to work.

In reply to the prisoner, Supt. Taylor said all the information he gave as to his antecedents was correct. The London police knew nothing. He found by enquiry that the prisoner was in company with a man in uniform two days previous to his arrest. There was no man in the 17th Lancers of the description given by the prisoner. There was no Capt. Owen in the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said a man named Stone or Lucas could identify the man, and he took Stone to the Hounslow Barracks, where the 17th Lancers had just arrived, but he could not identify anyone. The statement made by the prisoner about his wife was not true. She had not made him an allowance.

Henry Rebus proved purchasing the articles at a sale of Mr. Owen's goods in 1889, for Miss Mary Campbell. The articles were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets on them. He took them to a house belonging to Miss Campbell, 29, Brockman Road, and locked them up in a room. He saw the things safe as late at the 14th or 15th July of this year. He missed the things on the 19th. The storm sash of the window had been broken open, and the things were gone.

Jane Davis, wife of John Davis, a lodger at the Oddfellows Arms, said on Wednesday morning, the 15th July, she saw the prisoner, who asked her to go into the kitchen to see his night's work. She went, and untied the bundle. He gave her thirteen towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. to get him a drink. She took them to Mrs. Carter, and brought them back. Mrs. Carter said she would see about them when she got up. She had seen Mrs. Carter that morning. She had been ill for a week and was unable to attend.

Prisoner: What is the matter with Mrs. Carter? – I don't know.

Prisoner: Perhaps she has got perjury the matter with her. I can prove she committed perjury before the Magistrates.

Witness said she had a doctor's certificate.

In answer to prisoner, witness said she lent him an open basket to take the towels out in. There were about 20 people in the house.

Prisoner caused some amusement by reading a list of the people who were in the house.

Stephen Bailey, another lodger at the Oddfellows, said the prisoner asked him to feel the weight of a bundle of linen. He then asked him to lend him 2d., or to give him 1s. for a pair of sheets. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent for a policeman.

Mr. Glyn put in the deposition of Lucy Carter, and told prisoner the doctor had been sent for, and when he arrived he would be allowed to put questions to him. The deposition stated that the prisoner lodged in her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but was absent on Tuesday night. He returned early on Wednesday.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh Inn, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her house with some towels in an open basket. He asked her to buy some, and she bought 10 for 1s. 10d. In the afternoon she examined them, and finding a name on them, she took them to the police station. Prisoner told her he got the towels honestly.

In answer to the Recorder, witness said she had not heard of the robbery before she took the towels to the Superintendent.

Jemima Davidson said she bought two towels of the prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse, who stated that the prisoner was admitted to the infirmary on the 24th June and discharged on the 13th July.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury of the witness Carter, who was so ill she could not come.

Henry Stone, who said “Lucas” was his nickname, said he was a plasterer, residing at Folkestone. He saw the prisoner in the Perseverance on Monday from twelve o'clock until five or ten minutes to eleven, and on Tuesday from 12.30 until eleven. There was a man there in soldier's clothes on Tuesday night. His uniform was like that of the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said he should like to get work in the town, and they went together about eight o'clock to the Pavilion Fields to see if they could get work. When they returned the soldier was still there, and they left about eleven.

In reply to Mr. Glyn, witness said he went to Hounslow, and saw the regiment paraded, but did not recognise the soldier among them.

Prisoner made a long statement, in which he attempted to show that he was innocent in “thought, word, or deed”. Had he been guilty, it was not likely he would have stayed in the town to be arrested.

Mr. Glyn, in his closing remarks to the jury, said that on his own statement the prisoner was a thief, because he said he received goods from a soldier and agreed to find a customer for them, instead of which he sold a portion of them and spent the money on drink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said they must all regret to see a man possessing the ability the prisoner had displayed standing in such a position. He commented on the statements of the prisoner, and compared them with the evidence, pointing out that there was proof that the prisoner was dealing with the goods very shortly after they were stolen.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner Guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to be stolen.

Superintendent Taylor produced a copy of the prisoner's discharge from the army and a letter he had received relating to that part of the prisoner's statement as to his keeping a public house. Nothing was known about him by the London police. The address he gave was that of a court which had been pulled down for improvements.

The Recorder said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case. Prisoner had been in prison three months, and he would be sentenced therefore to only three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1895.

Wednesday, October 9th: Before Captain Carter, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, T.J. Vaughan, R.J. Fynmore and G. Spurgen Esqs., and Alderman Sherwood.

William Leary was summoned for using threats towards Ellen Harvey, who asked that he should be bound over to keep the peace.

Defendant behaved in an excited manner, and Sergeant Butcher gave evidence to the effect that he had the defendant under observation during the morning, and he was drunk. The case was therefore adjourned till the next morning.

The defendant was requested to go below, when he became extremely violent, and used disgusting language. He resisted with such force that it took the united efforts of three constables and a civilian to remove him from the Court.

Sergeant Butcher said the defendant had just come out of gaol after six weeks' imprisonment.

On Thursday Leary was brought up again, and his demeanour was very different. The lady, however, was in an excited state.

Captain Carter asked prisoner: What do you have to say to the Bench in reference to your very unseemly conduct yesterday?

Prisoner: I am very sorry. I had some drink, and got very excited. It shan't occur again.

Captain carter: I am glad to hear you express contrition. I certainly never witnessed a scene of the kind in this court before. I don't know whether my brother Magistrates will look over it. You were brought here on a summons, and ought to behave yourself. We will hear the evidence.

Ellen Harvey said she lived at 8, Castle's Yard, and at half past nine on Sunday night she was in the Edinburgh Tavern. The prisoner went in an said “After shutting up time I am going to kill you and the people you live with”. She asked him what she had done to deserve such treatment from him, and rushed out at the back. Prisoner followed her about the streets until half past eleven, and she had to get protection from P.C. Bailey. Prisoner used very bad language, and threatened her so that she went in bodily fear of him. She had offered to provide him with food if he would go away from her. He had been in prison recently. Before that they lived together, but not since. (The complainant got very excited, and implored the Bench to give her protection).

Prisoner said he did use threats, but the complainant knew very well he did not intend to do such things.

Complainant replied that she had suffered enough from his brutality.

Prisoner promised to leave the town if the Bench would allow him to depart, and on the understanding that he would go away at once the case was adjourned till Saturday.

Folkestone Express 31 March 1900.

Thursday, March 29th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Colonel Westropp.

John Whittingstall and John Cooper, the latter a cook on the collier Brocklesbury, were charged with being concerned in stealing one cwt. of coals, value 1s. 9d., the property of W.H. Wilmott, the captain.

Det. Officer William Burniston said about 11.45 a.m. on March 28th he was in the Harbour Street and saw prisoner Whittingstall leave the ship Brocklesbury, which was in the Folkestone Harbour. He was carrying on his back a sack, which witness afterwards found to have contained coals. He followed the prisoner past Harbour Street into Tontine Street, and saw him enter the Duke Of Edinburgh public house. After waiting a few minutes witness went into the bar. He was unable to see prisoner, but presently Mrs. Marsh entered by the back room. He asked her if a man had brought any coals, and he accompanied Mrs. Ralph down into the cellar. He there saw the daughter of Mrs. Ralph holding a lighted candle whilst the prisoner was about to empty the sack produced. The Detective stopped him and asked him where he obtained them. He replied the cook on the Brocklesbury had given them to him, and when asked by witness if he was one of the crew, prisoner answered in the negative. Witness then asked Mrs. Ralph how much she was going to give in payment for the coals. She replied that she had paid him nothing, but was going to give him some beer. She then added “I hope you won't do anything to me. You can see how I am”. Witness charged Whittingstall with stealing the coal, and took him into custody. When he got outside he called P.C. Allen and together they went to the Harbour, where they saw prisoner (Cooper) on board the Brocklesbury. He called him and he came upon the quay to him, and witness asked him in Whittingstall's presence “Have you given this man any coals?”; he said “Yes”. Witness then brought Whittingstall to the police station, where he was detained while enquiries were made. Witness then went back to the Duke Of Edinburgh public house and took possession of the coal, and brought it to the police station. The weight of it was 112lbs., and the value 1s. 9d. He then charged Whittingstall, who made no reply. On Thursday morning John Cooper went up to the police station, when he was charged with being concerned in the theft, and he replied “I know nothing about it”.

In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said he saw Cooper by the cook-house door when Whittingstall was leaving the ship. Cooper admitted he had given the coals.

Captain William Henry Wilmott, of the ship Brocklesbury, said that Cooper was cook on board the ship. On the 22nd he left Folkestone, and in consequence of a message on the 28th he returned and went to the police station, when he was shown the sack of coals produced. He was unable to identify either the sack or the coals. He gave Whittingstall a good character.

Whittingstall pleaded Guilty, whilst Cooper pleaded Not Guilty, and added that he did not see the prisoner leave the ship or take the sack away. They might have been sweepings.

The Bench gave John Cooper some benefit of the doubt and discharged him, and told John Whittingstall that it was a serious charge against him, and they sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1903.

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

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

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

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

As to the Duke Of Edinburgh, these premises are structurally unfit, and not adapted for licensed premises. There is no urinal, except one entered from the public bar by means of a door, the smell from which is very offensive. The bar is badly lighted. We direct that the holder of the licence shall, within fourteen days from this date, close the existing urinal and erect a new urinal outside the building, and also close the gate leading from the yard, uncoloured on the deposited plan, to Dover Street, so that the police may exercise proper supervision over the licensed premises.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The licence of the Duke of Edinburgh was then considered. Mr. H. Avory K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham, appeared for Messrs. Flint and Co., the owners of the house.

The Chief Constable said the Duke of Edinburgh was an ante 1869 beer “on”, and was situate in Tontine Street. He put in the same figures of the number of houses, etc., in the area marked on the map. The licensee, Mr. Frederick Ralph, obtained the transfer on April 22nd, 1891. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., Ltd., Canterbury. The rateable value was £24.The house adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33, and within 200 yards there were 39. The accommodation provided for the public was very small, consisting of two small compartments or bars in the front, and also a small room at times used at the back of the bar. The urinal provided for the customers opened directly out of the small left hand side of the bar. In February of last year an order for structural alterations was made by the licensing justices with regard to the urinal, and also to stop up a back entrance which led from the house into Dover Street. It appeared to him there was very little trade at the house. The present licensee was a bricklayer, and worked at his trade, but at present was out of employment. In his opinion the house was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, the Chief Constable said he drew the area shown on the map on his own responsibility. He thought it was a natural boundary and would be a fair average. There was no complaint against the tenant. The order of last year in regard to certain alterations was duly carried out. He should not think that there was quite so much as three and a half barrels sold in the house in a week. For a smaller house that amount would be a fair trade.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said there were very few customers at the house, and the majority of those who did use it were women who walked the streets. For the past several months he had visited the house almost every day and found it almost empty. The licensee was a bricklayer, and worked when he had an opportunity.

Cross-examined, witness said Mr. Ralph had told him that if he did not go to work he could not pay the brewers.

Mr. Avory said he proposed to call Mr. Ralph. Messrs. Flint and Co. were concerned in three cases, so he proposed to make only one speech.

Mr. Ralph went into the box. He said he had been the tenant of the house for 14 years. He had always paid his way in the house. He did on average three and a quarter barrels a week. He only worked occasionally at his trade, and he depended upon the beer-house for his living. His wife had been to the residents in Tontine Street, and 36 of them had signed a petition (produced) in favour of the licence being continued.

In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Ralph said the class of people using his house were fishing people generally. He sometimes sold more than three and a half barrels in the summer. People wanted the house when there were only 10,000 people in Folkestone, and now there were more people they wanted to take the licence away. He thought the house was absolutely necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. J. Jones said he was a member of the Borough Council and the Watch Committee. The Watch Committee had given no sanction to the police to oppose that licence because it had never been brought before them. He had known the house for many years, and it had always been well-conducted. In his opinion the house was doing a legitimate and fair trade, and was a great convenience to the street. He should like to see more of that kind of house in Folkestone.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought they were bound to refer the case to the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1905.

East Kent Licensing.

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King's Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Duke of Edinburgh.

Frederick Ralph, the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh, said he had been the tenant at the house since March 5th, 1891. He lived there with his wife and children, and paid £16 a year for rent. The house was rated at £25. He was a bricklayer by trade. Since he had been in the house he had to work at times because he had a large family. He had worked a few months in the summer, and a few months in the winter. His trade was from three to three and a half barrels per week. He paid 34s. per barrel for beer. He was satisfied with the trade, and was willing to remain in the house. His wife had got out a petition in favour of the licence being retained, which was signed by some thirty or forty residents in Tontine Street. Fishermen and tradesmen used his house. He had never had the least complaint made against him. The next door house did no more trade than he did.

Mr. J. Jones gave evidence in support of the licence being retained. He said he would be sorry to see it taken away.

Horace Offen and William Tiddy were also called on behalf of the owners.

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

Folkestone Express 20 May 1933.

Obituary.

We record, with deep regret, the death of Mr. Frederick Ralph, of Beaulieu, Bouverie Road West, Folkestone, who passed away suddenly at Manor Court Nursing Home on Saturday last, in his 80th year.

Mr. Ralph had been in bad health for a long time; indeed, he had not been able to leave his house for more than eight months, yet maintained his accustomed keen interest in affairs.

Mr. Ralph was born in 1854 opposite old Newgate Prison (now demolished), and he could remember the tolling of the Great Bell of St. Paul's when the Prince Consort died in 1861, and, as a boy, witnessed the last public execution which took place at Newgate in 1868 or 1869. After occupying various posts in London (he was for a few months in the Temple), he migrated to Hastings, where he met and married his wife, who predeceased him by exactly five years. At Hastings he became a member of the Royal Naval Volunteers, and in carrying out his duties as manager to Messrs. Norton and Townsend he personally supervised, when a heavy sea was running, the loading of the wines on board Lord Brassey's yacht “The Sunbeam”. From Hastings Mr. Ralph went to Maidstone, where he became proprietor of the Queen's Head Hotel. Here he organised the first regatta to be held on the Medway.

Leaving Maidstone, Mr. Ralph came to Folkestone over 50 years ago, and bought the Rose Hotel (now no more) in Rendezvous Street. The hotel was, in those days, the recognised rendezvous of the principal citizens; the large hotels further west were not built. As time went on his business interests in Folkestone developed steadily. He was closely associated with the formation of the Pleasure Gardens Theatre Company, and, at his death, he was the senior member of the Board. He was always happy to remember that the late Lord Radnor personally invited him to join the Directorate. He took the greatest interest in theatrical affairs and knew many stage celebrities. For a short time Mr. Ralph was connected with the Victoria Pier. For many years he was Chairman of the Queen's Hotel, resigning this position only recently owing to failing health. He formed the Folkestone Billposting Company, which developed branches at Dover and Hastings, this business being afterwards amalgamated with Messrs. Partington, Kent, Limited, of which company he was Chairman at the time of his death. He was also Chairman of the Burlington, and for some years was Chairman of the Grand, afterwards remaining as Director.

About 30 years ago, Mr. Ralph formed the Leas Pavilion Company and took a continuously active interest in this business to the last. He was for some years on the Board of the Folkestone Gas Company, and likewise held Directorships in Messrs. D. Baker and Co Ltd., and the Silver Spring Mineral Water Company.

Mr. Ralph was always keenly interested in sport, and in his younger days was a natural athlete, being, in particular, a lightweight boxer of considerable merit, while many will also recall his great skill as a billiards player.

As a businessman Mr. Ralph had foresight and courage. He took endless pains to make anything he was connected with a success, and was outstanding for his high standard of commercial probity. It would not be too much to say that he was far more concerned with other people's interests, if he felt responsible for them, than he was even for his own. However, his judgement was rarely at fault, and his business ventures were almost uniformly successful.

He was a man of very considerable personality, one with a finely developed sense of humour, and he had an amazing collection of anecdotes, with great powers as a mimic.

His greatest virtues were his sense of justice and his generosity. Throughout his long life he performed kindnesses both small and great, and it is no more than his due to say his passing will be widely regretted. He felt the death of his wife very keenly, and during the last few years he was sorely tried by his inability to lead as active a life as formerly. Nevertheless, his interest in affairs remained unimpaired to the last.

He leaves a son and daughter, Mr. F.H.M. Ralph and Miss Violet Ralph, to mourn their loss.

The funeral took place on Wednesday at the Cheriton Road Cemetery.