Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Grigg, East Cliff Tavern.

Folkestone Herald 23 June 1906.

Wednesday, June 20th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.W. Pursey, and Major Leggett.

The licence of the East Cliff Tavern was temporarily transferred from John Grigg to Martin Price, who was instructed by the Justices to keep the back entrance closed.

Folkestone Herald 14 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 11th: Before Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Linton.

Licence was transferred as follows: The East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. G.S. Grigg to Mr. Price.

Folkestone Herald 18 May 1907.

Wednesday, May 15th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Benjamin Mullett pleaded Guilty to causing an obstruction with a horse and cart.

P.C. Prebble deposed that about 12.35 p.m. on Tuesday, 7th inst., he saw a horse and cab standing in the road near the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff. Witness kept observation on it till one o'clock. He then went to the East Cliff Tavern, and found defendant inside. He asked him if he was in charge of the horse, and defendant said “Yes”.

Defendant said that he was engaged at the time.

The Chief Constable: In the public house?

P.C. Prebble said that defendant remained in the public house all the time he had the horse under observation.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or seven days'. Defendant was allowed till today week to pay.

Folkestone Herald 25 May 1907.

Wednesday, May 22nd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, and Councillor G. Boyd.

Wm. Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (the East Cliff Tavern). The Chief Constable prosecuted, and Mr. R.M. Mercer represented the landlord (Mr. M.G. Price). Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. All the witnesses were ordered to leave the Court until called upon.

Inspector Lilley deposed that on Tuesday, May 17th, at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to witness, he kept the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff, under observation till three minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C. Prebble and P.C. Johnson, he went into the house. In the front of the bar he saw defendant, sitting with his back to the bar, in a chair. From his appearance, witness came to the conclusion that he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. Witness went through the passage to the entrance door behind the bar, and knocked. At that moment the landlord came in the front door from the street. Witness went back to the front bar again, and said to Hall “I think you have had too much to drink; I should advise you to get off the premises”. He rose partly up out of the chair, and said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”. He said “Then I don't”. Witness went outside, and in a minute or two defendant came out with his brother, followed by the landlord. He got into a waiting hackney carriage, and said “You are a nice lot of ---- you are. You are a ---- rotter; I know you of old”. Witness said “I shall report you for being drunk on licensed premises”. He said “You can do what you ---- well like”. He continued to swear until the carriage drove away. He had no doubt at all as to the defendant's condition; Hall was drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The constables were not with him all the time in the house. They came in after him. He thought it was a proof of drunkenness for a man to say to three police officers “You can do what you like”.

P.C. Prebble deposed that on the 7th May, about 11.15 a.m., he saw defendant fall in the Dover Road. He was then with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both. Defendant at that time was very much under the influence of drink. Witness later accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had been keeping observation on the house from 12.35 to one o'clock. Defendant did not enter the house during that time. On entering the public bar witness saw defendant sitting there with his back to the counter. He heard the landlord say to Inspector Lilley “He has only had one glass of ale here”. Witness then went outside. Shortly afterwards he saw defendant come out, and get into a Victoria which was waiting outside. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant's brother, who came out with defendant, defendant became very excited, and said to Inspector Lilley “I know you Inspector; you are a ---- rotter. I don't care a ---- for all three of you. Do as you like”. There was no doubt that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined: He did not see any need to arrest the man. If he had been in the road instead of in the trap he would have done so. Defendant stepped into the Victoria without assistance.

P.C. H. Johnson also stated that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined: He saw P.C. Prebble talking to defendant in the Dover Road. Witness was standing in the middle of the road, and could not hear what the conversation was about. He thought defendant was drunk at that time, because his face was flushed, and his voice was excited, and he was moving his hands about.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Defendant, on oath, said he had lived in the town about twenty five years, and was a builder. One of his brothers – Frederick – kept the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7th May he left home to go to his brother Fred's, and had one glass of ale there. He then went, in company with Frederick, to see his other brother, Arthur, who lived in the Dover Road. Witness's father had recently died, and Arthur was the sole executor and beneficiary under his will. He and his brother Frederick did not think that was right, and they were going round to see Arthur about it. Arthur would not see them, and told him (defendant) that if he did not leave his door he would give him in charge of a constable. He was very excited over the will, and had some conversation with P.C. Prebble about it. That was between 11.30 and 12. Witness then had a walk round, and afterwards went to the East Cliff Tavern with his brother Fred. There Frederick called for a bottle of ale, and defendant and his brother halved it. Each had one glass. The landlord supplied the bottle. Witness sat down when he went into the house. Defendant's brother took the ale and poured it out, handing defendant his, but he (defendant) “did not drink more than about a couple of inches”. He was talking to Mr. Featherbe about the new White Star liner when the constable entered. There were several other people in the bar at the time. Witness had been in there about twenty minutes or half an hour before the police entered. Inspector Lilley said “Are the Halls here?”, and witness's brother said “We are both here”. Witness got out of his chair and walked straight out, without staggering; nobody assisted him. He had ordered a cab to wait outside, and he got into it. Defendant did not like being accused of being drunk when he was not, so he lost his temper, and, he was afraid, opened his mouth a bit too wide. Witness had never been accused of drunkenness before. The same evening he went on to Rugby to some work he had to do there.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He did not think he and his brother Fred called at another house before going to see Arthur. He was pretty sure they did not.

The Chief Constable: May I refresh your memory. Did you not go to Mr. Southall's?

Witness (after hesitation): Perhaps we did. Yes we did. Continuing, he said that when the police officers entered the house, they accused nobody of being drunk. Outside they said they should report him. They did not accuse anybody else of being drunk. He did not know why they picked on him. The sight of the three policemen excited him, and frightened him. He thought he should get into trouble. Perhaps the policemen mistook his excitement over that and his family trouble for the effects of drink. He had only been in his brother's house before that morning. He had had one glass there, and one at the East Cliff. That was all he had had that morning. He did not think he had any at Mr. Southall's; he was certain of that.

Mr. Mercer then briefly addressed the Bench, drawing particular attention to the rational answers of defendant to Inspector Lilley in the bar. With regard to the evidence of P.C. Johnson as to defendant's condition in the Dover Road, he said it was simply ridiculous to say that, from the middle of the road, he was such an experienced man that he could tell from the defendant's gestures, colour, and tone of voice – although he could not hear what he was saying – that he was drunk. Nobody would hang a dog on such evidence. After referring to the fact that defendant had had family troubles with regard to the will, which had excited him, Mr. Mercer proceeded to call further witnesses.

Frederick Hall, brother of the defendant, said he was licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7th inst. witness and defendant went to see their younger brother about the will. When they got there Arthur said that if defendant did not go away he would give him in charge. That made defendant very excited. Defendant came into witness's licensed house at 10.15, and had a glass of ale only. Then they went out together. After they left Dover Road, they went over Radnor Bridge to the cliff for a walk, and then to the East Cliff Tavern. They got there about 12.30. The police came in about twenty five minutes later. Witness then corroborated defendant's evidence as to what took place then. His brother walked quite straight to the cab, and was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: No-one accused witness of being drunk. He supposed that the excitement as to the family trouble misled the police to think that his brother was drunk. He had no recollection of himself and his brother going into Mr. Southall's.

Wm. Edward Featherbe, a ships' carpenter, said that he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He was in defendant's company about twenty minutes, sitting by him. He talked to defendant about ship-building in Liverpool. The latter was giving witness dimensions of a new liner – the Adriatic. He was perfectly sober. Defendant was quoting figures as to the size of the ship, and spoke quite rationally. When the police entered Inspector Lilley accused the landlord of having “the Halls” drunk on the premises. Defendant walked out perfectly straight; there was no sign of staggering.

Joseph Lopp, seaman, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He saw defendant and some other people there. He was sitting about two feet from defendant, who had a bottle of ale to drink, but did not drink a whole glassful. The talking was quiet, and there was no disturbance. Defendant was sober, and walked straight.

Cross-examined: Defendant was a little bit excited in the bar when the police came.

The Magistrates then retired to consider their verdict, and, returning after a brief absence, the Chairman said that the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. They considered that the police had acted perfectly fairly, but mistook excitement for drink.

There was slight applause in the Court at this decision.

The Chief Constable then asked permission to withdraw the summons against the landlord for permitting drunkenness, and he was allowed to do so.

Folkestone Herald 17 April 1915.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mrs. Bertha Beatrice Price, the wife of Mr. M.G. Price, of the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff, which occurred, after a long illness, on Saturday last.

The deceased lady was highly respected by a large circle of friends, as evidenced by the attendance at the funeral, which took place on Wednesday.

Folkestone Herald 8 July 1916.

Felix.

Everybody or nearly everybody appears to be doing something voluntarily in regard to the wounded. From unexpected quarters little items come to hand to tell this tale. For instance, at that well-conducted establishment, the East Cliff Tavern, a box is handed round every Sunday morning, the coins fall into it readily from all hands, khaki and navy boys being excluded. Proud is Mr. Mark Price, the genial landlord, when the box is full: our friend does the thing properly. On the last occasion he asked Mr. Robert Stokes to open the box, which was found to contain £2 7s. 11d. Our friend Bob, as he is familiarly known, proceeded to the shop of Mr. Pain, the well-known tobacconist, of Dover Street, and there purchased 1 lb. of Navy Cut and 1 lb. of Capstan tobacco, also twelve boxes of Player's cigarettes for the sum mentioned above. Thus a noce parcel was sent to the Royal Victoria Hospital for the benefit of our wounded heroes. This is perhaps a comparatively small matter, but it goes to show that the working men of Folkestone, who enjoy their glass of Kentish sherry in moderation, do not forget their duty towards the boys. I hope Mr. Mark Price, who on more than one occasion has shown that his heart is in the right place, will continue his good work, and that he will be shortly compelled to call on our friend Bob to again count the coins, with the result that a further supply of “the finest herb under Heaven” may be sent to the Hospital. Now, if every licensed place in Folkestone possessed a box after this manner, what good might be done!

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1920.

Local News.

We regret to announce the death of Mr. Sidney (Sid) Saunders, of the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. Deceased, who was widely known, went out on Tuesday night on business and did not return. The next morning the deceased was found in a small greenhouse, having passed away suddenly in the night. His death was due to natural causes. Much sympathy is expressed with the family. The late Mr. Saunders came to Folkestone many years ago as a carpenter, and was formerly proprietor of the East Cliff Tavern. He subsequently became proprietor of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, the Railway Bell Hotel, Folkestone, and the Fountain, Seabrook.

Folkestone Herald 23 January 1926.

Local News.

At the East Cliff Tavern on Monday about seventy customers and friends sat down to a capital supper prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Mark Price. Subsequently a pleasant programme of music was gone through, the chair being taken by Mr. L. Field. Amongst those who contributed to the programme were Messrs. Baba Pantry, Horace Brickell, George Allen and Herbert Robertson. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. and Mrs. Price. A collection raised a handsome sum for Dr. Barnardo's Homes.

Obituary.

We regret the death, at the Swan Inn, Dover Road, of Mrs. Annie Buller Saunders, at the age of sixty years. Deceased was the widow of the late Mr. “Sid” Saunders, who was successively landlord of the Railway Bell Hotel, Folkestone; the White Lion, Cheriton; East Cliff Tavern, and the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. Her happy and cheerful disposition endeared her to all. To do a good and deserving turn to others afforded her real joy. To her only child, Mrs. Herbert, the wife of Mr. S. Herbert, of the Swan Inn, sincere sympathy is extended.

The funeral took place at the Cemetery.

Folkestone Herald 2 October 1926.

Canterbury County Court.

Saturday, September 25th: Before Judge Terrell.

Messrs. George Beer and Rigden Ltd. sued Martin Grey Price, the tenant of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, for £2 16s. 10., balance of an account. There was a counterclaim by the tenant against the brewers for £33 5s. for alleged overcharges at the rate of 5s. per barrel of beer, from October, 1925, until August, 1926. Mr. R.F. Fletcher, barrister, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. S. Lamb, barrister, was for the defendant.

Mr. Fletcher said that was an action by Messrs. George Beer and Rigden for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, who was the tenant of one of their houses. It was a remitted action. The original amount of the claim was £119 8s. 6d. The writ was issued on the 28th April for beer supplied in March and April, and the case came before the Master in the High Court. A sum of £86 11s. 8d. was paid by the defendant, who admitted liability for that amount, but contested liability of the balance, and he said he had paid £30 on account. It was quite true he had paid £30 in April by cheque, which cheque had been promptly dishonoured. Upon those facts the Master made an order on June 20th for the payment of a further sum of £30, and the balance of £2 11s. 10d. The position today was that the plaintiffs had recovered the whole of their account except the £2 16s. 10d., and that was the amount with which His Honour had to deal that day, together with the counterclaim of £33 10s. He did not intend to worry His Honour about the small sum of £2 16s. 10d., and he would leave it to his learned friend to prove his counterclaim.

Mr. Lamb: I thought my learned friend would take that course as he does not want to put his client in the box, while he wants me to put mine in. Continuing, Mr. Lamb said that his client, Mr. Martin Price, was the tenant of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, which was one of the plaintiffs' houses, and had been there since 1919. Up to October, 1925, the plaintiffs had been in the habit of supplying the defendant with draught beers at what he would call the current market price, but from the 2nd of October they started to add 5s. a barrel to the price, and the £2 16s. 10d. was what the extra charge of 5s. per barrel amounted to out of the sum of £119 odd which the plaintiffs were seeking to recover. The position therefore was this: that the £2 16s. 10d, which his friend had now at the last moment abandoned, was the whole gist of the matter. Defendant was refusing to pay that because he said that amount was the extra charge of 5s. a barrel made upon him in March and April. The counterclaim began in October, 1925, and went on until April of the present year, and for that period they were claiming in respect of overcharges a sum of £33 5s., omitting the sum of £2 16s. 10d., which was the substance of dispute in the claim. Therefore the position now was that the plaintiffs were abandoning their claim to the overcharge for March and April, but he claimed that the principal involved was the same in both cases of overcharges.

Replying to His Honour on points of law, Mr. Lamb stated that the agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and defendant in 1919 was that the brewers were to supply goods at current prices in the district, and they had to prove they were justified in making an extra charge.

His Honour: The agreement means reasonable prices, which are the current prices in the district.

Mr. Lamb said that up to October, 1925, Mr. Price was supplied with draught beers at the same price as the other houses in Folkestone. There were three other houses in Folkestone owned by these brewers, and the whole of the tenants were in Court that day, and their evidence would be that they were supplied with draught beers at a price which was 5s. a barrel less than was charged to the defendant. Theirs was the current price of the district and a reasonable price.

His Honour: You say that up to October, 1925, they did not charge that extra 5s., and it is for them to justify that extra charge?

Mr. Lamb: Yes, but owing to the course they have taken the onus is on me for the moment. This is really a question of principle.

His Honour stated that once he had settled the question of principle he would hand the matter over to the Registrar as a matter of accounts.

Mr. Fletcher: The Registrar will not be troubled, Your Honour, if my friend establishes his principle.

His Honour (to Mr. Lamb): But between the 2nd of October, 1925, and the 1st of April, 1926, you apparently paid the excess charge. How can you get it back now?

Mr. Lamb: I say we paid it under protest.

His Honour: That is of no avail whatever.

Mr. Lamb: I claim them back as damages. I say they committed breach of contract for which I claim damages.

His Honour: Can you pay an excess price and then get it back by way of damages? You are claiming damages because you paid too much. How can they be responsible for that?

Mr. Lamb: Because they forced us into it, and committed a breach of their contract.

His Honour: They charged you a certain sum, and you paid it.

Mr. Lamb: They said “If you don't pay pay us that price, we shall not supply you with beer”.

His Honour: If they did that, you could get your beer elsewhere.

Mr. Lamb: I am complaining of their refusal to supply me with beer at the contract price.

His Honour: What damages can you claim for that?

Mr. Lamb: It is made up by the extra 5s. a barrel they charged.

His Honour: That is not damages, because you could have gone elsewhere. If you had gone elsewhere and got it at a price 5s. less than they charged you would have suffered no damage. The fact is you have gone on paying the 5s. extra which they charged. Judge Terrell quoted cases, and told Mr. Lamb he had better look into them. He could have gone into the market and bought cheaper, and would not then have suffered any damage.

Mr. Lamb: The answer to that is that I could not have got these beers anywhere else. Other brewers do not brew George Beer and Rigden's beers.

His Honour: But you could have got other and the same class of beers.

Mr. Lamb: But why should I do it? I have a contract with Beer and Rigden.

His Honour: Supposing they had said “We won't supply you with beer at all”. You would have gone and bought it elsewhere. What would have been your damages? Supposing you could have said “Beer and Rigden's beers are a higher class than other beers, and my custom fell off because I could not supply Beer and Rigden's beers”, then you might get damages if you could establish that. If a brewer of a house said he was not going to supply his beer at the market price, and charges you more, then you have the right to go elsewhere.

Mr. Lamb: There is a penalty clause in the agreement.

His Honour: But they could not claim that at all in such a case.

Mr. Price, on oath, stated that he first went into the house twenty years ago. The agreement produced was entered into when the amalgamation of the brewers (Beer and Rigden) took place, and the terms were identical with those in his previous agreement. Up to the 2nd of October last he was being supplied with draught beer at a certain price, but after that date he was charged an additional 5s. per barrel. As a result of that, up to August last year they had overcharged him to the amount of his counterclaim.

In answer to Mr. Lamb, Mr. Price admitted that in April he gave a cheque to the brewers for £30 and he claimed it was met the same day. He could not say why it was dishonoured. He knew that the brewers' other houses in Folkestone were being supplied with beer since the 2nd of October at 5s. a barrel less than he was charged. He could not say why they had charged him more than their other tenants.

His Honour: Haven't you heard, or enquired? – They won't say. They gave me notice to quit some time back.

A letter was put in, written by Mr. Harris, representative of the brewers, dated September 16th, 1925, in which it said: The notice expired on 7th August last, and we shall be glad to hear from you when it is convenient to give up possession, as we cannot allow the matter to remain in abeyance any longer.

It was stated that the rent had been paid ever since 1925, and was all paid up.

His Honour: Then there is a new tenancy created?

Mr. Lamb said the tenant took up the position that he did not want to leave the house he had been in so long. They could not get him out under the Rent Restriction Act, and they were helpless. If they wanted to get him out, they had to cast round for some other means.

In cross-examination, Mr. Fletcher asked whether witness suggested that he knew no reason why the brewers should wish to get rid of him as a tenant.

Witness: I do not.

Mr. Fletcher: Then I shall have to put a question to you I should otherwise have refrained from putting. In the summer of last year were you suffering from a bad state of health? – I was.

And was that state of health connected with and brought about by excessive drinking? – It was, Sir, I am sorry to say, but it is a thing of the past now.

It was not a thing of the past when this notice to quit was running? – It was.

Notice was given to you on the 6th of May? – Yes.

Were you at that time recovering from an illness caused by excessive drinking? – Yes.

Do you know that on the 21st of May your solicitor wrote this: “My client has brought me your letter of the 6th inst., with notice enclosed. I am directed to point out he cannot give up possession at such short notice, owing to his recent illness, and the fact that he has not yet completely recovered”. There is an application for an extension to October. Do you still tell the Judge you know no reason why the brewers should wish you to terminate your tenancy? – Yes.

A tenant who is suffering from DTs is hardly a satisfactory tenant to the brewers, is he? – I had somebody there to take care of me.

Let me ask you one or two questions about your cheques. The beer supplied to you during March and April was supplied on credit? – It was, but the supply was not ordered by me, but was what they sent on.

From October last year to the end of March this year had your dealing been so unsatisfactory from a financial point of view that they refused to supply you except for cash on delivery? – Yes.

In fact, your cheques had been returned many times? – only three times; and I can say this, that they produced the cheque before the time.

Witness was asked about a cheque of his given in December, 1924, for £134 14s. 11d., which was returned three times, and he replied “It was met afterwards”.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, on the threat of a writ addressed to your solicitors? – It was paid.

His Honour: It was dishonoured three times.

Witness: Why, before the cheques are met, should they telephone to the bank before the money is there? Can you tell me that?

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that your cheques were not returned on a number of occasions in 1925? – What do you call numbers?

Four, five, six, seven times. Now, Mr. Price, be careful. I suggest they have been returned 5, 6, or 7 times? – Yes, they have always been met afterwards.

Witness was questioned about the cheque for £30 mentioned in the High Court, which he gave and which was returned, and in connection with which he swore an affidavit on May 19th to the effect that he on April 21st paid the plaintiffs a cheque for £30, the receipt for which was in his solicitor's hands.

Witness said he did not know at the time that it had been returned.

His Honour: I expect he assumed the receipt was in his solicitor's hands, if he did not know the return of the cheque.

Mr. Fletcher asked witness if he was not given notice that the price of his beer was going to be increased, and he replied that he did not know until he got his bills. It came as a complete surprise to him.

Pressed upon the point, witness said he remembered he did not get notice of the fact, and that he also signed an order form, which showed the increased price upon it.

His Honour: You ordered the beer?

Witness: Yes, and paid for it before I saw it.

Mr. Fletcher: And all the beer in respect of which you are making your counterclaim was ordered, delivered, and paid for in the same way, was it not? – Yes.

Witness, replying to Mr. Fletcher, further admitted that when he could not get beer from his brewers he dealt with Messrs. Fremlin Bros.

Mr. Fletcher: And I believe you made a very good thing out of it? – Yes.

You got it cheaper than you could have done from Beer and Co.? – Yes.

Witness was next questioned about the number of special orders he sent necessitating deliveries very much oftener than it was the custom of the brewers to send to Folkestone, and he denied that it was the brewers' custom to send to their tied houses at Folkestone once a week. He admitted that during last February and March they had to deliver twelve times to him. He received a letter from the brewers on July 22nd, stating that he must place his orders at the regular times or they would have to charge him for the extra expenses of delivery.

In re-examination by Mr. Lamb, witness said he had been obliged to sell one consignment of beer before he could get another, and that was why the deliveries had been more frequent at his house. That had been going on since October. Since his illness he had taken no spirits at all.

Mr. Lamb said he had the tenants of the other three tied houses of Messrs. Beer and Rigden there, if there was any question as to the prices they paid.

Mr. Fletcher: I only challenged these things to make sure the tenant went into the witness box. The figures are admitted.

Mr. Lamb: Then that is my case.

Mr. Fletcher submitted that he had no case to answer, and said at the moment he should not call any evidence.

His Honour said he would have to consider the case and would reserve judgement.

Folkestone Herald 11 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, the licence of the East Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, now licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions in both cases.

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

The Magistrates granted the application for the full transfer of the licence of the East Cliff Tavern from Martin Grey Price to John W. Twigg.

After the application had been granted the outgoing licence holder said that he simply refused to have it done.

The Chairman: It is no good your objecting. The transfer is granted. The Magistrates cannot help themselves. I am sure they would like you to understand what the position is. You signed the notice for a transfer. Mr. Twigg got a protection order and you were present. You must fight it out with the brewers. The Magistrates cannot help you. They can do nothing at all.

Mr. Price: It was done so quick on me. I have a word to say, though. It was a dirty bit of business.

Folkestone Herald 11 May 1940.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday the following was fined for breaches of the black-out regulations: John Twigg, East Cliff Tavern, 10s.

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1943.

Local News.

Fusilier Clifford Wolfenden was remanded for a week by the Folkestone Magistrates yesterday on a charge of robbery with violence. It was alleged that he robbed Mrs. Ruby Brookwell of a handbag containing 3/- and other articles.

P. Sergt. Dolbear said about 9.50 the previous evening he was in the saloon bar of the East Cliff Tavern, off duty and in plain clothes, when he heard two distinct screams. With several soldiers who were also in the bar he investigated, and just as he was opening the door at the rear of saloon bar a soldier rushed past him, and through a passage way of the private part of the premises. Witness rushed back through the bar and out by the front door, where he saw the soldier being pursued by a Sergt. Chadwick, who caught the man at the top of East Cliff. The soldier was the defendant, who kept repeating “Please let me go, I didn't mean it”. Later he told defendant that he was a police officer and that he suspected him of having committed a serious offence. Wolfenden said “I am the man. I didn't mean it; won’t you please let me go?"

Defendant was sober, and he recognised him as having been in the bar before the occurrence.

Det. Constable Walsh said he saw defendant at the police station and afterwards went to 2, East Cliil Villas where he saw Mrs. Ruby Ellen Brookwell, who was in a nervous and distressed condition. There were two red marks on the front of her throat and the right side of her neck was slightly swollen. Her right heel was bleeding from a small cut wound and there were wet bloodstains in her right shoe.

The Magistrates remanded defendant for a week.

An application for legal aid was granted.

Folkestone Herald 29 May 1943.

Local News.

A charge of robbery with violence against a young soldier was reduced to one of common assault when Fusilier Clifford Wolfenden again appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates yesterday. Wolfenden was fined £2.

At yesterday’s hearing Mr. T.T. Cropper appeared to prosecute, and Mr. B.H. Bonniface defended.

Alderman W. Hollands presided with Mr. P. Puller, Alderman N.O Baker, Capt. H.P. Keary and Dr. Esme Stuart.

Mrs. Ruby Ellen Brookwell. of East Cliff, Folkestone, an insurance agent, said on the evening of May 20th about 9.15 she went to the East Cliff Tavern with her mother. A number of soldiers were in the bar. Just before 10 o’clock she went to cloak room. She had just entered when she felt someone pushing the door. She remarked that it was occupied. Opening the door to come out she saw a soldier standing there. He grabbed her by the throat; he did nothing else. She struggled and fought to keep him out. She screamed and she heard a shuffle of someone coming out of the bar. She could not remember what happened to her handbag. All she knew afterwards was that she had not got it with her. The soldier ran away when he heard people coming.

Mrs. T.W. Stokes, East Cliff, Folkestone, said she was helping in the East Cliff Tavern on the night in question. During the evening she heard screams coming from the back and she next saw Mrs. Brookwell, who was very hysterical. Witness went to the cloak room and found there a lady’s handbag and a soldier’s cap. She handed the cap to P. Sgt. Dolbear.

L/Sgt. Eric Chadwick said on this evening while at the public house he heard screams and he ran outside. He saw Wolfenden leaving the cloak room. Defendant ran out into the road and witness gave chase, catching and detaining him. Defendant said he was sorry and would not do it again.

P. Sgt. Dolbear, who gave evidence at the previous hearing, said the soldier's cap bore defendant’s regimental number.

D. Const. Walsh said he had charged Wolfenden with common assault that day. He had replied “Nothing to say”.

Mr. Bonniface submitted that there was no evidence whatever on which defendant could be committed for trial on a charge of robbery with violence. There was no evidence that defendant attempted to rob Mrs. Brookwell of her handbag.

The Chairman said the Bench agreed that on that charge there was insufficient evidence and it would be dismissed.

Mr. Bonniface entered a plea of guilty to a charge of common assault. Defendant told him, he said, that he remembered nothing of what happened that night. On this night defendant had seven glasses of stout. He was a man of unblemished character. He had served three years with the Army.

Fining defendant £2, the Chairman said "Don’t do this sort of thing again”.

Folkestone Herald 11 October 1947.

Local News.

At the licensing transfer sessions on Wednesday the Justices approved the transfer of the licence of the East Cliff Tavern from John Worrell Twigg to John Alfred Fraser. The latter told the Magistrates he had been employed in the licensing trade for six months at the East Kent Arms, Folkestone, and previously at Cranbrook.

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1948.

Local News.

A well-known figure has been lost to Folkestone by the death of Mr. Mark Price, of 114, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, who passed away on New Year's Day after an illness of only four days. He was 72.

As a young man he was a member of the crews of many of the finest liners sailing to Australia, and one of his chief reminiscences was of being in port in South Africa when there was terrific rejoicing over the relief of Mafeking. At the close of his seafaring days he became mine host at the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, one of the busiest licensed houses in the town. He was a sportsman and in the days before motor cars were numerous he attracted much attention when he drove his smart stepping cob and trap through the town. He was an excellent shot and was frequently out with shooting parties, while another of his favourite sports was coursing on Romney Marsh. In those days he was certainly a man about town. After leaving the East Cliff Tavern he was engaged in different occupations and for some years was on the staff of the Queen’s Hotel. Subsequently he became the steward of the Rendezvous Club and was employed there at the time of his death. A widower, he was twice married. He leaves a family to mourn his loss.

The funeral took place on Tuesday, the first part of the service being conducted at Folkestone Parish Church.

Folkestone Herald 13 October 1956.

Local News.

Mr. G.C. Lucas, landlord of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, was a railwayman for more than four decades, but it was as a young soldier that he first saw Folkestone and decided that he liked it. He revisited Folkestone less than a year ago, which explains why today he is licensee of one of the oldest inns in the town. He still liked Folkestone.

Mr. Lucas was a railwayman for 44 years. He joined the system as a boy clerk at Oxford, his home town, in 1906, and retired on pension in 1950. He finished as a liaison representative between the railway, the old Great Western line, and the large firms who used it for the transit of their merchandise. His area covered districts in five counties, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Gloucester and Wiltshire.

In the First World War Mr. Lucas served in the Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry in France, Belgium and Italy. In the last War he was a Captain and Adjutant in the Clevedon (Somerset) and district Home Guard.

Mr. Lucas, a keen sportsman, regards bowls as his chief interest. For many years he played for Somerset on numerous greens in teh county and filled the position of “skip”. He is a member of the Wear Bay Bowls Club.

Folkestone Herald 4 July 1970.

Local News.

Over she goes.... £41 worth of pennies in a pile which took customers at the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, 14 months to build.

The huge pile was pushed over on Saturday by Lieutenant Commander Michael Clover, who is in charge of homes at Hawkinge, Dymchurch and Smeeth, where deprived children are given care. Commander Clover was formerly a child care officer at Southwark. The money from the pile of pennies was spent on an unsinkable dinghy and life-jackets for the children at Reinden Wood House, Hawkinge. There are 28 children at the Hawkinge home, which opened in July last year.

Folkestone Herald 21 August 1971.

Local News.

A giant cucumber, nearly two feet long, 10 inches in circumference, and weighing 5½ pounds is really a succulent gift.

It was grown with a lot of loving care and attention by Mr. H. Roberts, a retired farmer, who lives in Canterbury Road, Folkestone. Mr. Roberts has only recently taken up gardening but, according to experts, is producing “superb crops”.

Mr. H. Brickell, of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, a relative, of Mr. Roberts, was given the cucumber as a present.

Folkestone Herald 15 July 1988.

Local News.

Thirsty summer drinkers in Shepway will have to wait for all-day pub openings because of a Whitehall glitch. The Government has been forced to delay the controversial new licensing laws until September 1. This has been caused by a technical problem at the Home Office which means present “last orders” for another two months. Then pubs will be able to serve alcohol from 11a.m. to 11p.m. all week. But not all Shepway landlords reckon it will be worth the bother.

Horace Brickell from the East Cliff Tavern said “It’s a great idea for some pubs, but for the ones in restricted areas, like us, it’s not much good.

Where we are placed, it won’t make any difference and it will be a waste of time staying open”.

William Taylor, landlord of the Pullman Wine Bar and chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers Association, said "There is some confusion, but no-one is forced to stay open. They will be able to choose the hours that suit them.” Mr. Taylor said there were mixed feelings about the changes. “Pubs in busy areas are welcoming them but small, rural or out-of-the-way places are indifferent. Personally, I’m in favour. I think it will give flexibility to the licensee and the public. I don’t think it will cause more drunkenness because people only have a certain amount of money to spend each week. And I don’t mind the extra hours involved because we will get extra staff which will help the dole queue”.

Barry Chamberlain from the White Lion in Cheriton agrees. He said “I think it’s about time change was made. Pubs will become much more suitable for families, and will be more like restaurants. We will try to stay open all day. We are just about to redecorate the pub with the new freedom in mind”.

Michael Norris from the East Kent Arms told us “I’ve accepted that the new laws are coming, although I have mixed feelings about them. I think it’s a shame we are not being allowed to stay open later at night rather than all afternoon. Of course we will be making full use of the new hours and will try to serve food all day. It’s all right for us because we are so centrally placed”.

Eileen Lewis from The Guildhall in The Bayle summed up the feelings of most landlords when she said “If I’m making money, I’ll stay open”. She added “It’s all right for more central pubs, but I can’t see us staying open in winter. The brewery has asked us to give it a three-month trial period. Like other pubs, we’ll just have to feel our way when the change comes”.