Kentish Express 30 November 1861.

Dover Express 30 November 1861.

An inquest was held before Silvester Eastes Esq., coroner, on Saturday afternoon, at the "Folkestone Cutter," on the body of James Brown, Prospect Row. At the opening of the inquest the coroner explained that the deceased had been under the medical treatment of Mr. Bateman, of which he (the coroner) was unaware when he was sent for on Friday morning, and seeing the nature of the case he sent next for Mr. Fitzgerald, he himself not being able to give evidence in his own court. Mr. Bateman had also been sent for by the neighbours, but the messenger not giving any information as to the urgency or character of the case, he had not come so hurriedly as he otherwise would have done.

The coroner then called Mr. Fitzgerald, who deposed to having been sent for at 8 o'clock on Friday morning, when he found the deceased lying on the bed, in a state of collapse, and perfectly sensible, but with a large gash in his throat extending from ear to ear. He was breathing heavily, with respiration much impeded. He brought the edges of the wound together, and the man was then able to speak a little. Shortly before one o'clock he died. The death was undoubtedly occasioned by the wound inflicted by the deceased himself with the razor produced. There was at first some doubt as to which hand had been used, but the man said in reply to a question that it was the right hand.

Mrs. Tuff, living close by, deposed that the deceased was 47 years of age. She heard one of the children calling for somebody to go to the father, who had cut his throat, and she went into his room and then sent for medical assistance. Deceased showed her his wound when she went in, and said “See what I have done now.” He was very peculiar in his ways, would not associate with the neighbours, and would not let his children associate. He was a sober man.

From the further evidence of this witness, and from statements made by jurymen who were neighbours, it appeared that deceased gathered water-cresses, which his children sold, but that he had been of late very cruel to his children. During the last two or three weeks there had been no water-cresses, and they had been in consequence in want. The neighbours spoke in highly favourable terms of the laborious industry of the children.

The coroner said that very often in disease of the lungs the blood did not get properly purified, and dark blood getting into the brain delirium would ensue. The jury returned a verdict that deceased destroyed himself while apparently in a state of insanity.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 February, 1868.

DRUNK AND RIOTOUS

John Hart, a young man was charged with being drunk and riotous, and with using obscene language, and also with assaulting Police-constable Swain, in Mill-lane on Sunday morning. He pleaded not guilty to the first two charges, and guilty to the last charge. His conduct in the dock was light and unseemly, and several times called forth a reprimand from the Bench.

Police-constable Ingram Swain deposed: On Sunday morning, at twenty minutes to one o'clock, I was on duty at the bottom on Dover Street, and heard a noise near the "Cutter Inn," Dover Street. I went there and found prisoner with three or four other young men, talking very loudly and making a great noise. They were drunk. Prisoner would not go home when I told him, but went into Fancy Street, saying "You _____, if you come up here we'll let you have it." In Mill-lane he was joined by two others. They went across to New Zealand and almost directly came back into Mill-lane. Prisoner came up to me with the knife I produced, open in his left hand, and said, "______ _____ come here and I'll rip you." I went to him and collared him, struck his arms and took the knife from him. The others ran away; prisoner tried to run also. When I got close to him I said. "Is this your little game," and he said, " I didn't mean no harm."

By the Bench: I had difficulty at first to get the knife from him, for he resisted and called for "Jim" to help him. I took him into custody and he refused to give his name to the sergeant. Eight-pence and some tobacco were found on him.

Prisoner cross-examined the constable, but failed to shake his evidence, and conducted himself very flippantly.

The Constable, re-examined by the Bench: Prisoner resisted very violently and called "Mempes" and "Jim;" he was more like a madman than anything else; he was drunk, but he knew what he was doing. Mempes was very drunk.

Prisoner, in his defence, said; The constable was too fast, and he was drunk, and ran after me; that is all I have to say. Prisoner called.

William Henry Mempes, plumber and painter, who said: I was with the prisoner on Sunday morning, between twelve and one o'clock, by the British Schools, opposite St. Michael's Church. He was cutting some tobacco, and was wiping his knife on the knee of his trousers, when police-constable Swaine came up to us. He was going home and Swaine took him and I left him. I first saw prisoner in Fancy Street, besides Iverson's, the grocer. There were three of us. I heard Swaine tell prisoner to go home, and he said, "all right." We were standing outside his house when Swaine came up and pushed him off the kerb. He said something to Swaine and ran across Mill-lane, and then Swaine came up and took him.

The Banch said the charge was a most serious one, and they were determined to protect every constable in the execution of his duty. Prisoner had made very light of it, but drawing a knife on a policeman was conduct that must be punished. He must also learn that he could not get drunk and make a noise or use obscene language without smarting for it. He would be committed to Pentworth gaol for fourteen days for being drunk and riotous, fourteen days for using obscene language, and a month for the assault.

Prisoner; Is that all?

The Bench: With hard labour.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

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

Mr. Browning made an application to the magistrates under the following circumstances: He had taken the Cutter, Dover Street, and Mr. Finn refused to give up the license until a dispute was settled between him and Mr. Ash, the brewer. The license was granted.

Folkestone Express 18 December 1869.

Tuesday, December 14th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Robert Clark applied to the Magistrates to grant him a temporary authority to sell spirits &c. at the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street, until the license could be transferred to him. The application was granted.

Note: No mention of Clark at the Cutter according to information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 9 April 1870.

Wednesday, April 6th: Before The Mayor, A.M. Leith, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

The following transfer received the sanction of the Magistrates:

Folkestone Cutter: From Moses Browning to William Baker.

Folkestone Express 16 December 1871.

Monday, December 11th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Catherine Wilkinson was charged with being drunk and riotous in Dover Street on Saturday.

P.C. Robert Hogben said: I was on duty in Dover Street about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when I saw a crowd of people near the Cutter public house. Prisoner and her husband were there, and he was trying to prevent her from going into the Cutter, but she would go in and Mr. Baker, the landlord put her out again, when she began to call Mrs. Baker a rotten old cow, and a rotten old sow. I told her she had better go home, and she started up Dover Street, but turned back again. She said Mrs. Baker was not Mr. Baker's wife, but was his w----. I told her if she did not go home I should lock her up. She said she would not go for any ---- policeman.

Prisoner: I hope you will excuse me as it is my first offence. I had been to Sandgate to get some money for some herrings. I went out to get some shop things and went to the Cutter to see if my husband was there.

Ellen Jane Baker said: I am the wife of William Baker, Cutter Inn, Dover Street. Prisoner was in our house on Saturday evening between eight and nine o'clock. She was drunkified, but not right down drunk. She called me a ---- rotten old cow. My husband put her out. She said I was Baker's rotten w----. She knew her husband was gone. She had been drinking with him. He had a pint of beer but he was sober.

Prisoner: I went to the bottom of the street and the policeman put his hands on my shoulders and pushed me along. In the cell he threw me on my face and kicked me, your reverence. I said “You have got my purse with 7s. 9d. in it. I'll see about it in the morning”. My husband said the policeman called me a “---- Irishwoman”, and that I was old enough to be his grandmother. In the morning I asked the policeman for my purse. I have nothing to say for myself, only I am very sorry.

The Clerk: You have given no answer to the charge. You have only made an accusation against Hogben.

Prisoner: I have never done nothing of the sort before, your reverence.

George Wilkinson, husband of the former prisoner was then placed in the dock by the side of his wife and charged with being drunk and assaulting Sergeant George Reynolds in the execution of his duty.

Sergeant Reynolds said: I was on duty at the Police Station about ten o'clock on Saturday night when the prisoner came up and walked into the station, the door being open. I followed him in and asked what he wanted. He replied “You ----hound, I will show you”, and shook his fist in my face. I told him to come in a proper manner. He then pushed me against the mantelpiece. I then put him out and told him to come in a sober and proper manner. He was drunk. He then used very foul language and caught hold of my whiskers and scratched my face. We had a scuffle, and when I got him into the passage leading to the cells, he clung to the iron bars and laid down on his back, and when I tried to get him up he kicked me several times. I then locked him up. (Witness showed a mark on his neck.)

By prisoner: You did not say a word about the key of your house.

Prisoner made the following statement: I was as solid and sober as I am now, unless hard work would make me drunk. I don't understand asking questions. The policeman used me in a brutal sort of way, and said he would have some more of us ---- Irish before long. My wife, who was in one of the cells, called out “That's my husband. Give him the key of the house”. The policeman twisted my handkerchief tight round my neck and knocked my head against the stones, and blood came gushing out of my mouth and nose. He kicked me on the knee. He took hold of the hair of my head and my trousers and chucked me into the cell like a lump of wood, and said he would try to get me a Christmas dinner.

The female prisoner said: My purse was taken out of my pocket when I was put into the cell.

Mr. Superintendent Martin: Nothing of the sort. I was there when she was put into the cell. I did not see any blood about the passage or anywhere else. The female prisoner was screaming all the time her husband was being taken to the cell. Money to the amount of 9s. 7¾d. was found in the male prisoner's pocket the next morning.

Mr. Martin, at the request of the Bench examined the male prisoner's hands and neck carefully, but failed to find any marks of ill-usage.

Sergeant Reynolds denied having twisted the male prisoner's handkerchief, or having used any force beyond that which was necessary to lock him up.

The female prisoner: If I had not screamed, the policeman would have killed my husband, your reverence.

The male prisoner: There must be some marks on my neck. It feels hot as if it had been scalded.

Mr. Martin again examined prisoner's neck but failed to find any bruise or excoriation.

The Mayor to the female prisoner: You are dismissed, but let this be a caution to you.

The female prisoner: I am extremely obliged to your reverences.

The Bench, simultaneously: No thanks to us. We have only done what we consider to be right.

The Mayor to the male prisoner: We do not consider the charge of drunkenness to be proved. For assaulting the policeman in the execution of his duty you must pay a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or be imprisoned for 14 days with hard labour.

Prisoner: I had 12s. 7¾ d. in my purse.

The 9s. 6d. was taken from the amount found upon the prisoner, and the balance 1¾ d. handed to him, and he was liberated.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1874.

Transfer:

Wednesday, January 28th: Before Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

The following transfer of public house was granted:

Folkestone Cutter – to Louisa Smith.

Folkestone Express 20 June 1874.

Thursday, June 18th: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

James William Batt, coastguardsman, was charge with being drunk, and assaulting P.C. Smith. Prisoner pleaded Guilty of being drunk, but denied assaulting the constable.

P.C. Smith said he was on duty in Dover Street about half past twelve on Wednesday morning, when some men were standing near the Folkestone Cutter, talking very loudly. He went to them and told them to go home, when the prisoner came up very drunk and went up against one of the men, and said he could “pull his flannel off” to them. One of the men said “There is a bobby. He will soon set you a-going”. Prisoner replied that he did not care for a bobby, and he would pull his flannel off to him. Witness then told him to go home, and if he did not he would lock him up, and whilst witness had his back to prisoner he struck him on the head and knocked him down. All the men went away. Witness got up and closed with prisoner and fell, witness being at the bottom. Mr. Durden coming up at the time, witness charged him to assist him, and with his assistance prisoner was locked up.

By prisoner: I did not throw you down and then stamp on you.

Mr. Durden said prisoner had only recently joined the coastguard, and he had no complaints against him. He had just left the navy, and perhaps had hardly sown all his wild oats. He would be punished by the authorities.

Mr. Bateman remarked that he was happy to say that he could not remember a coastguardsman being brought before the Bench, and the corps in Folkestone were the best conducted set of men. Assaulting the police was a very serious offence. Prisoner might be fined £20, or sent to prison for six months, but in consideration of the good conduct of the corps he would only be fined 5s. for being drunk, and 10s. for assaulting the police, or 14 days1 hard labour in default.

At the request of prisoner, Mr. Durden paid the money, amounting to £1 3s.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1874.

Saturday, July 25th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Louisa Smith, Folkestone Cutter, was summoned on a charge of opening her house for the sale of intoxicating liquors on the morning of the 21st of July.

Defendant, misunderstanding the charge, at first pleaded Guilty of admitting three men into the house, but said it was not for the purpose of serving them, and then afterwards pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Swain deposed: At a quarter past twelve on the morning of the 21st instant i saw three men go into the Cutter by the side door, being admitted after they had knocked. I knew two of the men by name, but could not see the other distinctly. On trying the door I found it was locked, and then went in search of the Superintendent or Sergeant. I found the Superintendent, who accompanied me to the Cutter in about eight minutes. The Superintendent went to the back and I went to the side door. I knocked at the door and after about two minutes I was admitted at the side door by defendant. I asked her who she had in the house, and she said “No-one”. I then said “Where are the three men that entered the house a few minutes since?” She replied “They are not here; they are gone out”. We then searched the bar and tap room, but found no-one there. On going into the back yard I found the same three men concealed on a small outhouse. The Superintendent asked them what they were doing there, and they said they had come in to get a drop of something to drink after being on the water, but they did not have anything. We then returned into the house and asked defendant if she had anyone in the house and she said “No”. I then requested her to open the door of the bar parlour, which was locked, and found two men there. They said they had been locked in the room and could not get out. There was no light in the room, but there were two empty glasses on the table.

Superintendent Wilshere corroborated the last witness, and said he received the letter produced from defendant, in which she asked him to look over the offence, which should not occur again.

Defendant said she had some lodgers, and was sitting up for them, and she thought it was they who knocked at the door and therefore opened it, omitting first to ask them who they were. In answer to the Mayor, she said the other two men were waiting to go out, and she had not drawn them anything after twelve o'clock.

The Superintendent said the house had been well conducted lately.

Defendant was fined the lowest amount, viz., £1 and 10s. costs.

Alfred Rumsey, William Powell, and William Adams were summoned for being in the Cutter during prohibited hours on the day named in the last case.

Adams did not appear, and as it was shown that he was away from home when the summons was served, a fresh summons was ordered to be issued.

Rumsey and Powell pleaded Guilty and said they had been on the water for some hours, and knocked at the door and asked for something to drink, but were refused.

The Clerk: What did you hide up for?

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs each.

Folkestone Express 6 March 1875.

Wednesday, March 3rd: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Mrs. Louisa Smith, of the Cutter Inn, Dover Street, was charged with having permitted her house, on the 19th ult., to be the resort of persons reputed to be prostitutes. Mr. Mowll appeared for defendant.

P.C. Ovenden said on the night of the 19th ult. he entered the Cutter Inn, Dover Street, and there saw two prostitutes with some sailors. He had previously cautioned the defendant, but not on that day. Witness returned an hour and a half later and saw the two women he first saw, and two others, besides some women whose character he did not know. The sailors were still there, but no refreshments passed. He did not speak to the landlady, but went out again and watched the house. In about half or three quarters of an hour they left. The house was closed at the proper hour, when no prostitutes were in it.

Mr. Mowll asked if he need trouble the Bench with a cross-examination, for he considered that no case had been made out. The constable did not know the defendant.

The Mayor replied that Mr. Mowll must use his own discretion in the matter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Have been in the force 20 years. Have been frequently of late employed to go into public houses. There are about five houses in Folkestone that are frequented by prostitutes for the purposes of refreshment. No objection was raised at witness's entering the back room, and no attempt was made to conceal anything. Have been in the house several times during the fortnight, sometimes two or three times during the night. He had visited the houses in consequence of complaints made to him of the manner in which the house was conducted. He would swear that these complaints were not made by other publicans. During his visits had never seen girl in the back room, but only in front and at the side of the bar.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench for the defence. He drew the inference from the fact that the policeman did not warn the defendant of the presence of the women and advise her to get rid of them, that he thought the case of no importance till he had seen his superior officer. He called it an extraordinary case, and must say that the police took a fatherly interest in the house if they visited twenty or thirty times in a fortnight. There was not, he maintained, a scintilla of evidence against the defendant, except that the girls took half an hour to drink their beer and have a chat, which would be a very nice point. He was instructed to defend by Mr. Ash, of Canterbury, the owner of the house, who was very anxious his house should be well conducted. The defendant had been in the house 14 months, and though it was a rough neighbourhood, she had been only once convicted by the Bench, when she was not represented by a solicitor.

The Mayor said the Bench were of opinion that the police had only done their duty in bringing forward the case, but it was to be regretted that the constable had not warned the defendant. The case itself was a very weak one, and would therefore be dismissed. At the same time defendant must be careful how she conducted her house in the future, as many complaints had been made of the way in which some houses were being carried on.

Joshua Anthony, a seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on Tuesday night.

Superintendent Wilshere said that the previous night he heard that a disturbance took place at the Cutter Inn, when defendant and another man were fighting in the house. They ran away, and an hour afterwards he found defendant drunk and quarrelsome in the Crown And Anchor Inn. This was the third time defendant had been found fighting in the street since he had been in the town.

Fined 10s. and 8s. 6d. costs or fourteen days. As his captain would not advance the money defendant went to gaol.

Folkestone Express 4 March 1876.

Saturday, February 26th: Before The Mayor, Ald. Caister, W,J, Jeffreason Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

Minnie Smith and Elizabeth Dyce were summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on the 21st February.

Dyce did not appear.

Mr. Superintendent Wilshere said that shortly after ten o'clock on the evening in question he saw the defendant fighting with the woman Dyce outside the Cutter public house. They had their clothes off and there was a great disturbance in the street. Defendant, who was drunk, was pulled away by two more women, who put her clothes on.

In explanation “Minnie” said that the other woman struck her first and she “was not going to stand that”. She called another “unfortunate” as a witness, but her evidence did not materially affect the case.

The Mayor said that three-fourths of the time of the Bench was taken up in trying cases of that kind, and they were determined to put a stop to it. They fined defendant 7s. 6d., and 11s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

The money was paid by one of “Minnie”'s friends.

A warrant was issued for the apprehension of Dyce.

Mary Kelly was brought up on a warrant, charged with being drunk in Dover Street on the 12th Feb.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

It appeared that “Mary” was found lying on the pavement opposite the Cutter and was with difficulty removed.

The Bench fined her 10s., and 13s. 6d. costs, in default fourteen days' with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 1 April 1876.

Saturday, March 25th: efore The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, W.J. Jeffreason, T. Caister, and J. Clark Esqs.

Ellen Stace, a well known character, was charged with assaulting Louisa Smith, at the Cutter Inn, Dover Street, on the 17th March.

Defendant, in reply to the Bench, acknowledged being guilty of an insult, but not of an assault.

Louisa Smith said she was landlady of the Cutter Inn. The defendant came in the bar, but she would not serve her. Witness then asked the defendant to go out, but the latter still refused. After a short time defendant went out, but returned in about ten minutes' time. She then struck witness in the face and called her names. Ultimately a young man who was in the bar put the defendant out.

In answer to the Bench, Mrs. Smith said it was St. Patrick's Day and defendant had been both drinking and fighting.

Defendant: You're a bad woman. I never struck you.

Mrs. Smith: Yes you did.

Defendant: Oh! You are a bad woman.

Defendant called a witness named Mary McKenzie, but her evidence did not tend much in favour of defendant.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 9s. costs, or in default to be imprisoned for seven days with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 29 April 1876.

Thursday, April 27th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, Captain Fletcher, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Clarke, who said he had belonged to the 48th Regiment, and had served in the Crimea and India, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on the previous evening.

Superintendent Wilshere said that at about half past eight o'clock on the evening in question he was sent for to Dover Street and found the prisoner opposite the Cutter Inn. Prisoner was very drunk and was challenging to fight some Guardsmen, saying “Come on. I'm one of the Royal Irish”. He took him into custody, as he refused to go away.

Prisoner, who from his unmistakable brogue was evidently a “gem of the Emerald Isle” persisted in asking the Superintendent if he was “shure” that he wanted to fight.

“James” was mulcted in the sum of 5s. and costs, but not having the amount at command was provided with board and residence and a suitable amount of exercise at the expense of the borough.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1876.

Wednesday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister, J. Tolputt, J. Clark, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Transfer of License:

The license of the Cutter Inn, Dover Street was transferred from Mrs. Smith to Frederick Wallis.

Folkestone Express 23 September 1876.

The Folkestone Cutter.

Saturday, September 16th: Before J. Tolputt and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., and Captain Crowe.

This was an action brought by Superintendent Wilshere against Frederick Wallis, the keeper of the above house, for harbouring members of the “social evil”.

The evidence of the police was to the effect that the Superintendent, with one or two of his men, visited the place at quarter to ten on the 11th inst., when they saw some women of light fame drinking in front of the bar, and others at the back. Some of those seen at quarter to ten were also there at ten minutes to eleven. Just before eleven o'clock the Superintendent called the landlord's attention to one of these women being in the vicinity of the room where the soldiers congregate. The landlord followed him out into the street and told him he was trying to ruin the business, and that the best way would be to take out a summons, and then the neighbours could be called to come up to testify as at the manner in which he kept his house. The Superintendent visited the place three times that night, viz., quarter to ten, ten minutes to eleven and five minutes to eleven o'clock. A number of the same women were there from first to last. The house had been a continual source of annoyance.

It was pointed out that the summons referred to the 12th, but this was stated to be an oversight, and to claim exemption on this head would only give extra trouble to all parties of commencing proceedings de novo. It was therefore agreed that the summons should be amended.

The evidence of the police was all of the same purport, and was to the effect that the persons referred to were drinking in the house and that Superintendent Wilshere cautioned the landlord when he left the house.

In reply to the Bench it was stated that no gambling was seen.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendant, argued that since Mr. Wallis had taken the house it was kept better than it had been at one time, but the Bench, he hoped, would judge this case upon broad principles as practical men. Now, it was well know that this was what was called a soldiers' house, and it is a truism that where soldiers congregate there will be, to some extent, a meeting of the unreclaimed Magdalenes of society, much as a landlord may dislike to serve this class, yet, by law, he is compelled to sell them a reasonable quantity of liquor, and they are entitled to stay in the house a reasonable time for the purpose of drinking the same. That the same persons were seen in the house at a quarter to ten and again at ten minutes to eleven is no proof that they had been there for upwards of one hour, and that they were encouraged in the soldiers' room. The landlord had given orders that his man shall strictly and religiously carry out his instructions in not allowing any of these persons to enter such room.

The defendant said his house was entirely supported by soldiers, and he endeavoured, so far as it will permit, to keep it respectable. He had given orders to the waiter to prevent any female entering the soldiers' room. The one mentioned as being near the room came in just in front of the police, and when he saw her he said “Now then, out you go out of that”. He had been in possession of the house for three months, during which time he could bring his neighbours to testify as to the improvement in point of respectability.

The Bench: We dismiss the case, but we hope you will endeavour to keep your house respectable.

The defendant desired to know how long the persons mentioned were entitled to remain in the house after calling for a glass of something to drink.

The Bench: A reasonable and ordinary time.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1878.

County Court.

Saturday, July 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

D.W.P. Jones v Louisa Smith: Claim £6 10s. for 40½ dozen of ginger beer at 1s. per dozen and 40¾ dozen glass bottles at 2s. per dozen. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Plaintiff said the defendant formerly had a business in Folkestone, and he had supplied her with 700 dozen of ginger beer and lemonade during a period of about two years. Bottles lost were not charged for at the time, but it was usual to send in a claim for them when a party discontinued dealing with the manufacturer. Defendant had admitted to him that she owed bottles, but she did not think it was so many.

In reply to Mr. Minter plaintiff said it was not true that defendant called at his shop before leaving Folkestone and offered to pay for the ginger beer.

His Honour adjourned the case until next Court.

Folkestone Express 17 August 1878.

County Court.

Saturday, August 10th: Before G. Russell Esq.

D.P. Jones v Louisa Smith: Claim £6 10s. for ginger beer and unreturned bottles. This case was adjourned from last Court in order that plaintiff might produce his books giving an account of the bottles, the claim for which amounted to £4 1s. 6d.

Mr. Minter, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff had not made out his claim for the bottles, and His Honour, taking the same view, gave a verdict for £2 8s. 6d. only.

Folkestone Express 16 August 1879.

Monday, August 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

James Noble, 17, was charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Folkestone Cutter on Sunday, and with refusing to quit when ordered by the landlord to do so.

He pleaded Guilty to both charges and was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs in each case, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1879.

Annual Licensing Session.

Wednesday, August 20th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Aldermen Caister and Hoad, Captain Crowe, M. Bell, W.J. Jeffreason, and J. Clark Esqs.

The whole of the old licenses were renewed, with the exception of the Folkestone Cutter, and in this case the Superintendent of Police said he should oppose it's being granted, and it was therefore adjourned in order that the necessary notice might be served.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1879.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, J. Clark and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., General Cannon and Captain Carter.

Henry James Liddell was charged with being found drunk on licensed premises, the Folkestone Cutter, on the 14th inst.

Benjamin Barnes, a private in the Coldstream Guards, said about 8.30 on the 14th inst. he went into the Cutter and saw the landlord in the bar. He was drunk, and not capable of attending to his business. Witness remained two or three minutes. He asked for a glass of beer, and saw there was a prostitute serving behind the bar. He had nothing to drink, but went outside and sent in a policeman.

P.C. Bashford said his attention was called by last witness to the Folkestone Cutter. He went there and found the landlord (defendant) was drunk, supporting himself by leaning on the bar, and threatening to put someone out of the house. A prostitute was serving in the bar. There was a great disturbance being made by a man lately discharged from prison, who was quarrelling with others. He reported the occurrence to the Superintendent.

Sergeant Ovenden, who visited the house about 9.30 with the Superintendent, said the defendant was then behind the bar dozing, and to all appearance drunk. There were several prostitutes in the bar, and one of them was waiting on the customers.

Defendant did not deny having had too much to drink, but said he had held a license at Taunton for 15 years without any complaint.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 10s. and 11s. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13 September 1879.

Saturday, September 6th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Captain Carter, Aldermen Hoad and Caister, J. Clark and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

James Liddell was charged with being found drunk on licensed premises, the Folkestone Cutter.

He pleaded Guilty. A fortnight ago the defendant was fined for a similar offence.

There was a second charge against the defendant of keeping his house as a brothel, which the Magistrates, on the application of the police, altered to one of allowing his house to be used by prostitutes.

Defendant pleaded Guilty to this also, and Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench with a view to a mitigation of the penalties, urging that ever since defendant had held the license he had been subject to a series of misfortunes. He was now under notice from the brewers to quit the house next Thursday, under circumstances which would probably cause him considerable pecuniary loss. Previous to his coming to Folkestone he had held a license at Taunton for many years, and bore an excellent character.

Mr. Minter, who represented the owners of the house, drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that they had taken measures to get rid of the tenant as soon as they found there was a complaint against him.

For the first offence he was fined 20s. and 8s. costs, or 14 days, and for harbouring prostitutes 50s. and 8s. costs, or one month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1880.

Local News.

At Canterbury County Court on Monday the case of Wallace v Moxon was heard. It was a claim for 16s. 9d. for repairs &c. to a public house, the Folkestone Cutter, occupied by the plaintiff at Folkestone, belonging to Mr. R. Moxon.

The plaintiff said he took the house from Mr. Moxon and had the work done at his order. When he sent the bill in the defendant refused to pay it. Mr. Minter, who was for the defendant, called Mr. Moxon, who said it was not true that he gave the plaintiff orders to get the work in question done. The bill included the painting of the plaintiff's name on the sign board of the house, and the insertion of two panes of glass in the window.

The Judge said the plaintiff had failed to make out his case, and the verdict would be for the defendant.

Folkestone Express 7 August 1880.

Thursday, August 5th: Before W, Bateman Esq., General Cannon, Alderman Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason Esq.

This was a special session for the transferring of licenses, and in all cases where temporary authority had been granted the licenses were confirmed, except in the case of the Folkestone Cutter, in which Superintendent Gill reported that the conduct of the house was bad and it was adjourned for a week.

Folkestone Express 3 September 1881.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, auctioneers, offered for sale by auction at the Royal Oak Hotel, Dover, the old established brewery known as the West Cliff Brewery, Limekiln Street, Dover, with twenty two freehold and leashold public houses and beerhouses and other property. The brewery, with twelve quarter plant and the Lord Clyde public house constituted the first lot, and this was not sold.

The Folkestone Cutter (leasehold) sold for £370.

Folkestone Express 2 June 1883.

Inquest.

An inquest was held before the Borough Coroner on Monday evening on the body og George Pearce, a labourer, aged 29, who was found in the harbour on Sunday morning.

Syephen Hogben, labourer, living at Uphill, Folkestone, identified the body as that of George Pearce, a labourer, who lived at White Gate, Acrise, and worked for Mr. Clayson. He came to Folkestone with deceased on Saturday, arriving here about eight o'clock. They went into the Swan, where they remained about a quarter of an hour, and then went to the Cutter and stayed there nearly an hour. They went to another public house, where they stayed nearly an hour, and then went round to the harbour. Witness left deceased near the clock house about half past ten or a quarter to eleven, and got lodgings at the Radnor. Deceased was a “little beery”, but there was nothing the matter with witness. Deceased was sober when he came into Folkestone. When witness left him he knew what he was about and could walk all right. It rained hard and that was the reason witness got lodgings. He heard on Sunday morning there was a man found dead in the harbour. His appearance was described, and he went to the police station and identified the body. There was no-one else round the harbour when witness left.

Henry Bailey, night watchman on the harbour, said he was called on Sunday morning at a quarter past five by two young men, who said there was a dead body in the harbour. He went towards the Stade quay, and saw the deceased lying on his belly. His feet were about five or six feet from the quay. He sent for the police, after having felt his hand and found that he was quite dead. The body was placed on a stretcher and conveyed to the old police station. Witness saw the body searched, and saw deceased's watch taken out of his watch fob. It had stopped at one o'clock. It was high water at one minute past two. There were three halfpence, a tobacco box, a dinner bag, and a small book in his pockets. His dress was not disarranged in any way.

Dr. Perru said he had examined the body of deceased at the police station. There were no marks about the body, and in his opinion death was caused by drowning.

A verdict of Found Drowned was returned.

Folkestone Express 14 June 1884.

Thursday, June 12th: Before Captain Fletcher and M. Bell Esq.

Elizabeth Mills was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Cutter public house, and with breaking eight squares of glass, value 16s., the property of George Burnett.

George Burnett said the prisoner went into the house a little after nine. She remained half an hour. During that time she was very riotous and used foul language. He tried to put her out, but she refused to go, and he then went for a policeman. He was gone two or three minutes, and when he got back he found several large squares of glass were broken.

Sergeant Charles Munday, of the Garrison Military Police, said he was in the cutter and saw the landlord trying to get the prisoner out of the house. While the landlord was gone to fetch a policeman she deliberately broke the windows with her fist.

Prisoner said the landlord struck her, and it was while they were fighting the windows were broken.

She was fined 5s., damage 16s., and 3s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' imprisonment for breaking the windows, and 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs for disorderly conduct, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 8 August 1891.

Monday, August 3rd: Before J. Clark, J. Dunk, J. Fitness and S. Penfold Esqs.

Alfred Smith was charged with stealing a shilling from the till of the Cutter Inn, Dover Street, the property of George Burgess.

Fanny Burgess, wife of the landlord, said that morning about ten minutes to eight she went to the till in the bar. She saw there was a shilling and some coppers in it. She took out a penny and closed the till. She left the bar for about three minutes, and when she returned saw the prisoner there. He was reaching over the counter and had his hand on the till, which was open. He said he wanted a glass of ale. She accused him of going to the till, and he said “That has nothing to do with it”. She examined the till and missed the shilling, and then sent for her husband.

George Burgess, landlord of the Cutter, said he put a shilling into the till shortly after seven that morning. There was no other silver coin in it. About a quarter to eight his wife called him. Prisoner was in front of the bar, and his wife said “This man has stolen a shilling from the till”. Prisoner denied it and said “You may search me if you like. You won't find a shilling on me”. He sent for the police. There was a trough filled with sawdust in front of the counter. The floor had been swept, and fresh sawdust put down just before the prisoner came in, and in the sawdust he found the shilling, covered up. He showed it to the prisoner, who said he didn't know anything about it.

Prisoner said there was a soldier in the bar all the time.

P.C. Smith said the prisoner had 8½ d. in bronze upon him. A soldier entered the bar behind him.

Prisoner was a stranger, and said he belonged to Bury St. Edmund's, in Suffolk. He had been picking fruit in Kent. He was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 11 June 1892.

Tuesday, June 7th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Dunk and J. Fitness Esqs.

Thomas Smith was charged with breaking two glass tumblers, the property of George Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter.

Prosecutor said the man was in his house on Monday evening. He missed two glasses and followed the defendant down the street, and saw him take the glasses out of his pocket and throw them against the wall of the Pavilion Shades. He asked prisoner what he did it for, and he was very abusive. He was not sober, but he spent no money in prosecutor's house. The value of the glasses was 4d.

Prisoner said he did not know he had the glasses in his pocket. He had been drinking all day. When he felt the glasses, he pulled them out and threw them on the pavement.

Prosecutor said the defendant went into the house with 10 or 12 militiamen.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d., damage 4d., and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

Folkestone Express 16 July 1892.

Saturday, July 9th: Before J. Fitness, J. Holden, J. Pledge, E. Ward, and G. Spurgen Esqs.

George Burgess, of the Folkestone Cutter, was charged with having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 26th June.

Sergeant Lilley said he watched the house on Sunday morning from 5.30 to 6.45, and saw 35 persons in all enter the house. Defendant was constantly on the look out, and had people in the streets on the look out. He and another constable went into the house and found four men there. Three pint glasses which had contained beer were on the counter, and there was fresh beer spilt on the table in the taproom. He asked the landlord what the men were doing there, and he replied “You can see what they are doing”.

Mr. Minter appeared for the owner.

Defendant said he was very sorry. Trade had been very slack of late, and he gave way to temptation. He had been a licensed victualler for 30 years, and it was the first time he had been in trouble. He hoped the Bench would be lenient with him.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for Messrs. Ash, the owners of the house, said all he had to look to was the endorsement of the licence, and to point out to the Bench that what the defendant himself said, that he had been a licensed victualler for 30 years, and never had a single complaint against him, justified Messrs. Ash in letting the house to him, believing he would conduct it properly. If the Bench desired, they would get another tenant for the house.

The Bench thought it an aggravated case, and inflicted a fine of £5 and 9s. costs, but did not endorse the licence.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Day.

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

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

Adjourned Applications.

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

Folkestone Express 22 October 1892.

County Court.

Tuesday, October 18th:

Souter & Co. v George Burgess: This was a claim for mineral waters supplied to the defendant, formerly an inn keeper. Mr. Watts for plaintiffs. His Honour investigated the items, and as there were discrepancies in the items paid and those credited, he gave judgement for 19s. 6d., payment in a month.

Folkestone Express 4 March 1893.

Wednesday, March 1st: Before H.W. Poole, W.J. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Folkestone Cutter was transferred to Francis Bailey.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Welcome, Dover Street.

This house, otherwise “The Cutter” belongs to Messrs Moxon, brewers. Mr. Glyn said it was a very old house, and doing a fair business.

Sergeant Swift said there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were about 150 houses in Dover Street, and four licensed houses. There had been four tenants since 1891.

Mr. Glyn: It has never been held that that is a ground for refusing a licence. I should like to see the case.

Richard Moxon, of the firm Ash and Co., said the house had belonged to the firm many years – it might be 150. (Laughter) It's value was close on £1,000. It had a very respectable tenant against whom there were no complaints.

By Superintendent Taylor: there have been four tenants.

Mr. Minter: Oh, Burgess was convicted, and they got him out. They wanted a respectable tenant.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.