DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1815

Folkestone Cutter

Latest 1893

(Name to)

24 (16) Dover Street

Folkestone

 

Sometimes referred to as the "Cutter Inn," and also the "Folkestone Castle" in one published error, this public-house dates from between 1815 and 1906.

Changed name to the "Welcome Inn" in 1893.

 

From Kentish Gazette 27 October 1835.

DEATH.

Last week, at Dover, Mrs Penn, late landlady of the "Folkestone Cutter," public house.

 

Kentish Gazette 30 January 1838.

Death: Jan. 19th, at Dover, Mr. John Wootton Penn, formerly of the Folkestone Cutter public house, aged 77.

 

Southeastern Gazette 5 September 1854.

Local News.

Petty Sessions. Before Jas. Kelcey, Esq.

William Court, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter, was summoned by the police for opening his house before one o’clock on Sunday, contrary to the New Act, but on his promising not to offend again, the case was dismissed.

 

Southeastern Gazette 6 July 1858.

Local News.

On Tuesday the council met again, when it was reported that Mr. Ash, of Canterbury, owner of the “Folkestone Cutter”, proposed to pull down the house and rebuild it. A plan was produced, but not approved of by the corporation, as they required the road to be widened.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 June 1859.

Monthly Meeting of the Corporation.

Present: The Mayor, Alderman Gardner, Councillors Jinkings, Wightwick, Caister, H. Jefferey, Tite, Boarer, James Banks, and John Banks.

Plans prepared by Joseph Messenger, Esq., of a public house in Dover Street, to be erected by Mr. Ash for his tenant, Mr. Court, were submitted to the council for approval. A long conversation ensued respecting the small piece of land which would be given up by the house being set back, and the compensation required for it by Mr. Ash. Our readers may recollect that some time since 40 was offered for a piece of land to be added to Dover-street, but declined by Mr. Ash

Mr. Jinkings was in favour of compensation given.

Mr. John Banks considered the setting back of the house a great benefit to Mr. Ash, and that they ought not to give any compensation; they could not afford to do so, and it would be no benefit unless other property was purchased so as to widen the street.

A resolution, proposed by Mr. James Banks, that the plans be approved of, but no compensation given, was carried by 5 to 3.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 November 1861.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Saturday last, at the Folkestone Cutter Inn, before S. Eastes, Esq., coroner, on the body of a man named Brown, lately living in Prospect Row.

It appeared that he was in a state of great poverty, and on Friday cut his throat in a frightful manner, dying on the same day.

Verdict, “Temporary insanity.”

While the jury were sitting, a very serious accident occurred opposite the house, to a man named Underdown, who fell from the top of a ladder placed against a house for repair. He sustained several severe injuries to his arm and other parts of his body. He was immediately attended by Mr. Fitzgerald, who was at the inquest.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 30 November, 1861.

CORONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was holden at the "Folkestone Cutter," before Silvester Eastes esq., Coroner of the borough, on Saturday, November 23rd, 1861, at two p.m., on view of the body of James Brown, who destroyed himself under the circumstances elicited in the following evidence:-

Mr. William Henry Willis was chosen foreman of the jury, after swearing which they proceeded to view the body in a miserably furnished upper room in a cottage in Prospect Cottages.

After returning from viewing the body Charles Egerton Fitzgerald was called, who deposed he was a surgeon residing in Folkestone; at a few minutes past eight on the previous morning he was called by a son of the deceased, who told him his father had cut his throat; he immediately proceeded to the residence of deceased. On arriving at the house he found him lying in bed in a state of collapse – he was sensible – with a large gash in his throat extending from ear to ear; he was breathing heavily with a rattling noise – respiration much impeded; had almost entirely severed the windpipe; witness attended to him; there had been no considerable haemorrhage; there was about three or four ounces of blood. Witness picked up on the bed the razor produced, covered with blood, with which the wound was caused. Witness dressed the wound and deceased was then able to speak; he said he had done it himself with his right hand; the state of his lungs and his late illness precluded all chance of saving his life. Witness left him at a quarter to 10, and found him dead when he returned about half past twelve.

Sarah Ann Tuff deposed she resided near deceased, who she identified as James Brown; he was about 47 years of age; he gathered water cresses for his living, which his daughters sold. Yesterday the younger daughter ran out into the yard, and called out her father had cut his throat. Witness went into the house and found deceased lying on the bed, with his head over the side; witness said there was blood on the floor. Deceased said “See what I have done” as well as he could speak; witness sent for assistance immediately; he died about twenty minutes past twelve; he complained of family troubles, and would not see any of his children before he died. Witness saw him a day or two before his death, when he complained of his side, arising from a severe fall he had had some time since; he did not appear destitute, as his family brought in a good deal of money by the sale of water cresses.

The Coroner said this was all the evidence he had to offer them. The poor man had been for some time suffering from disease of the lungs, and this sometimes had the effect of prostrating the mind; he thought the most charitable verdict would be one of temporary insanity.

The jury then consulted for a few minutes, and the foreman returned as their verdict that the deceased had destroyed himself apparently being in a state of temporary insanity.

Whilst the above inquest was being held, the jury and witnesses were alarmed by a crashing noise in the street, and upon ascertaining the cause, it appeared that a bricklayer, employed in repairing the roof of a house in the street, had fallen, from the ladder being insecurely fastened up. The lower one, being pressed against by one on the roof, toppled over, and Underdown fell to the ground with the ladder he was on. Mr. Fitzgerald was immediately in attendance, and reduced a dislocation of the right thumb which had taken place; on further examination it was found that he had received a severe fracture of the elbow, but no internal injuries. The poor man is now, however, going on very favourably.

 

Folkestone Observer 30 November 1861.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held before Silvester Eastes, esq., coroner, on Saturday afternoon, at the Folkestone Cutter, on the body of James Brown, Prospect Row. The coroned then called Mr. Fitzgerald, who deposed to having beem 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 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 to the brain delirium would ensue. The jury returned a verdict that the 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 Observer 29 February 1868.

Monday, February 24th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. W. Finn, landlord of the Cutter public house, Dover Street, was granted a protection order for the sale of beer, spirits, &c. until the 1st of April.

 

Folkestone Observer 4 April 1868.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, Captain Leith, and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Transfer of license was granted to Mr. Finn, of the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street.

 

Folkestone Observer 16 October 1869.

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

Mr. Browning applied for authority to sell at the Cutter Inn, Dover Street, as Mr. Finn had refused to sign the transfer. The application was granted.

 

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 Observer 7 April 1870.

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

This was a special session for transferring and granting alehouse licenses.

The license of the Folkestone Cutter was transferred from Moses Browning to William Baker.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 April 1870.

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

The license of the Folkestone Cutter was transferred from Moses Browning to William Baker.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 11 April 1870.

Special Petty Sessions.

A special session was held on Wednesday for transferring and granting alehouse licences.

The licence of the Folkestone Cutter Inn was transferred 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. 7d. 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. 7 d. in my purse.

The 9s. 6d. was taken from the amount found upon the prisoner, and the balance 1 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 Chronicle 6 March 1875.

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

Louisa Smith, landlady of the Cutter Inn, was summoned for harbouring prostitutes on the 19th inst.

Mr. Mowll, of Dover, defended.

P.C. Ovenden stated that on the previous Friday evening he went to the Cutter, and found two prostitutes in the bar with some sailors. He visited the house later in the evening, when he found four prostitutes and other females in the bar. He had no conversation with the landlady on either occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Had been in the force for 20 years, and had particularly watched this, and four houses, because of numerous complaints, but had not observed any breach of the Licensing Act, besides allowing prostitutes to continue in the bar at unreasonable hours.

Mr. Mowll characterised the charge as a most frivolous one, and considered that no case had been made out against defendant. If the Bench thought necessary, he would put defendant in the witness box.

The magistrates expressed it as their opinion that the police had discharged their duty in bringing the case forward, but they thought the constable ought to have warned defendant when he first entered the house. The case was very weak, and would be dismissed.

 

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 40 dozen of ginger beer at 1s. per dozen and 40 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 Chronicle 23 August 1879.

The Annual Licensing Session was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, the magistrates on the Bench being Dr. Bateman (in the chair), Capt. Crowe, J. Jeffreason Esq., and Alds. Hoad and Caister.

The Cutter.

The Superintendent opposed the renewal of license to this house, and it was adjourned in order that the necessary notice should be given.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1879.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, Henry James Liddell, the landlord of the Folkestone Cutter, was charged with being drunk on his own premises. He pleaded not guilty.

Benjamin Barnes, a private in the Coldstream Guards, said he went into the Cutter Inn, on the 14th inst., at about 8.30 in the evening, and saw the defendant sitting in the bar, drunk. Witness called the attention of a police-constable to him.

P.C. Bashford and Sergt. Ovenden having given corroborative evidence, the Benoh fined the defendant 10s., costs 11s., or seven days.

 

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 Chronicle 2 June 1883.

Inquest.

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

Stephen 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 a public house named The Cutter and stayed there nearly an hour. They went to another public house, where they also stayed nearly an hour, and then they 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 alright. It rained hard, and that was the reason he (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 to identify 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 some young men, who said there was a dead body in the harbour. He went towards the Stade quay, and saw deceased lying on his belly. His feet were about five or six feet from the quay. He sent for the police, 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 his 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 half pence, a tobacco box, a dinner bag, and a small book in his pockets. His dress was not disarranged in any way.

Dr. Perry said 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 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 News 14 June 1884.

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

Elizabeth Hills was charged with being disorderly and refusing to quit the Folkestone Cutter on June 11th, and also with breaking eight squares of glass, value 16s.

She pleaded Not Guilty, but after hearing the statements of the landlord and two soldiers she was convicted and sentenced to pay 34s., including fines, costs and damages, or fourteen and seven days' imprisonment.

Removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 August 1891.

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

Alfred Smith was charged with stealing one shilling from the till at the Cutter Inn on the morning of the 3rd inst., the property of George Burgess, the landlord.

Fanny Burgess said she was the wife of the landlord of the Cutter Inn. About ten minutes to eight that morning she went to the till in the bar. She saw a shilling and some coppers in it, and took a penny out and closed the till. She left the bar for two or three minutes and when she returned she saw the prisoner there. He was reaching over the counter. The till was open, and he had his hand upon it. He asked for a glass of ale, and when she accused him of going to the till, he replied “That's nothing to do with it”. She examined the till. There was a shilling missing, and she sent for her husband.

George Burgess, the landlord of the Cutter, said he put a shilling in the till shortly after seven o'clock that morning. There were no other silver coins in it. He was called into the bar about a quarter to eight that morning by his wife. Prisoner was there and witness's wife said he had 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”. Witness 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 entered the bar. He afterwards found the shilling covered up in the sawdust. He showed it to the prisoner and he said he knew nothing about it.

Prisoner, who was a stranger, said he belonged to Bury St. Edmund's in Suffolk, and had been picking fruit in Kent. There was a soldier in the bar all the time.

P.C. Smith said he found 8d. in bronze on the prisoner.

He was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

 

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 8 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 Chronicle 11 June 1892.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday before Councillor J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Dunk, and Mr. J. Fitness, a man named Thomas Smith was charged with breaking 2 glass tumblers, the property of George Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter.

The prosecutor stated that the man was in his house on Monday evening. He missed two glasses, and believing defendant to have them followed him 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 the 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 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 Chronicle 16 July 1892.

Saturday, July 9th: Before Mr. Fitness, Alderman Pledge, Mr. Holden, Mr. George Spurgen, and Mr. E.T. Ward.

George Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter, was summoned for keeping his premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 26th of June.

Mr. Minter appeared for the brewers – Messrs. Ash & Co., of Canterbury.

Sergeant Lilley said on Sunday morning, the 26th ult., he watched the Folkestone Cutter in company with Sergeant Swift from half past five till quarter to seven. During that time 35 persons went in. At quarter to seven he saw four persons enter, and he and Swift then went into the house. One man had a pint glass, three parts full of beer, drinking. Three pint glasses were standing on the counter. They had recently contained beer. He asked the landlord what business the men had there, and he replied “You can see what they are doing”.

Defendant pleaded Guilty to the charge and said he was very sorry it had happened. Trade had been very slack lately, and he was tempted. He had long been a publican in the town, and no complaints had been made against him before.

Mr. Minter pointed out that all he had to look to on behalf of his clients was that the licence should not be endorsed, and he thought the defendant's own statement that he had been a publican in the town for 30 years and had never had any complaint against him was a justification for the brewers having him as a tenant. He asked them not to endorse the licence, as it would punish the landlord for the action of the tenant. If the Bench desired it, his clients would undertake to find a fresh tenant.

Superintendent Taylor said the house had been a very rough one, and a difficult one to manage. He should like to call attention to the great difficulty the police had in watching the house. People were posted in various parts of the street and enquired where the police were, even within the hearing of the officers who were watching.

The Bench inflicted a penalty of 5 and 9s. costs, Mr. Holden remarking that the defendant was not only injuring himself, but the landlord's property. As it was the first offence the licence would not be endorsed.

 

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 Herald 16 July 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

The erring publican is hardly “at rest” just at present. Of late we have had several cases in which these recalcitrant members of “the trade” have had to pay somewhat dearly for their lapses.

On this occasion two of them were requested to hand over a 5 note each, with, of course, the accompanying costs, for having sold liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 26th of June. They were George Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter, and Geo. Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf.

In the first case Sergts. Lilley and Swift proved they saw about 40 persons go into the house between half past five and a quarter to seven. On going into the house they found four men there drinking. And in the second, the same officers stated that they saw eight persons enter the house, and on going in they found them all drinking.

Mr. Minter, who represented the owners of the houses, Messrs. Ash and Co. in the one case, and Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe in the other, did the best he could, but the result was as we have previously stated.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 16 July 1892.

Local News.

George Burgess, landlord of the Cutter public house, was charged at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday with having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday, 26th June. The case was proved by Police Sergt. Lilley. Defendant was fined 5 and 9s. costs, but the licence was not endorsed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 July 1892.

Wednesday, July 20th: Before Major H.W. Poole and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Thomas Baker, Alfred Marks, Patrick Cox, and Henry Dorrell were also summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 26th of June, and pleaded Guilty.

Sergeant Lilley said he watched the Folkestone Cutter in company with Sergeant Swift on the 26th ult., and at a quarter to seven saw the four defendants enter the house. He followed them in almost immediately, and found Marks in the act of drinking beer. There were three pint glasses on the counter containing beer. He asked the landlord what the defendants were doing there, and he replied “You can see what they are doing”.

The Bench imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

On Wednesday Messrs. Poole and Wightwick had their attention engaged with some very ordinary cases, that of thirsty souls charged with having been found on licensed premises during prohibited hours, presumably, of course, for the purpose of purchasing beer. They all pleaded Guilty.

Geo. Brewer and Harry Richards were found at the Wheatsheaf on the 26th of June (Sunday), at six in the morning, by Sergeants Lilley and Swift, and were fined, Richards 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, and Brewer 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, the extra shilling in the way of costs was because he did not put in an appearance, and the constable had to prove the service of the summons, for doing which, however, he does not get the shilling.

Thomas Baker, Albert Parker, Patrick Cox, and Harry Durrell, for being found under similar circumstances at the Cutter, were similarly fined.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Session.

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing.

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

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that they might know the Society's views upon the subject, to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

Adjournments,

The Superintendent of Police having reported that convictions for offences against the Licensing Act had been obtained against the following in the course of the past year, the Bench decided to refer their applications for renewals to the Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28th: Chidwell Brice, Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren Inn; Laslett, Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday, Wheatsheaf Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Day.

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

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

Adjourned Applications.

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1892.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The Adjourned Licensing Session for the Borough was held at the police Court on Wednesday morning, on which occasion considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings by reason of the fact that the renewal of the licenses of several well known and old established houses in the town was opposed by the Superintendent of Police, acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee of the Bench.

The Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.

Mr. Martyn Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the objections of the police, and Mr. J. Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared on behalf of the claimants.

At the opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the business commenced he wished to make one announcement. It referred to something which had been done in other towns, and which the Committee thought it best to do in Folkestone. It was the opinion of the Committe that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they therefore suggested that the owners of the houses should talk the matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to which houses it would be best to close. If nothing was done before the next Licensing Session, the Committee would be obliged to suppress some of the licensed houses themselves. But if the owners would talk the matter over amongst themselves and agree upon the houses to be closed it would save a great difficulty.

The Folkestone Cutter.

Mr. Gatley (sic) applied for the renewal of the licence of this house.

The usual grounds of objection were taken by Mr. Mowll. In this case there were 14 houses within a distance of 100 paces.

Mr. Wightwick: Are there any churches near?

Mr. Mowll: No doubt. There generally is in the neighbourhood of public house. They generally go together.

The renewal was granted, the applicant in this case being a new tenant.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 October 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

Considerable interest was manifested on Wednesday in the proceedings at the adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing Committee had instructed the police to serve notices of six objections. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the police in their opposition by instruction of the Watch Committee.

The Chairman, Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been suggested that the same plan adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was the unanimous opinion of the Licensing Committee that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone and they would suggest that the owners of licensed houses should talk it over among themselves and agree, before the next annual meeting, which houses should be dropped out. The Licensing Committee felt compelled to suppress some of the houses in the town, and if the owners would carry out that suggestion it would do away with a great difficulty and relieve the Magistrates of an invidious task.

The licenses of the Wheatsheaf (Geo. Holliday), the Folkestone Cutter (Joseph Gatley, a new tenant), and the Wonder Tavern (Geo. Laslett), were renewed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 October 1892.

County Court.

Tuesday, 18th October: Before Judge Lucius Selfe.

Souter, Mackenzie & Co. (Mineral Water Manufacturers, Folkestone) v George Burgess: The plaintiff in this case sought to recover from the defendant the sum of 1 5s., balance of an account in respect to goods supplied to the defendant.

His Honour made a minute examination of the multitudinous accounts produced by the two parties, with the result that he found defendant was indebted to the firm for 19s. 6d., instead of the amount claimed, and he gave judgement accordingly. Payment to be made in a month.

 

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 Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it's walls at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it's tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it's everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o'clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen's Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen's Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some 1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than 305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen's Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

Folkestone Cutter.

Mr. Glyn said this was a very old fully-licensed house, belonging to Messrs. Moxon, brewers. The present tenant was James Ward. It was suggested that the house was not required. A fair business was being done.

Note: No record of a James Ward at the house according to More Bastions.

It was stated that there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces of this one.

Mr. Taylor said there were 130 houses in Dover Street, four being licensed. This house had had four tenants since 1891.

Mr. Glyn: It has never been held yet that that is a ground for refusing a person's licence.

Mr. R. Moxon said the house was valued at 1.000. The present tenant was a very respectable one, and there had been no complaint during the past twelve months.

By Mr. Taylor: He knew there had been four changes since 1891.

Mr. Taylor: Do you know what the reason of it is?

Witness: Some of the tenants were evidently not conducting the house to the satisfaction of the police. The present tenant is a very good man, and is increasing the trade.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision.

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates' Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices' Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing.

It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen's Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices' Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John's Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen's Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth 1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than 305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don't know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen's Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

The cases not eliminated by this decision were then proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were called.

The Welcome, or Folkestone Cutter.

The ground of objection to this house was the same as in the last case.

Sergeant Swift found eight other licensed houses in a radius of 100 paces, and of 130 houses approximately in Dover Street, four of them were licensed, said the Superintendent, but Counsel said this could not be held as evidence that the house was not required.

Mr. Richard Moxon, of the firm of Ash and Co., brewers, said his firm purchased the house many years ago, and it's value was 1,000. He admitted that since 1891 there had been four tenants, and he supposed they had been got rid of because they had been complained of. The present tenant was a very respectable man, and there was no complaint against him.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three? I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients' property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of 10 or 15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is 800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o'clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

 

LICENSEE LIST

DUNN John 1815-17 Bastions

PUNNETT William 1817-23 Bastions

DOWNING William 1823-26 Pigot's Directory 1823Bastions

PENN Mrs to Oct/1835

COURT William 1826-68 (age 56 in 1851Census) Pigot's Directory 1828-29Pigot's Directory 1832-34Pigot's Directory 1839Pigot's Directory 1840Bagshaw's Directory 1847Melville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862Bastions

COURT Richard (son) 1861 (age 31 in 1861Census)

FINN Mr 1868-69 Bastions

CLARK Robert 1869-70

BROWNING Moses 1870-Apr/70 BastionsWhitstable Times

Last pub licensee had BAKER William "Alfred" Apr/1870-71 Next pub licensee had BastionsWhitstable Times

Last pub licensee had BOORN John Whittingham 1871-73 Next pub licensee had Bastions

SMITH Mrs Louisa 1873-74 Post Office Directory 1874Bastions (As Folkestone Castle?)

SMITH Louisa 1874-76 Bastions

Last pub licensee had WALLIS Frederick 1876-77 Bastions

ROOTS James 1877-78 Bastions

Last pub licensee had WALLIS Thomas 1878 Bastions

SIDDELL Henry 1878-79 Bastions

HUDSON Frederick 1879-80 Bastions

KETTELL John 1880 Bastions

HARRIS James 1881+ (age 48 in 1881Census)

BURNETT George 1880-89 Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

BURNETT Mary Ann 1889-91 Bastions

Last pub licensee had BURGESS George 1891-92 Bastions

GASBY Charles 1892-93 Bastions

BAILEY Francis 1893 Bastions

Renames "Welcome Inn."

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Pigot's Directory 1840From the Pigot's Directory 1840

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

Folkestone ObserverFrom the Folkestone Observer

Whitstable TimesWhitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room