DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 08 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1875

(Name from)

George III

Latest 1961

47 Fenchurch Street

Folkestone

George III 1951

Above picture shows the "George III Inn" in 1951.

George III location 2020

Above Google image, December 2020, I believe is the rough area that once the pub stood. Please local knowledge if I am incorrect.

 

The beerhouse was originally called the "Dew Drop" and in 1875. was renamed by Godfrey Lepper and in 1876 he applied for a full licence. The building was originally two houses and up to at least 1886, one had to leave the front door of one and enter the front door of the other to get to the other bars, the same was said of the bedrooms upstairs.

December 24th 1885, brewers Leney & Co from Dover leased the house for 14 years on an annual rent of 30 but in 188 decided to buy the premises and did so for the sum of 500. At the sale the premises was described as follows:- being a brick built building with a tile roof, two yards and a W.C. The basement consisted of two cellars while on the ground floor were the public and private bars, a parlour, tap room, kitchen and scullery. The first floor housed a large clubroom and two bedrooms and a further four bedrooms were situated on the second floor.

There has been reference mentioned to a young man who died in a fishing accident who is said to haunt the place, but I'm still looking for that story.

Longest serving licensee of 29 years, Henry Cork ran a "Sick and Dividend Club" a pre-runner of a Christmas Club, for the regulars who paid a small amount each week to be paid out at the end of the year.

Fremlins took over from Leney's in 1926 but the area was considered a slum and by 1939 most of Little and Great Fenchurch Street had been demolished leaving the pub isolated, but the pub manage to continue but did close for a while during the second world war. After opening again after the war, the establishment saw a decline in business and unfortunately closed its doors finally in January 1961. Auctioned off on Thursday, 24th August 1961, the building was demolished and has now been built on again, this time in a newly named St. Michael's Street.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1876.

Notice.

To Thomas Prebble, one of the Overseer of the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough.

I, Godfrey Lepper, now residing at Fenchurch Street, in the Parish of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the adjournment of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, to be holden in the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the twenty seventh day of September next ensuing, for a license for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be drunk or consumed in a certain house, and in the premises thereunto belonging, situate at Fenchurch Street. In the Borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of George The Third, and which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling House.

Given under my hand this thirtieth day of August, One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Six.

Godfrey Lepper.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 September 1876.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before Ald. Caister, Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

This was the annual Licensing Day.

Mr. Godfrey Lepper, of Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, applied for a license for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, and other intoxicating liquors, to be drunk in a house known by the sign of George The Third.

The Bench decided not to grant the license.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1876.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before Aldermen Caister and Tolputt, Col. De Crespigny, and Mr. Clark.

On account of the peculiarities of the cases it was necessary that there should be four to constitute the Bench, and the fourth gentleman could not be obtained until after about three quarters of an hour kept in suspense Mr. Clark put in an appearance, when the following cas was recapitulated:

Mr. Godfrey Lepper, of Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, applied for a license for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry, and other intoxicating liquors to be drunk in a house known by the sign of “George The Third”.

For the applications, it was argued that formerly the house was known by the sign of the “Dewdrop”. Mr. Lepper had completely renovated the house at a cost of about 400, and it may be stated that there is no house near giving the accommodation which can be obtained at this place, and it is requisite that a spirit license should be granted.

The Bench decided not to grant the license.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1877.

Monday, February 5th: Before General Armstrong C.B., R.W. Boarer Esq., Captain Crowe, and Captain Fletcher.

Elizabeth Scott was charged with being drunk on licensed premises, and also with having broken a pane of glass at the George The Third Inn.

She was fined 5s., and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk, or seven days, and 5s. with 3s. 6d. costs for breaking the window, or seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1877.

Monday, February 5th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, and Captain Fletcher.

Elizabeth Scott, a dirty looking woman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, and breaking a window, valued at 5s.

Mr. Lepper, the landlord of the George III public house, Fenchurch Street, stated that about half past one o'clock on Sunday afternoon the prisoner and another woman came into his bar, the former being intoxicated, and entered the back room. Witness hearing a noise there, went to them and told them to leave, as he did not allow women, particularly when intoxicated, in the back room. She refused, and he therefore put her out of the house and closed the door after her. The prisoner immediately thrust her closed right hand through the window of the bar door, and in doing so cut her hand. She then left, and afterwards returned and again behaved in a disorderly manner.

P.C. James Knowles proved taking the prisoner into custody at the George iii, where she was behaving in a very disorderly manner.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, and 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for breaking the window.
 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 August 1877.

Editorial.

Licensing Day was on Wednesday last. Folkestone has enough public houses at present, and any increase to their number is another temptation to the working classes. We can see no objection to the granting of a spirit license to the house adjoining Mr. Langton's Brewery, because it is but the part of a wholesale spirit store. But whatever induced the Bench to grant a spirit license to the house in Fenchurch Street, once known as the Dewdrop? A stone could not be thrown in any direction without lighting upon a public house, and for the Bench to increase the facilities of the drinking traffic in this neighbourhood seems to us a great mistake, and the height of imprudence.

Annual Licensing Day.

On Wednesday the annual licensing sessions were held at the Town Hall, the Magistrates on the Bench being J. Clark Esq. (Chairman), Col. De Crespigny, Ald. Caister, and Capt. Crowe. A wine and spirit license was granted to the George The III Inn, Dover Street, in the occupation of Mr. Lepper.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1877.

Wednesday, August 22nd: Before Col. De Crespigny, Capt. Crowe, J. Clarke Esq., and Alderman Caister.

General Licensing Day.

Applications for Spirit Licenses.

Mr. Godfrey Lepper applied for a spirit license in respect of the George The Third, Fancy Street.

Mr. Minter supported the application, and stated that the house had recently been altered at a cost of 300, and every convenience for the public had been made. A Friendly Society known as the Prussian Hermits met at the applicant's house and there was every need for the license. Mr. Minter put in a memorial signed by persons living in the neighbourhood.

The applicant having made the required statement, and there being no opposition, the Committee granted the license.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 January 1879.

County Court.

Before G. Russell Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Thomas Armitage: Claim 8s., for board and lodging. Judgement for the defendant.

 

Folkestone Express 25 January 1879.

County Court.

Saturday, January 18th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Armitage: Plaintiff is the landlord of the George The Third Inn, Fenchurch Street, and he sued defendant for two weeks' lodging, washing and refreshments.

Defendant denied that he was ever supplied with anything to eat or drink in plaintiff's house, but Mrs. Lepper and plaintiff's son both deposed that he had frequently had bread and cheese.

His Honour said as there were no accounts, he should, notwithstanding the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, give a verdict for defendant, but make no order as to costs.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1879.

Saturday, August 16th: Before Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, and M. Bell Esq.

Mr. Lepper, landlord of the George The Third Inn, Fenchurch Street, applied for a license to have a refreshment booth on the beach on regatta day. The Superintendent of Police produced the printed regulations of the regatta committee, which stipulated that no booth for the sale of intoxicating liquors should be erected on the beach, and the Magistrates at once refused the license.

 

Folkestone Express 14 October 1882.

Saturday, October 7th: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., Captain Crowe, General Armstrong, and Alderman Hoad.

John Gardner, a police constable in the borough force, was summoned for an assault on Amelia Lepper on the 1st October. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mowll appeared for the complainant and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Godfrey Lepper was charged with opening his house during prohibited hours, and Sarah Lepper with assaulting P.C. Gardner. They pleaded Not Guilty.

John Lepper, charged with resisting the police, also pleaded Not Guilty.

The whole of the cases arose out of the same circumstances, and the Bench decided to hear them together.

Amelia Lepper, the daughter of Godfrey Lepper, landlord of the George III in Fenchurch Street, said on Sunday, October 1st she went out of the house, across the road to Miss Hart's, a dressmaker, to fetch a dress which was being altered for her. Miss Hart asked her to get some vinegar for pickling. Her father sold vinegar, and she fetched a pint, and afterwards some more. When she got to the door, a police constable took hold of her. She thought he was a tramp from the Bricklayers' Arms. He said that he wanted her. When he pulled her, the jug fell into the street and was broken. She struggled to get away and asked him what he wanted. He said she must go with him, as a police constable wanted her. She called out to her mother and brother, who both came. Her brother threatened to strike him, and he said “I am a police constable in disguise. Don't strike me”. He went away and fetched another constable, and when he came back Miss Hart took out the pickled cabbage and vinegar in a can, and said “This is what she brought”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I had been across about ten minutes before. I did not carry the jug under my apron. No-one came out of the house with me. There had not been two women come out of the house with jugs. Someone might have been in the house, but I should not know. I took a pint of vinegar across each time. Gardner did not say “What is in your jug?” He asked me for my name, and I said “Lepper”. I did not refuse to let him see what I had got. I did not deliberately throw the jug down and smash it. When they came back, and Miss Hart brought the vinegar, I did not hear the constable say “You are very clever to collect the vinegar after it has been spilt”. I saw mother push the constable in the road, before he wanted to search the house.

By Mr. Mowll: There were two lots of vinegar, one in the can, and the other lot was spilt.

Sarah Lepper, wife of Godfrey Lepper, said: My husband has held a license for 11 years. On Sunday morning I heard my daughter say “Here's a tramp got hold of me”. I had the key of the bar in my pocket, and had it all the morning. When I got there I said “You dirty-looking Pikey, what are you doing with my daughter?” My son said “What are you doing with my sister?” and threatened to strike him, but he put up his hands and said that he was a police constable. The house had not been open.

By Mr. Minter: An old lady came into my house and took an empty jug in and out. An old gentleman did not come, nor an old lady, or a young lady. I don't know how many people came, as we have a lot in on business matters. When the police constable in uniform came down, I asked him what was the matter, and he said “What is your name?”, and “Is that your daughter?” I said “What about it?” and he said “You have been serving beer”, and Miss Hart then brought out the vinegar. I did not say there was nothing the matter. I will swear that I said “That tramp has been dragging my daughter about the street”. He did not ask for admittance. I and my son did not prevent him coming in. I did not slap him in the face, but shoved him (defendant) in the head with my fist.

By Mr. Bradley: The vinegar was kept in the cellar, not in the bar.

John Godfrey Lepper, son of last witness, said: The first I heard of the case was that my mother called me, and I saw my sister lying against the post door. I threatened to strike the man who I thought was a tramp. I did not know he was a constable. From the time he left until he came back was two or three minutes.

By Mr. Minter: I found my sister lying on her side in the doorway, and my mother beside her. The constable was on the doorstep and had hold of her hand, trying to pull her up.

John Wettingstall, coal dealer, of Harvey Street, said: When I reached Lepper's I saw a navvy sort of man ill-treating a girl, as I thought. He had got hold of the girl round the shoulders. I heard the jug drop.

By Mr. Minter: I live not far from this house. I don't go to Lepper's. The girl was standing beside Hart's door. He had his right arm round her neck. Miss Hart's house is on the opposite side of the street. She got away from the policeman. He released her just off the kerb and he ran across and pulled her nearly down. He had hold of her round her neck at her mother's door.

By Mr. Mowll: I have been a Good Templar for five years.

Godfrey Lepper, landlord of the George III, said: I have held a license eleven years without a complaint ever having been made against me. I was not in the house during Saturday night. The key of the bar is as a rule in my wife's possession. We sell vinegar, which is kept in a cask.

Miss Hart was said to be ill, and the case was adjourned for a month for her attendance.

 

Folkestone Express 11 November 1882.

Saturday, November 4th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and M. Bell Esqs., and Alderman Banks.

Godfrey Lepper, of the George The Third, Fenchurch Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 1st of October. Mrs. Lepper, his wife, and John Lepper, his son, were summoned for assaulting Police Constable John Gardner on the same day, and Gardner was summoned for assaulting Lepper's daughter.

The case came before the Court a month ago, and was then adjourned for the attendance of a witness who was ill. Mr. Minter appeared in support of the police constable, and Mr. Mowll for Mr. Lepper and his family.

The particulars of the case will be remembered. P.C. Gardner was instructed to watch the George The Third, and he went in disguise for the purpose. Seeing Lepper's daughter leave with what appeared to be a jug concealed under her apron he accosted her and asked what she had got, and demanding her name. She dropped the jug, which was smashed, and said it contained vinegar which she was taking over to a Miss Hart, who lived opposite. The following evidence was called in addition to that already given.

Elizabeth Hart, a single woman, living opposite to the Leppers, said: Miss Lepper came for a dress I was altering. I requested Miss Lepper to bring across a pint of vinegar. That not being sufficient, I asked her to bring me another pint. She went to get it, but I did not receive it, because the jug containing the second pint was broken on the door step. I saw a man who looked like a costermonger pull Miss Lepper back, and the jug fell.

In cross-examination the witness said she was indoors, and saw all that took place. She did not hear what was said, but she saw the policeman talking to Miss Lepper, nor did she remember saying anything to the second policeman afterwards.

This was the case against the policeman.

P.C. Gardner said by direction of the Superintendent he went on Sunday, October 1st, to Fenchurch Street. It was about nine o'clock. He stationed himself by the Zion Chapel to watch the George The Third. He saw a woman go into the house with something under her apron. He saw her come out. She was then carrying a jug which appeared to be full. About 20 minutes later he saw a woman go in with a waterproof on. She carried something under her waterproof, but he could not say what it was. He drew closer to the house, and the saw a young woman come out and look up and down the street. She had something under her apron. He afterwards found it was Miss Lepper. He stood in front of her, told her he was a police officer, and asked her what she had under her apron. She said “Beer”. He asked her what she paid for it. She said “4d”. He asked her name. She tried to force past him, and he put his hand on her shoulder. The jug was either thrown down or dropped and broken. Some of the contents was spilt onto the front of his trousers. He put his fingers into the liquid on the pavement and tasted it. It was “malt liquor”. It was not vinegar. When he got across the road Mrs. Lepper and her son were standing at the door. He told them who he was and asked to go into the house. The son raised his fist to strike him. He did not refuse to let him go into the house. Mrs. Lepper said she did not care whether he was a policeman, or who he was, and gave him two or three slaps in the face, knocking his hat off. He went up the steps again and was pushed back, both by the son and the mother. He then went for P.C. Pay. On their return he pointed out the broken jug and asked Pay what it smelt of. He said it smelt very strong of beer. Miss Hart went out with a can and said “Here is the pint of vinegar Miss Lepper brought over”. Pay said she was very clever to gather it up after she had spilt it.

In cross-examination, witness said he said to young Lepper “Don't hit me. I am a police officer”. Did not hear Miss Lepper say to her mother “Here, Mother, a tramp has got hold of me”.

P.C. Pay said he went with Gardner at his request to Fenchurch Street. He smelt Gardner's trousers, and was sure they had had beer spilt on them, and the pavement smelt strongly of beer.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on behalf of his clients, urging that if the Bench convicted Lepper, they would be relying more upon the sense of taste of one policeman, and the sense of smell of another, than upon the sworn testimony of four persons, one of whom, Miss Hart, had not the slightest interest in the case. It was not to be supposed that Lepper, his wife, and son and daughter had committed wilful perjury.

The Bench, after hearing Mr. Minter's arguments on behalf of the police, rose to retire and consider their decision. Before they left the Court, Mr. Mowll said he was willing to withdraw the summons charging Gardner with assaulting Miss Lepper.

On the return of the Magistrates, the Mayor announced that they had unanimously decided to convict Lepper of having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and to inflict a fine of 50s. and 16s. costs, or one month's imprisonment. They had also decided to convict Mrs. Lepper for the assault on Gardner, and she would be fined 10s. and 8s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment. In the case of John Lepper, in consideration of his having held his hand when he was told that the man he was about to strike was a policeman, the summons would be dismissed.

Mr. Lepper gave notice of his intention to appeal against the decision.

 

Folkestone Express 14 July 1883.

Saturday, July 7th: Before Colonel de Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness, J. Holden and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Margaret Harrington was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Fenchurch Street, and also with breaking two panes of glass, value 15s. 6d., at the George III, on Friday, July 6th.

Mrs. Lepper, wife of the landlord of the George III public house, Fenchurch Street, said the prisoner went to the house on the previous evening a little before five o'clock. She went to the private bar and knocked, and asked if witness was Mrs. Lepper. She then said something about her daughter-in-law and slapped her face. She then shut the window. Prisoner then went across to the Bricklayers' Arms and fetched some beer. Another woman who was with prisoner took the glass from her, and as she was going into the house again she shut the door to keep her out and prisoner then smashed the windows. She was very drunk.

Henry Lepper, a son of the last witness, corroborated.

P.C. Knowles said that on the previous afternoon he saw the prisoner outside the George III. She was very drunk and shouting and made a great noise. He advised her to go away, but she swore at him. He then locked her up, having a “terrific job” to get her to the station. It was necessary to put her on a stretcher and strap her down.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk and disorderly, and 4s. 6d. costs, and 15s. 6d. damage to windows, and 5s. fine and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 30 January 1886.

Saturday, January 23rd: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The licence of the George III, Fenchurch Street, was transferred from Godfrey Lepper to Edward Harris.

 

Folkestone News 30 January 1886.

Wednesday, January 27th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

The licence of the George the Third public house was transferred from George Lepper to James Harris.

Note: More Bastions lists this as Henry Harris.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 May 1886.

County Court.

Before Judge Selfe.

Godfrey Lepper v Robert Baxter: This was an account between the plaintiff, landlord of the George the III, and builder, of Folkestone, and the defendant, Mr. Robert Baxter, Brewer, of Sandwich, for work done as a builder, and balance of beer account, amounting to more than the plaintiff's claim.

Mr. Bannon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightwick for defendant.

The accounts put into Court were most complicated, and the case occupied upwards of three hours in hearing.

Mr. Bannon explained the accounts and items in dispute very carefully, and called Mr. Lepper, who said he kept George III, and No. 9, Queen Street, where he sold beer &c. In June, 1882, defendant's representative, Mr. B. Coleman, called on him, and the account was then commenced, Mr. Coleman being in charge of the stores belonging to the defendant at Folkestone. He agreed to supply beer at 28s. 6d. per barrel, porter 23s. 6d., stout 48s, ale 48s., and ale 44s. The beer and porter were nett price, but a discount of 5 percent was to be allowed off the other. It was also arranged that all goods should be returned if not saleable, and the full cost price deducted. The book produced contained the account. The payment were made to Mr. Coleman, and the discounts were allowed up to May, 1883. He paid the accounts in various items from time to time, and had never returned any waste to the brewers. All the goods he returned were simply unsaleable, and were merely opened to test them and then sent back if not good. Some of these were only allowed the price of waste, and he claimed the difference on these items, and on such occasions Mr. Coleman entered them in a book. He had never returned any waste to a brewer in his life.

A great number of items under different dates were then enumerated and claimed upon, and disputed by the defendant, occupying a tedious time, which tried the patience of the Judge and all in Court.

Mr. Wightwick, for defendant, handed in an acceptance for 25 8s. 10d., which he submitted was a proof that the correctness of the account was admitted up to June 25th, 1885.

This involved a long dispute, and after a number of accounts had been examined the Judge, in giving judgement, said that discount could only be allowed for prompt payment, or if the works had been carried out concurrently with the supply of beer, but it turned out that the work had been done when the arrears had accumulated up to 200. The plaintiff was entitled to the full price for returns, and the testimony of plaintiff was most conclusive as to the correctness as to the delivery of the goods. Making all the deductions he thought the defendant was entitled to, it reduced the claim to 9 5s. 1d., and as he held that defendant was entitled to the counter claim of 8 6s. 5d., judgement would be for the balance of 18s. 8d. in favour of plaintiff.

 

Folkestone Express 22 May 1886.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.

Godfrey Lepper v Robert Baxter: Claim 25 17s. 2d for beer returned, work done, &c. Mr. Bannon, of Romney, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightwick for the defendants.

Mr. Bannon said the claim arose out of some long dealings of the parties. There was an agreement made between the plaintiff and Mr. Colman, who was agent for the defendant, brewer of Sandwich, for the sale of beer at the following prices: Stout 46s. per barrel, Porter 28s. 6d., Beer 28s. 6d., Ale 48s., and another kind of Ale, 44s. Beer and Porter were to be supplied nett, and on the other beer there was to be five percent discount, and certain allowances for returns. From June 1882 up to some tome in 1885, plaintiff continued to deal with the defendant, and certain cash payments were made, and entered in a book Mr. Lepper kept for the purpose.

His Honour, interposing, said the only dispute seemed to be as to the allowances and discounts. The building account was agreed.

Mr. Wightwick said that was so.

Mr. Bannon, continuing, said the chief item in dispute was discount. In 1883 plaintiff commenced to carry out certain works for the defendants, and from that time to June or July 1885 he continued to carry out works at various houses belonging to the defendant, the total amount being 292 15s. 3d. Off that sum they made certain allowances which brought the amount down to 254 0s. 8d. In the books of defendant he had only allowed for returns his client had made as waste, and they contended they were entitled to an allowance for unsaleable liquor, for which they were to be allowed the same price as they were charged. From May up to the date of the last allowance they had purchased beer to the amount of 449 10s. 8d.

Plaintiff was called and gave evidence as to the various transactions between himself and the defendant's traveller.

The various items in the account were carefully examined by His Honour.

Plaintiff said all the casks he returned were labelled with what they contained. He never returned any waste, but it was always unsaleable liquor. His examination occupied nearly two hours.

Benjamin Colman said he made the arrangement with plaintiff, and it was the same as that usually made with customers of Mr. Baxter.

Mr. Wightwick contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to discount because he had not paid his account monthly. He called William Hopkins, a carrier, who proved the delivery of the various goods.

His Honour remarked that the evidence of Hopkins did not agree either with that of the plaintiff or the defendant, and later on he said his books were of no value whatever.

In reply to Mr. Bannon, Hopkins said none of the entries in his book were made in his handwriting. They were made by a man in his employ.

Mr. Baxter was called, and said he had applied to plaintiff frequently for payment of his account. He allowed discount where the payments were prompt only. There was still 8 6s. 5d. due to him after making all allowances.

In reply to Mr. Bannon, defendant said he drew a bill on Mr. Lepper for 25 8s. 10d., but it was dishonoured. It was subsequently met by work which plaintiff did. He did work for him to the amount of 292 15s. 3d., and extras 65 odd. He saw by the book that discount was being allowed plaintiff, and told Colman not to allow discount when the account got large, in May 1883.

James Slaughter, clerk to defendant, said he tested every cask returned. He could not define what waste was. What plaintiff returned was waste – it was not drinkable. In many cases it was what publicans washed their glasses in. (Laughter) They only allowed discount on monthly accounts.

In reply to Mr. Bannon he said in many cases waste was thrown down the drains.

Mr. Colman was re-called and said he received money from Lepper up to October last. He did not allow discount after 1883 because the account was never settled. Discount was supposed to be given on monthly payments. He could not remember saying anything to plaintiff about discount.

In answer to Bannon he said he had allowed discount where there were running accounts.

Plaintiff was re-called and said discount was never mentioned after the first agreement.

Mr. Bannon contended that the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant, for which it was shown there were only two cash payments, was virtually a payment of the plaintiff's account, and thereupon he was entitled to discount.

His Honour pointed out that the work was principally done in 1885. In giving judgement, he held that the allowance of discount was only a condition of payment within a reasonable time, and in that case it was shown that there were considerable arrears in respect of beer in 1884, and Mr. Baxter's contention was the work was done in 1885 in order to outset the account. He should therefore disallow the claim for discount. After reviewing the whole evidence, the allowances, and counter claims, he gave judgement for 18s. 8d., and expressed an opinion that the case ought not to have been brought. He only allowed the expenses of Colman, who was subpoenaed.

Afterwards, on the application of Mr. Bannon, judgement was entered for the plaintiff for 9 5s. 1d., and for the defendant on his counter claim for 8 6s. 5d.

 

Folkestone News 22 May 1886.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 18th: Before His Honour Judge Selfe.

Lepper v Baxter: Claim 25 17s. 2d. for beer returned and work done. There was a counter claim for a larger amount.

Mr. Bannon appeared for the plaintiff, and opened the case, from which it appeared that the plaintiff, a beerhouse keeper, dealt with the defendant, a brewer, and there was a dispute as to the balance of the account between them, including work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. The points were whether the items amounting to 14 9s. 7d. made the difference between the allowance which the defendant had made and the cost price of the beer charged under the beer account, and further, were they entitled to discount?

Mr. Wightwick, who appeared for the defendant, said plaintiff had disputed the delivery of certain beers, but he would call the railway officials to prove the delivery.

Godfrey Lepper said he was the plaintiff, and that he kept the George III and the Mitre Inn in Queen Street. In June, 1882, defendant's representative, Mr. Coleman, called upon him in Queen Street. He entered into an agreement for the supply of beer, porter, &c. The prices agreed upon were: mild beer and porter 28s. 6d. per barrel net, stout at 48s., ale at 48s., ditto at 44s. less 5 percent discount. There was an agreement made that if anything was returned it was to be allowed for at the price charged. He commenced having goods from the defendant, and the book produced was his account book with Mr. Coleman. The payments mentioned in the book were made to Mr. Coleman. There were entries in that book of discount allowed. From time to time he received certain ales, commencing September, 1882. On September 13th there was an item of beer returned, 1 0s. 0d.

Mr. Wightwick said that was allowed as waste, 10s.; the plaintiff claimed another 10s.

Plaintiff, in continuation, said he returned a barrel, and the description of it's contents written on a card outside. He had never returned any waste in his life to any brewer.

By the Judge: The barrel was returned because the beer was not saleable.

Mr. Wightwick said he found that the amount had been allowed.

The Judge said if that were so there was no need to fight over it.

Mr. Bannon said the plaintiff's ledger and the book supplied him did not agree.

Defendant's bookkeeper explained several entries to the Judge, and pointed out the items in dispute.

Plaintiff was then examined at length as to the items of the account, but the evidence was of no public interest. He had never returned any waste whatever to the defendants. He never received any communication from the defendants as to his returns being waste.

After considerable discussion between the parties, His Honour asked how he was to arrive at what was returned, whether waste or not.

Mr. Wightwick said his clients did not care which way His Honour decided that point. If the other side wanted to be allowed full value the defendants would allow it to save the time of the Court, but subsequently said he would concede nothing.

The plaintiff was further examined on the details of the account. His own account against the defendants was 292 15s. 2d. for work done on their behalf, plaintiff being a builder as well as a publican. That account had never been disputed. In conclusion the correspondence between the parties was read.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said he never made any waste, and it was only slovenly publicans who did so. He had no settlement of account in July, 1885. He had never any account received. The acceptance, produced, was for 25 8s. 10d., and dated July 24th, due October 27th. He gave the acceptance in return for a cheque for 20 from Mr. Baxter, received at the same time, in order to enable him to complete work for him. He had no agreement for monthly payments.

Re-examined: The acceptance was sent to him through the post accompanied by the cheque of 20.

Benjamin E. Coleman said he was formerly agent for the defendant, and resided in Folkestone. He remembered calling on Lepper in 1882 to solicit orders. He agreed with him for the supply of beer at certain prices. Five percent was to be allowed on all accounts settled. Unsaleable beers were to be allowed for at cost price. The accounts were kept by him at the Stores and were now in the possession of Mr. Baxter. The day book would show all returns to the Stores. Witness had the check book, showing what went out of the Stores. He remembered plaintiff speaking about the non-delivery of some ale; it was sent to Mr. Coleman's house, and he informed Mr. Baxter's clerk, and told him to charge it to his account. He further remembered a kil. of stout being fetched away from plaintiff's and sold to another house in the town.

Cross-examined: He remembered forwarding a kil. of porter from Mrs. Tyas to the plaintiff. He sent two firkins of porter from the Store to plaintiff on December 29th. On March 27th, 1883, he sent one firkin of porter. The check produced, dated December 27th, only stated the delivery of one firkin of porter, but the check was not in his handwriting. On April 30th he sent the plaintiff the kil. of porter. He did not deliver the beer himself.

This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Wightwick opened the case for the defendant, and called William Hopkins, carrier, who said on November 2nd, 1882, he delivered to Lepper two barrels.

The Judge: This makes it worse than ever.

Witness, in reply to His Honour, said the delivery book was signed by plaintiff. He gave evidence of delivery of other goods which the defendant was receiving.

Cross-examined: The book was not in his handwriting, and he did not deliver all the goods himself. He had no book in which people signed for the delivery of beer.

R. Baxter (defendant) said he was a brewer at Sandwich. He applied frequently for the payment of the account, which plaintiff got behind with. Discount was only allowed on prompt payments. At the time the cheque was sent, 25 8s. 10d. was due from Lepper, and for that amount plaintiff gave him an acceptance.

Cross-examined: He never communicated with Lepper direct as to the discount not being allowed, but he entrusted Coleman to tell Lepper that he could not allow discount unless the accounts were paid promptly.

James Slaughter, clerk in the employ of the defendant: He tried all the casks of returns as they came, and according to the contents said he made the allowance. He had allowed the plaintiff accordingly.

Cross-examined: He tested the returns by tasting.

Mr. Coleman, re-called by His Honour, said he ceased to be employed by the defendant on October 30th last.

By Mr. Bannon: He never told Lepper he should not allow any more discount after a certain date.

Plaintiff, re-called by Mr. Bannon, said he was never told by Mr. Coleman that discount would not be allowed him.

Mr. Bannon addressed the court for the plaintiff.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said he could not conceive any agreement being made to allow discount on an account which extended one, two, or three years. He was, therefore, against the plaintiff on that part of his claim. The work done was not concurrent with the supply of beer, for, in fact, it was nearly all ordered when the plaintiff was very considerably in arrears. In reference to the other items, he held that the evidence of Hopkins totally failed to prove the delivery of the goods, which the plaintiff denied receiving. The same remark applied to the goods sent to him or sent from the Stores. His Honour then went through the other items of the claim and counterbalance, and in the end gave judgement for the plaintiff for 9 5s. 1d. on his claim, as against the 8 6s. 5d. claimed by the defendant, leaving a balance of 18s. 8d. to come to the plaintiff.

 

Folkestone Express 18 August 1888.

Advertisement.

To Let, George III, Folkestone, a fully licensed house in populous district; free for spirits, good brewers, incoming about 125. Apply to Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Auctioneers and Valuers, Market Square, Dover.

 

Folkestone Express 29 September 1888.

Advertisement.

By Order of the Trustees of the Will of Elizabeth Cattaneo, deceased.

Auction Sale of all that fully licensed freehold public house known by the sign of the George The Third, situate in Little Fenchurch Street, in a most populated district.

Banks and Son will sell by Auction at the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Wednesday, October 17th, 1888, at seven o'clock in the evening.

Lot 1: All that fully licensed freehold public house, known by the sign of the George The Third, situate in Little Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, brick built with tile roof, two yards, and W.C. in the rear.

Containing in Basement – Two cellars.

Ground Floor – Public and private bars, parlour, tap room, kitchen and scullery

First Floor – Large club room and two bedrooms

Second Floor – Four bedrooms

Let on a repairing lease to Mr. A. Leney for a term of 14 years, from the 25th December, 1885, at the annual rent of 30, payable quarterly.

Particulars and conditions of sale may be had seven days before the day of the sale of the Auctioneers, 78, Sandgate Road, and of H.B. Bradley, Solicitor, 52, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 20 October 1888.

Local News.

Messrs. Banks and Son sold by auction at the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Wednesday last the George The Third Inn, Fenchurch Street, for 500.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 December 1888.

Monday, December 10th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, J. Brooke and . Boykett Esqs.

Frederick Webb, described as a plumber, and giving as his address Sussex Gardens, Devonport, was charged with stealing a coat, a walking stick, a pipe, and other articles, the property of George E. Peat, value 2 10s.

George Edward Peat, a grocer, of 11, Dover Street, said he went to the George The Third public house about a quarter to nine on Sunday night. He went into the bar parlour and hung his coat and stick behind the bar parlour door. When he returned he missed his coat and stick. When he left there were six persons in the room, and prisoner was one of them. In consequence of information received, he went that morning to Shorncliffe Station and saw prisoner on the platform. He had with him a black bag, a basket, a bundle tied in a white handkerchief, and an umbrella. P.C. Bailey spoke to prisoner, and he showed him the contents of the handkerchief. Bailey asked prisoner to go with him to the police station, and they all three returned together. The bag was unlocked, and inside was the coat produced, which he identified as his property. There were a pipe and other articles in the pockets.

P.C. Bailey said he saw the prisoner on the up platform at Shorncliffe Station. He asked if he would mind him looking into his parcel. He made no reply, but handed him the handkerchief and the basket. He examined the contents, and prisoner asked him if he were satisfied. He replied “Yes”, but he should like to look into the black bag. Prisoner refused to allow him to do so, but said he would go to the police station. He charged prisoner with stealing the property and he said “All right. I'll go to the station with you”. On the way to the station, prisoner threw the bag on to the road and said “Now look at it yourself”. Witness replied “I have no keys”. Prisoner replied “Nor have I”, but afterwards handed over the keys produced. At the police station the bag was opened, and the coat produced was found in it. There was a pipe and a tobacco pouch in the pockets. Prisoner was charged by Sergeant Pay, and said “All right”.

Prisoner said he went with others to the public house and stayed an hour. The bar was full of people. They gradually went away, until only four were left. He went out, followed by his brother-in-law. His wife was inside. His wife called out “Fred, someone has left their coat and stick in here”. He did not go inside. His brother-in-law said “We might as well have them as leave them here. Someone else will have them if we don't”. His wife came out with the coat, and his brother-in-law with the stick. They waited outside ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and nobody came. They went up Dover Street. His wife took the coat indoors, and his brother-in-law went home. He and his wife went down the street again, and outside the public house they saw a policeman and three or four young men. His wife said “Good God. It's about that coat. I'll go back and fetch it”. She did not know what to do, but said “If I go and fetch it, they'll have me locked up perhaps for stealing it”. She was frightened and said “We're going to Ashford tomorrow. We'll take it with us and send it back by rail to the landlord of the public house”. At six o'clock she started with the walking stick to send back with the bag, saying she would be back in time to catch the first train. He had his breakfast and started for Shorncliffe. He went there because he did not want to wait an hour at the Junction. He did not see his wife, who must have gone on by the train.

Prisoner was sentenced to a month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 15 December 1888.

Monday, December 10th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, J. Brooke, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Frederick Webb, described as a plumber, and giving as his address Sussex Gardens, Devonport, was charged with stealing a coat, a walking stick, a pipe, and other articles, the property of George E. Peat.

George Edward Peat, a grocer, in business at 11, Dover Street, said he went to the George The Third public house about a quarter to nine on Sunday night. He went into the bar parlour. He hung his coat and stick behind the bar parlour door. Shortly after, he had occasion to leave the parlour, and returned about ten minutes to ten, and missed his coat and stick. When he left there were six persons in the room, and prisoner was one of them. When he returned the room was empty. In consequence of information received he went that morning to Shorncliffe Station, and saw prisoner on the platform. He had with him a black bag, a basket, a bundle tied in a white handkerchief, and an umbrella. P.C. Bailey spoke to prisoner, and he showed him the contents of the handkerchief. Bailey asked prisoner to go with him to the police station, and they all three returned together. The bag was unlocked, and inside was the coat produced, which he identified as his property. There were a pipe and other articles in the pockets. The value of the articles was about 50s.

P,C, Bailey said he went with prosecutor to Shorncliffe Station, and there saw the prisoner on the up platform. He asked prisoner if he would mind him looking into his parcel. He made no reply, but handed him the handkerchief and the basket. He examined the contents, and prisoner asked him if he was satisfied. He replied “Yes”, but he should like to look into the black bag. Prisoner refused to allow him to do so, but said he would go to the police station. He charged prisoner with stealing the property, and he said “All right. I'll go to the station with you”. On the way to the station prisoner threw the bag on to the road and said “Now look at it yourself”. Witness replied “I have no keys”. Prisoner said “Nor have I”, but afterwards handed over the keys produced. At the police station the bag was opened and the coat produced was found in it. There was a pipe and a tobacco pouch in the pockets. Prisoner was charged by Sergeant Pay, and said “All right”.

Prisoner at first pleaded Guilty to stealing the coat, but said he was Guilty of having it in his possession. He subsequently withdrew his plea, and said he went with others to the public house and stayed an hour. The bar was full of people. They gradually went away until only four were left. He went out, followed by his brother-in-law, and his wife was inside. His wife called out “Fred, someone has left their stick and coat in here”. He did not go inside. His brother-in-law said “We might as well have them as leave them here. Someone else will have them if we don't”. His wife came out with the coat, and his brother-in-law with the stick. They waited outside ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and nobody came. They then went up Dover Street. His wife took the coat indoors and his brother-in-law went home. He and his wife went down the street again, and outside the public house they saw a policeman and three or four young men. His wife said “Good God. It's about that coat. I'll go back and fetch it”. She did not know what to do, but said “If I go and fetch it, they'll have me locked up, perhaps, for stealing it”. She was frightened, and said “We're going to Ashford tomorrow. We'll take it with us and send it back by rail to the landlord of the public house”. At six o'clock she started with the walking stick to send back with the bag, saying she would be back in time to catch the first train. He had his breakfast and started for Shorncliffe. He went there because he did not want to wait an hour at the Junction. He did not see his wife, who must have gone on by the train.

Mr. Bradley told the prisoner he did quite right in pleading Guilty, because assuming his statement to be true, he was an accessory both before and after, and therefore Guilty of stealing.

Prisoner was sentenced to a month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 3 May 1890.

Local News.

The landlord of the George The Third Inn, Fenchurch Street, died suddenly on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 April 1892.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on the 14th inst., before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk, Pledge and Sherwood, Councillor Spurgen, and Messrs. Herbert and Fitness, John Godfrey Lepper, bandmaster of Lepper's Band, was placed in the dock on a charge of having on the 21st February, 1892, criminally assaulted his daughter, Florence Agnes Gertrude Lepper, aged 16.

The prosecutrix seemed greatly affected, and it was with great difficulty that she gave her evidence. She stated, in response to the Magistrates' Clerk's enquiries, that she was 16 on the 9th of September last, and that the prisoner was her father. He lodged at 39, Walton Road, and she lived with him. They occupied two bedrooms upstairs – one they had their meals in, and in that room her father and Miss Archer slept. They said they were married, but witness did not know if that were true. In the other room, her brother, sister, and herself slept. Her sister was 14 years of age, and her brother 15 years of age. On the day in question witness's brother went out about seven in the morning, and was absent until four o'clock in the afternoon. Miss Archer went out between 11 and 12, and witness and her sister were left alone with their father. The prisoner arose at about 11.30, and sent her sister to fetch some beer from her grandmother's in Queen Street. After she had gone out, prisoner locked the door and committed the assault. After the assault, prisoner told her to go into the next room. She did so. He assaulted her again in a similar manner. Her sister came back about half past one with the beer. She did not complain to anyone that day because she was afraid to do so, but she left home a fortnight afterwards and went to Mrs. Hetherington, a lady who was staying in Castle Hill Avenue. This was because Miss Archer struck her, and her father threatened to be “the death of her” if she said anything of what went on in the house. She had an aunt living at Horn Street, near Hythe, named Hayward, and she subsequently went to her instead of returning home again. She had not been in her home since. About a fortnight ago she told her aunt what had happened.

In answer to the prisoner, witness said she did not make a statement to anyone before, because he told her not to do so.

Dr. Yunge Bateman said he examined the prosecutrix on the 11th inst. He found that an assault had been committed.

Eliza Jane Hayward stated that she was the wife of Richard Hayward, a brewer, living at Horn Street. Her sister was the prisoner's wife, and she separated from her husband ten year ago last December. They reunited twice after that, but separated again. Her niece came to her on the 6th March, at 11 o'clock at night. She took her in, and had allowed her to live with her since. Last Wednesday week prosecutrix made a statement to her concerning the prisoner, and in consequence of that she took her to Dr. Bateman to be examined.

P.S. Lilley deposed that he apprehended the prisoner at three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon at one of the coastguard buildings, near the seashore, about three miles from Lydd. He was working there. Witness said “I have a warrant for your arrest, Lepper”. Prisoner asked “What for?” “For a rape on your daughter, Florence” witness replied. Lepper said “Good Lord, never”. He seemed very much agitated and sat down on a trussel. Witness read the warrant over to him. He said “When was the 21st of February?”, and witness replied “This year; I can't tell you what day of the week it was”. He brought him to the Folkestone Police Station, where he was charged by Sergeant Butcher in his presence, but made no reply.

The prisoner said he was entirely innocent of the charge.

The Bench remanded him until Wednesday morning.

At the Police Court on Wednesday morning, before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, and J. Holden, Geo. Spurgen, J. Fitness, and W. Wightwick Esqs., the prisoner was again placed in the dock.

Mr. G.W. Haines stated that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Minter, who had been instructed to prosecute in this case, and he asked the Bench to grant a further remand until Thursday. The charge was of a very serious character, and the enquiries which were being made would be complete that day. There would be another charge brought against the prisoner in respect of his younger daughter, aged 14 years.

Mr. W.H. Watts, who appeared for the prisoner, consented to the adjournment, and the Chairman accordingly remanded the prisoner until Thursday, at 11 o'clock.

On Thursday morning the prisoner was again placed in the dock, and the case was continued, before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, Councillor Spurgen and J. Fitness Esq.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and stated that he should produce evidence to show that this state of things had been going on for some considerable period – ever since the girl was six years of age. Although Mr. Watts, who was appearing for the prisoner, might argue that the girl was over the age of 16, it would not apply in this case.

Mr. H.W. Watts said he strongly objected to any evidence being admitted which did not refer to the present charge. As to the present charge, he submitted that on the evidence of the prosecution alone the case must fail, as she was over the age of 16, and did not come under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Mr. Minter said he was not proceeding under that Act.

Mr. Bradley said he did not feel disposed to advise the Bench not to admit the evidence. If it turned out to be wrong, when the case went to the Assizes it would be rejected.

The girl Florence was then called, and in answer to Mr. Minter, said she left the service of Mrs. Waller on the 21st of February, and went home at Young's Road. On the following week they left Young's Road and went to Walton Road. On the 28th of February, at Walton Road, he again assaulted her in his bedroom. The landlady (Mrs. Willis) and her two children were in the house at the time. Witness said on the last occasion that it took place on the 21st of February last. She had made a mistake. It was on the 28th. When witness was six years old she lived with her father at the George The Third Inn, in Little Fenchurch Street. There was a baby in the house, six months old, and her father used to sleep with her younger sister. Three or four times he criminally assaulted witness at that age. The baby died when it was ten months old, and he ceased to interfere with her until she was nine years old, when he went to her in her bedroom one Sunday afternoon after the house was closed, and assaulted her. She cried very much. Just before her tenth birthday she went to a home in London, where she stayed two years, and came home on the 15th of November. Her father was then renting two bedrooms at Garden Road. The same night as she came home he assaulted her, and again a few days afterwards. They moved from Garden Road to Ship Street, where they lived some three months, and then moved to 124, Dover Road. They remained there a few months and then lived at St. John's Street. From there they moved into Dover Street, and thence to Young's Road and Walton Road. He assaulted her in Dover Street and St. John's Street several times.

Mr. Minter said there was another charge against the prisoner of having debauched another daughter. It really seemed to horrible to mention, when they saw that the girl was only 13 years of age on the 1st of last July.

Annie Elizabeth Lepper was then called. From her appearance she looked about nine years of age, but she stated that she was 13 last July. She had always lived at home with her father. Sometimes he had been away from Folkestone at work, and then she lived with her grandmother at 9, Queen Street. In February of this year she was living with her father at 4, Young's Road, and remembered her sister Florence coming home from service from Mrs. Waller's on the Monday. On the previous Wednesday her father was out of work, and she did not go to school, as she was not very well. Miss Archer was living in the house. She was supposed to be her father's wife. On the Wednesday morning, whilst witness was making the beds, her father came into the room, and afterwards committed the criminal assault complained of. He told her not to tell anybody or she would get locked up and himself as well. When her sister Florrie came home on the Monday she told her what had occurred.

Dr. Yunge Bateman was called, and gave medical evidence, certifying that a criminal assault had been committed.

Mrs. Hayward was again called, and said that in consequence of a statement made by her she got possession of her other niece, Annie Elizabeth, who had just been called. She was born on the 1st of July, 1878. Witness took her to Dr. Bateman for examination.

The prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed for trial on both charges at the next Assizes for Kent.

Mr. Minter said he was pleased to say that Mrs. Hayward had succeeded in getting both girls into a home where they would be well cared for.

The Bench granted bail in sureties of 50 by two substantial house holders, and the prisoner in 100 in each case.

The prisoner was removed below, and was hissed as he left the court.

 

Folkestone Express 23 April 1892.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Thursday, John Godfrey Lepper, a carpenter, and who for some time past has been the leader of a small street band, was charged with assaulting his daughter, Florence Agnes Gertrude, aged 16 years. Evidence was given by the girl, Dr. Yunge Bateman, and Eliza Jane Hayward, the wife of a groom, residing at Horn Street, and the prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday, when he was again brought up. Mr. Haines, who appeared for Mr. Minter, said that gentleman was unable to be present, but enquiries were being made which would be completed by the next day, and he asked for a further remand, which was granted. On Thursday eveidence was produced to show that the prisoner had ill-treated his daughter, Florence, at various times and places since she was a child six years of age, and a most revolting state of things was disclosed. At the close of the case in respect of the girl Florence, the prisoner was further charged with misconduct with another daughter, a little girl named Annie Elizabeth, aged 13, who looked younger. The particulars were altogether too bad to be published. The prisoner was, after a very long investigation, committed for trial at the Assizes on both charges, Mr. H.W. Watts, who appeared for him, reserving his defence.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 April 1892.

Local News.

On Thursday the man Lepper was charged on remand before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, Councillor Spurgen, and Mr. Fitness.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution, and ably discharged a most painful duty in the examination of the prisoner's daughters.

Mr. H. Watts, who appeared in his defence, dispensed with any cross-examination, and reserved his defence.

It will suffice for us to record that he was fully committed for trial on two charges, but we cannot refrain from expressing surprise that an application for bail was for a moment entertained. Happily it was fixed in amounts that the fellow is not likely to be able to find.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 July 1892.

Kent Summer Assizes.

At the Kent Summer Assizes held at Maidstone on Wednesday, John Godfrey Lepper, 35, a carpenter, was indicted for committing a rape on his own daughter, Florence Agnes Gertrude Lepper, at Folkestone, on the 28th February last.

Mr. Matthews appeared to prosecute. Mr. Biron, at the request of His Lordship, defended the prisoner.

The prosecutrix, a prepossessing looking girl, aged 16, gave her evidence with calmness and self-possession. This showed that the prisoner seized, and although she resisted, effected his purpose.

In answer to His Lordship, the prosecutrix corrected the latter portion of her evidence, and said that she was a consenting party to what had taken place.

His Lordship said that after this admission the charge of rape could not be sustained, and he directed the jury to find the prisoner Not Guilty.

The prisoner was then indicted for carnally knowing, against her will, his daughter, Annie Elizabeth Lepper, age 11, on the 10th February last.

The evidence of the child left no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner. She added that the latter told her to say nothing of what had taken place, or she would be locked up. The housekeeper, it appeared, was out at the time.

For the defence, Mr. Biron called the prisoner, who denied that he had at any time acted improperly to the child. He was not at home on the day when the alleged offence took place.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matthews: On the 10th February he was at Lydd working at his trade. The prisoner then produced a paper certifying the number of hours during which he worked on the 10th February at Lydd. These amounted to 13.

Charlotte Archer, the housekeeper to the prisoner, proved that he was not at home on the 10th February, being at work at Lydd.

Chas. Lepper, aged 16, a son of the prisoner, proved that his father left home at six o'clock on each day of the week referred to, and did not return till night.

His Lordship concisely summed up the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. After an absence of 20 minutes they returned to Court with a verdict of Guilty.

The prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 9 July 1892.

Local News.

At the Assizes on Wednesday, John Godfrey Lepper was indicted for criminally assaulting his two daughters. It will be remembered that the case was of a most revolting character, but it appears that, had not the prisoner been committed on the charge of assaulting his younger child, who is of very tender years, he would have escaped punishment. The Judge ruled that the charge in respect of the elder girl could not be sustained, as she appeared to consent; the jury convicted the prisoner of the assault on the younger child, and the prisoner was sentenced to two years' hard labour.

 

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 13 July 1892.

En Passant.

John Godfrey Lepper, a bandsman, was on Wednesday last sentenced to two years' hard labour for criminally assaulting his daughter, a child of tender years. There was another charge against the prisoner, but the judge ruled that it could not be sustained, hence a remarkably light sentence for an unusually heinous offence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 July 1892.

Letter.

Dear Sir,

In your next issue will you oblige by amending the report in your paper of July 9th. It was Charles Lepper who left home for his work at 6 a.m., and did not return until 9 a.m. John Godfrey Lepper went to work at Lydd, which is nearly 18 miles from Folkestone, on Monday, February 8th, and did not return until late on Saturday, February 13th. It was impossible for him to do so, there not being any conveyance so that he might be at his work at 6 a.m.

Yours faithfully,

Godfrey Lepper.

9, Queen Street,

Folkestone. July 21st, 1892.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 April 1901.

Tuesday, April 9th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Swoffer, Pursey, Herbert, and Vaughan.

Eliza Shelton appeared at the Court on Tuesday morning in a new role, having on this occasion to answer a charge of window breaking.

Eliza Betts, 20, Fenchurch Street, said on Monday evening her husband went to the George III to get some beer. Prisoner swore at him, followed him home, and broke the front room window, the value of which was 1s. 6d. Eliza's language at the same time was not the most ladylike.

Prisoner said that Mrs. Betts struck her first. She then lost her temper and broke the window.

The Chief Constable proved five previous convictions.

Fined 10s., costs 4s. 6d., and damage 1s. 6d., or 14 days'. The fine was paid.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 June 1903.

Wednesday, June 17th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

An application was made for the temporary transfer of the licence of the George III, Little Fenchurch Street from Mrs. Sanders to Mr. Henry Cork. Mr. Cork has managed the business for four years. The transfer was granted.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority, full transfers of licences in relation to the following houses were granted:- The George III Inn, from Mrs. Sarah Saunders to Mr. T. Cork.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The licence of the George III Inn was transferred from Sarah Sanders to Henry Tomlin Cork.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The following licence was transferred: George III, Little Fenchurch Street, from Mrs. Sarah Sanders to Mr. Henry Cork.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 November 1907.

Local News.

Many Folkstonians will regret to hear of the death of Mr. Henry Tomlin Cork, the popular landlord of the George the Third Inn, Little Fenchurch Street. For eighteen years Mr. Cork has resided in Folkestone, and during that time he made many friends. For eight years he resided in Little Fenchurch Street, and formerly lived for a number of years at 70, Foord Road. He was only ill for a few days, passing away on Tuesday at the Victoria Hospital. He was a member of the Dover Oddfellows, besides being an honorary member of No. 9 Lodge Prussian Hermits and the Druids. He was further connected with the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and was well known, being esteemed by all with whom he associated. He was in the employ of Mr. F.I. Ramell as a coach trimmer. The funeral takes place on Monday at 3 p.m. at the Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Messrs. Herbert, Fynmore, Boyd, Carpenter, and Leggett.

The licence of the George III was transferred to Mrs. Esther Cork, widow of the late landlord.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. Watts made an application for the transfer of the licence of the George the Third from the late Mr. Cork to his widow. Mr. Cork's son would, he said, assist in the management of the house.

The Chief Constable said he should like to ask whether, having regard to their experience, it was advisable to transfer the licence to a female? He had nothing to say against Mrs. Cork.

The Chairman said in the instance referred to the woman was married. The application was granted.

Note: This transfer is not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, Messrs. W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

Mr. Watts applied for the transfer of the George III Inn from the late Mr. Cork to Mrs. E. Cork. He said that Mrs. Cork had appointed her son as manager.

The Chief Constable raised the question whether it was advisable to transfer this licence to a female.

Mr. Watts said that the late Mr. Cork had other business while he was alive, and the appellant used to manage the business of the public house herself.

The application was granted.

Note: This transfer does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 8 August 1914.

Monday, August 3rd: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, E.T. Morrison, W.J. Harrison, A. Stace, and C.E. Mumford Esqs.

Francis John Maidment was charged with stealing six woollen mats in Wear Bay Road on Saturday.

Eleanor Hogben, a charwoman, of 10, East Street, said she was employed on Saturday at 11, Wear Bay Road, by Miss Louisa Remnant. She placed the mats in the back yard of the house about half past eleven. Later she went into the yard and the mats had gone. She saw Mrs. Cozzi, of Beach Street, who handed her the mat produced. The mats were valued at 34/6 and were Miss Remnant's property.

Teresa Cozzi, wife of Antonio Cozzi, of 9, Beach Street, said on Saturday about one o'clock she met the prisoner in Radnor Street. He was carrying the mat (produced) in his hand, and also a bulky bag on his back. He said “Would you like to buy this mat for sixpence?” She replied “No, I don't want it. It is no use to me”. He put the mat on the ground and said “Give me twopence, please”. She gave him the twopence, and the prisoner left the mat on the pavement and walked away. She picked it up and took it home.

The Clerk: It is rather a cheap way of getting a mat.

Witness: I did not want it, bit it would be silly to leave it on the ground for other people to take it. Proceeding, she said Mrs. Hogben came to her later, and from what she said she had at once handed the mat over to her. She had never seen the prisoner before.

Henry William Cork said he resided with his mother, who kept the George the Third, and assisted her in the work. The prisoner came into the public bar on Saturday afternoon shortly after two with the five woollen mats (produced). Prisoner said “Would you care to buy a few mats, guv'nor?” Witness was serving a customer at the time, and the prisoner repeated the question two or three times. Maidment was a stranger to him. After worrying him several times he (witness) asked him what the price was, and he placed two of them aside and said “One shilling”. He replied “I don't know that I want them”, and he placed a third mat with the other two, and said he could have the three for 1/4. He bought them for that money, and eventually took them out in the back yard and hung them on the line. When he returned into the bar the prisoner was still there. He served several customers, and the two remaining mats were on the counter. Prisoner said “Well, you may as well buy the other two”. He asked him what he would take for them, and he replied “Ninepence”, which he paid for the two mats. He placed them on the line in the back yard. He looked at the mats before he purchased them.

The Clerk: You did not pay too much for them?

Witness: The usual price for such mats from caravans is sixpence or eightpence. They were not very good mats. Continuing, he said the prisoner remained and had a drink, and a few minutes later Det. Sergeant Johnson came in. From what the officer said to him he handed the five mats to him, and Johnson then arrested the prisoner.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on Saturday, from information received, he went to the George the Third, in Fenchurch Street, where he saw the last witness in the bar, and from what he said to him he handed him the five woollen mats produced. He then went to the prisoner, who was sitting in the public bar, and showed him the five woollen mats. He cautioned him, and told him he would be charged with stealing them from No. 11, Wear Bay Road, the property of Miss Remnant. He replied “I did”. He brought the prisoner to the police station, and the six mats were later identified by Mrs. Hogben, and subsequently by Miss Remnant. Prisoner had a sack and two fish bags in his possession.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said if the Magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the prisoner, he asked them to commit the prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was then committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

The Mayor said the Magistrates wished to express their regret at the readiness with which people in the town bought things which they must know must be considerably under their value. The five mats, which were at least valued at 25/-, were bought for 2/1. If there were not so many ready receivers in the town there would not be so many thieves.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 August 1914.

Monday, August 3rd: Before The Mayor, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

Francis John Maidment was charged with stealing six woollen mats.

Mrs. Hogben, a charwoman, stated that on Saturday last she was employed at 11, Wear Bay Road, at the residence of Mrs. Louisa Remnant. About 11.30 she placed six mats out in the back yard, and later when she went out for them they were gone. Susequently she saw Mrs. Cozzi, of Beach Street, who handed over one of the mats to her.

Mrs. Cozzi, wife of Antonio Cozzi, an ice cream vendor, said on Saturday prisoner, in Radnor Street, asked her if she wanted to buy some mats. At first she refused, but after accused had lowered his price to twopence she bought a mat. He had at the time a bundle on his back. Later in the day she saw Mrs. Hogben, and after what she said witness handed over the mat she had purchased.

Henry William Cork, residing with his mother at the George III Inn, deposed that on Saturday prisoner came into the public bar and put on the counter several mats, asking witness if he would care to buy two of them. Witness asked him how much he wanted for them, and prisoner said he would take 1s. for two. Witness told him he did not want them, and then prisoner said he would let him have three for 1s. 4d. Witness gave him 1s. 4d., and put the mats out on the line. Returning, he served several people, and then accused asked him if he would buy the other two remaining mats, saying he would take 9d. for them. Witness gave him the money. Prisoner stayed in the bar for some time and had a drink. Whilst he was there Det. Sergt. Johnson came in, and after making enquiries of witness, he arrested prisoner.

Det. Sergt. Johnson deposed that on Saturday he went to the George III Inn in Fenchurch Street. There he saw the last witness, and from what passed between them he told prisoner who he was. He showed prisoner the mats and cautioned him, and took him to the police station. When charged accused replied “I did”. Later the six mats were identified by Mrs. Hogben and subsequently by Mrs. Remnant.

The Chief Constable wished the prisoner to be sent to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

The Mayor, in sending prisoner to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions, said it was a lamentable fact that people in this town should buy goods for so cheap a price when they must know something was wrong. Those mats were worth something like 25s. and they had been bought for 2s. 1d. If there were not so many ready receivers in the town there would not be so many thieves.

 

Folkestone Express 3 October 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, September 28th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, aged 68, a tailor, pleaded Guilty to stealing six doormats valued at 1 14s. 6d., the property of Miss Remnant, on August 1st.

Mr. L.S. Fletcher prosecuted. In detailing the case, he said it was an extremely simple one, but there was one very remarkable circumstance about it, and that was the way in which the prisoner succeeded in disposing of those doormats. He seemed to have disposed of one to Mrs. Cozzi, who had never seen him before, for twopence. He then took the five remaining mats to a public house, where the son of the licensee, who had never seen him before, gave him 1/4 for three,, and then bought the remaining two for ninepence.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were several convictions for felony against the prisoner dating back to 1888, when on October 20th he had three months at Dorking for stealing. On October 5th, 1891, 21 days' hard labour for stealing; 3rd March, 1892, 18 months at Surrey Sessions for housebreaking; 7th August, 1894, one month at Lambeth; 30th March, 1895, ten days for stealing; in 1897, 14 days for stealing; 17th May, 1902, two months for stealing at Taunton; 8th April, 1904, three years' penal servitude at West Kent Sessions; on 29th November, 1906, three months at Aldershot for failing to report himself; on July 13th, 1912, at those Sessions, twelve months' hard labour for stealing a window blind.

The Recorder asked why the prisoner was not prosecuted as an habitual criminal.

Mr. Fletcher said that was not for him to say, but there had hitherto been a considerable difficulty in getting the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in such cases.

The Chief Constable, in reply to the Recorder, said the man was liberated from prison in May, 1913. Maidment was a man who tramped the country, and stayed in lodging houses.

Mrs. Teresa Cozzi, wife of an ice cream vendor, was called, and in reply to the Recorder she said she did not but the mat. She gave him twopence, and the prisoner left the mat on the floor. She gave him the money out of charity, and when the prisoner went she picked the mat up. She had it in her hands a quarter of an hour down Radnor Street, and then took it home.

The Recorder: Do you often buy things like that?

Witness: No.

The Recorder: You ought to be standing there where he (prisoner) is. It passes my comprehension why charges should not be made against you. If I had the power I would order a bill of indictment to go before the jury. I disallow your expenses. Get out of the Court and out of the way.

Henry William Cork was also called. He said he did not know the prisoner. He had never bought mats in that sort of way from a stranger before. He reason why he did so that time was a fortnight before they had put some new lino on the side of the bar, and it was slippery. The prisoner came into the bar, and he took the mats to be the usual type of mat sold by individuals who came round their neighbourhood.

The Recorder: You gave him at the rate of 5d. a mat for them. What did you do with them?

Witness: I carried them in the back yard and hung them on the line.

The Recorder: A good place for them.

Witness: Yes, because they smelt obnoxious.

The Recorder: I think your conduct is disgraceful. I think you ought to be standing there, too, with that man. Anyone could have seen the mats were worth more. If there were no receivers there would be no thieves. I am surprised to think that a man, the son of a licensee of a public house, should go and do such a thing as this. Stand down. I disallow all your expenses. Get out of Court.

Prisoner said he stole the mats through starvation. He sold the mat to Mrs. Cozzi to get twopennyworth of bread and cheese.

The Recorder said he was going to give the prisoner another chance. He gave it to him to mark his sense of the way in which he found so ready a market to dispose of the mats. He would have to go to prison for six months.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, September 28th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, aged 68, a tailor, against whom the Grand Jury found a true bill, was indicted for feloniously stealing six door mats, valued 1 14s. 6d., at Folkestone, on August 1st, 1914. He pleaded Guilty, and also admitted being previously convicted of felony at Folkestone Quarter sessions on July 13th, 1912.

Mr. Fletcher, who appeared for the prosecution, said the case was a simple one, but he desired to call attention to the very easy way in which the prisoner succeeded in disposing of the door mats. He seemed to have disposed of one to a Mrs. Cozzi, who had never seen him before in her life, for twopence, after first asking sixpence for it. He then took the five remaining mats to a public house, where the son of the licensee, who had never seen him before in his life, gave him eventually 1s. 4d. for three, and bought the remaining two for 9d. So that those six mats, valued at 34s. 6d., were sold to two persons who had never seen the prisoner before for 2s. 3d.

The Chief Constable stated that there were several convictions for felony against the prisoner, dating back to 1888. His convictions included nine for stealing and one for housebreaking. In April, 1904, he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude at the West Kent Quarter Sessions for stealing, and in 1906 was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for failing to report. In July, 1912, he was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour at Folkestone Quarter Sessions for stealing in the Borough.

The Recorder: Why was this man not prosecuted as an habitual criminal?

Mr. Fletcher said he did not know, but there was a considerable difficulty in getting the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute under the Act.

In reply to the Recorder, the Chief Constable said the prisoner was not a Folkestone man. He was a man who tramped the country. He came to Folkestone and stayed for a time in lodging houses, and then went off again.

The Recorder: He gives a lot of trouble.

Mrs. Cozzi was called, and the Recorder inquired how she came to buy the mat for twopence.

Mrs. Cozzi said she did not buy it. She gave the prisoner twopence out of charity, and he left the mat on the floor. As he went without the mat she took it. She did not know the value of it. She did not look at it.

The Recorder: Do you often buy things like that? Don't you do it again. You ought to be standing there where the prisoner is. It passed his comprehension why a charge was not made against people like her. He disallowed her expenses, and told her to get out of the Court.

Mr. Henry William Cork was also called, and in answer to the Recorder said he did not know prisoner.

Do you often buy things in this sort of way from strangers? – Never before.

Then why did you do it this time? – Witness said he took prisoner for the usual type of caravan man.

The Recorder said the witness's conduct was disgraceful, and he ought to be standing in the dock with the prisoner. To buy a mat like that for fivepence, when everybody who saw them would know they were worth more! If there were no receivers, there would be no thieves. He was surprised that a man who was the son of a licensee should do such a thing as that. He disallowed his expenses, and told him to get out of the Court.

Prisoner said he was driven to steal the mats through starvation.

The Recorder said he would give the prisoner another chance, to make his sense of what Counsel for the Crown had said as to there being an easy and ready market for stolen goods in the Borough. He sentenced prisoner to six months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 24 May 1919.

Thursday, May 22nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman G. Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Mr. E. Condy, and Mr. W. Griffin.

Mary Ann Williams was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous evening.

P.C. Whitehead said he saw the prisoner about eight o'clock at the bottom of Seagate Street. She was drunk and causing a crowd to assemble owing to her conduct. He advised her to go away and she went up Fenchurch Street, and into the George the Third public house. She was, however, ejected by the landlady's son, and then attempted to smash the windows with two umbrellas she was carrying. He, therefore, took her into custody, and another constable and himself had a difficult job to get her to the police station.

Prisoner said she had only two small sunshades and could not break any windows with them.

P.C. Kettle said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was very drunk and used very obscene language.

Williams said she was very sorry. Her husband was so bad to her that she got some drink. She was nearly blind, and if they would give her another chance she would not drink any more.

Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said the prisoner was a perfect nuisance. She had been there no less than 20 times previously, 18 being for drunkenness. In June last she was sent to prison for a month.

The Chairman said the prisoner's record was a bad one. They were going to deal leniently with her, and she would be fined 10s., or 14 days' hard labour. A week would be allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 16 August 1919.

Wednesday, August 13th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Col. Owen, Councillor Stace, Rev. Epworth Thompson, and Mr. Swoffer.

The following transfer of licence was granted: the George Third public house, from Mrs. Cork to Mr. Henry William Cork.

Note: No record of Mrs. Cork or Henry William Cork at George III in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 12 May 1923.

Local News.

All the matches in the Folkestone Dart League have been completed, and the George the Third team have won the splendid cup with 16 points. The league has aroused much enthusiasm, and there has been keen competition amongst the various teams. The date and place of the presentation of the cup, and the final placing will be given next week. Mr. H. Cork has carried out the duties of Secretary in an admirable manner.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 June 1923.

Friday, June 8th: Before Mr. G. Boyd and other Magistrates.

George Knox, of Fenchurch Street, was summoned for consuming intoxicating liquor on certain licensed premises, the George III, during prohibited hours. Henry William Cork, the licensee, was summoned for aiding and abetting.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) stated that Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, who had been instructed to defend, had asked for an adjournment until next week, and the Bench agreed to defer the case until next Friday.

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1923.

Local News.

A meeting of the Folkestone dart League was held at the George III, Little Fenchurch Street, on Monday afternoon, those present being the Chairman, Mr. Roy Smiles (White Lion), the Secretary, Mr. Cork (George III), Mrs. Summerfield (Royal Standard), Mr. Aird (Valiant Sailor), Mr. Mason (Shakespeare), Mr. MacEvett (West Cliff Shades), Mr. Gregory (West Cliff Shades), Mr. Cook (Gun Tavern), Mr. Bean (Railway Bell), Mr. Butler (Globe), Mr. Baldock (Royal Oak), and Mr. Purberry (British Lion).

The Chairman said one of the first points of the success of the League was that it brought men closer together, and consequently there was closer friendship. The smoking concert was very successful. It was up to them to do something for the customers. The darts teams would bring the customers together during the winter months, and he (the Chairman) hoped they would be able to hold a dinner this year. He would like to put to those present a resolution in favour of running a Darts League that year. The Dart League Cup was given to the League unconditionally by Sir Philip Sassoon.

Mr. Cook moved that a Darts League should be arranged for the autumn and winter. This was seconded by Mr. Cork and carried unanimously.

Mr. Cork was requested to carry on the duties of Secretary for another year. He said he would like to resign the position, as he had a lot of other duties to perform. Eventually he gave way and said he would endeavour to do his best.

Mr. Cook proposed Mr. Roy Smiles as the Chairman for the ensuing year, and this was carried unanimously. Mr. Roy Smiles then suggested Mr. Cook, Mrs. Summerfield and Mr. Mason as the Committee, and this was carried.

Mr. Roy Smiles said they were going to try to get a shield from the brewers. If a letter was written to them, undoubtedly they (the brewers) would support them.

Mr. Cook suggested having medals for the winners ad runners-up, limited to fourteen, and said they could also be had from the brewers. The Secretary could be instructed to write to the brewers. He moved that be done. This was seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried.

It was agreed that the competing area would be the same as last year, namely from the Valiant Sailor to the White Lion. The rules were gone through, and one or two alterations made.

On the motion of the Chairman, a vote of thanks was passed to the Press for the help accorded to the League.

 

Folkestone Express 20 July 1929.

Local News.

On Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court several applications were made for music and dancing licences. The magistrates on the Bench wore Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.T. Blamey, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. F Seager, and Mr. W. Smith.

Mr. Cork, of the George the Third, Fenchurch Street, and Mr Fortune, of the Alexandra Hotel, both applied for a music licence in respect of their premises. They said they intended to have portable wireless receiving sets and they desired to use them at times during the hours of opening.

The Chairman said the licences would be granted.

 

Folkestone Express 11 January 1930.

Local News.

The Magistrates granted protection orders to Mr. William Henry Albert Best, of Canterbury, who was taking over the George the Third, in Great Fenchurch Street, and to Mr. Henry William Cork, who leaves the latter house to go to the Red Cow, Foord Road.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 January 1930.

Local News.

Tucked away in one of the narrow and crooked streets of Old Folkestone is a small and unpretentious hostelry, known as the George III Inn. This was known whilst Folkestone was yet a fishing village, where “the forefathers of the hamlet” were wont to meet and enjoy a game of cribbage, whist, all fives, or similar card games.

The last tenant of the George III was Mr. H. Cork, known far and wide as the genial and energetic Secretary of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. Mr. Cork's father was proprietor for many years before the house was taken over by his son. Mr. Cork has now left the old house in Fenchurch Street to take over another ancient Folkestone Inn, known as the Red Cow, at Foord.

Before their departure from the George III, Mr. and Mrs. Cork were the recipients of a handsome parting gift. It took the form of a beautiful inlaid mahogany clock striking the Westminster chimes. The inscription on the clock sets forth in simple and eloquent terms the reason for the gift as follows:- Presented to Mr. and Mrs. H. Cork, George III, Folkestone, from customers and friends, as a mark of esteem and appreciation. January, 1930.

Those who have the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. Cork and his wife will wish them both all success in their new venture.

 

Folkestone Express 16 July 1932.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday granted the transfer of the licence of the George the Third, in Little Fenchurch Street, from Mr. William Best to Mr. George Charles Prior, the son of the proprietor of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. The new licensee has assisted his father for some years at the Ship.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 July 1932.

Local News.

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates granted an application for the transfer of the licence of the George III, Little Fenchurch Street, from Mr. William Best to Mr. G.C. Prior. The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) raised no objection, and informed the Magistrates that Mr. Prior was the son of Mr. G.W. Prior, proprietor of the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 August 1940.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday a protection order was granted to Mr. A.E. Fullager, secretary of Messrs. Fremlin's, in respect of the George the Third public house, the tenant of which was Mr. George Charles Prior.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 April 1949.

Obituary.

The death occurred recently of Mr. Frank Clark, of The George III, Little Fenchurch Street, Folkestone. He was 58. Both he and his wife, Mrs. Annie Jessie Clark, have resided in Folkestone most of their lives. Mr. Clark was licensee of the George III from 1944 prior to which he was employed by Messrs. Leney’s, Ltd., table water manufacturers, of Dover, for over 20 years. During the first world war he served in the 493 Coy. M.T. and 990 Coy M.T. in Egypt and France. Mr. Clark was a very keen amateur fisherman, being a member of both Folkestone and Dover Angling Associations. He was successful in winning several cups and medals, but due to his bad health in latter years lie was unable to continue the sport fully.

The funeral service was at Hawkinge on Thursday.

 

Folkestone Gazette 2 December 1959.

Local News.

Correspondence between the Corporation and the owners of the George III public house in St. Michael's Street is reported upon by the Housing and Town Planning Committee. The Borough Engineer informed the Committee he had suggested that the Corporation and the brewers might agree to an exchange of a small piece of land to permit satisfactory development of land owned by the Corporation north of Bennett's Yard. The owners in reply had enquired if the Corporation would be interested in purchasing the licensed premises, the George III.

The Committee resolved that it did not wish to purchase the licensed premises but that a further approach should be made to the owners of the George III public house, suggesting the exchange of the small portion of land on the lines originally proposed by the Borough Engineer.

 

Folkestone Gazette 5 April 1961.

Local News.

Outline planning permission has been granted to Fremlins Ltd., subject to certain conditions, to the erection of a terrace of three housing units with garage spaces or four housing units with garage space on the sites of George III public house and 1,3 and 11 Fenchurch Street and 2 and 4, Bennett's Yard.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1962.

Local News.

Application by Messrs. D. & G. Mills to build 10 flats, six garages and car parks on the site of the George III public house and adjoining land in St. Michael's Street has been turned down by the planning authority. They say the density would be excessive and there would be overdevelopment of the site.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 February 1962.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Supt. J. Kierans, presenting his annual report to the Justices, said that 37 people were convicted in Folkestone last year for offences of drunkenness, an increase of 15 on the total for 1960. Four of them were for driving or being in charge of motor vehicles while under the influence of drink, a decrease of two on the 1960 figure. Two dozen of those convicted had been drunk and disorderly, and nine drunk and incapable. Among those convicted, local residents numbered 23, vagrants three, and servicemen four. Supt Keirans said that the number of places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the borough was 126, one for every 358 persons (based on the population for the 1951 Census). This total included 90 premises holding publican's licences and two which were licensed for the sale of wines, sweets and cider on the premises. There were 33 off-licensed premises, including 16 shops where other goods were sold. There was also one restaurant licence. “These figures differ from 1960 in that off-licences were granted in respect of the premises at 135, Chirch Road, Cheriton, and 1a, Hollands Avenue”, Supt. Keirans continued. “Publican's on licences were granted to the Hotel Ambassador, Wyndhams Hotel. White House Hotel and the Corner House Hotel. The Military Tavern, which had previously held a beer and wine licence, was granted a full publican's licence. The licence for the George III was not renewed”. Continuing his report, Supt. Keirans said there were 15 transfers in respect of licensed premises during 1961, and 14 occasional licences and 2,044 extensions of hours were granted. That compared with 11 occasional licences and 1,899 extensions of hours in 1960. The total number of registered clubs within the borough was 43. There were 84 premises licensed for music and/or dancing, 27 of which had licences for the use of wireless only. Supt. Keirans added “Three hundred and ninety one visits were made by the police during the year under review, and in addition other premises holding music and dancing licences were also visited. It was found they were generally well-conducted”.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had LEPPER Godfrey 1875-86 BastionsPost Office Directory 1882

HARRIS Henry 1886-88 Bastions

LOVE Henry 1888 Bastions

POLLARD William 1888-90 BastionsPost Office Directory 1891

POLLARD Mrs William 1890-95 Bastions

SANDERS Mrs Sarah 1895-1901 (age 41 in 1891Census) Kelly's 1899Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Bastions

CORK Henry 1901-07 BastionsPost Office Directory 1922

CORK Mrs E 1907-19 Post Office Directory 1913

CORK Henry William 1919-30 Next pub licensee had

BEST William 1930-32 Bastions

PRIOR George 1932-40 Next pub licensee had  BastionsKelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

FULLAGAR Arthur 1940-44 (Holding Manager)  Bastions

CLARK Frank 1944-49 Bastions

CLARK Annie 1949-53 Bastions

EDNEY Raymond 1953-55 Bastions

MORRELL Joseph 1955-Jan/61 Next pub licensee had Bastions

 

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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