Folkestone Express 6 August 1881.

Saturday, July 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Charles Howe, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for opening his house for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on the previous Sunday, and George Jacobs, William Roberston, James Bradshaw and John Childs, three soldiers and a waiter, were charged with being on the premises during prohibited hours.

Superintendent Rutter said on the day named, at half past three in the afternoon, he visited the Granville public house, Dover Street, kept by defendant, in company with Sergeant Ovenden. He knocked at the front door four times. Defendant, he believed, came to the door and asked who was there. He replied “Police”. Defendant called to some person “It's the police. Bring the key”. Finding the door was not unlocked, he knocked again twice, but received no reply. Sergeant Ovenden then knocked at the side door, and it was opened by defendant's wife. Witness went into the house, and on the table in the taproom on the left hand side he noticed wet marks of pots on the table. He then went into the back room and saw the defendant, Mr. Howe, at the dinner table. There was also Henry Newman in the house. Defendant's wife said “There is no-one in the house, Mr. Rutter, for I would not even serve a pint of beer this morning”. Defendant said he had been very bad with rheumatic fever and could not get about. Witness asked defendant's wife to accompany him over the house. She did so. They went down to the kitchen, and found a door leading out at the left hand corner, which defendant's wife said was a spirit cellar, and added “You don't want to go in there, it's dark”. He asked her to bring him a light, and the defendants Childs and Jacobs then came out into the kitchen. Hearing a further scuffling in the cellar he went in, and noticed some other people on the stairs. Robertson and Bradshaw, with two other men, went into the room in which Mr. Howe was. He called to them to wait, and took their names and addresses. Defendant's wife said in his presence “They have had no beer, Mr. Rutter, and we didn't know they were in the house. The side door must have been left open, and they walked in without our knowing it”. He told defendant he should take proceedings against him. He said he was very sorry, and hoped witness would make it as light as he could.

Defendant admitted that the men were in the house, but said they had nothing to drink, and called a man named Newman to substantiate his statement.

The Bench decided to convict the defendant, and ordered him to pay a fine of £5 and 9s. costs, to be levied by distress, or in default one month's imprisonment.

In the case of the three soldiers, it transpired that a conviction against them would involve the loss of a good conduct stripe and a penny a day for 175 days. The charge against them was therefore withdrawn on payment of the costs, 8s. The other defendant was fined 2s. 6d., without costs.

Folkestone Express 26 November 1881.

Wednesday, November 23rd: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Colonel De Crespigny, Aldermen Sherwood and Caister, J. Holden, J.B. Tolputt and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mary Ann Smith pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street, and also to breaking two panes of glass, value 3s., the property of Charles Howe.

Charles Howe, landlord of the Granville, said the defendant was refused drink. She then became very violent and committed the damage.

P.C. Reid said he saw the defendant take off her shoe and break the windows. She used very foul language.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and for the second a fine of 5s., damage 3s., and costs 3s. 6d., or fourteen days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 11 November 1882.

Tuesday, November 7th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Capt. Crowe, and M.J. Bell Esq.

Annie Young, a hawker, was charged with stealing a gilt chain and locket, and various other articles, the property of Elizabeth Gomez.

Prosecutrix said she met the prisoner at the Lifeboat Inn, and as she could not obtain lodgings, and appeared to be a respectable woman, she took her to her room at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. She stayed a few days, and after she had left, prosecutrix missed several things, among them being a gilt chain and locket, a pocket knife, a pair of earrings, a pocket handkerchief, a piece of carpet, and two lace falls. On Friday she saw the prisoner at a public house and asked her if she had the things. She denied having taken them, and said she had not got them. On the following day she went to a bedroom occupied by the prisoner, and there found the piece of carpet, which she identified as her property. The value of the whole of the things stolen would be 5s.

Prisoner was remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, November 8th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, and M.J. Bell Esq.

The woman Young was brought up on remand charged with stealing articles belonging to Elizabeth Gomez. No further evidence was offered.

Mr. Minter said the locket and chain could not be traced, and the only article found belonging to prosecutrix was the piece of carpet, which was of very trifling value.

It transpired that there had been a disturbance between the prosecutrix and the prisoner, and after the prosecutrix had been questioned on the point the Bench dismissed the charge.

Folkestone Express 6 December 1884.

Wednesday, December 3rd: Before Alderman Hoad and M.J. Bell Esq.

Charles Hopkins was charged with stealing a black overcoat, value 27s., the property of Thomas Logan, clothier, of Tontine Street, on the 2nd December.

Prosecutor said on Tuesday evening he missed a coat from outside his shop. It had been hanging on a rail in front of the private door. It was there about four o'clock. P.C. Lilley brought the coat to him the next morning.

P.C. Lilley said from information received he went that morning to the Granville Inn, in Dover Street. He found the prisoner in a bedroom there. The coat produced was hanging on a nail inside the door. He asked prisoner if it was his, and he said “Yes”. He asked him where he bought it. He replied “Pringle's, Upper High Street, Margate”. Witness told him it answered the description of one stolen from Tontine Street, and that he must go with him. They went to Mr. Logan's, who identified the coat, and prisoner was then taken to the police station. On being charged he made no reply.

Prisoner said he did not steal the coat. He met a man, who asked him to go and pawn it. He took it to a pawnbroker's and asked 14s. on it, and they offered him 7s. When he got outside with the coat, the man was gone.

The prisoner was sentenced to two months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1887.

Monday, March 7th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

James King was charged with stealing a bag containing £2 14s. in money, a watch guard and two trinkets, the property of William Taylor.

Prosecutor, a fish hawker, living in Radnor Street, said on Thursday night he was at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. Several men were there in front of the bar. He went into the tap room. Prisoner was there. He treated prisoner and a man called King. He had then four half sovereigns and 14s. in a bag, which he took out of his pocket to pay with, and then put it back in his jacket pocket. He stayed till about eleven o'clock, then left. Prisoner was in the room all the time. A man named Johnson, a fish hawker, saw him home. On Friday morning when he woke up he missed his money. On Saturday he went with Sergt. Pay to the Granville about half past four in the afternoon and saw the landlord, who showed him the bag produced. He saw prisoner at the Granville. Sergt. Pay asked if he was at Dover on Friday. He said “Yes”. Pay then asked if he had a watch and chain, and he said “No”. Witness gave prisoner into custody. He identified the trinkets produced as his property.

John M'Kay, landlord of the Granville Inn, said on Thursday evening Taylor went to his house about eleven o'clock and went into the tap room with several lodgers, John Jeffrey, Tom Jeffrey, Charles Wilson, the man King, and another called King, but whose name was Major. Taylor sat down in the tap room. He was not very drunk. He had something to drink. After they had all gone, witness went into the tap room and found a small black bag. On Saturday morning Taylor went to the house with Sergt. Pay and he gave him the bag. Prisoner had been in his service four weeks, his occupation being to play the piano, for which he had 1s. a night, his lodgings and a pint of beer. He paid him 5s. on the 27th February, and on the following Tuesday lent him 6d.

Alice Stanley, a young woman living at Mempes' coffee-house, said she knew the prisoner King. On Friday morning, about ten or half past, he asked her to go to Dover with him. Before she left she said if she was going to Dover she would get her watch out of pawn. She asked a young woman if she had a chain. Prisoner said he had a chain he would give her, and gave her the chain produced. They went to Dover and stayed at the Pier Inn, and returned to Folkestone on Saturday. Prisoner paid expenses – she could not say how much.

Frederick Parsons, assistant to Mr. Logan, clothier, of Tontine Street, said he recognised the prisoner, who went to Mr. Logan's shop on Friday morning and purchased a coat and vest, for which he paid 18s., and tendered a half sovereign and 8s. in silver. He laid all his money on the counter. He had two other half sovereigns and some silver.

Sergt. Pay said on Saturday afternoon he went to the Granville with prosecutor and saw prisoner. He asked him if he went to Dover on Friday. He said “Yes”. He asked him if he had a watch and chain at the Commercial Quay. He said “No”. He then said “Taylor accuses you of stealing some money and a silver chain”. He replied “You must be mistaken. I know nothing about any money or chain”. Taylor gave him into custody. When charged at the station, he turned to prosecutor and asked him if he was aware what he was doing. He was searched, but nothing relating to the charge was found on him. The bag he received from Taylor, and the chain from Stanley. The coat and vest produced he found in prisoner's bedroom.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 14 May 1887.

Saturday, May 7th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Holden, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with keeping his house open for the sale of beer during prohibited hours.

Defendant's brother, who is manager of the house, appeared in answer to the summons. He was represented by Mr. Minter, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared to watch the case on behalf of the owners.

Sergeant Harman said at midnight on the 1st of May he was on duty with police constables Dunster and Bailey in Dover Street. He went to the Granville Inn, tried the doors, and found they were fastened. He heard a number of people talking in the taproom, and money rattling. He knew John Mackay's voice, and heard him in the bar. He also heard pots and glasses rattling in the bar, as though he was serving. He was going to visit the house, but another charge occupied his attention. At a quarter to one he returned to the house, and at 12.55 he heard a door leading into a passage open. He then saw a number of people in the place. The door was pushed to in his face, but he stuck his toe in so that it could not be shut. He told them who he was, and John Mackay said “All right”, but he kept him five minutes or more before he let him go in. He heard the men escaping through the house to the back, into a private yard at the back of another house. He sent Dunster to prevent anyone from escaping. He was afterwards let into the house, and found seven men in the taproom. Four pint glasses were standing in the room – three on the table, and one on the mantel. One was half full of beer, another a third full, and two others had had beer in them. He knew the men by sight. He took their names and addresses. One was named Wilson, a lodger in the house. The others were people residing in the town. One man, named Willson, drank the contents of one of the glasses and said “I suppose we can have some more beer, Sergeant, if we can get it?” Defendant had conducted the business three years and nine months. He told the men they would be summoned, and told Mackay he should report him. He replied “You see, Sergeant, my bar is closed. I hope you will look over it this time. If you don'y, you will ruin me and my family”. He reported the matter to the Superintendent.

By Mr. Minter: He said no beer had been drawn. He did not say the men had broken in after the house was closed. His wife said so. The house was cleared at eleven by the police, but he was not present.

Police constables Bailey and Dunster corroborated. The latter said he visited the house at ten minutes past eleven and told the defendant to clear his house, which he did. He went away, and returned with Sergeant Harman at midnight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: One or two of the men I saw there at ten minutes past eleven I saw at a quarter to one. He had to tell them twice to go.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Mackay had tried in every way during the last five years to conduct his house in a respectable way, and had done everything in his power to assist the police. It was a house which the lower classes frequented, but no offences against the licensing laws had been committed. He said the men got into the house by forcing up a cellar flap, and refused to go away, and while the altercation between Mackay and the men was going on the police came. If no beer was drawn, the charge would fail.

He called John Mackay, who said he managed the Granville public house for his brother, Robert. On the 20th April the house was closed a few minutes past eleven. He closed the bar at eleven, and requested the men in the house to go. P.C. Dunster went in and cleared the house. After they were gone he was waiting for his wages. He heard someone at the cellar flap, which was broken off. He went outside, and when he opened the door the men rushed in. He told them he would charge them with breaking into the house. They sat down in the taproom and would not move. From the time he locked up he never opened the bar or drew any beer. It was after twelve when the men broke in, he thought. He was quite sure he never served the men with anything. When Sergt. Harman went in he told him the men had broken in, and that no beer was drawn. One of the men in the bar was a lodger.

By the Clerk: The men were only sitting down and they refused to go. He went out to the front of the house, but could not see a policeman.

Ann Mackay, wife of the last witness, gave similar evidence.

William Finn, a lodger in the house, said he went out with Mackay to help him put the flap on. The men then went into the house, but no beer was drawn for them. They sat in the taproom talking.

Robert Downie, a plumber, living opposite to the Granville Arms, said the house was kept very orderly.

By the Clerk: He had not complained that the house was a brothel. Three years ago he complained of being assaulted by the opolice, when he complained of a nuisance outside his house. He had never complained to the police about the house. It was only of the manner in which the police used him.

After a short consultation the decision of the Bench was announced by Mr. Holden, who said the defendant would be fined £5 and 15s. costs, or a month's imprisonment, and they further ordered the licence to be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll made an earnest appeal to the Bench to reconsider their determination to endorse the licence. He pointed out that for five years the house had been well conducted, and that his clients had taken the utmost care to find a respectable tenant, who had, as they had heard, altered the character of the house and conducted it in a respectable manner.

Mr. Holden replied that they had allowed Mr. Mowll to make his statement, and the answer was that they had taken the whole of the matter into consideration, and they had inflicted a moderate fine of £5 when they might have made it £10.

Six young men named James Harris, Robert Featherbee, Fagg, Carter, Weatherhead and Wilson were then charged with being found on the premises during prohibited hours, and they were each fined 2s. 6d. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 21 May 1887.

Thursday, May 19th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

William Finn, a lad, was charged with stealing a silver watch, value 25s., the property of George Finn, on the 5th May.

Emily Finn, mother of the prisoner, living at 154, Dover Road, said she had a silver watch left in her custody by her brother, who was now in America. She placed it in a box in a bedroom. Prisoner had been in the habit of coming to and fro the house, but did not live with her. She missed the watch on Tuesday evening.

John Mackay, of the Granville Inn, said he received the watch from prisoner about a fortnight ago as security for money he owed. He said he would pay the money on Saturday.

Sergt. Pay apprehended the prisoner in the race field at the back of Caesar's Camp on Wednesday. He said the watch was as much his as it was his father's.

Prisoner's father said his son was a great trouble to him. He threatened on Saturday to murder him and he was obliged to take the course he had done.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 16 June 1888.

Saturday, June 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Brooke, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

A publican named Mackay was charged with refusing to admit the police, and permitting drunkenness. The summons was adjourned until the following Saturday.

Note: Granville Inn.

Monday, June 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and J. Brooke Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Stephen Gosby was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on Saturday night, and with assaulting P.C. Charles Smith.

Supt. Taylor said the constable was unable to attend as he was suffering from a fractured rib.

Mr. Richard Hills Barwick, grocer, of Dover Street, said he saw the prisoner struggling with a policeman on Saturday evening, opposite his shop. They fell three times, and on one occasion the policeman fell on his side on to the kerb. He went out and helped the policeman put on the handcuffs. The prisoner offered no resistance to the constable beyond trying to get away. He did not strike the constable.

Prisoner was remanded until Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 23 June 1888.

Advertisement:

To Let:

The Granville Public House, Dover Street, and the Lifeboat beerhouse, North Street, Folkestone. Particulars of Mr. Loftus Banks, Hotel valuer, Folkestone.

Saturday, June 16th: Before F. Boykett, W. Wightwick and J.W. Brooke Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Stephen Gosby was brought up on remand, charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting the police on the 9th June.

P.C. Smith said he was on duty in Dover Street on the 9th of June at about 7.30 in the evening. His attention was called to a fight at the Granville, and he saw between 40 and 50 people outside. The prisoner was inside, drunk, his face covered with blood, and he was standing in a fighting attitude. He pulled prisoner out into the street and asked him to go away, but he refused and made a great disturbance. He then took prisoner into custody. He resisted violently, and they fell three times in the street. In the struggle the prisoner nearly “wriggled” himself out of his clothes. He then put the handcuffs on with the assistance of Mr. Barwick. Upon reaching the police station witness felt very unwell. He was ordered off duty, and had remained so since. His ribs were fractured.

The prisoner admitted he was drunk, and he was very sorry. He had a wife and two children waiting for him in Canterbury.

The Bench fined prisoner 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour; and for resisting the police, 20s. and 14s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' hard labour.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 3rd of June, and with refusing to admit the police.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Mowll defended.

The defendant pleaded Guilty, and Mr. Minter stated that the police demanded admittance to the house, and upon gaining admittance they found two men out on the roof, and one man drunk downstairs.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on defendant's behalf.

The Bench inflicted a fine of £5 on defendant and 9s. costs for permitting drunkenness, and £2 and costs for refusing to admit the police, or in default, one month and fourteen days' respectively.

Henry Allen was charged with being drunk at the Granville in on the 3rd inst.

Defendant said he was not drunk, but asleep.

P.C. Lilley said he visited the Granville at 2.25 a.m., and found the defendant lying on a sofa in the back room, drunk. The defendant was a pipe maker, and lived in Bridge Street.

P.C. Scott said at 4.50 the same morning he saw the defendant going up Dover Road, and he said to him “You've left your lodgings very early this morning”, and he replied “I was too boozed last night. I'm tired and want to get home”.

The Bench took a merciful view of the case and dismissed it.

Folkestone Express 15 December 1888.

Wednesday, December 12th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Transfer of License.

The licence of the Granville was transferred to Robert Leech.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1889.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Robert Leach was charged with selling beer on the beach, he not being authorised by his licence to do so.

Thomas Smith, “Punch and Judy man”, said on Friday, the 6th, about half past twelve, he was on the beach. His son Thomas Smith was with him. He saw defendant on the beach, and sent his boy to him. Leach handed him some beer in the ginger beer bottle produced, for which he paid a penny.

By Mr. Minter: I took the bottle to Mr. Fagg at the Baths.

Do you combine some other occupation with your “Punch and Judy” – that of an amateur detective? – No. I was not employed by anybody to do it, but I was told the beer was ordered, and determined to find out whether it was. I am a teetotaller, and was not thirsty.

Thomas Smith, a boy, said he went to defendant and asked for half a pint of beer. He said “Who is it for?” and he replied “For my father”. He said “Who is your father?” and he replied “He works up by the Bathing Establishment”. It was taken from a stone jar in a little locker behind the camera obscura. He had seen defendant serve beer to boatmen.

By Mr. Minter: I saw defendant serve beer to boatmen that day, but do not know their names.

William Carden said he was part owner of the locker. Leach brought his dinner beer at half past one in a glass bottle. He lodged with defendant, and had a pint of beer usually with his dinner.

By Mr. Minter: He also ordered the defendant to bring half a gallon of beer, and was responsible for payment when he returned home.

Mr. Minter urged that the defendant had committed no offence. The evidence of Carden showed that he had the order for the beer. It was simply a trap, and the defendant was caught in committing an indiscreet act. With regard to the Punch and Judy man, who said he was a teetotaller, he was either one of those rabid teetotallers who would do anything to trap a person who sold beer, or merely a creature of the police, or of Mr. Fagg, of the Bathing Establishment, and had better by half have been attending to his business.

The Bench considered the offence was proved beyond doubt. Defendant was liable to a penalty of £50, but they reduced the fine to £5 and 15s. costs, or a month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 3 May 1890.

Wednesday, April 30th: Before F. Boykett, J. Brooke, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Mr. Jefford to sell intoxicating liquors at the Granville Inn.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1890.

Saturday, August 16th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Stephen Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the 10th of August.

P.C. Dunster said the defendant, with several others, was near the Alexandra Hotel, very drunk. He asked defendant to go away, but he declined, and asked his companions to go to the back of the Alexandra to get a drink. He used bad language and refused to go away with his companions. He told witness he had been in public houses many a night playing nap with the Superintendent and the Sergeants.

Defendant replied that this was “a pack of lies”. He told Dunster he was drunk in the Granville, and Dunster replied that he was a “----fop”. He denied that he was drunk; the constable was more drunk than he was.

Sergeant Butcher said he saw the defendant in Tontine Street at ten minutes to eleven, being led home drunk by two young men. Defendant pushed one of the men against him.

Defendant conducted himself in a most unseemly manner, accused the police of misconduct and card playing.

There were two recent convictions against the defendant, and he was fined 10s. and 10s. costs. The Bench refused to allow time for payment, and he was removed to the cells.

Folkestone Express 15 November 1890.

Saturday, November 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

Licence Transfer.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Mr. H.J. Abbott.

Folkestone Express 13 December 1890.

Wednesday, December 10th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Transfer.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Henry John Abbott.

Folkestone Express 26 September 1891.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

Note: During this sessions, in an application for a licence for the Central Cafe by Mr. Carlo Maestrani, it was revealed that Mr. Maestrani had secured the licence of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and he was prepared to give an undertaking that the licence of that house should be handed in and the house closed if his application was successful.

Mr Minter said that the opposition on behalf of the licensed victuallers was to point out that unless a licence was extinguished it would be unfair to grant a new licence. He was not going to say the licence was not required, because they all knew it was, and it must be a benefit to the town when they came to consider that the licence of the Granville was to be extinguished. Therefore the opposition of the licensed victuallers was withdrawn.

The magistrates then retired, and after a long absence, on their return, Mr. Clark said “Mr. Maestrani, it is the opinion of the majority of the Magistrates present that the licence is not required. Therefore the application is refused”.

Note: No record of Maestrani having held the licence appears in More Bastions. Confusingly, in Maestrani's own evidence to the Bench, it states “He had made arrangements to acquire the licence of the Granville Inn if his application was granted”, so perhaps he never DID have the licence.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

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

Annual Licensing Day.

Extract from Maestrani's application.

In addition this year Mr. Maestrani was willing to take up and hand over the licence of the Granville public house, which had been renewed that morning, if their worships saw fit in their discretion to grant them a full licence......... The Bench would have to understand that they had had to make terms with the owner of the licence of the Granville.”

Folkestone Express 17 September 1892.

Wednesday, September 14th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Brooke Esqs.

The licence of the Granville Inn was temporarily transferred to Mr. F.G. Stickalls.

Folkestone Express 1 October 1892.

Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The Granville.

The licence of this house was renewed to Mr. Stickells.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Granville Arms.

This house belongs to Messrs. Moxon. The ground of objection was “not wanted”.

Sergeant Swift said there were two other houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were four licensed houses in Dover Street, out of about 130. He opposed two. There had been seven tenants at the Granville Arms since 1885.

Mr. Moxon said the house had belonged to them for many years. It's value was about £800. It would naturally diminish the value if the licence were taken away. Stickells, the tenant, was a highly respectable man. The house was in good repair.

Supt. Taylor: What did Mackay leave for?

M. Minter: Because you had a complaint against him.

By Superintendent Taylor: Leach left for a breach of the Licensing Act. When you object to them we give them notice to leave.

Superintendent Taylor said he admitted the house was better conducted than it was.

Francis Mempes, keeper of a coffee house next door to the Granville, said he raised no objection to the house. He was a total abstainer.

By Superintendent Taylor: I should not suffer any inconvenience if the house were closed.

Robert Downey, plumber, of 58, Dover Street, opposite to the Granville, said he had no objection to it.

By Superintendent Taylor: The house is well conducted. It has not always been so. The Perseverance, the Cutter, and the Oddfellows are within 150 yards of my house. It would affect me if the Granville were closed, because my customers go there. It would affect you if you had to go out for beer in a snowstorm. (Laughter)

Mr. Glyn: You must not refer to the Superintendent's drinks. (Laughter)

Frederick Edwards, a commission agent, said he had lodged in the house for over twelve months. It was a thoroughly respectable house.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

Folkestone Express 11 December 1897.

Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Stephen Wickenden.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1899.

Saturday, August 5th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Medhurst, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden, and G. Spurgen Esqs.

John Farley, Patrick Gillingham, George Philpott, and Geo. Minter were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. Farley did not appear, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Philpott was under the influence of drink, and was remanded in custody till Monday. These were the men who were alleged to be on the premises at the Granville Hotel on a Sunday morning, the landlord having been convicted of serving them with drink. The landlady on that occasion said the men were all lodgers. Gillingham lives at 52, Dover Street, Minter at 63a, Marshall Street, and Philpott in the Lower Sandgate Road.

Sergt. Osborne gave evidence, and said he saw all the defendants enter the house, and P.C. Burniston corroborated his evidence.

In reply to Gillingham, Burniston said he knew he slept at 52, Dover Street on Saturday night, and in reply to Minter he said he had ascertained that he did not go home on Saturday night.

Minter went into the witness box, and said he slept at the Granville Inn on Saturday night. He went out for a walk on Sunday morning and returned at a quarter to eight. He had no beer.

Gillingham said he had paid for his lodgings, and he considered he had a right to be there until he had had a wash and a brush up in the morning.

The defendants were each fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days.

On the application of the Superintendent, permission was given to bail out the man Philpott, to appear on Tuesday morning.

Tuesday, August 8th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, J. Pledge, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and J. Stainer Esqs.

John Thomas Farley was charged on a warrant with being on licensed premises, the Granville Inn, Dover Street, during prohibited hours, and George Philpott, who was remanded on Saturday, was similarly charged.

Farley said he went about some luggage, and had nothing to drink. Philpott denied that he was in the house.

P.C's Burniston and Osborne said they saw him enter and leave the house.

Philpott was fined 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, and Farley 2s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour in each case.

Folkestone Express 26 August 1899.

Folkestone Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before Captain Carter, J. Hoad, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

The Granville.

Temporary authority to sell at this house was granted to Thomas Augustus Olver.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1899.

Wednesday, September 13th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Thomas Augustus Olver.

Folkestone Express 19 October 1901.

Saturday, October 12th: Before T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Timothy Fahy, a respectable-looking and well educated young man, was charged with attempting suicide in a bedroom at the Granville public house in the early hours of September 14th.

Thomas Olver, landlord of the Granville Inn, said the prisoner took a bedroom in his house on September 13th. He retired at one o'clock in the afternoon. On the following morning, about two a.m., in consequence of the prisoner knocking, witness took him up a jug of water. He said “I do not want it now”. He had the bedclothes over his head, and on witness throwing them back, he found he was covered in blood, and had his throat cut. Witness gave information to the police and sent for Dr. Gilbert, who came. There was a lot of blood on the floor.

Dr. James W.T. Gilbert, a surgeon, residing at Dover Street, said at 2.15 on the morning of September 14thn he saw the prisoner in bed. The bedclothes were covered with blood. The prisoner seemed to be in a state of collapse from loss of blood. The police were there, and the only information they could get from the prisoner was his name, that he was a Roman catholic, and as he thought he was dying, he wanted to see the priest. He examined the prisoner, and found he had a deep wound in the windpipe, but he had not severed the big vessels in the neck. It was cut by a razor, and by himself. It was then dangerous. His hands were covered with blood. Witness was unable to trace any smell of drink. The prisoner was taken on an ambulance to the hospital, where he had remained ever since. Father Scannel was communicated with. Witness examined the prisoner in Court, and said the wound had not quite healed.

Inspector Swift deposed about 2.30 a.m. on September 14th he was called to the Granville Public house, Dover Street, and he saw the prisoner in a 3rd floor back bedroom, being attended by Dr. Gilbert. The bedclothes were covered with blood, and a good deal was on the floor. In a pool of blood on the floor witness saw the razor produced, and holding it before the prisoner he nodded his head. After the wound was dressed he was taken on the police ambulance to the Victoria Hospital. He gave his name, but when asked where his home was he replied “That will do; you don't know anything more about me”. He was charged with the offence at the police station, and he made no reply.

The prisoner said he was very sorry he did it.

The Bench committed him to the Quarter Sessions to be held on the 23rd inst., and fixed bail in himself at £20 and a surety of a like amount.

Folkestone Express 26 October 1901.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Timothy Fahy was indicted for attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) explained the circumstances, and said the prisoner declined to give any information to the police. He had ascertained, however, that he was a deserter from the Army, and there was an officer from his regiment present in Court.

Lieut. De Salis, 1st Royal Dublin Fusiliers, stationed at Dover, said he had brought a sergeant with him to identify prisoner as a deserter from the regiment. His character, as far as he knew, was fairly good.

Father Thomas Scannell, Roman Catholic priest, said he saw prisoner at the hospital and found he was a harmless and weak-minded person. If he was entrusted to him he would take care that he was sent home to his relations.

The Recorder: It appears he is a deserter from the 1st Batt. of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. Did you know that?

Witness: To a certain extent I did.

Why do you come forward and say you will take him away when you knew he was wanted for deserting from the Army? Do you mean to tell the Court that you wished to harbour a deserter?

Father Scannell: Certainly not.

The Recorder: It would have been your duty to make it known to the police at any rate.

The Recorder said he took a lenient view of the case. No doubt prisoner would be dealt with for deserting from the Army, and he sentenced him to six days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 22 February 1902.

Monday, February 17th: Before Aldermen S. Penfold, G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan, and G. Peden, J. Stainer, and E.T. Ward Esqs., and Colonel W.K. Westropp.

The licence of the Granville Hotel, Dover Street, was temporarily transferred to Mr. Chas. Partridge.

Folkestone Express 7 February 1903.

Saturday, January 31st: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Charles Partridge was summoned for selling beer to a drunken man.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, and asked that all witnesses might leave the Court.

Inspector Lilley said about 9.35 the previous Saturday night, accompanied by P.C. Sales, he went to the Granville Inn, Dover Street. There he found two men – Jack Marley and Peter Kelly – in the bar. Marley was very drunk, and had to hold on to a pillar to support himself. Each had a glass of beer; Kelly drank one glass, and Marley a portion of the other. The landlord then took it away from him and said ”Come on, let me help you up to bed”. Witness then went outside with Kelly, where he remained a couple of minutes. On returning to the bar, Marley and the landlord had gone upstairs, leaving Mrs. Partridge in charge. Defendant was called, and witness said to him “You see the condition of that man? He is drunk”. He replied “Yes, I do not serve them as a rule, but I am obliged to serve them sometimes to keep them quiet”. N reply to a question by witness, defendant said the men had been lodging there for a week. Witness then told him he would be reported, to which he replied “I am very sorry. You see he has got his drink somewhere else. I am obliged to serve him or he would kick up a row”.

P.C. Sales corroborated, and was then cross-examined at some length by Mr. Minter.

The defendant then went into the witness box and said defendant had lodged with him five nights. About 9.40 Marley came back with Kelly. Kelly called for a glass of beer, and then Marley wanted one, but witness said to him “You had better get a candle and get up to bed”. There were several glasses on the counter, and Marley lifted one of them to his mouth, but witness took it from him.

A fine of £2 and 11s. costs was imposed.

Folkestone Express 28 February 1903.

Wednesday, February 25th: Before W. Wightwick and E.T. Ward Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

John Walter Fitzgerald was charged with being a deserter from the 1st Royal Dragoons.

Detective Burniston said about 11 a.m. the previous day he saw prisoner in the kitchen of the Granville Inn, and was informed he had an income of £3 per week. On looking through the Police Gazette he found prisoner answered the description of a deserter from the 1st Royal Dragoons. He went back about seven p.m., and again saw prisoner in the kitchen, and asked if his name was Fitzgerald, and he replied “No; Johnson”. Witness told him he would be taken to the police station on suspicion of being a deserter. When at the station prisoner gave his correct name and said he deserted from the 1st Royal Dragoons on the 28th December.

Prisoner was remanded to await an escort, and Burniston was awarded £1.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.

Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench, withdrawn.

The flowing counsel were engaged:- Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for the two new licences.

The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would, by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.

The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable spirit decide what reduction should then be made.

Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered, was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair, for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.

The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear all the evidence.

The Granville.

The objection to this house was that it was a common lodging house.

Evidence having been given, in this case also the owners gave an undertaking that the house should not be used as a common lodging house, and that another public room should be provided, which would be upstairs.

The Bench renewed the licence.

Folkestone Express 11 April 1903.

Wednesday, April 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The licence of the Granville Inn was temporarily transferred from Charles Partridge to Fredk. Skinner, late of the Railway Tavern (sic).

Folkestone Express 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonels Westropp, Fynmore and Hamilton, G.I. Swoffer, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The following transfer was granted: The Granville Inn from Charles Partridge to Frederick Skinner.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903.

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

Mr. Minter made an application on behalf of the landlord of the Granville Inn for an alteration of the premises.

The Superintendent had no objection, and the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 8 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 5th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

John Smith was summoned for assaulting Frederick Skinner.

Defendant's wife said the defendant had gone away before the summons was served and would not be back before Saturday.

The summons was ordered to be re-served.

Folkestone Express 25 August 1906.

Saturday, August 18th: before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

William Spearpoint, Frederick Bailey, and Isabella Hill were summoned for using obscene language in Dover Street on the 13th August. Spearpoint was the only defendant who appeared, and he pleaded Guilty.

Frederick Skinner said he kept the Granville Inn, Dover Street. At 8.45 on Monday morning last he saw Spearpoint and the other two defendants in Dover Street. The three defendants came in and asked for a drink, but witness refused to serve them, seeing their condition. The two men and the woman also then commenced to use obscene language, and witness asked them to leave the premises. The men left, but the woman refused to and started to break witness's pictures up. He then got her outside, where for about twenty minutes she used most obscene language. When witness requested her to go away she commenced smashing the windows. A large crowd of people assembled.

Thomas Franks corroborated. He said Spearpoint tried to get the woman away after a time.

The Superintendent said Spearpoint was there eighteen months ago.

Spearpoint was fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days'. He was allowed time to pay in. Warrants were ordered to be issued for Bailey and Hill's arrest.

The Mayor said they were indebted to Mr. Franks for coming forward and giving evidence as he had done.

Wednesday, August 22nd: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Frederick Bailey, a fisherman, was charged on a warrant with using obscene language in Dover Street on August 13th. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Frederick Skinner said on August 13th, at half past eight in the morning, the prisoner, with another man and a woman, came to his premises and asked for drink. He refused to serve them, and they became abusive and used bad language. They remained outside for twenty minutes, using very bad language, and causing a large crowd to assemble.

The Chairman said, on behalf of the Bench and the public, he wished to say they were indebted to the landlord of the public house for coming there to give evidence. The defendant would be fined 10s. and 11s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 7 September 1912.

Inquest.

On Monday morning, shortly after 5.30, Edgar Milton, a boatman, of 15, Fenchurch Street, found the body of a man at high water mark on the beach, near the Bathing Establishment Company's west end grounds. The man was fully dressed. He was wearing a black serge suit, black socks, practically new laced boots, pink shirt with blue stripes, brown tie with diamond shaped spots, and a celluloid collar. His height was about 5ft. 10ins., and on his left forearm were the tattooed letters “F.R.” He had fair hair, cut short, moustache, and grey eyes. On one of his fingers he had a brass ring with a Masonic square and compasses, while in his pocket was found an old snuff box. There were no marks on the clothing, and no papers by which the man could be identified. The police were communicated with concerning the discovery, and later the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

The mystery as to the man's identity was cleared up on Tuesday afternoon, when Mr. G.W. Haines (Borough Coroner) conducted an inquest at the Town hall on the body of Frederick Robinson.

Dr. Lidderdale said the previous day he saw the body of a man lying at the mortuary. He had apparently been in the water, and his chest was full of water. There were no marks of violence, except a cut above the left eye, which had evidently been caused by shingle after death. Some scratches on the left side of the scalp had evidently been caused by the same means. He had apparently been dead for some hours, as rigor mortis had set in. The only other thing he had noticed were the tattooed letters “F.R.” in Roman characters on the left forearm. All the symptoms were compatible with death having been caused through drowning.

Frederick Skinner, of the Granville Inn, 63, Dover Street, said he kept a registered lodging house at 50, Dover Street. He identified the body viewed by the jury as that of Frederick Robinson, who had been staying at his lodging house for the past three weeks. He was about 38 years of age. Deceased stayed with him last year, when he was advertising a show in the Tontine Street auction rooms, at which two midgets were on view. During the past few days he had been assisting a man in selling music in the street. Deceased had always been able to pay for his lodgings, except one night. The man with whom deceased had been working left Folkestone on Sunday night for London at about a quarter past seven. Deceased went away with him, and they seemed to be on the best of terms. He never saw Robinson afterwards. Deceased was not a teetotaller, but he did not drink heavily. He had not seen him under the influence of drink. On Sunday afternoon Robinson remained in the kitchen with a lot of other men who were employed on the sea wall in the Warren. Deceased did not seem despondent. He was not a quarrelsome man.

Edgar Milton, of 15, Fenchurch Street, said he was a fisherman. On Monday morning, about 4.30, opposite the Halfway House, he looked down on the beach near the west-end mixed bathing place, when he saw the body of a man lying on the beach. He had apparently been in the water, but he was at high water mark. The tide was twenty yards from him. High water was about 1.50 a.m. on Monday. He immediately gave information to the police. The man was fully dressed. He was about seven or eight yards from the sea wall. P.C. Johnson came and took charge of the body.

P.C. Johnson said shortly after 5 a.m. on Monday, from what he was told by the previous witness, he went to the beach, where he found the body of a man lying at high water mark. He was dead, fully dressed, and a portion of the body was covered with beach. He placed the body on the ambulance, and assisted Mr. Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, to remove the body to the mortuary. There was no cap anywhere near.

Edwin John Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said from information received from the Police Office by telephone, he went to the beach, where he assisted in the removal of the body to the mortuary. On searching the body he found two common rings in the pockets, a snuff box, a comb, several studs, a key, a piece of paper (on which were several names and addresses), and a halfpenny.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) handed in a letter, which he had received from a woman at 74, Morland Road, East Croydon. The writer of the letter stated that the description of the man given in the evening paper answered that of a man named Frederick Robinson, who had stayed at her house. She enclosed a photograph of the man and asked that it might be sent back to her.

Mr. Skinner looked at the photograph, and said it was that of the man, Frederick Robinson, whose body he had identified.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said he had telephoned to the Metropolitan Police, who had made enquiries, and it appeared from them that Frederick Robinson was 38 years of age, and had the letters “F.R.” tattooed upon his left forearm. His mother lived at Derby, and he had a brother working at the Derby Railway Station. The deceased left Derby three weeks ago to come to Folkestone. There was also a Yarmouth address found on the man, but the police there could not trace him at all. There was also another address given on a piece of paper, “Mrs. Field, Upper Street, Islington”. The Metropolitan Police had seen her, and she said she was satisfied the man was not her husband, as she had had a telegram from him that morning. The description given, however, was similar to that of a man who worked some time ago for her husband. He was known as Fred, and he came from Nottingham. Her husband exhibited midgets at seaside towns. He had no doubt that the deceased was Frederick Robinson.

The jury came to the conclusion that the body was that of Frederick Robinson, and they returned a verdict of “Found drowned”.

Folkestone Express 22 January 1916.

Obituary.

The death took place on Saturday at the Granville, Dover Street, of Mrs. Margaret Skinner, at the age of 49, the wife of the proprietor, Mr. F. Skinner. Her demise followed an illness of only a few days.

The funeral took place on Tuesday at Canterbury.

Folkestone Express 29 January 1916.

Thursday, January 27th: Before G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace, and C.E. Mumford Esqs.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged with supplying cocaine to soldiers, contrary to section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations on January 26th.

Pte. Herbert Welch, of the Canadian Force, said he belonged to the “Black Devils”. He was billeted at 46, Dover Road. He recognised the two prisoners, whom he had known about two months. He had purchased from the man, whom he knew as “Horace”, stuff called “cocaine” on 20 or 30 occasions, or perhaps 40. Some times had had paid for it and on others not. He had received the stuff in small packets and had paid 1/- and 2/6 for it, according to the size of the packets. He had received from the female prisoner small packets of cocaine on ten or twelve occasions. He had not paid her anything, but the stuff had been a gift from the woman. He had mainly received the packets from the male prisoner in the Harvey Hotel, but from the female he had received it at the Theatre, in the streets, and in restaurants.

The Clerk: Have you ever been to a house in Shellons Street?

Witness: I cannot say that I have.

Have you ever been to a house to see these prisoners? – No, sir.

Kingsley said he noticed the charge against him was dated the 26th January. He wished to ask Welch if he sold him any on the previous day.

Welch: No, you did not.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said at the present stage it was immaterial whether he was charged with committing an offence on a certain date. The Bench could receive evidence of any similar transaction within six months of that date.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said that was as far as he could take the case that day and asked for a remand.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to remand the prisoners until next Thursday.

Both prisoners asked to be allowed to have bail, and the Bench fixed the sureties at £25 each defendant, and one surety of £25 each, the sureties to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Constable.

Folkestone Express 5 February 1916.

Local News.

Yesterday at the Police Court, Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards appeared on remand charged with supplying cocaine to soldiers, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the two prisoners were before the Court a week previously, and were remanded in order that further inquiries could be made. He had been instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to state that he was willing to conduct the prosecution. Therefore he asked for a further remand for a week on the evidence already given. An analysis had to be conducted, and other matters had to receive attention.

The Clerk said he understood that the prosecution at the next hearing would be represented by Mr. Travers Humphreys.

Prisoners were remanded for a week, bail being offered, themselves in £25 each, and one surety of £25 each.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1916.

Thursday, February 10th: Before Alderman Spurgen and other Magistrates.

Horace Dennis Kingsley pleaded Not Guilty to three separate charges of selling cocaine to a Canadian soldier on different dates in January. The cases were heard together.

Mr. Travers Humphrey, who appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, said the prosecution was taken under regulation 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act, which provided that if any person gave or sold to a member of His Majesty's Forces any intoxicant when not on duty with intent to make him drunk or less capable of efficiently discharging his duties would be guilty of an offence. The arrest of the prisoner, together with a woman who would also be brought before the Magistrates, was considered to be a matter of some importance, because Major Morrison, A.P.M., had for some time been endeavouring to find out the source from which Canadian soldiers were getting large quantities of cocaine. The effect of the habit which they acquired was pitiable, and most disastrous. It made it absolutely useless to try and control the man, who was made unreliable, and very often resulted in insanity. If a Canadian soldier was found to have acquired the habit, he was considered absolutely useless for the sake of the Army from that day henceforth.

Corporal Price, of the 8th Batt., C.I., said he had known the prisoner two months. On January 12th he was in the Granville public house in Dover Street, when he saw the prisoner with some soldiers and women. He saw the prisoner hand small paper packets, similar to the one produced, to two soldiers and a woman. He spoke to him and asked him what it was, and he replied “Snow”. He asked him how much it was, and he said he would sell him one for 2/-. He bought one. The packet contained white powder, and he marked it January 12th. On January 16th he saw the prisoner in Harbour Street, and asked him if he could have more “snow”. He gave him a packet, and witness purchased it for 2/-. He was exactly in the same uniform as he was that day. He was acting under the orders of his superior officers, and to that extent was on military police duty. On January 26th he accompanied the prisoner to Dover and went with him to Thompson's chemist shop, 186, Snargate Street. He waited outside while he went in. When he came out witness asked him if he had been able to purchase any “snow”, and he replied “I have been able to gat half a drachm, and have ordered two drachms for Wednesday”. On Wednesday afternoon, the 26th, he went to Dover with the prisoner. That was early closing day. The man opened the side door, and prisoner handed him an empty bottle. He afterwards left the shop. They returned in three quarters of an hour, and prisoner went to the side door. The man answered the door again and handed him the bottle, which was full of powder. It was marked “Poison, cocaine hydrochloride”. The label bore the name Lewis Thompson, Snargate Street, Dover. Prisoner put the bottle in his pocket, and after he left the shop he asked him if he would sell him some. Prisoner went into a lavatory, and when he came out he handed him a small packet containing powder, for which he paid 2/6. They came back to Folkestone, and on their arrival prisoner was arrested by Det. Sergt. Johnson with the bottle in his possession. The packets were handed over to Johnson also.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on January 26th, about 3.40 p.m., he was in company with P.C. Butcher on Grace Hill, and saw the prisoner and Price arrive from Dover. He went to Kingsley and told him they were two police officers, and should take him to the police station. He replied “All right”. At the police station he found in prisoner's possession the bottle marked “Cocaine; poison”, and an empty bottle which had got the label of Mr. Thompson, and also a packet containing powder. He later charged the prisoner with selling a certain quantity of powder to members of H.M. Forces with intent to make them less capable of performing their duties. Prisoner said “How can I make them less capable? They are my friends”. He later received the packets from Price, and took them to the Laboratory, Shorncliffe, and handed them to Capt. Malone.

Capt. Reginald Malone, M.D., said he was in the C.A.M.C. he received and analysed the contents of packets and bottles. They all contained a soluble salt of cocaine.

Capt. J.B. McMurray, C.A.M.C., said he was acquainted with the effect of cocaine, and had had experience of it. He was in charge of Moore Barracks Hospital. Cocaine was a most dangerous drug and a poison. Taken in repeated small doses it would become a habit. The effect of acquiring the habit eventually led to insanity. It was very difficult to get rid of the habit once acquired. In the early stages of that habit it gave very brilliant ideas, supernatural ideas, and nothing was impossible. The reaction left the man sullen, morose, bad tempered and totally unfit for duty. They had had in Moore Barracks over forty cases of the drug habit. He had examined one or two of the samples, and, in his opinion, if taken in quite small quantities, would have rendered a soldier less capable. Cocaine was a great stimulant drug.

In reply to the Clerk, the forty cases he referred to had acquired the habit. It took about two or three weeks to acquire the habit.

Questioned by the prisoner, witness said one of the small packets would certainly affect a man.

Major Morrison, A.P.M., said he had seen the effect of the cocaine. What first drew his attention to it was the men under its influence coming into the guard room. The effect of cocaine taking rendered a man less efficiently capable of discharging his duties. The cocaine was known as “snow” by the Canadians.

Prisoner elected to give evidence on oath. He said he was living at No. 6, Shellons Street. He had been to Dover on the day he was arrested because his chemist in Folkestone had run short. Owing to the price of the cocaine he was not in a position to give it away, but he did not sell it to the soldiers in a direct manner, receiving 2/6 or 2/- more as a gift when hard up. The men were personal friends of his, and he had known them three months. The Corporal was a little scared that he would be arrested. Corporal Price did not give him any money, although he lent him money to get it. He had no recollection of giving the first two packets to Corporal Price. He was an old soldier himself, and had been 12 years in the Army, had been wounded at the Front, and had been invalided out. He came to Folkestone to recuperate. He had been willing to do his bit and he did not want to injure other people. He had a North West Frontier medal of 1911, having seen service in India. He asked the Magistrates to deal leniently with him.

Cross-examined, prisoner said he had not his military papers with him. They were at 14, Storr Street, Tottenham Court Road. He had a small pension of 1/6 a day from the War Office. He had not applied for it lately, because when he got it he had a “grand slam”, and was no good for three weeks after. He had no occupation at Folkestone. He distributed the cocaine because the men were his personal friends. He got the stuff from chemists at Folkestone, but he would not give the names at present. The soldiers could not get it from chemists, because Major Morrison had put a bar on it for soldiers. He only knew that from what the soldiers said. He knew Rose Edwards, who had given a little cocaine to soldiers. She and he lived in the same house. She came from London. Other people besides themselves gave the soldiers cocaine. The soldiers had given him some because he took cocaine.

Mr. Travers Humphrey: What effect has it upon you?

Prisoner: It makes you more keen on what you are doing than what you would be without. It has a stimulating effect.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said that was a very serious offence. The Bench had found the prisoner Guilty of the charge, and he would be sentenced to six months' hard labour on each charge, but the sentences would run concurrently.

Rose Edwards was then placed in the dock. She pleaded Not Guilty to three charges. Mr. Travers Humphrey prosecuted.

Corporal Price said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on January 14th at the Bellevue Hotel. When he came out of the house he saw empty some white powder in a soldier's handkerchief from a small box. He asked her what it was and she said “Snow”. He asked her if she could spare some for him and she said she could. She gave him some for which he gave her 2/6. At half past four the same day he saw her again and he asked if she could sell him another packet, and he paid her 2/- for it. On January 17th he saw her in the Granville Hotel and he bought a packet of “snow” from her for 2/6. On the 24th January he visited her house at 9.15 a.m., and he purchased a packet from her for 2/-. She wrapped the cocaine up in an envelope bearing her address as Little Fenchurch Street.

Mr. Travers Humphrey: It is a Y.M.C.A. envelope. (Laughter)

Detective Sergt. Johnson said on January 26th he saw the prisoner at the police station and he charged her with selling the powder to soldiers with the intent of making them less capable of efficiently performing their duties.

Captain Malone gave evidence of analysing the contents of the packets produced by Corporal Price.

Captain McMurray gave evidence as to the effect of the drug.

Prisoner gave evidence on oath. On the 14th January she gave Price a little “snow”, but she did not sell it to him. On January 17th and 24th she did not see Price at all, as she was in bed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Travers Humphrey, she said she obtained the cocaine from a fellow who sold it in the West End of London. He was not a chemist, but the man sold it to the girls in London. He sold it in the streets. She had never tried to purchase it from a chemist in Folkestone. She had only given it to two Canadian soldiers. She had been in the habit of taking cocaine, but she had broken herself of the habit since Christmas. She had only given “snow” to Price on two occasions. She could get a pill box full of the stuff in London for 2/6.

Kingsley, called by Edwards, said he had never known the prisoner to take money for the cocaine.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the woman belonged to London, and was a well-known prostitute.

The Magistrates sentenced her to six months' hard labour on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently.

Corporal Price was called forward and the Chairman said the Bench wished to express their appreciation on the way he had given his evidence and had acted in the case.

The Chief Constable said with regard to Kingsley's statement, they had found that on January 17th, 1913, he was sentenced to two months' hard labour for felony in London.

Charges under the Pharmacy Act against both prisoners were withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1922.

Local News.

The licence of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Skinner to Mr. S.A. Ralph, on Tuesday at the Police Court.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1923.

Tuesday, December 4th: Before Col. Owen, Miss A.M. Hunt, Col. P. Broome-Giles, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. Blamey, Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was temporarily transferred to Mr. Arthur Edward Perring, Henley-on-Thames.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 12 January 1924.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday morning, the following transfer of licence was granted: Granville Inn, Dover Street, from Mr. C.A. Ralph to Mr. A.E. Perrin.

Folkestone Express 15 February 1930.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R. Stokes, Mr. F. Seagar, and Eng. Rear-Admiral Stephens.

A music licence was granted to Mr. Kennard for the Granville Inn, in order that a wireless installation should be used, the hours being from 6 to 10 on weekdays and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays.

Folkestone Express 5 December 1931.

Friday, November 27th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood and other Magistrates.

Charles William Boulter, of Dover Street, was summoned by Harry Kennard, of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, for assaulting him by striking him with his fist. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. H.B. Bonniface, who appeared for the complainant, said that he would be perfectly satisfied if the defendant was bound over. He had admitted the assault, and if they could see their way to bind him over, that would be sufficient.

Complainant gave evidence that on the previous Sunday he came out of his house and his dog ran out and barked. When he turned to lock his door the dog ran up the street. He walked up after it and the defendant came out of his house, which was a few doors up the road, and asked him why he did not put the dog on the lead. He replied “It is too late now; it has gone up the road”. As he went by, the defendant, Boulter, struck him on the left ear and knocked him down. It cut his ear and made it bleed terribly. Bouter said they were annoyed because there was someone in the house ill.

Defendant said that he and his mother were in the front room attending to his grandmother, who was dying. They heard a dog bark and his mother said “Go out and stop that dog”, as his grandmother was not to be disturbed on any account. He went out and the dog was underneath the window. Kennard was opposite, and he walked down to him and said as quietly as he could “Why don't you put the dog on a chain on Sunday afternoons?” Kennard came across with a quick walking pace and swore at him as he did so. He saw his hand leave his side as if he was going to hit him, and he (defendant) struck Kennard first.

The Chairman said he did not think he should have done anything of the kind and he would be fined 10s.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman T.S. Franks, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. S.B. Corser, and Councillor the Hon. Mrs. N.E. Howard.

The Chief Constable presented his report as follows:- I have the honour to present my ninth annual report relating to the administration of the licensing laws within the Borough for the year ending 31st December, 1931.

Licensed Premises: There are in the Borough 114 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, the number being made up as follows: Full licences 69; beer on 7; beer off 10; beer and spirit dealers 9; grocers, etc., off 6; confectioners wine on 4; cider and sweets off 7; chemists wine off 2; Total 114. No licensed premises were referred back on the ground of redundancy by the Annual Licensing Committee.

Alehouse Licences: Of the alehouse licences, one is a six days' licence.

Licences Transferred: The following licences were transferred during the year: Earl Grey, from William Charles Dixon to Clara P. Dixon; Alexandra Hotel, Stanley A. Bishop to Frank Allwood; Bouverie Arms, Frank E. Hedges to Frederick Hedges; Guildhall Hotel, Ellen Cozens to Richard Rivers; Black Bull Hotel, Frederick A. Bray to Eric Anderson; Harvey Hotel, Charles Waghorn to Harold Sherrin; Foresters Arms, Charles Ovenden to Kate L. Ellers; Richmond Tavern, Adam Ingleton to Edward Jordan; Clarendon Hotel, Harry Whittaker to Wm. A.J. Taylor. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting held on the 11th March, 1931, application was made for the transfer of the beer off licence of the Gun Brewery, Cheriton Road. The licensee of these premises having died in 1900, and the licence not having been transferred, the Justices declared this licence null and void.

Alterations to Licensed Premises: No applications have been made to the Bench during the year for sanction for alterations to licensed premises.

Occasional Licences: One hundred and eleven occasional licences were granted to licence holders to sell intoxicating liquor other than on their own premises.

Extension of Licensing Hours: Three hundred and six extensions have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises, and in no case has any abuse of the privilege been recorded.

Proceedings against Licence Holders: During the year no licence holders have been proceeded against for committing any breach of the Intoxicating Liquor Laws.

Visits by Police to Licensed Premises: All licensed premises have been periodically visited at irregular intervals by my officers to see that they are being conducted in a satisfactory manner, and no adverse reports have been submitted to me. The total number of visits was 1,868.

Drunkenness: During the year 26 persons (22 males and four females) were proceeded against in the Borough Court for drunkenness. These were dealt with as follows: Convicted 13 males, three females; discharged nine males, one female. The persons proceeded against were: Residents of Folkestone, four males, two females; non-residents, five males, one female; no fixed abode, six males, one female; and seven soldiers. The total proceedings for drunkenness are the same as the preceding year, when eight persons were convicted and 18 discharged.

Comparative Return of Drunkenness: The following table shows a comparative return for drunkenness with towns similarly situated to Folkestone: Folkestone, population 35,890, number proceeded against per 1,000 population .723; Chester 41,438 and 1.134; Hastings 65,199 and 1.02; Canterbury 24,450 and .61; Margate 41,312 and 1.02; Cambridge 66,803 and ,439; Gravesend 35,490 and 1.4; Scarborough 41,791 and .31; Ramsgate 33,597 and .35; Bedford 40,573 and .69. It will be seen that Folkestone's record for sobriety still stands very high.

Permitted Hours: The permitted hours as allowed by the Licensing Act of 1921 have been fixed by the Licensing Justices for this Borough as under: Weekdays, from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sundays, from 12 noon to 2 p.m., and from 7 p.m. to 2 p.m. During the months of June, July, August and September, 1931, an extension of half an hour on weekdays, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. was again allowed by the Bench, and I am pleased to state that no ill-effects have been observed.

New Licences: No licences have been granted for new premises during the year.

Clubs: Seventeen clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act, this being the same number as was in existence in the preceding year.

Hotels: Six hotels and two restaurants have authority under Section III of the Licensing Act, 1921, to supply intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on weekdays, namely: Metropole Hotel, Grand Hotel, Majestic Hotel, Regina Hotel, Esplanade Hotel, Royal Pavilion Hotel, Central Cafe and Savoy Cafe. During the year under review, the Regina Hotel closed down, but the licence in respect of the premises is still in existence.

Music and Dancing: Forty eight licences for music and dancing have been granted or renewed under the provisions of Part IV of the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1890. This is an increase of four as compared with the previous year. Of this number 15 are for the use of wireless for public entertainment in licensed premises.

Billiard Licenses: There are three premises licensed for billiards in the Borough, namely: The Queen's Hall, Tontine Street; 24, Rendezvous Street; and the Fishermen's Institute, The Stade. The licence in respect of the last named premises is a new one, having been granted by the Justices on the 11th February, 1931. Supervision of these premises has been kept, and no adverse reports have been received.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I should like to draw the particular attention of the Bench to the high standard of conduct of the licensees within the Borough. Despite the large number of official visits made, and the casual observation which is kept from time to time, no single instance has come to light which would justify police interference. To this may be attributed in no small measure the high place that Folkestone occupies in the comparative table. I have again to tender my thanks to the Bench and to Mr. Charles Rootes for their unfailing consideration and assistance freely given whenever occasion demands it.

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable's report, and he was instructed to say they regarded it as of a very satisfactory nature. If he might begin where the Chief Constable left off, with reference to the high standard of the licensee in the Borough, he thought that it was very conclusive, because no-one had been in any difficulty, and there were no proceedings against any licensee in the year. He thought that went to the credit of the licensee, and showed they exercised great care in carrying out the law touching those matters, which was somewhat difficult and complicated at times. With reference to the drunkenness, he would like it to be less, of course, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort and thousands of visitors came there, they thought it was very creditable indeed. Of those 26 persons, only six of them were residents of the Borough, and they thought that went to the credit of the residential population anyhow, considering that was one whole year. The Justices were glad to think that they gave way to the point with reference to the summer season, giving the half hour's extension. They were glad to know that no ill-effects had been accrued in consequence of that, but that the convenience in reference to the visitors had been appreciated.

The Chairman then announced that the public house licences and beer licences would all be renewed, with two exceptions, and they were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those would not be renewed that morning, but would be referred to the adjourned meeting for further consideration on the ground of redundancy.

The date of the Adjourned Licensing Sessions was fixed for March 9th next.

The Chairman stated that music and dancing licences which had been in existence were also renewed that day, and the billiards licences were also renewed.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1932.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The question of the renewal of the licences of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and the Oddfellows Arms on the Fish Market was considered at the adjourned general licensing meeting at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday. The objection to both licences was on the ground of redundancy.

The first licence to be considered was that of the Granville Inn, owned by Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co., of Wateringbury, and the tenant of which was Mr. Harry Kennard.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, giving evidence, said he produced a plan of what they called the congested area. It embraced what was called the older portion of the town. There were 866 dwelling houses in the area, and allowing five people to each house, there was approximately a population of 4,330. There were in that area 22 fully licensed houses and four beer on houses. There were also six other licences for selling intoxicating drink within the area. That gave the proportion of one licensed house to every 135 persons and 27 houses, and one on licensed house to every 166 persons and 33 houses. The remainder of the borough, excluding the congested area, was seven eighths of the total area of the borough, and it had an estimated population of 31,560. In that area there were 50 on licences, and these included seven residential hotels for the accommodation of visitors, and that gave one on licence to 631 persons. The total number of licences in the borough was 114, giving a proportion of one licence to every 314 persons. Of the licences 76 were on licences, made up of 69 full and seven beer on, being one licence to every 472 persons.

Questioned by Mr. Bracher, Mr. Beesley said with regard to the congested area, the greater part of the congestion was not near the Granville Inn. There were many more licensed houses in or near the Harbour, but he was not objecting to the redundancy of any of those houses. The Star and Garter and the Richmond were in Harvey Street, and they were close together, and the Harvey Hotel was in the same street.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell us why you selected the Granville?

The Chief Constable: We have to differentiate. The principal ground of differentiation is the fact that the Granville is doing less trade than the others.

How do you know? – By special observations kept on the houses during the last twelve months, and particularly during the last six weeks.

Is it desirable, in your opinion, that a house should not be allowed to continue its licence unless it is doing a large trade? – When one finds a house night after night with four or five people in it, it is my idea that the licence is not required, and the adjoining houses can adequately deal with the trade.

In reply to further questions, the Chief Constable said unfortunately for all the houses there was no question of crowding in the borough, because none of the houses were doing exceptionally well.

Mr. Bracher: Is it not a fact that the Granville has got seven nice bedrooms to let?

Mr. Beesley: I have another witness who will speak to that, and he can explain.

But is it not to your knowledge it has seven bedrooms? – Yes.

You have nothing against the tenant? – No, sir.

Or anything detrimental to say about the structure of the house? – No.

Chief Inspector Pittock said he served the notice on Harry Kennard, the licence holder. The house was No. 63, Dover Street. He had made a careful examination of the premises. It had a frontage on Dover Street of 21ft. 6 in. Both bars were lighted by windows and glazed panels in the doors. The premises belonged to Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co., of Wateringbury, and the rateable value was £28. Since 1902 there had been five transfers of the licence, but the present tenant had been there since January, 1928. There was one other licensed house within 100 yards of the house, and another within 150 yards and a third within 200 yards. He had made special visits to that and other houses in the neighbourhood, and had made notes of them. He had made twelve special visits to that house. At 8.28 p.m. on January 22nd there were two people in the house, and at 8.45 p.m. there were five; on the 23rd at 8.15 p.m. there were three; at 9.05 p.m. on the 24th there were five; at 8.25 p.m. on the 26th there were two; at 9.05 p.m. on the 26th there were four; at 9.08 p.m. on the 27th there was one; at 9.30 on the 28th there were two; at 8.58 on the 29th there were four; at 9.15 p.m. on the 30th there were nine; on February 1st at 9.15 p.m. there were two; at 9.15 p.m. on the 2nd there were five, making a total of 42 customers on twelve visits as shown on the schedule which he produced. He made corresponding visits to the other houses close by, and there were 92 customers at the Raglan, 83 at the Star and Garter, 137 at the Richmond, and 158 at the George the Third.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell the Bench why the houses near the Harbour have not been selected?

Chief Inspector Pittock: During the season those houses are pretty well filled up.

In reply to Mr. Bracher, Chief Inspector Pittock said the time he made his visits, from the 22nd January to February 2nd, would be absolutely the slackest time of the whole year for such houses.

Mr. Bracher: Do you not think if you gave the average trade including the summer months it would be more fair?

Chief Inspector Pittock: I was not instructed to visit those places during the summer.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There have been other visits during the year?

Witness: Yes.

You have prepared a statement for the whole of the year? – Yes, I have prepared such a statement from the register kept of all visits by the police during the whole of the year.

Mr. Bracher said he was justified in assuming that really the only question the Justices had to consider was that of the renewal of the licence, and whether it should be referred to the Compensation Authority or not. They had heard about the congested area, and it was a surprise to him to hear that the Granville should be selected as the one house which was redundant in that area. If they wanted houses that were redundant surely they would go down to Seagate Street, where they had rows of licensed houses? They could stand and throw stones into the middle of a whole circle of licensed houses. If there was redundancy in that particular congested area, surely the redundancy was there. Then if they went up to the other end they got two houses, the Raglan and the Martello, just opposite each other. Surely one would be sufficient there. Then in Harvey Street they had the Star and Garter, the Richmond, and the Harvey Hotel. Surely one of those might be considered redundant. The Granville was the only licensed house in Dover Street, and that was considered to be redundant. The licence holder had had 21 years in the Army, and his discharge papers showed he had an exemplary character. The opposition admitted the house was structurally very well built. The trade was about 2½ barrels a week. The house was kept scrupulously clean, and the seven bedrooms, which were ordinarily for letting purposes, were let to people right through the summer months. In those circumstances, he should have thought the licence would have been renewed. The sole reason put forward why the licence should not be renewed was that it was doing a small trade. The only evidence for the Magistrates' consideration on the question of differentiation was the question of the amount of trade. It would have been more helpful if the police could have given them something about the summer trade. It was common knowledge that trade in all licensed houses throughout the whole of the country had fallen very much in the last few months, and when they got a falling trade it was not necessarily attributable to the want of usefulness in the houses, but of the general condition which was prevailing in the country. In 1929 the trade of that house was 138¼ barrels, containing 36 gallons of beer, in 1930 it was 126 1/3, and in 1931 it was 102 1/3 barrels. Mr. Kennard was very anxious to carry on his legitimate business in the house, for he made quite a good living. It was his and the brewers' wish that they should be allowed to continue with the house and that the licence should be renewed. He ventured to submit that the selection of the Granville as the one house in that congested area had not been considered, and its licence should not be referred for consideration by the East Kent Compensation Authority.

Harry Kennard, the licensee of the Granville, said he had held the licence for just over four years, and he was very much satisfied with his occupation of it, and he desired to be allowed to continue with his occupation. He got a reasonably good living with the sale of liquor and the letting of the seven rooms.

The Chief Constable: Are you a pensioner?

Witness: Yes.

The Chief Constable: How much?

Mr. Bracher: I object to this. This is not an income tax meeting. I think it most improper to ask the amount of a man's pension. That is his private affair, which surely is not the affair of the Licensing Justices.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said his business was adequate remuneration for his work. Apart from his pension he got a living there. His barrelage week by week during July and August was about 2½. His winter trade at the present time was about one barrel. Trade was very much affected by the summer. He did a very good letting trade, but that was not dependent upon his having a licence.

Edward John Wilding, in the employ of Messrs. Jude, Hanbury Ltd., said the trade for 1929 at the Granville showed 138¼ barrels. The trade in the summer of 1929 was about double. Trade in all licensed houses had now universally gone down. There was a great drop all round. The trade in wine and spirits was not large.

The Magistrates retired. The Chairman said the Justices had decided not to renew the licence of the Granville public house, but to refer the same to the East Kent Compensation Authority.

The Clerk: It will be renewed provisionally, therefore.

From the Dover Express, Friday 14 October 1932.

Dover public house licensees.

At the Principal Meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority, at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday, Mr. G. K. Anderson being in the chair, the magistrates refused renewal of the licences of two houses, and they were referred for compensation.

They were, the "Railway Inn," Hawkesbury Street, registered owners, Dover Town Council, leaseholders, Messrs. Jude Hanbury and Co., licensee, Albert John Stanley Pettit.

The "Granville," Dover Street, Folkestone, owners, Messrs. Jude Hanbury and Co. licensee, Harry Kennard.

Mr. C. Hebden Phillips was appointed as valuer.