DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Friday, 19 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1880

(Name from)

Granville Inn

Latest 1932

63 Dover Street

Folkestone

 

Formerly the "Crown and Anchor."

This page is still to be updated.

 

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 News 2 August 1884.

Friday, July 25th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, J. Holden Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Mary Gower was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Granville in Dover Street.

John McKay, the landlord, said the defendant had lodged at the Granville for a week, and on the previous day at about half past two she was very nearly drunk. He ordered her out of the house, and she refused to go, defying him and the police. He had to send for a constable to assist in getting her out, and they had almost to lift her bodily in doing so.

P.C. Hogben corroborated.

In the course of a lengthy statement in defence, the woman said her husband, who was working at Sandgate, was in the habit of getting too much to drink and knocking her about, and under these circumstances she did appear to some people to be in liquor herself. On the day in question she had only shared two pints with her husband, and had half a pint to herself, and she appealed to the Bench if it were possible for her to have been drunk on that. Her husband on one occasion last week drank eight pints of beer before he came up to their room to tea.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 December 1884.

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

Charles Hopkins, a young man, was charged with stealing an overcoat from outside Mr. Logan's shop, Tontine Street.

It appears that Mr. Logan missed a coat and gave information to the police. A constable went the next morning to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, where the prisoner was lodging, and found him in his bedroom, and in possession of the stolen coat.

In defence prisoner said he met a man in High Street, who asked him if he would like to earn a shilling, which he said he would. He then told him to pawn the coat for 14s., as they would give more to a stranger for it than they would him. Prisoner went into the pawn shop and they would give him no more than 8s. on it. He took it away, and on looking for the man he could not find him, so he kept the coat in his possession.

On being asked by the Bench if he would prefer to be summarily dealt with, prisoner said he would.

The Chairman stated that the Bench did not believe his story and were convinced that he stole the coat. He would be sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

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 Chronicle 12 March 1887.

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

James King was charged with having stolen a bag containing four half sovereigns and fourteen shillings in silver; also a silver watch, Albert, and trinket, the property of W. Taylor.

William Taylor, a fish hawker, of No. 4, Radnor Street, said he was at the Granville public house, Dover Street, on the previous Thursday evening. He went into the tap room and the prisoner was there in company with several others. He had a bag in his possession containing 2 14s. He “stood treat” to the company and took out the bag to pay. He afterwards put it into the inside pocket of his jacket. He left about eleven o'clock. Prisoner was in the room part of the time. He went home with a man named Johnson, and the next morning found that his purse was missing. On going with Sergt. Pay to the Granville on Friday morning, the landlord showed him the bag produced which contained his money.

John McKane said he was manager of the Granville Inn. He saw Taylor in the tap room on the evening in question. He could not say if he was in drink. Prisoner had been in his service four weeks. He played the piano and was paid 1s. per night, and had his lodgings free. Yesterday week was the last time he paid him, and last Tuesday he borrowed sixpence.

Alice Stanley said the prisoner went to her at the coffee house in Dover Road, and asked her to go to Dover with him. Prisoner offered her a watch chain. They went to Dover and stayed all night, the prisoner paying expenses.

Fredk. Parsons, an assistant at Mr. Logan's in Tontine Street, deposed to the prisoner purchasing there a coat and waistcoat for 13s. When taking out the money to pay, prisoner also displayed two half sovereigns in addition to the one tendered, with three shillings in payment.

P.S. Pay said that about half past four last Saturday afternoon he went to the Granville with prosecutor and saw the prisoner. He put several questions and prisoner denied having had a watch chain. Prisoner said the prosecutor must be mistaken in charging him with stealing his property. He knew nothing about it. Prisoner made no reply when charged at the police station by the Superintendent.

Upon the usual formula being read over to the prisoner he pleaded Guilty and asked that the case should then be disposed of.

The Bench passed a sentence of three 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 Chronicle 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 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 about 12.55 he heard a door leading into a passage open. He then saw a number of people in the house. The door was pushed to in his face, but he stuck his feet 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 Wilson, 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't, 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 Dunstan 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 the 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 after eleven. He closed the bar at eleven, and requested the men to go. P.C. Dunstan 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.

Ann Mackay, wife of the last witness, gave corroborative 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 to the police that the house was a brothel. Three years ago he complained of being assaulted by the police 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 George 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 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 Chronicle 16 June 1888.

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

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, was summoned for refusing to admit the police to his house, and with permitting drunkenness on his premises.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the defendant and Mr. Minter prosecuted.

Mr. Mowll applied for a remand until Saturday next. Mr. Minter said he had no objection. The case was therefore remanded until the 16th inst.

Henry Allen, a blind man, was summoned for being found drunk on the above premises.

Supt. Taylor said this was a portion of the last case and asked that it might also be remanded until next Saturday, This was granted.

 

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 Chronicle 23 June 1888.

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

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness, and unlawfully refusing to admit the police to his premises on the 3rd inst.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll (of the firm of Mowll & Mowll, Dover and Ashford) defended.

Defendant pleaded Guilty and therefore it was not necessary to call the evidence.

Mr. Minter, in acquainting the Bench with the facts, stated that the defendant had been a great trouble to the police, and other convictions had been recorded against him. On the night in question the police, having suspicions, went to the house but the defendant refused to admit them. When, however, they did gain admittance two men were found hidden on the roof and another lying on the sofa in the back parlour, drunk.

Mr. Mowll said he would leave the case to the merciful consideration of the Bench. They all knew that such a house was no easy task to keep. He was sure the Bench would take a lenient view of the case when they knew that the defendant had been turned out of the house by the brewers, and consequently both he, his wife, and ten children were thrown upon the streets or the Union. He (Mr. Mowll) would also ask the Bench to transfer the licence.

The Chairman remarked that the Bench thought it necessary to endorse the licence altogether.

Mr. Mowll said he sincerely trusted they would not do so. The brewers turned the defendant out of the house immediately they knew the summons had been issued. They could not have done more.

After a short consideration, the Chairman said the defendant would be fined 5 and 9s. costs for permitting drunkenness on the premises, and 2 and 9s. costs for refusing to admit the police. In default of paying the first amount he would be imprisoned for a month, and the latter 14 days. The licence would not be endorsed this time.

Henry Allen was then summoned for being found drunk on the premises on the same day.

After hearing the evidence, the Chairman said as there was a doubt in the case the prisoner would be dismissed with a caution.

Henry Wood was then granted permission to draw at the Granville Inn.

Stephen Gosby was brought up on remand charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Smith.

The constable, who had been suffering from a fractured rib, now attended, and stated that his attention was called to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, on the previous Saturday night. When he got there he found about forty people standing outside. The prisoner was standing inside the door, drunk and in a fighting attitude. When witness got him outside he asked him to go away, and as he would not do so, witness took him into custody. The prisoner became very violent, and after witness had closed with him they fell three times, and once on the edge of the kerb. With the assistance of Mr. Barwick and P.C. Stannage the prisoner was taken into custody. When they arrived at the police station, witness discovered that he was badly hurt in the ribs, and had been under the police surgeon ever since.

Prisoner stated that he asked the policeman to allow him to go back into the house for his wife and children. He admitted being drunk at the time.

The Chairman: And more disgrace to you for being drunk.

Prisoner, continuing, hoped the Bench would deal leniently with him, as he had a wife and two little children. It was solely for them that he wanted to go back into the house.

The Chairman: Still more disgrace to you.

For being drunk and disorderly prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, and for assaulting the constable, 20s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

Prisoner was removed below.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 25 June 1888.

Local News.

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

Fined 5 and 9s. costs for the first, and 2 and costs for the second offence, or, in default, six weeks’.

Henry Allen was charged with being drunk on the above-named premises, on the 3rd inst. The case was dismissed.

 

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 Chronicle 21 September 1889.

Wednesday, September 17th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and Major Poole.

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 showman”, 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 the boy some beer in the ginger beer bottle produced, for which he paid a penny.

Thomas Smith, son of the last witness, 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 answered “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, who appeared for the defendant: Saw defendant serve beer to boatmen, but did 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: 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 ordered the beer. It was simply a trap, and the defendant was caught in committing an indiscreet act.

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

 

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 Chronicle 6 December 1890.

Wednesday, December 3rd: Before Dr. Bateman, J. Fitness and J. Clarke Esqs.

Henry Bennett and George Noble, labourers, were charged with stealing a cellar flap from the Granville Inn, Dover Street, value 13s., on the night of the 2nd of December.

P.C. Dunster said he was on duty in Dover Street at half past eleven on Tuesday night when he met the prisoners. They were carrying the cellar flap produced. Witness asked them what they had got. Bennett said “A piece of the wreck off the beach”. Noble said “That's right, mate”. Witness examined the wood, and found it to be a cellar flap, and charged them with stealing it. Bennett said “For God's sake, don't do that. If you'll only give us a chance we will take it back from where we got it”. Witness asked him where that was. Bennett said “From the Granville Inn, Dover Street”. They both said they took it for a lark. Noble was sober. The other appeared to have been drinking.

Edward John Abbott, landlord of the Granville Inn, said the cellar flap was his property. It covered the entrance to his cellar. He last saw it in it's proper place about nine o'clock on the previous night. They came to the house after closing time for half a gallon of beer in a bottle, and he refused to serve it. Witness was called up by a policeman at half past twelve, when they found the flap was gone.

Prisoners said they did not take it with the intention of committing a theft. It was done as a joke.

The Chairman said the Bench believed the prisoners' story, and they would be discharged with a caution.

Note: More Bastions lists landlord as Henry 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 Chronicle 26 September 1891.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

The application of Mr. Carlo Maestrani for a licence for his premises in Sandgate Road again came on for hearing.

Mr. Martin Mowll appeared on behalf of the applicant, whilst Mr. Minter opposed for the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. Rooke for the Temperance Association, and Mr. Hall for the four Societies of Good Templars.

Mr. Mowll said the application had been made several times before and the chief obstacle which presented itself was that it would increase the number of licensed houses in the borough. There was a very proper feeling throughout the country that the number of licences should be reduced. He understood that the object of the Temperance Party was to prevent drinking for the sake of drinking, so as to limit it to legitimate drinking at meal times. Mr. Maestrani's premises were just the premises he should have thought the Temperance Party would have supported, because it would help, in a small way, the cause of Temperance. He, however, came before the Bench that day on a different footing. Mr. Maestrani had secured the licence of the Granville Arms, Dover Street, which was a house which the police would be glad to see closed. It had been a low class of house, and if the Bench granted the application Mr. Maestrani would undertake to hand in the licence to the Magistrates at once and the house would be closed. Therefore the number of licences would not be increased. There were a very large proportion of the public who would have stimulants with their meals to assist digestion. Of course, at the present time, Mr. Maestrani had no power over the quality of the liquor he supplied, and it was a great detriment to his business.

Carlo Maestrani was called, and stated that he was the owner of the restaurant at 16, Sandgate Road. His dining saloon could accommodate 200 people. There was also a refreshment room and a ladies' room. The latter would accommodate about fifty. He had spared no expense to make his premises complete. Wines were often required at his premises, and he had to send out to neighbouring places. Between eighty and one hundred people generally dined at his premises in the middle of the day during the season, and, on an average, 200 daily. He also provided public dinners. It would ruin his business to turn it into a beer-shop. He simply wanted to supply liquors to people with their food.

Mr. Wightwick: Do you intend to close the Granville Arms if you get the licence?

Mr. Mowll: Yes, sir. I will give an undertaking that the house shall be closed down before the other licence is handed down.

By Mr. Hall: Nearly all the 200 people would require drink. Customers had to suffer by waiting. Did not intend to have a public bar, and did not want people to come in for a pot of beer.

By Mr. Rooke: He had only to send across the road for liquor. People had to wait about twenty minutes. Not always, but very often. There were no customers present to say they suffered. He wanted to make his business complete. He did not keep an account of the amount of drink he supplied. It was hardly necessary when other people got the profits. (Laughter) He would not keep a bar. If a man came in for a drink it would be placed on a table. Ladies often came in for a glass of sherry and a biscuit. He could not supply them and they walked out.

Mr. Hall contended that the licence was not required and that there were no special circumstances to induce the Bench to grant it. If it were granted there would be nothing to prevent a gang of navvies going in there with pick-axe and shovel for drinks.

Mr. Rooke said the application was for a fully licensed house, which was not required. No person had been called to say they suffered any inconvenience, neither was there any evidence to show that he was handicapped by any other restaurant keeper.

Mr. inter said the objection on the part of the licensed victuallers was that it was unfair to grant a new licence in the town. But, now that Mr. Maestrani had undertaken to extinguish one licence, he was sure they would not object, and he would, therefore, withdraw his opposition.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and, after a long absence returned, the Chairman remarking that the majority of the Bench were of opinion that the licence was not required. Therefore the application would be refused.

 

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 Chronicle 27 August 1892.

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

Annual Licensing Session.

Extract from application for licence to Central Restaurant:

Mr. Worsfold Mowll: This year, should the Magistrates think fit to grant the full licence, Mr. Maestrani was willing to hand over the licence of the Granville public house, which had already been granted and applied for that morning.

Mr. Carlo Maestrani: “was willing to hand to the Bench the licence of the Granville Arms should the Bench grant his application for a full licence”.

Note: Again, Maestrani appears to have the licence of the Granville, but there is no record of this according to More Bastions.

 

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 Chronicle 1 October 1892.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

The renewals of the British Colours, Harbour Street, to J. Gifford (sic), and the Granville, Dover Street, to Thomas Mitchell, were granted.

Note: No mention of Mitchell at the Granville in More Bastions. This is probably Stickells misheard.

 

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 Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

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

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Granville Arms.

Mr. Glyn said this was a fully-licensed house in Dover Street, and belonged to Messrs. Moxon.

There were two licensed houses within 100 paces of it.

Mr. Taylor, in answer to Mr. Glyn, said he objected to two of the houses in Dover Street.

Mr. Moxon said the house was valued at 800. It had been kept in good repair on the faith of having the licence renewed. The present tenant was a very good one.

The witness was questioned by Mr. Taylor as to previous tenants being convicted of breaches of the Licensing Laws and Mr. Moxon replied that when the police made an objection to a tenant they gave him notice to leave.

Francis Mempes, coffee house keeper, Dover Street, Frederick Edwards, commission agent, and Robert Downey, plumber, Dover Street, gave evidence in support of the renewal.

Downey said he had no objection to the house.

Mr. Taylor: I suppose you would not object to it being closed?

Downey: How would you like to walk further for your drinks up to your neck in snow?

Mr. Glyn: You must not question the Superintendent as to his drinks; it is very irregular. (Laughter)

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

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

The Decision.

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was 1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than 305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when 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 Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The Bench proceeded to the next case, that of the Granville Arms, which is situated in Dover Street, a fully licensed house, belonging to Messrs. Ash and Co. The ground of objection was that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift and Superintendent Taylor gave evidence, and the latter said that of the four licensed houses in Dover Street he objected to two, the Welcome and the Granville.

Mr. Moxon, called by Mr. Glyn, said the value of the Granville Arms to his firm was 800. The present tenant, Stickles, was a very respectable man. To the Superintendent he admitted that in 1887 a man named Mackay, the tenant, was convicted of a breach of the licensing laws, and left because of this. When the police objected they were obliged to get rid of the tenant.

Superintendent Taylor conceded that the house was better conducted than it was.

Francis Mempes, a coffee house keeper, whose premises adjoin the Granville Arms, and Robert Downey, a neighbour, gave evidence of the respectability of the house. Both admitted it would cause no inconvenience to them personally if the house was closed, but the latter asked the Superintendent whether in the snow he would care to go further for a drink than was necessary.

Mr. Glyn: You must not refer to the Superintendent's drinks. It is a very particular matter. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor: I suppose Mr. Glyn is jealous – he has been round to all these houses. (Renewed laughter)

Fred. Edwards, a commission agent and lodger also spoke as to the respectability of the house.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it's conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin's work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen's arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

The Victoria, the Oddfellows, the Welcome, British Colours, and Granville were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and the Tramway for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place, this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 January 1894.

Inquest.

On Tuesday morning the body of a man, which has since transpired to be that of a journeyman carpenter named George Henry Wyatt, presumably belonging to Hammersmith, was found hanging in a house which is in the course of erection at St. John's Church Road. An inquest on the body was held at the Town Hall by the Deputy Coroner (Mr. Haines) on Wednesday afternoon, when the following evidence was given.

Frederick Stickings (sic), of the Granville, identified the body as that of Wyatt. The deceased was a carpenter by trade and was about 50 years of age. He went to witness's house for a bedroom about five or six weeks ago. He stayed about a week in search of employment, and during that time witness found him to be a very respectable, steady man. The deceased went to Ashford to get work and came back to witness on Boxing Day. He said he was in employment and stayed the night at witness's house. Witness last saw him alive on Saturday last. He told witness he had family troubles, but he never complained about his health.

Jesse Godfrey, of 66, St. Michael's Street, said he was a bricklayer working for Mr. Farley in the construction of houses in St. John's Church Road. He went to the buildings on Tuesday morning after having been away from them for several days, and he saw the body of the deceased hanging by a rope from the joists of the first floor. He gave information to the police.

Frank Colin Manktelow, of 4, Claremont Street, a parcels clerk at the Junction Station, said on the 3rd instant he took in two baskets of tools from the deceased. He gave him a ticket for them and on Tuesday he handed over the baskets to the Coroner's Officer, who produced the duplicate.

Edwin John Chadwick, Coroner's Officer, who gave evidence as to going to the house and cutting down the deceased, said there were two bundles of laths standing up on end in a corner of the room close to the man's feet, and he had apparently got up on these in order to suspend himself. Among the articles found on the deceased was a membership card of the Carpenters and Joiners Union, Hammersmith Lodge, a travelling ticket of the London Building Trade Federation, and a Savings Bank book taken out at Hounslow in August, 1885. The book showed that the deceased had made recent withdrawals, and that there was now only a balance of 2s. 3d. The cloakroom ticket for the two baskets of tools referred to was also found on the body.

Dr. Barrett said death was due to suffocation by hanging and added that the deceased had been dead at least 24 hours. The body was frozen and it might have been hanging there for two or three days.

Superintendent Taylor handed in a telegram which he had received from the Superintendent of Police at Hammersmith stating that George Henry Wyatt left 11, Rothschild Road, Acton, in November last.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide while temporarily insane”.

 

Southeastern Gazette 16 January 1894.

Inquest.

A horrible discovery was made in an empty house in St. John’s Church Road, Folkestone, by a bricklayer named Jesse Godfrey on Tuesday. The house in question is approaching completion of erection, and on entering a back room on the ground floor Godfrey saw the dead body of a man named George Henry Wyatt suspended by a scaffold rope from a joist of the room above.

At the inquest on Wednesday it was stated that deceased had formerly been in the employ of an Ashford builder, and on Boxing Day he passed the night at the Granville Inn, Folkestone, when he stated to the landlord that he had family troubles. On January 3rd deceased left two baskets of tools in the cloak room at the Junction Railway Station, and in one of these was discovered a Savings Bank book taken out at Hounslow in 1885, while on deceased was found a leather purse containing 1s. 7d. According to the medical evidence deceased was very badly diseased.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide while temporarily insane.”

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 June 1894.

Saturday, May 26th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Herbert, Messrs. Brooke and Pursey, and Surgeon General Gilborne.

Frederick George Stickells, landlord of the Granville, Dover Street, was summoned by Israel Brown for an assault on the 18th. Mr. H Watts appeared for the defendant.

According to the evidence of the complainant, he and his wife lodged at the house of the defendant, and on the morning in question he was going to his room when the defendant seized him by the arm, wrenched it round, and punched him in the ribs. He got away upstairs and was followed by the defendant, who threatened to give him a good hiding and would have done so but his (witness's) wife got between them and kept him off. In reply to Mr. Watts he denied defendant had previously told him to leave the house and that he had replied, making use of bad language, that he would leave when he liked. Neither did he challenge defendant to put him out and offer him out to fight. He was positive defendant followed him upstairs.

A different complexion was, however, put upon this by a Mrs. Richmond, a charwoman employed by the defendant, who denied that he struck the complainant or twisted his arm. All he did was to put his hand on his shoulder and tell him to leave the room. Defendant did not follow him upstairs, but complainant made use of bad language and challenged him to strike him.

The Bench immediately dismissed the case, and complainant had to pay 3s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 December 1897.

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

Mr. S. Wickenson was granted the transfer of the licence of the Granville.

 

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 Herald 11 December 1897.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the sitting of the Folkestone Justices: Granville Inn to Mr. S.S. Wickenden.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 December 1897.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Thursday, by Mr. J. Minter, Borough Coroner, on the death of Isaac Wade.

Edwin Frank Baker, 14, The Bayle, labourer, identified the body. He said deceased came from Ramsgate, and was lodging at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. He was employed as a labourer by Mr. Rigby on the works near the Warren. On Tuesday evening witness was proceeding to his work with deceased at about 7 o'clock. They passed through the tunnel, and were near the Abbot's Cliff signal box. They were walking on the line on the path by the side of the up line. There was no other way of getting there so far as he knew. Witness knew nothing as to the trains. Deceased had never been to work before there, and witness borrowed a lamp from the watchman to see through the tunnel. Deceased asked witness how they got through the tunnel, and he replied that there was plenty of room to get out of the way of trains. Deceased remarked that if a train came he should lie down. At the end of the tunnel he gave up his lantern and could see well. He saw a train coming from Dover round a curve. Witness told deceased an up train was coming, and he said “We lean on the bank, don't we?”, and witness replied “Yes”. Witness did so, and thought Wade did the same. There were steep cuttings at the place. There was six feet between the bank and the train. They faced the train. After it had passed, witness found Wade lying on the ballast by the side of the line. Finding he did not answer, witness struck a match and saw the blood coming from his head. He took his coat off and laid deceased's head upon it, and went to the workmen's cottages and called a platelayer named Reed. Two men came, and a trolley was fetched, and deceased was brought to Folkestone Junction.

Dr. James Thornton Gilbert said there was a wound extending from the right eyebrow over to the back of the head. The whole mass of flesh was hanging over the side of the head. There were two or more fractures of the skull. The left hand had been cut off and was hanging in ribbons. The wounds were dressed, and deceased was conveyed to the Victoria Hospital, but he was dying as he left the station.

Dr. Alfred Horne, locum tenens for the house surgeon at the hospital, said deceased died at midnight. He was 27 years of age.

A verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1898.

Saturday, September 10th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, J. Pledge, and T. Salter.

Stephen Wiginton (sic) was charged with assaulting his wife, Sarah Wiginton, on the 6th inst.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the prosecution, and said the Bench would perhaps think it advisable to remand the defendant in custody with a view to the state of his mind being examined.

The prosecutrix said she lived at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. On the previous Tuesday, about noon, the defendant came in with a sharp carving knife and said “I could stab you to the heart with it”. He then put the knife in his pocket. Witness took up the poker, and said she would hit him over the head. She did not know whether he would stab her or not, for “he did say such rummish things”. He knocked her down on the sofa, and she was insensible. He hit her three times. Mrs. Downie then came in. Witness hit him over the head with a stick. He had continually threatened her for a year, and she was in bodily fear of him. He said he “would make pictures of her brains on the wall”. The house and everything in it belonged to witness.

Mrs. Downie, 58, Dover Street, said she was called to the Granville on the previous Tuesday, and the last witness said she had been assaulted by her husband. She should think the defendant had been drinking. They were both struggling with the poker. Defendant threatened to scatter his wife's brains on the wall. On Thursday night the complainant stopped at witness's house, being locked out at midnight.

Defendant said it was a case of a drunken woman. He alleged his wife stabbed him. He used no knife; it was his wife who used it.

The Chairman said the Bench took a lenient view of the matter, and defendant would be bound over to keep the peace for six months, himself in one surety of 20, and another in the same sum. In default he would go to prison for 14 days. He would also have to pay 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1898.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday – Mr. Holden presiding – Stephen Smith Wickenden was summoned for assaulting his wife. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Watts, who appeared on behalf of complainant, alluded to the facts of the case, the alleged offence having taken place on the 6th. He thought it would be a question whether the Bench should not remand the defendant in custody in order that the Medical Officer might examine as to his state of mind. There were difficulties in the way of asking for a separation order.

Sarah Ann Wickenden, defendant's wife, deposed that she lived at the Granville, Dover Street. On the day in question, just after 12, the defendant came in with a sharp pointed knife. He said “I could stab you to the heart”, and he put it in his pocket. Witness picked up the poker, and said “I'll hit you over the head with it”. Defendant hit her, and knocked her down on the sofa. He hit her in the ear. Three blows were struck by defendant. He knocked her senseless. She hit him after he struck her. He was always assaulting her, and he had threatened her. He said that if it were not for the law he would make pictures of her brains on the wall. She went in fear of her husband. She thought his mind was affected. She had money of her own and took the Inn. Everything there belonged to her. She thought defendant was under the influence of drink. She did not see him drink.

Ellen Downey, married, a neighbour, deposed that she saw Mrs. Wickenden, who was bleeding very much from the ear. She was upset. Her husband was present. She said her husband had given her two blows, one on the ear. Defendant was very greatly excited; she thought he had been drinking. The wife and husband were each holding a poker. Witness heard Wickenden threaten to splatter her brains on the wall. On Thursday night she was locked out at 12 o'clock.

The defendant said this was the case of a drunken wman. He was proceeding, when the Clerk reminded him that he was charged with assaulting.

Defendant said that he was cutting tobacco, and it was his wife that used the knife.

The Chairman said this was a very serious matter, but the Bench took a lenient view. They called on him to find two sureties, one himself of 10, to be of good behaviour, or 14 days'. He also had to pay 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 17 September 1898.

Saturday, September 10th: Before J. Holden Esq., Aldermen Pledge, Salter, and Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan Esq.

Stephen Wickenden was summoned for assaulting Sarah Ann Wickenden, the landlady of the Granville Hotel, Dover Street.

Mr. Watts appeared for the complainant, and asked that the defendant might be put under medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was of sound mind.

The complainant said: I am the wife of the defendant, and live at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. I had been taking the dinner up last Tuesday, when the defendant came in with a sharp pointed knife, and said “I could stab you to the heart”. I got hold of the poker and said “I will strike you over the head with it” A man then ran over with Mrs. Downey. He struck me three times. My ear bled, and I fell down insensible. I got hold of a stick as soon as I had recovered sufficiently, and hit him over the head. He has often assaulted me, and about a fortnight ago he said if it was not for the law he would make pictures of my brains. The night before last I had to run out of the house. I have reason to fear that his mind is affected. The Granville Hotel really belongs to me. It has really been obtained with my money.

Ellen Downey said: I am the wife of Robert Downey, plumber, Dover Street, and saw the complainant bleeding from the ear and very much upset. I should think he had been drinking. I heard him threaten on one occasion to spatter her brains on the wall. She came to my house on Thursday night after she had left her house.

The defendant said his case was that the complainant was a drunken woman. He wished to conduct the house in a respectable manner. She struck him with a knife. He was too much a man to bring witnesses into Court.

The Chairman said the matter in dispute was a very serious one, but the Court were disposed to take a lenient view of the case. The defendant was ordered to find one surety in 10, and enter into his own recognisances of 10, in default 14 days', and another 14 days' for non-payment of the costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 July 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday last, William S. Wickenden, landlord of the Granville Inn, was summoned for serving liquor on licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 16th inst. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant. Defendant was ill, and was represented by his wife.

Sergeant Osborne said on the morning in question, he kept observation on the house, in company with P.C. Burniston, from 6.20 to 8.10. At 7.30 witness saw a man tap at the window. The door was locked, but Mrs. Wickenden unbolted it. She then looked up and down the street, and the man then followed her into the house. Other men entered after. Witness visited the house with Burniston at 8.10. They went to the side door, which was open. Four men were in the bar, and one in the tap-room. One man witness believed to be a lodger. The others he knew to be living in other parts of the town. Glasses of beer were standing on the counter, and one man drank from out of the glasses in his presence. Witness said to Mrs. Wickenden “What are these men doing here?” She replied “They are all lodgers”. Witness then told her that he should report the case. Later in the morning witness saw defendant, and repeated this. Wickenden said they were obliged to keep the side door open, but if witness saw anything wrong he must do his duty.

By Mr. Minter: It was a public house and a lodging house.

P.C. Burniston gave corroborative evidence and read notes of the times when the men entered the house. He also gave the names and addresses of the men who were living in different parts of the town.

By Mr. Minter: Witness was not aware that the men were lodgers.

Mr. Minter, in the course of an able defence, said, of course in this case the defendant was responsible for the acts of his wife. Unfortunately Wickenden was ill, and his wife represented him. He (Mr. Minter) was in somewhat of a difficulty, for, after the evidence of the two constables, he felt it his duty to advise Mrs. Wickenden not to go into the box. But she persisted in her desire. As an advocate he should refuse to tender her as a witness, and whatever she did would be on her own responsibility. He should withdraw the plea of not guilty for one of guilty, and throw his client on the mercy of the Court.

In spite of Mr. Minter's repeated advice, Mrs. Wickenden then entered the box and swore that she did not come downstairs on the morning in question until 7.55. The men were all lodgers, with the exception of two, who were travellers from Westenhanger.

By the Superintendent: All the men had slept in my house with the exception of the two she had mentioned.

Mr. Herbert, in announcing the decision of the Bench, said: The Bench think the case is fully proved. You will be fined 5 and 11s. costs, and the Bench feel that you acted very unwisely in going into the witness box after the advice given you by Mr. Minter.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 29 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 26th: Before The Mayor, J. Banks, J, Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Prsey Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

William S. Wickenden, landlord of the Granville public house, was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act by serving drink during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 16th inst.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the defendant, who was represented in Court by his wife.

Sergt. Osborne deposed that on the morning in question he kept watch over the defendant's house in Dover Street from 6.20 to 8.10, and saw a number of men there during prohibited hours.

P.C. Burniston corroborated, and stated that he saw a number of men in the house during prohibited hours. Amongst the men were Farley, Philpott, Smith, Minter, and Gillingham.

Mr. Minter said he had recommended Mrs. Wickenden to plead Guilty, and not enter the witness box.

Notwithstanding Mr. Minter's remarks, the defendant's wife persisted in being heard. She said she never saw anyone in the house, only the lodgers.

Chief Constable Reeve said he would have further inquiries made, because h was informed the truth was otherwise than would appear from Mrs. Wickenden's testimony.

Mr. Herbert said the Bench felt very strongly she should not have entered the witness box. The defendant was fined 5, but under the circumstances they did not endorse the licence.

 

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 Up To Date 12 August 1899.

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

John Farley, Patrick Gillingham, George Philpott and George Minter were summoned for being on licensed premises, to wit, the Granville Hotel, Dover Street, during prohibited hours. They pleaded Not Guilty.

Farley failed to put in an appearance, and the Chief Constable applied for a warrant. Philpott, appearing in court drunk, was remanded in custody until Tuesday, but was bailed out the same day.

P.C. Osborne said on Sunday morning, the 6th July last, he watched the Granville public house between six and eight o'clock, and saw the defendants there. He told them he should report them.

P.C. Burniston gave corroborative evidence.

George Minter then gave evidence for the defence, to the effect that he was sleeping out the night previous to his being found at the Granville public house. He was a lodger on the morning in question. When the policemen came in he was not having any drink.

Gillingham made a statement that he also was a lodger, but he did not go into the witness box. He added that he could prove that he was a lodger, but could not call a number of working men witnesses because of the expense.

The Bench considered the charge proved, and Minter and Gillingham were fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, in default seven days' hard labour each.

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

George Philpott and John Thomas Farley were summoned for being found on licensed premises, the Granville Hotel, during prohibited hours.

P.C. Osborne and P.C. Burniston gave evidence in support of the charge, which has been before the Court in different forms on several occasions.

Philpott was fined 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, and Farley 2s. 6d. and 12s. costs, in default seven days' hard labour.

 

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 Up To Date 26 August 1899.

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

Licensing Day.

The Granville, Dover Street.

The licence of this public house was transferred from Mr. Wickenden to Thos. Augustus Olver.

The Chief Constable said there was a long list of convictions against this house, and he only hoped that the new tenant, who bore a good character and was a naval pensioner, would be able to conduct the place properly.

 

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 Herald 16 September 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday the transfer of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was granted to Mr. Thomas Augustus Olver.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 September 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday the renewal of the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, was granted to Mr. Thomas Augustus Olver.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 23 September 1899.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

The Granville.

Wednesday, September 20th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The transfer of the Granville, Dover Street, from Mr. Wickenden to Mr. Olver was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 October 1901.

Saturday, October 12th: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Westropp, Peden, and Sinclair.

Timothy Fahy, a respectable looking young man, was charged with having attempted to commit suicide on the 14th of September, since which date he had remained a patient at the Victoria Hospital.

The first witness called was Thomas Alwin (sic), who said: I am the landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street. On the 13th of September, prisoner came to my house and asked for a bed, which I let to him. He retired to bed about one o'clock in the afternoon. I next saw him at six the same evening. He was out of bed, with his trousers on. After that I did not see him till 2.15 the next morning. I then saw him in bed. He had been down, knocking at my door and other lodgers' doors too. I took him up a drink of water. He was then in bed. I said to him “I have brought you a jug of water”, and he replied that he did not want it, as he was all right now. At the time his head was under the bedclothes. I threw the clothes back, and then saw that his head was covered in blood, which was oozing from the throat. I sent for Dr. Gilbert, and gave information to the police. I did not know the prisoner previous to his coming to my house for a bed.

Dr. J.W.T. Gilbert said: On the 14th of September I was called to the Granville Inn at 2.15 in the morning. I saw the prisoner in bed. The floor and bedclothes were stained with blood. The prisoner seemed in a state of collapse from loss of blood. The police were present, and the only information which we could obtain from the man was his name and the statement that he was a Roman Catholic and wanted to see a priest. I examined him, and found a deep, incised wound through the windpipe. The wound was dangerous, on account of the haemorrhage, but prisoner had not severed the big vessels of the neck. There is no question that the wound was made with a razor, and was such as would be likely to be self-inflicted. Prisoner's hands were covered with blood. I could not find any evidence that he had had any drink. He was conveyed to the Victoria Hospital in an ambulance. I accompanied him. At the hospital he was received as an in-patient, and has remained there until this morning.

The Chairman: Is the wound now better?

Dr. Gilbert said he had not attended accused at the hospital, but, after an examination in Court, he stated that the wound had not quite healed up, but had nearly.

Inspector Swift said: On the morning of the 14th September last I was called to the Granville public house, Dover Street. On the third floor, in the back bedroom, I saw the prisoner being attended to by the last witness. Prisoner was bleeding from the throat. The bedding was swamped with blood, and there was a quantity on the floor. In a pool of blood I found the open razor produced: it was wet with blood. Prisoner saw me pick it up, and nodded as if in assent.

The Magistrates' Clerk: He nodded his head; you can't say whether it was in assent.

Inspector Swift, continuing: After the wound was dressed, prisoner was removed to the Victoria Hospital on an ambulance. Before removal he gave me hi name – Fahy. I asked him where his home was, and he replied “That will do; you don't know any more about me”. This morning I saw him at the police station, and charged him with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat with a razor on the 14th of September. He did not make any reply.

Prisoner was cautioned by the Chairman, and, in reply to the charge, said he could only say that he was sorry he did it.

He was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions, the Bench offering bail. This not being forthcoming, the Chief Constable said the accused would be well looked after; he would go into the infirmary.

 

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 Herald 19 October 1901.

Saturday, October 12th: Before Councillors T.J. Vaughan and G. Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Timothy Fahy, a respectable-looking young man, had to answer a charge of attempted suicide.

The evidence given showed that on the 13th September, Fahy went to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and took a bed. He went to bed at noon, and was seen in his bedroom at 6 o'clock in the evening. The landlord, going into the bedroom at 2 a.m. next morning, found defendant with his head covered by the clothes. When these were pulled down he was found to have a deep cut in his throat, and the bedclothes were covered with blood. Dr. Gilbert was called in, and defendant was removed to the Hospital, in which institution he had been ever since.

He was committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 October 1901.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Mr. Lewis Coward K.C.

Timothy Fahy, who described himself as a tailor, pleaded Guilty to attempting to commit suicide on the 14th of September.

Mr. Mavrogani, who represented the Crown, briefly re-told how, on the 14th of September, the prisoner, who had taken lodgings at the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was discovered by the landlord with his throat badly cut, how a doctor was immediately summoned, and the prisoner removed to the Victoria Hospital, where he remained under surveillance until committed to take his trial on the 12th of October.

The Chief Constable stated that enquiries proved prisoner to be a deserter from the Royal Fusiliers.

An officer and a sergeant in the prisoner's regiment gave him a very good character. The sergeant mentioned that prisoner had been under treatment in the regimental hospital, from which he deserted, and was not heard of until the present charge arose.

The Rev. Father Scannell said he saw the prisoner on the night on which he made the attempt upon his life. In witness's opinion he seemed to be a harmless and weak-minded person, and if the Recorder would entrust him to witness's care he would look after him and send him home to his parents.

The Recorder: But are you not aware that the prisoner is a deserter, and that you would thus be defeating the ends of justice?

Father Scannell: But if he told me as a professional man ......

The Recorder: I will not enter into an ethical question with you. You may stand down, thank you, sir.

The Recorder said he would take a lenient view of the case. Father Scannell had said the prisoner was contrite, and, after all, he had committed a bigger offence against himself than against the public. The sentence would be six days' hard labour.

 

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 Herald 26 October 1901.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Timothy Fahy pleaded Guilty to a charge of attempted suicide by cutting his throat with a razor on the 14th September. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the Crown.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said prisoner took lodgings at the Granville Inn on the 14th September, and was found early next morning with his throat cut. He refused then to give any account of himself, but he had since ascertained that he was a deserter from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers.

An officer from the Dublin Fusiliers said the man's character was fairly good, and Sergt. Sutton, of the same regiment, said he deserted whilst in hospital.

Prisoner said he was not responsible for his actions.

The Rev. Father Scannell deposed that on the night when he attempted suicide prisoner asked to see him. He went to the Hospital, and had since seen prisoner, who appeared to be a quiet, harmless, weak-minded man. If he was entrusted to him he would see that he was handed over to his friends.

The Recorder stated that he could not do that, as he was a deserter from the Army. He would sentence him to six days' hard labour, and in the meantime the civil authorities would take steps to have him handed over to his regiment.

 

Folkestone Programme 28 October 1901.

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Timothy Fahy, for attempting to commit suicide on September 11th, to which offence he pleaded Guilty, was sentenced to six days' imprisonment. As the prisoner is wanted by the military authorities for deserting from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, he will be handed over to the military authorities on his release.

 

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 Chronicle 7 February 1903.

Saturday, January 31st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. G. Peden and J. Stainer.

Charles Partridge, landlord of the Granville Arms, Dover Street, was summoned for having supplied intoxicating liquor to a man who was already under the effects of drink on the 24th inst. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. J. Minter, pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley said that at 9.35 p.m. on the evening in question, he, in company with P.C. Sales, visited the defendant's house. Partridge was serving behind the bar, in front of which stood two men, named Jack Morley and Peter Kelly, each of whom had a half pint glass of beer, freshly drawn. Morley was “very drunk” and seemed scarcely able to stand. Kelly drunk one glass of beer, and Morley part of the other. Partridge then took the glass away from Morley, and said “Come on, let me help you upstairs to bed”. Witness and Sales went outside for a minute or two with Kelly, and on returning to the bar found that defendant had gone upstairs with Morley. Defendant was called down, and witness said “You saw the condition of that man; he is drunk”. Defendant replied “Yes, I do not serve them as a rule, but am obliged to do so sometimes just to keep them quiet”. Witness then asked “Is the man a lodger here?”, to which Partridge replied “He has been here a week”. Witness said “I shall have to report you for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken man”. Defendant remarked “I am very sorry; you see that the man got his drink somewhere else, and I was obliged to serve him for fear he would kick up a row”.

P.C. Sales corroborated.

For the defence, Mr. Minter said that defendant would go into the box and deny that he told the Inspector or the constable that he had supplied Morley with any drink. Morley was a lodger, and defendant would tell the Court that when the two men came into the bar Kelly was perfectly sober. Kelly was served with beer, but Morley, being drunk, was not served. It was when he was persuading Morley to go to bed that the police arrived. If Morley did, at that time, take up a glass, it must have been some other person's. Even if that were so, the defendant did not see him pick the glass up.

Defendant bore out his solicitor's opening. Kelly, who was sober, asked for, and was served with, beer. Morley also asked for a glass, but he (defendant) refused to serve him, saying “No, you had better have a candle and go to bed”. He (defendant) commenced to make preparations accordingly.

Mr. Minter: Tell the Bench what took place when the Inspector came in.

Witness: The Inspector said “I shall want your name, as I shall have to make a report of this”. That was all that was said.

Pressed by the Chief Constable, witness admitted that other conversation did take place.

Mr. Minter: You told the police that the man had not had any drink in your house?

Defendant: Yes.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimous in considering that the case had been fully proved. Defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty of 10, but this being his first offence he would be fined 2 and 11s. costs.

 

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 Herald 7 February 1903.

Saturday, January 31st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J.C. Stainer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Charles Partridge was summoned for supplying drink to a drunken person. Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defence, put in a plea of Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley stated that at 9.35 on Saturday evening, accompanied by P.C. Sales, he went to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, which was kept by the defendant. Defendant and his wife were behind the bar. In front of the bar were two men, Jack Marley and Peter Kelly. There were two glasses, containing beer freshly drawn, near the men. Marley was very drunk, and hardly able to stand up. Kelly drank one of the glasses of beer, and Marley the other. The landlord took away the glass from Marley, and said to him “Come and let me help you up to bed”. Witness went outside with Kelly, and went in again, and found the landlord had gone upstairs with Marley. His wife called him, and witness said to him “Did you see the condition of the man? He is drunk”. Defendant replied “Yes, I don't serve them as a rule, but I serve them sometimes to keep them quiet”. The men had been lodging there for a week. Witness said he would report him for serving liquor to a drunken man. Defendant said “I am very sorry. He must have got the drink somewhere else. I must sere him, or else he would kick up a row”.

By Mr. Minter: P.C. Sales had already seen defendants at the Rendezvous. There were only two glasses on the counter. The landlord did not point to a candle on the counter and say Marley was just going up to bed.

P.C. Sales corroborated the Inspector's evidence.

After having cross-examined the constable, Mr. Minter addressed the Bench for the defence.

The defendant gave evidence on oath, and stated that the two men had been lodging with him for five days. Marley had had one half pint of beer in the house in the morning. They came to the house at 9.40 in the evening. Marley was drunk, and asked for a drink. Witness did not serve him, and told him that he had better go to bed. There were 15 or 16 glasses on the counter at the time. Some of them had beer in them, which customers had left. He did not see Marley take hold of a glass. The Inspector said to him “I want your name and address as I shall have to make a report of this”.

By the Chief Constable: The bar was empty, and he left the glasses to wash them all up together. He told the Inspector that he had not supplied Marley with drink.

The Chairman said the Bench considered the case fully proved. Defendant would be fined 40s. and 11s. costs.

 

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 Herald 28 February 1903.

Wednesday, February 25th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. Ward.

John Walter Fitzgerald, a young man, was charged with being a deserter from the 1st Royal Dragoons, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that at eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning he saw prisoner at the Granville Inn, Dover Street, which is a common lodging house. In answer to a question, Fitzgerald said he was in receipt of an income of 3 a week. Not being satisfied with this statement, the detective made further enquiries, with the result that he found prisoner was a deserter, having deserted from the 1st Royal Dragoons, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, on the 28th December last. In consequence of this, he (the detective) again went to the Granville Inn at seven o'clock in the evening. Prisoner was in the kitchen, and when asked if his name was Fitzgerald replied in the negative, saying that his name was Johnson. Detective Sergeant Burniston then told him that he answered the description of a man who was wanted for desertion, whereupon prisoner said “You have made a great mistake”. Prisoner was then taken into custody on suspicion, and at the police station he admitted that his name was Fitzgerald and that he was a deserter from the 1st Royal Dragoons.

He now pleaded Guilty and had nothing to say.

Prisoner was remanded to await the arrival of an escort from the military authorities, and a reward of 1 was granted to Detective Sergeant Burniston for having effected his arrest.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville, Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope, Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting; and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel, as to her husband's conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear)

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man's living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel's observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

The Granville.

The main ground of the opposition to this licence was that the house was registered as a common lodging house. This and the fact of a previous conviction against Mr. Charles Partridge (the tenant) constituted the Chief Constable's line of examination.

Mr. Thorn Drury, representing the brewers, questioned Mr. Pearson, the sanitary inspector, who said that during the past few days he had received a notice that the common lodging house would not be continued. In cross-examination the police admitted that the house had been fairly well conducted.

The Chairman announced that the licence would be renewed subject to an undertaking that separate rooms would be provided for the lodgers.

 

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 Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o'clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

The five beerhouses on licences were granted before the 1st May, 1869, and had been continuously renewed since that date, therefore they could not refuse to renew the licences, except upon one of the four grounds set out in Section 8 of the Wine and Beerhouses Act, 1869.

The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed, between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.

At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.

The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.

Mr. Glyn: i think it would be fairer to the “trade” to postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.

The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.

Consideration of the applications for the renewal of licences to which objection was taken by the police was then proceeded with.

In the case of the Granville, kept by Charles Partridge, and in which Mr. G. Thorn Drury (instructed by Mr. Minter), appeared for the applicant, Inspector Swift said the landlord had been convicted for selling beer to a drunken person.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorn Drury, the witness said that was not the only complaint against the landlord. He had had complaints about disorder from various people, but he could not give their names.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said there was only one room in the house for the general public, and lodgers' kitchen. It was rather difficult for police supervision.

Mr. Thorn Drury: With regard to the accommodation, there is plenty of room upstairs? – Oh, yes. Seven bedrooms.

Addressing the Justices, Mr. Thorn Drury said there was practically no evidence at all with regard to disorder. They would be glad to give precisely the same undertaking as in the preceding cases as to the persons being accommodated in separate rooms. With regard to the side door, that should also be closed up. Of course, he did not want the Bench to believe that they were going to give up lodging altogether.

Subject to the same undertaking the Bench agreed to renew the licence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 April 1903.

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

Charles Fredk. Skinner (sic) was granted the temporary transfer of the licence of the Granville Inn from Charles Partridge.

 

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 Herald 11 April 1903.

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

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Granville Inn was granted to Frederick Skinner. Chief Constable Reeve stated that the outgoing tenant wished to know if it would be necessary for him to attend personally when the final transfer was made on the 27th May, as he was leaving the town. Under the new Act it was necessary for him to attend unless the Bench excused him.

The Chairman remarked that the Magistrates were very sorry, but they had no power to deal with the case, and Mr. Partridge would therefore have to be present.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, E.T. Ward, and T.J. Vaughan.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred from Charles Partridge to Fredk. Skinner.

 

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 Herald 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonels Westropp, Hamilton, and Fynmore, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and G.I. Swoffer.

The following temporary transfer was confirmed by the Bench: Granville Inn, from Mr. Charles Partridge to Mr. 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 Daily News 5 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 5th: Before Alderman Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

John Smith, who did not appear, was charged with assaulting Frederick Skinner, landlord of the Granville Inn.

The wife of the defendant appeared and said her husband was not at home when the summons was left, and had not been home since.

The Magistrates decided to issue a fresh summons.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 April 1905.

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

John Smith failed to appear in answer to a summons for assault on Frederick Skinner.

Defendant's wife said the summons had not been served on the defendant, he having left the town before the service. She did not know where he had gone.

A fresh summons was ordered to be issued.

 

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 Daily News 18 August 1906.

Saturday, August 18th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Banks, Swoffer, Stainer, Hamilton, and Linton.

William Spearpoint, William Bailey, and Nora Hill were charged with using obscene language in Dover Street. Hill and Bailey did not appear.

Mr. Skinner, landlord of the Granville, was called, and deposed that on Monday last the accused came to his house the worse for drink, and he refused to serve them, upon which they used indecent language, and the prisoners commenced to break his fittings, some of which witness produced.

T. Franks, a grocer in Dover St., corroborated the statements of Mr. Skinner, and added that the Granville was a well-conducted house.

The Bench fined Spearpoint 12s. 6d. including costs, and issued warrants for the apprehension of Bailey and Hill.

 

Folkestone Daily News 22 August 1906.

Wednesday, August 22nd: Before Messrs. Banks, Swoffer, Stainer, Ames, Linton, and Herbert.

Frederick Bailey was charged on a warrant with using obscene language on August 13th. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Frederick Skinner said on the 13th August the prisoner with another man and woman came into his house, the Granville Inn, and ordered something to drink. As they were the worse for drink he refused to serve them, whereupon they used obscene language. They also used very offensive language when they got into the street.

The Chairman said he should like to remind the prisoner that public houses had as much right to be protected as private houses, and the public were much indebted to Mr. Skinner for coming forward. Prisoner would be fined 10s. and 11s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

Prisoner said he only had 13s. with him, but would pay the rest on Saturday if they would allow him time.

The Chairman: What's that? Do you say you want credit?

Prisoner: Yes, please, sir.

The Chairman: What about it, Chief Constable?

The Chief Constable satisfied the Bench that it would be all right, and the Chairman told the prisoner to be sure and bring the balance up on Saturday.

 

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 Herald 25 August 1906.

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

William Spearpoint, Frederick Bailey, and Isabella Hill were summoned for using obscene language. Only Spearpoint appeared, and pleaded Guilty.

Frederick Skinner, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, stated that on Monday evening, at 8.45, Spearpoint and another man and a woman came to his house drunk. Seeing their condition he refused to serve them. The man then went out and waited for the woman, who started breaking up his fixtures. He had to put her outside, and she stopped hear the place about twenty minutes, using obscene language and threatening to break the windows. The men also used bad language.

Thomas Franks said he saw the woman on the night in question, when she appeared to be mad drunk, running up to the door of the Granville and using most obscene language. He said he would like to mention that the house was a well-conducted one.

The Chief Constable said the defendant had been before the Bench several times, but not lately. They had had no trouble with him for some 18 months.

He was fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, being allowed time to pay, the Bench intimating that a warrant would be issued against the others.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 September 1912.

Inquest.

On Tuesday the Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) held an inquest upon the body of Frederick Robinson, who was found dead on the beach near the half-way house at four o'clock on Monday morning.

Frederick Skinner, the landlord of the Granville, 63, Dover Street, said he also was proprietor of a registered lodging house, 50 Dover Street. He identified the body as that of Frederick Robinson, who had been staying at 50, Dover Street for the last three weeks. Deceased stayed with witness last year. At the time he was advertising “The Midgets” at Payer's Auction Rooms, and went round the town with a small pony and trap. During the last four days deceased assisted another man in selling music in the street. Deceased always paid for his room, with the exception of one night. The man that had the music left Folkestone on Sunday night. He left witness's house at 7.45 in company with deceased. Deceased never came back. Deceased did not drink heavily; far from that. When deceased was staying with witness last year he was not in the habit of sleeping out. Witness had a lot of men at his lodging house who were at work on the Warren sea wall. Deceased showed no evidence of despondency.

Edgar Milton, 15, Fenchurch Street, a fisherman, said on Monday morning about 4.30, when near the half-way house (on the site of the mixed bathing) he saw the body of a man, which had apparently been in the water. The body was then at high water mark, and the tide had receded about twenty yards from him. High water was at 1.50. Witness then went and informed a coastguard. There was a sea wall close to where he found deceased, who was about eight yards from the base of the wall. Deceased's head lay close to a large rock, of which there were several about.

DR. F.J. Lidderdale said: On Monday I saw the body of a man at the mortuary. He had been in the water. His chest was full of water. There were no marks of violence, except a small cut over the left eyebrow, caused after death by contact with the shingle, and small particles of shingle were adhering to the body. The man had been dead some hours, rigor mortis being well marked. The only marks on the body were “F.R.” in blue, about an inch long, in Roman capitals. All the symptoms were compatible with death by drowning.

P.C. Johnson said that shortly after 5 a.m. on Monday he proceeded with the ambulance to the beach, took the body to the mortuary, and handed it over to Mr. E. Chadwick.

E.J. Chadwick (Coroner's Officer) said at 5.25 on Monday morning he received the body now viewed by the jury. The body was fully dressed. In the waist pocket were two common rings, one halfpenny, several studs, a number of timetables, and also a paper containing several names and addresses.

The Chief Constable interposed and said he had made enquiries through the Metropolitan Police, and at the addresses given on the paper produced. A Mrs. Field had written from Croydon. This lady at first thought it was her husband, who had travelled with midgets, but further enquiries had proved the deceased to be Frederick Robinson, of Derby.

The jury returned an open verdict of “Found drowned”.

 

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 Herald 7 September 1912.

Inquest.

At the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) conducted an inquest on the body of Frederick Robinson, whose body was found washed up on the beach.

Dr. F.J. Lidderdale stated that he saw the body of the deceased at the mortuary. It had been in the water, and the man's chest was full of water. There were no signs of violence, with the exception of a few scratches above the eyebrows and side of the head, which had been sustained after death. They were probably caused by the shingle. The letters “F.R.” were roughly tattooed in blue on the left arm. Deceased had been dead several hours, and the eyes were shrunken. The symptoms of death pointed to drowning. Deceased had nothing in his hands, which were not clenched.

Mr. Fred Skinner, a lodging house keeper, residing at 63, Dover Street, said he identified the body as that of Frederick Robinson, aged 38, who lodged at 50, Dover Street. Deceased had been stopping there for about three weeks. He also stayed there last year, when he was engaged in advertising two midgets, who were on view in the auction rooms in Tontine Street. During the last few days he had been assisting a man selling music in the streets. He had always been able to pay for his lodgings, was of temperate habits, and never despondent. He and the man he was assisting left on Sunday night, and he had not seen deceased alive since. Deceased was on good terms with the man he left with.

Mr. Edgar Milton, a fisherman, of 15, Fenchurch Street, said he left home at about 4.30 on Monday morning. He took a walk along the Lower Sandgate Road, and went down to the front between the halfway house and the mixed bathing establishment. Looking over the groyne he saw the body of a man. It had apparently been in the water, and was lying at the high water mark. The tide had gone down about twenty yards. It was high water at about 1.50 that morning. He reported what he had seen to the coastguard, and later P.C. Johnson took charge of the body.

P.C. Johnson stated that from information received from the last witness he went with an ambulance to the beach, and found the body of a man at high water mark. It was partly covered with shingle. He conveyed the body to the mortuary. There was no cap or anything near the man.

Mr. E. Chadwick, Coroner's Officer, said that from information received from the police office, he went to the mortuary, where he saw the body, which was fully dressed. Upon undressing it and searching the clothes he found two common rings, a halfpenny, a snuff box, a comb, several studs, and a key. There was also a piece of paper, on which were written several names and addresses.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) stated that one of the addresses, 74, Moreland Road, East Croydon, had been communicated with, and the answer stated that the description in the Evening News was similar to that of a man who had a snuff box and a tattoo on his left arm, and who left there a few weeks ago. Deceased had a brother living at 5, Derby Street, Derby, who was working at Derby Railway Station. He had left him three weeks ago to come to Folkestone, since when his brother had been unable to trace him. Another of the addresses was Mrs. Field, Upper Street, Islington. The Metropolitan Police had seen Mrs. Field, who was satisfied that deceased was not her husband. She had had a telegram from him from Yarmouth that morning. But the description tallied with that of a man who had worked for her husband some time ago. Her husband exhibited midgets at seaside places.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned, but there is no evidence to prove how deceased came to be in the water”.

 

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 Herald 29 January 1916.

Thursday, January 27th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, and Councillor C. Edward Mumford.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged with supplying cocaine to members of His Majesty's Forces, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Both pleaded Not Guilty.

In answer to questions put by the Chief Constable, Herbert Welch, a private in the 8th Canadian Infantry (the Black Devils), stated he was billeted at 46, Dover Road. He recognised the prisoners. Kingsley was known to him as Horace. He had known them about two months, and had purchased something from him. It was stuff called cocaine. He had purchased it on twenty or thirty, perhaps forty, occasions. Sometimes he had paid him for it, sometimes he had not. He had received it from him in small packets. Sometimes he paid him 1s., and sometimes 2s. 6d. It depended upon the size of the packet. With regard to the female prisoner, he had received things from her ten or twelve times. He had received small packets of cocaine. He had not paid her anything at any time. It had been a gift from the woman. The packets had generally been handed to him from the male prisoner at the Harvey Hotel, and from the female prisoner in different places, sometimes in the theatre, sometimes in the street, and sometimes in a restaurant.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could go with the case that day, and asked for a remand.

The Bench adjourned the case for a week.

Prisoners asked for bail, which was allowed, each in his or her recognisances of 25 and a surety of 25 in each case.

 

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 Herald 5 February 1916.

Thursday, February 3rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, and Councillor A. Stace.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged on remand with supplying cocaine to members of His Majesty's Forces, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the two prisoners appeared before them a week ago, and on that occasion they were remanded till today. He had been instructed that the Director of Public Prosecutions had expressed his readiness to take the case up and prosecute, and he had asked for a remand for another week. Enquiries had to be made.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): They are still being made, I think?

The Chief Constable: Yes, they are.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the drugs were being analysed.

The male prisoner asked for bail.

The Chairman said they would both be remanded till Thursday next, bail being allowed, each in his or her own recognisance of 25 surety and a surety of 25.

 

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 Herald 12 February 1916.

Thursday, February 10th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Lt. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen. Councillor A. Stace, Councillor C. Edward Mumford, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged on remand with committing a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act by giving cocaine to soldiers. Mr. Travers Humphrey appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided to take the cases separately, so the woman was removed from the dock.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), addressing Kingsley, said he would be charged firstly with that he on January 26th did sell to a member of His Majesty's Service a certain intoxicant with intent to make him drunk or less capable of performing his duties, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and also denied two similar offences on January 12th and 16th.

Mr. Travers Humphreys said the Director of Public Prosecutions had taken up these proceedings at the request of the military authorities. It would not prejudice the prisoner if the three charges were taken together. The arrest of the man and the woman was considered to be a matter of considerable importance, because Major Morrison had been for some time trying to find out who were the persons supplying the Canadian soldiers with this drug. The effect of this drug on the soldiers was most pitiful and most distressing. Defendant was a distributing agent for this drug amongst the soldiers. The drug made the person unreliable, delusional, and sometimes produced insanity. If a man was treated for it, he did not get over the ill-effects it produced. They would have certain evidence to show that. If a Canadian soldier was found to have acquired the habit of taking cocaine, he was absolutely useless for the Army from that day forth.

Corporal C.F. Price, of the 8th Battalion, Canadians, said he had known the accused about two months. On the 12th January he was in the Granville public house, Dover Street, where he saw accused with some soldiers and woman. Prisoner handed packets to two soldiers and one woman. The packets were small, and similar to those produced. He spoke to the accused, and asked him what it was, and prisoner said “Snow”. He asked how much it was, and the reply was “2s.”. Witness bought a packet, which was quite plain, with no writing on it. It contained white powder. He saw the accused again on the 16th January in Harbour Street, and bought another packet. He asked prisoner if he could have some more “Snow”, and accused said “Yes”. He paid 2s. again for another packet. He was in uniform, and was acting under the orders of his superior officers. He was on police duty. On the 24th January he went to Dover with the accused. They went to Lewis Thompson's chemist shop, 186, Snargate Street, Dover. He waited outside whilst prisoner went in. Witness asked him when he came out if he had got any “snow”, and he said “Yes, only half a drachm. I ordered two drachms, and I have to fetch it on the following Wednesday or Thursday” On Wednesday, January 26th, he went again with accused to the same chemist. Prisoner went to the side door, as it was early closing, and it was opened by a man.

Prisoner: A lie.

Witness, continuing, said prisoner handed over a bottle to the man at the chemist's (produced). To his knowledge accused had not more than 7s. or 8s.

Prisoner: No.

Witness said they then left and returned later. The bottle, which was empty, was handed over to accused, full of white powder. The bottle was marked “Poison. Cocaine Hydrochloride. Lewis Thompson, Chemist, Dover”. They left, and witness said he would like some “snow”, asking him to spare him 2s. 6d. worth. Prisoner said he would, and gave witness a little packet containing the white powder. They returned to Folkestone, where they were met by Detective Sergeant Johnson, who arrested the accused with the bottle in his possession. Witness handed over the packets on the 26th inst. in the evening to the detective.

Detective Sergeant 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, told him they were two police officers, and would 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”, an empty bottle, which had got the label of Mr. Thompson, and also a packet containing white 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, incompany with Major Morrison, took them to the laboratory at Shorncliffe, handing them to Captain Malone.

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

Captain J.B. McMurray, of the C.A.M.C., said he was acquainted with the effect of cocaine, and had had experience of it. He was in charge of the 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 the 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 doses, would have rendered a soldier less capable. Cocaine was a great stimulant drug.

In reply to Mr. Andrews, witness said the 40 cases 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, Assistant P.M., said he had seen the effect of the cocaine. What first drew his attention to it was the men coming into the guard room. The effect of cocaine taking rendered a man less 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, Folkestone. He had been in Dover on the day he was arrested because his chemist in Folkestone had run short. He would like to state that owing to the price of hydrochloride cocaine he could not give it away. When he ran short of money his friends would give him a shilling or two. He did not sell it to the soldiers. The soldiers were friends of his, and he had been about with them for two or three months. The Corporal had nit given him any money, although he had lent him money to get it. He had no recollection of giving the first two packets to Corporal Price at all. He had been in the Army for twelve years, and had been to the front. He had only just come out of hospital. He came to Folkestone to recuperate himself. He had a relapse, and was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital. He had been willing to do his bit, and did not see why he should want to prevent these soldiers doing their bit. He had got the Indian North West Frontier medal. He was in a very weak state of health.

Cross-examined, accused said he had not got his military papers. They were at 14, Stall Street, Tottenham Court Road. He had written for them several times, but had received no reply. He came to Folkestone in July. He had a little money he had saved, and 1s. 6d. a day from the War Office. It was paid quarterly, and he had not applied for it yet. He did not get it as it was not much, and as he had been ill he could not have a grand slam. He had not sold any cocaine. He had given it away. He bought the cocaine at different chemists in Folkestone. He would not like to give their names at present. He knew the soldiers were not allowed to buy the stuff from chemists, as Major Morrison had put a bar on it. He knew a woman named Rose Edwards, who had been giving a little cocaine to soldiers. They were living in the same house. She was a friend of his. She did not come from London.

Mr. Humphrey: You were very kind to give it to soldiers.

The prisoner: Yes. When I had not got much the soldiers gave me some.

Mr. Humphrey: What effect does it have?

The prisoner: It makes you most keen on what you are doing.

In reply to a question by the Magistrates' Clerk, prisoner said he had taken the drug for five or six years. It had no ill-effect on him.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said it was a very serious case indeed, and the Bench found him Guilty. He would be sentenced to six months' hard labour in each of the three cases, the sentences to run concurrently, making six months in all. If he was not well enough to do hard labour, the prison authorities would see to that.

Mr. Humphrey said the other charge under the Pharmacy Act would be withdrawn. It was only a minor matter.

Rose Edwards was then charged with three similar offences. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to all.

Corporal Price said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on January 14th at the Belle Vue Hotel. When he came out of the house he saw her 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, and she gave him some, for which he gave her 2s. 6d. At half past four the same day he saw her again, when he asked if she could sell him another packet, and he paid her 2s. for it. On January 17th he saw her in the Granville Hotel, and he bought a packet of “snow” from her for 2s. 6d. On the 24th January he visited her house at 9.15 a.m., and he purchased a packet from her for 2s. She wrapped the cocaine up in an envelope bearing her address (Little Fenchurch Street).

Mr. Travers Humphrey remarked that it was a Y.M.C.A. envelope.

Detective Sergeant Johnson said on January 26th he saw the prisoner at the police station, and he charged her.

Captain Malone deposed to analysing the content of the packets produced by Corpl. Price, and Captain McMurray spoke of the effect of the drug.

Prisoner said she was living at 6, Shellons Street. Corporal Price came up on the 14th inst., and asked if she could spare a little. She gave him some. She never received money for the “snow”. On the 24th she was in bed and did not see Price.

In reply to Mr. Humphrey, prisoner said she got the “snow” from a fellow in the West End in a public house.

Mr. Huimphrey: What sort of a fellow?

Prisoner: He sells it to all of us girls.

In further reply to Mr. Humphrey, the accused said she did not give it to other soldiers. She had taken the drug herself, but broke herself of the habit just before Christmas. She gave it to Corporal Price on two occasions only.

Mr. Humphrey: How much does this powder cost?

Prisoner: Oh! You can get a pill-box full for 2s. 6d. in London.

Kingsley, on oath, said he had never known Edwards to sell cocaine.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the prisoner came from London. She was a well-known prostitute, although there had been no convictions against her.

The Chairman said it was regarded as a very serious offence at the present time by the Government. Prisoner would be sentenced to six months' hard labour for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently, making six months in all.

The Chairman, addressing Corporal Price, said the Bench wished to thank him. They greatly appreciated the way in which he had given his evidence. They were also grateful for the splendid way he took the matter on, and the way he brought the evidence before them.

The Chief Constable said that Kingsley's statement as to having served in the Army was incorrect. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in London in 1913 for felony.

 

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 Herald 12 January 1924.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Licensing Justices approved the transfer of the licence of the Granville Inn from Mr. G.A. Ralph to Mr. A. 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 Herald 15 February 1930.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Alderman T.S. Franks, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore and Mr. F. Seager.

A music licence was granted to Mr. Kennard, of the Granville Hotel, who wishes to provide wireless concerts at his hotel. The Bench fixed the hours at 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 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 Herald 5 December 1931.

Local News.

Charles William Boulter was fined 10s. at Folkestone Petty Sessions on Friday of last week when he pleaded Guilty to assaulting Mr. Harry Kennard, licensee of the Granville Hotel, Dover Street, on November 22nd, by striking him on the face with his fist.

Mr. Kennard said that on the day in question he came out of his house with his dog, which ran out of the door and barked. He turned to lock his door when the dog ran up the street. Boulter came out of his door, a short distance up the road, and asked witness if he could not put the dog on a lead. Witness said “It is too late now; it has gone up the street”. Boulter then struck him and knocked him down. As the dog came back, Boulter took a running kick at it.

Boulter told the Bench that his grandmother was dying. She had been ill for a fortnight, and must on no account be disturbed. A dog barked outside, and he went out and asked the complainant why he did not put the dog on a chain. Complainant then came across quickly, swore at him, and lifted his hand. Thinking he was going to hit him, defendant his first.

The Chairman (Alderman R.G. Wood) said the Bench did not think Boulter 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 Herald 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Licensing Magistrates at the Annual Licensing Sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, referred two licensed houses, the Granville and the Oddfellows, to the adjourned sessions for further consideration on the grounds of redundancy.

The report submitted by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) showed that during the past year only six residents had been charged with drunkenness, whilst no proceedings had been taken against any licensees. These two points were favourably commented upon by the Magistrates.

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

The Chief Constable submitted his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable's report, and he was asked to say that they regarded it as very satisfactory. If he might begin where the Chief Constable had left off, with reference to the high standard obtained by the licensees during the year, he thought that was very conclusive because there had not been any proceedings against any one of them during the year. They endorsed what the Chief constable had said. It showed that the licensees had exercised great care in the carrying out of the law, which was somewhat critical and complicated at times. With reference to drunkenness, they would like the figures to still be less, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort they thought the record was a very creditable one. They noted that only six residents were proceeded against, and that must be placed to the credit of the residential population. The Justices were also glad to know that after they granted the extra half hour's extension during the summer months there had been no ill-effects. The public house and beer licences would be renewed with two exceptions. Those were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those two licences would not be renewed that morning, but referred to the adjourned meeting for further consultation on the grounds of redundancy.

The Magistrates fixed Wednesday, March 9th, for the adjourned sessions.

The Magistrates also renewed all the music and dancing licences.

 

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 2 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 138 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 2. 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 138 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.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1932.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates at the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday considered two licences which had been referred on the ground of redundancy.

After hearing considerable evidence the Magistrates refused to renew the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, the house being referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority, but in the other case, that of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, the licence was renewed.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, Colonel G.P. Owen, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The consideration of the licence of the Granville was taken first, Mr. H.J. Bracher, of Maidstone, appearing for the licensee and brewers.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), who opposed, produced a plan of a part of Folkestone, showing in detain what they was termed “the congested area”. It embraced all the old portion of the borough. Within the area there were 866 houses, and allowing five persons per house, the population was 4,330. Within the area there were 26 licences, which consisted of 22 full and four beer on. There were also six other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, giving one licence house to 125 persons, or every 27 houses, and one on licence to every 166 persons, or every 33 houses. The remainder of the borough, comprising the west end and the area bordering the congested area, was about seven eighths of the total area, with a population of 31,560. The total number of licences in the borough was 114, giving a proportion of one licence to every 314 persons. Of these 76 were on licences, made up of 69 full and 7 beer on, there being one licence to every 472 persons.

By Mr. Bracher: There was more congestion near the harbour. When he used the word “congestion” before he was referring to private houses. There were many more licensed houses in the neighbourhood of the harbour. He was not objecting, on the grounds of redundancy, to the licences of any of a number of houses very close together and almost in a row in the neighbourhood of the harbour.

Why have you selected the Granville? – We have, of course, to differentiate, and the principal ground in this case is that the Granville is doing a parlous trade.

How do you know? – Because I have had special observation kept over the last 12 months.

Is it your contention that a house should not be allowed to carry on unless it is doing a large trade? – Hardly that, but if there are only a few persons using the house each night it can hardly be said that the house is necessary.

You express the opinion that it is in the public interest to draw people into a few houses rather than distribute them amongst a number of houses? – There is no question of crowding. None of the houses is doing exceptionally well.

You have nothing whatever to say against the character of the tenant? – No.

Neither have you anything detrimental to say about the structure of the house? – No.

Chief Inspector Pittock said on February 16th, 1932, he served a notice on Harry Kennard, the licencee, to the effect that the renewal of the licence would be opposed. He had made a personal examination of the premises. The frontage on Dover Street was 21feet 6 inches. The premises belonged to Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd., of Wateringbury. The rateable value was 28. The present tenant had been there since November, 1928. There was another licensed house within 100 yards, another within 150 yards and a third within 200 yards. He had made special visits to the house and other houses. He had made 12 special visits to this particular house. At 8.28 p.m. on January 21st there were no customers in the house. There were none the next morning when he called, while in the evening at 8.35 there were five. On other dates there were three, four, two, four, nine, two, and five. On the occasion of those 12 visits the total number of customers was 42. He made corresponding visits to four other houses in the vicinity, and he found 92 at the Raglan, 83 at the Star and Garter, 137 at the Richmond, and 158 at the George III.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell the Bench why the houses down the Harbour have not been selected? – During the summer months these houses are pretty full up.

The times when you made these visits were from January 21st to February 2nd? – That is so.

And that is absolutely the slackest time of the whole year, isn't it? – Yes, I agree.

Don't you think if you are going to give the average trade of the houses, it would be rather more helpful if the Magistrates had the same information regarding the summer months? – I was not instructed to do that.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There have been other visits? – By other officers, and I have prepared a statement from their visits.

Mr. Bracher expressed surprise that the Granville should have been selected in this very congested area. If they wanted redundancy, they should go down to Seagate Street, where they got rows of licensed houses. The redundancy was there. Up the other end, they got two houses, the Raglan and the Martello, which were opposite each other. In Harvey Street they had the Star and Garter, the Richmond, almost opposite, and the Harvey Hotel close by. The licensee had held the licence for four years. He was a man of exceptionally good character with very distinguished Army service. He had 21 years' service in the Army, and his conduct on discharge was marked exemplary. He was in the 11th Hussars and later went to Canada, where he joined the Canadian Army on the outbreak of War. He served throughout the War. Continuing, Mr. Bracher said the house was kept spotlessly clean, with seven beautifully clean bedrooms which were let right through the summer months. The licensee did a small trade, two and a quarter to two and a half barrels a week. Did the Magistrates desire that this man who carried on a small trade should be permitted to continue to carry on that small trade? There had never been a complaint against the licensee, and he submitted that it would have been more helpful if they had had the summer trade as well. The trade in all licensed houses had fallen very much during the last year. That was common knowledge. Falling trade, therefore, was not to be attributed to the want of usefulness of a house, but a general drop throughout the country. Mr. Bracher, continuing, said the licensee was anxious to carry on his legitimate business at this house. He was making quite a good living. He suggested that the selection of the Granville in this congested area had not been very well considered.

Harry Kennard said he had held the licence for just over four years. He was very satisfied with his occupation of the house, and he desired to be allowed to continue his business there. With the trade of the house, together with the letting of the bedrooms, he got a reasonably good living.

The Chief Constable: You are a pensioner, aren't you? – Yes.

What is the amount of your pension?

Mr. Bracher: I object to that. This is not an income tax meeting. I think it most improper to ask the amount of this man's pension.

By the Chief Constable: He did a very good letting trade, but he did not think it was dependent upon his having a licence.

Edward John Wilding, an employee of Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd., said the trade for 1929 was 138 barrels; in 1930 126 barrels; and in 1931 102 barrels. There had been a general drop in trade all round.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that they had decided not to renew the licence of the Granville, which would be referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority.

The Clerk: The licence will be renewed provisionally, of course.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 October 1932.

Local News.

At a meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday, Mr. G.K. Anderson presiding, an application for the renewal of the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, Folkestone, was refused, and the house, of which Mr. Harry Kennard is the tenant, and Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd. the registered owners, was referred for compensation.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 November 1946.

Local News.

The funeral took place at Holy Trinity Church, recently of Mr. Frederick Skinner, 77, of 8, Martello Road, Folkestone, who died after a long and painful illness. Mr. Skinner, who was born in Canterbury, came to Folkestone as a young man. He entered the licensed victuallers’ trade and held the licences in succession of several premises.

A staunch member of the Borough of Hythe Conservative Association, he was an arduous worker in the East Ward. An active Freemason, his Mother Lodge was at Canterbury; he was also a member of Temple Lodge, Folkestone, and Castle Lodge, Sandgate. He is mourned by his widow.

The interment was at Canterbury.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

HOWE Charles 1880-82 Bastions

McKAY John 1882-87 Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

McKAY Robert 1887-88 Bastions

WOOD Henry 1888 Bastions

LEACH Robert 1888-90 Bastions

JEFFORD Walter 1890 Bastions

ABBOTT Henry 1890-91 (age 24 in 1891Census) Bastions

MAESTRANI Carlo Maestrani 1891-92

JEFFORD Walter Thomas 1891-92 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1891Bastions

STICKLES Frederick 1892-97 Bastions

WICKENDEN Stephen 1897-99

OLIVER Thomas A Next pub licensee had 1899-1902 Kelly's 1899BastionsDover Express

PARTRIDGE Charles 1902-03 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Bastions

Last pub licensee had SKINNER Frederick 1903-22 Post Office Directory 1913Post Office Directory 1922Bastions

RALPH George 1922-24 Bastions

PERRIN Arthur 1924-28 Bastions

KENNARD Harry 1928-32 Next pub licensee had Bastions

 

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room