Folkestone Herald 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, Mr. Poole and Mr. Herbert.

James Hawkins and Henry Truby, privates in the R.A., were charged on the complaint of Mr. Joseph Arch, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, with breaking a pane of glass. They pleaded Guilty.

On Friday, January 15th, the complainant was closing his house, when he heard the smashing of glass, and found that a window of the sitting room had been broken. He went outside, and seeing defendants near, asked them civilly why they had broken his window, when they became abusive, and threatened to strike him. The damage done amounted to 6s. He communicated with the commanding officer, and getting no reply for a week, took out a summons.

An officer present in Court said the six shillings were sent to Mr. Arch. But that, the complainant said, was after he had taken out the summons.

The Mayor told them they were liable to two months' imprisonment without the option of a fine. It was disgraceful that men wearing Her Majesty's uniform should act in such a manner. They were fined 5s. each, and ordered to pay 3s. damage, and 11s. costs; total for the two, 38s.

Folkestone Herald 30 July 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

A legal question cropped up consequent upon the application of Mr. Samuel barker, for whom Mr. Hall appeared, for a temporary licence to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Hall explained that the previous tenant was a man named Arch, who had already given up possession, but when the applied for the licence, it was not forthcoming. He believed the secret was, judging by a letter he had received from a solicitor in the town, that Arch had pawned his licence as collateral security for an advance to a Mr. Geo. Beer. Of course, he had no right to do that, and he asked the Bench to exercise the powers they had, under the Act dealing with the wilful withholding of a licence, to give the required endorsement.

The Magistrates' Clerk ruled that it would be sufficient for the application to be made on transfer day. With regard to pledging the licence, he was of opinion the man had a right to do so, as it was his, but when he left the house he should have given it up to the landlord, whose property it became. As he did not give it up, that would amount to wilful withholding, and it would be right for the Bench to grant the permit without seeing the licence, and this was accordingly done.

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 case of the Harbour Inn was next investigated, and Sergt. Swift deposed that there were twelve other licensed houses within 100 paces thereof. On 31st December, 1892, he visited the house after closing hours and found four seamen there, drinking, but no summons was issued. It was resorted to at night by girls and sailor lads, whose conduct was very noisy. There were two entrances to the house, one in South Street and one in Harbour Street.

Questioned by Mr. Glyn, he said he did not know that as to one of the houses in this street not objected to there had been a conviction.

Sergeant Harman said he thought the conduct of the customers who resorted to the back part of the house in South Street was generally very disorderly, More especially when colliers were in the harbour.

At this stage, when Mr. Bodkin was cross-examining Sergeant Harman, Mr. Glyn interposed, saying: I have found something, and I think the Superintendent will drop this point. Reporting to the Justices, he says “some of these houses have been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, the Victoria, the Ship, or the Harbour.” That, I think, is conclusive. (Laughter) That is in the Superintendent's report, and I am sure he will, with his usual fairness, give the case up after that.

Superintendent Taylor: I will give Mr. Glyn the benefit of the report in the newspapers.

Mr. Glyn: But it is the Superintendent's report to the Justices. It is quite clear.

Superintendent Taylor, having looked at the report, said he would not trouble the Bench further on this point, and withdrew the notice of objection so far as it related to the disorderly conduct. But he went on to urge that seeing that there had been four tenants since 1889, it showed that the house was not required, because if the tenants were making a good living they would not want to turn out of it.

This led Mr. Minter to humorously observe that probably they made their fortune quickly and retired.

Mr. Glyn then called to give evidence Mr. J. Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., owners of this house, who purchased it in 1883. It was rented at £32, and rated at £48 per annum. The tenant was a most respectable man, and he did a steady increasing business. He had lived there since July, 1892.

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 Herald 22 July 1895.

Police Court Record.

James Gray and William Grist were charged with being found drunk on licensed premises on the 18th July.

Mrs. Wontner, the landlady of the Harbour Inn, said that on Thursday afternoon they came in drunk. They upset a table and smashed a flower pot. They refused to leave, and witness sent to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs each, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1897.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday – the Mayor presiding – Martin Roach was summoned for assaulting William Holton on the 12th December.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the complainant, said that the latter is the landlord of one of the small hotels at the harbour. The house had been the resort of a good many of the loafers about the harbour, who went in drunk and created a disturbance, and the present landlord had refused to serve these loafers when in a state of intoxication. There were two entrances into the house, one in Harbour Street and the other in South Street, and the men sought to inflict annoyance on the landlord by going in at one door and out at the other, without buying anything. The defendant was one of the principal offenders in this way. It was on one of these occasions that the assault was committed.

William Holton said he was the manager of the Harbour Hotel. When he first came there he found that a number of persons came in drunk and created disturbances. There were two entrances, both leading to the bar-room. Previous to December 12th, he had refused to supply the defendant with liquor in consequence of his being in a state of intoxication, and the language he used. On 12th December he came in drunk, from the Harbour entrance, and witness immediately went forward and ordered him out the way he came in. Witness was then assaulted by defendant and another person, the latter having been since summoned. The defendant struck witness in the face and pulled his whiskers out, causing his face to bleed. Witness sent for the police, and, with assistance, ejected the defendant. The defendant then ran off, but the policeman overtook him. In the struggle the defendant knocked an automatic machine off the counter, breaking it. This happened at about half past ten at night.

Two other witnesses gave evidence, one corroborating the previous evidence as to the assault.

The defendant said he could only say he never struck the complainant.

Fined 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 26 March 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday William Holton, landlord of the Harbour Inn, was fined £1 and 12s. costs for assaulting Marian Morford.

Mr. Haines prosecuted, and Mr. Stainer defended on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday – the Mayor presiding – John River was charged with assaulting John McKie.

Complainant deposed that on the 18th at about a quarter past nine he was sitting at the Harbour Inn. Defendant knocked him and, on being pushed away, came for him again. He was not sober, and they would not serve him.

Defendant said he went to the Harbour Inn and the complainant insulted him.

Fined £1, 9s. costs, or 21 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday last a transfer of the Harbour Inn to Mr. J. Thompson was granted.

Folkestone Herald 7 April 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last a temporary transfer was granted to Miss Sarah Lovegrove for the Harbour Inn.

Folkestone Herald 28 April 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday a transfer was granted to Mrs. Sarah Lovegrove for the Harbour Inn.

Folkestone Herald 23 June 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

Charles Newman, a private in the 4th Suffolk Regiment, was convicted on Saturday of having wilfully broken a pane of glass at the Harbour Inn on the 15th. The landlady, Mrs. Lovegrove, having refused to serve him with drink, he smashed a pane of glass.

To pay 10s., including 5s. damage.

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1901.

Monday, January 14th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, J. Fitness, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Wm. Spearpoint was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the 12th January.

P.C. Johnson said at the request of Mrs. Spearpoint he ejected prisoner from the bar of the Harbour public house on Saturday night. When in the street prisoner became disorderly and refused to go away.

Five previous convictions were proved against prisoner, who was fined £1 and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Herald 2 February 1901.

Monday, January 28th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, E.T. Ward, Pledge, Vaughan, Peden, Carpenter, and Stainer, and Lt. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Cornelius Hall, formerly a steward on one of the S.E. Packets, was granted temporary authority to carry on business at the Harbour Inn until the next licensing day.

Folkestone Herald 22 August 1903.

Thursday, August 20th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Messrs. W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer.

Arthur Jones and James Allen were charged with being concerned together in uttering a gilded sixpence for a half sovereign.

Mary Fisher, a barmaid at the Harbour Inn, recognised Jones as the man who, about half past eight the previous day, came into the bar and asked for a “mild and bitter”. Prisoner offered a sovereign in payment, and witness gave him the change, 19s. 10½d., a half sovereign and the rest in silver. She saw prisoner put his hand over the piece of gold as if to pick it up, but drew it back and then put it suddenly forward, at the same time asking her to give him the half sovereign in silver. Witness thought it was the same half sovereign she had put down, and complied with his request. Prisoner then left.

Thomas Hall, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, said that he saw the two prisoners at the bottom of High Street counting some money between them. He caught hold of Jones and said “You have been passing a bad coin through my barmaid”. Prisoner said “What house do you mean?” A policeman coming up at the time, he gave prisoners in charge.

John Butland, a cabman, stated that he was on the stand near the harbour about eight o'clock the previous evening, when he saw the two prisoners standing near the wall. They afterwards went across the road. He saw Jones go into the Harbour Hotel, followed shortly afterwards by Allen. He saw them come out, and go together to South Street, and also saw them sharing the money. He went for the police.

Prisoners, who pleaded Guilty, were remanded for a week.

Folkestone Herald 29 August 1903.

Thursday, August 27th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

Arthur Jones and James Allen were charged, on remand, with uttering a counterfeit coin, viz., a gilded sixpence.

The evidence given at the previous hearing was repeated.

Both prisoners were committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the borough, bail being fixed at £50 each.

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1903.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th: Before J.C.L. Coward Esq.

Arthur Jones (29), labourer, and James Allen (49), hawker, pleaded Guilty to “unlawfully and knowingly uttering one piece of false and counterfeit coin, apparently intended to pass for certain of the King's current gold coin, called a half sovereign, on the 19th August, 1903, at Folkestone”.

Counsel for the Crown, Mt. T. Matthews, said he was instructed that prisoners were both London criminals who had come down to Folkestone for the race meeting at Westenhanger in August last. By a trick known as “ringing the changes”....

Here the Recorder interposed with the remark that “ringing the changes” had nothing whatever to do with uttering counterfeit coins. It was an entirely different trick.

Continuing, Counsel pointed out that, whatever the process, the prisoner Jones went into the public house, called for a drink, handed a sovereign in payment, and received in the change half a sovereign, and the rest in silver and bronze. Having got a good half sovereign, prisoner substituted for it a gilded sixpence, and then asked for the whole of the change to be given him in silver, thus receiving 10s. for the counterfeit coin. This was done twice, though in both cases ultimately unsuccessful. In the first case it was seen to be a bad coin and the men were pursued. Jones denied having given the gilded sixpence, but he handed back the money he had received for it. Then they went to the Harbour Inn, where the same process was repeated. The landlord again had suspicions, and declined to accept any explanation, giving the man Jones in charge. Allen was subsequently arrested, and when searched another gilded sixpence was found upon him, which no doubt he intended to pass off in the same manner. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Matthews asked the Recorder, under powers which he was enabled to exercise, to say that there should be a period of police supervision, as it would then enable the police to keep their eye upon the men, so as to prevent them doing anything further of the sort, at any rate in the direction of making counterfeit coins.

With regard to the first case, the publican victimised, as stated in our report of the Police Court proceedings, was the landlord of the Red Cow, Foord.

Particulars concerning previous convictions against the two men were then given. Detective Sergeant Lee, of the London Force stated that on the 16th December, 1901, he was present at the Central Criminal Court when the prisoner Jones, in the name of Edward Connell, was sentenced to twenty months' hard labour for stealing £3 13s. 6d. from a till.

The Recorder: A stiff sentence for that.

The Detective: Hardly, after his “previouses”.

Proceeding, he said that Jones's criminal career commenced on the 18th of October, 1899, when, at the Southwark Police Court, he was fined 40s. or one month's hard labour for stealing money from a public house; on the 23rd of March, 1900, he was charged at the Guildhall Police Court for “ringing the changes”. On that occasion his previous convictions were not proved against him, and he was bound over.

The Recorder: “Ringing the changes” is one thing, and counterfeit coin another.

Witness: That is so.

Continuing, the detective said that prisoner Jones was at the time in company with two old convicts. At Epsom Petty Sessions, on the 26th of April, 1900, he was charged with stealing a pair of opera glasses from the racecourse, and was sentenced to 5 weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. Charged with attempted larceny at the South London Sessions on the 11th of July, 1902, he received fifteen months' hard labour. On that occasion he was working in concert with others, and was using a stick with some sticky substance at the end. Whilst his companion attracted the attention of the person in charge of the bar, the man with the stick picked up the gold.

With regard to Allen, Police Constable Gosling, of the Metropolitan Police stated that on the 6th of February, 1901, he was present at the North London Sessions when the prisoner Allen, in the name of James Slade, was convicted of attempted larceny and “ringing the changes”, receiving twelve months hard labour. There were other convictions recorded against him which he was not in a position to prove.

Chief Constable Reeve informed the Recorder that Allen's proper name was James Slade. On the 22nd of April, 1896, at Epsom, he was sentenced to three weeks' hard labour for the theft of an overcoat, whilst at the North London Sessions on the 19th April, 1898, he was given six months' hard labour for stealing a purse and money. One summary conviction, for unlawful possession, was recorded against him, as well as the conviction spoken to by the last witness.

In a written statement which he handed to the Recorder, Jones said he was 33 years of age, and up to four years ago he held a good character. Unfortunately at that time he fell into bad company and gave way to drink. Since then he had served three terms of imprisonment. Since his last discharge from prison he had led an honest life until he went to the races at Folkestone. He had been drinking heavily, and in the evening uttered the gilded sixpence. He begged for another chance, promising never to touch drink again. His wife's brother had promised to pay his fare to America, and he asked the Recorder not to let his past character weigh heavily against him. His correct name was Edward Connell, but being in drink he gave the name of Jones. He promised to leave the country at the expiration of the sentence passed upon him, and also to lead a sober and industrious life in the future. Under those circumstanced he begged the Recorder to grant him mercy.

Allen's defence was that this was the first time he had ever been in Folkestone, and he hoped it would be his last. He was fifty years of age, and had four children to support. Taking into consideration the time he had been waiting for his trial, having expressed his guilt in the first “onset”, he pleaded for the Recorder's mercy.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoners, said they had the worst record he had ever had before him since he had sat in that Court. They were the scum of the racecourse. He must pass a sentence upon them to keep them away from this sort of thing for some time to come, and he felt it his duty to accede to the request of Counsel for the Crown that they should be placed under police supervision. If Jones was allowe to go away the punishment would not act harshly upon him, and the sentence he passed upon each of them was imprisonment for twelve calendar months, with hard labour, with police supervision for three years.

Jones: Thank you.

They were then removed below.

Folkestone Herald 18 December 1920.

Friday, November 17th: Before Dr. W.J. Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. W.J. Harrison and Miss E.I. Weston.

Albert Taylor, landlord of the Brewery Tap, was summoned for a breach of the Shops Order. Mr. A.F. Kidson prosecuted, and Mr. V.D. De Wet appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Arthur John Wort said at 6.10 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21st, he visited the defendant's house. He asked for a packet of cigarettes, and he was served by the defendant's son with a 6d. packet.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant's son and he had played football together. He did not know him personally as he did not speak to him in the street. (Laughter)

Mr. De Wet submitted that the Order did not apply to licensed victuallers. They were exempted under the schedule which exempted other trades. The licensed victuallers were never asked if they wished to be exempted from being allowed to open on Wednesday afternoons. Were 110 licensed victuallers, not consulted, to be bound by a three-fourths majority of the tobacconists?

Defendant was fined 10s.

Mr. De Wet said this was a trade affair, and he asked the Magistrates to state a case, which request was granted.

Gertrude Florence Lucas (True Briton Hotel) and Ernest Mainwood (Harbour Hotel) were each fined 10s. for similar offences.

Folkestone Herald 25 December 1920.

Editorial.

Bumble oracularly declared that “the law is a hass”. It is not unlikely that many people, after reading the reports of the cases in which three licensed victuallers were fined for the heinous crime of selling cigarettes on Wednesday afternoon, expressed themselves in a similar fashion. We make no reflection upon the Folkestone Magistrates who heard the prosecutions. The law being as it is, they probably felt they had no alternative but to fine the defendants. At the same time they would have shown a greater appreciation of the fitness of things by imposing a mere nominal penalty of one shilling. But the amount of the fine is not a very serious matter one way or the other. The material point is the state of things in which it is an offence for a publican to sell a cigar, cigarette or tobacco after one o'clock on Wednesday. One satisfactory result of the proceedings is that the Magistrates consented to state a case, and, as we understand, the licensed victuallers intend to take steps with a view to securing the removal of this gross anomaly. We are firm believers in law and order, but when the application of the law leads to such a pass as this we venture to suggest that it is time to enquire whether there is not some error either in the application or in the law itself.

The cases were the outcome of the operation of the Shop Hours Act, containing provision for the closing of shops one half day in every week. That measure allows a certain amount of latitude to tobacconists. They are set apart in a class distinct from shopkeepers generally; they are under no obligation to shut on the customary closing day unless a two-thirds majority petition the Town Council to make an order that they shall do so. That is what happened some years ago. The tobacconists wished to come within the scope of the general order, and the necessary majority memorialised the Corporation accordingly. But – and this is a big “but” – the licensed victuallers, who are also tobacconists, were not consulted in the matter at all. Yet they are expected to conform to an order in the making of which they had no voice! Could anything be more unfair? Simple justice and common sense alike dictate that either they should be regarded as “tobacconists”, and therefore consulted before the order is applied to them or they should not be affected by the order. Licensed victuallers are, indeed, provided for by legislation as a separate class, and they are hedged about and harassed by many restrictions from which other traders are immune. They have therefore the stronger claim to consideration in this matter.

Possibly the result of the case to be stated by the Justices will be a decision that they cannot be regarded as coming within the scope of the order. If not, then it must be hoped that the powers that be will rule that the publicans must be classed as “tobacconists” in so far as the matter of petitioning the local authority for an order is concerned. In justice to the tobacconists it must be said – so we are informed on good authority – that the majority of them are not opposed to licensed victuallers and cinemas selling cigars, cigarettes, or tobacco on Wednesday afternoon. But it is not merely the tobacconists or the licensed victuallers who have a claim to be heard on this subject. The public generally has a voice in the matter, and many people consider it is a serious grievance that they are debarred from purchasing their smoking materials at hotels and public houses on Wednesday afternoons when the ordinary tobacconists are closed. True, smokers living at Morehall, at Cheriton, at Sandgate, and at Hythe can get what they want that afternoon from the ordinary cigar stores, these being open for business as usual. Viewed in the light of this fact, the state of things at Folkestone is a still greater anomaly.

There is another aspect of the case. We are convinced that it is detrimental to the interests of Folkestone as a health and pleasure resort that the tobacconists as a body close on Wednesday afternoon, especially in the summer. If, however, they elect to close, they are free to do so. But let those who wish to meet the convenience of the public by supplying them with cigarettes and the like and also the public itself be likewise free to do as they wish. Let us have freedom all round.

Comment.

The recent prosecution of certain licensed victuallers and the Managing Director of a cinema, for selling cigarettes on Wednesday afternoon has been the subject of much comment since the cases were reported in last week's Herald. The state of affairs is anomalous in the extreme. Whilst an innocent cigarette is forbidden to freedom loving Britons in Folkestone on Wednesday afternoons, he can cross the border either to Sandgate or Cheriton and purchase all he desires in this respect. Surely it is time that steps should be taken to bring about some alteration.

With the object of securing the views of “The Trade” on this subject a Herald representative waited on the Chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association (Mr. Rivers) at the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane. Unfortunately he was confined to his room through indisposition, but he kindly sent a message through his daughter to the effect that it was a most absurd position that a body of about a dozen men (an insignificant minority) should be able to control a majority as was done in this case.

Mr. Albert Hart, the energetic Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, on being asked his opinion on the subject, emphatically replied “Absolutely rotten. In the first place I should think the Health Committee of the Town Council would be doing a good thing if they directed Inspector Pearson to get on with his duties as Sanitary Inspector, instead of hiding up behind walls and doors whilst a boy is utilised to trap honest traders. Here is the situation. Some time ago about fourteen members of the tobacco trade (if indeed there was such a number) asked the Council to apply the provision of the Shop Hours Act to the tobacco trade in the borough. Now the enforcement of the Act means that 300 licensed tobacco dealers in the town are prevented from selling tobacco in any form after one o'clock on Wednesday”.

In answer to another query, Mr. Hart said “Yes, it applies to hotels and restaurants. All liberty-loving Englishmen revolt at such a situation, and they revolt also at the methods employed in order to secure a paltry conviction. We as a trade – combined with other tobacco licensees – intend to take steps to secure the revocation of this absurd application of a law, which was never intended to apply to the tobacco trade”.

Our representative also interviewed the manageress of a large hotel, and she kindly showed him her written instructions that tobacco could not be sold in any licensed house after one on Wednesdays, nor after eight p.m. on other days, with the exception of Saturday, when the hour was extended till nine. It was possible if a chance bar customer ordered a meal to secure a cigarette or cigar, but as to what constituted a meal there was some doubt. Some men, she remarked, could make a good meal off a hunk of bread and cheese, whilst another would probably require several courses to make up a meal. Hotel guests cannot be served after the hours mentioned above unless they are sleeping in the house.

The Manager of the Leas Tobacco Company, Sandgate Road, said it was necessary in the interests, not only of the trade itself, but the public generally, that the vexatious restrictions should be swept away. It was intolerable that an insignificant minority should rule, as in this case.

Folkestone Herald 26 February 1921.

Felix.

The Mayor (Alderman Reginald G. Wood, J.P.) at the recent Licensing Sessions, after congratulating the local “Trade” on the manner in which they had conducted their business, expressed the hope that the time would come when the Continental cafe system would be introduced into England. And anyone who had had experience of that system will agree with him. At the Elham county Licensing meeting, Sir Clarence Smith, the Chairman, after noting the good report of Superintendent Castle, amongst other things, suggested that licensed victuallers, in order to meet a demand, should supply teas. Whether Mr. E.L. Mainwood, of the Harbour Hotel, had been reading these remarks I cannot say, but within the past few days he has launched out as a licensed victualler in the true sense of the word. And I understand his effort has been crowned so far with success.

Mr. Mainwood's action deserves more than passing notice. Our friend (who at one time conducted a boarding house in Langhorne Gardens) has provided an example of what it is possible to do as a “victualler”. He opens his establishment on the stroke of ten, and for those who need the beverage there is tea, coffee, Bovril, and the rest, and also a big choice in the way of eatables, from the homely crust of bread and cheese to the home made sausage roll. And this kind of thing goes on all day during “closing hours”. If a supper is required, there it is. This particular hotel being opposite to the termini of the buses to Cheriton, and in close proximity to the Harbour, the idea has “caught on” immensely. Mr. Claude Garling, at the Clarendon Hotel, is also one of those who believes in providing this supplement to the ordinary business. This new departure is one that might be emulated, according to the needs of a neighbourhood, and because it is a step in the right direction. I give this matter some prominence. If Mr. Mainwood's example was followed more generally, then the members of the “Trade” would be doing more good in the direction of promoting pure temperance than all the “Pussyfoots” in the world.

Folkestone Herald 10 September 1927.

Obituary.

We regret to announce the death on Sunday at his residence, 11 Limes Road, of Mr. Thomas Cornelius Hall, at the age of 63 years. Mr. Hall was a well-known and much respected figure in the town, particularly in the neighbourhood of the Harbour, and enjoyed the friendship of a large circle. His manner endeared him to all, and his passing is much regretted. Much sympathy is extended to the widow in her bereavement.

For the past eighteen years he had been the proprietor of the Harbour Hotel (sic), and prior to that he was, for a considerable period a steward on the cross-Channel boats. He was a director of several local companies, including the Central Picture Theatre and the Folkestone L.V. Mineral Water Company.

The funeral took place at the Cemetery on Wednesday.

Folkestone Herald 8 March 1941.

Local News.

Two soldiers who took an ornament front the counter of a public house were charged before the Folkestone Magistrates on Monday with theft.

Gnr. Raymond McCann and Gnr. Gordon Rafferty, the accused, pleaded Guilty to stealing the ornament, valued £1, the property of Mr. George B. Offen, of the Harbour Hotel, South Street.

Mr. Offen stated that the ornament stood on the saloon counter and just before 10 o’clock the previous night he missed if. Defendants had been in the saloon bar before that.

P.C. Boss said at 10.50 the previous night, while on duty in Sandgate High Street, he was called to a bus where he saw defendants with an ornament on the seat between them. He asked them to account for its possession and they said they had brought it from Hythe that evening.

Witness was not satisfied and questioned them again. McCann then said “I think we took it from somewhere near the docks at Folkestone”. He detained accused, who were brought to the Police Station. Both men had been drinking but they were not drunk.

Det. Const. Hall said he saw defendants at the police station. He spoke to McCann and asked him again to account for being in possession of the ornament He replied “I think we got it down at the Harbour; try the Harbour Hotel". Later they were charged and McCann replied “It was quite my own fault. Gunner Rafferty had nothing to do with it whatever”.

McCann told the Magistrates that it was his fault. They were under the influence of drink at the time and took the ornament as a prank. There was no intention of stealing it.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What were you going to do with it?

McCann: We took it as a kind of souvenir, but I don’t suppose we should have wanted to have anything to do with it in the morning.

"We had no intention of stealing it”, said Rafferty.

The ornament was broken when shown to the Magistrates, and P.C. Boss explained that it had been broken in course of transit from Sandgate to the police station.

An officer stated that there was nothing against either of the defendants.

The Chairman (Dr. W.W. Nuttall), presiding with Mr. P. Fuller, said the Magistrates thought defendants had been rather foolish. They must have had too much to drink, and probably this would be a lesson to them. The Magistrates dismissed the case on payment of 15s. costs and £1 compensation.

Folkestone Herald 5 June 1943.

Local News.

At Folkestone Transfer Sessions on Wednesday the licence of the Earl Grey Inn was transferred to a representative of Messrs. Fremlin's, and the licence of the Harbour Hotel to a representative of Messrs. George Beer and Rigden.

Folkestone Herald 8 June 1946.

Local News.

Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to Mr. John L. McKenzie in respect of the Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, which, after being damaged by enemy action, is being re-opened.

Folkestone Herald 26 July 1947.

Local News.

Four soldiers and four civilians were charged at the Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday with offences relating to a quantity of cigarettes and other goods missing from a kiosk on the Marine Promenade, Folkestone. The magistrates were informed that other arrests were pending.

Pte. Charles Stuart, Fus. John Barron and Fus. John Thomas Terry were charged with being concerned, with others not in custody, in breaking and entering the kiosk and stealing 20,000 cigarettes, 20 packets of razor blades, two petrol lighters, three tobacco pouches and four cigarette cases, valued £163, the property of Messrs. Finlay and Co. Ltd., on July 7th. Fus. Alfred West, stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with receiving cigarettes valued £27 18/4; Joseph Routh, a cafe employee, of 42, Tontine Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 1,370 cigarettes, valued £11 13/4; John Lloyd McKenzie, licensee of the Harbour Hotel, Harbour Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving cigarettes valued £16 5/-; and Jack Harry Cole, an amusement arcade attendant, of 9, Tontine Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving cigarettes valued £70 5/10, including one lot of 3,000 and another of 500. The seven men were remanded until next Wednesday, Routh, McKenzie and Cole being granted bail. The four soldiers were remanded in custody. Mr. Worthington Edridge appeared for McKenzie and Cole.

Chief Inspector R.J. Butcher, opposing bail for the soldiers, said there were still other men to be arrested in regard to the breaking offence.

D. Const. Huddart, Folkestone, said at 3.15 a.m. last Saturday, accompanied by D. Const. Barrett, he saw Barron at Shorncliffe Camp. He told him he was making enquiries regarding the breaking and entering of a kiosk on the Marine Promenade, Folkestone, during the night of July 7th. He told Barron that he had reason to believe he knew something about it. Barron said “I know nothing about it”. Barron was taken into custody, and later, at Folkestone police station, he said “I admit being concerned with others”. At 9.15 a.m. on Monday he saw Stuart at Shorncliffe Camp and he denied being concerned in the breaking, saying: “I know nothing. I have nothing to say”. As they entered the police car Stuart said “All right, I was In this, and had £6 10/- out of it, I will tell you all about it”. Continuing, D. Const Huddart said last Monday he saw Terry at Shorncliffe Camp. Terry said “They have told me all about it”. At the police station Terry said “I had only 1,000; they told me there were 7,000. I sold mine in bits and pieces in the town”. Witness said he charged the three defendants. Barron replied “I do not know anything about three tobacco pouches. West did not know where it came from, or anything about it. I just asked him to find a buyer for some stuff. The lighter he had he was repairing for me. The flint got stuck up”. Stuart replied “I say nothing to that charge yet”. Terry said “I have already told you about it. They said there were 7,000”. D. Const. Huddart said at 10 p.m. on Friday last, in consequence of information received, he was outside the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, when he saw West step outside from the bar accompanied by another man who handed a sum of money to West. He detained West and told him that he was a police officer making enquiries respecting some stolen cigarettes and that he had reason to believe that he had received some of them. West replied “I was borrowing £1 from him”. Later at the police station he said “Barron asked me to get him a buyer for some stuff and he also asked me to collect the money from the fellows for him”. When charged with receiving the cigarettes West said “At the time I did not know they were stolen. When I did I helped you all I could”. At 12.30 a.m. on Saturday, witness continued, he saw Routh at 42, Tontine Street, and recovered from him a quantity of cigarettes. Last Monday evening he went to 42, Tontine Street and took Routh into custody and charged him with receiving the cigarettes. He said: “I did not know they were stolen. He told me he had got them from London”. Routh was released on bail.

D.Const. Huddart said at 1.30 a.m. on Saturday he saw McKenzie at the Harbour Hotel. In consequence of what McKenzie said he went to a house in another part of the town; and recovered a case containing cigarettes. On Monday he charged McKenzie with receiving cigarettes valued £16 15/-, and he said “I would rather not say anything”. At 7.15 p.m. on Saturday he saw Cole at 9, Tontine Street. He told him he was going to take him into custody for receiving a quantity of cigarettes, and he said “What's this all about?” Later the same evening he was released on ball. He saw Cole again on Monday when he was charged with receiving cigarettes to the value of £70 5/10. Cole replied “There was not £70 of cigarettes. There was about £40 worth”.

On Thursday Pte. William Thomas Newman, stationed at Shorncliffe, was remanded in custody on a charge of being concerned in breaking and entering the kiosk.

Det.Con. Huddart, Folkestone, said when he saw Newman at Folkestone police station he said “I was with the fellows but I did not have any of the stuff. I left them on the Sandgate Road on the way back to barracks”. Later, when he was charged, Newman said “I did not think there was all that stuff taken. I did not have any of it, nor have I sold any of it”.

Folkestone Herald 2 August 1947.

Local News.

Eleven men, including five soldiers, appeared at Folkestone Magistrates Court on Wednesday to answer charges relating to the alleged theft and disposal of 20,000 cigarettes and other articles, valued at £163, the property of Messrs. Finlay and Co., Ltd.

Fus. John Thomas Terry, Fus. John Barron, Pte. Charles Thomas Newman and Fus. Richard William Wilson, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, were charged with breaking and entering a kiosk on the Marine Parade, Folkestone, and stealing 20,000 cigarettes, 20 packets of razor blades, 2 petrol lighters, 3 tobacco pouches and 4 cigarette cases to the total Value of £163 on July 8th. Fus. Alfred John West, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with receiving 3,600 cigarettes, worth £27 18/4; Joseph Routh, a cafe employee, of 42, Tontine Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes, valued at £11 13/4; John Lloyd McKenzie, licensee of the Harbour Hotel, Harbour Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes, valued at £16 5/-; Sydney Frederick Moore, a newspaper seller, of Mill Bay, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes, valued at £11 13/4; Sydney Albert Walter Barton, a labourer, of Queen Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes, valued at £16 5/-; Jack Harry Cole, of Jack's Cafe and Amusement Arcade, Tontine Street, Folkestone, was charged with receiving 5,000 cigarettes of unknown value, and 710 cigarettes worth £4 17/6, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Mr. T.K. Edie, representing McKenzie, Mr. M. Morris, for Cole, and Mr. N.S. Franks, for Routh, all pleaded Not Guilty. Stuart also pleaded Not Guilty to breaking and entering the kiosk. Bail was granted to Routh, McKenzie, Cole, Moore, Barton, Newman and Wilson, but West, Stuart, Barron and Terry were refused bail, following opposition from the police. All the men were committed for trial at the West Kent Quarter Sessions on August 28th.

Mr. E.G. Weale, prosecuting, read a statement from Barton in which he was alleged to have said “When on the Pent Wall, where the whelk barrows are, about 6.30 p.m. yesterday, a soldier and a civilian came up to me. The civilian asked me if I could sell him some stuff. I said “What sort of stuff?” and both of them said “Cigarettes”. I said “O.K., I can sell you some. How many have you got?” They said “Five to six thousand”. I walked along to where Syd Moore was selling his papers and said to him “There’s a chance to get yourself £1 or £2 quite; there’s some chaps got some cigarettes they want to get rid of”. Syd said to me “I know a a couple of places”. I then took the soldier and the civilian to Moore. They said “O.K., we’ll get them sorted out”. We later met the soldier and the civilian in South Street. The soldier handed me an attache case, which I had given to the civilian. I went to the Harbour and sold the cigarettes to the governor, “Mac”, for £14 14/2. I went to the Clarendon and gave the money to the civilian. When I handed him the money Syd Moore was present”.

Mr. Weale said Moore also made a statement, and it was alleged he said “The civilian came up to me in South street and handed an attache case to Barton. The soldier was with him and handed me a carrier bag filled with cigarettes. I said to him “O.K., I’ll get rid of them and meet you in the Clarendon. I went to an address in Tontine Street, but found that the man was out. So I went to the Clarendon and told the civilian that I would take them up to the Shakespeare. When I was talking to him Barton came up and said “O.K., I’ve sold out”, and handed him £13 or £14. I went to the Shakespeare and saw Joe Routh. I said to him “Well, here they are then”, and he said “Why didn’t you leave them down there?” I had previously arranged with him to buy them. He said “Take them down to my house and ask my wife to give you £9. If she won’t give you her money, tell her to give you mine”. I delivered the cigarettes to the Ensign Cafe and got the £9. I met Barton near Wilson’s and we were sharing the money when the police arrested us”.

Cole also made a statement in which he was alleged to have said “About July 8th, during the afternoon, a Paratrooper, whom I know as “Johnnie”, came into the cafe with three or four other soldiers. The Paratrooper spoke to me and asked me if I wanted to buy some cigarettes at pre-budget price. I said to him “Are they all right?”, and he said “They’re not knocked off. They’ve come from the N.A.A.F.I.”. I told him I would have some off him. He said “You can have the dear ones for 2/6 and the cheap ones for 1/9”. Continuing, the statement alleged that the soldier handed Cole two valises filled with cigarettes. He counted the cigarettes but could not say exactly how many there were. Two or three days later the soldier came with a haversack full of cigarettes. Altogether he had 5,000 cigarettes for which he paid £27/10/-. “After the police had visited me on July 1st I took the remainder of the cigarettes, which I had not sold, together with the 500 ‘Tenner’ cigarettes, and put them in the empty premises, 71a, High Street”, the statement concluded.

Mrs. Edith Lester, 43, Princess Street, Folkestone, said she was manageress employed by Messrs. Finlay and Co., posted at their kiosk on Marine Parade. At 6.15 p.m. on July 7th she left the kiosk locked and secured. The following morning she found the door, facing towards the sea, had been forced open. She subsequently took stock of the contents of the kiosk and articles and cigarettes valued at £163 were missing.

Charles Robert Hall, a builder, of 67, Bradstone Road, Folkestone, said he had recently been doing repairs to 71a, High Street, Folkestone, premises over Jack’s Cafe. At 10 a.m. on July 19th Cole came into the premises. He was carrying a black case and asked him if he could dump the parcel for him. He took the case from Cole and left the premises at 10 and 10.20 a.m. He went home, left the case there and returned to work. He returned home again at about 2.20 p.m., put the case straight on the fire and destroyed the lot because he was a little nervous.

Det. Const. Huddart, Folkestone, said at 9.45 p.m. on July 18th, accompanied by Det.Const. Barrett, he went to Tontine Street where he saw Barton, carrying a small attache case, enter the porchway of 44, Tontine Street, an empty shop. They followed the accused into the porchway and saw him sharing out some money with Moore. Witness said he told the two men that he had reason to believe they had been selling a quantity of cigarettes and that they would be detained for further enquiries. Barton said “I will show you who I have been selling them for. One is a civvy and the other a soldier”. They accompanied Barton to the Clarendon Hotel, where he saw him beckon to West and hand over to him £3 in £1 notes. Whilst in custody Moore made a statement and handed to him the sum of £5 6/5. He said “Here is the rest of the money”. At 3.15 a.m. on July 19th, when searching kit belonging to Barron, he found 14 packets of razor blades and a cigarette lighter. Barron said “Five packets I bought at the N.A.A.F.I.; the other nine packets and the lighter are from the job”. In Stuart's kit he found a packet of 10 Capstan cigarettes in a civilian jacket. At the police station Stuart made a statement.

In the statement, read by the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes), Stuart was alleged to have said “About four o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, July 7th, 1947, I left barracks with Fus. Barron and another soldier. We bussed into Folkestone and went to the Rotunda Amusement Arcade. At 5.30 p.m. we met Fus. Terry and Wilson and Newman, who were with another soldier that I do not know. By then it was getting late and as we did not have any cigarettes between us someone suggested that we go and get some. I was walking slightly in front of the others and heard one of them say “Let us go down on to the beach. I know where we can get some”. According to his alleged statement, Stuart sat on the beach for about half an hour and then heard someone whistle and saw the others in a shelter. They were putting cigarettes into their blouses and pockets, and so he put some inside his battledress jacket. When they got back to barracks the cigarettes were put in a spare barrack room box and he did not see them again, but he knew they were to be sold. The statement continued that on July 8th he met Barron in Jack’s Amusement Arcade in Tontine Street and he gave him £3 10/-. He received another £3 from Barron on July 10th. He then told Barron that he did not want any more and that he was washing his hands of the whole affair. Fus. Terry and Wilson came to the barrack room on July 8th and took their share of the cigarettes.

At 12.30 a.m. on July 19th he went to 42, Tontine Street, where he saw Routh. He told Routh they were police officers and he had reason to believe that he had purchased some cigarettes from Moore during the evening. He replied “I know nothing about any cigarettes. You can search the place. I have been in the Shakespeare since half past seven”. When he was cautioned, he said “All right, I take the responsibility; I bought them off him”. At 2.30 a.m. he handed witness an attache case, saying “Here they are”. The case contained 600 Capstan, 250 Churchman, 240 Gold Flake, 80 Players, 130 Senior Service and 100 Richmond Gem cigarettes. He saw defendant McKenzie at 10.30 a.m. on July 19th and told him he had reason to believe that he had purchased a quantity of cigarettes from Barton during the previous evening. He replied “No, sir. I know nothing about any cigarettes”. Later he said “Yes. I thought so immediately after the man had gone. I am a ---- fool. I have panicked and sent them to a friend to look after for a few days”. At the police station he produced the case to McKenzie and drew his attention to the fact that it contained 2,200 cigarettes – 1,000 Woodbines, 250 Senior Service, 650 Gold Flakes and 300 Capstan – but he made no reply. He went to 9, Tontine Street at 8.30 a.m. on July 19th, when he saw Cole and told him he was making enquiries respecting cigarettes that had been stolen. He said he had reason to believe that a number of the cigarettes were concealed on his premises, where they had ben left by some soldiers. Cole said “I know nothing about it. You can have a look around”. He then went into the amusement arcade and whilst searching the workshop he found an American Army handgrip containing 170 Gold Flake and 40 Embassy cigarettes. Cole said “I know nothing about them”. At 10.20 a.m. the same day he again visited the premises and in the arcade office he found two Army valises and one Army haversack. Later he produced the American handgrip to Barron, who said “That belongs to a chap in my billet who was demobbed last Monday”. When he searched West's kit he found a petrol lighter, and West said “That belongs to Barron. I was repairing it for him. The flint was jammed up”.

Replying to Mr. Edie, witness said McKenzie was the licensee of the Harbour Hotel and was a man of excellent character.

Stuart said he did not agree to 20,000 cigarettes and pleaded Not Guilty to breaking and entering.

Folkestone Herald 6 September 1947.

Local News.

Five Shorncliffe soldiers who stole and disposed of 20,000 cigarettes and other articles in Folkestone in July were sentenced at West Kent Quarter Sessions at Maidstone on Wednesday. A sixth soldier and five civilians alleged to have been involved in the offences had also been committed for trial from the Folkestone Court. The hearing of the cases was adjourned until the next Sessions on October 16th. In making this announcement the Chairman (Mr. Gerald E. Thesiger M.B.E.) said the hearing would probably take place the following day.

Fusilier John Thomas Terry (20), Fusilier John Barron (21), Pte. Charles William Henry Stuart (24), Pte. Charles Thomas Newman (21), and Fusilier Richard William Wilson (25), pleaded Guilty to breaking and entering a kiosk on Marine Parade, Folkestone, and stealing 20,000 cigarettes, 20 packets of razor blades, two petrol lighters, three tobacco pouches and four cigarette cases, of the total value of £163, the property of Messrs. Finlay and Co. Ltd., on July 6th.

The following had also been indicted: Fusilier Alfred John West, charged with receiving 3,600 cigarettes; Joseph Routh, a cafe employee, of 42, Tontine Street, Folkestone, charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes; John Lloyd Mckenzie, licensee of the Harbour Hotel, Folkestone charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes; Sydney Frederick Moore, a newspaper seller, of Mill Bay, Folkestone, charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes; Sydney Albert Walter Barton, a labourer, of Queen Street, Folkestone, charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes; and Jack Harry Cole, of Jack's Cafe and Amusement Arcade, Tontine Street, Folkestone, charged with receiving 5,000 cigarettes of unknown value, and 710 cigarettes, valued at £4 17/7, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Cole was not present, it being stated that he was ill and was in hospital.

In the case of the civilian defendants bail was renewed. West had been remanded in custody. He was now allowed bail in his recognisance of £100 providing a surety for a similar sum could be obtained.

Mr. R. Beddington appeared for Barron, Mr. M. Morris for McKenzie, Miss Dorothy Knight Dix for Routh, Mr. A.L. Stevenson for Newman and Wilson, and Mr. Neave for Terry and Stuart.

Mr. Maxwell Turner, prosecuting, said Cole would be available in about three weeks' time. Mr. Morris said he had no objection to the adjournment, but McKenzie would like the case dealt with as soon as possible to get it cleared up. Mr. Turner suggested that all the defendants should have the one trial.

The Chairman: I think that would be the best course.

Mr. Turner said that when Stuart was seen at Shorncliffe Camp on July 21st he said he had nothing to say. In due course he was taken to the police station, where he said he “had had £6 10/- out of it”, and he would tell all about it. He made a statement. Terry said he had only 1,000 cigarettes, which he sold in “bits and pieces” in a pub. Barron at first denied all knowledge of what had happened, but afterwards he admitted being concerned with the others. In his kit was found 14 packets of cigarettes, a lighter and some razor blades. Afterwards 210 cigarettes were found on Cole's premises. Mr. Turner said Newman stated that he had none of the cigarettes; he said he left the other men in Sandgate Road on the way back to barracks. Wilson said “That's right. I had about 3,000. Some I sold in London and the rest I smoked myself”.

Det. Const. T.W. Huddart said Stuart had three previous convictions, and he wished to have four other cases of larceny taken into consideration. He joined the Royal West Kent Regiment on September 3rd, 1940. Whilst he was in India he served 18 months for desertion. Terry had three previous convictions, for receiving stolen property, shop breaking and larceny, and house breaking and larceny. He received three years' Borstal detention, and his licence expired in January, 1949. Barton had six previous convictions; Newman two previous convictions, including one for an indecent assault on a female; and Wilson had no previous convictions. Wilson joined the Army in July, 1942, and served in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.

Capt. L.A. Douris said Stuart and Terry had indifferent characters, Barron's character was quite good, and Newman's was very good. He had no record regarding Wilson.

Mr. Stevenson asked if there had been a mistake about Wilson's pay, which resulted in a drastic reduction for his wife.

Capt. Douris: I cannot help you there.

Mr. Stevenson said Wilson's wife's allowance had been reduced from £4 8/6 a week to £2 5/6 a week, and his own pay from 31/6 to 7/6 a week. Since then the paymaster had found that a mistake had been made, but Wilson wanted to earn some money. He had a wife and four children, one of whom was in hospital.

The Chairman said the statements of the accused showed that considerable care was taken in “the flogging of the stuff”. Stuart should have known better than to have got into trouble again. His civilian and Army records were unsatisfactory. He would be sent to prison for eight months. Terry had already been sentenced for housebreaking and had had Borstal detention. Whatever sentence was passed he would have to go back to a Borstal institution, and he (the Chairman) thought the best course would be for him to impose a nominal sentence of 28 days' imprisonment. Barron had also been sent to a Borstal institution, and his licence would have expired next year. He would be sent to prison for eight months. It looked as if Newman did not get very much out of the offence. He would pay £5 towards the costs of the prosecution and would be bound over for two years in his own recognisance in the sum of £5. Wilson was now demobilised. Whilst he was in the Army nothing appeared to be known against him, and he had no civil convictions. He enlisted on his own accord, and had been given a very good character. But he had some of the cigarettes and “flogged” them in London. Wilson would also be bound over for two years in his own recognisance in the sum of £5

Folkestone Herald 13 September 1947.

Local News.

In our report last week of the case in which five soldiers were tried for the theft of cigarettes, it was stated that “Barton had six previous convictions.” The name should have been Barron. As was stated, the charges against five civilians and a sixth soldier were adjourned.

Folkestone Herald 25 October 1947.

Local News.

Jack Harry Cole (30), an amusement arcade proprietor, 9, Tontine Street, Folkestone, was at West Kent Quarter Sessions at Maidstone on Monday sentenced to four months’ imprisonment on a charge of receiving 5,500 cigarettes, well knowing them to have been stolen. He was found not guilty on a further charge of receiving 210 cigarettes. Four other Folkestone men who were found guilty of similar offences were bound over. They were Sidney Albert Walter Barton (38), labourer, Queen Street, charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes; Sidney Frederick Moore (52), paper roundsman, Mill Bay, charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes; John Lloyd McKenzie (58), licensee of the Harbour Hotel, charged with receiving 2,200 cigarettes; and Joseph Routh (47), a waiter, 42, Tontine Street, charged with receiving 1,400 cigarettes, in each case well-knowing them to have been stolen. McKenzie was ordered to pay £10 and Routh £5 towards the costs of the prosecution. All the accused pleaded Not Guilty.

McKenzie was defended by Mr. T.K. Edie, Cole by Mr. Malcolm Morris, and Routh by Miss Dorothy Knight Dix.

Fusilier Alfred John West, Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with receiving 3,600 cigarettes, knowing them to have been stolen. Upon the direction of the Chairman (Mr. Gerald A. Thesiger M.B.E.) he was found Not Guilty on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and was discharged. He was represented by Mr. Lermon.

At the previous sessions five soldiers were found Guilty of breaking and entering a kiosk on Marine Promenade, Folkestone, on July 8th, and stealing 20,000 cigarettes and other articles, of the total value of £163, the property of Messrs. Finlay and Co. Ltd.

At Monday's hearing statements alleged to have been made by the accused to a police officer, and which were quoted at the Magistrates' hearing at Folkestone, were read by Mr. Maxwell Turner, who prosecuted.

The first witness was Mrs. Edith Lester, 43, Princess Street, Folkestone, manageress employed by Messrs. Finlay and Co., who said cigarettes and other articles valued £163 were missing from the kiosk on the Marine Promenade on July 8th.

D.C. Huddart, Folkestone, said that at 9.45 p.m. on July 18th he went to Tontine Street, where he saw Barton, who had an attaché case, enter the porchway of a shop. He was with Moore, and they were sharing out some money. He went with Barton to the Clarendon, where fusilier West was in the bar. Barton gave West three £1 notes.

Replying to further questions, witness said on July 19th he found 210 cigarettes in an American valise in a kind of workshop which led from the Tontine Street part of Cole's Amusement Arcade. He also found two Army greatcoats there. Cole said he had never seen the cigarettes before.

Mr. Lermon asked if it was within witness's knowledge that soldiers coming from abroad for demobilisation brought large quantities of cigarettes with them.

Witness: No.

Mr. Lermon: Do you know that soldiers coming home from the Far Fast are issued with cigarettes at cut prices? - I believe that is common on a troopship.

It would not surprise you, would it, that soldiers were arriving at the Camp with quite a large number of cigarettes? – It would.

Why? – Because through the Customs and Excise only a limited number could be brought into this country.

Mr. Edie: You saw McKenzie on July 19th?

Witness: Yes.

If McKenzie sold the cigarettes to his customers at the retail price he would make about £3? – Yes.

Det. Con. Huddart, replying to counsel, said McKenzie served in the R.A.S.C. in the 1914 – 18 war, and in the R.A.F. from 1919 until 1945. He attained the rank of warrant officer and was awarded the M.B.E. He left the R.A.F. with an exemplary character.

Witness agreed with Miss Knight Dix that Mrs. Routh was proprietress of the cafe where her husband was employed as a waiter. She was worried and bothered about the matter. Routh had a good character, with no previous convictions.

Mr. Turner: It is suggested that the cigarettes in this case had been issued to troops coming from overseas. Did they bear any stamp upon them? – No. Cigarettes I have seen issued to troops are marked that they are duty free.

Charles Robert Hall, a builder, 67, Bradstone Road, said that on July 19th he was doing repairs at 71a, High Street, Folkestone, premises which were over Jack's Cafe. At about 10 a.m. Cole came to him with a black handbag and asked him if he would take possession of it and put it on one side or destroy it. He left the bag at home. He returned home again that afternoon and put the bag straight on the fire.

Mr. Morris: No-one seems to have any idea of the contents of the bag. I don't know what the submission is. You knew what was in it?#

Witness: I put them on the fire.

Mr. Morris: What do you mean by “them"?

Witness: The cigarettes in it.

How do you know they were cigarettes? - Cole said they were cigarettes.

Are you saying that Cole gave you a bag full of cigarettes and did not say he was worried about them, and you burned them? - Yes, because I heard between 10.30 and about 2.30 some rumours that there had been a robbery. I heard that Cole was one of the men rumoured to have stolen some goods.

Cole said that altogether he received 5,000 cigarettes from a paratrooper. Another 500, which he could not sell, were given him. The soldiers were regular customers, and came into the cafe afterwards. On July 16th he lost a wallet, which had been stolen, containing £100 or £120. He missed it from an attaché case in the office. He suspected the soldiers, and he phoned the police. A police officer saw him in the cafe. The cigarettes he had bought from the paratrooper were displayed on the shelf, and the officer had to pass them. On July 18th D.C. Huddart came about the wallet, and the cigarettes were still on view. On July 19th D.C. Huddart came again and said there had been some cigarettes stolen and he thought he had some. He (Cole) said he knew nothing about them, and told him he could have a look round. At the time he (Cole) did not associate it with the cigarettes he bought a fortnight earlier. In a workshop D.C. Huddart found an American handgrip, which he told him he had never seen before. There were also two Army greatcoats he had never seen before.

Replying to Mr. Turner, Cole said a soldier named Barron brought the cigarettes to his place. He had known him three or four months.

Mr. Turner: Had you discovered that Barron was a convicted thief? – No.

But when you lost your wallet you thought he or one of his companions might have stolen it? – Yes.

How did you think they got their cigarettes? Did you think it was a saving of cigarettes by dozens of soldiers in Folkestone? – It might have been.

You were told they came from the N.A.A.F.I. Was that the only enquiry you made? – I did not think the number would be unusual.

You seriously thought he might be able to get 5,000 cigarettes at the N.A.A.F.I. price? – Yes.

Barton, giving evidence, said he gave McKenzie the impression that the cigarettes he sold him were being sold by a wholesale man who wanted to dispose of his business in London. The conversation was quite open. He (Barton) borrowed a case from Mckenzie to take the cigarettes in, but before he could return it he was arrested by the police. When McKenzie asked him for the case he (Barton) said “It's hot; you'd better get going”. Barton continued that he did not know any of the cigarettes were stolen. He thought they were bankrupt stuff from London.

Moore said it was a temptation. He was short of money.

McKenzie, giving evidence, said Barton asked him if he could do with any cigarettes, and he said he had about 20,000, stock of a pal of his brother's who was selling up a cigarette shop in London. He (defendant)had some knowledge of the brother. He (McKenzie) said he did not want 20,000 cigarettes, but he could do with some. Barton said the cigarettes were in Tontine Street and borrowed a case belonging to a customer. Everything was done openly in the bar. Barton went away and came back 15 minutes later. They went upstairs and he gave Barton £15 14/4. Perhaps he (defendant) would have made about £2 12/- out of it. He never thought of the profit, but often fishermen came into his place and asked for cigarettes. He had no financial worries.

Replying to Mr. Edie, McKenzie said that when he was told the cigarettes had been stolen he called Barton “some names”. He decided to pack the cigarettes up and get them off the premises, and sent them to a friend in Alder Road. He had been licensee of the Harbour Hotel for about 12 months; he had no business experience.

McKenzie told Mr. Turner that he knew something of Barton's private life, and he knew he was “a bit pushed”. They were both ex-Servicemen, and he was interested in Barton.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty on each charge, excepting in the case of the 210 cigarettes relating to Cole.

D.C. Huddart said on October 9th, 1943, at Dover Magistrates' Court, Cole was fined £30 and £5 costs for harbouring un-Customed goods. At the same Court on February 5th, 1943, he was sentenced to three months' hard labour for receiving clothing coupons. He was married, and had six children. Barton had had casual employment in the fish-market area, selling fish and newspapers. There was one conviction in 1930, and in 1940 he was bound over for stealing from a gas meter. Moore was a male orderly for three years at Chartham Mental Hospital. He next entered Etchinghill Institution, and since then he had had casual employment. Routh had been a stoker employed at Folkestone Gas works. Since 1945 he had been a waiter in his wife's employ. Nothing was known against him.

The Chairman said Cole would be sent to prison for four months. Barton and Moore, who had acted as carriers, would each be bound over in the sum of £5 for two years under the Probation Officer.

McKenzie and Routh were both men of good character, but they had been found Guilty of receiving cigarettes knowing them to have been stolen. The explanation must be that they knew cigarettes were in short supply, and they wished to supply them to their customers. McKenzie and Routh would be bound over in their own recognisances in the sum of £5 each.

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1948.

Local News.

At Folkestone Transfer Sessions on Wednesday the licence of the Harbour Hotel was transferred to Mr. Victor Albert Parks, formerly of Riverside Gardens, Wembley.

Folkestone Herald 3 April 1954.

Local News.

Sir Harry Mackeson has been asked to help persuade the Ministry of Transport to give a decision about the provision for a car park in the Harbour area. (Yesterday afternoon Sir Harry visited the area with officials of the Ministry and British Railways.)

Delay in obtaining approval from the Ministry is delaying the completion of the scheme for the redevelopment of the area, the Borough Engineer, Mr. E. L. Allman, told members of Folkestone Chamber of Trade on Monday evening.

Mr. Allman said in redeveloping the area they had not only to contend with natural difficulties but man-made difficulties. In the area they had no less than 13 public-houses, of which six were to remain. They had agreed with the brewers that a site adjacent to the Harbour Hotel should be made available to improve their premises. The existence of the railway line to the Harbour, and trunk sewers, which had to remain, added to the difficulties of planning the area. Then there were awkward levels. It seemed that some type of housing was required and also a car park. The Tram Road would be brought into Harbour Street to keep traffic away from the railway arches, leaving a space free for pedestrians using the arches. Seagate Street and a small length of Beach Street would be disposed of, and Dover Street would be brought round in a bold curve into the Tram Road above the arch. The Borough Engineer said he thought the scheme for South Street would be pleasing, reproducing as far as possible the conditions that existed before the shops were built 300 or 400 years ago.

The Royal George public house would remain in an altered form, but there was difficulty about the site adjoining the Ark Cafe. The Ministry seemed to think that a cafe would do well there. During the scheme they had moved some 10,000 cubic yards of earth, quite an achievement on a restricted site.

He said the units of accommodation being built would accommodate 120 - 130 people. The Lifeboat public house would remain but the corner from North Street into the Durlocks would be improved by utilising a site adjoining the public house.

Mr. G. Balfour asked whether the new development would blend with the houses built before the war.

Mr. Allman said he was afraid the present-day restriction on money made it impossible to follow the type of building in Radnor Street, but as far as their limited resources allowed they would select tiles and bricks to blend. Referring to Dover Street, he said there were still some substandard houses there which should come down. In future, when the street was widened, there would be no necessity to interfere with the Quakers’ Meeting House, an old building which was set well back.

Folkestone Herald 25 May 1957.

Local News.

Although Inspector Gray submitted that it was not a special occasion within the meaning of the Act, Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted local licensees half-an-hour's extension on Sunday nights during the month of July.

Mr. Norman Franks, representing the local Licensed Victuallers' Association, said he was making an application which was in two parts. He first asked that licenses for all the Folkestone houses, with the exception of the Harbour Inn, should be extended as follows during the Whitsun holiday period: Friday, June 7th, Saturday, June 8th, and Whit-Monday, June 10th, from 10.30 p.m. until 11.30 p.m.; Whit Sunday, June 9th, from 10 until 10.30 p.m. His further application was in respect of an extension of licences, until 10.30 p.m., for the four Sundays in July. Mr. Franks stated he made an application last year, when the police superintendent objected, and quoted a number of cases. He (Mr. Franks) then said it was a matter which could be left to the discretion of the magistrates as to whether it could be termed a special occasion or not. The magistrates said that if extensions for any special period were applied for it would be given consideration. He was now asking for the July extensions, because it was found to be an attraction and a need last August, when extensions were granted, and in his submission, what was good for August was good for July in Folkestone. “We are not asking for extensions in June”, Mr. Franks said, “but in July we shall probably be coming along asking for extensions in August. I think it is a suitable occasion when you can exercise your discretion in the licensees' favour”.

Inspector Gray told the Magistrates that he was not opposing the application for the Whitsuntide extensions.

The Magistrates granted Mr. Franks's application in full.

Folkestone Herald 13 June 1959.

Local News.

As draymen were delivering supplies to a public house in the harbour area two men passed by and took a quart bottle of cider.

One of them, John Norman Alfred McGuinness, of 43, Millfield Estate, Hawkinge, pleaded guilty at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday to stealing the cider, worth 2/6, but the other man, Anthony Jesse Cleaver, 101, Oakley Park Drive, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, did not surrender to his bail, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

McGuinness, who apologised to the court, was told by the Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) “This was a silly thing to have done; pay £1 for your stupidness”.

Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow said at 4 p.m. on June 15th the licensee of the Harbour Inn was taking in supplies from a brewer’s lorry. The cellar flaps were open. One drayman was in the cellar, and the other was on top handing down the supplies. He went away for a short time, and on his return a quart bottle of cider was missing.

W.P.C. Smith and P.C. Ritchie searched the area and saw the defendants in two boats on the boating pool. They signalled Cleaver to come to the side and took a part empty bottle of cider from the boat. Both men had been drinking but were not drunk. McGuinness said he did not know where the bottle had come from. Later, McGuinness made a statement to W.P.C. Smith in which he said they went past the Harbour Inn, where there was a pile of stuff on the pavement. He took a bottle for a lark. He had the money to pay for it. He offered to pay for it, and the licensee was willing to accept.

“I am sorry I caused so much trouble”, McGuinness told the magistrates.

Folkestone Herald 30 April 1960.

Obituary.

The landlord of the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, Mr. Victor Albert Parks, died suddenly early last Friday morning, at the age of 47.

Mr. Parks was born at the Globe public house, Dover, where his father was landlord. Shortly afterwards the family moved to the George and Dragon, Temple Ewell, where his father is still licensee.

In 1947, Mr. and Mrs. Parks came to Folkestone from London, where the former had been a sheet-metal worker. For the past thirteen years he had been licensee of the Harbour Inn, where he proved an extremely popular host.

Mr. Parks leaves a widow, a son and a daughter.

The funeral service was held at Folkestone Parish Church on Wednesday.

Folkestone Herald 2 April 1966.

Local News.

An18-year-old Folkestone youth, said to be perfectly quiet and respectable, was fined £25 at Folkestone magistrates’ court on Tuesday for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and £5 for a breach of the peace.

“We take a serious view of this assault on the police, and had there been a vacancy at a detention centre, we would have sent you there”, the chairman, Mr. F.J. Baden Fuller, told Keith Lomax, of Montacue Court, Westbourne Gardens. “Your solicitor has said this was an impulse on your part”, Mr. Baden Fuller added. “We never want to see you before this court again”.

Mr. Norman Franks, prosecuting, said the charges arose out of an incident at the Harbour Inn on the night of March 12. A disturbance broke out at about 10.30 p.m. and P.C. Graham Newton was kicked and punched by Lomax.

Mr. Victor Hood, the licensee, said he was called to the public bar where an argument had broken out among a group of people. Lomax was in an aggressive mood and his fists were clenched. When he asked him lo leave Lomax struck him. The police were called. P.C. Newton arrived and with the help of Mr. Hood tried to get Lomax out of the premises-. Other people in the bar tried to pull them off, but they eventually managed to get him out of the back door.

P.C. Newton told the court that at first Lomax refused to leave the premises and continued to fight and struggle as he was escorted outside.

During the struggle, Lomax lashed out with his feet and kicked him on the legs. Lomax went berserk and shouted “You dirty .... copper. Let go of me”. The officer said that Lomax, with assistance from other people in the bar, managed to struggle free. He heard someone shout “Run away”. P.C. Newton said when he tried to leave the premises a man blocked the door, and he had to lift him bodily before he could pass.

He was punched on the face when he told Lomax he would be arrested. Two other police officers came to his assistance, and Lomax was eventually taken to Folkestone police station where he was placed in a cell.

Lomax, who pleaded not guilty, denied kicking or punching the officer, or using threatening language. He was not involved in the commotion but agreed he struggled because the police officer had picked on the wrong person. It was unlikely that he would have used offensive language because his parents and his girlfriend were in the bar.

Mr. George Lomax said his son was not involved in the argument in any way. It concerned his elder son, George, and another man.

Mr. John Medlicott, defending, said when Lomax's father and brother became involved in the argument, he tried to pacify them. “He was quite clearly suffering from a sense of grave injustice”, submitted Mr. Medlicott.

The Court was told that Lomax had been on probation for two years ending in August, 1962, and completed his probation satisfactorily.

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

When 1,400 continentals visit Folkestone next Thursday the doors of local pubs will be open to them all afternoon. On Tuesday local Magistrates decided in favour of a second application to allow 17 pubs to remain open especially for the visitors. They had vetoed a previous application. The second made by publicans was amended to allow for a half-hour break at 5.30 p.m. before their premises opened for the evening session.

Mr. J. Medlicott, for the publicans, told the Magistrates that the visitors were delegates attending a conference in Bruges. One of its highlights was to be a visit to England. He referred to a letter received by Folkestone Corporation from the British Tourist Authority supporting the publicans' application. The visit – by Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and Germans – was a special occasion, not just a shopping expedition, said Mr. Medlicott. It had been arranged by a Bruges tourist organisation which had particularly asked that pubs should be open in the afternoon.

Police Inspector R. Sanders made no formal objection to the application – but doubted whether the visit was a special occasion.

The Chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, Mr. Alan Stephenson, said later “The cross-Channel visitors' committee of this Chamber is very pleased that this has been seen as a special occasion by the Justices. When one is reminded that this extension is no more than happens in many market towns every week of the year, it seems a fair request, especially as Folkestone’s image abroad could be much influenced by the original decision not to allow the pubs to open”.

The pubs which will stay open are; Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Royal George, London and Paris, True Briton, Harbour Inn, Princess Royal, Clarendon, Brewery Tap, Earl Grey, Prince Albert, George, Globe, East Kent Arms, Guildhall and Shakespeare.

Folkestone Herald 4 October 1975.

Local News.

An almost continuous drinking session on Boxing Day landed 25-year-old Patrick Daley, of Harbour Way, Folkestone, in jail. For he ended the day fighting two policemen who were trying to take him to the police station. He bit one of the officers and punched and kicked at the other, it was alleged.

When he appeared before Canterbury Crown Court on Wednesday, the Recorder, Mr. Thomas Eastham Q.C., told him “We are determined to do what we can to ensure that police officers are not subjected to this kind of assault”. Daley was then sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for each of the assaults, to run concurrent, and a further three months, consecutive, for breach of a two year probation order imposed by Folkestone magistrates for possessing controlled drugs.

Mr. Daniel Robins, prosecuting, had told the court that Police Constables Tingley and Venner were called to the Harbour Inn in Folkestone on Boxing Day last year because of trouble there. “The trouble was caused by the defendant who was drunk and the officers attempted to arrest him”, he said “He was violent in resisting arrest and threw punches and kicked at P.C. Tingley and also bit P.C. Venner. Eventually, after a struggle he was placed in the back of the police car where he continued to fight. At the police station he was still violent and further struggling took place”. When he had calmed down later in the evening, Daley apologised for his behaviour. He told the officers “All I can say to you two guys is I am sorry”.

Mr. Ekled Tabachnik, defending, said Daley was living as a squatter with a young married woman and her child. “It was Boxing Day and he had been celebrating rather too well with his family. He was very drunk indeed”, he said. Although Daley had pleaded Guilty to both assaults, he did not accept that he had bitten one of the officers, said Mr. Tabachnik. He had not set out to assault the policeman, but had hit and kicked out and in the process committed the offences. Fortunately, he said, no serious injuries had resulted.

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1982.

Local News.

Work of joining neighbouring pubs together in a £120,000 conversion to produce a building in keeping with the old harbour area of Folkestone has almost been completed. The Harbour Crab and Oyster House, formerly the Harbour Hotel and True Briton, in Harbour Street, reopens to the public next Friday, February 19.

Old customers may recognise the exterior, now clad in dark weatherboarding, but inside the design theme has captured the interior of a harbour warehouse and ships' chandlers at the turn of the 19th century.

Roy Pepperrell, Whitbread Fremlins design manager, who planned the alterations, said “The idea was to provide something to match the area, and it seems to have come through well. Folkestone's planners have congratulated us on the design and the Chamber of Commerce has expressed its appreciation of a development sympathetic to the old harbour area, which they feel has increased tourist potential”.

Bar customers will be able to purchase seafood snacks, and in the Fish Basket Grill, 54 customers can be seated for cooked fish meals with seafood salads and steak dishes. Fish will be bought daily from local catches, and lobsters crabs and oysters will be on the menu, with draught ale from handpumps and popular wines.

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1995.

Local News.

Two soldiers have been cleared of attacking a pub manager during a Christmas Day incident in Folkestone.

Barry Greaves, manager of the Princess Royal, was hit a number of times with a pool cue and ended up with a fractured jaw and a deep cut to the head after being approached by two men with Scottish accents, Maidstone Crown Court heard.

Miss Caroline Knight, prosecuting, said on Christmas Day, 1993, there was a private party at the Harbour public house in Folkestone, to which other publicans were invited. Paul Provan and David Boyes, both Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stationed at Folkestone, arrived. They were not invited, but were allowed in because one of them was the boyfriend of a member of staff and was a regular there. Mr. Greaves, who had been invited, arrived during the evening, followed shortly afterwards by his girlfriend, Barbara Day. But they had a slight disagreement and when the time came for them to leave she walked out first, followed by Mr. Greaves. From various people in the public house a picture was pieced together, said Miss Knight. One person recalled letting the two into the party, and in particular remembered Mr. Boyes, who was going out with a member of the staff. A customer remembered them both going out and coming back in with a pool cue. “This is a case where the defendants were arrested shortly afterwards, and the question of identification may be something to which you may have to pay close attention”, Miss Knight told the jury.

In evidence, Mr. Greaves told the Court he was aware of a number of people with Scottish accents in the pub that night. “Barbara arrived about 20 minutes after me, and she wasn't very pleased with me because I hadn't told her where I was going”, he said. “As we left she was still not happy. We started walking back to the Princess Royal. Two people came from out of the Harbour and said “What's going on here?”, and I said “It's none of your business”. I didn't take any notice of who it was. Barbara had run up the Old High Street. I caught her uo halfway. We were both out of puff and we just sat down on a window ledge laughing and got our breath back. Then two men came up the High Street and said again “What's going on here?” Barbara was stood in front of me. I was still sitting on the window ledge. At that point I didn't see them. We were talking”, he said. “These two came up with Scottish accents and said “What are you two up to?” One of them pushed Barbara out of the way: one grabbed me by the throat while the other one hit me several times with a billiard cue”.

The two, neither of whom gave evidence, were cleared of wounding with intent and discharged

Folkestone Herald 8 June 1995.

Local News.

A furious bride-to-be has had to call back all her wedding invitations after a mix-up over the booking for the reception.

Bernice Scanlon went to the Harbour pub, Folkestone, at the end of April to ask about a wedding reception for 70 people in August. She claims the manager booked the date in the diary and told her to return a month later to discuss a price and pay a deposit. But when she went back at the end of May Miss Scanlon said she was told no booking had been made and there was no way the pub's restaurant could seat 70. Miss Scanlon, 22, of Cheriton Road, Folkestone, who works as a barmaid at Jolson's nightclub in Tontine Street, said “When I went the first time I asked if they could do a sit-down meal for 70 people on August 19. The manager put my name and phone number in the diary and said they would definitely be able to do it. He told me to come back for a quote, but said it would be fine and there would be no problem. He said it was going to be refurbished and the place would be beautiful for me. But when I went back I was told there was no way they could seat that many people in the restaurant and they couldn't do the reception. I thought they were joking, it was such a shock. I have sent out all the invitations and paid for everything. It's only nine weeks until I get married and I've got to start all over again. Surely they could have rung me to let me know. I have complained to the brewery's head office about it but I haven't heard anything yet”.

But Helen Waters, manageress of The Harbour, said that although the reception had been entered in the diary no definite booking was made. She said “It was a provisional booking and she was asked to come back in a month to confirm it and sort out a price. I don't know why she sent out her invitations before it had been confirmed. Andy, the manager, made a note of the date and numbers in the diary. He told her vwe were waiting for a refurbishment and she would need to come back and see us at the end of May. We haven't got 70 seats in the restaurant, and still won't have that many after the refurbishment has been done. She got very angry when I told her it hadn't been booked, but she hadn't agreed a price and had nothing in writing. I didn't know we had her phone number, but if I had I would have phoned and told her we couldn't do it. I did apologise to her when she came in”.

Bernice, whose fiancé Philip Yates, also 22, is serving in the Army at Aldershot, has now booked a reception at The Carpenters, in The Stade, Folkestone, and is sending out new invitations. She said “I've got to get all the old invitations back and have them all redone. They cost me £50, but now I'll buy cheap ones because i can't afford to spend so much again. I'm very angry indeed”.

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1995.

Local News.

Most landlords have welcomed the new Sunday opening hours. Many pubs were packed with families celebrating the freedom to drink all afternoon while others were deserted because customers were confused by the new law. Drinkers who didn't know about the new tippling time were in for a surprise at the Harbour Inn, Folkestone. Barman Ian Waddilove explained “A lot of them wondered why we didn't ring last orders at ten to three. The later closing time seemed to have gone down pretty well”.

However, Maureen Coles, landlady of the Morehall, Cheriton, blamed confusion about the new law for locals staying away. “It was absolutely dead”, she said. “Most people did not realise the new law had started even though we put posters up”.

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1999.

Canterbury Crown Court.

Two drunken Folkestone teenagers took advantage of a cracked pub window to break in and steal more drink. The burglars later decided to wake up a friend, but got the wrong flat and caused over £200 damage.

At Canterbury Crown Court on Monday, Stephen Murphy, 18, of Surrenden Road, and Gavin Austen, 18, of Shaftesbury Avenue, were both ordered to do 200 hours community service and each pay £200 to the pub landlady, £113 to the flat occupant and £150 costs each. Both had admitted burglary at The Harbour pub, in Harbour Street, Folkestone, and theft of drink last December, and damaging a door and window.

Simon Sanford, prosecuting, said the accused had been drinking at a Folkestone nightclub and were looking for a takeaway when they saw the pub with its cracked rear window and broke in. They stole bottles of spirits and lager and, meeting up with friends, went to find somewhere secluded to drink. Later, separated from their friends, they went to find another friend at Broadmead Road. They couldn't rouse him, but, in their efforts, had broken into Susan Treadwell's home.

Adam Clegg, for both accused, submitted the offences were at the bottom end of the scale and arose out of an evening's drinking when their judgement was impaired. “It was impulsive and inept, and something they profoundly regret”, he said. Murphy had found it a salutary experience and regretted the upset caused to his family. “He is a well-adjusted man, who is working”. Austen was unemployed but hoping to find work and a council home for himself and his pregnant girlfriend. “They are far removed from the usual burglar”, he said.

Judge Timothy Nash said he accepted it was a drunken escapade.