DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Thursday, 18 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1844

Harbour Inn

2011 (Name to)

Open 2019+

24 Harbour Street

20 Harbour Street Post Office Directory 1874

Folkestone

https://whatpub.com/harbour-inn

Harbour Hotel 1908

Above photo kindly sent by Barrie Wootton showing the "Harbour Hotel" (another name for Inn) in 1905. This looks totally different to how it looks now, but the address and licensee Thomas Hall is definitely the same.

Harbour Hotel

Above photo, circa 1904, kindly sent by Paul Wells.
"A gentlemen's day trip leaving the Harbour Inn. Mr. J. W. Cann, of the London and South Coast Motor Service, specialised in excursions to the south coast in the summer months. Also in shot is Mr. George Carter's "True Briton Hotel."

Harbour Inn 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Harbour Inn sign 1970sHarbour sign 2000

Harbour Inn sign left 1970s, sign right, 2000.

Above with thanks from Brian Curtis www.innsignsociety.com

Harbour Inn sign 1980sHarbour Inn sign 1980s

Above signs 1980s.

With thanks from Brian Curtis www.innsignsociety.com.

Harbour Inn 1981

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1981.

Harbour, Folkestone 2009 Harbour, Folkestone 2009

Above photos by Paul Skelton, 27 June 2009.

Harbour 2011

Above photo kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 17/May/2011.

 

Possibly dates to 1844 under the name of the "Harbour Inn."

Open in 1861 in this name by Thomas Golder when the frontage of an existing building was changed from a previous building, which may have been previously the "Jolly Sailor." Unfortunately Thomas Golder died the following year.

Early days saw the premises called the "Harbour Hotel" and owned and supplied by George Beer and Co of Canterbury from 1883. In 1893 the house was submitted to the Compensation authorities for closure due to redundancy, probably due to the high turnover of licensees at this address, but this obviously failed. Thomas Hall, from the "Lifeboat" steadied the waves at the turn of 1891/2.

The pub was hit by enemy shells in March 1943 damaging the rear of the building burying licensee George Offen and his wife for four hours, but both survived and the house was made secure and reopened on 10th January 1946.

Fremlins bought the premises in 1949, and demolished and totally rebuilt it in 1959.

1967 saw Whitbread take over the pub and in 1981 enlarged the premises taking the "True Briton" next door and making this into the one pub, calling it the "Old Harbour Crab and Oyster House." This remained with this name till 1990 when the premises again became the "Harbour Inn."

 

Other names have been "True Briton" and "Harbour Crab and Oyster."

 

It is believed the pub reverted back to its original name of "True Briton" again in May 2011.

After a few changes, in September 2017 the premises was again sold and the new owners will be changing the name back to the "Harbour Inn" again.

 

Canterbury Weekly Journal 16 November 1844.

On Saturday last the Town Council met at the "Harbour Hotel" for breakfast, after which they proceeded to the Guildhall, where Dr. Bateman was chosen Mayor for the ensuing year. This gentleman has filled the same position ten times before. The Council afterwards partook of a most excellent dinner at the Harbour Hotel.

Note: This predates start date for Harbour Inn (sometimes referred to as the Harbour Hotel) by 17 years, when, according to local reports, it was “newly erected”.
 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 24 August, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

Mr. Harrison said he appeared to support an application made by Mr. Thomas Golder, for a licence to be granted him for a house he had lately erected in Harbour Street. Mr Golder was no doubt well known to some of the bench, having lived in Folkestone all his life. He of course was determined to keep the house highly respectable; he might add that a house stood a short time ago near the spot where his new house was erected called the "Pilot Cutter," but which was removed when the improvements were carried out; and also another house called the "Folkestone Arms," which was in the vicinity, was removed. He trusted therefore to have shown sufficient to induce the bench to grant the application. Mr. Harrison also produced a petition numerously signed in favour of the application.

Mr. Boult said he was a publican in the immediate neighbourhood, and if this licence was granted there would be five licensed houses without a single house between them, three adjoining at one side of the street, and two at the other. There had been many houses pulled down in the immediate neighbourhood and very few rebuilt; some that had been were not let.

The Mayor in answer said that the bench had unanimously agreed to grant the licence.

Note: Boult was licensee at the "Victoria," South Street. Jan Pedersen.

 

Folkestone Observer 24 August 1861.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Magistrates sat on Thursday at the Sessions Hall for granting ale and spirit licences.

On the application of Mr. Harrison, a licence was granted to Mr. Thomas Golder for the Harbour Inn, newly erected, notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. John Transome Boult, of the Victoria, South Street.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1861.

Annual Licensing Day.

A new licence was granted to Thos. Golder, Harbour Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 February 1862.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held on Thursday last, February 12th, at the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, before the new coroner, John Minter Esq., on the body of Norris Stokes, a hawker of poultry and game, who had committed suicide on the previous day by hanging himself to a bed post.

The jury, with Mr. H.T. Hale as their foreman, having been sworn, they proceeded to view the body, which was lying at the Princess Royal public house.

On their return the first witness called was Filmer Tyas, who being sworn, stated that he was a labourer, in the employ of Mr. Pilcher, and that he lodged at the Princess Royal public house. He knew the deceased, and he believed him to be about 42 years of age. On the Tuesday previous, deceased came to the house about 9.15. He came into the taproom and called for a pint of beer, which he sat and drank, and smoked his pipe. About 9.30 witness got up and went out, and did not return until between 11 and 12. Deceased had then gone to bed, and witness saw no more of him until about 12 the next day, when the landlady enquired if he had seen deceased go out, and asked him to go upstairs and see. Witness went up, and on opening the bedroom door, saw deceased hanging to the bed post. He appeared to be on his knees, with his face towards the door. He had seemed to be in a depressed state of mind for some time past.

Mary Hobden, being sworn, said – I am the wife of John Hobden, landlord of the Princess Royal public house. On Tuesday night, about 9 o'clock, deceased came to our house and asked for a bed. He had frequently been to the house, but never slept there before. My husband told him he could have a bed; he asked how much. On being told 6d., he asked if it was a good bed, and if there were any other beds in the room. He then went out, but returned in 10 minutes, and called for a pint of porter. He sat for an hour smoking his pipe. I sat by his side at work. He then paid his 6d., and I went upstairs with him with a candle to show him in his room. I drew the curtains, and on looking round, I saw the deceased was laughing, and he said he did not like anyone else to be in his bedroom. We heard a slight noise in the night, but it appeared like someone at the front door. I asked Tyas in the morning if he had seen deceased go out. On his coming downstairs, and saying the man was dead, my husband sent for a policeman.

P.C. Woodland, sworn, said – On Wednesday about half past twelve, from information received, I went to the Princess Royal, South Street. I went up to the top room in the house. I saw the deceased hanging by a piece of cord (produced) to the bedstead by a running noose – the knot under his left ear; his feet were touching the skirting board; his knees were doubled under him but did not touch the ground. I cut him down – he was quite dead. I searched his clothes and found a key and a dinner knife recently sharpened. I have known deceased fifteen years. I remember his brother Jesse, fourteen years ago, attempting to hang himself in a barn. Deceased has appeared to be very strange for some time past. An accident happened to deceased and his brother some time ago; his brother, driving a cart from Dover, drove over the cliff, since which time deceased has not appeared right in his mind. Verdict, “Temporary Insanity”.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 5 April, 1862.

CORRONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was holden yesterday afternoon at the "Harbour Inn," Harbour Street, before the Recorder, J. Minter esq., on the body of a labouring man, named Henry Cheetham, who died very suddenly that morning, under the circumstances detailed in the evidence below.

The jury were detained upwards of an hour and a half while a post-mortem examination of the deceased was being made by Messrs Tyson and Bowles.

The jury, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which was lying in a back room in the above house. On their return the following witnesses were called.

Thomas Hall, mariner, Folkestone deposed that he knew deceased, who lived in Folkestone, and had been working on the harbour for some time. About ten minutes before six on Friday morning, the 4th instant, he met deceased by the "Royal George." He noticed that deceased was unsteady in his gait, and asked him whether anything was the matter. Deceased said he felt very giddy in the head, and he then reeled, and fell to the ground. Deceased then supported himself by his hands, and said “Do come and help me”. Witness then took hold of deceased, and sent for some brandy, and rubbed his temples with it, and poured some into his mouth, but deceased died in about ten minutes. Deceased was at work yesterday, and appeared in very good health.

William Taylor Tyson deposed that he was a surgeon, practicing in Folkestone; was sent for to see deceased, but he was dead before he arrived. He had since examined the body of deceased, and although he had not been able to satisfy himself as to the immediate cause of death, still he had no doubt that deceased died from natural causes.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased died from the Visitation of God.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1862.

Local News.

A melancholy instance of the uncertainty of life occurred on Tuesday last; on that day Mr. Thomas Golder, who has lately opened the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, went to Shorncliffe to witness the review, which took place on that day, returning from thence by way of Sandgate. He remained for some time there with a few friends, and was about starting for home, when he was suddenly missed, Search being made for him, he was found dead in the yard of the house, having apparently fallen dead in a fit.

Death.

On Wednesday, the 23rd inst., at Sandgate, Mr. T. Golder, of the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, and late master of the brig “Alice”, of Folkestone.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Observer 8 July 1865.

Temporary license has been granted to George Pointer for the Harbour Inn.

Note: This is at variance with dates in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 November 1865.

County Court. Bankrupt

Wednesday 15th November:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Henry August Herwigg came up for his final examination and discharge, supported by Mr. Minter. There was no opposition. Defendant had formerly been an innkeeper, but gave up business six or seven months ago. He attributed his failure to having had his goods seized under a bill of sale for rent £16. He had nothing left and was now employed as a servant at Mr. Denibas' Paris Hotel. His Honour ordered his discharge to be signed in 30 days.

 

Folkestone Observer 18 November 1865.

County Court. Bankrupt.

Wednesday November 15th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Henry Herwigg appeared for his final examination. Formerly an innkeeper but now a servant with no estate.

His Honour fixed next court day to grant an order of discharge.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 November 1865.

Local News.

At a sitting of the County Court on Wednesday (before C. Harwood, Esq., Judge), Thomas Herwig came up for his final examination, supported by Mr. Minter. There was no opposition. Defendant had formerly been an innkeeper, but gave up business six or seven months ago. He attributed his failure to having had his goods seized under a bill of sale for rent—£16. He had nothing left, and was now employed as a servant at Mr. Denibas', Paris Hotel. His Honour ordered his discharge to be signed in 30 days.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 May 1866.

Transfer of Licence.

At a special sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last, the following transfer was granted:—The Harbour Inn, from Mr. Pointer to Mr. Page.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 December 1866.

Local News.

As the Sprightly, of this port, Mr. C. Page, Harbour Inn, master, bound from Shields to Folkestone with a cargo of coals, was passing the North Foreland, a strong smell of burning was noticed, and it was discovered that the cabin was on fire. By the strenuous exertions of the crew, after the deck had been broken open so as to command the whole of the cabin, the flames were extinguished. The origin of the fire is enveloped in mystery; the damage done is considerable, but the amount cannot be ascertained until the vessel is put into the hands of the shipwrights for repair.

 

Folkestone Observer 9 October 1869.

Tuesday, October 5th: Before W. Bateman and James Tolputt Esqs.

William Kelly Sergeant, George Kelly, and Michael Moore, gunners in the 10th Brigade, Royal Artillery, were charged with being drunk and riotous in Dover Street on the night previous. They were also charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty.

Prisoners denied both charges, Kelly saying he was knocked down before he was aware of it.

P.C. Swain said: About one o'clock on Monday morning I saw Kelly in company with another artilleryman and two men of the 10th Hussars. They were knocking at the door of the Royal Engineer, High Street. I told them they could not get into the house as it was past closing hours. Kelly was then drunk. They all went away. About two o'clock they were knocking at the Harbour Inn, and I told them to go away, and Kelly became insolent. Shortly after two I saw Kelly in company with the other prisoners, another artilleryman, and two Hussars near Mr. Jordan's, South Foreland. They were then making a great noise. They left there and went up Dover Street. I afterwards saw P.S. Reynolds and reported the circumstances. Some minutes after, P.C. Hills came down, followed by the prisoners. P.S. Reynolds went up to speak with them. They surrounded the sergeant, and P.C. Hills and myself went to his assistance. Moore struck Reynolds at the back of the head, and sent him sprawling. I then took Moore into custody, when he kicked me on the leg, and I hit him on the head with the staff. Prisoner then struck at me and I knocked him down again with my staff. P.C. Hills took Kelly, and the other prisoners ran away, P.S. Reynolds following. When on the first occasion I saw them in High Street they said they were out for a spree.

P.S. Reynolds said: I was on duty at the bottom of the town about three o'clock this morning. P.C. Swain called my attention to some soldiers who were drunk and riotous in Dover Street. There were the three prisoners, two Hussars, and a fourth artilleryman. I cautioned them, and told them not to make any disturbance, and to get out of the town. The whole of the prisoners were drunk and riotous. One of the soldiers had a whip and threatened to strike me with it. They surrounded me, and I put out my hand to keep them off, and Moore hit me with his fist, nearly knocking me down. I said “Don't murder me” and called P.C. Swain to my assistance. Sergeant Kelly then came up to me and caught hold of me by the collar, and I knocked him down with my staff. He got up and ran away down Radnor Street. I caught him and brought him back. They were very violent, and struggled. I saw Swain use his staff when he came up. In High Street Moore kicked and struggled, and I hit him with my staff on his hands and legs.

Mr. Bateman said the police ought never to use their staffs when a man was handcuffed.

P.S. Reynolds said the prisoners were not handcuffed.

P.C. Hills said: I was on duty at the bottom of High Street about three o'clock when Sergeant Reynolds asked me if I had seen any soldiers. I told him I had not, but soon afterwards they came down Dover Street shouting. They were drunk. P.S. Reynolds went up to them, but I could not hear what he said. Shortly after, the sergeant whistled to us, and we went up to him. He had Moore and Kelly in custody. Moore knocked Reynolds backward, and before he could recover himself he told me to take Kelly into custody. The sergeant also told us to draw our staves. I suppose he gave that order because he got knocked down. Prisoners were very violent. When we drew our staves, the prisoners said they could use their whips, and commenced to flourish them about. When I had Kelly in custody he resisted very much, but with the assistance of Mr. Morford I put the handcuffs on with his hands behind him. During this time Sergeant and Kelly ran away. I met the sweep by Mr. Musgrave's in High Street. I did not use my staff.

Cross-examined: The only cause for locking you up was for hallooing and shouting.

John Hubbard, a sweep in sooty uniform, said: I was up this morning a little after three o'clock, and as I was going down High Street I heard a screaming. When I got down by Dover Street I waited and listened to ascertain where the screaming came from. I went up Dover Street and saw P.S. Reynolds, and P.Cs Swain and Hills. There were also the three soldiers, now in the dock. Moore was very drunk. Sergeant was in a sober state, and went up civilly; Kelly was also quiet. They were all three in custody, and making a great noise. Moore and Kelly were resisting. Moore had hold of Reynolds' hand, and Reynolds asked him to let go, but he would not, and Reynolds drew his staff. Reynolds used the staff upon Moore's hand and afterwards on his head. He went down when Reynolds hit him. Reynolds then asked him to get up, but he would not, and Reynolds put his hand on his thigh and made Moore moan. Swain then came up and assisted him. Prisoner had not then got up. Before this Hills asked me to assist them in getting the prisoners to the station house. I did so. I did not see that there was any occasion to use the staff. I only saw one policeman use his staff (P.S. Reynolds), and he made good use of it when he was about it. It was when Moore was biting him that he used the staff upon his head. Reynolds did not hit him after he had got his hand at liberty. I saw him hit Moore once in High Street because he would not walk.

Mr. Bateman at this stage of the case came to the dock and examined the prisoner Moore. He said two very heavy blows had been given on his head.

In answer to Kelly, Hubbard said: Although you were handcuffed, Mr. Hills had as much as he could do to get you along.

By Sergeant: I did not hear you make any noise. You were very quiet.

By Moore: You had hold of Reynolds' hand, biting it. This was the only provocation for the policemen to use their staves.

By Mr. Tolputt: I did not see any ill-treatment before Moore bit the sergeant's hand.

The whole of the prisoners denied the charge. Kelly admitted having some ale, but Sergeant and Moore complained bitterly of their treatment by the police.

After a consultation, Mr. Bateman said as Sergeant was drunk, and not riotous, they fined him five shillings and costs, and dismissed the charge of assault in his case. He (Mr. Bateman) was very sorry the men had been knocked about, but the policemen had warned the prisoners on several occasions to go home and not make such a noise, and Reynolds had himself walked up to them from the bottom of the town, so as to cause no excitement on the part of the prisoners, and they attacked him. The policemen were strong men, and they should be merciful as well as strong. If it were not for the injury the prisoners had received, they would be more severely punished. The sentence on them would be a month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

The prisoners Moore and Sergeant presented a very bloody appearance. Moore had a deep cut over the left eye, a blow on the head – of the pain of which he complained during the hearing -, also a cut on his right ear. From these wounds the blood had run over the man's face. Sergeant had two cuts above his forehead, and the blood had trickled down his face. Kelly had fortunately come off without any bruises whatever.

 

Folkestone Express 9 October 1869.

Tuesday, October 5th: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Michael Moor, 34, William Sergeant, 35, and George Kelly, 31, privates of Royal Artillery, were charged with being drunk and riotous, and assaulting P.S. Reynolds and P.C. Swain of the Borough Police. The two first named prisoners bore evident marks of a struggle, their faces being covered with blood. Moore had a severe gash over the eye, a wound on his head, his ear and chin cut. His clothes were torn and covered with dirt. On being placed in the dock he had to be supplied with water and accommodated with a seat. The three prisoners pleaded Not Guilty to all charges.

P,C. Swain deposed that seeing three soldiers in High Street about one o'clock that morning, making a noise outside the Royal Engineer, he told them to go away. The prisoner Kelly was then drunk. They went towards the lower part of the town. He followed them, and saw them knock at the door of the Harbour Inn. He cautioned them, and ordered them to leave the town. Shortly after two o'clock he saw them again outside the South Foreland Inn with three other soldiers (two Hussars and four of the Royal Artillery). Moor was drunk, and they were all making a great noise. Sergeant was not so drunk as he others. He ordered them off and they went towards Dover Street, still making a disturbance. He informed Sergeant Reynolds of the circumstance, and P.C. Hills, whom he had just met. They then heard the soldiers coming down Dover Street making a noise, and Sergeant Reynolds went to them and wished them to be quiet, when Moor struck him on the back of the head. Witness then took him into custody, and being kicked by him on the leg, he retaliated by striking him on the head with his staff. A scuffle ensued, in which Moor was knocked down in the road, and he cut his head by falling. One of the soldiers had a loaded whip.

A man at the back of the room said there was a civilian present who saw the whole occurrence.

P.S. Reynolds, who had his hand bound up, said: I told the prisoners and the other soldiers to go home and not make a disturbance; they were outside the late Mr. Hughes' shop. All were drunk. One of the Hussars shook a whip over my head. Moor struck me on the back of the head and knocked me up against the wall. I said “Don't murder me”, and told Swain to take them into custody. Sergeant then came up and took hold of my collar. I knocked him down. He then got up and ran away and I caught him in Radnor Street. I did not notice any civilians about. I saw Swain use his staff. I do not know if he used it after the man was a prisoner. I used my staff to Moor because he kicked and struggled. (Witness here showed his hand which had evidently been bit in the struggle).

P.C. Hills said: Sergeant Reynolds went up to the soldiers. Shortly afterwards he whistled to us, and I and Swain went to his assistance. He had Moor and Kelly in custody; Moor nearly knocked Reynolds backwards. He told me to take Kelly into custody and to draw our staffs. The soldiers were drunk and used bad language. I do not know why we drew our staffs except because they knocked him down. All the prisoners resisted, and the Hussars said “If you use your staffs we will use our whips”, and commenced flourishing them about. A man named Richard Morford assisted me in handcuffing Kelly. Other civilians were there. I did not use my staff. The prisoner tried to kick me two or three times.

John Hobart, a sweep, and who appeared in his sables, said: I was going down High Street at three o'clock, and hearing screaming I proceeded to the bottom of the street. I met P.S. Reynolds and P.C.s Swain and Hills. Hills asked me to assist them. Sergeant went up to the station very quietly; he appeared quite sober. All three were in custody when I met them; Moor and Kelly resisted a little. Moor took hold of Reynolds' hand and put it to his mouth. Reynolds told him to let go several times; he would not, and Reynolds drew his staff and used it on his hand and head; Moor fell. I do not know if it was from the result of the blow. Reynolds asked him to get up, and as he would not he put his foot on Moor's thigh and made him moan. He was taken to the station. I never saw such ill-treatment as that was. Moor was hit once on the leg going up High Street because he would not walk.

Mr. Bateman here came from the Bench and examined the prisoner Moor, and said there were two severe bruises on the head.

Kelly denied making any disturbance; Sergrant said he was knocked down with a staff before he said a word; Moor said he never insulted anyone, and had never been treated so before.

The Bench fined Sergeant 5s. and costs for being drunk, and dismissed the charge of assault. As regards Moor they were sorry he was knocked about as he had been, but no doubt the police struck hard in their own defence, and they sentenced Moor and Kelly to prison for one month.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1872.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Charles Page, landlord of the Harbour Inn, was summoned for selling liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday morning last.

P.C. Sharpe proved the offence. He went into the house and saw several men drinking.

Defendant admitted the offence and said the house was opened to accommodate travellers going by the steamer, when strangers came in and got him into trouble. He had never had any complaint against his house.

The Superintendent said the house had been kept in a most orderly manner, and he had no other complaint to make against it.

The Bench fined defendant £2 and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1872.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Clarke and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Mr. Charles Page, Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, pleaded Guilty to a charge of having his house open during prohibited hours on Sunday, 4th instant.

P.C. Sharpe said he went into the house about 12 o'clock Sunday, and saw several men drinking at the bar. He spoke to Mrs. Page, who said she was sorry. The front door was shut, but not fastened.

Mr. Page said he must admit that his house was open. A train had just come in, and several persons went into his house, and in his absence Mrs. Page served them. The house was very quiet.

The Mayor said defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £5, but taking into consideration that it was the first offence, and that a train had just arrived and travellers were amongst those who were in the house, he would be fined £2 and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 February 1872.

Saturday, February 17th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

William Cork was charged with being in the Harbour Inn during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 11th of February.

This was the first conviction under the new Licensing Act, and defendant said he considered that it was very unjust that he should be selected, as he was convinced there were more than thirty people in the house drinking at the time, but who were fortunate enough to escape the observation of the police.

The Bench fined him 2s. 6d., and 9s. costs. The fine was paid.

Alexander Maycock and James Seddons jun., were summoned for the same offence. They pleaded guilty, and asked to be let off lightly. They were each fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs. The fines in this instance were also paid.

 

Folkestone Express 24 February 1872.

Saturday, February 17th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

William Corbe, Alexander Maycock, and James Siddon pleaded Guilty to being in the Harbour Inn during illegal hours on Sunday, 4th instant, and were fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs each, which they paid.

 

Folkestone Express 30 November 1878.

Saturday, November 23rd: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, and Alderman Caister.

Mr. Page, landlord of the Harbour Inn, applied for an hour's extension on the occasion of a public supper at his house, and the Bench refused, advising him to fix on an earlier hour for commencing.

 

Folkestone Express 5 May 1888.

Advertisement.

Harbour Hotel, Folkestone, To be let, with early possession. For particulars apply to Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Auctioneers and Valuers, Market Square, Dover.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 16 April 1890.

Inquest.

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (John Minter Esq.) on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, aged 35, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street.

Frederick Adams, an attendant at the Exhibition, identified the body as that of his brother. Deceased had been at the Oddfellows Arms about seven years; he was married and had five children. Previous to taking the Oddfellows Arms, he was a steward on board the South Eastern Company's boats. Witness saw him alive on Sunday night at his house. He was then quite cheerful, and had always been in the best of spirits. He was in comfortable circumstances and had a happy home. He was in the habit of getting up early in the morning to go for a walk on the pier – that was his constant walk. He could swim “like a fish”. Witness' own idea was that he must have slipped over from the pier, and struck something in falling, which was the cause of his body floating so long. There were no external marks of violence on the body and deceased was not subject to fits.

Bartholomew Noonan, a navy pensioner, now employed as Harbour Porter, said he knew the deceased, and had seen him several times on the pier. Had seen him that morning about 7.10 when he was on the promenade near the station extension, going towards the pier. The deceased said “Good morning” to witness and his mate. Did not see anything strange in his manner. There was no boat coming into the harbour, but a small boat belonging to one of the steamers was going out. After doing a little work, which occupied him about ten minutes, witness saw something floating about six or seven yards from the end of the pier. On looking again, saw it was the body of a man, floating face downwards. He ran to get a boat hook, and also told the three men in the boat that there was a man in the water. They recovered the body and brought it ashore.

Henry Young, harbour boatman, said that at about 7.40 the previous witness sang out to him and his mate that there was a body at the end of the pier. They rowed to the place and got hold of the body with a boat hook. Witness, who was in the stern of the boat, then got hold of it with his hands, keeping the head up out of the water, and his mate rowed back to the pier as quickly as possible. The body was about 100 yards from the pier. It did not occur to them that it was possible to attempt to restore animation before reaching shore, but they were only a few minutes reaching the pier, and all the usual methods for restoring the apparently drowned were then employed, but without success.

Edward Morris, who was in the boat with last witness, having corroborated his evidence, Dr. Frederick Eastes said that he was called at eight o'clock to see the deceased. Had not found any external marks of violence on the body. He was not certain that the cause of death was drowning, because the body was found floating so soon after the man had been seen alive. There was froth coming from the mouth, which was one of the signs of drowning. There was no other external sign which would point to drowning or any other cause of death. The body of a person drowned did not usually rise to the surface for some days. There were several things, such as fits, concussion of the brain, a blow received when falling, syncope, &c., which would cause the body to float. If any of those things happened the water would not be drawn into the lungs so much as in the struggles of a drowning person, and the body would be more likely to float.

The Coroner said he remembered holding an inquest on a gentleman who was thrown out of a boat by it's capsizing, and fell in the water face downwards, his head and body never going under water.

Dr. Eastes said that the best proof that death was by drowning would be the quantity of water found in the stomach, but he had not made a post mortem examination.

John Boorn (one of the jury) tendered himself as a witness. At 7.10 the deceased called at witness' house, the Harbour Inn, and had two pennyworth of rum and a halfpennyworth of milk. He was perfectly sober and asked witness “how things were looking”. In reply to witness he said that things were pretty well, and that he had had a fair day on Sunday. Had known deceased a good many years, and on that morning he was as well as he had ever seen him. It was about 7.15 when he left, and he was all right then.

The Coroner said they had two questions to decide – what was the cause of death, and was it accidental or self-inflicted. It seemed to him that all the evidence pointed to accidental death by drowning, but as the doctor was not positive as to whether it was really a case of drowning they must word their verdict as they felt best.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead, and, at the suggestion of the Coroner, added the words “supposed through accidentally falling into the water”.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 April 1890.

Inquest.

The Folkestone Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, who was found dead in the sea off the Lighthouse Jetty at Folkestone on Monday morning.

The jury having viewed the body, Frederick Adams said he was turnstile keeper at the Exhibition Palace. The deceased was his brother. He was 35 years of age. He identified the body which the jury had just viewed as that of his brother, Charles Tilley Adams. The deceased was the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street. He had occupied the house seven years, and was married with five children. Previous to taking the Oddfellows Arms he was Chief Steward in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He last saw him alive at his house on Sunday night at ten o'clock. The deceased was very cheerful. He was always cheerful, and witness had never seen him in a desponding condition. Deceased was in the habit of getting up early in the morning to take a walk on the pier. The deceased was a good swimmer. Witness was of opinion that he must have slipped over the side of the pier whilst watching the boats come round, and it was very probable that he struck something in falling.

By the Foreman: Deceased was not subject to fits.

Bartholomew Noonan, a harbour porter, stated that he knew the deceased, and had seen him several times walking on the pier. Witness saw him between five and ten minutes past seven that morning. Witness was standing behind the Customs House. The deceased said “Good morning” as he passed. Did not notice anything strange in his manner. There was no boat going in the harbour. One went out about half an hour afterwards. Witness followed down on to the pier about ten minutes after the deceased and, happening to look over the head of the pier, observed the body of deceased floating in the water about six yards to the west of the pier (the Lighthouse Jetty). The body was floating head downwards. Witness saw one of the Company's little boats going out of the harbour, and they picked it up.

Henry Young deposed that he was a harbour boatman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. About twenty minutes to eight that morning he was going out of the harbour with a little boat to get the steamer alongside, when the last witness told him there was a body floating at the end of the pier. He rowed to the place and secured the body with a boathook. It was about 100 yards off the pier.

Edward Morris, another harbour boatman, said he was in company with Young when the body was recovered. It appeared to be quite dead. They moved the legs and arms when they got ashore, but there were no signs of life.

Dr. Frederick Eastes said he was called upon to see the deceased at eight o'clock that morning. Upon examining the body he found him to be dead. There were no marks of violence, but he was not certain that death resulted from drowning. There was froth in the mouth, which was one sign of drowning. There were no other signs of drowning, or death from any other cause. The body was floating, and that was one reason why he could not say positively that death resulted from drowning. A body did not generally rise to the surface for several days. There were several causes why the body might not sink. Apoplexy or a fit would cause it to float, or concussion of the brain from injuries received in falling. He had not held a post mortem examination.

John Boorn, a juryman, elected to give evidence. He said that the deceased called at the Harbour Inn at ten minutes past seven that morning. He had 2d. of rum and 1/2 d. of milk. He was quite sober, and asked witness how things were looking. Witness said “Very well. What sort of day did you have yesterday?” He replied “Very good”. He was in good spirits and left about quarter or twenty minutes past seven.

The Corner, in summing up, said it was a very curious fact that the deceased's father, who was formerly Chief Steward on board the South Eastern boats, was drowned whilst bathing in East Wear Bay. He was also a splendid swimmer. He (the Coroner) believed the deceased's elder brother was drowned in Hong Kong whilst bathing.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead; the supposed cause being through drowning.

 

Folkestone Express 19 April 1890.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Monday before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street, who was found in the sea near the Pier, on the morning of the 14th inst.

Frederick Adams, cash-taker at the Exhibition, identified the body as that of his brother, his age being 35. He was a married man with five children. He had been landlord of the Oddfellows Arms seven years, and previous to that he was a steward in the S.E.R. Company's service. He last saw deceased at his house on the previous night at ten o'clock. He was in the best of spirits, and had always been of a cheerful disposition. He was in comfortable circumstances, and had a happy home. He was in the habit of going for a walk early in the morning on the pier and harbour, that being his usual habit. Deceased could swim very well. He imagined that deceased was leaning over looking at the boat, when he slipped over, and swam about as long as he could, and was then drowned.

Batholomew Noonan, a harbour porter, said he knew the deceased by sight. He had seen him several times walking up and down the pier. He saw deceased that morning at about five minutes to seven. He was going towards the pier, and said “Good morning” to him. That was just by the gate leading from the beach to the pier. The boat would be going out of the harbour about twenty minutes later. About ten minutes after he went down on to the pier, and happening to look over into the sea, he saw a body floating about six or seven yards from the west end of the S.E.R. pier, face downwards in the water. He hailed a boat coming out of the harbour and told the occupants, who went and picked the body up.

Henry Young, harbour boatman, said about twenty minutes to eight that morning the last witness shouted to him and George Bates that there was a body floating in the water at the end of the pier. They rowed to it, and recovered the body and brought it ashore. The body was a few yards from the west pier.

Edward Morris, a mariner in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, said he rowed out with the last witness and brought the body ashore. When the body was brought up on to the pier they tried the usual means to produce artificial respiration, but without success.

Dr. F. Eastes said that morning at eight o'clock he was called to the pier to see the deceased. On examining the body he found him to be dead. He could find no external marks of violence. He was not certain that the cause of death was drowning, because of the body floating. There was froth in the mouth, which was one of the signs of drowning, and there was no other sign that would point to drowning or any other cause of death. The body was floating so soon after he was seen alive. A body did not rise for some days usually. A fit or injury would cause a body to float immediately after death.

John Boorn, a juryman, said that the deceased called at the Harbour Inn at about ten minutes past seven that morning. He had two pennyworth of rum and some milk. He was perfectly sober, quite cheerful, and in good spirits.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead, the supposed cause being drowning through accidentally falling into the sea.

 

Folkestone News 19 April 1890.

Inquest.

Mr. John Minter, Borough Coroner, held an inquest at the Town Hall on Monday evening, touching the death of Charles Tilley Adams, whose body was found floating off the pier head at Folkestone harbour on Monday morning.

The jury having been sworn, the following evidence was adduced:

Frederick Adams, living at 32, Dover Street, and employed by the Folkestone Pleasure Gardens Company said: The deceased was my brother. His age was 35. He was married, and has left a wife and five children. He was landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), 34, Dover Street. The body now viewed by the jury I identify as my brother. On the body being found it was brought to 32, Dover Street. He has had the Oddfellows for seven years, and was previously the chief steward in the S.E.R. Company's boats. I last saw deceased alive on Sunday evening at 10 o'clock at his house. He was then in the best of spirits, and has always been cheerful. He was in comfortable circumstances, and had a happy home. He was, to my knowledge, in the habit of getting up early and taking his accustomed walk on the harbour. He could swim like a fish, to use a common saying, and my idea is that he fell over the pier head accidentally when watching the boat coming round from the harbour to the pier head. He was leaning over most likely where there are no chains, and lost his balance and fell over. He must have struck something in falling, and that accounts for him swimming so long on the water. There are no marks upon him.

Batholomew Noonan said: I am a Navy pensioner and harbour porter, and am working on the pier. I knew deceased by sight, and have seen him several times walking on the pier. I saw him this morning between five and ten minutes past seven. He was going through the gates at the entrance to the two stations, which leads to the beach, and went towards the promenade. He said “Good morning” to me and another man. He went in the direction of the pier, and I noticed nothing strange in his manner. There was no boat coming in. A boat would be coming out from the harbour about half an hour later. I went to the end of the pier about ten minutes after, and, looking over into the sea, saw something floating on the water about six or seven yards from the corner of the pier, to the west. I told the man at the engine, and afterwards found it was a body floating, with the face downwards. I told the man in a boat, and they went and picked him up.

Henry Young said: I am harbour boatman. This morning, about twenty minutes to eight, Noonan sung out to us that there was a woman or man afloat outside the harbour. I was in my boat with George Bates and we rowed out to the body, and got hold of it with a boat hook and brought it ashore. I did not see deceased on the pier that morning. The body was floating about a hundred yards off the west pier.

Edward Morris, mariner, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, said: At half past seven I was with the last witness in the boat and we recovered the body. After we got him on the pier we tried to restore him, but found there was no life in him. I was in the stern of the boat and held the body up with the head out of the water. I did not know then who it was.

Dr. Fred. Eastes said: At eight o'clock I went to the pier to see the deceased. I found him dead, and on examining the body saw no external marks of violence. I cannot be certain that the cause of death was drowning, because the body was floating. There was one sign of drowning, froth from the mouth. No other sign could be found externally. In cases of drowning the body doesn't usually float on the surface of the water for some days. Other causes of death might be apoplexy, syncope, fits of different kinds, when the body would be kept from sinking, as the water would not be drawn into the lungs like it is in the struggles caused by drowning. If the jury desired, it could be decided whether deceased was drowned by seeing if there was water inside the body.

John Boorn, one of the jury, offered to give evidence, and the Coroner said he was entitled to do so. He said: About ten minutes past seven this morning the deceased called into the Harbour Inn, and had two pennyworth of rum and a half pennyworth of milk. He was quite sober and asked how I was getting on. I asked him how he was; he said he was pretty well, and was going on the harbour for a walk. He was perfectly cheerful.

The Coroner summed up, and said it appeared to him that all the circumstances pointed to the fact that the deceased came by his death through an accident in the manner described by his brother. With regard to the doctor's evidence, he remembered the case of a man falling into the sea from a boat, when he was drowned although the body floated on the water till picked up. There was no evidence to show how the deceased in the present instance came into the water, and it was for the jury to say by their verdict how, in their opinion, death was caused.

After a short consultation the jury found a verdict of Found Dead.

The Coroner suggested that the jury were of opinion deceased was drowned, and that he came into the sea by an accident.

This was assented to by the jury.

The Coroner said it was a curious fatality in the family that the father of deceased was drowned in East Wear Bay while bathing, and the eldest son, he understood, was also drowned at Hong Kong.

 

Folkestone Express 26 April 1890.

Wednesday April 23rd: Before J. Clarke and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Fanny Boorn.

 

Folkestone Express 15 November 1890.

Licence Transfer.

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

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mr. Jos. Arch.

 

Folkestone Express 13 December 1890.

Transfer.

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

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Joseph Arch.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks. Major H.W. Poole, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

James Alfred Hawkins and Henry Trevy, gunners belonging to the Royal Artillery, were summoned for breaking a window at the Harbour Inn.

Joseph Arch, landlord of the Harbour Inn, said he heard a crash as he was closing his house at 11 o'clock on the 15th ult. He went outside and saw the defendants, who now pleaded Guilty.

They were each fined 5s. and 11s. costs, also 3s. damages.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

James Alfred Hawkins and Andrew Trevy, privates in the Atillery, were charged with breaking a window at the Harbour Inn.

Joseph Arch said on Friday, January 15th, at five minutes to eleven, he was closing the house, when he heard a crash and found the sitting room window was crushed in. He ran outside and saw the two defendants. He spoke civilly to them, and asked why they broke his window, and they abused him. The value of the glass was stated by Mr. Waddell, who repaired it, to be 6s.

An officer of the battery said the defendants expressed regret, and had tendered the value of the damages to the complainant.

Mr. Arch said the 6s. was not offered until after the summons was issued. He had waited then for a week. He offered to withdraw the summons if the expenses were paid.

Defendants were fined 5s., 1s. costs, and damage 3s.

 

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 Chronicle 5 March 1892.

Monday, February 29th: Before Major H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Mr. J. Arch applied for a licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the football ground on Wednesday, on the occasion of the match between Chatham and the Highland Light Infantry. It was mentioned that a special licence was sometimes granted for cricket matches, but Superintendent Taylor said it was not on all fours with a cricket match, as a football match would probably last only about an hour.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 5 March 1892.

Monday, February 29th: Before H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Arch applied for an occasional licence for the football field on the occasion of the match on Wednesday. The Bench considered it unnecessary and refused the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 July 1892.

Saturday, July 23rd: Before Mr. H.W. Poole, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Mr. Richard Cooper, on behalf of the Overseers of the Poor, applied for a commitment warrant against Joseph Arch, late landlord of the Harbour Hotel, who had failed to pay the Poor Rate. He stated that the defendant's furniture was claimed by the owners of the house – George Beer and Co.

The Bench issued a warrant for one month's imprisonment.

Monday, July 25th: Before Mr. H.W. Poole, Messrs.J. Brooke, J. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Alderman Dunk.

On behalf of Samuel Barker, a chair maker, Mr. F. Hall applied for transfer of the licence of the Harbour Inn. He stated that Barker was already in possession, and he intended carrying out his duties in accordance with the terms of the licence. A testimonial was produced from Mr. J. Lea, of Harbour Street. Mr. Hall further stated that when application was made to Arch for him to give up the licence, it was not forthcoming, and it was subsequently found that it had been deposited with a solicitor, for him to hold as collateral security on an advance made to Arch.

Mr. Bradley held it was not necessary to produce the licence. The fact that it was registered in the books of the Court was sufficient evidence of it's existence.

Mr. Hall held that Arch had no right to pledge the licence.

Mr. Bradley said he did not agree with him. Arch had a right to do as he pleased with his own property.

The transfer was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1892.

Poor Rate Warrant.

Saturday, July 23rd: Before H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

A warrant of distress was issued against Joseph Arch, of the Harbour Inn, and when Mr. Barton made a levy he met with a notice that the goods were the property of the brewers, Messrs. Beer and Co.

Mr. Richard Cooper, the Assistant Overseer, therefore asked for a committal order against the defendant, and the Bench issued a warrant of commitment for a month.

Wednesday, July 27th: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick, J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Samuel Barker applied for temporary authority to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Hall, who appeared for the applicant, said the licence was not forthcoming. He believed the previous holder had deposited it as collateral security for an advance.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the register of licenses was sufficient for that day's purposes. When the licence holder went out of the premises, it was his duty to give it up.

Temporary authority was granted.

 

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 Chronicle 6 August 1892.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Mr. J. Holden and Mr. Fitness.

Mr. Hall, on behalf of Samuel Barton, applied for the licence of the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Rooke said he was instructed to watch the case on behalf of the mortgagee, who was the present holder of the licence.

Mr. Hall said in this case the previous tenant had yielded up possession of the house, and held that it was now open to the magistrates to grant a new licence.

Mr. Rooke contested this point, and cited a case from Stone's Justices Manual.

Mr. Hall said the licence had been pawned to the mortgagee, but a licence was of no value.

Mr. Bradley explained that the late tenant (Mr. Joseph Arch) had yielded up possession of the house, and Mr. Hall now applied for a new licence. If a man were fool enough to lend money on an ale-house licence it was his own look out.

Mr. Rooke: Then I submit that fourteen days' notice should have been given.

Mr. Bradley said no notice was required in this case. The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Session.

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing.

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

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

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

The Harbour Inn.

Mr. Rooke, who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Party, asked the Bench to adjourn granting the renewal of this licence, as he wished to obtain a writ of certiorari in order that the validity of renewing this licence might be considered by a higher Court. As the Bench knew, the former landlord parted with his licence for a pecuniary consideration to a certain gentleman, who now held the same. In the face of this, he held, the Bench could not grant another licence, and hence his request for an adjournment.

Mr. Hall said the Bench had already granted the licence to his client – Barker – and that day they came before them for a renewal only. Mr. Rooke had let the time go by when he ought to have taken action in the matter.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the owners of the property, and he said that Mr. Hall was perfectly correct in his application. The licence had been granted by the Bench, and all Mr. Hall wanted now was a renewal.

Mr. Rooke said the law allowed them six months in which to apply for a writ. They had taken counsel's opinion upon this subject, and he held that they were right in their application.

Mr. Bradley advised the Bench to grant the licence.

The Chairman announced that it would be granted.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Annual Licensing Day.

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

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

The Harbour Inn.

Mr. F. Hall appeared in support of the application for a renewal of the licence of the Harbour Inn to Mr. Barker.

Mr. Rook asked that it might not be considered until the adjourned licensing day, in order that he might have time to give notice of a technical objection.

Mr. Hall said he appeared on behalf of the applicant when the licence was granted. He applied under the Act 9 George IV, and he read the section and contended that he was entitled to claim the renewal of the licence. Mr. Rook was under a wrong impression as to what had occurred. His proper course was to appeal or to apply for a writ of certiorari to bring up the licence to have it quashed. Instead of that he asked for it to be adjourned.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared for the owners of the property; and of course the Bench knew that notice of objection had to be given both to owners and tenants. What Mr. Hall had said was perfectly correct. The Bench gave their decision, and it was optional for Mr. Rook to have applied for a certiorari, but he allowed it to go by. Therefore the man was there under his licence. Whether the licence was properly granted or not did not then matter at all.

Mr. Rook replied that he could apply for a certiorari within six months. But it was rather for convenience than otherwise. He quite agreed with what Mr. Mowll had said. He might say that they had taken counsel's opinion.

Mr. Hall said he objected to counsel's opinion being introduced.

Mr. Bradley said he had seen the counsel's opinion, but he could not understand what case was submitted upon which the opinion was given.

Mr. Mowll said he did not say it to flatter the Magistrates' Clerk, but as far as the licensing law was concerned, his (Mr. Bradley's) opinion was as good as any counsel's opinion that could possibly be obtained.

Mr. Bradley said that under the Act of '29 no notice was required.

Mr. Rook said he concurred that no notice whatever was required under the Act of '29. But he submitted that the 74th section of the Licensing Act of '72 defined what a transfer of licence was.

Mr. Mowll said they were quite ready to take the renewal of the licence, and run the risk of the certiorari.

Mr. Bradley said, assuming the order was bad, the man was perfectly entitled to come and ask for a renewal. Then there could be two writs applied for, one to quash the original order and one to quash the present order.

The renewal was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

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

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harbour Inn.

Sergeant Swift said there were twelve licensed houses within 100 paces of this house. On the 31st December, 1892, he visited the house after closing time, and found four seamen there.

Mr. Glyn: Were any proceedings taken?

Mr. Taylor: A summons was applied for but not granted.

Sergeant Swift said the house was resorted to by sailor lads and young girls, and dancing went on in a back room. There was an entrance to the house in Harbour Street, and a back entrance in South Street.

By Mr. Glyn: There had not been any summons taken out with respect to the house since the licence was renewed. He did not know there had been a conviction with regard to one of the houses in the street not objected to.

Sergeant Harman said he found the conduct at the back part of the house disorderly. Young men and girls stood outside and caused a disturbance to the neighbourhood. This generally occurred when there were colliers on the harbour.

Mr. Glyn said it had been pointed out to him that there was a passage in Mr. Taylor's report to the effect that his representations as to the houses conducted in an unsatisfactory manner did not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship, or Harbour. The house having been conducted in a satisfactory manner, the evidence did not apply.

Mr. Taylor said he would withdraw it. Continuing, he said there were seven houses in South Street, five holding licenses, and, as touching the question of requirement, he mentioned during the past few years the house had changed hands several times.

Mr. Minter: It shows they made their fortunes rapidly.

Mr. Taylor: It shows they could not get a living.

In answer to Mr. Glyn, Mr. Taylor said he objected to two licenses in South Street – that of the Harbour and the Victoria.

Mr. G. Sandeford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., said the house was rated at £48 a year. The tenant was a respectable man, who was doing an increasing business.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

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

The Decision.

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Harbour Inn.

The only objection to this house was that it was not necessary.

Sergeant Swift said there were 12 other houses within 100 paces. On the 31st December, 1892, he visited the house after hours and found three seamen there. It was reported, but the landlord was not summoned. The house was used by sailor lads and young girls. There were two entrances, one in Harbour Street, and one in South Street. The people who went there made a noise.

By Mr. Glyn: There has been no charge against the house since it was last renewed. There are several other licensed houses in the street not objected to. I did not know that there was a conviction in respect of one of them.

Mr. Glyn: Will you tell the Magistrates how they are to pick out what licenses they are to refuse, and which to renew? – I can't do that.

Sergeant Harman said the persons who resorted to the house were disorderly. Young girls and men stood outside the back part and caused disturbances. It generally happened when there were colliers in the harbour.

Mr. Glyn pointed out a paragraph in the Superintendent's report, which said the disorderly conduct did not apply to the Harbour. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor: That is a newspaper report.

Mr. Glyn: I beg you pardon. It is your own writing. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor dropped the point. He then desired to show the number of tenants.

Mr. Minter objected. It only showed that the tenant made his fortune rapidly and retired.

Superintendent Taylor: Or lost it.

Mr. Bradley said there were four tenants.

Superintendent Taylor said there were seven houses in South Street, and five held licenses.

By Mr. Glyn: I am objecting to two – the Harbour and Victoria. I do not know what the rent of the Harbour Inn is. It is rated at £48 a year.

James Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., said the Harbour Inn belonged to them. It was purchased in 1888. He did not know the estimated value. The tenant was a respectable man, and doing an increasing business. He entered in August, 1892.

Mr. Minter said the annual value would be £50.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The 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 Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harbour Inn: Same objection taken – twelve houses within the same distance. Sergeant Harman said the persons who resorted to it were disorderly, but no complaint was made against it when the licence was renewed.

 

Folkestone Express 13 April 1895.

Saturday, April 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred from Mr. Barker to Mrs. Woolmer.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 June 1895.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mrs. Wontner.

 

Folkestone Express 8 June 1895.

Wednesday, June 5th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mrs. Watner.

 

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 Chronicle 2 August 1895.

Local News.

The friends of Mr. Joseph Arch, junr., formerly of the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, will be interested to learn he received a warm compliment from the Recorder at Old Bailey on Saturday last, for arresting two dangerous criminals, convicted of a burglary in the cloakroom of the Charing Cross Station.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 February 1896.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. David Thomson was granted temporary permission to sell at the Harbour Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 29 February 1896.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

David Thomson was granted temporary authority to sell at the Harbour Inn.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 13 January 1897.

Kaleidoscope.

A policeman's lot is not a happy one, it is said. Neither is the life of an hotel proprietor under certain circumstances. On Saturday at the Police Court, Mr. Minter observed that in the neighbourhood of the harbour the greatest difficulty was sometimes experienced in keeping those licensed houses respectable.

Not long ago the present landlord of the Harbour Hotel took possession of that place, and he was determined that it should be conducted in a proper manner, and that he would not sere anyone who appeared to be in an intoxicated condition. He meant, said Mr. Minter, to get rid of a certain class of persons who were nothing more or less than “loafers”, and whose language was anything but “desirable” on any occasion.

Then there was a system of persecution, for it so happens that the Harbour Hotel has an entrance from Harbour Street, and also an entrance from South Street. The “passage” leaves the bar on the one hand, and those “loafers”, whom it was found were not desirable customers, and who would not be served, made a practice of making a “short-cut” from Harbour Street. In order to stop this, the South Street door was closed up, and no doubt had the desired effect.

But on the 12th of December several young men of the seafaring type endeavoured to “force the passage”, and the defendant, who was the “leader” of this noble band, was turned out by the landlord, who would not allow him into South Street, or serve him with drink, because he appeared to have had enough already. When the landlord was doing this kindly action he was struck in the face, and the defendant, like a good many others, “took to his heels” immediately after he had, in fact, left the town, probably on board one of the coaling vessels, but returned with the commencement of the new year, and was ultimately summoned. The Mayor, who was in the chair, told him, after hearing the evidence, that it was no use for young fellows to think that they could do just as they liked in a public house. The defendant's conduct was most reprehensible, and would have to be stopped. Defendant would be fined 10s., with eleven shillings costs, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 January 1897.

Saturday, January 9th: Before The Mayor, General Gwyn, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Martin Roach was charged with assaulting William Holton, manager of the Harbour Inn. Mr. J. Minter prosecuted.

The prosecutor stated that the joint proprietor of the house with him was Mr. Thompson. The house was near the harbour, and he was greatly annoyed by some former customers coming in either drunk or feigning to be. There were two entrances, one in Harbour Street, and one in South Street, and they merely walked through from one to the other without having anything to drink, making use of the passage as a thoroughfare. He had several times refused to supply the defendant with liquor, as he was drunk and used bad language. On the 12th December he went in between 10 and 11 p.m., apparently drunk. He was ordered out by witness, and witness was immediately assaulted. He was struck in the face, and some of his whiskers were torn out. A policeman was sent for, and defendant was given into custody.

Edward Bell and James Tiddy corroborated.

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

 

Folkestone Express 16 January 1897.

Saturday, January 9th: Before The Mayor, General Gwyn, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Martin Roach was charged with assaulting William Holton, the managing proprietor of the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution, and explained the difficulty there was in houses near the harbour to keep them in an orderly way, but the present landlord had conducted his house in an exemplary manner, being determined to put an end to the rowdyism which was going on there. There were two entrances to the house, and some of the former habitués of the house had persistently annoyed the complainant by going in drunk or imitating drunkenness, and walking through without having anything to drink – in fact using the house as a thoroughfare. On the occasion when the assault was committed by the defendant, the landlord refused to serve him, and requested him to leave, which he refused to do, and struck him. He was then ejected, and a policeman sent for.

William Holton, manager of the Harbour Inn, said the proprietor was Mr. Thompson, with whom he was in partnership. He explained the situation of the house, and said he had on several occasions refused to supply the defendant with liquor, on account of his being in a state of intoxication and using bad language. On the 12th December he went in, and was apparently drunk. Witness ordered him out, and was immediately assaulted by him and another person who had not been brought before the Bench. Defendant struck him a blow in the face and pulled some of his whiskers out. He sent Mr. Thompson for a policeman, who took him into custody. In the struggle defendant knocked an automatic machine off the counter and broke it all to pieces. The time was between 10 and 10.30 at night.

Edward Bell, a smith, said he was in the house when the disturbance occurred. Defendant was either drunk or acting drunk. Witness's chair was knocked from under him in the scuffle, and he saw defendant ejected.

By the defendant: I heard the landlord tell you not to make a thoroughfare of his house. You entered from Harbour Street and went through to South Street.

James Tiddy gave similar evidence. He saw defendant strike the manager and pull his whiskers and make his face bleed.

The Bench severely admonished the defendant and fined him 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days'.

 

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 Chronicle 26 March 1898.

Wednesday, March 23rd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

William Holton, the licence holder of the Harbour Inn, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting Mrs. Marion Morford on the 17th March. Mr. G.W. Haines prosecuted, and Mr. Stainer defended on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

From the evidence of Mrs. Morford, who was in a delicate state of health, and Mrs. Lizzie Clout, it appeared that the former sent her little girl to the inn to see if her uncle was there. The girl came back crying, saying Holton had hit her. He came out, and complainant asked him why he struck her. In reply, he hit her in the eye. (Witness's eye was very much swollen and discoloured).

Mr. Stainer asserted that the two witnesses were in the habit of using the house, and that he had refused to serve them, which they denied.

Henry Waddell said Holton did not strike the complainant, but she assaulted him.

The Bench considered the charge proved, and inflicted a fine of £1 and 12s. costs, or 14 days'.

Note: No record of Holton listed in More Bastions.

 

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 Chronicle 2 July 1898.

Wednesday, June 29th: Before The Mayor and Mr. J Fitness.

John Tyler was charged with assaulting John Mackay on the 18th inst.

Prosecutor, an elderly man, apparently in ill-health, and with his right arm in splints, said he was a waiter out of employment. On the 18th he was seated in the bar of the Harbour Inn, when the prisoner entered, drunk, and the landlord refused to serve him. He then commenced to abuse witness, and afterwards struck him. There was a scuffle and witness fell, breaking his right arm.

Defendant said Mackay struck him, and in the scuffle that ensued his arm was broken. He did not do it.

The Chairman said if they thought defendant wilfully broke Mackay's arm they should have inflicted the full penalty. As it was, he would be fined 20s. and 9s. costs, or 21 days' hard labour.

Defendant asked for time to pay, but it was refused, and he was removed to the cells.

 

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 Up To Date 2 July 1898.

Wednesday, June 29th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

John Rivers, a labourer, was summoned for assaulting John Mackay, a butcher and ex public house waiter.

The complainant said: I used to be a waiter. On Saturday, the 18th inst., I was in the Harbour Inn. The defendant came in, and was rather noisy. I only asked him to be quiet, when he knocked me on the chest with a sieve. I then put out my hand to push him away; he went for me, and a struggle took place, during which my arm was broken. He had been refused drink shortly before because he was so drunk.

The defendant said he went into the Harbour Inn on Saturday night with another man to have a glass of beer, when the complainant insulted him.

The Mayor said that if the Bench had thought that the broken arm had been given intentionally and not in the struggle a much heavier sentence would have been inflicted. As it was the defendant was fined £1 and 9s. costs, in default 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 29 April 1899.

Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

John Duncan Thompson applied for a transfer of the licence of the Harbour Inn. Granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

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

 

Folkestone Up To Date 29 April 1899.

Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

The following transfer was granted: Harbour Hotel, David Thompson to John Duncan.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 August 1899.

Local News.

The Harbour Inn: Mr. Justice Selfe has granted an order for the partnership of Holden and Thompson, proprietors of the Harbour Inn, to be dissolved, and the business to be disposed of by the 30th September. Holden put £130 into the business along with Thompson's brother, who found £20. The brother died a few months back, willing his property to Holden. The present Thompson took out letters of administration, and he and Holden had since carried on the business jointly, but they had decided to discontinue working together. Mr. W.H. Barton is said to be appointed the receiver.

 

Folkestone Express 19 August 1899.

County Court.

Tuesday, August 15th: Before Sir William Selfe.

In the case of Holton v Thompson, the plaintiff asked for the appointment of a receiver and for the dissolution of the partnership. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ward for the defendant.

Mr. Haines explained that the plaintiff and the defendant's brother took over the Harbour Inn, plaintiff putting in £130, and the other man £20. The brewers advanced the balance. In May of this year Thompson died, leaving his property by will to Holton, but the will was not attested. Thompson's brother took out letters of administration, and the business had been since carried on jointly, but differences arose which rendered it advisable for the partnership to be dissolved and an account to be taken.

His Honour granted the application, and directed the business to be disposed of before the 30th September. It was understood that Mr. H.H. Barton would be the receiver.

This case was heard in His Honour's private room.

 

Folkestone Express 7 April 1900.

Saturday, March 31st: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, S. Penfold, J. Stainer, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and G. Spurgen Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Miss Sarah Lovegrove was granted a transfer of licence for the Harbour Inn.

 

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 Express 14 April 1900.

Auction Advertisement.

By Order of the Trustees of the late Mr. James Golder, Folkestone.

Banks and Son.

Will sell by auction at the Queen's Hotel, Folkestone, on Wednesday 25th April, 1900, at three o'clock in the afternoon, the following valuable fully-licensed, COPYHOLD PUBLIC HOUSE, known as the Harbour Inn.

Lot 1: All that well and substantially brick built, with slate roof, Copyhold, Fully-Licensed Public House, known as the Harbour Inn, situate in Harbour Street and South Street.

Containing on Ground Floor: Two smoking rooms, large bar, two entrances, W.C. and urinal.

First Floor: Club Room with embayed window, 2 bedrooms, landing, and W.C.

Second Floor: Six bedrooms.

Basement: Kitchen, Scullery, Beer, Ale, and Coal cellars.

Held under a repairing lease for a term of 14 years from the 11th October, 1890, at the annual rent of £65, payable quarterly.

 

Folkestone Express 28 April 1900.

Local News.

On Wednesday Messrs. Banks and Son offered by auction at the Queen's Hotel several lots of property. The Harbour Inn was purchased for £1,300.

Wednesday, April 25th: Before J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan and J. Stainer Esqs., and Kieut. Col. Westropp.

Mrs. Lovegrove was granted a transfer of licence 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 Chronicle 23 June 1900.

Saturday, June 16th: Before Mr. J. Pledge and Mr. Vaughan.
Charles Newman, a private of the 4th Suffolk Regt., appeared to answer a charge of breaking a pane of glass at the Harbour Inn on the previous day.

Mrs. Lovegrove, the landlady, said the prisoner came into the bar and asked for some liquor. She would not let him be served, and he took off his coat and wished to fight someone. She called her brother, who accompanied the prisoner to the door, when Newman deliberately put his hand through a pane of glass, value 5s. He was quite sober.

An officer of the prisoner's regiment informed the Bench that Newman's character was good.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 6d., damage 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 23 June 1900.

Saturday, June 16th: Before J. Pledge and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Charles Newman, a private of the 4th Batt. Suffolk Reg., was charged with doing wilful damage to a pane of glass in the Harbour Inn to the amount of 5s.

Mrs. Lovegrove stated she was landlady of the Harbour Inn, and on the 15th inst. the prisoner went in and asked for some liquor. As he was not served he took off his coat and wanted to fight. Witness called her brother, and when they were near the door of the bar the defendant deliberately put his hand through the pane of glass. The amount of damage was 5s. He was quite sober. An officer who was present said the defendant's character was quite good.

The Bench fined him 6d., the amount of the damage 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

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 Chronicle 19 January 1901.

Monday, January 14th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pursey, Herbert, Fitness, Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

William Spearpoint is a notable character in the Fish Market, and, like all the market celebrities, has been re-Christened. Mr. Spearpoint's pseudonym is Seaweed, and he managed to get locked up on Saturday night. Consequently those fisherfolk who were not at sea attended the “levee” on Monday morning. As he had been up five times previously, his friends anticipated a term of seclusion without the option.

P.C. Johnstone deposed to being called to the Harbour Inn to eject the prisoner, who was drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening about eight o'clock. Prisoner raised a rumpus and refused to go away, so was locked up.

Fined £1 and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

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 Express 2 February 1901.

Monday, January 28th: Before J. Hoad, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, and George Peden Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Thomas C. Hall, part owner of the Harbour Inn, applied for a temporary transfer of the licence. Mr. F. Hall represented the applicant, who was granted the transfer.

 

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 Chronicle 9 March 1901.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pledge, Pursey, Stainer, and Salter.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mr. Cornelius Hall.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1901.

Licences.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before W. Wightwick, W. Salter, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Hall, landlord of the Harbour Inn, who was granted temporary authority in January, was granted the licence. Mr. F. Hall represented him, and submitted plans for alterations to the amount of £1,100, and they were approved.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 August 1903.

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

Arthur Jones and James Allen were charged with being concerned in uttering a gilded sixpence, representing it to be a half sovereign.

Mary Fisher, a barmaid at the Harbour Inn, said: I recognise Jones, who came to the bar about 8.30 p.m. yesterday, and asked for a mild and bitter. I served him, and he offered me a sovereign in payment. I went to the place where the money is kept and took half a sovereign and 10s. worth of silver. I then, from the till, changed 1s. for a mild and bitter, and, having taken 1½d., I placed the 19s. 10½d. before Jones upon the counter. He picked up the silver, put his hand over the half sovereign, as if to pick it up, then drew his hand back, and suddenly put it out again, asking me to give him the half sovereign in silver. I took a coin up, thinking I had the same half sovereign I had put down, and went to the cupboard and changed it. After the prisoner had gone, Mr. Hall spoke to me, and then went to the cupboard and brought to me the coin for which I had given Jones 10s. in exchange.

Thomas Hall, landlord of the Harbour Inn, proved watching the transaction just spoken to, and said that as Jones left the house he (witness) went to the cupboard and found a genuine half sovereign he had put there earlier, and also the coin produced (a gilded sixpence). He went in search of prisoner, and found him with another man at the bottom of High Street, counting money. Witness said to Jones “I want you. You have been passing bad coin with my barmaid”. Jones replied “Where do you mean? What house do you mean?” Witness said “You know whose house it is; you have just left it”. I told a cabman who stood by to call a policeman, when Jones said “Don't call a policeman”, and the other prisoner said “How much do you want?” Just then a policeman came up and witness gave prisoner in charge. The other man was brought to the house later on, and witness identified him as the one who was with Jones.

James Butland, a cab driver, deposed to seeing the prisoners acting suspiciously, and then walk away from the Harbour Inn in company, going down South Street. Following them, witness, at the bottom of High Street, saw them stop and share out some money. Jones handed it to the other man. Mr. Hall came along, and witness gave him information.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand, as there would be one additional case to prefer next week.

Jones, who had previously said that he took the half sovereign at the Folkestone Racecourse, now said that he was Guilty, and that he had had some drink when he passed the coin. He would like the Magistrates to deal with the case at once.

The Chief Constable: No doubt he has very good reasons for that wish.

The Chairman said the prisoners would be remanded for seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 22 August 1903.

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

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

Mary Fisher, barmaid at the Harbour Inn, identified the prisoner Jones as a person who came to the bar about 8.30 p.m. the previous evening and asked for a mild and bitter. Witness served him and prisoner offered a sovereign in payment. She then went to a cupboard for change and placed 19s. 10½d. on the counter. Prisoner placed his hand over the half sovereign as though he intended to pick it up, but drew it back, and then put it suddenly forward, at the same time asking witness to give him the half sovereign in silver. Witness took it up, thinking it was the same half sovereign that she had put down. She took 10s. worth of silver and placed what was supposed to be a half sovereign in the cupboard. Prisoner finished his glass and then went out. In consequence of something said by the landlord witness went to the cupboard, and then discovered that the supposed half sovereign was a counterfeit.

Thomas Hall, landlord of the Harbour Inn, said that about 8 o'clock the previous morning he placed two half sovereigns and 10s. worth of silver in a cupboard. At 8.30 he was in the saloon bar when the prisoner Jones came in, and he saw the barmaid go to the cupboard for change and afterwards hand it over the counter; she then went back and took further change from the cupboard. Prisoner then left the house. In consequence of something said by the barmaid witness went to the cupboard and there found one of the coins which he had placed there in the morning, but discovered that the other was not a half sovereign. On going outside witness met a cabman, and in consequence of his statement proceeded along South Street and found the two prisoners at the bottom of High Street counting money. Witness caught hold of Jones and said “I want you for passing a bad coin to my barmaid”. He replied “What house do you mean?” Witness said “You know which house it is; you have just left it”. Allen said “Don't call a policeman. How much do you want?” Just then a policeman came up. Witness informed prisoner that he required nothing. He then gave Jones into custody. Allen was brought to the bar later on and witness identified him as the person he had seen with Jones.

John Butland, a cabman, said that he was on the stand close to the Harbour the previous evening when he saw prisoners at the corner of Barton's Wall. They walked across the road and had a conversation, at the same time watching the Harbour Hotel. Jones looked through the window, spoke to Allen and then went into the bar and called for a drink. The other prisoner then went in the bar and they both came out together. Witness followed them. When outside Maestrani's shop in South Street they shared some money. Mr. Hall then came up and witness went for a policeman who took Jones into custody.

The Superintendent applied for a remand in order that further enquiries might be made.

Mr. Bradley advised the prisoners not to make any statement, but the prisoner Jones said that he had the half sovereign passed on to him at the Folkestone Races. Allen said the coin was not a counterfeit.

Prisoners asked to have the case settled at once, but the Magistrates decided to remand them for a week.

 

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 Chronicle 29 August 1903.

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

Arthur Jones and James Allen were charged on remand with passing a Jubilee gilded sixpence as a half sovereign. Additional evidence was called, and a second charge was gone into. In this case, as in the first, it was alleged that the accused “rang the changes” with a gilded sixpence upon Thomas Philip Jordan at the Red Cow public house.

On the application of Chief Constable Reeve, both prisoners were committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions of the Borough, bail being offered in prisoners' own sureties of £100 and two sureties of £50 in each case.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1903.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Borough Police Court on Thursday, Arthur Jones and James Allen were brought up on remand charged with being concerned together in uttering gilded sixpences as half sovereigns, and further evidence having been given, the prisoners were committed for trial.

 

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 Chronicle 17 October 1903.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward.

Arthur Jones, 29, labourer, and James Allen, 49, hawker, both described as of imperfect education., were charged with unlawfully and knowingly uttering one piece of false and counterfeit coin at Folkestone, on the 19th of August, 1903. Both prisoners pleaded Guilty.

The indictment, as well as that referring to the Harbour Inn, or “Mary Fisher” charge, included that of Thomas Philips Jordan, of the Red Cow, upon whom the same false pretence was practiced.

Counsel for the Crown, Mr. T. Matthew, in opening, repeated the facts as detailed in our issue of October 5th, and mentioned that the prisoners, London men, came down to the Folkestone Racecourse on the 19th of August, and then into the town, where, according to the evidence, they had been “ringing the changes”.

The Recorder: Wait a minute. I think “ringing the changes” is another thing.

Concluding the outline of the offence, Counsel said he would like to draw the learned Recorder's attention to the provisions under 34 – 35, Victoria, Chap 112, Sec. 8 (Prevention of Crimes Act), which gave the judge power to add to his sentence a term of police supervision, the maximum term being seven years.

Detective Sergeant Samuel Lee, of the H Division, Metropolitan Police, then proceeded to give an account of the prisoners' criminal career, which showed four convictions within the last four years. Allen's course of crime was then established by the witness and Chief Constable Reeve. A written statement was then handed in by the prisoner Jones, who attributed his fall to the influence of bad company and to his giving way to drink. He promised to leave the country as soon as he had served his sentence.

Allen created a smile on the Bench when he said that this was his first visit to Folkestone, and he hoped it would be his last.

The Recorder then passed sentence. He said: You two men have the worst records I have had before me during the period I have sat at this Court. You do not seem to have many friends among the police, and there is no doubt from the evidence that you are the worst scum of the racecourse. I must pass a sentence that will keep both of you from visiting this borough for some time to come, and I feel it my duty to accede to the request of Counsel for the Crown that you should be placed under police supervision. If Jones is making a true statement about going to America that will not affect him. You will both be sentenced to 12 months' hard labour, to be followed by three years' police supervision.

Both prisoners (who seemed much relieved): Thank you, my Lord.

 

Folkestone Express 17 October 1903.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Arthur Jones (29), described as a labourer, and James Allen (49), a hawker, were indicted for unlawfully and knowingly uttering counterfeit coin on the 10th August at Folkestone. Prisoners pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthews, who prosecuted, said the prisoners were carrying out a trick called “ringing the changes”.

The Recorder: I don't think it is a trick. They uttered counterfeit coins.

Mr. Matthews: Then I am misinformed.

Counsel then intimated that he was desired to call attention to the provisions of the 34th and 35th Vict., chapter 112, which enabled the Recorder to say that there should be a period of police supervision in addition to any sentence passed. If there was an order that there should be a supervision for a certain period, the police would be able to keep an eye upon such men as prisoners, and prevent anything occurring again.

Detective Sergt. Lee, H Division (Metropolitan Police) proved that on Dec. 16th, 1901, at the Central Criminal Court, 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 rather stiff sentence, was it not?

Sergt. Lee: Hardly, after his “previouses”.

The Recorder: Oh, I see!

Continuing, Sergt. Lee said that Jones's criminal career commenced on the 18th of Oct., 1899, at the Southwark Police Court, where he was fined 40s. or one month's hard labour for stealing money from a public house. On the 23rd March, 1900, he was charged at the Guildhall Police Court with “ringing the changes”, and on that occasion, because his previous convictions were not proved, he was bound over. At the time he was in company with two old convicts. At Epsom Petty Sessions, on April 26th, 1900, he was charged with stealing a pair of opera glasses off the racecourse, and received five weeks' hard labour, while on July 11th, 1900, at the South London sessions, he was sentenced to 15 months' hard labour for attempted larceny. On this occasion prisoner was working in concert with others, using a sticky substance at the end of a stick and pocketing money from shelves in public houses.

P.C. Gosling, 632Y (Metropolitan), stated that on the 6th Feb., 1901, he was present at the North London Sessions when the prisoner Allen was convicted, in the name of James Slade, for attempted larceny and “ringing the changes”. He received 12 months' hard labour. There were other convictions against Allen, but witness was not in a position to state them.

Supt. Reeve produced a further list against Allen. It was as follows:- April 22nd, 1896, three weeks' hard labour at Epsom for stealing an overcoat; April 19th, 1898, at the North London Sessions, six months' hard labour for stealing a purse and money.

In a written statement to the Recorder, Jones said he was 33 years of age, and up to four years ago he always held a good character. Unfortunately he fell in with bad company and gave way to drink. Since his last discharge he had been leading an honest life, and worked for a Mr. Southwood until the day when the Folkestone Races came off. He begged the Recorder to give his defence consideration and to deal with him mercifully, as, with God's help, he should promise not to touch drink again. Since he had been in Canterbury Gaol awaiting his trial, his brother had written offering to pay his fare to America in order to get him away from bad company.

Prisoners were sentenced to twelve months' hard labour, and three years' police supervision.

Jones: Thank you, my Lord.

 

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 Express 19 January 1918.

Local News.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was, on Tuesday, temporarily transferred from Mr. T. Hall to Mr. Mainwood.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The following licence was transferred: Harbour Hotel, from Mr. T. Hall to Mr. Mainwood.

 

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 Express 25 December 1920.

Local News.

On Friday morning at the Police Court summonses were heard against three defendants for a breach of the Shops (Closing) Order, for having sold cigarettes on a Wednesday afternoon, which day is the recognised half day holiday for shops in Folkestone.

The Magistrates were Dr. Tyson, Mr. Swoffer, Councillors Miss Weston, Boyd, Mumford, and Harrison. Mr. A.F. Kidson (Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet defended.

Albert Taylor, licensee of the Brewery Tap, was concerned in the first case heard, and Mr. De Wet pleaded Not Guilty.

Arthur John Wort said he visited the Brewery Tap about 6.10 p.m. on the 24th November, and asked for a packet of cigarettes. He was served by the defendant's son, Albert George Taylor. He paid sixpence for the cigarettes.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: No-one was in the bar when he went in, and defendant's son was behind the bar, and he thought he took the cigarettes from a shelf. He used to play football in the school team with defendant's son. He did not know him personally – he did not speak to him in the street. Mr. Pearson went to the door, and he gave him the cigarettes.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the Order did not apply to licensed victuallers. They were a class which were exempted by the very schedule the Town Clerk had referred to. Licensed victuallers were not retailers of tobacco and smokers' requisites. Had all the 110 licence holders to be bound if they were not consulted for the purposes of securing a three-fourths majority of what they were not – retailers of smokers' requisites? He asked the Bench to hold that the case was not applicable to licence holders.

The Bench retired, and on their return to Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to convict, and the defendant would be fined 10s.

Mr. De Wet said it was a trade offence, and asked the Magistrates would agree to state a case.

Mrs. Lucas was summoned for the same offence.

Mr. De Wet said the case was similar to the other, and he must plead Guilty, with compunction.

A.J. Wort said he visited the True Briton, and was served by Mrs. Lucas with a packet of cigarettes.

Fined 10s.

Ernest Leonard Mainwood was similarly summoned, and A.J. Wort said he visited the Harbour Hotel about 6.15, and purchased a packet of cigarettes, for which he paid 6d.

Fined 10s.

Editorial Comment.

Probably we have not heard the last of the licence holders and their action concerning the sale of tobacco on the early half-closing day. The penalty inflicted on Friday last was not a severe one, but it shows they are breaking the law if they serve to their customers after the hours for the sale of tobacco. It, on the face, appears unjust, that when those hours were fixed by the Town Council, following a request by the tobacconists of the town, that the licensed victuallers were not consulted as to their wishes. If they had been the voting would doubtless have been different to what it was. It seems an anomaly that at Cheriton and Sandgate cigarettes and tobacco can be purchased on the early half-closing day, yet on the Folkestone side of the boundaries a smoker, if he has run out of his choice weed, will have to wait until the following day before he can enjoy his pipe or cigarette again. There are always officials ready to pounce on innocent offenders, but to the man in the street it seems strange that so much time can be devoted to pin-pricking tradesmen, who are endeavouring to make an honest living, yet at the same time such danger spots as that brought to the light of day by an inquest held last week are allowed to exist in a civilised community and in a fashionable town like Folkestone. It would be of interest to learn what action the Sanitary Department took in that particular matter.

 

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 Express 10 September 1927.

Obituary.

We regret to have to record the death on Sunday, at his residence, 11, Limes Road, of Mr. Thomas Cornelius Hall, at the age of 63 years.

The late Mr. Hall, who was very well known in Folkestone, and highly respected by a large circle of friends, was for 18 years proprietor of the Harbour Hotel. He was also a director of several local companies. He was a keen sportsman, and was the founder of the Wingate Cricket Club, being the treasurer of the first Folkestone Cricket League.

The funeral took place at the cemetery on Wednesday.

 

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 Gazette 5 December 1956.

Local News.

The owners of the Harbour Hotel have informed the Housing and Town Planning Committee that they hope the extensions to the property would be well under way by next summer.

The Committee resolved that the owners be informed that they were of the opinion that every endeavour should be made to have the work completed by the beginning of next summer and that in the meantime adequate measures should be taken to clear up the site adjoining the premises.

 

Folkestone Gazette 2 January 1957.

Local News.

Fremlins Ltd., owners of the Harbour Hotel, have informed Folkestone Corporation that it is hoped to commence building operations in connection with the rebuilding and development of the site early in 1957.

 

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 Gazette 20 September 1961/

Local News.

A huge pile of pennies worth £40 17/3 spilled into a blanket held by patrons of the Harbour Inn public house, Folkestone, on Saturday. The pile, which must be one of the largest ever built locally, was started shortly before Christmas, and the full amount will be donated to the British Empire Cancer Campaign. The average yield of such a collection is in the region of £10, but owing to the generosity of the Harbour’s customers, this pile far exceeded the hopes of the licensee, Mrs. V. Parks. Headed by Major Jackson, of the Corner House Hotel, Folkestone, Alan Penn, Brenda Ross and Isabel Macintosh, members of the “Dazzle” company who were making their final appearance of the season at Folkestone, demolished the pile. It is estimated that the pennies weighed nearly two-and-a-half hundredweights. Mrs. Parks had intended to build the column to an even greater height, but the counter on which it stood was beginning to show signs of strain. The next pile will be given to a children’s organisation.

 

Folkestone Gazette 11 July 1962.

Local News.

How many pennies do you think are piled in this picture? Over 9,500, and at the Harbour Inn on Friday, Mr. F. Bourne, headmaster of the Bruce Porter Home, East Cliff, sent them sprawling. The pile amounted to £41 10/3, and this very useful sum is being used for hiring two caravans at Winchelsea next month so that some of the Bruce Porter children can have a holiday there. They started piling the column of pennies last September.

 

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 Gazette 22 June 1966.

Local News.

Torrential rain in the early hours of Friday morning caused havoc in Folkestone’s High Street. Thousands of gallons of surface water draining from the main shopping centre burst through an 18in. water-sewage drain under High Street flooding shops, public houses and other premises and blocking the lower end of Tontine Street with tons of sand, sludge and rubble. Gangs of Corporation workmen were on the scene by 6 a.m. clearing drains and opening the road to traffic. Eye witnesses said that at one time the road was flooded to a depth of two feet with a “sea of yellow filth”. A Corporation spokesman said the flooding was caused when the sewer pipe collapsed. “Drainage surface water, under pressure, must have leaked from the pipe, washing out a cavity under the road”, he said. “This caused the pipoe and the raod surface to collapse”. On Monday night High Street was still closed to traffic as workmen laid new pipes and filled in the cavities with weak concrete. “This is done to prevent a recurrence and to reduce any risk of damage to the foundations of nearby properties”, said the spokesman. In all, workmen cleared away five lorry loads of sand and rubble – about 20 tons – from Tontine Street.

At the Harbour Inn the licensee, Mr. V. Hood, said “This is the third time this has happened to me in 13 months. It is about time the Corporation did something about it. It would not be a big job. Fortunately it was rainwater and not sewage that flooded us out, otherwise all my stock would have had to be sent back”.

At the True Briton, licensee Mr. Steve Heron, said “This has happened three four times to me, but this was the worst. It was absolutely horrible. You could have sailed a boat outside. And it wasn’t just dirty surface water; it was a really disgusting, filthy mess, a sea of yellow filth. It’s about time the health authority did something about it”. Mr. Heron was up and about at the time the flood started, and while his cellar was flooded he managed to sluice most of the filth away with a hosepipe as the water receded. “This sort of thing makes you lose heart”, he said. “And it would cost so little to have it put right. For a few pounds the local authority could dig a decent sized drain and then let the water flow out into the harbour”.

 

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.

 

South Kent Gazette 2 September 1981.

Local News.

Plans to knock together two pubs in a £100,000 facelift have been approved by Shepway District Council. Brewers Whitbread want to turn the True Briton and Harbour pubs in Folkestone into one, with a small bar and restaurant upstairs. Downstairs there will be a large open bar in fisherman style serving locally caught seafood. The scheme's designers have also got a pat on the back from Shepway’s design architect. Both pubs are of different ages, architectural styles and proportions. To combine the facades well was a “considerable problem” but has been achieved with some success. Building work on the pubs is expected to begin shortly and Whitbread hopes to have the new single pub open in December.

 

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.

 

From the Dover Express, 8 August, 2002.

Landlady 'Sara is mourned.

Pub boss dies in Spain

Sara Mison

A MUCH-loved and well-known face in pubs in east Kent has died.

Sara Mison, the bubbly former landlady of the "Duke Of York" on Snargate Street, Dover, and The "Harbour Inn", Folkestone, passed away at her home in Spain on July 31. She was 69.

Sara was born and grew up in West Hythe but started out in the pub game at the "Duke of York" where she made many friends. She then moved onto the "Harbour Inn" around 1970 where she spent 11 happy years until the time finally came to call last orders in 1981.

After leaving the pub Sara who lived on Seagrave Road, Folkestone - spent some time working at the Hotel Burstin in Folkestone but retired to Spain in the late 1990s with her husband Peter.

Regulars and friends from the pubs where they served came to visit them in the sunshine and the couple enjoyed a happy retirement. They often came back to Folkestone to see family and friends. They lived in a house near Alicante on the Costa Blanca until Sara's death.

She had two daughters Catherine and the late Moira, and a grandson, Kyle, 15.

Sara will be cremated in Spain but a memorial service will be held back in England when family and friends return.

One relative said: "She was well known. She was a real character. She will be sorely missed."

 

From the http://www.kentlive.news 10 November 2017.

A look inside the Harbour Inn as the new owners reveal seafood plans for the revamped Folkestone pub.

Mussels, fish and chips, oysters lobster and crab will all feature on the fishy menu, alongside craft beers, ales and wines has finally announced an opening date for its new home store and garden centre at Park Farm in Folkestone.

Ben and Lucy Cuthbert

Above photo showing licensees Ben & Lucy Cuthbert while at the "Pullman".

Proud new owners of a Folkestone pub have revealed their plans to revamp the once tired boozer into a "real seafood destination".

The "True Briton" in the harbour was snapped up by couple and local entrepreneurs Ben and Lucy Cuthbert in September for just shy of £500,000.

The pair, who opened Italian restaurant Lubens on Rendezvouz Street last year, have run the "Pullman" on Church Street for almost four years and said they were excited to add another pub to their portfolio.

Simply named the "Harbour Inn," the Cuthberts are keen to transform the venue - which had been on the market for five years - into a space that people in Folkestone can "really enjoy".

Mr Cuthbert told Kent Live that the couple had always wanted to open another pub and that when they has a viewing back in March, their hearts were set on the space.

The "True Briton" in the harbour was snapped up by couple and local entrepreneurs Ben and Lucy Cuthbert in September.

He said: “Our heart is in Folkestone, both of us really love it here - the dynamic, the energy that’s in the town.

"We’ve been here for a long time now, and have always fancied doing something in the harbour.

“Like with Lubens, we have always tried to take on spaces that have been underutilised, places are sometime inaccessible for people in the town and turn it into a space that people can really enjoy."

According to Mr Cuthbert, the plan is to split the space in two, with one side acting as a seafood speciality restaurant and the other as a pub, in a similar style to the "Pullman."

Hoping to open on the first weekend in December, mussels, fish and chips, oysters lobster and crab will all feature on the fishy menu, alongside lots of craft beers, ales and wines.

Fear not though, as Mr Cuthbert explained that he wanted to place to stay true to its Kentish roots and not become an "exclusive" hideout.

Harbour Inn 2017

Simply named the "Harbour Inn," the Cuthberts are keen to transform the venue.

He said: "The idea is to really bring the place alive.

"It’s a great building, and getting our hands on it was a good opportunity for us to grow our business and transform it into a space where we can see people coming out having dinner, or having a drink sitting by the fire.

"We hope it means that it will be a space that’s accessible again.

Harbour Inn inside 2017

Mussels, fish and chips, oysters lobster and crab will all feature on the fishy menu, alongside lots of craft beers, ales and wines.

"But we will be a lot more casual and we won’t forget the fact that we’re a Kentish pub and create something that is quintessentially Kentish, with lots of hops on the ceiling and more traditional things decorating the place."

The new venture has seen the Cuthberts take on 15 extra staff, meaning that they now employ over 60 people in the town.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GOLDER Thomas circa 1860-63 BastionsPost Office Directory 1862

HERWIGG Henry Augustus 1863-64 Next pub licensee had Bastions

POINTER George 1864-66 Next pub licensee had Bastions

PAGE Charles 1866-80 BastionsPost Office Directory 1874

ADAMS Josiah Lyon 1880-88 Next pub licensee had (age 48 in 1881Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1882

Last pub licensee had JOHNSON John 1888-90 Bastions

BOORN Fanny 1890 BastionsPost Office Directory 1891

ARCH Joseph 1890-92 (age 37 in 1891Census) Bastions

BARKER Samuel 1892-95 Bastions

WONTER Eleanor 1895-96 Bastions

THOMSON David 1896-99 BastionsKelly's 1899

THOMSON John 1899-1900 Bastions

ROBINSON Agnes 1900 Bastions

LOVEGROVE Sarah 1900-01 Bastions

Last pub licensee had HALL Thomas 1901-18 (age 36 in 1901Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Post Office Directory 1913

MAINWOOD Ernest J 1918-27 BastionsPost Office Directory 1922

OFFEN George Blaxland 1927-43 Next pub licensee had BastionsPost Office Directory 1938

MARTIN Wilfred 1943-44 Bastions (Holding manager)

License suspended 1944-46

MCKENZIE John Lloyd M.B.E. 1946-47 Bastions

RUFF Ernest 1947 Bastions (Holding manager)

PARKS Victor 1947-60 Bastions

PARKS Violet (later BRICKELL) 1960-65 Bastions

HOOD Victor 1965-70 Bastions

ROUSE Gerald 1970-71 Bastions

Last pub licensee had MISON Sara 1970-81 Next pub licensee had

MISON Peter 1971-81 Bastions

Renamed "Old Harbour Crab And Oyster House."

PENN Hugh & COLLINS Robert 1989-90 Bastions

EDWARDS Mark & MILES Barry 1990 Bastions

EDWARDS Mark  PILLING Timothy 1990-92Bastions

EDWARDS Mark & BRADSHAW Andrew 1992-93 Bastions

EDWARDS Mark & TILLEY Michael 1993-94 Bastions

EDWARDS Mark & O'SHEA Andrew Next pub licensee had 1994-96 Bastions

LONG Thomas Next pub licensee had & PROUT Nigel 1996-97 Bastions

PROUT Nigel & UNDERWOOD Stephen 1997-98 Bastions

PORTER William, JOHNSON Carole & UNDERWOOD Neil 1998-2001 Bastions

PORTER William (also "Valiant Sailor") & MCKENZIE David 2001 Bastions

WILKINSON David 2001-02 Bastions

RAMSEY Catherine, FRANCIS Roy & PALMER Conrad 2002 Bastions

WILSON Alistair and Caroline 2002-03 Bastions

SOTIRIOU Costas & HOW Paul 2003-04+ Bastions

Last pub licensee had CUTHBERT Ben & Lucy 2011+

 

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room