DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Sunday, 21 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1879

Imperial Hotel

Latest 2008

19 Black Bull Road

33 & 35 Black Bull Road Kelly's 1899

Folkestone

Imperial 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Imperial sign 1975

Above sign 1975.

With thanks from Brian Curtis www.innsignsociety.com.

Imperial, Folkestone 2009

Above photograph by Paul Skelton, 5 July 2009.

Imperial 2012

Above photo kindly sent by Phil Nicholson, 29 November, 2012.

 

Address given in below directories is 33 and 35 Black Bull Road.

I have only recently added Folkestone to this site. The information gathered so far is from "Old Folkestone Pubs" by C H Bishop M.A. Ph.D. and Kevan of http://deadpubs.co.uk/

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

This page is still to be updated.

 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1878.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough

I, GEORGE PHILLIPS FOWLER, now residing at No. 146, Dover Road, in the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, Builder, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at an adjournment of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall, in the said Borough, on the 25th day of September next ensuing, for a license for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be consumed in a certain house, and in the premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to be consumed on such premises, situate at Canterbury Road, Foord, in the Borough aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling house. And I hereby give you further notice that in the event of my said application being refused it is my intention to apply at the said meeting for a license for the sale of Beer, Cider, and Wine, NOT to be drunk or consumed in the said house and premises.

Given under my hand this Twenty-third day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-eight.

G.P. Fowler.

 

Folkestone Express 28 September 1878.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

New House At Foord.

Wednesday, September 25th: Before J. Clark and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., Alderman Caister and Captain Crowe.

Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of Mr. George Phillips Fowler, a builder, for a license for a new house now being erected at Foord. He said he thought the Bench would see there was a want of accommodation in the neighbourhood, and that the applicant was entitled to a license at their hands. It was 15 years since a new license was granted at Foord, and since then there had been 112 houses built in the immediate neighbourhood. There were 27 now in the course of erection by seven builders, and 300 more houses were to be erected in the locality. He presented a petition in favour of the license, signed by all the builders but one, and by nearly the whole of the inhabitants.

Mr. Fowler, in reply to Mr. Mowll, said the house as a private house would be worth 35 a year, and five rooms were proposed to be devoted to the use of the public.

The Bench decided that it was unnecessary to grant the license at present.

Mr. Mowll then applied for a license to sell off the premises and this was granted, it being understood that the Magistrates' Clerk should hold the license until the house was certified to be completed.

Note: This pre-dates the information in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 August 1879.

The Imperial Hotel.

The Annual Licensing Session was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, the magistrates on the Bench being Dr. Bateman (in the chair), Capt. Crowe, J. Jeffreason Esq., and Alds. Hoad and Caister.

An outdoor license is granted to this house, situated in the Canterbury Road, just above Foord, and this is the second application for an ale and spirit license.

Mr. Mowll appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Dennis, of Croydon, opposed on behalf of the landlords of the Castle, the Red Cow, and the Black Bull.

Mr. Dennis, on behalf of his clients, represented that there was ample accommodation in the neighbourhood.

Application refused.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1879.

Annual Licensing Session.

Application For New License: The Imperial Hotel.

Wednesday, August 20th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Aldermen Caister and Hoad, Captain Crowe, M. Bell, W.J. Jeffreason, and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. George Philip Fowler applied again for an ale and spirit license for this house at Foord.

Mr. Mowll appeared for the applicant, and said he should be able to show them there was a necessity in this case. He reminded the Bench that he applied last year for a full license for this house, which was then refused. He then obtained a license to sell beer off the premises, and Mr. Fowler had been selling five or six barrels of beer weekly. The house was in the midst of a large number of recently erected houses, and he had a memorial signed by nearly the whole of the inhabitants residing near the house. Mr. Fowler would tell them that during the past summer nearly every hour of the day visitors who had walked over the hills had called there for refreshment.

Mr. Fowler said he had sold in the house 115 barrels of beer altogether since the house had been opened, and from 10 to 20 persons a day had called and asked to be supplied with a glass of ale. He put in a memorial signed by the owners and occupiers in favour of the license being granted. The rateable value of the house was 20, and since last year quite 40 houses had been completed near this hotel. Applicant's son was now erecting 16, and plans were before the Corporation for more than a hundred others.

Mr. Dennis, of Croydon, opposed on behalf of the Castle, the Red Cow, and the Black Bull, all of which he contended were within eye shot. He urged that there was not the slightest necessity for the granting of a license, and the applicant, by calling his house the Imperial Hotel, had disappointed persons who thought it was a public house.

The Bench retired to consider the application, and on their return the chairman announced that they had decided to refuse the application.

 


Southeastern Gazette 23 August 1879.

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. There were several applications for new licences, but with one exception they were refused.

Mr George Phillip Fowler applied for a full licence for the Imperial Hotel, situated in the Canterbury Road. The house already holds an “off” licence. Mr. Mowll appeared in support of the application, and Mr. Dennis, of Croydon, opposed on behalf of Mr. Field, the freeholder and licensee of the Castle Inn. The application was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 July 1880.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough.

I, GEORGE PHILLIPS FOWLER, Builder and Beerhouse Keeper, now residing at the Imperial Hotel, Canterbury Road, in the Parish of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Town Hall, in the said Borough, on the Twenty-fifth day of August next, for a License to hold any Excise License or Licenses, to sell by retail under the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828, all intoxicating liquors, to be consumed either on or off the house and premises thereunto belonging, situate at Canterbury Road, in the Borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of the Imperial Hotel, of which premises I am the owner, and I hereby give you further notice that in the event of my said application being refused, it is my intention to apply at the said meeting for a license for the sale of beer, cider, and wine to be consumed on the premises.

Given under my hand this Twentieth Day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty.

G.P. FOWLER.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1880.

Wednesday last was the Annual Licensing Day for the Borough of Folkestone, the magistrates on the Bench being The Mayor, Ald. Hoad, Capt. Crowe, and Ald. Caister.

Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of Mr. Fowler of the Imperial Hotel, Canterbury Road, for a license, and Mr. Dennis, of Croydon, opposed on behalf of the two houses in the locality. A petition in favour of the application was produced by Mr. Fowler, signed by a large number of inhabitants, and concerning which The Mayor remarked that it was easy to get up this class of petitions. Mr. Mowll, in the course of an energetic speech, urged the necessity of the license, and in a glowing picture represented visitors coming down from the surrounding hills in a fainting condition, and beseeching for refreshment at the applicant's door, when to their disappointment they could procure none. If the Bench were, he urged, in favour of Local Option, the principle of which Parliament had acknowledged, they would grant the license, for nearly all the inhabitants in the locality had signed in it's favour. Mr. Dennis strongly opposed. He represented the large number of public houses in Folkestone, and as an objection he would state that applicant sold beer at 3 d. a quart, thus cheapening a liquor that demoralized the neighbourhood. He styled the application a most “impudent” one, considering that it had twice before been refused.

The application was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1880.

Annual Licensing Day.

Application for New License: The Imperial.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, and Aldermen Caister and Hoad.

Mr. Mowll made a third application on behalf of Mr. G.P. Fowler for a full license for this house, at Foord. He urged that the license was much required. There were only two or three small licensed houses in the neighbourhood, where, since 1874, 274 new dwellings had been erected, accommodating an estimated population of 2,700. Since last licensing day 80 new houses had been built. If the Bench were going to put their hands down and say they would grant no more licenses, then he would not persist in his application, but if they continued the policy of granting licenses when it was shown there was a necessity for them, he felt sure his application would be granted. If they adopted the principle of “local option” , they would, he ventured to say, grant the license, because he held in his hand a memorial signed by almost all the neighbours. Mr. Mowll also drew a vivid picture of the disappointment and annoyance caused to many visitors who, after toiling up the hills in the rear of this house, returned to find they could not have a glass of ale on the premises. He put in a numerously signed memorial.

Mr. Fowler was called, and said it was the third time he had made his application to the Bench. The streets in the neighbourhood were Bridge Street, Garden Street, Garden Terrace, Pavilion Street, Wilton Terrace, Imperial Terrace, and Marshall Street, and from all these people came to his house for beer. He sold eight or nine barrels of beer weekly, and the house was rated to the poor at 32, and by the income tax assessors at 80.

Mr. Dennis opposed on behalf of Mr. Field, of the Castle, Mr. Minter for other publicans in the neighbourhood.

The Mayor announced that the Magistrates had unanimously decided to refuse the application.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 August 1880.

Annual Licensing Day.

The Folkestone annual licensing session was held on Wednesday, but presented no particular feature of interest. The applications of Mr. Fowler for a licence for the Imperial Hotel, Canterbury Road, and Mr. Tyas, for the Bradstone Tavern, were unanimously refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1881.

Annual Licensing Day.

The Annual Licensing Day was on Wednesday last, the Magistrates on the Bench being The Mayor, A.M. Watkin, F. Boykett, and J. Clarke Esqs., and Ald. Caister.

A spirit and full license was granted to Mr. Fowler, of the Imperial Hotel, Foord Road, on the application of Mr. Mowll.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1881.

Annual Licensing Day.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, W. Bateman, A.m. Watkin, J. Boykett and J. Clark Esqs.

 

r. Mowll, on behalf of Mr. Fowler, of the Imperial Hotel, Canterbury Road, Foord, renewed his application for a license for his house. The application was unopposed, and Mr. Mowll stated that if “local option” prevailed there was no doubt the inhabitants in the locality would concur in a license being granted.

Mr. Fowler said he had held an off license for two years, and added that there were ten houses commenced last week, and William Elgar, residing in close proximity to the house was called on to prove that it would be a public convenience if the license were granted.

Frederick Cosgrave, living three doors from Mr. Fowler's house, also said that the business had been very respectably conducted.

The Bench decided to grant the license.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1881.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

On Wednesday the annual licensing meeting for the borough of Folkestone was held at the Town Hall. The Mayor presided, and there were also present: Alderman Caister, Dr. Bateman, and F. Boykett, A. M. Watkin, and J. Clark, Esqs.

Mr. Mowll applied for a licence for the Imperial Hotel in the Canterbury Road. There was no opposition. Mr. Fowler had had an off licence for two years, and he now applied for a full licence. The applicant stated that he was a builder and carried on business at Foord. The premises in question were rated at over 30 a year. The licence was much wanted in the neighbourhood. It was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1883.

Local News.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. John Banks sold by auction, at the Rose Hotel, the Imperial Hotel, situate in Canterbury Road, with a house and shop, let at 22 per annum, adjoining. The property realised 2,020.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1888.

Advertisement.

Imperial Inn, Broadmead, Folkestone, TO LET. For particulars apply to Hythe Brewery.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1892.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday, the following case came before the Bench – Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge, and Dunk:

Stephen Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Canterbury Road on Monday night.

P.C. Bailey said the prisoner was drunk in Black Bull Road the previous night, and was using obscene language. He advised him to go home, but he refused. Subsequently he struck witness on the ear and knocked him down. He also bit him. He had to obtain assistance to get him to the police station.

Philip Prebble, another constable, corroborated the above evidence, adding that they had to procure a truck in order to convey the prisoner to the station.

Defendant stated that when he went into the Imperial public house the previous evening he saw Bailey and Reed and another policeman sitting there.

P.C. Bailey denied this.

Whilst there he said something to Bailey, and he replied “You had better get out of it”. Bailey followed him outside, and commenced to push him about. Then he threw defendant over and so ill-treated him that everybody cried shame on him. When they got defendant to the station they shot him out of the truck on to the pavement, and then commenced to “knock him about”. One of the other constables protested against such treatment, and at this the constables attacked him. There was a d--- of a row in the station. P.C. Prebble knelt across defendant's neck and struck him, and Nash followed him into the cell and struck him. They made a sort of ball of him.

Defendant then asked for a remand in order that he might call John Cole, Albert Hearnden, James Barton, and the landlord of the Imperial as witnesses in his favour.

The Bench said they felt disposed to give defendant the opportunity of calling his witnesses. He would, therefore, be remanded until Thursday.

Stephen Barton appeared on remand on Thursday morning to answer a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Black Bull Road on Monday night.

The Magistrates present were Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, and Mr. W.H. Poole.

Mr. Ward appeared to defend the defendant, and there was also present Dr. Percy Dodd to prove that there were about 21 contusions on the body of the defendant, but his evidence was not required.

In the first place Bailey repeated the evidence given above, and in response to the questions of Mr. Ward, he said the people who were standing around cried shame on the defendant at the way in which he was treating him (the witness). He was prepared to swear he was not in the Imperial Hotel when the defendant called for a drink.

P.C. Prebble said he was going home from the Exhibition when he saw the defendant and Bailey struggling on the ground. The defendant struck him in the ribs.

Mr. James Hills, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, said shortly before 11 o'clock Barton, with others came into the bar. He saw that the defendant was the worse for drink, so he refused to serve him. Subsequently, witness saw the disturbance outside his house, and held the constables' helmets, capes, and sticks.

Albert Grinstead, of 63, Walton Road, deposed that he saw Barton standing outside the Imperial Hotel. He was cursing and swearing about Mr. Hills. Bailey tried to persuade him to go home, but Barton responded by knocking him down.

Mr. Edward Finn said he saw the defendant strike Bailey a violent blow and knock him down.

Mr. Ward, on behalf of the defendant, said he was attacked by the police, and very severely treated. In support of this contention he called Herbert Hearnden, who alleged that Bailey was inside the Imperial Hotel, and because Barton remarked that the landlord served the police, and not himself, Bailey followed him out of the house, and subsequently attacked him. Barton was perfectly sober.

Mr. Cole, a mason, said he saw three policemen lying on Barton in the road. He did not think the latter was drunk.

Miss Jane Grant deposed that shortly before the scrimmage she served Barton with supper in Rogers's refreshment rooms. He was then quite sober. When she heard of the disturbance, she ran to see about it, and she saw P.C. Gosby knocking defendant's head on the ground. The people around were crying “shame” on the police. When they got defendant to the police station they shot him out of the truck.

Mr. James barton and Mr. C.E. Thornton also deposed that the defendant was quite sober when outside the Imperial Hotel.

The Bench found the defendant Guilty of the offence, and as there were four previous convictions against him, they imposed a fine of 1 and 1 3s. 6d. costs. The money was paid by the defendant's father.

 

Folkestone Express 6 August 1892.

Tuesday, August 2nd: Before Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Stephen Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Black Bull Road on Monday.

P.C. Bailey said he was in Black Bull Road and saw the prisoner about eleven o'clock, drunk and using very filthy language. He advised him to go home, which he refused to do, but struck him on the ear and knocked him down and also hit him. He was taken to the station on a truck.

Defendant made allegations against the police and desired to have the case remanded in order that he might call witnesses.

P.C. Philip Prebble said he saw Bailey struggling with the prisoner in Black Bull Road, opposite the Imperial. Prisoner was drunk and using obscene language. He got a truck, and with the assistance of P.C. Read and P.C. William Prebble they took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner said the three constables were in the Imperial, and when they came out Bailey commenced to push him about. They threw him over, cut his head, and kicked him. When they got to the station they pitched him out on to the stone pavement, and when they got him inside they kicked him and one of them sat on his neck and nearly strangled him. P.C. Nash, “a little short chap”, went into the cell and hit him. He added that the people cried “Shame” of the policemen for the way in which he was treated. He said he desired to call Joseph Cole, Albert Hearnded, his brother and his wife. He could also make the landlord of the Imperial prove the constables were in the house.

The Magistrates remanded the prisoner till Thursday in order that he might call witnesses.

On Thursday the defendant was brought up on remand, and several other witnesses were called. The landlord of the Imperial Hotel said he refused to draw defendant any liquor, as he was drunk. P.C. Bailey was not in the house. In the result, the defendant, who had four convictions against him, was fined 1 and 1 3s. 6d. costs, Mr. Ward, who appeared for the defendant, was told that he coult report any complaint against the police to the Watch Committee.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 6 August 1892.

Local News.

A charge of drunkenness was preferred against Stephen Barton.

P.C. Bailey said he was in Black Bull Road on the previous night (Monday), and saw the prisoner about eleven o'clock, drunk, and using very disgusting language. He advised him to go home, which he refused to do, but struck him on the ear and knocked him down, and also bit him. He was taken to the station on a truck.

This evidence was corroborated by P.C. Prebble.

Defendant made allegations against the police, and desired to have the case remanded, in order that he might call witnesses. He said the three constables were in the Imperial, and when they came out Bailey commenced to push him about. They threw him over, cut his head, and kicked him. When they got to the station they pitched him out on to the stone pavement, and when they got him inside they kicked him, and one of them knelt on his neck and nearly strangled him. P.C. Nash, “a little short chap”, went into the cell and hit him. He added that the people cried “Shame” of the policemen for the way in which he was treated. He desired to call Joseph Cole, Albert Hearnden, his brother, and his wife. He could also make the landlord of the Imperial prove the constable were in the house.

The Magistrates remanded the prisoner till Thursday, in order that he might call witnesses.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 11 October 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Half a dozen Magistrates assembled on Saturday at the police court – occasionally the police have to send out for them – when the only case for hearing was a charge of drunkenness and use of obscene language by a young lady of the soap-sud persuasion, who gave the name of Annie O'Leary, and said she was engaged at the Sanitary laundry.

The case was clearly proved by P.C. Rogers, and Superintendent Taylor stated that she had been convicted three times at Hythe for drunkenness, and at the Assizes for maliciously breaking windows at Cheriton.

The Mayor improved the occasion, and pointed out her probable fate if she went on in the same way for another twenty years – she gave her age as 23 – and she was ordered to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and 9s. 6d. costs, or 7 days. The Superintendent objected to any time being allowed, and she was taken below, but, we believe, the money was afterwards paid for her by Mr. Wray, the police court missionary.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1893.

Saturday, October 7th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. Sherwood, Pledge, Spurgen, Holden and Dunk.

Annie O'Leary, laundry employee, of Cheriton, a young woman whose name is not unfamiliar in Police Court annals, has again found herself in trouble, having to appear before the Bench on a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Black Bull Road on the 30th September.

The defendant was found at half past 10 on the night in question in front of the Imperial by P.C. Rogers. She was drunk and was swearing, causing a crowd to collect. He asked her to go away quietly, but she refused, and in anything but polite terms told him to mind his own business. He took her into custody, but she was subsequently released on a summons.

In answer to the Bench, the defendant said she admitted being drunk, but denied making use of any obscene language. She came into Folkestone with two other women for the purpose of doing some shopping, and it appears that besides becoming the worse for drink she also lost her parcel.

The record which Superintendent Taylor had to present was anything but a creditable one for such a young person. “It is the first time she has been here” he said, “but she has been convicted four times during the present year – three times for being drunk and disorderly at Cheriton, and once at the Assizes for maliciously breaking a square of glass at Cheriton.”

The Mayor having improved the occasion by giving the girl a little friendly counsel, a fine of 2s. 6d. with 9s. costs was imposed, or in default seven days' imprisonment, the fine being paid through the agency of Mr. Wray, Police Court Missionary.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 4 November 1896.

Kaleidoscope.

The old tale. Looking for a leak in the gas pipe with a lighted match. A strong smell of gas attracted the attention of the landlord of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, on Thursday afternoon. Since no escape could be discovered in any of the upper rooms or in the bar, Mr. Hill, the landlord proceeded to the cellar. There was a strong smell of gas, and in order to go to the meter, Mr. Hill lighted a match, with the result that he was thrown from one side of the cellar to the other. Mr. Hill was severely shaken, and had been slightly burned.

A large mirror was thrown off from the mantelpiece, some cases of birds, etc. were shattered, and the building slightly damaged. It is supposed that the steamroller, which had been at work in Park Street, fractured one of the mains, and hence the gas found its way into the cellar.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 January 1902.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, a case of considerable importance was heard before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer. Mr. T. Stainer was also present, but did not adjudicate.

James Hills, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for an offence under the Child Messenger Act: “That he did supply a child under the age of 14 with a pint of beer, the vessel which contained the same not being securely sealed according to the requirements of the Act”.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley) having read the section relating to the summons, defendant was asked to plead.

He replied: I do not know what you mean. What is the Act?

Mr. Bradley: As a publican you ought to know.

P.C. Thomas Sales said: At about 7.40 on the evening of the 5th inst. I was on duty in Black Bull Road, when I observed a child, Bessie Stokes, carrying a bottle similar to the one now produced. She went into the Imperial Hotel, and when she came out, from what she told me I examined the bottle. I saw that there was a label over the cork; it was partially stuck and fastened to the nose of the bottle. I took hold of the label and easily removed it without damaging it. I then took the child back into the public house and found defendant and his son behind the bar. I said to them “Have you just served this child?”, and at the same time produced the bottle and label. Defendant said “Yes, I served her with a pint of beer, and I stuck the seal on it”. I replied “I have removed the label. You can see that it is not broken. The child is under the age of 14”. I added “I shall make a report of this case. It is a question whether this label is a seal”. Defendant replied “Stick it on again”. I then left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and was informed that the child was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards, defendant's son saw me, and from what he said I again saw the defendant, and said to him “You quite understand what I am going to report you for, Mr. Hills?” He replied “I know you are going to make a case, and you are going to make an example of me”.

Eliza Stokes, wife of William Stokes, 6, Park Street, deposed to the child and the policeman bringing home the beer, and said that the child was eight years of age last November.

The Chief Constable said that was the case, and called the attention of the Bench to the latter portion of Section Five of the Act, which related to a sealed vessel, contending that to properly seal meant that the seal could not be removed without being damaged or destroyed.

Defendant, who, by the way, is not a member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, although offered, refused legal assistance. He said he was under the impression that everything was all right. He had acted in accordance with the instructions of the Act to the best of his ability.

The Bench retired to deliberate, and upon their return into Court five minutes later, the Chairman said: Mr. Hills, as a licensed victualler you are supposed to know the law, and it your duty to see that you comply with the Act. Sealed means secured, and there is no doubt in the minds of the Bench that an offence has been committed. This being the first case, the Bench will only fine you the nominal penalty of 5s. and 15s. costs. The licence will not be endorsed. You might not have been aware of it, but there is no doubt that the use of a label improperly secured is an offence under the Act of Parliament.

The case caused considerable interest among licence holders in the town, many of whom are evidently incensed against Mr. Hills, in that he was not properly defended in the very first case tried concerning a matter of so much importance to the trade, it being felt that a penalty which would have carried reasonable ground for appeal should have been asked for.

 

Folkestone Express 18 January 1902.

Wednesday, January 15th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Alderman Salter, G.I. Swoffer, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

James Hills, of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned for allowing his son to deliver to a child named Bessie Stokes, under the age of 14 years, a pint of beer in a vessel not properly sealed.

The defendant said he did not understand the Act.

The Magistrates' Clerk said being a publican, he ought to know it.

P.C. Sales said about 7.40 on the evening of the 5th inst. he was on duty in Black Bull Road, and saw a child named Bessie Stokes carrying a bottle similar to the one produced. She went into the Imperial Hotel and came out again. He saw she had a bottle containing liquor, and he examined it, and saw there was a label on it (produced) stuck over the top of the cork, and fastened or partially stuck on the nose of the bottle.

Mr. Wightwick: Over the cork and over the bottle too?

Witness said “Yes”. He took hold of the label, and easily removed it without damaging it. He took the child back into the public house. Defendant's son was behind the bar. He said to him “Have you just served this child?” At the same time he produced the bottle and label. Defendant's son said “Yes, I served her with a pint of beer and stuck the seal on”. Witness said “I removed the label, which you see is not broken, and the child is under 14 years of age”. He had the label in his hand. He told defendant he should report the case, and question whether the label was a seal. He replied “Stick it on again”. Witness left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and ascertained that she was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards defendant's son saw him, and owing to what he said he again saw defendant, and said “You quite understand what I'm going to report you for, Mr. Hills? For not sealing the vessel”. He replied “I know, you are going to make a case and make an example of me”. The bottle contained a pint of beer.

Eliza Stokes, wife of Wm. Stokes, of 6, Park Street, and mother of the little girl, said on the 5th her daughter brought home a pint of beer from the Imperial Hotel in a bottle. Her age was eight last November.

The Superintendent of the police directed attention to the section of the Act which said that the vessel should be sealed with some substance without the destruction of which the plug, cork, or stopper could not be withdrawn. In this case the label was removed and not destroyed.

Defendant: But the cork could not be.

Mr. Wightwick: Have you anything to say?

Defendant: Not in the least. Everything is right. I acted according to the Act to the best of my ability. I did not wish to do anything wrong. The firm sent me a letter. Perhaps you would like to see it? I acted up to it.

The Magistrates retired, and on returning, Mr. Wightwick said: As a licensed victualler you are supposed to know the law. You seem to think, because you put a label on the top of the bottle like that you complied with the Act. The Act says distinctly that the expression “seal” means secured with some substance, without the destruction of which the cork, plug, or stopper cannot be withdrawn. Of course this label was not even stuck, and could be removed like that. The result is that you have committed an offence under the Act of Parliament providing that it must be secured and sealed up properly. It is well for all the licence holders to bear this in mind. This is the first offence, and you are liable to be fined 40s., but we take into consideration the fact that probably you may have mistaken the Act, and therefore we shall give you a nominal penalty of 5s., and the costs are 15s. We shall not endorse the licence, because no doubt you mistook your duties. We are sorry to be obliged to fine you 5s. and 15s. costs.

Mr. Wightwick, continuing, said the Bench would like to ask the Superintendent how it was the person who sent the child to the public house was not also before them? That was an offence under the Act.

The Superintendent said the matter of taking proceedings was under his consideration.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 January 1902.

Local News.

Much interest was evinced in the first case under the new Children's Bill (Intoxicating Liquor Act), which was heard in Folkestone on Wednesday. The case was a somewhat peculiar one, owing to the fact that the barman of the house had placed a seal over the cork of the bottle, but that this was alleged not to have been properly secured. It was, we believe, the first prosecution of the kind in the country, and the Magistrates had a rather knotty point to decide. A large number of people were present in court to hear the evidence, which we give below. The charge was against James Hills, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and was described as a breach of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Children) Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said defendant was summoned for having allowed his son to serve a child with one pint of beer in a bottle not properly sealed according to the Act.

Defendant, when asked whether he was Guilty or Not Guilty, said: I don't understand you. What is the Act?

Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. H.B. Bradley): You will know presently.

Chairman: It will be Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said at 7.40 on the evening of the 5th inst., he saw a child named Bessie Stokes go into the Imperial Hotel. Shortly afterwards she came out with a bottle, like the one produced, in her hand, and from what she told him in reply to questions he examined the bottle, and saw there was the label produced stuck over the cork and partly stuck to the sides and nose of the bottle.

The Chairman: Was this stuck down over the cork and over the bottle?

Witness: Yes, sir. I then took hold of the label and easily removed it without damaging it in the least. I took the child back into the house and found defendant and his son behind the bar. I said “Have you served this child?”, at the same time producing the bottle and the label. I said “I removed the label, and you see it is not broken. The child is under 14 years of age”. I said to the defendant “I shall make a report of this case. It is a question of whether the label is a seal”. He replied “Stick it on again”. I then left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and ascertained that she was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards the son saw me, and from what he said I again saw defendant. I said to him “You quite understand what I am going to report you for, Mr. Hill; for not sealing your vessel?” He replied “I know, you're going to make a case; you're going to make an example of me”.

Eliza Stokes, wife of William Stokes, residing at 3, Park Street, said she remembered the constable coming to her house on the evening of January 5th with her child Bessie. The child had a bottle like the one produced, in which was a pint of beer. Witness knew that her daughter fetched it from the Imperial.

The Chief Constable said he would like to call the attention of the Justices to Section 5 of the Act, which says “The expression seal means secured by any substance without the destruction of which the stopper, plug or cork cannot be withdrawn”.

The Chairman: Have you any witnesses to call?

Defendant: Not at all.

Chairman: Have you anything to say?

Defendant: No, I have nothing at all to say. Not in the least. Everything is all right. I acted according to the Act to the best of my ability. The firm sent me a letter, which perhaps you would like to see, and I acted up to it.

The Magistrates retired, and returned into Court after about ten minutes deliberation, when the Chairman said: As a licensed victualler, Mr. Hills, you are supposed to know the law. You seem to think that because you put a label on the top of the bottle without fastening it down it complies with the Act, but the Act says distinctly that the expression sealed means secured by any substance without the destruction of which the stopper, plug or cork cannot be withdrawn. Of course this was not even stuck down. There is no doubt you have committed an offence under the Act of Parliament, which says that a vessel containing liquor must be secured and sealed. It is well that all licensed victuallers should bear that in mind. This is your first offence, for which you are liable to a fine of 40s. We have taken into consideration that you have probably mistaken the Act, and shall only impose a nominal fine of 5s. and 15s. costs. We shall not endorse the licence.

Then, addressing the Chief Constable, Mr. Wightwick said: We should like to ask how it is that the person sending the child is not also brought before us?

The Chief Constable: That is a matter which is under my consideration as to whether we shall issue a summons or not.

 

Folkestone Programme 20 January 1902.

Notes.

One of the first convictions in the country under the Child Messenger Act was heard at Folkestone. The case was one which aroused some interest, especially amongst temperance advocates and the local licence holders. The Act requires that no messenger under the age of fourteen years shall be served with intoxicating liquors except in bottles or other utensils “securely corked and sealed”.

In the case in point a child of eight was sent to the defendant's public house, was served with beer, and the defendant not only corked the bottle, but placed over the stopper a gummed label, such as those who purchase bottled beers and bottles of aerated waters are familiar with. Just outside the public house a policeman met the child, and with apparent ease he removed the label without damaging it. In the same way a letter for post may be opened after being sealed, or a postage stamp may be removed immediately after it is affixed to a letter or package. It is not believed generally that the legislature ever intended that the security should be cut so fine as in this case; any more than it is expected that the publican should detain the messenger and the utensil until the label dried. The great Trade Organisation took eminent counsel's opinion on the subject, and the brewers gave directions to their tenants accordingly. Hence the use of the label, which, according to the Folkestone Bench of Magistrates, is not in compliance with the Act.

One would have thought that the local Trade Protection Society would have taken some action in the case, if only to draw an explanation from the Bench as to the meaning of the special section of the Act to which the Chief Constable directed attention. Nor is it easy to see what action can be taken by the parents. If the publican is compelled to cork and seal the full bottle securely, it is too ridiculous to suggest that the parents must send the empty bottle “securely corked and sealed”. The members of the local Licensed Victuallers have, however, now decided not to serve any child under the age of fourteen under any circumstances whatever. But the Society hardly represents half the Trade in the district. It is a question whether those landlords who are the mere servants of the brewers dare refuse serving any child. All credit is due to the members of the Society for the steps they have taken.

The Act falls far short of what was expected, inasmuch as it does not prevent young children from going to public houses. In the Folkestone case referred to, the messenger was but eight years of age and moreover a girl. One of the strongest arguments in favour of a temperance measure was that children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited from going to public houses. But the Act which came into force on the first of this month does not protect the child from the contaminating influences of such places if it succeeds in making it difficult for the little one to sip from the bottle or utensil on the way home. Advocates of temperance are thankful, however, for the very incomplete Act they have got, and eagerly await the promised Government measure of licensing reform to be brought into the House of Commons in this Session.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 January 1902.

Local News.

At Folkestone on Wednesday, James Hill, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, was, under Section 5 of the Children's Act, fined 5s. and 15s. costs for serving a child with liquor in a bottle which was not properly secured. It was stated that the child was seen to come out of the place with a bottle, on which was a label, but this was not properly secured, a constable removing it without injuring it.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 January 1903.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold, Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. G. Peden, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer.

Stephen Brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on the 26th of December.

Inspector Lilley said on the day in question he saw the defendant in the Imperial Hotel, Foord Road. He was drunk, and was subsequently ejected and taken to the police station, where he was detained until he became sober. Defendant had a first given a false name and address.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 10 January 1903.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Stephen brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

Inspt. Lilley said about 20 minutes past six on the 26th of last month he heard a scuffle in the Imperial. On going inside he saw defendant surrounded by six men, trying to put on his coat. Defendant was afterwards ejected by the landlord and a barman, and then witness found he was incapable of taking care of himself, therefore he took defendant to the police station, where he was detained until sober.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1903.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before Alderman Penfold, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, Councillor Peden, and Mr. Stainer.

Stephen Brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Lilley stated that he went into the Imperial hotel, Foord Road, and found defendant drunk, trying to get his coat on. When outside he could hardly walk, so witness brought him to the station.

Defendant, who said he was very sorry, was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, in default 7 days' hard labour. The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Express 14 February 1903.

Thursday, February 12th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Alderman Salter, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling drink to a drunken person on licensed premises.

The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. J Minter appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk stated that the summons was issued under Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872, and opened the case in detail.

Mr. Wightwick asked if the case did not come under the new Act.

Mr. Minter replied that it did not.

The Town Clerk thereupon called Henry Frederick Martin Schutz, manager of the Leas Pavilion, who said Richard Gambrill was employed by him as porter. He had been there seven months. On January 22nd, in the evening about half past eight or a quarter to nine, he had occasion to send him out. When he returned he came to the conclusion, by the way he answered him, that he had had too much to drink, and he told him to go home. Under ordinary circumstances he would have left work between ten and half past.

By Mr. Minter: During the seven months he had been in his employ the man's conduct had been very good indeed. He could not tell if during the week previous he had been suffering from influenza. He knew he was an old army man, but he had never heard that he had had a sunstroke in India. He considered that on the evening in question he was not drunk, but under the influence of drink. He might, however, have been suffering from the effects of influenza. He seemed dazed. He had sent him to Mr. Pain's in Sandgate Road with a dozen lemonade bottles on an open tray, and he brought six back.

Mr. Minter: A pretty good performance for a drunken man, isn't it?

Charles Watson, living at 42, Fernbank Crescent, and staff cook at the Leas Pavilion, said on January 22nd he went to the Imperial Hotel about 10.40 at night. He saw Gambrill there, sitting on a seat in the bar. He came out with him, and left him at the bottom of Walton Road. He then seemed dazed, as if he had had two or three drinks.

By Mr. Minter: He saw Gambrill before he left the Leas Pavilion on January 22nd. He had complained to him about a week previous that he was suffering from influenza, and also of pains in the back and head. In walking from the Imperial Hotel to Walton Road the man walked all right. He was not drunk, but appeared to be under the influence of drink.

Amy Ruth Lane, living at 116, Garden Road, said on January 22nd she saw Gambrill at the Leas Pavilion at eight o'clock. She noticed that he was very ill, which he had been for some time. He may have had a drink, but had not had too much. She went to meet him when he left, and saw him again in the Imperial Hotel. He was sitting down quietly and said he was thinking. She asked him if he was coming home, and he got up and went out. She went home with him and arrived home talking the same as usual. After he got inside she locked the door.

At this point Mr. Minter objected. He did not think anything which took place afterwards in his own house ought to be gone into here. He did not think they ought to hear that on that particular charge.

The Chairman: Anything that took place in the house cannot have anything to do with this case.

The Town Clerk was seen whispering to the Clerk to the Justices, and Mr. Minter at once raised a vigorous protest. He said the Town Clerk was whispering loud enough for a deaf man to hear. He was actually trying to contradict his own witness, and he had never heard of such a thing in his life.

The Town Clerk replied with equal warmth that he was simply asking the Magistrates' Clerk if he could treat this witness as a hostile witness, which he had a perfect right to do.

Mr. Minter retorted that he should have applied to the Bench in the proper way, when he could have raised his objection.

The Chairman: I don't think we will trouble Mr. Minter about the matter. There is evidently no proof whatever that the man was drunk, and we shall dismiss the case.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 February 1903.

Thursday, February 12th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. W. Herbert, Alderman Salter, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

James Hill, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned for selling beer to a drunken person.

Considerable interest was manifested in the case, the Court being crowded. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

In opening the case for the prosecution, the Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) stated that the summons had been issued under Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872, which provided “that any licensed person who sells any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence 10”. It was not necessary for him to prove that the beer was actually sold to the man, neither was it necessary to prove that the licensee himself must actually know what was taking place, as he was responsible for the acts of his managers.

Mr. Kidson also reminded the Bench that the man in respect to whom this prosecution had arisen fell down the steps at his home on the evening of the alleged offence, and died from the injuries which he sustained. An inquest was subsequently held on the body. Whatever the Magistrates' decision was, added the Town Clerk, he felt sure they would come to the conclusion that it was a proper case to be brought before them, and that the police had not exceeded their duty in taking that step.

Henry Frederick Martin Schultz, manager of the Leas Pavilion, was the first witness called. He stated that deceased, Richard Gamble, had been in their employ as porter for about seven months. On Thursday, the 22nd of January, about half past eight in the evening, he sent him on an errand to Mr. Baines, jeweller, and from the answer he gave him on his return he concluded that Gamble had had a “drop too much”. In consequence of that, he told him to go home, but under ordinary circumstances he would not have left work until between ten o'clock and half past.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defence, witness said that during the time Gamble had been in the service of the Leas Pavilion his conduct had been very good indeed. He did not know that the man was suffering from influenza, although the same evening he had heard someone ask Gamble what was the matter with him. He had never heard that he had had a sunstroke whilst in India, but knew that he was an old Army man.

Mr. Minter: Has one of the policemen been to you to ask for information?

Witness: The Town Sergeant came and saw me about it.

Did Inspector Swift come to you? – Yes, he did.

When you told the Inspector he had had a drop too much, did you not also tell him you did not consider the man was drunk? – I told him that I did not think the man was drunk, but that he was under the influence of drink.

Witness further stated that he sent Gamble with a tray containing a dozen bottles of lemonade to Mr. Baines, whose residence was about 40 yards away across the road. He brought six bottles back again.

Mr. Minter: That is very good for a drunken man. (Laughter)

Charles Watson, a cook at the Leas Pavilion, said that on the 22nd of January he went to the Imperial Hotel about 20 minutes to 11 in the evening, and saw Gamble there. When they came out of the Imperial, he left Gamble at the bottom of Walton Road. Whilst in the hotel, Gamble sat on a seat in a sleepy attitude. He appeared to be dazed, and seemed as if he had had two or three drinks. Half a glass of beer, he noticed, was on the counter near him.

In reply to Mr. Minter, Watson said he saw Gamble at the Leas Pavilion at nine o'clock. For about a week he had complained to him that he was suffering from influenza, and had also complained of pains in his back and head. During the time he was with him after leaving the hotel – a distance of about 40 yards – Gamble walked alright. He (Gamble) was not perfectly sober, he was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk. What he (witness) observed might have been the effects of the pains in the man's back and head.

Amy Ruth Lang, 116, Garden Road, who is also employed at the Leas Pavilion, gave evidence to the effect that when she saw Gamble at eight o'clock in the evening, he looked very ill. He might have had a drink, but he had not had much.

At this stage, Mr. Minter interposed with the remark that he hoped they were not all going to be told they were drunk when they had had a glass of beer. If so, they would all be charged. (Laughter)

Continuing, witness observed that she saw Gamble later in the evening at the Imperial, when he was sitting down quietly, and seemed to be thinking. She asked him what was the matter with him, and he replied “Oh, I was just thinking”. She went home with him, and he talked as usual.

The Town Clerk was proceeding to question witness relative to what took place when witness and Gamble reached home, when Mr. Minter raised an objection to anything which transpired in the house being introduced into the case. The Bench upheld Mr. Minter's objection, upon which the Town Clerk intimated that his only object was to show the condition of the man when he reached home.

This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Minter was about to address the Bench for the defence when he was told by the Chairman that he need not trouble any further, as the Bench had come to the conclusion that there was no proof whatever that the man was drunk. Therefore the case would be dismissed.

Mr. Minter thereupon mentioned that defendant's licence was amongst those which were adjourned, and he had no doubt that it was adjourned because of a prior conviction against him for not properly sealing a bottle. It was the first case under the new Act in Folkestone, which place distinguished itself by being the first to obtain a conviction of that kind, and it came off. As the application for the licence was adjourned, and as some of the Magistrates were on the Licensing Committee, he wanted to disabuse their minds of the slightest pretence of that charge having been made.

The Chairman announced that the Bench were perfectly satisfied with Mr. Minter's explanation.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

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

They warned the holder of the licence of the Imperial Hotel, who was convicted on the 15th of January, 1902, for selling beer to a child under 14 years of age, except in a sealed vessel that any future breach of the licensing laws would jeopardise his licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 September 1903.

Thursday, September 10th: Before Aldermen T.J. Vaughan and S. Penfold, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Thomas Davis was charged with stealing a shilling from Thomas Basset, a labourer.

Prosecutor stated that he had been in company with Davis from about seven o'clock in the morning until about half past six in the evening the previous day. At that time prisoner asked him to lend him twopence. Witness took out a shilling from his purse, and prisoner, snatching it from him, went into the Imperial and called for a glass of beer. He was refused, because he had had enough to drink. When Davis came out of the public house witness asked him several times for the shilling, but prisoner refused to return it. He then gave prisoner into custody.

Inspector Swift proved the arrest of prisoner.

The Bench considered there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, and the case was therefore dismissed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 25 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th:

Mrs. Hill, widow of W. Hill, applied for a transfer of licence of the Imperial at Foord. The application, which was under the old Act of 1828, was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 28 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The licence of the Imperial Hotel from the late Mr. Hill to his executrix, Mrs. Hill.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

The licence of the Imperial Hotel was transferred from the late Mr. James Hill to his widow.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 September 1905.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Ald. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. W. Carpenter.

Peter Entwistle was charged with stealing a hospital collecting box from the Imperial Hotel.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, said he was in the bar on the 5th inst., and the box in question stood on the counter. The prisoner came in between 3 and 4 in the afternoon and was served with some drink. No-one else was in the bar at the time. Prisoner stayed about half an hour. About five o'clock witness missed the box. At 6.30 he went to the police station, and there saw the box (produced) and also the prisoner.

P.C. Verrier said: At 4.55 yesterday afternoon, from information I received, I went into a meadow at the back of Mr. Elliott's shop in Black Bull Road, and there saw the prisoner lying on his stomach. Within a foot of him lay the collecting box. In his right hand he had a knife open. Lying on the grass under his left hand was one shilling and threepence. I said to the prisoner “I shall take you to the police station and charge you with stealing it, belonging to someone and place unknown”. He replied “Do your duty, constable. I'm the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”. I then brought him to the police station, and from enquiries I found the box had been stolen from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. Prisoner was then formally charged with stealing the box and 1s. 3d. in money, and he made no reply.

The prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and said he had been in the employ of the Corporation for two years and four months. He was very sorry for what he had done, but he had been drinking heavily lately and did not know what he was doing.

The Chairman said it was a most despicable action, and prisoner deserved horsewhipping. He would be sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 September 1905.

Local News.

On Wednesday morning Peter Entwistle, a Corporation employee, was charged with stealing a hospital collection box containing 1s. 3d., the property of Alice Hill.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said that at three o'clock on the previous afternoon prisoner was in the bar of the Imperial. At the time there was one of the Victoria Hospital collecting boxes on the bar. After accused had left the bar the box was missing.

P.C. Vanier said that shortly after five on the previous afternoon, from information received, he went to a meadow in the Black Bull Road, where he saw prisoner lying on his stomach, and within a foot of him was the collecting box. Prisoner had an open pocket knife in his right hand. Lying under his left hand on the grass was one shilling and threepence in coppers. When told he would be charged, prisoner replied “Do your duty, constable. I am the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”.

Prisoner now pleaded Guilty. He said that he had been drinking heavily for days, and did not know what he was doing.

Fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1905.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Peter Entwistle was charged with feloniously stealing on the 5th inst. one collection box and one shilling and threepence in coppers, the property of Alice Hill.

James Hill said he lived at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and assisted his mother, Alice Hill, in the management. At three o'clock the previous afternoon he was in the bar, and he had on the counter at that time a collecting box of the Victoria Hospital. Prisoner came in between three and four, and witness served him. There was nobody else in the bar at the time. He stayed there about half an hour. Witness did not see him leave. He missed the box about five o'clock. At 6.30 witness went to the police station, where he saw the prisoner and also the box, which, as far as he could say, was the box which had been stolen.

P.C. Varrier said about five minutes to five the previous afternoon, from what he was told, he went into a meadow at the back of Mr. Elliott's shop in Black Bull Road. There he saw prisoner lying on his stomach, and within a foot of him laid a collecting box. In his right hand was a pocket knife open. Lying on the grass under his left hand was one shilling and threepence in coppers. Witness told prisoner he should take him to the police station and charge him with stealing the box and money from some person, or persons, unknown. Prisoner replied “Do your duty, constable. I am the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”. Witness brought prisoner to the police station, and then from enquiries he made, found the box had been stolen from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. When charged prisoner made no reply.

Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Guilty. He said he had been drinking heavily the last few days, and he did not know what he was doing. He had been in the employ of the Corporation for the last two years or more. He had lost that employment now. He had a wife and two children.

The Chairman described the theft as a “mean and despicable one”, and said the prisoner would have to go to prison for 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 September 1905.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Peter Entwistle was charged with stealing 1s. 3d. in a collecting box, the property of the Victoria Hospital, from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

Jas. Hill stated that he was the licence holder of the Imperial. At three o'clock on the 5th inst. he was in the bar, on which was a collecting box for the Victoria Hospital. Defendant came in between three and four, and witness served him. No-one was in the bar at the time. The defendant stopped half an hour, and at about five o'clock witness missed the box. At 6.30 he went to the police station, where he saw the prisoner and the box, which was the one produced as far as he could say.

P.C. Varrier stated that at about 4.55 the previous afternoon, from what he was told, he went into the meadow at the back of Black Bull Road, where he saw the prisoner lying on his stomach with the box about a foot away from him. In his right hand he had a pocket knife open, and lying on the grass under his left hand were one shilling and threepence in coppers. He told the prisoner he should take him to the police station and charged him with stealing it. Accused said “Do your duty, constable, I am the thief; it's the first time I have stolen in my life”. Witness took the prisoner to the station, and found that the box had been stolen from the Imperial public house, Black Bull Road. When charged the prisoner made no reply.

Prisoner stated that he had been drinking for the last two days, and did not know what he did. It was the first time he had done a thing of that sort. He had been an employee of the Corporation for the last two years, and was one now, when he was sober.

Alderman Vaughan said it was a mean, despicable thing to take the money away from the hospital. Prisoner would be sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 February 1906.

Wednesday, February 14th: Before Messrs. G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, T. Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

Alice Hill was to have appeared to a complaint charging her with selling adulterated whiskey.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the defence, and the case was adjourned with consent until next Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Daily News 21 February 1906.

Wednesday, February 21st: Before Messrs. G. Spurgen, T. Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

Mrs. Alice Hill was charged with selling a pint of Irish whiskey to which had been added more water than allowed by the Act. Mr. A.F. Kidson, Town Clerk, prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet defended.

Mr. J. Pearson stated that he visited the Imperial hotel, Foord, kept by the defendant, on the 19th January, and was served by the barman with a pint of Irish whiskey, for which he paid 2s. 8d. He divided the whiskey into three parts, giving the barman one, at the same time informing him that it was purchased for analysis. He put in the Analyst's certificate which showed that it contained 2.8 percent more water than permitted by the Act, viz., 25 percent.

Mr. De Wet contended that the certificate was not on the form prescribed by the Act.

Mr. Pearson was cross-examined. He admitted Mrs. Hill was not in the bar at the time of the sale.

For the defence Mrs. Hill said she did not know of the sale until after it took place. The licence had been held by her husband and herself for 22 years, and there had never been a conviction for adulterating spirits.

James Hill, son of the last witness, said he “broke down” the spirits. The whiskey served to Mr. Pearson was part of a 30 gallon cask, which the permit produced described as proof spirit. It was broken down to 25 percent under proof. The practice was to pour 2 gallons of spirits into a china keg and then pour in 5 pints of distilled water, which, according to a table produced, made it 25 percent under proof. The keg was filled up about a week before the sale. The whiskey was first put in, and then the water, and then several pints were drawn and poured in the top again. That was the course always adopted in his father's time. The funnel used to pour in Mr. Pearson's whiskey was also used for cordials, which could be sold for 60 under, and for gin, which could be sold 33 under proof.

In reply to Mr. Kidson, witness said he had not had his sample analysed. He could not understand how the whiskey was more than 25 percent under proof.

The table used by witness was produced, and Mr. Spurgen instructed the Bench in the use of it. They said witness's calculation was correct.

Mr. Hill said he did not test the 30 gallon cask of whiskey when it came in.

Mr. R.B. Straughan, of the Gun Tavern, said his experience was that if whiskey was put into a keg for about a week it lost about two degrees of strength. It might be weaker at the bottom than at the top if it was not properly mixed. He had found on several occasions that spirit he had received had been two or three degrees below that described on the permit, when tested by the hydrometer. Whiskey was apt to absorb moisture from the air if not kept airtight.

Mr. De Wet made a lengthy speech, contending that the prosecution had not made out their case on a number of grounds.

The Chairman said the Bench had no alternative but to convict, but they considered it rather as a case of carelessness. There would be a fine of 40s. with 35s. costs.

Mr. De Wet applied for an extension of time in which to give notice of appeal from three to seven days, but the Bench declined to accede.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 February 1906.

Wednesday, February 21st: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Lt. Col. Fynmore, and Mr. C. Ames.

Mrs. Alice Hill, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned under the Food and Drugs Act for selling adulterated whiskey. The Town Clerk prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet, who defended, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Mr. John Pearson said on the 19th of January at two o'clock in the afternoon he visited the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and asked for a pint of Irish Whiskey. He was served by defendant's son, and paid 2s. 8d. for the pint. Witness then divided the whiskey into three parts, observing the usual custom, and informed Mr. Hill jun. that it was for the purpose of analysis. The certificate of the Public Analyst (Mr. Percy Harvey), now put in, said that there was 3.73 percent of added water beyond the legal limit.

Mr. De Wet: Can you swear that this is the certificate of the Public Analyst?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. De Wet: Did you see him sign it?

Witness: I did not see him sign it, but I know the signature, having seen it hundreds of times.

Mr. De Wet: Did you procure the sample upon your own initiative?

Witness: No; under the direction of the Sanitary Authority.

Mr. De Wet: By a special resolution?

Witness: No, under a general authority (produced) given to me in 1903.

Mr. De Wet: How did you deliver the sample to the Public Analyst?

Witness: Personally.

Mr. De Wet: On the same day?

Witness: No, on the following day.

Mr. De Wet: Was Mrs. Hill in the bar when you were served?

Witness: I did not see her nor hear her at all.

Mr. De Wet: When the whiskey was served to you, can you tell me the procedures it went though in passing into the various bottles?

Witness: The whiskey was put into a pint and a half bottle which I took with me. It was then emptied through a funnel into three smaller bottles.

Mr. De Wet: Had they been used for samples before?

Witness: No; they were 6 oz. bottles and had not been used before. They were washed, turned upside down to drain, and thoroughly dried.

Mr. De Wet: You supplied your own funnel for the division?

Witness: Yes.

By the Town Clerk: The bottle was drained and thoroughly dry.

Mrs. Alice Hill was called by Mr. De Wet. She said she was a widow, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, and defendant in the case. She did not know about the sale of the whiskey until afterwards, as she was not in the bar. Witness put in the permit in regard to a quantity of whiskey of which the sample sold was a part. The Imperial Hotel had been conducted, witness said, by her late husband and herself for 22 years, and there had never been a previous prosecution for adulteration.

James Hill, son of the defendant, said he assisted his mother in the conduct of the business of the Imperial Hotel. It was part of his duty to break down the spirit. The spirit in the sample bottle taken by the Inspector was part of a bulk for which the Excise permit had been put in. In breaking down proof spirit the limit was 25 percent under. Distilled water was used to break down. The process followed by witness was to mix in a china keg (produced) two gallons of proof spirit with five and a half pints of distilled water. That was the formula according to the set rule (table put in); but witness, to be on the right side, only mixed five and a quarter pints of water with the whiskey. The keg had been filled a week previous to the inspector's call. To mix the water with the spirit, witness said he drew off about three pints from the bottom of the keg and poured the liquid back again into the top of the keg. Witness said he used to assist his father occasionally in breaking down proof spirit, and always adopted the same procedure. After Mr. Pearson had been served with his pint there was about a pint and a half left in the jar. He used the same funnel for serving cordials. In the case of cordials they were allowed to sell 60 percent under proof. The same funnel was used for gin, where the standard for sale was 32 percent under proof.

By the Town Clerk: Have you had the sample in the keg analysed?

Witness: No.

The Town Clerk: Can you explain how five and a half pints of water added to 32 pints of proof spirit bring it down to 25 percent?

Witness: No; all I can say is that the table says five and a half pints to two gallons.

The Town Clerk: You are quite sure that you did not put more water than five and a half pints?

Witness: Quite sure that I did not.

The Town Clerk: Did you test the whiskey to see it was up to proof before adding the water?

Witness: No; the certificate put in says it was “P.S.”, proof spirit.

The Town Clerk: Can you suggest any reason for the whiskey being under 25 percent.

Witness: No, I cannot.

Bernard Ross Straughan, the licence holder of the Gun Tavern, said if whiskey was put into a vessel like the keg produced he would expect it to lose about 2 percent at the end of the week. In his own experience such had been the case. Whiskey being lighter than water was supposed (the spirit) to rise to the top. Witness had received whiskey from different distillers supplied as “proof”, and upon testing it with an hydrometer found it to be 2 percent under proof. Again, from his own experience, he found that whiskey, if left open, would absorb moisture from the air.

By the Town Clerk: He did not ask the Magistrates to believe that if the whiskey was well mixed the spirit would rise to the top. He had heard the last witness describe the process of breaking down, and would not like to say the spirit would rise under those conditions. To prevent loss by evaporation, the spirit should be kept air tight. It was quite possible for the spirit to be supplied by the distillers under proof. This particular quantity might not have been proof in the first instance. The certificates were supposed to be correct, but witness remarked receiving a proof cask of 35 gallons, and upon testing it, finding it to be 3 percent under proof.

Mr. De Wet asked the Bench to dismiss the summons. The water, he said, had not been proved to have been added to fraudulently increase the bulk or conceal an inferior quality. In the course of a long address the advocate advanced the theory of the whiskey standing and the spirit rising to the top, and also advanced a number of technical objections as reasons why the summons against his client should be dismissed.

The Chairman, having consulted with Mr. Bradley, said the Bench had no alternative but to convict. They looked upon the case as an act of carelessness. Defendant would be fined 40s., and 1 15s. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of the usual time limit that he might consult the brewers with a view of appeal.

The request was refused, the Clerk remarking that this was not a case for endorsement of the licence.

 

Folkestone Express 24 February 1906.

Wednesday, February 21st: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

Mrs. Hill, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling adulterated whiskey.

Mr. Kidson prosecuted, and said the summons was issued under the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Pearson said on January 19th he visited the Imperial Hotel about two o'clock in the afternoon. He asked the barman, named Philpot, for a pint of Irish whiskey. He served witness with it, and he gave 2/8 for it. He then divided the sample into three parts, and told Philpot he had purchased it for the purpose of being analysed by the public analyst. One part he gave to the barman, a second he produced that day, and the third he delivered to the public analyst the following day. He put in the analyst's certificate, which showed that the sample contained 3.73 percent of added water beyond the legal limit.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, who appeared for the defendant, witness said he could swear that the writing on the certificate was that of the public analyst. Mrs. Hill was not in the bar when the whiskey was sold. He did not see her at all. The whiskey was put by the barman into a pint and a half bottle supplied by witness. He (the inspector) then put the whiskey into three smaller bottles. He supplied all the bottles, which had never been used for samples before. The bottles had been washed and had been turned upside down in order to drain until they had become thoroughly dry.

Mrs. Hill, the landlady, went into the box, and said she did not know of the sale of the whiskey until afterwards. Her late husband and herself had held the licence for 22 years, and during the whole of that time they had not been convicted for selling adulterated spirits.

James Hill, the defendant's son, said it was part of his duty to “break down” spirits. They broke down proof to 25 under. In breaking down distilled water was used. They usually broke down two gallons at a time, and emptied it into a china keg. To two gallons of whiskey they added 5 pints of water, which was according to the set rules. He filled the keg the week previous. He put the whiskey in the keg, and kept drawing a quantity and putting it in the top again, until it was properly mixed. After the inspector left there was a pint and a half left in the jar. The funnel used by Philpot for pouring the whiskey into the bottle was also used for gin and cordials.

Cross-examined, he said he did not test the whiskey before adding the water. He could not account for it being below 25 percent. They did not test the pint and a half left in the keg.

Bernard Straughan, the licensee of the Gun Tavern, said he should expect to find whiskey, after it had been in the keg a week, to have lost a matter of one or two degrees. Whiskey rose and water sank, so whiskey drawn from the bottom of a keg would be weaker than that at the top. Whiskey was also apt to absorb moisture from the air.

Mr. De Wet addressed the Magistrates at some length. He contended that the case should be dismissed under a section of the Act, because he could prove that the water was not added fraudulently to increase the bulk or to conceal inferior quality. Then, Mrs. Hill was not in the bar at the time, and in that case it could not be proved that the employer had any fraudulent intention in providing liquor for the employee to sell. That was a serious charge to bring against a licence holder, for if the Magistrates convicted it would be registered, and they had also the option of endorsing the licence. It would also be a serious thing for the owners to have a conviction entered in the register. In conclusion, he objected to the summons charging the defendant with wilfully adulterating the whiskey.

The Chairman said the Magistrates looked upon it as an act of carelessness, therefore they would mitigate the penalty, which would be 40s. and 35s. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of three days in which he could appeal against the conviction on the ground that the defendant was summoned for wilfully adulterating the whiskey. He asked for the time to be extended to seven days, so that he could consult with the brewers.

The Chairman said they could not grant the request. There would be no question of the endorsement of the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1906.

Wednesday, February 21st: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Councillor Fynmore, and Mr. T. Ames.

Mrs. Alice Hills, lessee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling adulterated whiskey. The Town Clerk prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet appeared for defendant. Mr. Kidson stated that the certificate of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the whiskey contained 3.73 percent of water above the legal limit, so that instead of there being 75 percent of spirit, there was only 72.2.

Mr. J. Pearson said that on the 19th January he went into the Imperial Hotel, and asked the barman for a pint of Irish whiskey. He was served and paid 2/8. He told the barman for what purpose he had bought the whiskey, and then divided it into three parts; the first he gave to the barman, Philpott, the second was now produced in Court, and the third he delivered to the Public Analyst at Canterbury the following day. The analyst's certificate, produced, showed that the sample contained 3.73 percent of water beyond the legal limit.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the form of certificate was not correct.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, Mr. Pearson said Mrs. Hill was not in the bar when the whiskey was sold. He had a pint and a half bottle with him at the time, and asked for the whiskey in that. The barman poured it in from a pint measure through a funnel. Witness then divided the whiskey from the bottle into three smaller bottles. All this was done in front of the barman. The bottles had not been used for samples before. He had his own funnel to put the whiskey from the big bottle to the smaller ones.

Re-examined by the Town Clerk, Mr. Pearson said that all the bottles and the funnel had been thoroughly rinsed and dried previous to taking the samples.

The Town Clerk said he had another witness who could corroborate Mr. Pearson's evidence, but Mr. De Wet said he was not disputing the evidence, and the additional testimony was not called.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mrs. Alice Hill, examined by Mr. De Wet, said she had heard nothing of the sale in question until afterwards. The licence of the Imperial Hotel had been in her husband's name, and – now she was a widow – in hers, for 22 years. To her knowledge, there had never during that time, been any conviction for selling adulterated spirits.

Arthur Hill, examined by Mr. De Wet, said he was the defendant's son, and assisted her with the management of the business. It was part of his duty to break down spirits. The spirits in the bottle (produced) were part of the broken-down spirits referred to in the certificate produced. (This was an Inland Revenue certificate to the effect that the spirits when delivered in the cask were proof.) He broke down spirits 25 percent under by using distilled water. Two gallons of spirit at a time were broken down, the mode of procedure being to empty the two galloons into a china keg (produced), and then add 5 pints of water. He last filled the keg up a week previously to the taking of the sample. After putting the whiskey and water in, he drew about three pints out and poured it in again at the top. After Mr. Pearson's visit there was about a pint and a half of whiskey left in the keg; he had not had that tested. The same funnel used for serving whiskey was also used for selling cordials, which were sometimes at sixty under proof, and gin, which might be sold at 30 under.

Examined by the Town Clerk, witness said the five and a half pints of water to two gallons of spirits was the quantity in books of tables; as a matter of fact he only put five and a quarter pints. He did not test the spirit to see if it really was proof before adding the water, nor did he test the broken-down mixture.

Mr. B.R. Straughan, lessee of the Gun Tavern, examined by Mr. De Wet, said that if whiskey was put into the jar produced he would expect it to have lost about a degree or two in strength at the end of the week. Whiskey rose to the top, and if drawn out from the bottom there was a probability that it would be weaker than at the top. He had sometimes found whiskey two and three degrees under proof when it was certified to be proof spirit by the excise certificate. If there was an illegal addition of water, the addition as shown by the analyst's certificate was so slight that it could not have been done for the purposes of fraud. Whiskey was apt to absorb moisture from the air.

The Town Clerk: Do you ask the Bench to believe that when whiskey has been well mixed the mixture at the bottom would be inferior to that at the top?

Witness: No, I do not say that.

Under the circumstances would the whiskey have been close to the top after a week? – I could not say that.

Mr. De Wet, in the course of a long speech for the defence, said that by the Acts of 1876 and 1879 it was provided that it was a good defence to prove that an admixture of water had not reduced the whiskey to more than twenty five percent under proof. Also if he could prove that the water was not added fraudulently to increase the bulk, he was, he considered, entitled to have the case dismissed. Mr. Straughan, whom he had seen only that morning, and who had offered to come forward and give evidence, without prejudice, had explained that spirit was apt to deteriorate through many circumstances. He (Mr. De Wet) did not know whether the justices had any experience of sampling whiskey, but if they had they would find that if whiskey was left in an open bottle overnight it was not so strong in the morning. (Laughter, which was speedily suppressed) He maintained that there was no legal limit to the amount of water that might be added. Whiskey was often sold at 33 under proof. The Act provided that whiskey might, sometimes, be sold at any strength. It was a most serious charge, because if there was a conviction, the register had to have the conviction recorded, and the Magistrates might endorse the licence. A very important point he wanted to bring forward was that the prosecution had not made out the charge of “wilfully” adulterating. In conclusion, he said there was a representative present from the establishment that supplied the whiskey if they desired to hear him.

The representative was, however, not called.

Alderman Spurgen said the Bench had no alternative but to convict, and Mrs. Hill would be fined 2 and 1 14s. 6d. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of the time to consider whether there should be an appeal. He thought he had a ground of appeal on the use of the word “wilful”.

Alderman Spurgen said he was afraid he could not grant the request. There would, however, be no endorsement of the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 January 1907.

Local News.

We regret to record the death of Mrs. Hills (widow of the late Mr. James Hills) of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. This lady, in a quiet and unostentatious manner, did an immense amount of good amongst the poor. To her children we tender our deep sympathy.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 6th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coollinge.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey.

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

The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory, and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny, pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful, and not create nuisances with these machines.

The licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen's Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition being given on the ground of redundancy.

The renewals of the licences of the Black Bull Hotel, Alexandra Tavern, Imperial, and Railway Hotel were all adjourned till the adjourned sessions for reasons not given.

The Justices fixed the 4th March as the date of the adjourned licensing meeting.

 

Folkestone Express 2 March 1907.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggatt, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The Imperial Hotel, to Mr. J. Hill.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.

Mr. Haines made an application in respect to the Imperial Hotel in Black Bull Road for a confirmation of the licence.

The licence was granted, the Chairman calling Mr. Hills' attention to a previous conviction for selling adulterated whiskey, and cautioned him as to his future conduct.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the renewal of the licence of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, which was formerly held by Mrs. Alice Hill, who died just previously to the licensing sessions. Since then it had been temporarily transferred to Mr. James Hill.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had no objection.

The Chairman, speaking to Mr. Hill, said he noticed there had been a conviction at the house during the last year for selling adulterated whiskey. They were going to grant him the licence, but he must take the conviction as a warning and be careful not to offend against the law.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.

Imperial Inn.

Mr. Haines made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Imperial Inn, Black Bull Road to the son of the deceased tenant. This was granted, but applicant was called forward and warned by the Bench, who reminded him that there had been a conviction against the house in the past year.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 August 1908.

Friday, August 7th: Before Messrs. Vaughan and Wood.

John Banks Pegden was charged with being drunk and incapable in Black Bull Road.

P.C. Prebble said at 10.30 last evening he saw the prisoner lying in the middle of the road on his back. Witness helped him up, but found he was too drunk to take care of himself. About a quarter of an hour before prisoner was ejected from the Imperial Hotel.

Prisoner said he fell on his head and stunned himself.

The Chief Constable: Weren't you drunk?

Prisoner: No, I don't think so.

He was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 15 August 1908.

Friday, August 7th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. R.G. Wood and C. Jenner.

John Banks Pegden was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous evening in Black Bull Road. He said in reply to the charge that he was not drunk.

P.C. W. Prebble said at about 10.30 the previous evening he saw the prisoner lying in the roadway. He helped him up, and, finding that he was too drunk to stand, he took him to the police station. About a quarter of an hour previously he had seen the prisoner ejected from the Imperial Hotel.

Pegden said he was very sorry it had occurred.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was a local man, but had not been before the Magistrates for five or six years. There were several previous convictions against him before that.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, a week being allowed for payment. Pegden, as he left the dock, promised that it would be the last time he would come there.

 

Folkestone Daily News 26 May 1909.

Wednesday, May 26th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Jenner, Fynmore, Stainer, Linton, and Boyd.

An application was made for permission to make certain structural alterations at the Imperial Hotel. The application was granted with the exception of that portion which related to the Children's Bar.

 

Folkestone Express 29 May 1909.

Wednesday, May 26th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman Jenner, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

Mr. Bromley presented plans for alterations to the bars at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

The justices retired in order to consider them, and on their return the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had decided to grant the alterations with the exception of those for the children's bar. They were only following out the decision which was arrived at by the Bench some time ago. They wished also to point out that provision for a children's bar did not come within section 16 of the 1902 Act.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 May 1909.

Wednesday, May 26th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Fynmore, and G. Boyd.

Mr. Bromley applied for permission to carry out certain alterations in connection with the rearrangement of the bars at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

After viewing the plans submitted, and having adjourned to consider the matter, the Chairman said that the Bench were prepared to grant the alterations, with the exception of those relating to the children's bar, and in doing that they were only following out the same decision arrived at some little time back by the Bench. The Bench would also point out that the provision for a children's bar did not come under section 16 or the 1902 Act.

On the understanding that the alterations with reference to the children's bar would be omitted the application was granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 July 1910.

Friday, July 8th: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Jenner, and Fynmore.

Albert Carter was charged with being drunk and incapable yesterday.

Sergt. Sales deposed that he saw defendant at 2.30 in the afternoon in Foord Road near the Public Baths. He was very drunk, and went into the Imperial Hotel, but the landlord refused to serve him. Defendant then went into the Red Cow public house and was again refused, and went in the direction of the Viaduct and up Derby Steps, where he had to hold on to the railings to keep himself from falling. Witness, with the assistance of P.C. Allen, took him into custody.

P.C. Allen and Sergt. Simpson corroborated.

Defendant said he was not drunk. He had been ill for five years, and a very little drink overcame him.

A fine of 2s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' was imposed.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 July 1910.

Friday, July 8th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Alderman C. Jenner.

Albert Carter, on bail, was charged with being drunk and incapable. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Sales deposed that at about 2.30 the previous afternoon he was in Foord Road, near the Public Baths, when he saw the defendant very drunk. Defendant went away in the direction of Black Bull Road. Witness followed him, in company with P.C. Allen, and saw him go into the Imperial public house, where he was turned out by the landlord without being served. About a quarter of an hour later he went into the Red Cow, and was turned out of there also. He then went away in the direction of the Viaduct, and went up the steps leading into Derby Place, and had the greatest difficulty in getting up. Seeing that he was incapable of taking care of himself, witness took him into custody, with the assistance of P.C. Allen.

P.C. Allen and Sergt. Simpson corroborated as to the defendant's drunken condition.

Defendant said he had been laid up with consumption for five years. He had a glass or two to drink, and it overcame him. He had not worked for nine months. He had a job to walk about. He had been a ratepayer for 34 years, and that was the first offence he had had brought against him.

The Chairman stated that the Bench felt very sorry that prisoner was in that position. They had a duty to perform to the public, however, and he thought that the police were to be commended on their conduct, and the publicans, for not serving him in the condition he was in. A fine of 2s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' imprisonment, was imposed, seven days being allowed in which to pay.

 

Folkestone Express 16 July 1910.

Friday, July 8th: Before Aldermen Vaughan and Jenner, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Albert Carter was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous afternoon. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Sales said at about 2.30 the previous afternoon he was in Foord Road, near the public baths, when he saw the defendant, who was very drunk. He went away in the direction of Black Bull Road, and he (witness), in company with P.C. Allen, followed him. He saw him go into the Imperial public house, so they followed him in, and the defendant was turned out by the landlord without being served. About a quarter of an hour later he saw the defendant in the Red Cow, from which he was ejected. Carter then went away in the direction of the Viaduct, and he went up Derby Place steps. He had the greatest difficulty in mounting the steps, and when about halfway up he stopped and held on the fence for support. Seeing that he was incapable of taking care of himself, witness, with the assistance of P.C. Allen, brought him to the police station.

P.C. Allen said at about 2.15 p.m. he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Castle public house. He advised him to go home. P.S. Sales then came up. Witness then corroborated the sergeant's statement.

P.S. Simpson said at three o'clock, when the prisoner was brought in, he was drunk.

Carter said he had been laid up with consumption for five years. He had a glass or two of liquor the previous day, and no doubt that overcame him. He had not worked for about nine months. His illness, however, made him stagger, and he had a job to walk about at times. Therefore the officer might have thought he was drunk.

Alderman Vaughan said the Magistrates thought the officers and the publicans were to be commended for the action they took. The Bench had a duty to perform, and they had decided to fine the defendant 2s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Daily News 20 July 1910.

Wednesday, July 20th: Before Messrs. Herbert and Stainer.

Herbert Edward Savage (sic), landlord of the Red Cow inn, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person on the 7th July. Mr. Haines appeared for defendant and pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, represented Leney and Co.

Sergt. Sales deposed: About 2.30 on the 7th inst. I was in Foord Road, near the Public Baths, when I saw a man named Carter, who was drunk. Shortly afterwards I saw Carter go into the Imperial public house. I went into the Imperial, and the landlord turned Carter out. About 15 minutes later, from something I was told, in company with P.C. Allen, I visited the Red Cow inn. In a bar I saw Carter seated near the counter. He had a glass containing rum on the counter. The barman was behind the bar, and I asked him to call the landlord, Mr. Savage, who came in. I said to him “You see this man's condition, landlord. He is drunk. He has been served with liquor”. Mr. Savage replied “I am very sorry. I did not know he was in the house”. The barman said “I served him”. The landlord then took the rum away, and advised Carter to leave the house. After Carter got up, I said to the landlord “You see he is drunk”, and he replied “I am very sorry, Sergeant”. Carter left, and shortly afterwards was locked up for being drunk and incapable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Was Carter discharged when summoned?

Witness: No. He was fined.

What made you think Carter was drunk? – By his manner and walk.

Could the landlord see he was drunk? – Not unless he saw him come in, as Carter went in and sat down.

Did you ask him to stand up? – Both the landlord and I did.

And Carter walked from the Red Cow to the Derby Steps without assistance? – Yes.

And went up the steps without assistance? – Yes, about half way up, and then held on to the rails.

Had the glass of rum been touched? – Well, it wasn't full.

P.C. Allen said he was in company with Sergt. Sales on the 7th July, and corroborated all the previous witness had said.

Sergt. Simpson said Carter was drunk when brought to the police station.

Percy William Attwood, landlord of the Castle Inn, said he ejected Carter because he was inclined to be troublesome when he had had a glass or two. Witness did not think Carter was drunk, although he had been drinking.

Defendant went into the witness box and said he had been manager of the Red Cow 11 years, and landlord five years. He did not see Carter come into the bar on the 7th July, and did not know he was there until Sergt. Sales spoke to him about it. He admitted that he did not contradict the Sergeant when told about Carter's condition.

George Barringer, barman at the Red Cow, said he served Carter with twopennyworth of rum, and he seemed alright. After being served, Carter sat down.

The Chief Constable: You were there when Sales came in? – Yes.

And you heard him call attention to Carter's condition? – Yes.

And you didn't say Carter was not drunk? – No.

Did he stagger when he stood up? - No, he stood up alright.

Alfred William Chambers, harness maker, Foord Road, said he saw Carter after he left the Red Cow, and he seemed to witness to be more ill than drunk.

The Chief Constable: Do you know Carter?

Witness: No.

Ever seen him before? – No.

Then the man you saw might not have been Carter at all? – Certainly.

Then what induced you to come here and give evidence? – Well, I was asked to come here and say what I saw.

Mr. Haines briefly addressed the Bench, pointing out that there was nothing to indicate that Carter was drunk when he was served by the barman. Every precaution was taken to guard against serving persons who were intoxicated, and this fact was borne out when he stated that no charge had been brought against this house during the last 16 years. He pointed out that it would be a serious matter for his client if he was convicted, and asked the Bench to take into consideration the good conduct of the house and dismiss the case.

The Bench retired for a few minutes, and on returning the Chairman said they had taken into consideration what Mr. Haines had said, and the case would be dismissed, but warned defendant to be careful in future.

 

Folkestone Express 23 July 1910.

Wednesday, July 20th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Herbert Edward Savage, the licensee of the Red Cow Inn, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors to a drunken person, on July 7th. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, and Mr. R. Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, watched the case on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners of the house.

P.S. Sales said at about 2.30 the afternoon of July 7th he was in Foord Road, near the public baths, when he saw a man named Albert Carter, who was drunk. Shortly afterwards he saw Carter go into the Imperial public house, Black Bull Road. In company with P.C. Allen, he went into the Imperial and called the landlord's attention to Carter's condition. Carter was turned out without being served. A quarter of an hour later, from something he was told, in company with P.C. Allen, he visited the Red Cow. In a bar, known as the bottle and jug department, he saw Carter sitting near the counter. A glass containing liquor was standing on the counter in front of him. He afterwards found the liquor was rum. The barman was behind the bar, and he asked him to call the landlord. Mr. Savage then came into the bar, and he said to him “You see this man's condition, landlord? He is drunk. He has been served with liquor”. Mr. Savage replied “I am very sorry. I did not know he was in the house”. The barman said “I served him”. The landlord then took away the glass containing the liquor, and advised Carter to leave the house. Shortly afterwards Carter was locked up for drunkenness on the Derby Place steps by P.C. Allen and himself. There was no-one else in the bar at the time. He told the landlord after Carter left that he should report him for a summons for supplying drink to a drunken person. Defendant replied that he was sorry. He did not say that Carter was not drunk.

Cross-examined, witness said Carter was not discharged by the Magistrates, but was fined. He was charged with being drunk and incapable, but was not charged with being drunk on licensed premises. In the first instance he was informed that Carter was drunk, and he also saw for himself when he came out of the public lavatory opposite the baths that he was drunk. He was led to think that the man was drunk by his general appearance and that he could not walk straight. He believed Carter was consumptive. Carter was able to walk to the Imperial without any assistance. He warned the landlord of that house because Carter was drunk. He was afraid the landlord would not have seen that Carter was drunk because he went in and sat down. It was their instructions to warn a publican when a drunken man went in the house. When carter got out of the house he advised him to go away, and Allen and himself (witness) went up the Black Bull Road. When he pointed it out to the landlord that Carter was drunk, they both of them asked him to stand up. Carter did stand up and did not fall over, although he had the usual difficulty of a drunken man in getting up. He got up from his seat without assistance. When they arrested Carter he was hanging on with one hand to the fence by the side of the Derby Place steps. He had no doubt about the man being drunk, while at the same time he might have been ill. He should think about a third of the contents of the glass in front of Carter had been drank. The man's symptoms were such that it must have been palpable to anyone that he was drunk. It could be easily detected that he was drunk by his gait.

Re-examined by the Chief Constable, Sales said if he had seen Carter enter the Red Cow he would have warned the landlord.

P.C. Allen said at a quarter past two on July 7th he was in Foord Road, near the Public Baths, when he saw Carter leave the Red Cow public bar, drunk. He saw him go across the road and enter the Castle Inn public house. He went to that house, and on pushing the door open he saw Carter go away, and he went down into the public convenience. P.S. Sales came up at about half past two, and Carter once again appeared and went into the Imperial. Witness then corroborated the previous witness's story of what afterwards occurred. He had no doubt that the man was drunk.

In reply to the Clerk, P.C. Allen said when Carter got up from his seat in the Red Cow he reeled a little.

Cross-examined, witness said that from 2.15 to a quarter to three Carter got gradually worse. The reason they left the man after he came out of the Imperial was because he had to work his beat, but before doing so they advised him to go away. They hoped that he would go home.

Percy Attwood, the landlord of the Castle Inn, Foord, said that he had known Carter for some time. On July 7th, at 2.15 in the afternoon, he was on the flat top of the front portion of his premises when his attention was called by a plumber to Carter coming from the direction of the Red Cow. The man went up to some dustmen and began kicking about a heap of dirt which they had just swept up. Noting his actions, he (witness) went down into the bar, thinking that he might come into the house. Carter came in immediately after. He ordered him to leave before he asked for any drink, and ultimately he had to eject him. He looked out of the window afterwards and saw Carter go towards Black Bull Road. He man walked all right. The man's actions in the road, and as his previous experience of the man led him to think that he would become a nuisance, were the reasons why he ejected him.

The Chief Constable: You say that and no other reason caused you to refuse to serve him?

Witness: He was a trifle thick in his speech.

Cross-examined, Mr. Attwood said when he was on the top of the front portion of his house he saw Carter was in some way under the observation of the police. He refused to serve him in order to avoid any trouble in his house. His wife, who was serving in the bar, would not have served Carter, who had not been served by her for two years. Witness, however, had served him once or twice during the last month or so.

The Clerk: The Bench would like to know if you would have served Carter yourself if you had not seen what you had outside? – No, sir.

Why not? – Because he was a man, when he had had a drink or two, would behave in a hostile manner and challenge anyone. I thought he was likely to get up to his horse-play.

Answering further questions, witness said he was of opinion that Carter had had a glass or two of beer, and was in a condition likely to cause trouble. In his opinion the man was not drunk. When P.S. Sales came to see him about four or five days after, he told him what he told the Magistrates about the man's condition.

P.S. Simpson gave evidence that when Carter was brought in at 3 p.m. on the 7th he was drunk.

Defendant went into the witness box and gave evidence on his own behalf. He said he had been the tenant of the Red Cow for five years, and for the previous eleven years he had acted as manager for his sister. During that time there had been nothing against the house. He had always given his barmen instructions not to serve anyone in any way intoxicated. Until he was called into the bar, when P.S. Sales and P.C. Allen were present, he had not seen Carter before that day. He asked Carter to stand up and he did so. He also saw him walk from his premises to the Viaduct. There was nothing about his appearance or gait to lead him to think he was drunk.

The Chairman: When the police called your attention to the man's condition, did you deny that he was drunk? – No.

The hief Constable: The sergeant told you when you got out of the bar that he should report you. Did you deny that Carter was drunk? – No.

Did you say “I am sorry”? – I did.

George Barringer, a barman in the defendant's employ, said he was in the bar when Carter came in and called for two pennyworth of rum. Carter stood when asking for the liquor, but sat down when he was served. He had no conversation with the man, whom he thought was quite sober. He certainly did not appear to be drunk.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said that neither the landlord nor himself denied that the man was drunk. Carter had previously been in the house, and he was served on that occasion with two pennyworth of rum. When the man was told to stand up, he stood up, although he was not erect.

Alfred William Chambers, harness maker, of 122, Foord Road, said about 2.30 on the afternoon of the 7th his attention was attracted to a man outside the Red Cow. He saw him walk in the direction of the Viaduct, followed by the police officers. He certainly did not think the man was drunk; he looked more ill than drunk.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know the man Carter, and he could not say that the man referred to was Carter.

Mr. Haines then briefly addressed the Bench.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into court, the Chairman said the Bench had very carefully considered all the evidence, and taking into consideration the character Savage had borne, the character the house had always borne, and all the circumstances, they were inclined to deal very mercifully with him. Technically, they could have brought him in Guilty, but taking everything into consideration, they would dismiss the charge. He hoped it would be a warning to him, and to all publicans and barmen, to look very carefully before serving anyone.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1910.

Wednesday, July 19th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Herbert Edward Savage was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Mowll, of Dover, represented Messrs. Leney and Co.

P.C. Sales said that about 2.30 p.m. on the 7th inst. he saw a man named Carter, who was drunk, in Foord Road, near the Public Baths. Shortly afterwards this man went into the Imperial public house. In company with P.C. Allen, witness then went into the Imperial, and called the landlord's attention to Carter's condition. The landlord sent Carter out without serving him. About half an hour later, from something he was told, witness, still in the company of P.C. Allen, went to the Red Cow Inn (kept by the defendant). There, in the bar known as the bottle and jug department, they saw Carter, who was sitting near the counter. Near him was a glass containing a quantity of drink. Witness did not know at the time what it was, but afterwards found out that it was rum. The barman was behind the counter, and witness asked him to fetch the landlord. The barman did so. Witness called the landlord's attention to Carter's condition, saying that he was drunk, and that he had been served. Defendant replied that he was very sorry, and that he did not know that Carter was in the house. The barman stated that he had served Carter. The landlord took the glass away. Carter was advised to leave the house, which he did. When he went out witness said to defendant “You see the man is drunk, don't you?” He replied “I am very sorry, sergeant”. Shortly afterwards Carter was locked up for drunkenness. He was near the Derby Place steps when witness and P.C. Allen arrested him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that when he was in the Red Cow he did ask Carter to stand up. He got up without falling over, and without assistance. He walked down the road without assistance. Carter got part of the way up Derby Place steps, and then stopped. It was witness's opinion that he could not go any further. Carter might have been ill, but in witness's opinion he was undoubtedly drunk. There was a handrail part of the way up the steps.

P.C. Allen corroborated.

Cross-examined, witness stated that Carter was drunk when he first saw him, but got worse. There was no doubt he was drunk, as he reeled when he walked. When he stood up in the Red Cow he reeled, although he stood up without assistance. He walked down the road after he had left the Red Cow without assistance.

Percy William Attwood, the landlord of the Castle, said that he was on the flat roof of his premises at about 2.15 p.m. on the day in question, talking to a plumber who was doing some repairs. From what the plumber said he looked over into the road, and there saw Carter. Two policemen were watching him. Witness could not form any idea as to how he was walking as he came from the direction of the Red Cow, and witness could only see him side face. Carter came across the road, and started to kick up some dust that the roadmen had swept up. Witness then went downstairs into the bar, as he thought perhaps Carter might come into his house. Carter did come into the house, but witness told him that he would not be served.

P.S. Simpson said that he was on duty at the police office when Carter was brought in. There was no doubt that he was drunk.

Defendant, in the witness box, stated that he had been the landlord of the Red Cow for 5 years, and had been manager there for his sister for 11 years. During that time there had been nothing against the house. There were four bars in the house. He kept a barman, and always gave him instructions never to serve an intoxicated person. He knew Carter, but until he had been called into the bar by the policemen he had not seen him that day. Defendant told Carter to stand up, and also saw him walk out of the house. He stood up without assistance, and walked away all right. He had said he was sorry because he was sorry to see the man in that state.

George Barringer, the barman at the Red Cow, said that he had been in the house over four years. He was in the bar when Carter came in. He walked in all right, and asked for twopennyworth of rum. He sat down in the bar when he had been served. There was nothing in his appearance to suggest that he was drunk. Witness would not have served him had he been drunk.

Questioned by the Chief Constable, witness said Carter was only in the bar about four or five minutes on the outside on this occasion. He had been in the bar before that morning, and had had a similar drink.

William Chambers, a harness maker, residing at 123, Foord Road, stated that he was going out for a drive at about 2.30 p.m. on the day in question. His attention was drawn to Carter by the fact that the two policemen were following him. He did not know Carter at all, and was therefore not sure that he was the man that the police were following. The man that they had under observation was certainly not drunk. Witness added that he was not absolutely positive that the man he saw was the man in question.

The Bench, after a short deliberation in private, returned, and the Chairman said the case should be a warning to publicans and barmen in the future to look very carefully at their customers. It was all very well for them to say that they did not know that the man was drunk, but unfortunately the Act did not allow this as any defence. However, in view of the previous good character of the house, the Bench thought they might dismiss the case against Mr. Savage.

 

Folkestone Express 3 September 1910.

Wednesday, August 31st: Before Aldermen Penfold, Spurgen, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Small was summoned for an assault. He pleaded Guilty.

Courtenay Williams said on August 20th he was in the Imperial Hotel, when the defendant went across to him and said he would disfigure him for life. Subsequently he went out, and when in Linden Crescent Small dashed across at him, knocked him down, and bit him right through the bridge of his nose and also on the side of his cheek. He had to attend the Hospital.

Defendant, who said Williams struck him first, was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'. He was allowed a week in which to pay.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 September 1910.

Wednesday, August 31st: Before Aldermen S. Penfold, T.J. Vaughan, and G. Spurgen, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Small was summoned for assaulting Courtney Williams. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Williams stated that on August 20th he was sitting in the Imperial Hotel. Small came in, and walking across to witness, said “You're a pretty man, you are”, adding that he would wait for witness if he had to wait till 11 o'clock, when he would disfigure witness for life. After witness came out of the Imperial, he walked with his wife towards Linden Crescent, when defendant overtook them. Defendant then “went for” witness, and in the struggle bit him through the nose and cheek. Witness had to go to the hospital about the injuries, which were still apparent.

Defendant stated that the grievance was an old one, and had started when complainant brought an undesirable visitor to his (defendant's) house. Complainant owed him two months' rent.

The Chairman said that defendant had no business to assault complainant in the way he did. If complainant owed him any money, defendant had his legal remedy. He would now be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14 days'. He was allowed a week in which to pay.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 December 1910.

Monday, December 12th: Before Justices Ward, Spurgen, Fynmore, Vaughan, and Wood.

Stephen Charles Maxted was charged with being drunk and disorderly outside the Imperial Hotel in Black Bull Road on Sunday night at ten minutes past ten.

P.C. Weller deposed to seeing accused, who was shouting at the top of his voice. He was in company with others. The constable remonstrated with him and he went to his house in Black Bull Road, which was close by. He afterwards came out and continued shouting. Weller, with the assistance of another constable, took him into custody.

Accused, who had been bailed out, pleaded Guilty, telling the Bench that he had taken a little drink, which overcame him in such a way that he lost control of himself, for which he was very sorry.

But, alas, he was only an English labouring man. He was not a clergyman or a Temperance reformer receiving a large salary, so his plea and explanation were of no avail. Neither had he been annoying respectable women in public thoroughfares. There had been no such complaint about him.

They fined him the sum of 9s. 6d. including costs, which he paid cheerfully with a smile, justifying his appearance of being a good English sportsman, although he will have to work very hard for at least three days to earn the 9s. 6d.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1914.

Obituary.

Residents in the Foord district will particularly regret the death of Mr. Arthur Hills, who died at the Imperial public house, Black Bull Road, on Sunday. He was well-known in the town, and was respected by a large circle of friends. The funeral took place on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 August 1914.

Obituary.

We sincerely regret the passing away of Mr. Arthur Hill, at the early age of thirty three. The sad event took place on Sunday last at the Imperial Hotel, Foord, which has been associated with the Hill family for many years.

The deceased, who had been ailing for some months, was possessed of a singularly bright and happy disposition. Quiet and unobtrusive, he did much good by stealth. He was a constant supporter of football, and all other many games. It can be truly said he leaves this world scene honoured and respected by all who knew him. To his family we tender out heartfelt sympathy.

The funeral took place on Wednesday last amidst many manifestations of regret. In the locality in which the deceased had resided for so many years every blind was drawn, whilst the crowd saluted respectfully as the funeral cortege proceeded on its journey to the cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 September 1918.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Friday the licence of the Imperial Hotel, Foord, was temporarily transferred from Mr. James Hill to Mr. Thomas Clement.

 

Folkestone Express 5 October 1918.

Local News.

The licence of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was on Friday temporarily transferred to Mr. Thomas Clement, of Croydon, from Mr. Hill, who is joining up.

 

Folkestone Express 16 November 1918.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions at the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Imperial, from Mr. J. Hill to Mr. Clement.

 

Folkestone Express 1 January 1921.

Local News.

Yesterday (Thursday) morning about 7.40, Mr. Frank Macklin, of 67, Pavilion Road, was driving a motor lorry down Black Bull Road, when, to avoid colliding with a car going up the road, he tried to turn the lorry into Park Street. The lorry failed to come round, and dashed into the doorway of the Imperial Hotel. The front of the premises was considerably damaged, and woodwork, bricks, and other debris were thrown into the bar, which presented a desolate appearance. Frank Moyles (24), of 36, Queen Street, an employee at the Gas Works, who was riding on the lorry, was thrown off and slightly injured.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 January 1921.

Local News.

An alarming accident occurred in Black Bull Road at 7.30 a.m. on Thursday. A large motor lorry owned by Mr. Macklin (who was driving) was coming down the road at a moderate pace, its destination being the Gas Works. When opposite Park Street, the motor swerved in order to avoid a collision with one of Messrs. Gironimo's vans, and dashed with considerable momentum into the main entrance of the Imperial Hotel. The door was staved in and much brickwork displaced. The interior of the main bar as filled with plaster, glass, and other debris, and adjacent rooms were smothered with plaster and dust.

Mrs. T. Clements, the wife of the landlord, when interviewed, said “It was very quiet at the time, when suddenly there came a sudden something – call it a bang or a crash or both. The thought flashed across my mind that there had been a mine explosion, or something of that sort. My husband and myself dashed downstairs, after making sure of the safety of the children, and on going to the bar we found a motor right on the steps of the door, in fact, the bonnet was inside”.

Mr. Clements added that if the accident had occurred when the public bar was full of customers, someone must certainly have been killed.

 

Folkestone Express 6 May 1922.

Local News.

The licence of the Imperial Hotel has been transferred from Mr. T. Clements to Mr. A. Eyles, late motor proprietor, of 4, Bouverie Road, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1923.

Local News.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Police Court, Mr. Jackson, architect, Ashford, submitted plans for alterations to the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the plans were approved.

 

Folkestone Express 6 September 1924.

Tuesday, September 2nd: Before the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Miss Hunt, and Col. Broome-Giles.

Percy Edwin Bates was charged with obtaining 5 by false pretences from Mr. A.G. Eyles on June 18th.

Alexander George Eyles, the licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said the prisoner came to his house on June 18th. He had been introduced to him the day before. The prisoner asked him if he would cash him a cheque for 5; it was quite bona fide. He replied “Yes. The man who recommended you said you were quite all right”. The previous day he had cashed him a cheque for 3, but that was not drawn on his account. On the 18th the prisoner wrote out the cheque (produced) from a book he had in his possession. He observed it was not a cheque. He gave no explanation. He cashed the cheque on the belief that he had the power to draw the money. He paid the cheques into his account the next day, but it was returned.

Mrs. Daisy Bates, the wife of the prisoner, said she had an account at the Canterbury branch in June. Prisoner had authority to write cheques upon it in her name. The account was closed by her after prisoner was sent to Maidstone. Prisoner had every right to draw the cheque (produced). She had always given her authority to draw the cheques as she always had the money there to meet the amount he required. She had not given authority to the bank to pay the cheques, but it was an understood agreement between herself and prisoner that he should draw cheques on her account when he had not sufficient money to meet them. She did not know whether he had an account in June. He had two accounts at the National Provincial Bank. Some of the money was hers. She knew nothing about the cheque.

Alfred Thomas Counter, Manager of the National Provincial Bank at Canterbury, said he was acquainted with the last witness. She had an account that was opened some few months and closed in June this year. The cheque (produced) was presented on the 22nd June. The cheque was returned marked “irregularly drawn”. He did not communicate with Mrs. Bates.

In reply to prisoner, witness said he did not know of any cheque in that form having been passed by the bank.

The Chairman said they had patiently listened to what Mrs. Bates had to say, and they felt there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction, and the case would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 September 1924.

Tuesday, September 2nd: Before the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

Percy Edward Bates was charged with obtaining 5 by false pretences from Mr. A. Eyles, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, on June 18th.

Alexander Geo. Eyles, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said that the prisoner, who had been introduced to him the day before, came to his house on June 18th. He asked witness to cash him a cheque for 5, saying that it was quite bona fide. Witness agreed, and said that the man who recommended prisoner was quite all right. The previous day witness had cashed a cheque, not drawn on prisoner's account, for 3. He then wrote out the cheque (produced) from a cheque book in his possession. Witness gave him five 1 Treasury notes for the cheque, which, he observed, was not drawn on prisoner's account. He made no comment, and prisoner gave no explanation. Witness cashed the cheque, believing that he had the power to draw it, and that it would be met on presentation. The following day witness paid the cheque into his account, but it was later returned, marked “Irregularly drawn”.

Mrs. Daisy Bates, wife of the prisoner, said that in June last she had an account with the Canterbury branch of the National Provincial Bank. Prisoner had authority to draw cheques upon it in her name. The account was closed after Mr. Bates was sent to Maidstone. Prisoner had every right to draw the cheque (produced) on June 18th. Witness had always given him authority because she had the money in the bank to meet whatever he wanted. She could not say whether he had drawn any cheques in that form, but it was an understood thing between prisoner and herself that he should draw cheques on her account when he himself had not sufficient money to meet them. She could not say of prisoner had an account at the Canterbury bank in June, but he had had two accounts this year. Witness's account was opened at the end of last year. Some of the money was hers, and at various times defendant gave her money to put in. She knew nothing about the 5 cheque until Mr. Eyles wrote to her about it some time after Mr. Bates was sent to Maidstone. She communicated with Mr. Shea (defendant's solicitor) for him to deal with the matter. She heard nothing whatever from the bank about it.

Mr. Alfred Thomas Counter, Manager of the National Provincial Bank, Canterbury, said that the last witness had had an account at the bank for some few months. It was closed at the end of June this year, Mrs. Bates calling in the money. The cheque produced was presented for payment some time about June 23rd. Mrs. Bates's account was then open, with a sufficient balance to meet the cheque. The cheque was returned marked “Irregularly drawn” because the bank held no authority from Mrs. Bates for cheques to be drawn like that. No cheque had been presented previously in that form for payment.

Prisoner: Why did you take the action you did in returning the cheque to Mr. Eyles immediately, when you could easily have communicated with my wife? Rather a smart thing to do! – We only followed our usual custom.

You are quite sure no other cheque has been drawn in this manner? – None as far as I know. If they were it would have been an oversight. I do not know of any.

The Chairman said that the Bench had patiently heard all that Mrs. Bates had to say. They felt, after listening to her statement, that there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Prisoner would be discharged.

The Bench gave Mrs. Bates permission to see her husband, who was accompanied by two warders from Maidstone prison.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 December 1925.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death, on the 24th ult., at 4, Pavilion Road, at the age of forty eight, of Mr. James Hill, second son of the late Mr. and Mrs. Hill, of the Imperial Hotel. After the death of his father, in conjunction with his late brother, deceased took over the hotel, but subsequently retired from the business. He was widely known and respected. The late Mr. Hill was unmarried, but leaves several close relatives. The funeral took place on Monday at the Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1929.

Local News.

Michael Piert was charged at Folkestone Police Court on Monday with doing wilful damage on the previous Saturday evening by smashing two glass windows and one glass panel in a door, the property of Alfred Edward Milton, of 63, Black Bull Road.

Mr. Milton said on Saturday night, between 9.30 and 10 o'clock, he went to get a glass of beer at the Imperial. Defendant also came in and asked for a drink, but was refused. Witness came out, and was on his way home, as he expected a visit from defendant. Witness's daughter came running down and said “He is up home, Dad, kicking up a noise”. Witness told her to fetch the police, and he would go home. He went home, and as he got in the door, he heard a man using filthy language to witness's wife, who was a confirmed invalid. As soon as he heard it, witness caught hold of defendant by the scruff of the neck, and threw him across the room. Defendant got up, and after a good struggle witness got him into the passage. Defendant went outside, and deliberately turned round and smashed a plate glass window pane in the door with his fist. He was intoxicated. He struck it with his fist, which went right through, and was cut a lot. Two minutes afterwards defendant turned round again and put his fist through another square of glass. The police then came up and took defendant in charge. The value of the glass was 15s. 6d.

P.C. Kennett said he went in consequence of a complaint and found a crowd of people surrounding defendant outside 63, Black Bull Road. Defendant was bleeding from both his face and fist, and was in a very intoxicated condition. Witness asked him what was the matter, and defendant replied “The woman I love is in that house. I mean to have her”. Mr. Milton said “I wish to give him in charge for smashing my window”. Witness cautioned defendant and told him he would take him to the police station on that charge. Witness took him to the police station, where he charged him. Defendant replied “I understand”. Witness went back to the house afterwards and discovered two panes of glass broken in the front window, and one in the front door.

Defendant told the Court he was at present working for the Canterbury Corporation, where he had a permanent job. He came down on Saturday night to get some articles which were at 63, Black Bull Road. He had been writing for them, but could not get them. He went to the door and got no answer to his knock, so he opened it and went in, finding Mrs. Milton there. Defendant alleged that when he went into the kitchen she started to call him names. He had had a few drinks, so he lost his temper. It was the first time he had been to the Police Court. He wanted to get back to the place where he came from.

Mr. Milton told the Magistrates that there was a little clock at the house belonging to defendant, and two or three more small things.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said in July this year, from enquiries that had been made respecting the man, it was discovered that defendant and the daughter of Mr. Milton had been living together as man and wife, but were not married. Mr. Milton had been much upset, and had taken his daughter back to his own house and had refused defendant the house. Defendant had no right in the house at all and no right to force his way into it. He had not been in trouble before.

Defendant was fined 10s., and ordered to pay 15s. 6d. for the damage, a total of 25s. 6d. In default, he would go to prison for 14 days. He was allowed 7 days in which to pay.

Alderman G. Spurgen was in the chair.

 

Folkestone Express 27 May 1933.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions on Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court, the licence of the Imperial, Black Bull Road, was transferred from Mr. D.C. Harlow to Mr. T.S. Kensit, formerly of the Crown Inn, Nutfield, Surrey.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 May 1933.

Local News.

At a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday the licence of the Imperial Hotel was transferred from Mr. D.C. Harlow to Mr. J.S. Kensit, of Nutfield, Surrey.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1934.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Councillor W. Hollands, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

An application for a licence for the use of wireless at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1934.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

An application was made by Mr. Kennett for a wireless licence in respect of the Imperial Hotel, Folkestone.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1938.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, the Folkestone Magistrates approved alterations to the Martello Hotel, Dover Road, and the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 November 1947.

Local News.

Admissions by a member of the crew of S.S. Whitstable concerning bottles of brandy resulted in the appearance of himself, a Folkestone licensee, and two other persons at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Friday.

James Standon Kensett, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was fined 10 for receiving two bottles of brandy from a person not having the authority to sell or deliver them. Oliver Jeffrey Everest, of the S.S. Whitstable, was fined 5 for being concerned in a fraudulent attempt at evasion of Customs duty on four bottles of brandy, a bottle of liqueur, a bottle of wine, a clock, and 35o cigarettes, and 2 for dealing in un-Customed goods. George Henry Lambert, a car park attendant, of 8, Langdon Road, Morden, Surrey, was fined 2 for dealing in un-Customed goods. Charles Carter, 33, Fernbank Crescent, Folkestone, was fined 2 for receiving three bottles of brandy from a person not having authority to sell or deliver them.

A further summons against Kensett for being knowingly concerned in dealing in un-Customed goods – two bottles of brandy – was withdrawn, and a summons against Carter for dealing in three bottles of brandy was also withdrawn.

Miss Dorothy Dix represented Kensett.

Mr. W.L. Fearnehough, prosecuting, said Everest was a member of the crew of the S.S. Whitstable when it arrived at Dover on July 5th. He declared 100 cigarettes. A Customs rummage crew went on board and Everest, asked if he had any dutiable articles, declared a small quantity of wine, a little brandy and a few cigarettes. The other articles were found in top and bottom drawers underneath his bunk. When asked what he intended to do with the articles he at first said they were for his own use, but later he said he intended to sell them. All the summonses arose out of admissions by Everest. He said he had sold five bottles of brandy on June 27th and one bottle on July 1st to Lambert. The second summons against Everest and Lambert was for dealing in nine bottles of brandy, which Everest admitted bringing in on a previous occasion. Three of the bottles went to Carter, who took them to Kensett and sold two of them to him for 2 a bottle. As landlord of a public house Kensett should have known perfectly well that he was doing wrong in buying the brandy.

Carter told the Magistrates that he went to the Bathing Pool car park, where Lambert worked, and asked him if he would like a bottle of brandy. Lambert told him that he did not drink the stuff but he might know somebody who would want a bottle. The same evening he went to the Imperial Hotel and the landlord said he would have a bottle. Lambert said he could have three bottles if he liked, but Kensett only wanted two, so he took the other bottle back to Lambert. He was not trying to make any profit out of it.

Everest said he was sorry for what had happened. He appreciated what it had done for him; he had lost his job.

Lambert said the bottles had been returned so the Customs had lost nothing, but he had lost 10 and his job.

Miss Dix, on behalf of Kensett, said he had been a licensee for 25 years, 14 years at the Imperial Hotel. The summons against him, in her submission, was a trivial matter. Anybody who received a bottle of spirits from a person who was not authorised was committing an offence.

Kensett purchased the two bottles, but it was not a business transaction in his capacity as a licensee. The bottles were not bought for use in the bar but for private consumption.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 February 1959.

Local News.

A 44-year-old unemployed man, who stood in as Secretary of a men’s darts club at a Folkestone public house for three months, and admitted converting to his own use 5 8/8 he collected from members' subscriptions, appeared at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, on Tuesday.

The man, Louis James Beaney, of 14, Brabner Close, Folkestone, was charged with fraudulently converting the money to his own use.

Prosecuting, Mr. R. McVarish said a men’s darts club was formed at the Imperial Hotel last September, and members paid subscriptions at the rate of 1/- a week. In October, when the Secretary fell ill, defendant took over as Secretary and collected the subscriptions. For a time, continued Mr. McVarish, everything was satisfactory and defendant appeared quite efficient at the job. By the middle of December complaints were received by the committee from members, alleging certain deficiencies in the finances. A meeting was held and deficiencies amounting to 5 8/8 were found. Mr. McVarish said Beaney was questioned and admitted the deficiencies. He said he would replace the money the following Tuesday, when he received payment for a printing machine he was selling. It was not repaid on the Tuesday evening and the police were informed. Defendant admitted to the police that he took and used the money. In a statement, Beaney said he did not take the money in one lump. He described it as “overspending” and added that if he had been working the money would have been paid back.

Defendant told the magistrates that he had been on the sick list for six years. He had had occasional work during that time, but the last occasion he was working was nearly three years ago. It lasted three months before he had to go back on the sick list. He would be able to pay the money off when he sold the printing machine. The person who was going to buy it had backed out of the deal.

P.C. Tilley stated that Beaney had served 18 years in the Army, being discharged in 1951 on compassionate grounds. He had had some employment in the Folkestone area, but was unable to keep a job owing to illness from a type of paralysis. Defendant had one previous conviction when, at Bognor Regis Magistrates’ Court, in 1939, he was bound over for 12 months for stealing a serviette.

Beaney was granted a conditional discharge and ordered to pay the money at the rate of 5/- a week.

 

Folkestone Gazette 15 September 1965.

Local News.

A pile of pennies, which had taken nearly three years to grow, came crashing down at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, Folkestone, on Saturday night. It took a hefty push from two pretty young ladies, Miss Folkestone, 23-year-old Maurine Irving, and her immediate predecessor, Miss Valerie Atkins, to send the pile of 6,984 pennies - 29 2s. – crashing.

Afterwards, Mrs. Pamela Scott, wife of the licensee, Mr. Dennis Scott, said “There were pennies here, there and everywhere. Now we have started a new pile and it is already growing quite well”. The pile was just a few inches high when when Mr. And Mrs. Scott first took over the hotel when they came to Folkestone from London two and a half years ago. “It was good to see the pile mounting up month by month”, said Mrs. Scott. “Now we are looking forward to seeing the next one reach the top”.

Mr. A. Whitcombe was there to receive the money on Saturday, on behalf of the Spastics Society.

Not all the money in the pile was donated by hotel patrons. A group of local youngsters heard that the pile was in aid of spastic children and played their part.

“It was amazing really”, said Mrs. Scott. “The first we heard was that they had got together and arranged a jumble sale of some of their toys.

Then they came to the hotel and asked us to add nearly 3 in coppers to the pile. It was the amount they had raised at the sale”.

The children are Susan Andrews, aged eight, Carol Hart, aged nine, and Mary Hart, aged 11.

 

South Kent Gazette 30 September 1981.

Local News.

It must have been a hairy experience for three regulars at the Imperial pub on Saturday. For when Tony Plummer, Tom Moon and Paul Stutchbury emerged from the scissors of Folkestone hairdresser Mr. Bob Quaife, half of their respective beards or moustaches had gone. But the three seemed fairly happy about the situation. They are prepared to spend 21 days in the lop-sided state to raise money for Ashford's William Harvey Hospital. Initial volunteer Tom said about 250 in sponsorship money has already been promised.

 

South Kent Gazette 9 June 1982.

Local News.

Fifty pounds was stolen from the till of the Imperial pub, Black Bull Road, Folkestone, between midnight and 8.40 a.m. on Monday.

 

South Kent Gazette 9 February 1983.

Local News.

A publican who drove his car at night with no lights after he had drunk more than double the legal limit was fined a total of 175 last week.

Victor Clark, 58, who runs the Imperial pub in Black Bull Road, Folkestone, pleaded Guilty to the two offences. Clark, of Aerodrome Road, Hawkinge, was also banned from driving for a year for the drinking charge. Folkestone Magistrates ordered him to pay 19.40 doctor's fees on Tuesday.

Inspector Peter Hopkins, prosecuting, said Clark was stopped in Black Bull Road by a traffic officer because he did not have his lights on. The officer noticed Clark smelt of alcohol and asked him to give a breath test, which proved positive. At the police station a specimen of blood was taken and later found to contain 184 milligrams of alcohol to 100 milligrams of blood.

Clark said he must have accidentally put the lights off and did not notice because it was a well-lit road.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 June 1988.

Local News.

Pint-size grandmother Jeanne Robey is clean, well-dressed and politely spoken. Yet she is banned from at least five pubs in Folkestone alone. As soon as she walks into the bar, customers and publicans threaten her, call her names, refuse to serve her, and then demand that she leaves. Her crime? The 5ft 2ins gran works on a P&O cross-Channel ferry.

The 46-year-old grandma was a geriatric nurse for eight years before accepting a job with the ferry company last May when money ran short.

Now, the extra cash in her pocket has meant that Jeanne has to pay heavily in another way. Once a bar assistant and regular in a handful of pubs in Folkestone’s town centre, she is now booted out of those same drinking holes, threatened with vicious beatings and vulgar jibes.

This week, after hearing of her story, the Herald insisted on checking the facts.

On Monday, usually a quiet night, Jeanne and I walked into The Earl Grey in the Old High Street and quietly asked for a drink. Minutes later we were hand-clapped out of the pub. Even before we reached the counter, a young man sitting in the comer got up, and told the landlady “Don’t serve her, she’s a scab”. The landlady then refused to serve us, saying “You’re not welcome in here. I’m on strike and it’s against my morals to serve you”. We left.

At the Portland in Langhome Gardens, landlord Brian Godfrey immediately refused to serve us, saying “Jeanne, you know you’re not allowed in here”. When asked why, he said “She causes too much aggravation”.

But the worst treatment came at the Bouverie Arms at Cheriton Road, Folkestone. As soon as we walked through the door, a customer sitting near the doorway, yelled “F.... scab” at Jeanne. As we walked towards the bar, he continued swearing and shouted “You’re not allowed in here. Get out”. We were refused drinks at the bar, and as we walked out, a customer threatened “If you come back, I’ll get the whole pub to walk out.” Genuinely afraid, Jeanne left immediately. I then asked the man why he treated Jeanne like that. He said “She’s a scab. She knows she’s not allowed in here. This is not a pub for scabs. If she stays in here, I’ll get the whole pub out. I’ve done it before, and I know they’ll walk out again if I told them. Scabs don’t drink in here”.

Jeanne was convinced we could drink at The Imperial, in Black Bull Road. She’d worked there as a barmaid and had known landlord Mr. Vic Clark as a friend for 20 years. She was wrong. As we walked in, the pub went quiet. The landlord told Jeanne “I can’t serve you. I’m on the line. I’ve got the boys in here”.

Jeanne says she can count another four pubs in Folkestone who have also banned her. Bitter Jeanne said “I have lived in this town all my life. My father had a tobacconists shop in Tontine Street for over 50 years. Now I am being threatened and always have to watch my back. It is terrible that P&O workers have to be careful where they drink. Surely in this free country, people who want to work should be allowed to without recriminations”, she said.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 January 1992.

Local News.

Publicans are prepared to lose their jobs and homes rather than sign new leases they say could double their rents. Half the publicans in Fover being offered these contracts and two thirds in Shepway are rebelling, say the local branches of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

“It's like signing a suicide pact, and I won't do it”, says Rick Abbott, who runs the Cricketers in River. He added “I have a wife and three children and we would lose our home, but we would be ruined if I signed”.

Big breweries, with more than 2,000 pubs in the country, are selling pubs or offering 20-year leases because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is restricting how many they can have.

Alf Bentley, landlord of the Red Lion in Charlton Green, Dover, said “This is as ill-conceived as the poll tax. What use is a 20-year lease to me when I am 60? The breweries are also driving out experienced landlords and replacing them with people who were probably bakers before”.

Leslie Carpenter, of Carpenter's in The Stade, Folkestone, said “My own rent will only go up by a third, but I couldn't even manage that. I am prepared to lose my job rather than accept. It's hard enough to survive with the recession. We've just lost more customers through the Sealink redundancies”.

The L.V.A. says the increases would further damage pubs because landlords would have to put up their prices to try to survive. They say the cost of a pint is now pushing 2.

Only last week Barry Musk walked out of the pub where he had been a tenant for four years, the Red Cow, in Foord Road, Folkestone. He now manages a free house, the Imperial, in Black Bull Road. He said “Signing would have meant my rent going up from 12,000 a year to 20,000, which would have ruined me. I was lucky because I found another pub without that kind of expense”.

All four pubs are owned by Whitbread. A spokesman said the company was willing to negotiate with landlords if they could not afford new rents. “The LVA claims that rents will double, but I dispute that. Our own survey shows that overall rents have increased by just 45 percent”, he added. Whitbread says Government legislation has been put it and other brewers in a dilemma. The new Landlord and Tenant Act gives publicans security of tenure, yet the Monopolies Commission says brewers must get rid of pubs.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 May 1992.

Local News.

A bankruptcy order has been made against Barry and Victoria Musk, of Alder Road, Folkestone. The couple used to run and live at the Red Cow Inn, Foord Road, Folkestone. The petition was filed at Canterbury Crown Court by the Musks, and the Official Receiver has been appointed to safeguard their assets.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1992.

Local News.

We would like to point out that despite a bankruptcy order being made against Barry and Victoria Musk, who used to run the Red Cow Inn, the pub itself has not closed. The inn, which is in Foord Road, Folkestone, has been taken over by Jim and Madeleine Tansey. We would like to apologise for any misunderstanding our story about the Red Cow in our May 1 edition may have caused.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 August 1994.

Local News.

Lewis Dawes, landlord of the Imperial pub in Black Bull Road, Folkestone, is planning a sponsored pram push to raise money for the baby care unit at Guy's Hospital in London. He and friends will start the push from the King's Head, Hastings early on August 13 and plan to arrive at the Imperial the same evening.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 August 1994.

Local News.

Ten people raised more than 1,000 for a hospital's baby unit by walking 40 miles in one day.

Landlord Lewis Dawes hiked from Hastings to his pub, The Imperial in Black Bull Road, Folkestone, with nine of his regulars. Most money was pledged to walkers beforehand, but people they passed along the way donated 110. “We would have liked to have got a little bit more, but of course we are happy with what we got”, said Mr. Dawes, adding “It was an excellent response”.

Mr. Dawes singled out Larry Slade, of Linden Crescent, for his courage in finishing the trek despite being in agony from blisters 15 miles from the end. “It was sheer guts and determination”, said Mr. Dawes. “I can't put it down to anything else”.

The walk was in aid of the baby unit at Guy's Hospital in London.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 March 1997.

Maidstone Crown Court.

Two men have been cleared of assaulting a youth and throwing him over a steep cliff on The Leas in Folkestone.

Stephen Cornish claimed that his attackers were Tony Morosoli and his half-brother Terry Philpot, saying that he recognised them from drinking in the Imperial pub in the town. Mr. Cornish, who suffers from a behavioural problem, had gone to The Leas at around 11 p.m. on March 3 last year, Maidstone Crown Court was told. He said he bumped into an old school friend and after they separated he was set upon by the two men he identified as Morosoli, 27, and 32-year-old Philpot. Mr. Cornish, of Shorncliffe Road, claimed that they dragged him down concrete stairs and started laying into him. Philpot, he said, struck him across the face with a long chain, splitting open his right eyebrow. The two men were calling him a homosexual, using words like “gay” and “shirtlifter”. Said the father of a nin-month-old child, “I am not homosexual”. Mr. Cornish said he was then thrown head-first over a fence leading to the cliff-top. He managed to stop himself going all the way by clinging to a tree stump.

Morosoli, of Bouverie Road West, and Philpot, of Garden Road, both Folkestone, denied causing actual bodily harm. Both said they had been in the Imperial pub, but did not go to The Leas on the night of the incident.

The jury deliberated for just over 2 hours before acquitting both men.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

FOWLER George Phillips 1879-83 Bastions

FOWLER Edwin FOWLER Ann 1883 Bastions

HILL James 1883-1905 (age 46 in 1891Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1891Kelly's 1899Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

HILL Alice 1905 Bastions

HILL James 1907-18 (age 28 in 1911Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1913

CLEMENTS Thomas 1918-22 BastionsPost Office Directory 1922

EYLES Alec 1922-29 Bastions

PUNSHAW Robert 1929-30 Bastions

HARLOW David 1930-33 Bastions

KENSETT James 1933-41 BastionsKelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

KENSETT Elsie 1941-45 Bastions

KENSETT James 1945-54 Bastions

SEWELL Frank 1954-56 Bastions

BRIGHT George 1956-58 Bastions

SANGER Richard 1958-63 Bastions

SCOTT Dennis 1963-66 Bastions

MORLOCK Royston 1966-67 Bastions

LOCKER Kenneth 1967-69 Bastions

CLARK Victor 1969-88 Bastions

HOWARD Simon 1988-89 Bastions

TANNER Timothy 1989-92 Bastions

Last pub licensee had MUSK Barry and Victoria 1992 Next pub licensee had  Bastions

PRIESTLEY Brenda 1992-93 Bastions

HALL Harry (Also "Castle Inn") & McEVITT Vincent Next pub licensee had 1993-95 Bastions

HALL Harry & DAWES Lewis & WALKER Chiquita 1995-98 Bastions

HALL Harry and William & BURVILL Eileen 1998-2001 Bastions

HALL Harry, William and Sarah & MOORE Jacqueline & RICHARDSON Lisa & SMITH Tracy 2001-04 Bastions

HALL Harry, William and Sarah and RICHARDSON Lisa and CRAIG Keith and DAY Warren 2004+ Bastions

http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/imperial.html

 

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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