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 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 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 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 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 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 5½ 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 2½ hours before acquitting both men.