DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1887

(Name from)

Jubilee Inn

Latest 1988

(Name to)

16 The Stade & (24 Radnor Street 1891Census)

Folkestone

Jubilee Inn

Above postcard date unknown, with kind permission from Eric Hartland, showing the back of the pub.

Jubilee Inn 1909

Above photo taken 1909 of the Folkestone fish-market, and just showing the old "Jubilee Inn" to the left of centre.

Jubilee 1860

Above photo circa 1920 kindly sent by Rosie Barham.

Jubilee Inn sign 1923

Above photo 11 May 1923, just showing the sign extreme right, kindly supplied by Rory Kehoe.

Jubilee Inn 1960s

Above postcard 1960s, kindly sent by Ernesto Minotti.

Jubillee Inn 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Jubilee Inn sign 1970s

Jubliee Inn sign 1970s.

Above with thanks from Brian Curtis www.innsignsociety.com

Jubilee Inn card 1953Jubilee Inn card 1953

Above Whitbread card, March 1953, 4th series No 16.

 

Links with the Queen-Empress are found at the "Jubilee Inn," Folkestone, dating from 1887 and the original building was demolished and a new one built in 1936 during the renovation of the Fish-market.

 

Changed name too the "Carpenters," but now known as "Mariner."

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

 

Jubilee Inn sign

Above card issued March 1955. Sign series 4 number 16.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1888.

Thursday, January 5th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, and S. Penfold Esqs.

William Simmonds was charged with stealing 8s. from the person of Henry Charles Fisher.

Prosecutor said he met the prisoner at the Jubilee public house on The Stade and asked him to have a drink. They had several pints of beer together and prosecutor went to sleep. When he went into the house he had eleven shillings in his pocket, and he might have spent about 3s. When he awoke it was nearly dark. He missed all his money, and in consequence went to Brice and reported the matter. About eleven o'clock they found the prisoner in bed at The Radnor.

George Wadey, of 21, Denmark Street, said at half past four on Wednesday afternoon he was in the bar at the Jubilee. He saw Fisher there asleep. He saw the prisoner with his hand in Fisher's right hand trousers pocket. Prisoner said to him “We are all pensioners together”. Prisoner paid for four quarts of beer. There were about six people in the room, and others went in and out.

William Brice said he found prisoner in bed at the Radnor at eleven o'clock. He charged him with the theft. He replied “All the money I've had from the man is one shilling to buy some cooked fish for him”. Afterwards he said prosecutor gave him 4d. to pay for his night's lodging. He took prisoner to the police station and he was searched by Sergt. Butcher. No money was found on him.

The Bench thought the evidence was too weak to justify a conviction and discharged the prisoner.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1888.

Advertisement.

Jubilee Inn, Folkestone, To Let; with frontage to Radnor Street and The Stade. Rent and ingoing moderate. Doing large trade. Apply Hythe Brewery.

 

Folkestone Express 15 December 1888.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, December 12th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Jubilee was transferred to William Carlton.

 

Folkestone Express 26 April 1890.

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

The licence of the Jubilee was transferred to ---- Adams.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 August 1890.

Inquest.

The Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) held an inquest at the Town Hall last evening, on the body of William Smith, a pensioner, and formerly of the 77th Regiment, who met with his death under circumstances detailed below.

The jury, of which Mr. Fred Petts was chosen foreman, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which was lying at the mortuary, and upon their return the deceased was identified by Henry Adams, son of the landlord of the Jubilee Inn. He said he known the deceased for three months, and last saw him about half past eight on Thursday evening at the Jubilee. He was quite sober, and had no regular occupation. About five weeks ago deceased gave him his discharge and other papers produced to keep for him. He was a quiet, orderly man.

The Coroner read the discharge, which showed that he was fifty one years of age, had served 21 years in the Army, and bore a good character. Also that he had a pension of 8d. per day.

Francis Stanley, a railway porter, living at 32, Queen Street, deposed that he found the body of the deceased in the harbour shortly after four o'clock, near the first landing stage. It was floating face downwards and was quite dead. The tide was about half way up.

George Buckinngham, a harbour porter, corroborated the last witness, adding that at the time the found the body the Louise Dagmar was just leaving the harbour. He had often seen the deceased on the quays about three o'clock in the morning; he used to work the fruit boats out.

John Honeyman, living at 59, Sidney Street, said he was a fish hawker, and had known the deceased about five months. He had never seen him the worse for drink, but he was very near-sighted. He told witness he had not slept in a bed for a month, as he used to wait about for the cargo boats.

Dr. Yunge Bateman said he had examined the body of the deceased that morning. There were extensive bruises on the front of the chest, whilst the lower ribs on the left side were fractured. The left thigh bone was fractured close to the knee, and there was an abrasion on the left hip and left hand. There were no marks of violence on the head or face, and the whole of the injuries were on the left side. In his opinion death was caused by drowning, and the injuries might have been caused by a fall. He did not believe the injuries would have been caused by anyone striking him.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead In The Harbour – probably drowned.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 27 August 1890.

Inquest.

The mysterious death of William Smith, an army pensioner, formed the subject of an inquiry at the Town Hall on Friday evening last, before the Borough Coroner and a jury, of which Mr. Fred Petts was chosen foreman.

After viewing the body, which was lying at the Mortuary, Henry Adams, son of the landlord of the Jubilee Inn gave evidence as to deceased's identity. Witness said he had known the deceased about three months, and saw him last at the Jubilee about half past eight on the previous evening. Deceased was a quiet, orderly man of sober character. He had no regular occupation. The discharge produced was handed to him about five weeks ago by deceased to keep for him.

The discharge, which was then read by the Coroner, showed that deceased was fifty one years of age, that he had served twenty one years in the army, and bore an exemplary character. Likewise that he had a pension of 8d. per day.

Francis Stanley, railway porter, of 32, Queen Street, said that he found the body of deceased in the harbour near the first landing stage shortly after four o'clock. Deceased was floating face downwards and was quite dead. The tide was half way up.

George Buckingham, a harbour porter, deposed to the same effect, adding that the Louise Dagmar was just leaving the harbour at the time they discovered the body. He (witness) had often seen deceased on the quays about 3 o'clock in the morning; he worked the fruit boats out.

John Honeyman, 59, Sidney Street, fish hawker, said he had known the deceased about five months. He had never seen him the worse for drink, but he was very near-sighted. He informed witness that he had not slept in a bed for a month as he was in the habit of waiting about for the cargo boats.

Dr. Yunge Bateman said he had examined the body of deceased. There were extensive bruises on the chest and the lower ribs on the left side were fractured. The left thigh bone was fractured close to the knee, and there was an abrasion on the left hip and left hand. The head and face showed no marks of violence, the whole of the injuries being on the left side. His opinion was that the cause of death was drowning and the injuries might have been caused by a fall. He did not believe they could have been caused by anyone striking him.

Verdict – Found Dead in the harbour, probably drowned.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Friday afternoon by J. Minter Esq., Borough Coroner, on the body of William Smith, a pensioner from the 77th Regiment, which was found in the harbour early on Friday morning, and removed to the Cemetery mortuary.

Henry Adams, son of the landlord of the Jubilee Inn on the Stade, said he had known the deceased about three months. He last saw him alive on Thursday evening about half past eight in his father's house drinking twopenny worth of gin. He was quite sober. He left after staying about ten minutes. Witness thought he had no regular occupation, but had been at work occasionally at the harbour. About four or five weeks ago deceased gave him some papers to keep for him. They were a discharge from the army, and some characters. Witness knew deceased as a quiet, orderly man. He used to suffer from some internal complaint. (The discharge showed that the deceased was born at St. Andrews, County of Dublin, and enlisted at Dublin. He drew his pension on July the 1st last)

Francis Stanley, a labourer, living at 32, Queen Street, said about half past four that morning he was on the platform of the Harbour when he heard there was a man in the water. He ran to a ladder, got a boat, and with the assistance of Buckingham pulled the man out of the water. The body was floating face downwards in the outer harbour, near the bridge. The deceased appeared to be quite dead. Means were used to resuscitate life, but without success.

Buckingham, a harbour labourer, gave corroborative evidence. He said the Louise Dagmar had just left the harbour to take up her berth at the pier. He had seen the deceased frequently at the harbour early in the morning working at the fruit boats. He was called “Patsy”. Witness was at work attending the boats all night. The Eborall and Boulogne cargo boats came in during the night. A boat went out at half past twelve. He heard no disturbance during the night.

John Holyman, a fish hawker, of 49, Sidney Street, said he had known the deceased about five months. He was a quiet, orderly man generally. He saw deceased at half past eight on Thursday night at the Jubilee Inn, and he was quite sober. He was very near-sighted, and had told witness he had not slept in a bed for a month, but never said anything about sleeping on the landings at the harbour.

Mr. Marcus George Yunge Bateman, surgeon, said he had examined the body of deceased, and found bruises on the front of the chest, and the lower ribs of the left side fractured. The left thigh bone was fractured close to the knee, and there were abrasions on the left hip and left hand. There were no marks of violence on the head or face. In his opinion death was caused by drowning. The injuries might have been caused by falling on to a hard substance; not by physical violence.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased was found dead floating in the harbour, probably drowned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

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

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jubilee.

Mr. Glyn said this was a fully licensed house, owned by Messrs. Mackeson. Five barrels a week were drawn, and it was an increasing trade. It was a very old licence.

Sergeant Swift said there were six licensed houses within 100 paces of the house.

Mr. Taylor said the approximate number of houses in Radnor Street, where the Jubilee was situated, was 63, eight of which were licensed.

Mr. H. Mackeson said the house was purchased by their frim of the proprietors of the Folkestone Brewery in 1886. The present value of the house was about £1,500. They spent £350 in 1887 on improvements. The house was exactly opposite the Fish Market, and it had a trade averaging five barrels a week. The tenant was Mr. Adams, whom they had found most respectable, and they had not had the slightest complaint made against him.

Joseph Adams, the tenant, said he had been doing a good and increasing business at the house, which was much used by fish salesmen and others.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

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

The Decision.

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Jubilee.

This house belongs to Messrs. Mackeson. Mr. Glyn said this was a very old licence.

Sergeant Swift said there were six houses within 100 paces of it.

Superintendent Taylor was sworn and said the house was in Radnor Street. There were 63 houses in Radnor Street, eight of which were licensed.

Henry Mackeson, one of the firm, said the house was their property, purchased by them in 1886. The present value of the house was about £1,500. They spent £350 in 1887 on improvements. It was exactly opposite the fish market and did a trade averaging five barrels a week. The tenant, Mr. Adams, was most respectable – there had never been the slightest complaint.

Joseph Adams, the tenant, said he had been in the house since February, 1890, and had increased the business by conducting it properly and respectably. He sold about five barrels a week. The house was in a good position for trade. It was much used by fish salesmen, as they could have refreshments there in a large room.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The Jubilee.

Mr. Glyn said this was one of those houses where the only ground of objection was that it was not required. He was prepared to prove that it was a good house with a full licence, owned by Messrs. Mackeson, brewers, of Hythe.

Superintendent Taylor called Sergeant Swift, who stated that within 100 paces of the Jubilee in Radnor Street there were six other licensed houses, while the Superintendent in evidence asserted that in Radnor Street, while the approximated number of houses were 63, eight of these had licences.

Mr. Glyn thereupon called evidence.

First, Mr. Henry Mackeson, a member of the Mackeson firm, and the owners of the Jubilee, who said the firm purchased this house of the Folkestone Brewery in 1886, for £1,500; in 1887 they had spent £350 on improvements. It was in an excellent position for business, being exactly opposite the Fish Market, and the tenant, Mr. Adams, did a trade of five barrels weekly.

The succeeding witness was Mr. Adams, who stated he had been tenant of the Jubilee since February, 1890, that a good trade was done among the salesmen, and that the house was conducted properly.

The latter fact was admitted by the Superintendent.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jubilee: Six houses within 100 paces. House valued at £1,500, and trade good.

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

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

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 July 1906.

Licence Transfer.

Before Messrs. Hamilton, Fynmore, and Linton.

The Jubilee from Mr. Adams to Mr. Bail.

 

Folkestone Express 14 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 11th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, and R.J. Linton Esq.

This being the day fixed for the special licensing sessions, the following licence was transferred: The Jubilee Inn, from Mr. J.L. Adams to Mr. J. Gale.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 11th: Before Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Linton.

Licence was transferred as follows: The Jubilee, from Mr. J.L. Adams to Mr. J. Gales.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1907.

Tuesday, February 5th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.

W.G. Blackman was charged with larceny.

Mrs. Alice Jane Pearce, wife of H. Pearce, fish salesman, of Highburn House, Dover Road, deposed that the accused came to her house in Dover Road on Saturday and asked if she would send her husband 10s. worth of silver. She went upstairs and fetched it and gave it to him. He represented that he was an old friend of Mr. Pearce, and said he was busy in the market. She would not have given him the money if she had not believed his statement.

H. Pearce, fish salesman, deposed that prisoner came to him at 5 p.m. in the Jubilee bar on Saturday, and claimed acquaintance with him. Witness told him he did not know him. He tried to borrow some money from witness, which he refused to lend. He afterwards heard he had been to his wife. He did not authorise him to go to his wife for money.

Cross-examined by prisoner: He did not know him.

Inspector Burniston deposed that prisoner was handed to him at the Ashford police station. On being charged with the offence, he admitted having the 10s., but did not understand where the charge of theft came in.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he had been out of work, and had a wife and four little children starving. He had been driven to desperation.

He was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 November 1907.

Saturday, November 9th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Swoffer, Leggett, Herbert, Ames, and Linton.

Hannah Warman was charged with assaulting Adeline Cornish. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Prosecutrix said she lived in Radnor Street, and on Saturday night last she went to get some stout, when she met defendant, who was using very obscene language. Witness said nothing to her, and then defendant attacked her and knocked her down, striking her on the nose.

Mary Whittingstall, mother of the complainant, said on Saturday night she went to the Jubilee Inn, where she saw the defendant, who was very drunk and using very bad language. She asked her daughter to leave the house, whereupon defendant attacked both her and her daughter.

John Gales, landlord of the Jubilee Inn, said it was a quarrel between the two women, and they both left the house to fight it out. He saw the prosecutrix strike defendant first.

The case was dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 16 November 1907.

Saturday, November 9th: Before The Mayor, Major Leggatt, G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames Esqs.

Hannah Warman was summoned by Adelaide Victoria Cornish for assaulting her. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant, who informed the Bench that she had come to speak the truth, said her husband was a fisherman, and she lived at 67, Radnor Street. On Saturday evening, shortly before nine o'clock, she went to the Jubilee public house to get half a pint of stout. The defendant also came in and used bad language about a “War Cry” and complainant's husband. She (Mrs. Cornish) took no notice of her, and defendant pitched into her when she had a baby in her arms. The landlord ordered Mrs. Warman out of the house, and when she (complainant) went out she was waiting for her. She knocked her down, laid on her chest, and struck her on the nose. She did not get off her until a policeman came. She threatened to serve her ten times worse if she summoned her.

Mrs. Mary Whittingstall, the complainant's mother, corroborated her, and also stated that the baby had been ill ever since Monday in consequence of the defendant knocking her daughter down when she had the baby in her arms.

Defendant said what the complainant had said was all false. Mrs. Cornish insulted her and struck her. Mr. Gell ordered her outside, and then the complainant said she would fight her. She struck her, so she could do nothing but strike her back.

John Edward Gell said the two had kicked up a disturbance in his house, so he ordered Mrs. Warman out. She was not drunk. He advised Mrs. Cornish to go out by another door in order to get out of the way, but she said she would go out and fight defendant. Mrs. Cornish struck the defendant first and then gave her baby to her mother so that she could have a fight. The two women certainly did fight for ten minutes.

The Mayor said the case was not proved to the satisfaction of the Bench, and the case would be dismissed.

Note: More Bastions lists licensee as Gales.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1911.

Friday, September 1st: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and Aldermen Vaughan and Jenner.

Edward George Fagg was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night. He said he was Guilty of being drunk, but was not disorderly.

P.C. Waters said at 10.45 the previous night he was on duty on the Stade when he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, enter the Jubilee public house. He followed and drew the landlord's attention to Fagg. The landlord ordered the prisoner out of the house, but he refused to go. He (witness) then assisted him to remove him. When outside the prisoner commenced to shout and swear, causing a crowd to collect. As he would not go away he took him into custody.

Prisoner said it was through the regatta he had too much beer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were three convictions against Fagg, once for drunkenness.

The Chairman said the prisoner seemed to have kept pretty straight lately, so they had decided to deal leniently with him. He could go.

 

Folkestone Daily News 20 May 1912.

Local News.

On Saturday morning last shortly after 9 o'clock a particularly mean and paltry theft was perpetuated at Mr. John Gale's house, the Jubliee, in the Fishmarket.

Mr. Gale for a long period has been an enthusiastic collector for the United Friendly Societies' Fund in connection with the Royal Victoria Hospital. Recognising the large number of cases which enter the hospital from the East Ward, Mr. Gale, with the assistance of Captain Frank Care, makes a consistent Sunday morning appeal to his patrons, the success of which may be seen upon consulting the balance sheet of the United Friendly Societies, where Mr. Gale's individual house collection shows at the top of the list. The pennies given by the fishermen – very hard-earned pennies – are more, in point of value, than shillings contributed by the well-to-do. Therefore Mr. Gale and his customers are rightly proud of their efforts on behalf of such a grand institution as the Royal Victoria Hospital.

On Saturday morning just before 9 o'clock the box was safe in position, and it was known, from the weight which had been taken, to contain at least 19s. in copper money; by 9.30 a.m. the box had gone – taken by one of the meanest skunks that ever entered the Fishmarket.

In the minds of those who know all the circumstances there is not the slightest doubt as to the perpetrator, but we do know this, that something more than a clue has been established and that the fishermen, in their rough diamond justice, have decided to give the perpetrator a week in which to return the money (the box has been destroyed by now), and failing a return, the individual on the first convenient occasion will come, most assuredly, up against a very determined ducking party.

In the meantime, we hope that Mr. Gale's total collection will not suffer and that the fishermen's efforts will not be in vain.

Surely one or more of our wealthy West End readers will make up the amount and forward it to Mr. John Gale to place in the box, which is the pride of the fishermen.

Any contributions to cover the mean thief's depredations will be at once acknowledged.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 April 1916.

Thursday, April 20th: Before Mr. J. Stainer and other Magistrates.

John Edward Gales, of the Jubilee Inn, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared in defence, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Corpl. John Stewart, of the Royal Highlanders, deposed that on Friday evening, April 7th, he was on duty in connection with the Harbour guard, in which was a man named James Wilson. He would go on duty at 9 o'clock, but should remain about the guard room (the Harbour Station). He had no right to leave without permission. Witness missed him about 7.45 p.m., and in consequence she sent a lance corporal and two privates to search for him. He was brought back a few minutes after eight by the lance corporal and two men. He was drunk, and was placed in the detention room. There was no question about his condition.

Lance Corpl. David Leaburn, on duty with the guard under Corpl. Stewart, said Wilson seemed sober at six o'clock. About ten minutes to eight Corpl. Stewart sent him out with two men, and they went in the direction of the Fishmarket. He visited the public house called the Jubilee, where he went in and found Pte. Wilson, who was standing by the stair in the private bar. The man was drunk then. Witness told him they wanted him outside, and he came outside, being placed under arrest and marched to the guard room. In the public house the man was leaning up against the railings, and calling out “Clear out, boys, clear out”. Wilson took the support of witness's arm going out of the door, and he stumbled. He said nothing to anybody. Witness simply called him out and marched him back. His condition was noticeable; there was no question about it.

Pte. John Leith, in the same regiment, said he was sent with the last witness from the guard room about 7.50. They went to the Fishmarket, and the lance corporal entered the Jubilee public house. Witness remained outside, and saw him come out of the house accompanied by Wilson, who staggered out of the door. There was no question about it. Witness and another private escorted him back to the guard room. He had no conversation with him, but had no doubt the man was drunk.

Pte. William Dandy corroborated.

Pte. John McLean said he remembered the night of the 7th April. He was in the Jubilee at 7.25. He went into the private bar. Wilson came into the same bar about 7.40. He noticed nothing about him. He noticed him about five minutes to eight, and about three minutes before that. He heard him humming a song. He did not see him have a drink.

Pte. Dewar said on the evening in question he was on sentry duty at the foot of the bridge at the Harbour entrance from 7 to 9. He saw Pte. Wilson, challenged him, and ordered him back, but he crossed the railway to the Fishmarket. Witness saw him again when the lance corporal and two privates brought him back. He was staggering and using some obscene language. He was walking by himself.

Mr. Haines asked witness what he would do if a man disobeyed his orders.

Witness: I should not like to shoot at one of my own comrades.

Pte. James Wilson said on Friday, April 7th, he left the guard room at 7.35 p.m., and went in the direction of the Fishmarket, to the nearest public house. He was excited, and went to get something to steady him up. He went into the private bar, which was crowded. He could not get near the bar, but called for a glass of whisky. One of the Canadians procured the whisky from the bar for him. He gave him the money to pay for it, and drank it up, and had some more. The same man procured him another glass. He could not say who was at the bar, where he remained about a quarter of an hour. He had two drinks, which he paid for, and two he had given him from the Canadians. He had two beers and two whiskies, the Canadians paying for the two pints of beer. Witness paid for the two whiskies. He remembered the lance corporal coming in; he was underneath the staircase at the time, standing up. He had drunk both lots up when the lance corporal came in. Witness was a bit nettled at their coming for him. He was escorted back. He had all his senses, and was sober. He had pleaded guilty to the charges of breaking guard and drunkenness, because he thought it was not worthwhile to do otherwise in the Army.

Capt. D. Swanston said he was in charge of the guard. He visited the guard and saw the man. Wilson was lying drunk in the corner of the detention room. The corporal tried to wake him up, and could not do so. Later he went back in the detention room again, when he saw the man standing as if to be sick, and abusing the corporal.

P.C. Styles stated that at about 12.30 p.m. on the 9th inst. he went to the Jubilee, and said a complaint had been received from the military authorities as to a soldier having been found drunk on the premises. Witness gave the facts, and defendant replied “When was this? Friday evening? I never saw any person the worse for drink in my house, and I did not see anybody taken out of my house drunk. If the corporal saw the man was drunk, why did he not draw my attention to it?”

Mr. Haines addressed the Court, contending that the landlord was quite unaware that any drunken man was on his premises, and further that it was not proved that Wilson was drunk. Wilson might have been hidden from view by the staircase.

Defendant gave evidence on his own behalf. He said the staircase had been there about sixteen years. He had never seen Wilson before in his life. There were about 150 to 200 soldiers in his house that night. The man had not come up to the bar, and he never served him with any intoxicating liquors whatever. He did not see him. He had visited the bar twice, about 7.30 and before closing. He heard no noise or excitement.

Mrs. Rose Gales, wife of defendant, said on Friday, April 7th, she was serving in the house. She did not remember seeing the soldier that night, and she did not serve him with any drink. She did not notice any disturbance or excitement in the bar.

Albert Victor Minter, brother-in-law to Mr. Gales, said he often helped defendant in serving and assisting in the bar. He had never seen Wilson before, and did not serve him at all on April 7th.

The Magistrates dismissed the case, but the Chairman said they were satisfied that Pte. Wilson was drunk, and were of opinion that the landlord had not sufficient assistance to keep order. They desired to warn all licence holders that more than ordinary precautions were necessary.

 

Folkestone Express 29 April 1916.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Thursday in last week, before J. Stainer Esq., and other Magistrates, John Edward Gales was summoned for permitting drunkenness on the licensed premises of the Jubilee public house, The Stade. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Corporal John Stewart, of the Royal Highlanders, said on the previous Friday evening he was on duty in connection with the Harbour guards, one of whom was James Wilson, who should have been on duty in the guard room at the station about 7.45, when he missed him. In consequence he sent a lance corporal and two privates to search for him. He was brought back by the three men in a drunken condition, and placed in the detention room. Captain Swanston at nine o'clock saw Wilson in the guard room.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said Wilson would have to pass the sentry at the gate to get out of the Harbour. Wilson walked into the guard room without assistance on his return. He was very noisy.

Questioned by the Clerk, witness said Wilson paraded at six o'clock, and he was then quite sober.

Lance Corporal David Leaburn said he saw Wilson come on duty at six o'clock when he appeared to be sober. About a quarter to eight he went with two men in the direction of the fish market, and they went into the Jubilee public house, where they saw Wilson standing at the foot of the stairs in the private bar. He was then drunk, and witness ordered him to come outside, where he was placed under arrest. Wilson was leaning on the rail, and was shouting “Clear out, boys”. Wilson stumbled as he went out of the door, although he had hold of witness's arm. There was no question about the man being drunk.

Cross-examined, witness said that Wilson frequently stumbled going over the rails and the swing bridge leading to the Harbour. There was a large number of people in the bar, which was very tightly packed, and he had difficulty getting into it. Wilson was standing three steps up the staircase.

In reply to the Chief Constable, Leaburn said Wilson was visible to everyone in the bar.

Private John Seath, one of the two men sent under Lance Corporal Leaburn to search for Wilson, said they proceeded to the Jubilee public house, out of the door of which Wilson staggered a few minutes later. He had no doubt the man was drunk.

Cross-examined, witness said he only took hold of the man's arm once, and that was when he turned round to speak to the Corporal.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said he missed Wilson between twenty five minutes past and half past seven.

Private William Dandy gave similar testimony as to Wilson's condition.

Private MacLean said he was in the Jubilee public house on Friday evening when at twenty minutes to eight he saw Wilson come in. He never saw him have any drink, but at seven or eight minutes to eight he was humming a song.

Private Dewar said on Friday evening he was on sentry duty at the foot of the bridge, and he saw Wilson between twenty minutes and half past seven. He challenged him, and ordered him back, but Wilson crossed the bridge and went towards the fish market. The next time he saw him was just after eight, when he was brought back by the escort. Wilson was then drunk, and he used obscene language as he passed him.

Private James Wilson said he left the guard room at twenty five minutes to eight, crossed the bridge and went to the fish market. He was excited and wanted a stimulant. He went into the private bar of the Jubilee and had a glass of whisky, which was served to him by a Canadian who paid for it. The Canadian treated him to another glass. He could not see who served the Canadian, as he could not get near the bar. He remained in the bar for about a quarter of an hour. He had two whiskies and two beers during that time. The Canadian paid for the two pints of beer. He paid 4d. for each of the whiskies. When the Corporal came for him he was “nettled” because they had fetched him. He was sober when he returned. He had pleaded Guilty to the charges of being drunk and breaking guard.

Cross-examined, witness said he had been upset for some time. He did not think that anyone serving in the bar could have seen him, having regard to the number of people in the place. He did not remember shouting out “Clear out, boys”.

Captain J.D. Swanston said he was in charge of the guard, and went to the guard room where he saw Wilson lying drunk in the corner. The Corporal tried to wake him up, but he could not. Ten minutes later he again went to the guard room and saw Wilson standing as if to be sick. He was abusing the Corporal. The man was so drunk that he did not know witness was there.

P.C. Styles said he saw the defendant on the 9th, and told him that a complaint had been received from the military authorities that about five minutes to eight on the 7th a soldier was found drunk in the house. Defendant replied “When was this; on Friday evening? I never saw anyone the worse for drink in my house, and never saw anyone taken out of the house drunk. If the Lance Corporal saw the man was drunk, why did he not call my attention to it?”

Mr. Haines, in defence, said there were degrees of sobriety, as well as degrees of drunkenness, and it was for the Bench to consider the degree of soberness in that case. He ventured to put it to the Bench that the evidence was such that the landlord did not know the man was on the premises. He asked the Magistrates to say that the landlord took all reasonable precautions to prevent drunkenness.

The defendant said he had never seen the man Wilson until that morning. On the particular evening he did not serve him. He admitted it was impossible to see from the bar anyone who was under the staircase.

Mrs. Gales and Albert Victor Minter, who was assisting Mr. Gales on that particular evening, gave similar evidence.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had deliberated in private for some time, said that although they did not convict in that case, yet they were satisfied that Private Wilson was drunk. They were also satisfied that the landlord had not sufficient assistance to properly supervise the bar. It was the duty of every licence holder to take all reasonable precautions to prevent drunkenness. If they did not do so they were liable to conviction even though they might not be aware of drunken persons on their premises. They desired to warn the licence holders that more than ordinary precautions were necessary, and they would neglect them at their peril.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 June 1919.

Wednesday, June 11th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

James Stewart Sullivan, a stoker in the Royal Navy, was charged with doing wilful damage by breaking a pint glass (value 1s. 9d.), the property of Mr. Johnnie Gales, landlord of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street.

P.C. Little, who proved the case, stated that prisoner when charged said “All right”. Prisoner was sober at the time.

Accused said he had no recollection of the affair, but was very sorry.

A petty officer said prisoner was one of a draft for foreign service. Whilst under his charge he had conducted himself very well.

The Bench ordered prisoner to pay the cost of damage and 5s. fine.

 

Folkestone Express 28 May 1921.

Local News.

On Wednesday at the Police Court the following transfer was granted: the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, from Mr. J.E. Gales to Mr. Hugh McKay, a Folkestone man, who for 26 years has been employed by the S.E.R. Company at the Harbour.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 May 1921.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, Councillor W.J. Harrison being in the chair, the licence of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred from Mr. J.E. Gales to Mr. H. Mackay.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1924.

Friday, February 8th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

William Spearpoint was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.

Inspector Pittock said at 8.30 on Thursday evening he was in the private bar of the Oddfellows Inn, Dover Street, when defendant came in and asked for a drink. The landlord refused to serve him and requested him to leave. He followed defendant and told him to go home. He lost sight of the prisoner, and next saw him when in the Jubilee Inn, where he was seated facing the bar. He called for a drink, but before defendant could be served he had told him to leave the premises. He arrested him and took him to the police station.

Prisoner, who said he was very sorry it had happened, was discharged.

Mr. MacKay, the licensee of the Jubilee Inn, was called before the Magistrates, the Chairman saying that they had sent for him to caution him and others. Prisoner was drunk on his premises, and he ought to have seen that he was removed from there at once. It was his duty to do so. He should be more careful in the future.

Mr. MacKay said that he did not have time to turn the prisoner out before Inspector Pittock came in.

 

Folkestone Express 6 September 1924.

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

Hugh MacKay, licensee of the Jubilee public house, in the Fish Market, was summoned for supplying drink during prohibited hours. Mr. A.K. Mowll (Canterbury) defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said that at 8.58 a.m. on Tuesday last he was proceeding along The Stade with P.C. Johnson, and on passing a blind passage adjoining a public house he saw a man named Taylor (jnr.) take two pint glasses of beer from a window in the Jubilee public house to a store. He went down to the store and saw two men holding a pint glass containing beer in their hands. He had a conversation with them, and requested them to accompany him to the Jubilee public house. They found the front door unfastened, and on entering found defendant behind the bar. He (witness) had the glasses of beer in his hand, and said to defendant “I have just seen these pints of beer handed out through this side window to this man, Taylor”. Defendant replied “Quite right, sir. It was not paid for. It was a gift for a bit of fish they brought here last night”. He told defendant he would be reported for supplying intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, and he replied “It was a gift”.

The Clerk: Did you taste the beer?

Witness: Yes.

Was it fresh? – Freshly drawn, and froth on the glasses.

Had either of the men consumed any of it? – No.

Did you follow them immediately? – Yes, I ran down, and they hadn't time to drink it.

Mr. Mowll: What you saw was a man take two glasses across the passage.

Witness: No, take it down. The actual view of the window sill is obscured by a downpipe.

So what you have graphically described by handing it through the window, that is not correct? – I saw him take it from the window.

You told us you cannot see the window? – The window is 5ft. 3in. from the ground, and I saw him reach it down. Whether he took it from the window sill or someone in the window I cannot say.

Then it is not correct you saw this beer handed out from the window? – I saw it handed out from the window.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said the window opened out into one of the bars, but not into the bar where they found defendant. The window was open about a foot at the bottom.

P.C. Johnson corroborated.

Defendant said he had been the licensee of the house for three years last May. He had known Taylor (snr.) for forty five years. He told the police it was a gift, and it was a gift. He regarded the two men as his friends.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He had some fish from these men, but the beer was not in payment for the fish. It was always understood that if they got a bit of fish, they gave them a drink of beer.

By the Clerk: They took the fish about a quarter or twenty past eight in the morning.

Charles Taylor, 24, Great Fenchurch Street, said he had been a fisherman since he was 14 years of age, and had been friends with the defendant for 45 or 46 years. He took the fish to the house about 8.20 a.m. They had been out fishing all night. He was not paid for the fish, and they did not pay for the beer.

Mr. Mowll: They did not even give you the chance of drinking it? – No.

The Chief Constable: Why didn't you tell the Inspector that when he spoke to you?

Witness: Well, he never asked me for that. He asked me where I got it from, and I told him off the bench in the store.

By the Clerk: He took the fish to the house about 8.15 or 8.20. His son was in the Fish Market, and he went to fetch him.

Mr. Mowll said he thought it was unnecessary for him to point out to the Magistrates that the licensee was in a different position to any other trader in any place, and he was in a much more unfortunate position than any other trader. Any other trader but a licensee could come before the Magistrates, and could be convicted of any offence which did not necessitate his detention for a time at His Majesty's expense, and he might go on next day as if nothing had happened. He might water his milk, and be convicted, which was more serious than the offence before the Magistrates that day. He could sell milk next day as if nothing had happened, but a licensee, if there was a breath of anything wrong under the grandmotherly legislation they suffered under in these days, ran a very serious risk of losing his licence, though it may be the first time he had been summoned for any offence. It was quite easy for the Magistrates and himself, who were acquainted with the licensing laws, to say that if a transgression of this kind had taken place, the licensee before even attempting to give his friends a glass of ale ought to have been under the precaution either to see the Chief Constable or sought legal advice, or possibly to have seen the Clerk and found out whether, if anyone took him fish, he was entitled to give his friends a glass of beer.

The Clerk: If he had come to me I should have referred him to you, or some other solicitor. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said it was an easy thing to be wise after the offence. He came and saw the Chief Constable on the subject. He need scarcely say, whatever the Magistrates' view was of this transaction, it would be a warning to the defendant which would make him hesitate very seriously before he ever attempted to entertain his friends in this way. The only part of the evidence of the police he objected to was the statement when the police Inspector said he had seen these glasses handed out of the window, because he knew that was not correct, and he knew he could not have seen it, and he admitted when he made the statement he had seen them handed out that statement was not quite correct. In his opinion the licensee was probably wise in what he did. It was all very fine for the Chief Constable to say to the Inspector “Did you find this place bolted or not?” Of course he found the place unbolted. Some people had the erroneous idea that because they could not sell drink during certain hours they ought to bolt and bar their public house. They ought to do nothing of the sort. If he liked to get to his office in Canterbury by coming to Folkestone first, and he found himself extremely hungry, there was nothing to prevent him knocking at the door and demanding to be served with a good breakfast of porridge, bacon or eggs, or whatever else he wanted. He did not suggest it should include beer. In one section of the Act it was an offence to supply beer in this way, yet in the next section gave various provisos which were excepted from the provisions of the section before. For instance, they could supply intoxicating liquor at any licensed premises to any person who was residing there, otherwise he and the Magistrates staying at hotels would not be able to get it – if they wanted it. There were other provisions, and these unfortunate licensees were supposed to know them all – sixty or seventy sections, all supposed to be known to these people. Another provision was that the licensee could supply intoxicating liquors to individual friends at his own expense. That was a very wide provision, and it was not amended in any way. If the story that was told, and not shaken by the police constable, was correct, that these two old friends of the licensee, because some fish had been delivered at the premises, had been promised a pint of beer each, there was nothing that would prevent the licensee supplying these two people, and nothing that would justify the Magistrates in convicting the defendant of this offence. It might be that the Magistrates thought this was a borderline case. He suggested that although it might be a case near the borderline, having regard to the fact that it must be a serious warning to the defendant, and although they might think a technical offence had been committed, the Magistrates would say under the circumstances the justice of this case would be properly met by dismissal, on payment of costs.

The Chief Constable said he put the case before the Magistrates as a very bad case. He had received numerous complaints, particularly in regard to this house, and Inspector Pittock, on the 26th June, cautioned defendant, and he asked the Magistrates to bear that in mind when considering the gravity of the offence.

Mr. Mowll: The fact remains it is the first time he has ever been summoned, and he has been in the house three years.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had carefully considered the case, and they were unanimous that there should be a conviction. Defendant was liable to a fine of £30, but on taking everything into consideration the Magistrates had agreed defendant must be fined £7 10s.

Charles Taylor (snr.) and Charles Taylor (jnr.), fishermen, who had also been summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act, were called forward, and the Chief Constable asked for the summonses to be withdrawn, but he would like the Magistrates to understand that he did not propose to adopt this course in every case.

The Chairman said defendants had committed an offence, and a very serious offence, but no punishment would be passed under the circumstances. They gave them a caution, and emphasised it very greatly. They should not be guilty of any similar practice. They would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald, Saturday 6 September 1924.

Early morning gift. Beer which was not drunk. Publicans' risk. Licensee fined.

At the Folkestone Petty sessions on Tuesday (before the Rev. R. Epworth Thompson, Colonel P. Broome Giles, C.B., and Miss. A. M. Hunt,) Hugh McKay, licensee of the "Jubilee Inn," the Stade, was summoned for supplying intoxicated liquor during prohibited hours on the 30th ult. Mr. A. K. Mowll defending.

Inspector Piddock stated that at 8:55 a.m. on August 26th, he was proceeding along the Stade in company with P.C. Johnson, and on passing a blind alley by the "Jubilee Inn," he saw Mr. Charles Taylor, jun, take two glasses of beer from a window of the house to a store opposite. He went down to the store and found two men, each holding a glass of beer in his hand. They went to the "Jubilee" public house and on walking inside found the defendant behind the bar. Witness had the glasses in his hand, and he told him that he had seen them handed out from a window of the he replied. "Quite right, sir. It was not paid for. It was a gift for a bit of fish they brought last night." Witness said that he would be reported, and defendant replied, "It was a gift, the beer was fresh. The men did not have time to drink it.

By Mr. Mowll. The view of the window in question was obstructed by a drain pipe; the window was 5 ft 3 in., from the ground. He did not see the beer handed out from the window, he saw Taylor take it from the window.

By the Magistrates' Clerk:- The window opens into one of the bars, but not the one in which defendant was found.

P.C. Johnson corroborated.

Defendant (on oath) said that he had been the licensee of the house in question for three years, and he had known Mr. Taylor, jun., for 45 years. The beer was a gift.

By the Chief Constable:- The beer was not in payment for some fish witness had that morning; it was an understood thing that when one had some fish one gave a drink of beer to the giver.

Charles Taylor, sen., Said that he was not paid for the fish he gave Mr. McKay, and he did not pay for the beer.

By the Chief Constable:- He did not tell that to the Inspector Piddock, because the Inspector did not ask him.

Mr. Mowll, in address the Bench, said that the licensee of a public house was in a more unfortunate position than any other trader. Anybody accept a licensee could be convicted of any offence which did not involve a period of detention at His Majesty's expense, and afterwards he could carry on his business as if nothing had happened. A man might be convicted of watering his milk - a far more serious offence than the one alleged here - and the next day he could go on selling the milk as if nothing had happened. But the licensee, if their work the slightest breach of anything being wrong according to the legislations under we all suffered, of losing his licence, although it might be the first time he had been summoned for any offence. Of course, it was very easy for the Magistrates and for him, (the speaker) who were acquainted to some extent with the licensing laws, to say that, before a transaction of this sort took place, the licensee should have taken the precaution either of seeing the Chief Constable or possibly of seeking legal advice, or possibly of seeing the Magistrates' Clerk, and asking him whether he was entitled to give a glass of beer to anyone who brought him some fish.
The Magistrates' Clerk:- If he had come to me I should have sent him on to you (Laughter).

Mr. Mowll, continuing, said that it was easy to be wise after the event. Whatever might be the view of the Magistrates took of the matter, that day's proceedings would be a warning to the defendant, and would make him hesitate very seriously before ever he attempted to entertain his friends in that way. The only point in the evidence he objected to was the statement of the Police Inspector that he had seen the glass handed out of the window, because that was incorrect. He knew that the police could not have seen it. The section of the Act under which those proceedings were taken provided that it was an offence to supply beer in this way; yet the next section gave various provisions which were excepted from the provisions of the before. One could supply intoxicating liquors at any time on licensed premises to a resident on the premises, and there were many such sections, all of which the licensee was supposed to know. Another provision was that the licensee could supply intoxicating liquor to any private friends as entertainment provided by him at his own expense. That was a wide provision that was not limited in any way, and if the story that had been told - and it had not been shaken by the Chief Constable - was correct then those two old friends of the defendant, because some fish had been delivered on the premises, had been promised a pint of beer. There was nothing to prevent the licensee from supplying those two people and nothing which would justify the Bench in convicting the defendant of that offence. They might say that it was a borderline case, but he suggested that, having regard to the fact that the proceedings would be a warning to the defendant, even if a technical offence has been committed, they should say that under the circumstance justice would be met by dismissal on payment of costs.

The Chief Constable said that he submitted that the case was a very bad one. He had complaints of that house; and on June 26th Inspector Piddock warned the defendant.

Mr. Mowll:- The fact remains that this is the first time defendant has ever been summoned, and he has been in the house for three years.

The Chairman said that the Bench had carefully considered the case, and were unanimous in deciding for a conviction. Defendant was liable to a fine of £30, but, taking everything into consideration, the Bench had agreed that he should be fined £7 10s.

The Chief Constable said that he would withdraw the summons against Charles Taylor sen., and Charles Taylor jun., for being supplied with drink after hours, but he did not propose to adopt that course in any other cases.

The Chairman, addressing the two men, said that they had committed an offence, and a very serious one too. No punishment would be passed under the circumstances, but they gave them a caution, and emphasised very greatly. He urged them not to be guilty of any similar practice.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1925.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates, the licence of the Jubilee Inn was transferred from Mr. H. MacKay to Mr. Wm. George Thomas Tingey, of Whitstable.

 

Folkestone Express 1 May 1926.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. G.I. Swoffer Mr. G. Boyd, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Mr. A. Stace, Emily Berry was charged with having been drunk and disorderly on The Stade on Tuesday, and she pleaded guilty.

P.C. Bates said at 8-30 p.m. on Tuesday he was called to the Jubilee public-house by the landlord, who stated he had a woman on the premises who refused to quit. He went j into the public-house, and recognised her as a woman he had cautioned in Radnor Street about 8 p.m. for causing a slight disturbance. With the assistance of the landlord he put her out, end as she continued to use, filthy language he took her to the Police Station, with the assistance of P.C. Finn.

Prisoner said she had nothing to ask witness; he would only contradict her if she said anything.

The Chief Constable said there were eighteen previous convictions against prisoner, chiefly for drunkenness, but she had not been there since 1920, and he would think it was quite likely she was sorry it had happened.

The prisoner was fined 5s.

Prisoner: I have not got any money to pay.

The magistrates gave her a week in which to pay the fine, leviable by distress, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 May 1926.

Wednesday, April 28th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Emily Berry was charged with being drunk and disorderly in The Stade on Tuesday.

P.C. Bates said at 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday night he was on duty in The Stade, when he was called to the Jubilee Inn, the licensee informing him that there was a woman on the premises who was drunk and refused to quit. He saw the woman (the defendant). He had cautioned her previously in the evening about 8 o'clock for causing a slight disturbance. With the help of the licensee he put her out of the public house. Defendant then started to cause a disturbance and use obscene language. He took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry for what had happened.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said there were eighteen previous convictions against defendant, but there had been none since 1920, so it was very likely she was sorry it had happened.

The Chairman, in fining the defendant 5/- said the Magistrates were taking a lenient view of the case.

Defendant said she could not pay.

Mr. Swoffer said defendant would be allowed seven days to pay. The fine would then be levied by distress, or, in default, seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 4 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court, Lance Corporal Fred Elles was summoned for assaulting Mr. Tingey, the licensee of the Jubilee Inn, by striking him in the face with his fist, and he pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Tingey said on the 24th November defendant went into the house, with three soldiers, about seven o'clock, and everything went all right until about nine o'clock, when one of them said “Now we are all right, two Irishmen and two Englishmen”. They started to fight. With the assistance of one of his customers, who held the most violent man, he got the other three out. About five minutes to ten all four returned. Defendant was quite sober, and the other three were drunk. Defendant called for four drinks, and he called to his barman “Don't serve them. Leave them to me”. Defendant said to the barman “You will get a thick ear”. The barman did not serve them, and he (witness) called “Time”, because he could see there was trouble brewing. In getting them out defendant hit him a very violent blow over the left eye.

Defendant said he did not remember what happened. Someone thumped him in the back of the neck, and he struck out blindly, with no intention of hitting the host.

An officer said defendant had an excellent character.

Defendant was fined £1.

 

Folkestone Express 2 July 1927.

Local News.

Tuesday, June 28th: Before Alderman C. E. Mumford, Miss A. M. Hunt and Dr. W. W. Nuttall.
George Slenderman Weatherhead was summoned for having, on the 10th June, stolen two notes of the Bank of England, of the value of £5 each, the property of Frederick John Wilkinson.

Frederick John Wilkinson, The Avenue, Littlestone-on-Sea, fruiterer and greengrocer, said on the 10th June he came to Folkestone for produce, to the early morning market, arriving about 6.30 to 7 a.m. At the time he had two Bank of England £5 notes, three £1 Treasury notes, and a cheque for £5. He had the money in an envelope. About ten minutes after he arrived at the market he took the envelope from his breast pocket, when he was standing near Mr. Bean's lorry, to take a £1 note to give to the defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant was on the spot, and had previously helped him to load his lorry. He returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned him the change of 8s. He completed his business, jumped on Mr. Bean's lorry to pay him for his purchases, and again withdrew the envelope from his pocket and took the contents, and found only two £1 Treasury notes and the cheque. The two £5 notes were not there. He told Mr. Bean he had lost the notes, and Weatherhead was in the immediate vicinity of the lorry, about ten or twelve yards away. When he found he had lost the notes he told Bean he had lost them, and it would be audible to anyone standing round. They both made a search, but could not find them. He said nothing to defendant about his loss. On returning home he found he had not left the notes there, and he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn’t he tell me that he had lost the notes?

Mr. Wilkinson: Because I was not sure that I had lost them then.

Defendant: I wouldn’t rob any man.

William John McEwitt, barman at the Jubilee public house, said defendant went into the bar, and tendered him a £5 note for drinks. He called for a round of drinks for customers in the bar, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a £5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in crossword puzzles. “Crossword puzzles? If you don't think it is a good 'un, take it to the boss”, which he did. He handed the £5 note to his employer, who gave him the change.

Mr. W.C.T. Tingey, landlord of the Jubilee public house, said that on the 10th June defendant gave him a £5 note to change. Ultimately he gave his barman the change for the note. Later the same day he saw defendant in the bar, in the evening, and he received case from defendant several times. Defendant tendered him a second £5 note about 10.25 p.m. Defendant had been standing drinks to other people. The drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. when defendant gave him the second note. He did not give defendant the change that night, and he told him to call the following day. He did so, and he paid him the money. The first note he changed with Mr. Skinner, and the second he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Co. He had known defendant for three years, and he knew he had been an old sailor. He did not know what defendant was now. He was not surprised at defendant being in possession of two notes. He did not ask defendant for an explanation as to where he got the notes.

P.C. Williams said he received information about the loss of the two £5 notes, and made certain inquiries, and as a result of his inquiries he interviewed defendant on the 22nd June on the East Cliff. He told him he was a police officer, and that he was making inquiries regarding two £5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told defendant he should report the matter, and that it was possible proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned him, and he said “I don't wish to say anything”. On the 25th, at 6.30 p.m., he served the defendant with a copy of the summons, and he told defendant he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. He asked defendant if he understood it, and he replied “Yes”. He then cautioned defendant, and he replied “Finding is not stealing; I found the notes”

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said defendant went to his bar on the 10th June about 12.30. He called for three pints of beer, and tendered a £5 note in payment. He told defendant he was sorry he had no change, as he had not been to the bank, and defendant said “It is quite in order; my sister sent it to me." He had a reason for saying he could not change it, but he could have changed it. He knew defendant was a casual worker in the Fish Market. He still declined to change it, and he left owing for the beer. Defendant said he would be back later, and four days later he called and paid for the beer.

Defendant: I am guilty of finding but not of stealing. I wouldn’t rob a man of a penny. I have got nothing to say.

The Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes, just the same as I have said it.

The Clerk: The law says it is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make that out.

Inspector Pittock said defendant was a local man. He had no regular employment, and did odd jobs in the market. There were twelve convictions against him, chiefly for drunkenness, the last one in 1914.

Defendant: If you like to give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf, and won’t come up any more.

The Chairman said the magistrates had very carefully considered the case, and they might have sent defendant for six months. On account of his evident attempt to go straight in recent years, he was an old sailor, who served in the Royal Navy, and because they thought he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him to prison for one month. They hoped it would be a lesson to him. They found defendant was undoubtedly guilty by finding, but finding things was stealing them, just as much the same as if they robbed in the ordinary way of stealing. It was no excuse for defendant or anyone else that because they found something they might presume it was theirs. Their duty was to take it to the Police Station or the nearest authority they could hand it over to. With regard to the evidence to which they had listened they had first the evidence of the barman. Now the barman at the Jubilee seemed to have risen to the full height of his responsibilities as a servant, and when the note was offered to him he very properly refused to take it, in view of the fact he knew from whom he was taking it. With regard to the real licensee of the place, the licensee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibilities. There was the second time in his own house that a £5 note was changed. The barman seemed to have acted with great discretion, and the Magistrates regretted the fact that the man who held the licence did not act in the same way, and the more so because it was the second time during the day that that change of a £5 note was made. The Magistrates wished to say they granted licences to men to hold the responsibilities and the licensee was in a responsible position towards the public and the police, and the magistrates expected every help and judgment to be used in dealing with a case such as this. The Magistrates were very pleased to think that Mr. Ellen, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in this matter, and they hoped the police and Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences, and held the position they did.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1927.

Local News.

George Slenderman Weatherhead was sentenced to one month's imprisonment at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, on a charge of stealing by finding two £5 Bank of England notes.

Fredk. John Wilkinson, of Littlestone-on-Sea, a fruiterer and greengrocer, said that on Friday, June 10th, he came to Folkestone for produce at the early morning market. He arrived about seven o'clock. He had two £5 Bank of England notes, three £1 Treasury notes, and a £5 cheque. He carried the money in an envelope. He had occasion to take the envelope out about ten minutes after he arrived at the market. At the time he took the envelope from his pocket he was standing by Mr. Bean's lorry. He gave a £1 note to defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant usually helped him to load his lorry. He handed the £1 note to defendant and returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned 8s. change. He completed his business with Mr. Bean and jumped on Mr. Bean's lorry to pay for his purchases. He again withdrew the envelope from his pocket; he took the contents out and found that they only consisted of the two Treasury notes and the £5 cheque. The two Bank of England notes were not there. He immediately commented upon having lost them to Mr. Bean. Weatherhead was employed in his work in the immediate vicinity at the time. Mr. Bean's lorry was ten or twelve yards from his own lorry and defendant was going between the two lorries. He told Mr. Bean that he had lost the two notes; His remarks would be audible to anyone standing around. They both made a search but could not find the notes. He said nothing directly to Weatherhead about his loss. On returning home he found that he had not left the notes there and then he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn't he tell me he had lost the notes?

Witness: You will see by my evidence that I was not sure I had lost them.

Defendant: I would not rob any man.

William John McEwitt stated that he was employed as a barman at the Jubilee public house. On Friday, June 10th, prisoner came in and called for a round of drinks, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a £5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in for crossword puzzles, and he said “Crossword puzzles be ----; if you don't think it's a good one take it to the boss”. He handed the note to his employer, who gave him the change.

William George Tingey, the landlord of the Jubilee Inn, said that on Friday, June 10th, the last witness brought him a £5 Bank of England note for him to change. Ultimately he gave him the change for the note. He saw defendant in the evening in the bar; Weatherhead was there up to closing time. Defendant tendered him a second £5 Bank of England note for drinks.

The Clerk: Had he been standing drinks to other people or not?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Tingey added that the drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. He told defendant to come for the change the following day. Defendant came the following day and he gave him the change. The first note he received he changed with Mr. Skinner. The second note he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Company. Witness further stated that he was not surprised at defendant tendering the notes.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Did you ask him any questions as to where he had obtained the notes from?

Witness: No, sir.

P.C. Williams said that he received information of the loss of two Bank of England notes and interviewed defendant at 8.30 on June 22nd on the East Cliff. He told defendant that he was a police officer and had been making enquiries regarding two £5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told Weatherhead that he would report the matter and that it was possible that proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned prisoner, who replied “I don't wish to say anything”. On June 25th he served defendant with a summons. He told prisoner that he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. Defendant said that he understood it. He then cautioned Weatherhead, who replied “Finding is not stealing. I did not steal the notes”.

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said on June 10th, at about 12.30, defendant ordered three pints of beer and tendered a £5 note. He said “I am sorry; I have no change until I have been to the bank”. He had a reason for saying that; he could have changed the note. He knew defendant to be a casual worker at the Fish Market. Defendant said “It is quite all right; my sister sent it to me”. He still declined to change the note and defendant left owing for the beer. Four days later defendant called and paid him for the beer.

Defendant pleaded “Guilty by finding, but not by stealing”. He added that he had nothing to say.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The law says that is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make it out.

Inspector Pittock stated that defendant was a local man, and at present he had no fixed abode. There were ten previous convictions, chiefly fort drunkenness, the last one being in 1914. Defendant was bound over in 1911 for six months for false pretences.

Defendant: If you will give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf and will not come up any more.

The Chairman of the Bench (Alderman C. Ed. Mumford) said on account of defendant's evident attempt to go straight in recent years, and because he was an old sailor who had served in the Royal Navy, and because they believed that he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him for one month's imprisonment; they might have sent him for a much longer period. They hoped that that would be a lesson to defendant. People who found things and kept them were stealing just the same as if they robbed in what was called the ordinary way of stealing.

With regard to the evidence to which they had listened, the barman of the Jubilee seemed to rise to the full height of his responsibility as a servant of his employer. When a note was offered to him the barman very properly refused to take it and to give change, in view of the fact that he knew from whom he was taking it. The lessee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibility, and it was the second time in his own house that day that a £5 note was changed.

Calling Mr. Tingey before the Magistrates, the Chairman said: “Your barman seems to have acted with great discretion and the Magistrates regret that you, who hold a licence, did not act in the same way, and more so because it was the second time during the day that change was made of a £5 note. The Magistrates wish to say this: We grant licences to men to hold responsible positions; the lessee of a public house or hotel is in a very responsible position towards the Bench, and towards the public and the police, and the Magistrates expect that help and judgement shall be used in dealing with such cases as this”.

Alderman Mumford then addressed Mr. Ellen. The Magistrates, he said, were very pleased to think that he, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in the matter. They hoped that in the future the police and the Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1928.

Tuesday, January 3rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Col. Broome-Giles.

John Patrick Flynn, a young married man, was charged with unlawfully wounding Elvie Flynn, his wife, by stabbing her in the hip with a knife, in the Fish Market, the previous night.

P.C. Langford said about 9.40 p.m. the previous day he was in High Street when he saw a woman. From what she said he went with her to the Fish Market, and to the Jubilee Inn, where he saw the prisoner. He said to him “Are you the husband of this woman?” The prisoner's wife was with him. He said to him “Your wife has previously come to me and said “My husband has stuck a pen-knife into me””. To that he made no reply. He then said “I shall take you to the police station, where you will be detained while further inquiries are made into it”. He then cautioned him, and he replied “I will come along”. At the police station he searched the prisoner, and among other articles found upon him the pen-knife, produced. He also had 13s. 2d. in his possession. Later he was present when the prisoner was charged by Det. Constable Butcher with inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Elvie Flynn. He replied “I have nothing to say”.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said about 10.30 p.m. he examined Mrs. Flynn and found a small wound on the outside of the left hip about half an inch in length and an eighth of an inch in depth. This was an incised wound. It had caused bleeding. Her clothes had been pierced by some instrument agreeing with the site of the injury. The vest was bloodstained. Either blade of the pen-knife produced might have caused the wound, but it was probably the smaller one. The injury was not a serious one. The woman was wearing three thick articles of clothing and more than playful force must have been used to inflict the wound. The wound was a very trivial one.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn said she was the wife of the prisoner, and lived at No. 26, Garden Road. Her husband was an Army pensioner, and she had been married to him about twelve months. On Monday morning he left home early to draw his reserve pay. He returned home and gave her £1. He went out again and she remained indoors until 6 p.m., when he had not returned. She went to the Shakespeare Hotel, and saw him in the bar there. She asked him for more money for food, and he said he had none. Outside the bar he took from his pocket two or three Treasury notes and tore them in halves. He then put them back into his pocket. He attempted to strike her, but she had her pram with her baby in it,, and she twisted it round so that he could not strike her. They had two or three words outside the Shakespeare. She then said “Are you going to give me any money?”, and he walked away along Guildhall Street. Shortly afterwards she saw him in Foord Road and he walked behind her. When she went home he came in just after her. She again asked him for money, and he told her he had none. Her brother and sister-in-law and their child were in the room then. She went out and obtained some tea and sugar and on her return the prisoner sent a girl out for some fish and chips for his supper. When she returned with the fish and chips he had gone out. He came back two or three minutes afterwards. She did not ask him for money. He just came in the door and walked out. That was about 7.30 or eight o'clock, and her husband went out with her brother, Frank Waller. Before he left she told him that it was only beer of which he thought when he had money. He lost his temper. She remained indoors until about nine o'clock, and then she went down with her baby in the perambulator to the Fish Market. She opened the door of the Jubilee Inn and saw her husband sitting in the public bar. She called him out, but he would not come. She stood outside a few minutes, then called to him again. He did not come so she called out “You can have beer; come outside and give us money for food”. He came out and she said “Will you give me some money?”, and he took the notes from his pocket and tore them into pieces, and he threw them into the road, saying “There it is there” She said “You silly”, or something to that effect. As she said that he ran for her to hit her again. Her mother, who had come out of the Jubilee, said “Don't hit her”. She started talking about money again. He ran for her and she thought he was going to punch her. She pulled the latch of the Oddfellows public house, intending to get away, and half fell, and as she fell she felt something hit her in the side just above the left hip. Mrs. Skinner and the men in the public house came to her assistance, one of the men in the public bar catching her. Defendant struck her a blow and she thought he was striking her with his fist. Whe he ran her round the pram he said “I will do you in”. She felt the knife enter her thigh, and she cried out “He has stabbed me”. She put her hand to the spot and found that it was covered with blood. She saw a policeman, and P.C. Langford went with her to the Jubilee. Her husband had been drinking, and she thought he must have been drunk to a certain extent.

P.C. Langford, re-called, said the prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober when he arrested him.

Prisoner said hearing what his wife said about his mother he lost his head.

The Chairman then said he would be committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Prisoner said he did not ask for bail.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 January 1928.

Local News.

A charge of unlawfully wounding his wife by, it was alleged, stabbing her with a pen-knife, was preferred against John Patrick Flynn at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday.

P.C. Langford said at about 9.30 the previous night he was in High Street when a woman made a communication to him. He went to the Jubilee public house in the Fish Market, where he said to prisoner “Your wife has just come to me and said “My husband has just stuck a pen-knife in me””. To that he made no reply. Witness then said to him “I shall take you to the police station where you will be detained while further enquiries are made”. Witness cautioned him, and he replied “I will come along”. At the police station, among other articles found on prisoner, was the pen-knife produced. When formally charged, prisoner replied “I have nothing to say”.

Dr, W.C.P. Barrett, Police Surgeon, said he examined Mrs. Flynn at the police station, and found a small incised wound on the outside of the left hip, half an inch in length, and about an eight of an inch in depth. All the clothing above the wound had been pierced by some instrument. Either blade of the pen-knife produced might have caused the injury. The wound was not dangerous. The woman was wearing three thick articles of clothing, and more than playful force must have been used to inflict it.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn, who gave her address as 26, Garden Road, Folkestone, said her husband was an Army pensioner. They had been married 12 months. On Monday morning he left home early to draw his Reserve pay, and returned about 9.30, giving her £1. He then went out again. About 6 p.m., as he had not returned, she went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where, outside the house she asked prisoner for more money for food. He took two or three Treasury notes from his pocket and tore them in halves, and put them back in his pocket. He then attempted to strike her. She asked him again for money, and he walked away down Guildhall Street. Shortly afterwards she saw him in Foord Road and he walked behind her home. When they reached home she again asked him for some money and he told her he had none. Prisoner went out with her brother about 7.30 or 7.45. In the house they had an argument about money. At about 9 o'clock she went to the Jubilee Inn, in the Fish Market. She opened the door and called her husband. He would not come out. A few minutes later she called him again and said “You can have beer. Come on out and give me money for some food, will you?” He came out, took the notes from his pocket, tore them into smaller pieces, and, she thought, threw them into the road, saying “There it is”. He ran to her again to hit her but her mother, who had come out of the Jubilee, said “Don't hit her”. Witness started talking about money again and defendant ran for her. She thought he was going to punch her. She caught hold of the latch of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and as she partly fell he struck her in the left side. People in the public house came to her assistance. She thought defendant hit her with his fist. She did not see a knife in his hand. When he struck her he said “I will do you in”. When she was picked up she put her hand where the blow landed, and it came away covered in blood. She then found she had been stabbed. She went and found P.C. Langford. The knife produced belonged to her husband. Defendant had been drinking and must have been drunk to a certain extent.

P.C. Langford (re-called) said when arrested prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober.

The Magistrates then retired for a short period, and upon their return announced that prisoner would be committed for trial.

Prisoner, who did not ask for bail, said with his wife saying things about his mother, he lost his head.

 

Folkestone Express 28 January 1928.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, January 21st: Before Roland Giffard Oliver Esq.

John Patrick Flynn, 22, a miner, pleaded Guilty to maliciously wounding his wife, Elvie, at Folkestone, on January 2nd last.

Mr. J. Weigall (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson, the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and said the prisoner had pleaded Guilty to stabbing his wife with a pen-knife outside a Folkestone public house in the Fish Market. The man was of good character, and the matter seemed to have started by the wife demanding money from her husband, who, instead of giving her money, went off to the public house. The prisoner made a statement at the Police Court that he lost his head because of the observations his wife made about his mother.

Mrs. Flynn was called, and she said her husband was a miner and a good workman. She and her child had nothing to live upon if her husband was sent to prison.

The Recorder: Are you afraid of him?

Mrs. Flynn: No, sir. In reply to further questions by the Recorder, she said it was true she called his mother over something cruel.

The Chief Constable said the trouble seemed to have been going on for some time. The prisoner came from Wollaston, Staffordshire. He was educated at Newcastle, Stafford, and the schoolmaster said he was quite a good boy. He worked in the pits from 14 years of age until March, 1924, when he joined the Army and served for three years. At the end of that time he returned to Wollaston with his wife and baby, and they resided with his mother. He again went to work until August last, when he left of his own accord. While at Wollaston Colliery he bore a good character. There was no record of any conviction against him, and nothing was known detrimental to his character. His wife took out a summons against him at Wollaston for persistent cruelt, which was to be heard at Burslem on May 17th, 1927, but as there was no appearance the case was not heard. On two occasions the police had been called to the house where they lived, but on account of the quarrels taking place in the house no action could be taken in the case. In the opinion of the police in Staffordshire the quarrels appeared to have been caused by the idle and dirty habits of the wife.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, in answer to the Recorder, said the wound was really only a graze. Although the skin was broken it was nothing more than a scratch.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said he (Flynn) had been in prison since the incident occurred, and he had had time to think about it. He was going to give him another chance. He did not know that he ought to do so because he had a knife. In England they did not like people who used knives. He was prepared to think from what happened it was a very trivial use of the knife, resulting in a mere scratch – fortunately for the prisoner. He was going to give him another chance, as much for his wife's sake as his own. He was going to bind him over for two years to be of good behaviour. The prisoner and his wife must not have these dreadful quarrels in public, or anywhere else. He was being treated very mercifully. If he went on like that again he would be brought before him, and be sentenced for what he did on that occasion. He (the Recorder) advised him to take that as a warning, and try to do better.

The prisoner: Thank you, sir.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 January 1928.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, January 21st: Before Roland Oliver Esq.

John Patrick Flynn, aged 22, a miner, was indicted for, on January 2nd, at Folkestone, maliciously wounding Elvie Flynn, his wife. Accused pleaded Guilty, and a written statement was handed to the Recorder.

At the Police Court hearing of the case it was stated that prisoner stabbed his wife with a pen-knife outside the Oddfellows Arms public house, in the Fish Market.

Mr. Weigall, who appeared for the prosecution, said he was informed that the man was of good character, and the trouble seemed to have started by the wife demanding housekeeping money. Instead of giving her the money, he went into a public house. She got him out, and before the Police Court there was a statement by the prisoner that he lost his head because of an offensive observation made by the wife about his mother.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn was then called, and in answer to the Recorder said she would have nothing to live on if her husband was sent to prison.

The Recorder: Are you afraid of him? – No, sir.

Has he ever done anything of this sort before? – No, sir.

The Recorder: He says that you said to him on that evening when you quarrelled “You are like your mother. She is no good to me, and nor are you”. – I called his mother something cruel, and I had no business to.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said the trouble seemed to have been going on for some years; he believed ever since they had been married. Prisoner was born on November 25th, 1905, at Newcastle, Stafford, and was educated at a Roman Catholic school and other places. His schoolmasters said that he was quite a good boy when at school. In 1917 he went to live at Wollaston, and when he was nearly 14 he went to work as pitboy at Wollaston Colliery. On January 19th, 1923, he became wagon man in the colliery, where he remained until March 13th, 1924, when he left of his own accord to join the Army. He served three years and returned with his wife and baby to live with his mother at Wollaston. He went to work in the colliery again, and remained there until the end of August last year, when he left of his own accord to go to Folkestone. While at the colliery he bore a good character, and no complaint was made about his work. There was no record of any conviction or anything detrimental to his character. During the time he was living with his wife and baby and mother, his wife took out a summons against him for persistent cruelty. This was heard on May 17th, 1927, at Burslem, but as there was no appearance the case was not heard. On two occasions the police had been called on account of prisoner and his wife quarrelling in the house, but no action was taken. In the opinion of the police the trouble appeared to have been caused by the idle, dirty habits and temper of the wife.

Dr. C. Barrett, Police Surgeon, said technically the woman had a wound because the skin was broken, but it was nothing more than a scratch.

Replying to the Recorder, prisoner said he had been in prison since January 5th.

The Recorder: I am going to give you another chance. I don't know that I ought to, because you used a knife, and in England we do not like people who use knives, but I am prepared to think that from what happened it was very trivial, and the use of the knife resulted in a mere scratch, fortunately for you. I am going to give you another chance as much for your wife's sake as for your own, because I do not see what good would be done in sending you to prison. You will be bound over for two years to be of good behaviour. You wife and you must not have these dreadful quarrels in public or anywhere else. You are being treated very mercifully.

 

Folkestone Express 14 December 1929.

Tuesday, December 10th: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Smith.

William George Taylor appeared on a summons charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of the Jubilee Inn, of which he is the licence holder.

He was subsequently bound over, but the Magistrates stated that the case was proved against him.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Pittock applied for the witnesses to be out of Court. The Magistrates agreed.

Inspector Pittock said at 9.05 p.m. on November 26th he was walking down Dover Street, when he saw three men at the bottom of Harvey Street struggling. The men went down the street, and the centre one was staggering about and being supported by the arms of the other men. He followed them and saw them turn into Radnor Street. They disappeared about halfway along Radnor Street. He fetched P.C. Whitehead, and accompanied him to the Jubilee public house, Radnor Street. On entering by the Radnor Street entrance, he found the defendant in the private bar just inside, on the public side of the counter, with his jacket off and his shirt sleeves rolled back. He said to him “Have three men just entered this house?” He replied “No”. He at once noticed he was drunk. He then walked through the bars with P.C. Whitehead, and Taylor followed them, and on the Stade side he said to Taylor “You are drunk. I advise you to get upstairs and out of the way”. He replied “I am all right”. He asked him if he had been out and had just come in. He replied “I have not been out. I have been here since six”. During this conversation he was staggering about, unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and indistinct, and standing in an ungainly attitude with his back arched and his head back. He staggered back on to the wall of the house on two or three occasions, and on one occasion P.C. Whitehead steadied him, or he would have collapsed on to the ground. Defendant's wife and a customer named Thomas Gosling then came outside, and he said to Mrs. Taylor, in defendant's presence, “Your husband is drunk, Mrs. Taylor. You had better get him upstairs; he is not to go into those bars again”. She replied “The landlord of the Harvey sent for him just after six, and he has just come home. He looks to me as though he has been doped”. They then persuaded the defendant to go away with them through the public passage, and entered the house on the Radnor Street side. Defendant called on his two days later at the police station. He said “Yes, Mr. Taylor, what is it?”, and he replied “I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Pittock, for the condition you found me in the other night”. He said “I am sorry, but I am afraid your apologies are no good to me. I have reported the facts to the Chief Constable”. Previous to leaving the Jubilee he interviewed men named Pepin and Hall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bonniface, witness said Taylor had been in the house for two years, and the house had been greatly improved since he had been there. The centre man of the three was drunk, but the other two were not. They did not pass the Richmond public house during the time he saw him. Taylor could not have been drinking in the house. He would not think that the defendant had been out helping to wash glasses; he would be unable to do so in the condition in which he was. He had had a very good opinion of the defendant, and he knew what a serious thing that was for him.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated Inspector Pittock.

Taylor, giving evidence, said from 1914 to 1927 he was serving at sea, and his discharge papers were marked “Character very good”. He had been out that particular evening, and was with Pepin and Hall. He returned to his own public house. He first walked into his private kitchen and took off his overcoat and rolled up his sleeves. The Inspector came into the house two minutes after, just as he walked through the kitchen door. He followed them through and spoke to them outside. He agreed that the Inspector told him he was drunk, but he replied he was not. Inspector Pittock said “I believe you are drunk”, and he replied “I don't think so”. He admitted he had had one or two drinks. His wife and Gosling came out, and he walked down the passage behind him. He did not go into the bara again until a quarter past ten, when he washed up the glasses and cashed up the day's takings.

In reply to the Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), defendant said Pepin did not come into the room with him when he took off his coat. When he spoke to Inspector Pittock he thought he told him he had been out. His wife and father-in-law helped him with the glasses. He went to the Harvey Hotel at 6.30 and had two glasses of bitter and two gins and peppermint.

The Clerk: Is it a fact that you were requested by the landlord to leave the Harvey Hotel?

Defendant: No.

The Clerk: You left voluntarily?

Defendant: Yes. Proceeding, he said he then went to the Richmond, where Pepin, Hall and he had a glass of bitter. They only stayed there five minutes. He was not requested by the landlord to leave the house or advised to go home.

In reply to Mr. Bonniface, defendant said he told the landlord of the Harvey that it was time he left, as his wife was at home alone.

Albert Edward Pepin, 33, Harvey Street, said he was with Taylor practically all the evening from seven o'clock, meeting him in the Harvey. They went to Mr. Ingleton's house, where they had a bitter apiece. They were not told by Mr. Ingleton that it would be better for them to go home. He went home with Taylor, and was in the bar when the Inspector came into the house. Taylor was sober. He saw him go into his kitchen, and afterwards come into the bar. He subsequently spoke to Inspector Pittock.

In reply to the Clerk, defendant said Ingleton, the landlord of the Richmond, would not have a drink with Taylor, but he did not advise them to go home.

Mr. Ernest Frederick Hodges, assistant barman and cellarman at the Jubilee, said on November 26th he was in the bar from a quarter to seven until ten o'clock. He did not see Mr. Taylor until after ten o'clock, when he came into the bar to cash up and to help in the washing up. Defendant was not drunk.

Witness, in reply to the Clerk, said after ten o'clock he was not in the bar at all. He was the defendant's father-in-law, and he did not assist in washing up the glasses.

Edward Hall, a fishmonger, 21, Great Fenchurch Street, said he met the defendant in the Harvey Hotel, and came home with him. They went to the Richmond, and Mr. Ingleton did not advise them to go home. When he left defendant, Mr. Taylor was sober.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had retired to consider their decision, said the Magistrates were unanimous in finding that the case was proved, but they wished to add that the defendant had improved the character and conduct of the house. They also took into consideration the defendant's services to their country. Although they found the case proved, they were going to take a course they thought met the case. They bound the defendant over to be of good behaviour for six months.

The Clerk (to the defendant): Understand this is not a conviction against you.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 December 1929.

Local News.

William George Taylor was summoned at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday for being drunk on licensed premises, the Jubilee public house.

The Magistrates were: Alderman C.E. Mumford (in the chair), Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Smith. Mr. B.H. Bonniface defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector G. Pittock said at 9.05 p.m. on November 22nd he was walking down Dover Street, when he saw three men struggling at the bottom of Harvey Street. He then saw the three men go on down the street. The centre one was staggering about and the other two were supporting him by his arms. He followed them down and saw them turn into Radnor Street. They disappeared about halfway along Radnor Street. He fetched P.C. Whitehead and accompanied him to the Jubilee public house, in Radnor Street. On entering by the Radnor Street door he found the defendant at the private bar, just inside on the public side of the counter, with his jacket off and shirt sleeves rolled back. He said to him “Have three men just entered this house?” He replied “No”. He at once noticed that the man was drunk. Witness then walked through the bars with P.C. Whitehead. Taylor followed them, and on The Stade he said to defendant “You are drunk. I advise you to get up the stairs out of the way” He replied “I am all right”. He asked him if he had been out or if he had just come in. He replied “I have not been out. I have been here since 6 o'clock”. During the conversation defendant was staggering about, very unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and indistinct, and he was standing in a very ungainly attitude with his back arched and head back. He staggered back against the wall of the house on several occasions, and on one occasion P.C. Whitehead steadied him otherwise he would have collapsed to the ground. Defendant's wife and a customer named Thomas Gosling then came outside. He said to Mrs. Taylor, in defendant's presence, “Your husband is drunk Mrs. Taylor; you had better get him upstairs. He is not to go in those bars again”. She replied “The landlord of the Harvey sent down for him just after 6 o'clock, and he has just come home. He looks to me as though he has been doped”. They then persuaded the defendant to go away with them to the Radnor Street entrance, each holding one arm. Defendant called on him two days later at the police station. He said “Yes, taylor, what is it?” and he replied “I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Pittock, for the condition you found me in the other night”. Witness said “I am sorry, but I am afraid your apologies are no good to me. I have reported the facts to the Chief Constable”.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant had been the licensee of the Jubilee for about two years, and the house had greatly improved since he had been there. When he saw the three men he had mentioned that the centre man was drunk, not the other two men. They went past the Richmond public house before he saw them. Taylor was not drunk in that house. In the condition he had seen defendant he would not have thought it possible for him to have been able to cash up and wash glasses that night. He had had a good opinion of the defendant as a licensee.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated.

Defendant said from 1914 to 1927 he was serving at sea, and his discharge papers were marked “Character: Very Good”. He agreed that he had been out that evening and that he had been in company with two men named Peppin and Hall. When he got back he walked into the private kitchen, took off his hat, coat and jacket, and rolled up his sleeves. The inspector came in two or three minutes after. As they walked through defendant came out of the kitchen door. He followed them through and spoke to them outside. He agreed that the inspector told him he was drunk and he said he was not. The inspector said “Taylor, I think you are drunk”. He replied “I don't think so”. He admitted he had been out and had one or two drinks. Gosling and his wife walked behind him as he went down the passage. At 10 o'clock he washed the glasses and cashed up the day's takings.

By the Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Peppin did not come into the room. He told the inspector he had been out. His wife and father-in-law helped him with the glasses. He had been to the Harvey Hotel, and while there he had two bitters and two gin and peppermints because he had a cold in his kidneys.

The Clerk: Is it a fact that you were requested by the landlord of the Harvey Hotel to leave his house?

Defendant: No, sir, I left voluntarily.

In reply to further questions, defendant said he called in at the Richmond on the way back. He was there about five minutes and he had one glass of bitter. He was not requested by the landlord to leave the house, nor did the landlord advise him to go home.

Alfred Edward Peppin, of 33, Harvey Street, said he was with Taylor from 7 o'clock on the evening in question. He met him in the Harvey Hotel, and he also went with him to the Richmond public house. They were not told by Mr. Ingleton, the landlord there, to go and get home. He went right home with Taylor and he was in the bar when the inspector came in. Defendant was sober. He saw him go into the kitchen, and he also saw him afterwards come through the bar. Witness subsequently spoke to Inspector Pittock.

By the Clerk: At the Richmond Taylor asked Ingleton to have a drink with him. He replied “I don't want one now”. The landlord did not say anything about defendant's condition.

Edward Fred Hodges, employed at the Jubilee public house as assistant barman and cellarman, said on the evening in question he was in the bar from 6.45 to after 10 o'clock. He heard defendant cash up. Defendant also helped to wash up, and he was not drunk.

Edward Hall, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, a fishmonger, said he met defendant in the Harvey Hotel and came home with him. Mr. Ingleton, of the Richmond public house, did not tell defendant to go home. When he left defendant was sober.

The Bench retired and upon their return the Chairman announced that defendant would be bound over for six months. “The Bench are unanimous” said the Chairman, “in finding that the case is proved, but we wish to state that were are satisfied that you have improved the character and conduct of this house, and taking that into consideration, and also your services to your country, we are taking a course which we think will meet the case. You will be bound over for six months”.

The Clerk: That is not a conviction.

 

Folkestone Express 18 March 1933.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to sell at the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, to Mr. R.P. Rawlings, the Estates Manager for the brewers, who stated that they would put a manager in charge until the transfer sessions, by which time they hoped to find a landlord. The holder of the licence was Mr. William George Taylor. The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he thought the cause of the transfer was a financial matter.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 7 October 1933.

Council Meeting Extract.

The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday approved of the Health Committee's recommendations concerning the scheme for dealing with the whole of Radnor Street as a slum clearance, and further progress will therefore be possible in connection with the rebuilding of the area. The scheme include the compulsory purchase of four licensed houses, lodging houses, a restaurant, stores, temporary buildings for amusement, and workshops.

The Health Committee's recommendations dealing with the matter were as follows: (extract)

Resolved: That Compulsory Purchase Orders be made for the purchase by the Council; that there shall be included in the above-mentioned Compulsory Purchase Orders the under-mentioned properties and such other properties which are surrounded by or adjoin the clearance area, including: Radnor Street, No. 59, public house (Packet Boat Inn); No. 24, public house (Jubilee Inn); No. 30, public house (Oddfellows Arms); No. 38, public house (Ship Inn)

Councillor Dallas Brett said with regard to the four public houses those were matters presenting somewhat of a difficulty. It was a difficulty which had not been got over at the present moment, because it had not been tackled, but he was informed at the Ministry in other schemes throughout the country, where public houses had existed and had to be got rid of, private arrangement with the brewers had been made, which had been more satisfactory than would have been thought possible He proposed to ask his Committee to give instructions to himself and the Town Clerk to see what arrangements could be made. Whatever they did, they had got to realise that the whole area had to be cleared, and that they included in their plans two very valuable sites for public house property, to take the place of one or two or more of the houses which were in existence in Radnor Street at the present time. It was a matter of negotiations.

Councillor Barfoot said he believed that the scheme would be materially reduced if the stores and two public houses on the Fish Market were left as they were, and if the houses which it was proposed to build on that site were built on what was now the amusement park.

The resolution confirming the adoption of the recommendations was almost unanimously carried.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1934.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday granted a protection order in connection with the transfer of the licence of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, from Mr. Rogers, the present holder, to Mr. Herbert Clement Chawner, his brother-in-law, who has been assisting in the management of the house for the past year. The new licensee was previously at Broadstairs.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 April 1934.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Smith, Councillor W. Hollands, Alderman J.W. Stainer, and Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

The application of Mr. Harold Clement Chawner for a protection order in connection with the Jubilee Inn was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 May 1934.

Local News.

The licences of the Raglan Hotel and Jubilee Inn were on Wednesday transferred to Mr. Richard Stanley and Mr. Harold Clement Chawner respectively. The licence of the Raglan was formerly held by Mrs. Jane Rosetta Twigg, and the licence of the Jubilee was transferred from Mr. Edward Charles Stanley Rogers.

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Town Council had before them the letter from the Ministry of Health in which they practically approved of the Council's scheme for making a slum clearance area. They made suggestions, however, for a few properties to be excluded in order to lessen the cost of the scheme.

The Health Committee, in consequence, in their minutes recommended the preparation of fresh plans in order to provide for forty houses on the site, and also that the three licensed houses, which were to be dealt with under the original scheme, should be allowed to remain. The Council, without any discussion, approved of the recommendations.

The Town Clerk submitted the following letter from the Ministry of Health (extract): Ministry of Health, Whitehall, S.W. 1. 30th August, 1934. “At the same time the Council will appreciate that when the inclusion of expensive properties is proposed it is necessary to consider carefully whether the cost of their acquisition does not outweigh their benefit to the scheme, and in this connection the estimated cost of acquiring the licensed premises in the area is of particular importance. The conclusion which the Minister has reached is that the properties reference Nos. 88, 91, and 97 should be excluded”.

Note: It is unclear which three properties this refers to, as originally there were to be four licensed houses cleared. I suspect that it means the Oddfellows, Ship, and Jubilee.

 

Folkestone Express 24 November 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

A general scheme for the re-housing of the Radnor Street area was definitely approved by the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council at their meeting yesterday (Thursday).

The Borough Surveyor submitted a report and description of the proposed lay-out of the Radnor Street area.

The proposal assumes that the licensed houses will be moved to alternative and more commodious sites, and it is desirable that these premises should be moved, as only by these means can a symmetrical and generally accepted lay-out be obtained.

 

Folkestone Express 26 January 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Council are making material progress with the scheme for the clearance of the slums in Radnor Street, and this will undoubtedly be pleasing to the majority of Folkestone people. Practically all opposition to the scheme in the Council Chamber has vanished, and it is clear that the members are determined that without any delay now the operations will be pushed forward to a successful conclusion. Yesterday the General Purposes Committee considered the Health Committee minutes in connection with the further development of the scheme, and the members were almost unanimous concerning the Committee's decisions. These were mainly concerned with the licensed houses in teh area. These might have provided a very knotty problem, for they were left out of the proposed scheme by the Health Minister's order. Unless something had been done in this direction three of the houses would have remained as they were, and would have undoubtedly proved an eyesore set amidst a modern and what will be a model housing estate. The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson) was instructed to negotiate with the owners of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn, and he is certainly to be complimented upon the able manner in which he carried out those negotiations, and which will certainly contribute towards the ultimate success of the scheme. The present three houses will, if the proposals go through as it is hoped, be demolished and will be re-built within the layout of the whole scheme. This will necessitate an exchange of land, and the owners will receive an added piece of land. Another licensed house in the area will disappear, but that will be a matter of purchase. The re-erection of modern licensed houses will certainly add to the effectiveness of the clearance of the whole of the area. The purchase of three houses in Radnor Street not included in the order will also give added scope for dealing with the whole of the area in a manner which will resound to the credit of Folkestone. In order that the re-housing of people from the area and other areas can be efficaciously carried out, the Committee yesterday also agreed to the erection of 32 additional houses on the Hill Road Housing Estate. Everyone who has consideration for those people who have had to live in houses not worthy of being called houses will assuredly agree with this extension of the Corporation estate. It looks like being full steam ahead now with regard to the Radnor Street slum clearance, and those who have regard for the fair name of Folkestone will be exceedingly pleased.

Council Meeting Extract.

Yesterday (Thursday) the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council had before them the recommendations of the Health Committee regarding the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, and by their approval considerable progress will be made in the proposals for the demolition of the property. The recommendations include the demolition of three of the licensed houses on the sit and their removal on to different sites, and the removal of one house altogether.

The Health Committee's recommendations were as follows:- Radnor Street Area: (a) Licensed Houses: The Town Clerk reported that, as instructed by the Committee, he had been in negotiation with the owners of the licensed houses excluded from the provisions of the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The result of the negotiations is as follows: Jubilee Inn: The owners of this house are prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council, subject to the cleared site being conveyed to them in exchange for the site of the existing Jubilee Inn. Oddfellows Arms: The owners of this house are also prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council. This proposal will also involve an exchange of lands, and is subject to the Corporation agreeing to compensate the tenant for his trade fixtures and fittings, such compensation to be fixed by a valuer to be agreed upon. Ship Inn: No definite decision has yet been received from the owners of this house, but it is likely that they will also agree to demolish and re-build this house on a site in the vicinity of the present house. The arrangement will also involve an exchange of lands. The whole of the above mentioned arrangements are, of course, subject to the approval of the Licensing Justices.

Resolved that the committee approve in principle of the above mentioned arrangements.

Councillor Lillie said that meeting was brought forward a week in order that the negotiations which the Town clerk had had in connection with the licensed houses could be considered. If the licence holders had to transfer their licence from the present house to the house it was proposed to build no time should be lost in considering the recommendations in order that the owners could be informed so that they could appear before the Justices at the Brewster Sessions and make application for their transfer. He would like the Committee to express their approval of those negotiations, and also to make any remarks they wished in regard to any items on those proceedings. He moved that the minutes be approved. Alderman Mrs. Gore seconded.

Councillor Barfoot: Do you not think as the public houses are to be pulled down an attempt should be made to reduce the number there? There certainly does not appear to be any need for three in the area. Cannot an application be made to the licensing authorities to have the number reduced?

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: How many houses have to be sacrificed if the Ship Inn is to be given a plot?

The Town Clerk: If it remains as it is it will take the site of two houses.

Councillor Hart asked the Town Clerk whether the Ministry of Health did not state that the licensed houses should not be reduced.

The Town Clerk: They did not say that. The Ministry excluded the licensed houses under the Compulsory Purchase Order, which prevented you from acquiring the properties. The point raised by Councillor Barfoot is quite a different matter. I understand representations were made comparatively recently to have one removed.

Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.

The Town Clerk: And the licensing Justices decided not to refuse the licence.

Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.

The Mayor: In what respect?

The Town clerk: There is one house going. We are acquiring one of the four there at present.

Councillor Johnson: Have we any information about trade done by these houses – the barrelage?

Councillor Gadd: On a point of order. Is this not a question of slum clearance and not redundancy of licence? Have we any authority for dealing with redundancy this morning?

The Mayor: We have not. It will have to be brought up by an outside authority. At the present time it is not before us.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said they offered doubling the plot of land for the re-building of the public houses. Land constituted wealth, so they were offering something in the shape of wealth to the owners of the licensed houses. They were having to buy those new houses, and they had a number of deficiencies which were caused through having to give up that land.

The Town Clerk: It is not so.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said when they were in Committee the Town clerk asked the Borough Engineer why he could not squash the houses up a little more, and the Borough Engineer said it was impossible. It was then discussed that they should buy the three additional houses.

The Mayor: That was more from the point of view of giving a better approach to the houses.

Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.

The Town Clerk said he wished to explain that the Minister merely said that they were not to spend £20,000 to buy public houses.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said it was no use discussing that; the public houses were there. She was referring to the first meeting after the Ministry's decision was published.

The Town Clerk said the Minister's order excluded the public houses in order that the expense of acquiring them might be avoided. As, at any rate, two of them interfered with the lay-out it became incumbent upon them to arrange for their removal on some terms. The owners had agreed to remove them all to other sites on the terms of exchanging land. They, therefore, got the houses removed from their present sites as they desired, at no cost other than that the sites on which they were going were slightly larger than the sites on which the present houses stood. “I have”, he said “seen the Ministry of Health of those proposals. They think the proposals before you are extremely satisfactory”. They had got the removal of the three licensed places from their present lay-out at a very small cost indeed.

Councillor Davis said in four or five years' time the question of redundancy might come up again. Would it not then cost more than it would today to reduce the number? That was what he thought Councillor Barfoot was driving at.

The Town clerk: Why should it be suggested in five years that you would want to buy a new house?

Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.

The Town Clerk said the question of redundancy had nothing to do with the Council. If there was a wish to reduce them in five or six years' time there was the question of redundancy to consider, and that would have to be decided by the Compensation Authority.

The Mayor: This question does not come within the scope of this Council.

Councillor Barfoot: Was it not understood that on the site of Nos. 5, 7, and 9 a public house would be built on that corner?

Several members: No.

Councillor Kent said if that scheme was carried out they would have three modern public houses with adequate accommodation, which they did not possess now. The arrangements were, he considered, splendid.

The Mayor said he was present at the meeting of the Health Committee, and he thought they were all indebted to the Town Clerk for the very able manner in which he had carried out very delicate negotiations. He thought the Council had done exceedingly well, and he considered the best thing they could do was to agree to those recommendations unanimously.

The resolution approving the minutes was carried, only Mrs. Thiselton voting against it.

 

Folkestone Express 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday at the Folkestone Town Hall, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported that there had only been 15 convictions for drunkenness, the number being the same as the previous year. One licence, that of the Mechanics Arms, was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions, all the others being renewed. The licensing hours were extended for the whole of the summer time period by half an hour, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.

Mr. R.G. Wood presided, and a number of Magistrates were on the Bench.

Radnor Street Licensed Houses.

Several of the clergy and ministers and representatives of various religions and temperance bodies were present in Court, evidently with a view to watching the proceedings concerning the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area. Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, was also present.

The Chairman asked the Town Clerk if he had anything to say.

Mr. Nicholson said he really did not quite understand the position with regard to the licences in the Radnor Street area. Did they want him to explain what the Corporation's proposals would be?

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): These licences will be renewed today?

Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.

The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?

Mr. Nicholson: The Corporation do not own any of the licences for the moment. I did not anticipate I should have to explain anything today.

The Chairman: We are asked to renew four licences in the area. We have no official information. It is a question whether they should be renewed or referred to the adjourned sessions. We know something by newspapers. We can defer the renewal and in the meantime think over what action we shall take.

Mr. Nicholson: The owners of these houses are not represented this morning. Is it proper for me to say anything about it?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

Mr. Nicholson: I did not ask to be here.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: Is this an application now being made for the renewal of the four licences? If so, have the applications been made in order?

The Clerk, to Mr. Nicholson: Is there anything you have to officially mention? In the ordinary course there is an application for the renewal of all the licences, which does not affect what you are doing in the Radnor Street area.

Mr. Nicholson: I am not making any application this morning.

The Chairman: We would like to have some information of what is likely to happen.

Mr. Nicholson said as they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a compulsory purchase order. There were four licensed houses in the area. The Ministry declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of the houses and they were struck out of the order. The remaining house, the Packet Boat, would be acquired by the Corporation as a going concern. It so happened that the Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows Arms, where they now stood, interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses, and on instructions he entered into negotiations with the owners. Two of them, the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms, agreed to re-erect, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, on alternative sites that would enable the Corporation's lay-out scheme to be proceeded with. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners as to whether they were prepared to pull down and re-erect a new house. The terms of the arrangements with the Jubilee and the Oddfellows were subject to applications which would be made to them in due course. There was to be an exchange of land in connection with them. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than paying the tenant for the trade fixtures. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not obtained information whether they were prepared to pull down. That house did not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two. It would be much better for the scheme if that house was pulled down and re-erected, but the Corporation could not insist upon it. The other owners had done all they could to assist in their scheme. The Packet Boat would be definitely acquired. Notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. The Ministry confirmed the order which included that house.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, who stated he represented a number of residents in that area, said he would like to raise a question on the renewal of the houses.

The Clerk: I cannot see you have any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox asked if the matter for the removals would come up at the adjourned sessions. If so, he would be there to object. It seemed to him they would be able that day to only provisionally renew the licences for the time being, or mention that they would be referred on the ground of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said a very considerable number of residents were interested in those four licences. If there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of the licences they definitely asked that their views might be considered in reference to redundancy.

The Chairman enquired what the police view was.

The Chief Constable said at the Magistrates' primary meeting he received instructions to go into the question of redundancy and ascertain whether it would be possible to differentiate between the houses. He did so and he found some considerable difficulty in saying because it was an established fact that there were not too many licensed houses for the summer trade in the area. All the houses did extremely well. Whether they were structurally adapted or not was open to enquiry. The houses less structurally fitted were doing a better trade. More customers were in those pokey houses than in the better houses. There was, he supposed, a psychological reason for it. He had had a system of paying monthly visits and it gave him a line on the trade. He had selected a certain number of houses and they had put them into three groups.

The Chief Constable then described the groups and gave details of the numbers of customers in them at certain times. The first group consisted of the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. The second group included the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris Hotel, and the Princess Royal. The third group were the Alexandra Hotel, Royal George, South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak, and the Lifeboat.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter and on their return the Chairman said they had decided to renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which they renewed until the adjourned licensing sessions when it would be considered with regard to redundancy.

Dr. Carlile: Then no objection can be taken here and now, or in any other place, to the four licences involved in the scheme?

The Clerk: There will be applications for removals later and anyone can be heard at the time those applications are made. That is the position.

The Chairman: It will be better for the objections to be raised when the transfer comes along.

Dr. Carlile: It puts us at a very serious disadvantage. There will only be a question of renewal then.

The Chairman: It is a question of renewing them for one year now.

Dr. Carlile: It will be a question of the removal of licences that have already been granted.

The Chairman: That is the position.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Another year of sobriety was reported by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) to the Licensing Magistrates at the annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. All the licenses were renewed with the exception of that of the Mechanics’ Arms, which was referred to the adjourned annual Sessions with a view to the question of redundancy being considered. During the Sessions reference was made to the four licensed houses in the Radnor Street area, a statement being made by the Town Clerk.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Seager, Alderman W. Hollands and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

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

The Town Clerk (Mr. C. F. Nicholson) was present and it was suggested he should address the Magistrates. He said that he did not quite understand what they wanted him to tell them.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What is the position of the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area?

The Town Clerk: You want me to explain what the effect of the Corporation’s proposals in regard to the Radnor Street area will be?

The Clerk: These licences won’t be renewed, will they?

The Town Clerk: Certainly. The Corporation don’t own any of the licences at the moment.

The Clerk: They may.

The Town Clerk: Only one. If the Bench want me to explain what the position is likely to be I shall be pleased to do so.

The Chairman said they were asked to renew four licences in the area. They had no official information as to what would happen to them. The question arose whether they should be renewed that morning or put over to the adjourned Sessions.

The Town Clerk pointed out that the owners of the houses were not represented that morning. Was it proper for him to say anything about it in their absence?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.

The Clerk said he thought the Magistrates might like some information.

Dr. J.C. Carlile, who was present with other clergy and ministers, then asked if an application was now being made for the renewal of these licences in the Radnor Street area.

The Clerk (to the Town Clerk): Is there anything you have to mention this morning why the licences should not be renewed in the ordinary way?

The Town Clerk said it would not affect what the Corporation were doing in the Radnor Street area if the licences were renewed. He pointed out that he was making no application to the Magistrates that morning. As they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order for the acquisition of most of the properties in the Radnor Street area. Included in the order were four licensed houses, the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows’ Inn, the Ship Inn and the Packet Boat Inn. When the Minister came to consider the order he declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of those houses, the Jubilee, the Oddfellows’ and the Ship. They were struck out of the order on the ground of the expense which would be involved if the Corporation had to acquire them. The remaining house, the Packet Boat Inn, would be acquired by the Corporation. It so happened that the position of the Jubilee Inn and the Oddfellows’ Inn as they stood at the present time interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses. On the instructions of the Corporation he had entered into negotiations with the owners of the houses concerned and two of them, namely the Jubilee and the Oddfellows, had agreed, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, to pull down and build new houses on alternative sites. That would enable the Corporation’s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with, but with regard to the other house, the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners of that house as to whether they were prepared to pull down and erect a new house on a new site. These terms of the arrangements with the owners of the Jubilee and Oddfellows’ were subject to an application which would be made to the Magistrates in due course. The owners of the houses were conveying to the Corporation the sites of their existing houses in exchange for sites on which they would build new houses. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than certain compensation to the tenant. In spite of the fact that the houses were struck out of the order, the way in which the owners had met the Corporation would enable the lay-out scheme to be proceeded with as they desired.

The Chairman: That’s for two of the houses?

The Town Clerk replied that that was so. With regard to the Ship Inn, as he had stated, he had not yet obtained the decision of the owners of the house. If they decided to stay where they were, their house would not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two had done. It would mean that their house would abut in front of a line of cottages which were going to be built there.

The Chairman: It won’t seriously interfere with you?

The Town Clerk: No, but it would be much better if they would. We cannot insist on them doing so. The other owners have done all they can to meet the wishes of the Corporation. Continuing, the Town Clerk said the fourth house was the Packet Boat Inn which was to be acquired by the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Is it?

The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.

Continuing, the Town Clerk said notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. That house was being acquired because the site was definitely required in connection with the lay-out scheme, and the Ministry had confirmed an order which included that house but excluded the other three.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, a solicitor, then rose and asked permission to speak. He stated that he represented a number of residents in the area: He wanted to address the Bench on the question of the renewal of these licences.

The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox said when the matter did come before them again in connection with the removals of these houses he would be there to object on behalf of a number of residents. It did seem to him, however, that it would be more satisfactory if they only provisionally renewed those licences that day. Amongst the points he would make would be one on the grounds of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said if the Magistrates were going to discuss this matter he wished to point out that a considerable number of residents were interested in these four houses and if there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of these licences then they asked that their views might be considered in reference to the question of redundancy. If the Magistrates were going to refer them back no further word need be said now on the subject.

The Chief Constable said he received the Magistrates’ instructions at their preliminary meeting in regard to the question of redundancy. He had found some considerable difficulty in deciding. It was an established fact that there were not too many licences in the borough for the summer trade, for all houses did extremely well during the period, whether structurally adapted for the purpose or not. One found that houses the least structurally fitted were doing a better trade. They found more customers in these pokey houses. He supposed there was a psychological reason for it. He had had a system since he had been there of monthly visits and those visits gave him a line on what trade the houses were doing. He had selected a number of houses and grouped them into three groups.

The first group included the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. He had taken comparative figures for the year and these figures showed that the Honest Lawyer had an average of 19 customers on every occasion they were visited; the Harvey Hotel 16, and the Mechanics Arms six. They made a special series of visits between January 17th and February 3rd and they found that the Mechanics Arms had an average of five; the Harvey 10; and the Honest Lawyer 17. They would see from those figures that the figures were pretty well the same for the whole year. It would appear superficially that of these three the Mechanics Arms was the one to go.

He had another group made. It consisted of the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris and the Princess Royal. The figures for the year showed an average of 28.5 for the Harbour Hotel; 17.5 for the True Briton; 46.5 for the London and Paris; and 7 for the Princess Royal. The licensee of the Princess Royal had been there for 25 years and in spite of the figure he had mentioned they seemed to be making a living somehow or other.

The Chief Constable mentioned a third group which included the Alexandra, the Royal George' the South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak and the Lifeboat. The two which were doing the least trade, judged by' his figures, were the' Wonder with an average of 12 and the Lifeboat with an average of 14. The others were not doing very much better. It. was difficult to differentiate in that group. He was prepared to take directions from the Magistrates, but he was not prepared to give any.

The Magistrates then retired.

The Chairman stated on their return that with reference to Dr. Carlile’s question, the Bench had decided that later on he (the Chairman) should renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, the licence of which the Magistrates had decided not to renew that morning but refer to the adjourned Sessions to have evidence of redundancy or otherwise.

Dr. Carlile: That means ho objection can be taken here and now or at any other place to the four licences involved in the Radnor Street scheme?

The Chairman: I think now is the time for you to raise any objection.

The Clerk pointed out that there would be applications for the removals of these licences later on and then anyone could be heard.

The Chairman: That will be the better time, then.

Dr. Carlile said it put them at a very serious disadvantage because the licences would be granted again and there would only be the question of removal. It meant that when it came to the question of removal of the licences, it would be the removal of a licence which was already in being.

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is the position.

The Chairman then announced the renewal of all licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which he stated would be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald, Saturday 23 February 1935.

I, Harold Chawner now residing at the "Jubilee Inn," Radnor Street, Folkestone, Licensed Victualler. Do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the Adjourned General Annual Licensing Meeting for the said Borough of Folkestone to be holden at the Town Hall, Folkestone aforesaid on Wednesday the 13th day of March 1935 at the hour of 11 in the forenoon for an Order authorising the Provisional Ordinary Removal of a Justice's Licence now in force and held by me the said Harold Chawner authorising me to apply for and hold and Excise licence for the sale by retail of any intoxicating liquor which may be sold under a Publican's Licence for consumption either on or off the premises situate at Radnor Street in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid and known by the sign of the "Jubilee" from such last mentioned premises to certain other premises about to be constructed for such purpose upon the side situated 245 feet eastwood of the site of the existing "Jubilee Inn" the southwest corner of such site being 470 feet eastwards of the Southern Railway branch line to the Harbour and 58 feet north of the Harbour Wall such site having a frontage of 41 feet to the Stade on the southern side 49 ft to the side street about to be constructed there on the western side of the said new premises and 29ft on the northern side of the said new premises with a depth of 48 feet on the eastern side of the said new premises and which said new premises will cover inter alia part of the site of the existing boat building shed and herring hang and store situated on the Stade and a part of Radnor Street the public right of way over which will be extinguished by virtue of an Order to be made and confirmed in pursuance of the provisions of Section 13 of the Housing Act 1930.

The owners of the existing "Jubilee Inn," ore Messrs. Mackeson and Company Limited of the Brewery Hythe, whose registered office is at the Brewery, Chiswell Street in the County of London who are also the owners in equity of the line to which is the proposed to remove the licence.

Dated 12th day of February, 1935.

H. Chawner.

 

Folkestone Express 16 March 1935.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Licensing Justices of the Folkestone Bench approved of an application made to them for the re-building of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, on a new site, 81 yards away from its present site, in consequence of the re-building of the whole area under the slum clearance scheme.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared to make the application for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and the tenant, Mr. Chawner, and Mr. E. Philcox, of London, appeared to oppose on behalf of 179 persons resident within the district.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to ask them for the removal of the Jubilee licence on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and their tenant, Mr. Chawner, and before opening the case he would like to inquire who were the opponents. Mr. Philcox, solicitor, of London, represented a list of people; he understood there were 179 names. He only hoped he would not find it necessary to call all of them. The first-named was Mr. Hook, but all were persons who were entitled to object. Although the application was obliged to be in the form of an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee, it was in substance simply an application for the re-building of the Jubilee on a slightly different site at a distance of about 81 yards from the present position. By the Order made by the Ministry of Health, called the Borough of Folkestone, Radnor Street No. 1 Order, 1934, an Order made under the Housing Act, the Corporation were entitled to purchase land compulsorily in and adjoining a clearance area, and when the matter came before the Ministry, the Ministry withheld the right of compulsory purchase in respect of three public houses, of which the Jubilee Inn was one. So far as the Jubilee was concerned, there was in the Corporation no power to acquire that property compulsorily. Looking at the plans, the Magistrates would see that on the left hand side of the plan there was shown in yellow a new road which was an essential part of the lay-out, and as they passed their mind from left to right of that new road they would find the Jubilee Inn standing right athwart of the road, completely blocking it. The road was marked red on the north and south, and the road itself was coloured yellow. That was an awkward position for the Corporation, because they could not carry out the scheme unless they could come to terms with the owner and the occupier of the Jubilee. The Jubilee still stood right across the scheme, and having regard to the fact that there was no power to acquire the Jubilee compulsorily, it was quite obvious that those interested in it, had they been so minded, might have held the Corporation to ransom over it, because the scheme could not be carried out unless some arrangement could be made with the owner and occupier of the Jubilee. Instead of doing that, Messrs. Mackeson and Co. had met the Corporation very fairly, he thought he might say very generously, because they had asked nothing in the way of compensation for themselves, but had accepted the suggestion of the Corporation to re-build the Jubilee at their own expense. That was really what the application was for, to re-build the Jubilee on a site convenient to the lay-out, 81 yards away from the present site. That was all there was in it. Mr. Philcox, opposing, would tell them, with all the ingenuity at his command, how people could come forward and offer opposition to such a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately for him (Mr. Mowll), he was not allowed to reply, as he would dearly love to, to his friend's remarks. Mr. Philcox got the last word, and he was a little bit in the dark to know quite how to deal with that opposition. He had to anticipate what his friend was going to say. Life was made up of proposals and rejections and it did not matter what scheme it might be, they would generally find amongst a large population, such as they had in Folkestone, some people who could find some reason for offering opposition even to any scheme, but when they came to touching public houses, of course, they touched a matter on which some people held views very sincerely. Often, though they might not agree with them, they admired them for the way in which, sometimes at the expense almost of ridicule, they stood up for what they believed was right. He was not there to deny the temperance reformer at all. On the other hand he would rather say personally he thought a great deal of good had been done by temperance reformers. They lived in an age when it was rightly considered to be a disgrace for anyone to be drunk, and it was something to the credit of those who had been preaching temperance for a large number of years. On the other hand one had to enter into the mentality of the Prohibitionists, which in America became so strong that they tried Prohibition – to cease to sell any intoxicants at all. They knew what a ghastly failure that was in America, so they had to abandon it. Then there was the mind of what they might call the reductionist, the mentality of the persons who went to bed with a text in front of them, and upon which they practically based their spiritual life – that text was redundancy. No-one could claim that the present Jubilee Inn was redundant, and he did not think that the new Jubilee, he hoped that it would be called the Silver Jubilee, would be redundant. If that was their idea then it was still open to them at some future date to seek to employ the powers of the Licensing Act under which redundant licences were extinguished, and if they thought there was going to be a less trade done at the new Jubilee than in the old days they would have an opportunity of extinguishing that licence at a much cheaper rate, because there would be smaller trade. What would be the value to those if they succeeded in their opposition, and the Magistrates refused what he preferred to call that application for re-building? There would be the old Jubilee still standing; there would be an end of that improvement, and who would be a whit better off? They would not have extinguished the licence, but the scheme would simply be damned. If they came to think it out, it did not look as if there was very much substance in the opposition, despite what his friend might put to them. He ventured to think that after having considered both the mentality of the Prohibitionists and that of the reductionists, there was one other mentality which would present itself to them – that was the mentality of the man who wanted to do the right thing. The ordinary rational being would say nothing could be fairer than the way in which the owners and occupier of the Jubilee had dealt with that matter in offering to rebuild the premises at their own expense. If that was granted then that public improvement could be carried out.

Mr. Philcox enquired if the owners had thought of giving up another licence in the area to secure the removal.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said they had not thought of doing that. That was simply a re-building, and not really a removal.

Mr. S.R. Church, a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, gave evidence of serving the necessary notices.

Mr. Thomas W. Allen, a police pensioner, of 17, Queen Street, proved the posting of the notices.

Mr. Chawner, the licensee, also proved the posting of the notices on the premises.

Mr. P.F. Ingram, F.R.I.B.A., of Buckingham Palace Road, Westminster, said he had prepared the plans which were before the Magistrates.

In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Rutley Mowll said there was accommodation in a room upstairs for the supplying of refreshments to which a man and his wife could go.

The Chairman said he thought that it would be a feature in its favour if such accommodation was provided.

Mr. Mowll said on the plan a lift was shown by which they could bring up what was required from the service portion on the ground floor to that refreshment room on the first floor. That lift went from the kitchen.

The Chairman: It looks as if the point I raise is being provided for.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he found the plans quite suitable from the point of view of police supervision.

In reply to Mr. Philcox, Mr. Ingram said he had no idea what the annual value of the premises would be.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, said he heard the explanation of the layout of the scheme, and agreed it could not be carried out unless arrangements were made for the removal of the sites for the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms. He approached Messrs. Mackeson and asked them if they would carry out the removal of the Jubilee Inn at their own expense. They had agreed, and in his opinion they had treated the Corporation generously.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: Really this application for re-building proceeded from your suggestion on behalf of the town?

Mr. Nicholson: Absolutely.

Mr. Philcox: This plan or the whole area is dependent upon the removal of the Ship Inn?

Mr. Nicholson: No.

The Ship Inn is shown in a position which certainly could not stay where it is? – It would be more convenient to us if they had agreed to move it, but it does not upset the scheme. It does not seriously interfere with the scheme as the other two houses do. It does interfere with the scheme in this way. The scheme will not have so good an appearance because the Ship Inn will project in front of the proposed line of houses.

Does it not mean you will have to revise your plans? – Only in this way that the line of properties will be broken by the present Ship Inn.

The Chairman: The Ship is further east than the Jubilee?

Mr. Nicholson: Yes.

Mr. Allman said the Jubilee would project 11 feet for a distance of about 20 feet or a little more.

Mr. Nicholson, in reply to further questions, said it would be definitely to the advantage of the Corporation had the owners of the Ship Inn agreed to remove their premises as the owners of the two other houses had done.

Mr. Philcox: What will be the position in the future?

Mr. Nicholson: The Ship Inn will not remain there in every probability. In reply to another question, Mr. Nicholson said the site of the new Jubilee was slightly larger than the present site, but not so large as the owners would like to have it.

Mr. Philcox: Can you tell us the area of the site?

Mr. Nicholson: I have no knowledge of the area.

Can you tell us the annual value of the present building? – No.

Is it somewhere about £45? – I have no idea.

You will agree the new building will be more substantial? – Yes.

To that extent the brewers are getting a very good bargain? – I do not think the brewers are getting a particularly good bargain. I think the Corporation are getting a good bargain.

Originally you wanted to do away with all these houses? – It was not the original intention to do away with them in the original proposal. We included all four licensed houses, but on the ground of expense the Ministry declined to allow us to purchase the three on the other side of Radnor Street. The intention of the Corporation was to provide alternatively for two of the houses in order that the expense of the purchase of the houses would be lessened. If we had purchased the whole of the licensed houses in this area it would have cost about £25,000.

What is it costing for only one, the Packet Boat? – The compensation has not been settled yet. The claim is £4,693.

Was not the decision of the Ministry because they thought those houses should remain where they were? – No, certainly not.

Mr. Philcox, opposing, said his clients felt that really slum clearance or re-building the cottages was being sacrificed there, undoubtedly to satisfy the desires of the brewers owning the Jubilee Inn, who were being given a larger site that the one they had now, and they were considered as being very generous. What was happening as far as they were concerned was that they were giving up a very old house, which was hopelessly out of date on a small site and getting in return a much larger and modern house on a larger and more convenient site, and it was obvious that every extra piece of land given for that purpose meant less room for cottages. The principal idea of that scheme was to provide re-building and rehousing for the fishermen who were being removed from their present cottages. Having regard to the fact that the Ship Inn had not agreed to those proposals there, to some extent at least, the plans must be modified and the whole matter should be reconsidered, and the Jubilee could remain where it was on its present small site. The Ship was going to do the same, so that there must be reconsideration and re-planning, else there would be a projection of the Ship out into the pathway, which was a very unsightly aspect. His friend said they were spending four or five thousand pounds on their house, but they, as Licensing Justices, were used to hearing that sort of argument, but they knew that people and brewers or anyone else did not spend their money unless they expected to get it back. It was not generosity, but it was purely business with them. It was not merely a matter of philanthropy. They were getting a bigger site, a modern house, and getting considerable advantages. As he had suggested to his friend, what he felt they might have done – as in other parts had been done – in respect of that immediate area there were a large number of houses – later on they were considering one on the grounds of redundancy – so he came there half hoping they would offer to surrender another licence. It was a very common thing when brewers applied for the removal of a licence they agreed they would surrender an extra licence. He would refer them to a decision that removal might be refused upon the sole grounds that it would afford great pecuniary gains to the applicant and the public would lose certain monopoly value. In that case, he submitted, that was one of the factors that should be taken into consideration. If the Jubilee was moved from its present site to the suggested one they would have substantial monopoly value. As he said, he had hoped the brewers might have surrendered a licence somewhere else, and he asked the Magistrates to take that into consideration. His clients felt that the brewers were getting too much benefit out of the deal, and it would make it more difficult to house on the site all the people who had to be rehoused.

The Chairman said the Justices saw no ground for refusing the application, and therefore they approved the re-building of the new house on the proposed site.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You are granting a provisional order for removal.

The Chairman said that was so. There would be a meeting later on for the whole of the Magistrates' decision regarding the plans.

It was decided that the plans and the whole matter should be considered on Tuesday, April 9th.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 March 1935.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Licensing Committee of the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday, at the adjourned annual Licensing Sessions, granted an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee Inn, one of the licensed houses affected by the Radnor Street Clearance Scheme.

The application was made on behalf of the owners of the house, Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Limited, by Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll.

Mr. E. H. Philcox, a London solicitor, opposed the application on behalf of a number of people. He presented a petition bearing 179 signatures.

The application was heard by Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Engineer Rear- Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Alderman Mrs. E. Gore.

Mr. Mowll, opening his case, said: Although this application is obliged to be in form an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee, it is in substance simply an application for the re-building of the Jubilee on a slightly different site, at a distance of about 81 yards from the present position. By an order made by the Ministry of Health, called the Borough of Folkestone Radnor Street No. 1 Area, 1934, an order made under the Housing Acts, the Corporation are entitled to purchase lands compulsorily in and adjoining a clearance area, and when the matter came before the Ministry, the Ministry withheld the right of compulsory purchase in respect of three public houses, of which the Jubilee was one, so that as far as the Jubilee was concerned, there was for the Corporation no power to acquire that property compulsorily. As you look at the plan of the lay out you will see that on the left hand side of the plan there is shown a new road which is an essential part of the lay out, and as you take your mind from left to right on that new road you will find the Jubilee Inn stands right athwart the road, and completely blocks it. That was a very awkward position for the Corporation because they could not carry out the scheme unless they could come to terms with the owner and occupier of the Jubilee. The Jubilee has stood and does still stand right across the scheme, and having regard to the fact that there was no power to acquire the Jubilee compulsorily, it is quite obvious that those interested in it might-if they had been so minded - have held the Corporation to ransom, for as it was the scheme could not be carried out unless some arrangement could be made with the owners and occupiers of the Jubilee. Instead of doing that Messrs. Mackeson and Company have met the Corporation very fairly-I think I might say more than fairly, generously -because they have asked nothing in the way of compensation but have accepted the suggestion of the Corporation to re-build the Jubilee at their own expense, and that is really what this application is for. They are re-building the Jubilee on a site convenient to the lay out. Now about the position. My friend Mr. Philcox will tell you that people can come forward and offer opposition to such a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately for me I am not allowed to reply - as I should dearly love to - to my friend’s remarks. He gets the last word, therefore I am a little bit in the dark as to know quite how to I deal with that position. I have anticipated what my friend is going to say. Of course, life is made up of proposals and objections, and it doesn't matter what the scheme may be, you will generally find, amongst a large population such as you have in Folkestone, some people who can find some reasons for offering opposition even to any scheme. When you come to touch public houses you touch a matter on which some people hold very sincere views, and even if you may not agree with them you admire them for the way in which, at the expense of almost ridicule at times, they stand up for what they believe to be right. Continuing, Mr. Mowll said he was not there to decry the temperance reform movement. He would rather say that personally he felt that a good deal of good had been done by temperance reform. They were now living in an age which rightly considered it to be a disgrace for anybody to be drunk, and that was something to the credit of those who had been teaching what they called temperance for a large number of years. On the other hand one had to enter into the mentality of others. There was the mentality of the Prohibitionists who in America became so strong that they tried Prohibition; that was ceasing to sell any intoxicants. They knew what a ghastly failure it was there and they had to abandon it. Then there was the mind of what one might call the reductionists; the mentality of those persons who go to bed with a text immediately in front of them on which they practically feed their spiritual lives. That text is “Redundancy”. He did not think that anyone could claim that the present Jubilee was redundant, and he did not think that they could claim the new Jubilee - he hoped it would be called the Silver Jubilee - was redundant. If that were their idea, it was still open to them at some future date to seek to employ the powers of the Licensing Act under which a redundant licence would be extinguished. If they thought there was going to be less trade done at the new Jubilee than at the old it would mean that they would have the opportunity of extinguishing that licence at a cheaper rate. What would be the value to these people if they succeeded in their opposition that day? If they succeeded and the Magistrates refused that application, which he preferred to call an application for re-building, there would be the old Jubilee still standing. There would be an end to that part of a public improvement, and who would be a wit the better off? They would not have extinguished the licence; the licence would still remain, but the scheme would be damned. If they came to think that out there did not seem to be very much substance in the opposition. He ventured to think that after having considered the mentality of the Prohibitionists and the Reductionists there was one other mentality which would present itself to them and that was the mentality of the man who wanted to do the right and common-sense thing. No ordinary rational being would say anything could be fairer than the way in which the owners and occupier of the Jubilee had dealt with the matter in offering to re-build the premises at their own expense.

Mr. Mowll then called evidence.

Sydney R Church, a clerk in Messrs. Mowll and Mowll’s office, gave evidence of serving the necessary notices.

Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen’s Street, an ex-police officer of the Folkestone Borough, proved that the necessary notices had been posted.

Harold Chawner, the licensee, said a notice had been posted on his premises in accordance with the requirement of the Act.

Thomas Frederick Ingram, F.R.I.B.A., an architect of Buckingham Palace Road, Westminster, said he had prepared plans for the new premises.

The plans were examined by the Magistrates.

The Chairman asked if it was proposed to alter the character of the house.

Mr. Mowll said the idea was to transplant the present Jubilee. There would be, however, accommodation for ladies on the first floor.

The Chairman: If required they could serve people upstairs in that room?

Mr. Mowll: Yes, sir, I am sure a suggestion from you like that will have very great weight.

The Chairman: Such a point is in the application’s favour.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he had no objection to the plans.

Replying to Mr. Philcox, Mr. Ingram said he had no idea what the value of the new premises would be.

Mr. Mowll said the Borough Surveyor had examined the plans and he saw no objection to them.

The Town Clerk, Mr. C.P. Nicholson, then gave evidence. He said that Messrs. Mackeson were approached with a view to rebuilding the house on a site to be provided in exchange for the present Jubilee site, and they had agreed to do that. “In my opinion they have treated the Corporation very generously”, added Mr. Nicholson, and this application proceeds from the Corporation’s suggestion to rebuild on another site”.

Mr. Philcox: Isn’t this plan of the lay-out dependent on the removal of the Ship Inn?

The Town Clerk: No. It can remain where it is. It would have been more convenient if they had agreed to pull down and rebuild.

Mr. Philcox: It does interfere with the scheme?

Mr. Nicholson said the scheme would not have such a good appearance because the Ship Inn would project slightly in front of the line of houses. The line of cottages would be broken by the Ship Inn, but the public house would not project right across the pathway.

The Borough Surveyor (Mr. E.L. Allman) said the Ship Inn would project 11 feet to 12 feet. It had a frontage of 25 feet.

Mr. Nicholson, replying to the Chairman, said it would have been of advantage for the Ship Inn to have been moved.

Mr. Philcox: You will have to alter your plans, won’t you?

The Town Clerk replied that that would not be necessary, and added that probably the Ship Inn would not be there for ever. Replying to another question, Mr. Nicholson said he agreed that the new Jubilee would be substantially more valuable.

Mr. Philcox: To that extent the brewers are getting a particularly good bargain.

The Town Clerk: I don’t think they are getting a particularly good bargain; I think the Corporation are.

Mr. Philcox: Originally you wanted to do away with all these houses, didn’t you?

The Town Clerk: No. We included all four licensed houses, but on the grounds of expense the Minister refused to let us purchase those on the south side. It had always been the intention of the Corporation to provide alternative sites. If we had had to purchase all the houses in the area it would have cost approximately £25,000.

Mr. Philcox: What is the cost now?

Mr. Nicholson: We are purchasing only one, the Packet Boat Inn. The compensation has not been settled yet, but we have been served with a claim for £4.693.

Mr. Philcox: Don’t the Ministry think the houses should remain where they are? - No, certainly not.

Without calling any witnesses Mr. Philcox then addressed the Magistrates for the opposition. He said that those he represented felt that the rebuilding of cottages was being sacrificed in order to satisfy the desires of the brewers. The owners of the Jubilee were being given a larger site than the one they had now and they were treated as having been very generous. It was quite obvious that what was really happening was that they were giving up a very old house, hopelessly out-of-date, on a small site, and getting in return a much larger and modern house on a larger and more convenient site. It was obvious, too, that every piece of land given over for such a purpose meant that less remained for cottages. The object of the scheme was to provide rehousing for the fishermen in that area who were being removed from their present cottages His clients felt that having regard to the fact that the owners of the Ship Inn had not agreed to tbe Corporation’s proposals and therefore to some extent the lav-out must be altered, the whole matter should be reconsidered and the Jubilee Inn left on its present site. The projection of the Ship Inn on to the pathway would be very unsightly, even if it were not undesirable in other ways. Mr. Mowll had told him that the owners of the Jubilee were going to spend £4,000 to £5,000 on their house. They were spending that because they expected to get their money back; it was not generosity on their part, it was purely business. It was not a matter of philanthropy. They were getting a better site, a more modem house and considerable advantages. He felt that there might have been an offer by the owners to surrender another licence. That was done where a licence of a small house was removed to larger and better premises. Mr. Philcox quoted a case where Magistrates had refused to grant a removal because it would be conferring pecuniary advantages on the appellant and at the same time depriving the public of monopoly value. In that application it was one of the factors to be taken into consideration. If the Jubilee were going to a new site and had no licence a substantial monopoly value would have had to be paid, and he felt the suggestion that the brewers might surrender some other licence should be considered. His clients did feel that the brewers were getting much the better of the deal. The granting of the application would give them a larger site and make it more difficult to rehouse on the site those people who had to be housed.

After brief consideration the Chairman said the Magistrates saw no ground for refusing the application, therefore they approved the plans for the new building on the proposed site.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): That is to say you are granting a provisional order for removal. It will come before the whole of the Licensing Justices for confirmation in three weeks’ time.

The hearing of the application for the confirmation of the order was fixed for Tuesday, April 9th.

 

Folkestone Express 13 April 1935.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday confirmed the order made at the adjourned licensing sessions for the removal of the Jubilee Inn for a distance of 81 yards to another site on the area which comes under the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who made the application, said the facts were thoroughly gone into at the previous application, which they might remember indicated that this was really a step taken to assist in the carrying out of a great public improvement in that district, and without the removal the improvement could not be effected. He wondered if the Bench wanted to hear any more, especially as there was no opposition present.

The Chairman (Mr. R.G. Wood) said that as there was no opposition they did not require to hear any more, and the confirmation was made for the removal of the licence.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald, Saturday 13 April 1935.

"Jubilee Inn" removal.

Order confirmed by Magistrates.

The Folkestone Magistrates confirmed the order they made recently for the removal of the "Jubilee Inn," in the Fish-market, at the sitting of the Justice's on Tuesday.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the Corporation, explained that he appeared to ask the Magistrates to grant confirmation of the order which was made by the Licensing Justice's for the removal of the licence of the "Jubilee Inn" a distance of 81 yards.

The facts was so fully gone into on the application which, they might remember, indicated that this step was to be taken to assist in the carrying out of a great public improvement in the district, and without this removal the improvement could not be affected, that he wondered whether the Bench wished to hear him further, especially as there was no opposition that day.

The Clerk (Mr. R. G. Rootes) said no notice of any application or opposition had been given.

The Chairman (Mr. R. G. Wood): The order was made a week or two ago we now confirm for the removal of the "Jubilee Inn" the 81 yards to which you have referred.

 

Folkestone Express 5 October 1935.

Local News.

L/Bomb. Frederick Shenton, Royal Artillery, appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Saturday charged with committing wilful damage the previous evening. It was alleged that he broke a window in the door of a bar in the Oddfellows Inn, the property of Mrs. Florence Skinner, and further with doing damage to a pane of glass at the Jubilee Inn, the property of Harold Chawner.

George Taylor said he was in the Oddfellows public house the previous evening when he saw seven or eight men including the prisoner there. They had been drinking and were swearing. The licensee asked them to stop swearing and refused to serve them. As they were going out the prisoner put his fist through the window of the door. He followed the men out and when they got to the Jubilee Inn he saw the prisoner break away from his companions and put his fist through another window. He pointed the prisoner out to the police and they arrested him. In his opinion the prisoner was not drunk.

The prisoner said they were playing about and his arm swung through the window.

James Albert Skinner, a son of the licensee of the Oddfellows Inn, said there were seven or eight men in the bar and they began to get a little rowdy and in his opinion had had enough. The prisoner's mates had to lift him into the passage as he did not want to go and seemed excited. He banged on a door in the passage and then put his fist through the window. It would cost 1/- or 1/6 to replace the glass.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said he served the men with beers and whisky.

Defendant said he had four whiskies, and that was the cause of the trouble because he was not used to it.

Harold Chawner, licensee of the Jubilee Inn, said at 10.15 p.m. he was in the cellar when he heard the smashing of glass. He went out into Radnor Street and found a window about ten inches by nine inches broken.

P.C. Williams said at about 10.15 p.m. he received a complaint from the first witness, who said a crowd of soldiers in civilian clothes were coming along Radnor Street smashing windows. He went into the street and saw the prisoner and noticed that his right hand was bleeding. The men were not drunk. He told the prisoner he would be taken into custody. He was charged at the police station, and he replied “I do not want to say anything”. When he took him into custody he said “Won't you let me pay for it now?”

Defendant said he was full of drink and he was sorry it had happened.

An officer in the prisoner's regiment said the prisoner was a non-commissioned officer. He was a good soldier and it was just a foolish prank, as he said.

Chief Inspector Pittock said in May last year Shenton assisted police officers to bring a prisoner to the police station. The trouble the previous night was due to the fact that he had some drink.

The Chairman (Alderman G. Spurgen) said it was a sad case for one in the defendant's position. He had received his first step in the Army by being a N.C.O. The Bench did not want to be hard with him, and if he paid the value of the broken windows, 3/6, and 4/- costs the case would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1935.

Local News.

“The Bench do not wish to deal I harshly with you”, said the Chairman of the Folkestone Magistrates, Alderman G. Spurgen, on Saturday, when L-Bdr. Frederick Shenton, of the Royal Artillery, was charged with doing wilful damage by breaking a pane of glass, valued Is. 6d., at the Oddfellows’ Inn, and another pane of glass, valued 2s. at the Jubilee, Radnor Street. The charge against Shenton was dismissed on condition that he paid the damage. Shenton pleaded guilty to the first charge, but denied the second alleged offence.

George Taylor said he was in the Oddfellows’ about 9.55 p.m. on Friday and saw defendant there with seven or eight friends. The licensee had to speak to them about swearing and refused to serve them with further drinks, and as they were going out Shenton put his fist through a window in the bar. Defendant then went into the street and witness followed. Shenton and others proceeded to the Jubilee and he saw defendant break away from his comrades and put his fist through another window there. Witness communicated with the police and pointed out Shenton to an officer.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock: Was defendant sober?

Witness: He was not drunk.

Defendant said he denied deliberately breaking the window of the Jubilee. There were four or five of them and they were playing about. He swung his fist and caught the window accidentally.

James Alfred Skinner, the son of the licensee of the Oddfellows’ Inn, said about 9 o’clock the previous evening he was in the bar and he saw defendant and others. After about three-quarters of an hour they began to get a little rowdy and in his opinion they had had enough drink. Defendant's comrade lifted him and took him from the room into the passage, and just afterwards Shenton deliberately broke the window. Shenton was not drunk, but he was very excited.

Replying to defendant, witness said Shenton and his comrades had been drinking beer and whisky.

Shenton: I am not used to whisky and that was what caused the trouble.

Harry Chawnor, the licensee of the Jubilee Inn, said a small pane of the glass was broken.

P.C. Williams said about 10.15 p.m. in consequence of a complaint he went to Radnor Street, He saw a crowd of about eight or nine men there. They had all had some drink, but they were not drunk. Shenton was pointed out to him. His right wrist and three fingers of his right hand were bleeding. He took him to the two public houses. He told defendant he would be taken into custody for doing wilful damage. Later he was charged and he replied: “I don’t want to say anything”. When he first took Shenton into custody he said “Won’t you let me pay for them now?”

Defendant said it was just a foolish trick and he was very sorry it had happened. He could not remember breaking the second window.

An officer said Shenton was a good soldier. He was an N.C.O. and had never given any trouble before. He thought it was just a foolish outbreak, as defendant had said.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock said in May of this year Shenton had assisted P.C. Williams in bringing a refractory prisoner to the Police Station. He thought the trouble the previous night was caused by the drink.

The Chairman said it was very sad for a young man to find himself in the position of the defendant. The Bench did not wish to deal harshly with him; if he (defendant) paid the damage (3s. 6d.) and 4s. costs they would dismiss the case. They hoped this would be a warning to him.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the officer present would no doubt pay the money on behalf of defendant.

 

Folkestone Express 18 April 1936.

Local News.

The Jubilee public house, which for many years has been one of the principal buildings on Folkestone Fish Market, will after next Wednesday close its doors for ever and will shortly be m the hands of the house-breakers. A new Jubilee has been coming into being during the past few months and the licence from the old to the modern building, which has been completed, will be transferred to it on that day.

On Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court, Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared before the Justices and said that was positively his last appearance in connection with the application for the transfer of the Jubilee. He presumed that that was why it was called the final order. He thought some of the magistrates had had an opportunity of going over the premises and must have been satisfied that they had been erected in accordance with the plans. The matter came before them that day so that they could give their sanction to the premises being licensed as having been completed in accordance with the plans. Mr. Chawner was known to them as the holder of the licence. Mr. Findlay, who represented the owners, would be able to formally prove that the premises had been completed in accordance with the plans and ask them to grant the final order. It would be a convenience if the premises were to be opened on Wednesday, April 22nd. It was proposed that the licence for the old buildings should be continued until the morning of that day and the new premises would be opened in the afternoon. The two premises must not be going at the same time.

Mr. Findlay, the Managing Director of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., said he was able to assure the Bench that the new Jubilee premises had been erected precisely according- to the plans which the magistrates approved when the order was granted.

The Chairman said two or three of the magistrates had been down and had seen that the plans had been carried, out in the fullest detail. There were one or two minor little things about which he was not clear. With regard to the staircase from the club room, there was no rail.

Mr Findlay said that was so when the magistrates visited the premises, but the rail had been removed because it was not quite suitable. There would, however, be rails on both staircases.

The Chairman said then again they would like to know whether there was lavatory accommodation on the first floor near the club room.

Mr. Findlay said there was such accommodation for women, but not for men on that floor.

The Chairman then enquired as to the accommodation on the ground floor.

Mr. Findlay said there was a convenience for men both at the front and the back of the house, but there were no wash basins.

The Chairman said the magistrates thought there should be provision for such basins.

Mr. Findlay said there would be sufficient. room for such provision in the back portion and he would see that it was provided.

The Chairman said the magistrates were pleased to hear that. They had decided to grant the final order and agreed to the date of the opening of the new Jubilee being Wednesday, April 22nd.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 April 1936.

Local News.

The new Jubilee Inn, on the Stade, will be opened next Wednesday afternoon, it was stated at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when an application was made to the Magistrates for a final order in connection with the premises.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, for Messrs. Mackeson, said that was positively his last appearance in connection with that application and he presumed that that was why it was called a final order. He believed some of the Magistrates had had the opportunity of going over the premises, and they must have been satisfied that they had been erected in accordance with the plans. The matter came before them that day to give their sanction to the premises being licensed as having been completed in accordance with the plans, and he thought the Clerk would advice them that that was really a ministerial action on their part. Mr. Chawner, the licensee, was already known to them as having been the licensee of the old premises, and he proposed to put Mr. Finlay in the box formally to prove that the premises had been completed in accordance withthe plans and to ask them to grant the final order. It would be convenient if the new premises were to be opened on Wednesday, April 22nd. They would continue at the old premises until the morning of that day and open the new premises in the afternoon. The point was that the two premises must not be open at the same time.

Mr. Findlay, managing director of Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Ltd., gave evidence that the new premises had been erected in accordance with the plans.

The Chairman (Mr. R.G. Wood) said two or three of them had met him there last week, and as far as they could see the plans had been fully carried out.

Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Findlay said a handrail had been provided for both staircases.

The Chairman asked if there was provision for washing hands in the big room upstairs.

Mr. Findlay said there was no accommodation for men, but he suggested that it might be possible to provide such accommodation in the saloon bar. He would take the matter up with the architect.

The Magistrates then granted the application and also approved the opening of the building next Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 25 April 1936.

Editorial Comment.

How many Folkestone people would be able to say where the sign of the Skylark used to adorn the Fish Market? Very few I should imagine. In days gone by, about the time of the Napoleonic wars, a licensed house hearing the name of the Skylark was one of the chief meeting places, not only of the fisher folk, but even of the “big” men of the town, and the dangers of invasion were discussed. The new Jubilee Inn, which opened its doors on Wednesday, and which now adorns the Fish Market, ha& brought to mind that its predecessor was the Skylark of well over a century ago.

It was in the Queen Victoria’s jubilee that the name of the house was changed to the Jubilee. The subsequent jubilees since also had a connection with the house, for in the diamond jubilee year, the old house was rebuilt, and the new and attractive Jubilee, which supercedes its namesake, was commenced in King George’s silver jubilee year. The site on which it now stands was formerly a portion of Radnor Street, Mr. Goddard’s herring hang, and the Packet Boat Inn.

Local News.

The slum clearance scheme in the Radnor Street area will undoubtedly provide a most attractive approach to the East Cliff sands judging by the houses and buildings which have already been erected and occupied there.

That particular district can now boast of the most up-to-date licensed premises in Folkestone, and the new Jubilee, which opened its doors on Wednesday, is a building which would do credit to any road in the town. Externally the architecture is most pleasing, but internally its appointments provide accommodation, which it would have been considered impossible not many years ago, and everything possible has been done to make it exceedingly attractive and comfortable for the customers of the house. Messrs. H. Mackeson and Co., the owners of the house, have certainly spared no expense in connection with it.

On the ground floor the saloon bar, the private bar and the public bar are quite luxuriously appointed, and the bright decorative scheme and the pleasing and effective scheme of lighting adds greatly to the attractiveness of the house. The serving bar is practically continuous throughout the whole of the floor and everything has been so arranged that efficient and quick service is assured. Oak has been largely used in the construction and furnishing of the interior of these departments.

Not only has considerable thought been given to the needs of liquid refreshment, but on the first floor running the length of the front there is a large club room, which will be used for the serving of teas and also for meetings and dinners. Adjoining it is a marvellous kitchen in which the latest equipment has been installed. This room should be a great boon for the visitors, particularly in the season, for it is intended that teas shall be served during those hours when alcohol cannot be served. At such times a shutter will be pulled down, so effectively screening off the bars from view. This room, with its quite dainty chairs and tables, provides a picturesque view of the Harbour.

The old Jubilee closed its doors on Wednesday afternoon, when it ceased to be licensed, its licence having from that time been transferred to the building which has replaced it.

In the evening many visitors entered the new building, which evoked a good deal of admiration. There was a house warming party in the club room, where Mr. C.M. Findlay, the managing director of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., acted as host, and success to the new Jubilee was heartily drunk.

The Jubilee is certainly a credit to Mr. A. Ingram, its architect, and Messrs. C Jenner and Sons, the contractors for its erection.

 

Folkestone Express 25 April 1936.

Editorial Comment.

How many Folkestone people would be able to say where the sign of the "Skylark" used to adorn the Fish Market? Very few I should imagine. In days gone by, about the time of the Napoleonic wars, a licensed house hearing the name of the "Skylark" was one of the chief meeting places, not only of the fisher folk, but even of the “big” men of the town, and the dangers of invasion were discussed. The new "Jubilee Inn," which opened its doors on Wednesday, and which now adorns the Fish Market, has brought to mind that its predecessor was the "Skylark" of well over a century ago.

It was in the Queen Victoria’s jubilee that the name of the house was changed to the "Jubilee." The subsequent jubilees since also had a connection with the house, for in the diamond jubilee year, the old house was re≠built, and the new and attractive "Jubilee," which supersedes its namesake, was commenced in King George’s silver jubilee year. The site on which it now stands was formerly a portion of Radnor Street, Mr. Goddard’s herring hang, and the "Packet Boat Inn."

Folkestone Herald 25 April 1936.

Local News.

The new "Jubilee Inn," which has been built on the Stade and forms part of the Radnor Street improvement scheme, was opened last Wednesday.

A most modern and delightful inn has taken the place of the old house. The new hostelry faces south and looks out across the Harbour and the Channel, and the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Ltd., of Hythe, are to be congratulated on the all-round excellence of their new premises. The three bars on the ground floor, public saloon and private, have been carried out in a pleasing design of oak, open brick fireplaces and a lighting scheme which gives an atmosphere of comfort and excellent taste. On the first floor there is a large room which will be used for the serving of teas. Here again the excellence of design and workmanship strikes the eye at once. Adjoining this room is an up-to-date kitchen with the very latest equipment for the uses of the staff.

The new "Jubilee" stands on the site of the old "Packet Boat Inn," a part of Radnor Street as it was, and Goddard's herring hang.

It is interesting to recall that the first Jubilee was built in the days of the Napoleonic Wars. At one time the house was called The "Skylark," but the name of the hostelry was changed to The "Jubilee" in 1887, and structural alterations made in 1897.

There was a house warming party at the Jubilee on Wednesday evening, when Mr. N.C M. Findlay, the managing director of Messrs. Mackeson, received a number of guests who drank to the success of the company’s enterprise.

The new "Jubilee" was built by Messrs. C. Jenner and Son, to plans prepared by Mr. T. Ingram, the architect.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 July 1940.

Local News.

A considerable amount of licensing business was transacted at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday.

The Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the licence of the Jubilee Inn, The Stade, from Mr. H.W Rice to Mr. Rawlings, of Messrs. Mackeson's.

Councillor R.G. Wood presided with Dr. W.W. Nuttall and Mr. P. Puller.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 February 1945.

Local News.

An application was made at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday for a protection order in respect of the Jubilee Inn, The Stade, in favour of Mr. Leslie H. Slade (of Whitstable). The house has been closed for some time. The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1946.

Local News.

Henry Neill, a sailor stationed at Dover, was fined £1 with 3/6 costs, at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court last Friday for causing wilful damage to a menu board, the property of Mr. L. Slade, of the Jubilee Inn.

Mrs. Ellen Slade said she saw defendant come into the public bar with two other men. They all appeared the worse for drink; she refused to serve them, and they then each bought a roll.

Two of the men ate their rolls, but defendant picked his up and threw it at her. He then left the bar, and as he went out she saw him raise his fist and smash the glass of a menu board.

P.C. Richardson said he asked defendant for his name and ship seven times, but he would not Rive it. He finally gave the information when taken to the Police Station.

 

Dover Express 16th May 1947.

A NIGHT OUT.

At Folkestone Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

Bernard McKettrrick (20) of Castle Street, Dover. and Patrick J. Kelly of Londonderry, both merchant seamen, pleaded guilty to being drunk and incapable.

A Folkestone taxi driver said, at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, he picked up three passengers, including the defendants, at the "Jubilee Inn" on the Fish Market, took them to the "Prince Albert Hotel" and finished up at the "Majestic Hotel" just before midnight. McKettrick was then more or less helpless and the other defendant was drunk but could walk.

Inspector Grey said he put McKettrick on the floor of the taxi. While he was engaged in doing that, Kelly took off his coat and prepared to fight all and sundry. He became so extremely violent that he had to be handcuffed.

McKettrick said: We have only just come back from this country from Bombay and we celebrated last night.

McKettrick was fined 10s and Kelly £1.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 March 1956.

Local News.

A 22-year-old soldier, who made a “brutal attack” on a Folkestone fisherman in the street, was sent to prison for six weeks by Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday. Gunner Maurice William Attwood, of 26 Field Regiment, R.A., Shorncliffe, pleaded Guilty to assaulting Mr. Herbert Sidney Reed and causing him bodily harm.

Mr. N.K. Cooper, prosecuting, said at about 10.11 p.m. on March 4th, Mr. Reed, of 95, Black Bull Road, Folkestone, was walking home with a lady companion, Miss Marsh. They had left a cinema and were walking down High Street where they saw two soldiers coming up the hill towards them. The soldiers were making some noise and it was obvious they had been drinking because they were reeling about the pavement. It so happened, said Mr. Cooper, that Mr. Reed was walking on the inside of the pavement as opposed to the usual practice of walking on the outside when accompanied by a lady. One of the soldiers made some comment about it and Mr. Reed remonstrated with him to the effect that just because the man had had some beer it did not entitle him to be rude to people. While Reed was talking to the man Attwood was standing to his left. Reed did not see what happened but it appeared that Attwood struck him a rather violent blow on the side of the face, which knocked him to the ground. The two men immediately ran away. Mr. Cooper said when Reed got up his jaw seemed to be sunken and blood was coming from a cut above one of his eyes. He went to hospital where he was detained until the following Tuesday. Three stitches were inserted into a laceration over his left eye and it was found that he was also suffering from a compound depressed fracture of the cheek bone. The prosecuting solicitor said Miss Marsh saw Attwood strike the blow and enquiries were made, resulting in a parade being held at Ross Barracks on March 13th, when Mr. Reed was present with D.C. Crane. A large number of men, including a regimental police unit, were paraded and Reed was able to identify the man to whom he spoke on the night of the assault. As a result of what the man said the police interviewed Attwood. The accused made a statement in which he was alleged to have said that he remembered they had been drinking. They went to the Jubilee and were singing as they came up the hill. A man came down with a woman. His companion said something to the man, who started pushing. Attwood went on to state that he hit the man to stop the argument. The woman screamed and they ran up the road.

D.C. Crane said Attwood had appeared before the juvenile courts on four occasions and had been sent to an approved school. In August, 1953, at Shepton Mallet Magistrates' Court he was conditionally discharged for 12 months for stealing money from a gas meter.

An officer of the 26 Field Regiment said Attwood was inclined to use his fists rather than his head and had been in trouble as a result. In 1955 he was sentenced to six months’ detention for assaulting a man in the Regiment, and in 1954 received 90 days for causing a disturbance on a bus in Salisbury. “He is not a good soldier in any sense of the word”, went on the officer, “mainly because he does not possess soldierly qualities. If he is carefully supervised he works fairly well”.

The Chairman (Ald. W. Hollands) said Attwood made a brutal attack on a man. The magistrates had listened to his record, which was not at all good, and they had decided that he should go to prison for six weeks.

 

Folkestone Gazette 15 August 1956.

Local News.

The sequel to a fight near the Fishmarket late in the evening of July 18th, when two soldiers were alleged to have been “beaten up” by two other young soldiers, was heard at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Friday. Before the Court were Pte. John Price, Army Catering Corps, and Pte. James John Nolan, Royal Artillery, both stationed at Shorncliffe. They both pleaded Not Guilty to two charges each of causing grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm to Ptes. John Kenneth Probert and Anthony Green, both of the Royal Artillery, stationed at Ross Barracks, Shorncliffe. Defendants were found Guilty and fined.

Inspector A. Gray said at 10.15 p.m. on July 18th, Probert and Green went into the Jubilee public house for a drink and met several people there. Price and Nolan, who were in uniform, both shook hands with them and began discussing the merits of their respective home towns.

Giving evidence, Probert said when he and Green came out of the public house, defendants were waiting outside and again asked them from where they came. After a scuffle in which neither he nor Green took part, Probert said they left the area of the public house and made their way towards the bus stop to go back to camp. On a piece of waste ground near the Fishmarket arches, Probert said they saw defendants who again asked them where they came from and then started fighting. Witness said he was kicked about seven times by one of the two defendants, and was unable to remember anything after that.

Questioned by defendants, Probert said he and Green were with a party of five when they came out of the public house.

Replying to Inspector Gray, witness said defendants were the only two concerned in the assault on himself and Green.

Green, giving corroborative evidence, alleged that he was kicked in the head several times by Nolan before he eventually lost consciousness. He added that a few minutes after a scuffle outside the public house, in which neither he nor Probert took part, they went to look for their mates who were with them previously, and then they met defendants, who started fighting.

P.C. Wratten said at 11.02 p.m. he went to a piece of waste ground at the junction of Tontine Street and the Tram Road, where he saw three men detained by some civilians. Witness said Nolan ran towards him and he detained him. He then detained Price, who was lying on the ground. Both men had obviously been drinking and were using abusive language. P.C. Wratten said while he was holding defendants by the arms, Price, who had an Army belt wound round his hand, tried to strike him with it and he had to forcibly restrain him. Nolan meanwhile was trying to reason with Price. Witness said defendants were conveyed to Folkestone Police Station, and Nolan, after being cautioned, said “I knocked one of them down and kicked them both”. Afterwards both men made separate statements.

Lieut. J. Webster, R.A.M.C., Shorncliffe, said at 9.30 a.m. on July 19th he examined Probert and Green, after they had been admitted to the hospital at 1.15 that morning. Green was suffering from mild concussion and had an abrasion on his forehead. Probert had a large bruise on the left side of his lower jaw and a laceration of the scalp which had been previously treated with five stitches at the Royal Victoria Hospital. He also had abrasions on his lips. Both men were detained in hospital until July 21st.

Nolan, in a statement to the Magistrates, said they were talking with some other fellows (including a Scots chap) in the Jubilee public house.

When he said he came from Liverpool, Nolan said the Scots chap allegedly kept saying “Oh, that is in Dublin, isn't it?” but he laughed it off.

However, continued Nolan, when he and Price came out of the public house the Scots chap once more made remarks about Liverpool and Dublin, and he (Nolan) started fighting with him while Price fought another chap. Nolan said the two fellows they were fighting afterwards ran away and they ran after them but could not catch them. Returning to the public house to find Price’s cap badge, Nolan said Probert and Green came up behind them and asked them where their mates were. After he and Price said they did not know where they were a fight ensued between the four of them. Nolan said several civilians soon came on the scene and, he alleged, a little fat man hit Price over the head with a fish box They were then arrested by the constable.

Price made a similar statement.

Inspector Gray said Nolan was 19 and a National Serviceman; Price was 20 and employed as a cook at Shorncliffe.

The Chairman (Ald. W. Hollands) said defendants were guilty of most unsoldierly conduct on very cowardly charges. Price would be fined £3 and Nolan £2.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1957.

Local News.

“A nasty assault at a time when everybody should be cheerful and joyful”, in the words of the Chairman (Ald. W. Holland), was described at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, on Tuesday, when Gunner Charles Douglas Robinson, Royal Artillery, 20, Married Quarters, Ross Barracks, Shomcliffe, was summoned for causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty under provocation, and a plea of Not Guilty was entered.

Donald Arthur Mayne, licensee of the Jubilee Inn, Folkestone, said there was an extension at the inn on December 31st until 12.15 the following morning. At about 10.30 Robinson, with another man and a woman, entered, and were served with two pints and a half pint of mild. At midnight everybody sang “Auld Lang Syne”, and at 12.10 he called “Time”. Witness, after denying that he kissed any woman in the bar, contended that Robinson said to him “You see that woman? She is my wife”. Witness replied “What has that got to do with me?”, to which Robinson replied “You have been over there kissing her”. “I told him not to be silly, and advised him to go home”, witness said. “I started to turn away, and the next thing I remember was being hit, slap between the eyes”. He again asked Robinson to leave, and the latter said “I will break every bone in your body”. Two soldiers in the Coldstream Guards removed Robinson. Next day he (witness) rang up the Camp and then communicated with the police.

Dr. A. Pearlman, Cornwallis Avenue, Folkestone, said that when he examined Mr. Mayne he found severe bruising on the bridge of the nose, swelling of the face, and an abrasion on the left shin.

Mrs. Mary Mayne, the licensee's wife, said she heard a voice saying “I will break every bone in your body”. She saw blood streaming down her husband's face, and two men were holding Robinson back. Robinson tried to hit her husband, but she stood between them. Robinson pushed her aside.

P.C. Logan said he saw Robinson at Shorncliffe Camp on January 9th, and told him that Mr. Mayne had complained of an assault. Robinson replied “Yes, I hit him”. In a statement, witness continued, Robinson said everybody was kissing the women, including his wife, at the time. The landlord told him to get out, and said “You are barred”. The landlord said something else, and he (Robinson) hit him in the face. Someone hit him (Robinson) on the back of the head.

Robinson told the Magistrates that he never accused Mr. Mayne of kissing his wife, but said that everybody had been doing so. The next thing he remembered was being “smacked behind the ear” and getting a lump on his head.

An officer stated that Robinson was hot-headed and very strong, and did not know his own strength. He was a very useful man to have in the Troop.

Robinson was fined £3, with £3 3/- doctor's fee.

 

Folkestone Gazette 7 August 1957.

Local News.

The licensees of three public houses on the Fishmarket – the Oddfellows Inn, the Ship Inn, and the Jubilee Inn – have placed their premises out of bounds to all troops at Shorncliffe Camp.

One of the licensees informed the Gazette yesterday that the behaviour of some troops was so bad that it injured their holiday trade. “People just walked out when soldiers came in”, stated the licensee. “We have shown great tolerance and tried to reason with these men, but tolerance has been interpreted as fear. Therefore, we have had no alternative but to take the decision we have. We have notified the military authorities of our decision”.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1957.

Local News.

Because they allege continuous bad behaviour by soldiers patronising their houses, the licensees of three public houses on the Folkestone fishmarket, at their own request, have had their premises placed out of bounds to all troops at Shorncliffe Camp. The licensees of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn discussed the position and on Friday each of them sent a telegram to the Adjutant at Shomcliffe informing him of their decision. Since the ban was announced, a fourth licensee, Mr. George Prior, of the Royal George, near the Fishmarket, has also placed his premises unofficially out of bounds.

Apparently the main trouble has been caused at the Jubilee Inn, where the landlord is Mr. Donald A. Mayne, who was formerly a Second Officer in the Merchant Navy. He has been at the house for three years. His wife, Mrs. Mary Mayne, told the Herald this week that the trouble had been caused by troops of a certain regiment who arrived back from Malaya about three months ago. “They are so badly behaved, brawling, fighting and shouting”, she said. “If we try to reason with them all they say is “You ought to have been where we have been”, and don't take any notice. Many times we have sent for the Military Police to deal with them. We have told them time and time again that if they do not behave themselves we would put the premises out of bounds. They just turn round and tell us we can't turn them away because they spend too much money here”, said Mrs. Mayne. “The fact is that we are losing money because when the troops come in, the holidaymakers walk out rather than sit and listen to continuous shouting and singing. Even our regulars have been keeping away from the premises”. Mrs. Mayne said the houses had to make their money at this time of year from the visitors, but their holiday trade had been greatly affected. She said there was a noticeable improvement in trade following the ban. “We have talked and talked, and tried to reason with these men, but it has only been interpreted as fear. They have been in Folkestone for some time and we have stood it long enough. We have got to put our foot down. We do not like this action, but we have been forced into it. We realise that the good ones must suffer because of the bad. We do not condemn them all by any manner of means”, she stated.

The other two licensees, Mrs. D. Bentley, who has been in charge of the Ship Inn for 25 years, and Mr. George Skinner, of the Oddfellows Arms, said they had not experienced any real trouble from troops, but they had heard them shouting and singing outside. Mr. Skinner and Mrs. Bentley decided to combine with Mr. Mayne and place their premises out of bounds. They said “We have got to do the same thing and stick together. We do not want to catch the overflow if only one of us bans the troops”.

A notice “Out of bounds to troops” is displayed on the doors of the three houses.

On Wednesday morning an officer from the Camp interviewed the licensees and took down details of alleged incidents of fighting and smashing glasses in the Fishmarket during the past few months.

Asked for his views, Major R. Smith, Garrison Adjutant, Shorncliffe, agreed there had been a little touble with one of the regiments on the Camp; he was doing his best to find out what it was all about. “As far as I can make out there has been some shouting, but there are no civil charges pending against any troops at Shorncliffe Camp”, he said. Major Smith said if the licensees wished to put their premises out of bounds it might possibly be a good thing. There had been complaints, but it was always difficult to trace specific instances. On Saturday night, he said, they had heard that troops were rioting in the town, but when patrols were sent out to investigate the matter they found absolutely nothing.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 July 1965.

Local News.

A young woman asked Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday “Stop this man molesting me everywhere I go. He is making my life a misery”.

She told him that he had threatened to kill her. That was one evening when she had been out with friends. Miss Shiela Leggett, of Bridge Street, Folkestone, said he had called her over to him, and then started to call her all the dirty things he could. “He started bashing me”, she went on. “He grabbed me by the coat and swung me round. This is not the first time it has happened. It has been going on for a long time now. My friends stood and watched to see what would happen”. Miss Leggett had brought a private prosecution for common assault against 22-year-old Eamonn McShane, of Pavilion Road, Folkestone.

He pleaded Not Guilty, and finally the Magistrates bound over both Miss Leggett and McShane to keep the peace in the sum of £5 each for 12 months.

Cross-examined by Mr. T. Hulme, junior, defending, Miss Leggett agreed there were several people round the stalls in The Stade when McShane assaulted her.

“Are you really telling us that all these people were about and stood and did nothing while he grabbed you?” asked Mr. Hulme.

Miss Leggett: Only my cousin. She told him to keep his hands off me.

She said that on previous occasions McShane had “busted her nose in” at her home, and last year outside the Beach Hotel he had made as if to hit her. She had defended herself that time by punching him on the face. She had also punched the girl with him when the girl was funny with her. Miss Leggett said she had danced with McShane at a dance last Wednesday. That was after he had tried to throttle her and she had laid the complaint against him. “The only reason I danced with him was to stop trouble”, she said. “No matter what boy I talk to he comes up starting trouble”.

Mr. Hulme: Were you not, in fact, trying to persuade him to plead Guilty today?

Miss Leggett: No. Since it all came out he has been nearly on his knees to make me stop the case.

McShane told the Court that he had met Miss Leggett and had taken her and her friend into the Royal George and stood them a drink. Miss Leggett had then left him and joined her friends there. They left without him. Later he went into the Jubilee Inn where he saw Miss Leggett and her friends. “They laughed at me and took the Mickey out of me”, he said. Outside he took her by the lapels of her jacket and pushed her, saying “Stay with your friends”.

Mr. Hulme told the Court: I was going to say this was a storm in a tea cup, but I do not think anyone had been drinking tea that evening. The truth is these people had been out on a pub crawl and Miss Leggett abandoned McShane for her friends.

Binding over Miss Leggett and McShane, Mrs. D. Buttery, deputy Chairman, told them to keep out of each other's way. “If you come up against each other in that time you will forfeit the sum of £5”, she said.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Gazette 26 January 1977.

Local News.

Rebel landlord Ken Champion has hit out at Folkestone colleagues threatening to take action against brewers, Whitbread Fremlins. The 40 Whitbread tenant-licensees in Folkestone, Sandgate and Hawkinge plan to refuse to sell wines, spirits and minerals marketed by the company. The sanctions will start if the brewers do not agree to consult tenants before price increases.

Mr. Champion, landlord of the Two Bells, in Canterbury Road, Folkestone, said last week “Sanctions are a lot of rubbish. I don’t agree with them. What difference does it make if you are forewarned about price increases?” But Mr. Champion added he would impose sanctions if asked to.

Angry pub tenants, fuming over two drinks price rises in January, are meeting Whitbreads on Tuesday. If agreement over prices and re-assessment of the present renting system is not reached, the sanctions will be imposed. Other sanctions include delays in paying brewery bills, using cheques rather than direct debit. Arrears will be paid quarterly instead of weekly to hit the company’s balance books.

Mr. Vic Batten chairman of the Folkestone Whitbread Tenants’ Association, and landlord of the Jubilee Inn on The Stade, said “Every time a new increase is imposed, pubs lose customers”.

A spokesman for Whitbread said price increases were still behind inflation. “Duty is the main factor in the soaring costs”, he added.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1978.

Local News.

Local publicans put all hands to the pumps this week in a bid to stem Folkestone's wine bar boom. But their appeal against a drinks licence for a wine bar in Tontine Street, Folkestone, was thrown out at Canterbury Crown Court on Tuesday. Already there is one wine bar in the town, at Church Street, Folkestone, and another is planned for Sandgate Road. The publicans say wine bars affect their declining trade.

Mr. Vic Batten, vice-chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association, and licensee of the Jubilee Inn in Folkestone Harbour, said his trade was affected by some of his customers going to a wine bar. “Folkestone’s popularity is waning and as a result, trade diminishing. I feel there are too many public houses in the town already”, he said.

Mr. Peter Philpott, of the Oddfellows Arms, in The Stade, said he saw no reason for a full licence to be granted to the new wine bar.

Mr. David Anderson, of The Clarendon, Tontine Street, said the venture would seriously affect his trade.

The publicans also said that Folkestone has reached saturation point and pubs’ trade is already being affected by supermarkets and other retail outlets.

The application for a drinks licence, granted by Seabrook magistrates, was made by Mr. Michael Patten who runs Oliver’s Discotheque and wants to open Oliver's Wine Bar in Tontine Street. It would be primarily a wine bar, he said, but he would sell other drinks for those who prefer it. “The prices of other drinks would be loaded to encourage people to drink wine and I feel there is a need for such a venture”, he told Mr. Recorder Michael West, Q.C. “We will also provide food, hot and cold, and are satisfying a demand. If I were to find demand for other drinks was greater than wine, it would be embarrassing and I should have to try to meet these demands, but I hope this won’t happen”.

Mr. Recorder West dismissed the appeal. He said he felt that if someone wanted to use a pub they would do so and the different ventures could be complementary to each other.

 

South Kent Gazette 18 March 1981.

Local News.

Furious pub landlords say shock rises of up to 8p. on a pint of beer could put them out of business. Tenants of Whitbread Fremlin pubs in Shepway are bitter and incensed at the massive increase imposed by the brewery.

The rise, brought in on Monday, could put many of the landlords in the area out of the business or force them to go out to work while their wives manage the pub. This was the message from landlord Vic Batten, of the Jubilee Inn, Folkestone, who spoke on behalf of 40 tenants in the area on Monday. “We deplore the breweries increase”, Mr Batten said. “It means the Whitbread tenants are going to have a “very, very lean time””. On top of the four pence excise duty which came out of the Chancellor’s Budget, the brewery has placed an extra few pence on prices because of “inflationary costs of raw materials and delivery services”, a brewery spokesman claimed. To the customer this means between 56p and 58p for a pint of bitter, with lager costing 68p for the usual types and 74p for the Stella Artois brand. Guinness will also be over the 70p mark. “This is the highest increase the trade has ever been faced with”, Mr. Batten said. “We are having a lean enough time with the recession. This is obviously going to aggravate things even more. The pubs are already in competition with licensed clubs in the area. It could result in some of the licensees having to get out of the trade or going out to work while their wives run the pub”.

The local tenants held a special meeting at the Golden Arrow public house in Golden Valley on Sunday to discuss the situation. “But there is nothing we can do; we are tied tenants, contracted to get supplies from Whitbread”, said Mr. Batten. “We have had reactions from free-trade licensees. They are very incensed at Whitbread and talking about organising some sort of a boycott”.

Mr. Batten, a landlord for 13 years, said the increase adds up to a 66 percent rise on beer in the last three years and 50 percent up in spirits. His prices were put up in December and only two weeks ago the cost of bottled beer and spirits were increased.

However, the brewery has written to tenants stating that after this increase prices will remain the same for 12 months. A spokesman for Whitbread Fremlin said this will be the case providing there is not a mini-budget or any unforeseen problem in that time.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1984.

Local News.

Non, nein, or however you want to put it, Shepway drinkers have given the thumbs-down to Common Market tinkering with the price of a pint. Brussels bureaucrats have said that Britain discriminates against wine in favour of beer and have asked for a harmonisation of prices. But with one eye on the budget, drinkers and licensees alike suspect that is 1984 doublespeak for a thumping increase in the price of a pint.

First into the counter-attack against whatever Whitehall and Brussels have in mind is Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, which says the price of a pint is already too high, and if any adjustment is to be made, wine costs should be cut. “I've been here 15 years, and in that time I have seen the price of a pint of beer double inside five years and the number of customers fall off” said Vic Batten, Chairman of the association, and innkeeper at the Jubilee on The Stade, Folkestone. “In January, 1979, mild was 30p a pint, and out two bitters 34p and 38p. A pint of mild now costs 66p and the bitters 72p and 74p respectively. You can go into any pub in the area and they will tell you the same thing, and it amounts to this – the higher the price of a pint, the more the average person is put off from visiting their local. The ridiculous thing is that in this country we are taxed more heavily on drink than in any other country in the Common Market with the exception of the Irish Republic”.

As the lounge bar of the Jubilee cleared at the end of the lunchtime session Mr. Batten's grandson, three-and-a-half months old Thomas came down with his mum to see what was going on. Rapid calculations revealed that, assuming prices rise on the current scale, Thomas will be tipping back pints at more than £12 a time – if there are any pubs open by the time he is 20.

One of the last customers to leave was fellow-publican and ex-journalist, Brian Potter, now licensee at the Clarendon in Tontine Street, Folkestone. Said Brian between mouthfuls of ale “If nobody says or does anything then I reckon they'll get away with pegging wine at the price it is and harmonising the prices by jacking up the price of a pint. What Vic says is dead right. The average bloke is beginning to realise the cost of a pint of beer has already been increased out of all proportion. I mean, have your wages doubled in the last five years?”

Opinions of the same sort were voiced by Mr. Danny McNeill, late of Balloch, Scotland, and now not-unacquainted with the bar of the Globe in Folkestone's Bayle. “If the people who fixed the prices could stand in here and listen to what people are saying, their ears would burn”, he said. “There’s definitely something wrong with the pricing when you can get a super strong lager in Scotland for less than 70p. It seems to me that the brewers and the government are pricing themselves out of a good thing”.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 September 1984.

Local News.

Publicans are adding their voices to a national call for new opening times. Public pressure and campaigns from various trade groups could result in changes in opening times, which might mean some pubs staying open 12 hours a day. Chairman of the Folkestone district Licensed Victuallers’ Association, Vic Batten, said members were supporting FLAG - the Flexi-Law Action Group - in its campaign. “We feel the best alternative would be to have a system similar to Scotland”, said Mr. Batten. That would mean opening later – at 11a.m. - but staying open until 11p.m.

In Scotland the flexible licensing hours have led to the creation of 1,400 jobs and apparently contributed to a 50 per cent drop in drunkenness. The jobs created fall in the tourism and leisure categories - an important part of seaside employment.

Said Mr Batten “It would certainly mean more jobs, although they would more likely be part-time. But the licensee would be happy and so would the customer”. He said opening around 10am was a washout and publicans would far rather open a little later and add that extra time elsewhere. “We could stay open through the afternoon for people who might naturally want a drink. Families and travellers might benefit not only in towns but in the countryside. What can be better than a nice drink at four in the afternoon if you want one?”

FLAG has stressed it is not pressing for lowering of the drinking age or allowing children in bars. The Folkestone branch has already met the town’s M.P. Michael Howard and is awaiting ideas from the association’s head office on how it can step up pressure and raise public support.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had HOLLINGTON John 1887-88 Bastions

CARLTON William 1888-90 Bastions

Last pub licensee had ADAMS Josiah Lyon 1890-1906 (age 58 in 1891Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1891Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

ADAMS Andrew H 1901-06 (age 32 in 1901Census)

GALES John Edwin 1906-21 (age 34 in 1911Census) BastionsPost Office Directory 1913

MACKAY Hugh 1921-Feb/25 BastionsPost Office Directory 1922

TINGEY William Feb/1925-28 Bastions

Last pub licensee had TAYLOR William 1928-33 Bastions

RAWLINGS R P 1933

ROGERS Edward 1933-34 Bastions

CHAWNER Harold Clement 1934-38 BastionsPost Office Directory 1938

RICE Harry 1938-40 Bastions

Last pub licensee had RAWLINGS Reginald 1940-43 Bastions

SLADE Leslie 1945-49 Bastions

PATTISON Douglas 1949-51 Bastions

WALTERS Frederick 1951-54 Bastions

MAYNE Donald 1954-68 Bastions

BATTEN Victor 1968-87 Bastions

Renamed "Carpenters."

 

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room