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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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.