DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, November, 2021.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 06 November, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1798

Lord Nelson

Latest 1914

10 Radnor Street

Folkestone

Lord Nelson 1928

Above photo showing former pub, 1928, supplied by Martin Easdown.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 11 January 1846.

Sudden Death.

On Sunday morning last several fishermen put off to a Dutch schooner from this harbour; one of the boats was towed by the owner, Mr. William Harrison, of the "Lord Nelson," Radnor-street, who, on attempting to land on his return, was observed to fall backwards into the boat. Assistance was immediately rendered, but life was quite extinct. It is conjectured that the deceased had used much exertion to get his boat first out of the harbour, and had thereby ruptured a blood vessel.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 8 January, 1848. Price 5d.

SUDDEN DEATH IN A PUNT

On Sunday morning last several fishermen put off to a Dutch schooner from this port; one of the boats was rowed by the owner Mr. William Harrison, of the "Lord Nelson," Radnor Street, who, on attempting to land on his return, was observed to fall backwards into the boat. Assistance was immediately rendered, but life was extinct. It is conjectured that the deceased had used much exertion to get his boat first out of the harbour, and had thereby ruptured a blood vessel.

 

Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Tuesday 12 June 1849.

Canterbury.

Important sale of the extensive Brewery of Messr's Flint, including 30 old established Inns and Public Houses, and other valuable property.

Mr. V. J., has received instructions to sell by auction, at the "Fountain Hotel," Canterbury, on Tuesday and Wednesday, 26th and 27th of June, at 12 o'clock each day, (in consequence of the death of the senior acting partner and the retirement of the surviving partners,) the valuable property known as Messrs. Flint's Brewery, in Stour Street, Canterbury, and the Inns, Public Houses, and other valuable property connected with theirwith. The first day sale on Tuesday, 26th June, 1849, will comprise the following property in and near the city.

Public houses.

Lot 1. The "City of Canterbury," situate on the road to Whitstable. Freehold.

Lot 2. The "George and Dragon," Westgate without, leasehold under Hind's charity for 17 years unexpired.

Lot 3. The "Three Compasses," Westgate within. Freehold.

Lot 4. The "Bell Inn" and Coach Office, in the High Street. Freehold.

Lot 5. The "Prince of Wales," St. Alphege Lane,. Freehold.

Lot 6. The "Weavers Arms," Broad Street, freehold and partly leasehold.

Lot 7. The "White Swan," Northgate. Leasehold under St. John's Hospital for a short term, at a ground rent.

Lot 8. The "Kings Head," Northgate. Freehold.

Lot 9. The "Swan Inn," at Sturry (close to the railway station). Freehold.

Lot 10. The "Ship," St. Martins Hill, freehold.

Lots 12. The "Star Commercial Inn and Tap," St George's, close to the Cattle market and Dane John. Freehold.

Lot 13. The "Blue Anchor," Old Dover Lane, near the Cattle market. Freehold.

Lot 14. The "Fleece Inn," High Street, opposite to the Corn market. Freehold.

Lot 28. Three neat Cottages opposite the Brewery, with large gardens extending to the river.

Lot 29. The "Two Brewers" public house and Spirit Warehouse, adjoining the last lot.

Lot 31. The "Black Dog" public house, Castle Street.

Lot 34. The "Duke's Head" Public House, Wincheap Street.

Lot 35. The "King's Head," Public House, Wincheap Street.

Lot 37. The "Royal Exchange," public house, Stour Street.

Lot 38. The "Kentish Arms," public house, and 5 cottages in Jewry Lane. Leasehold for a short term at a low rent.

Lot 40. The "Duke William," at Ickham, abiout five miles from Canterbury. Freehold.

Lot 41. The "Royal Oak Inn," at Deal. Freehold except a small portion.

Lot 42. The "King's Arms," Beach Street, Deal, and Cottage in the rear. leasehold for a short term, at a Ground rent.

Lot 43. The "Fleur De Lis," near the Railway Station, Dover. Leasehold for a term of 6 years, at a Ground rent of 3.

Lot 44. The "Two Brewers," Limekiln Street, Dover. leasehold for a term of 46 years, at a ground rent of 3.

Lot 45. The "Fountain Inn, adjoining the Market place at Dover. Freehold.

Lot 46. The "Lord Nelson," Radnor Street, near the harbour, Folkestone. Freehold.

Lot 47. The "Bricklayers Arms," Fancy Street, Folkestone. Freehold.

Lot 48. The "Castle Inn," at Sandgate. Leasehold for a short term, at a ground rent of 7s. 6d.

Lot 49. The "King's Head Hotel and Tap," at Margate. Freehold.

Lot 50. The "New Inn," at Elham, on the road to Hythe. Freehold.

Lot 51. The "King's Arms," at Milton near Sittingbourne. Freehold.

The Public Houses are for the most part in the occupation of unexceptionable tenants, and the majority of them are doing trades, both in beer and spirits, considerably above the average run of Country houses. (None of them have been beer shops; they're all old Licence Houses, with connections of long standing, thereby affording ample security for the permanency of the trade). The Premises generally are in a superior state of repair.

Particulars and Plans, price 1s. each, may be had of Messr's. Furleys and Mercer, Solicitors, Canterbury; at the "Fountain Hotel;" and of Mr. V. J. Collins, 3, Moorgate Street, London.

 

South Eastern Gazette, Tuesday 18 February 1851.

Folkestone.

There was six publicans charged by the police with serving beer, &c., contrary to the law.

Mr. R. T. Brockman appeared for the watch committee. Mr. Delasaux of Canterbury for several of the defendants.

Margaret Harrison, "Lord Nelson," was similarly fined.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 27 July, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

CORONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at the "Lord Nelson Inn," Radnor Street, before S. Eastes Esq., coroner for the borough, and a respectable jury of which F. Denibas was chosen foreman. The enquiry was held on the body of a man which was found as detailed in the following evidence.

The jury, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which was lying in the tan house. The coroner, in opening the proceedings, said he felt bound to hold the inquest from the concluding words on a piece of paper which showed a determination to commit suicide in his opinion; he had at first thought it not necessary, but to remove any responsibility from himself he had determined to make the enquiry.

James Grant, fisherman, residing in Folkestone, identified the body as that of a man he brought ashore yesterday. About half past three witness went off in a punt alone, and about quarter of a mile off the harbour saw the body of a man floating; witness rowed to it, put a rope round it, and towed it into the harbour. Deceased had clothes on, but no hat nor cap, and only one slipper on his left foot; no stockings. Saw no marks of violence on him; judged him to be a French fisherman from his dress; should think he had been in the water eight or ten days; as soon as witness came to shore he gave information to the Coroner, who desired him to have it removed to the tan house; had heard the body was floating out at sea, and went out on purpose to find it.

William Woodland, P.C., deposed, yesterday afternoon, about half past three, found the dead body of a man lying on the beach, covered up with a sail; witness had it removed to the tan house.

Thomas Morford, town sergeant, deposed, about half past six last evening he first saw the body of deceased lying in the tan house; in looking at the body witness found he had earrings, and by request of the Coroner he searched the body; he searched the pockets, and found the leather purse produced in the left hand trousers pocket; it contained three gold 20 franc pieces, 2 ten franc pieces, 3 five franc pieces, a two franc and one franc piece, and 20 centimes, one shilling (English) and a paper with something written on it; the earrings were very small ones. He was dressed in a flannel jacket next the skin, a pink plaid shirt with white enamelled buttons, a good blue Guernsey of English manufacture, trousers of coarse grey cloth, light coloured, no stockings, and one cloth sock on the left foot, similar to those worn by the peasantry in France. The man was about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches, with dark brown whiskers, no moustache, bald headed about the front part; thought he was about 45 years of age; the face was disfigured.

Copy of the letter written in French:-

“On board the lugger Young Charles, of Nantes, Captain Peron. I can tell the number. I have taken my turn at an early hour (two lines not intelligible). Farewell for ever. Pray for me.” (no name).

The coroner thought from the paper that he appeared to have destroyed himself.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned”, no evidence being forthcoming as to the cause of death.

The French Consul had intimated to Mr. Eastes that he intended to follow the body to the grave, being a French citizen. Part of the money found would be devoted to paying for a plain coffin, and the Consul intended to write to Nantes to make enquiry respecting the lugger “Young Charles”, and also respecting any person being missing from the vessel.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 15 February, 1862. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

SELLING BEER ON SUNDAY MORNING

Saturday February 8th:- Before the Mayor and W.F. Browell, Esq.

Margaret Harrison, "Lord Nelson Inn," Radnor Street, pleading guilty to a charge of selling beer at half past 11 on Sunday morning, was fined 1s. and costs.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 31 January, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

CORONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was holden on Thursday last before John Minter Esq., the coroner, and a respectable jury, at the "Lord Nelson Inn," touching the death of William Hall.

Thomas Hall deposed he was a mariner, residing at Folkestone. He identified the body as that of his son from his clothes and from wearing a silver ring on his finger.

Edward loach deposed he was a mariner, living at East Cliff, Folkestone. He went alongshore last evening, and found a flannel shirt on the sand, in East Wear Bay, about a quarter of a mile from where he found the body. He took the shirt to the last witness this morning; witness went along shore to search for the deceased, and found it abreast of Copt Point, on the rocks, one arm being jammed in the rocks. Witness helped put the deceased in a hammock; found a ring on deceased's finger, which witness gave to Mr. Hall.

William Henry Bradley deposed he was a timekeeper in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company; knew the deceased; saw him on Monday the 29th December about 5 minutes past 9 a.m.; saw him leave the blacksmith's shop on the new pier, Folkestone, and jump over the railings, and saw him go into the sea at the west side of the pier, and get astride a piece of timber floating close to the shore; he had a cord or line in his hand. Directly he got on the timber it turned round three times; he went under each time, but got on the timber again; he next got off the timber and swam towards the pier, apparently to get away from the timber; the piece at the same time gave a half turn and struck him on the head; deceased called out, I believe “Life-buoy”. Witness sent a man for a life buoy and tried to throw it out, but could not for the wind. Witness then saw deceased sink; the sea was unusually rough.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased was accidentally drowned.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 31 January, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

INQUEST

An inquest was held on Thursday before J. Minter Esq., coroner, at the "Lord Nelson," on the body of Thomas Hall, 19 years of age, which had been washed ashore at Copt Point, unrecognisable except by portions of dress and a ring.

Thomas Hall, father of deceased, identified the body.

Edward Loach found the flannel shirt of deceased on Wednesday evening on the shore, and went next morning to look for the body, which he found at Copt Point, one arm jammed in the rocks.

William Henry Bradley, timekeeper, in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company, saw William Hall on Monday the 29th December, about five minutes past nine, leave the blacksmith's shop against the new pier, jump over the railings on to the beach south of the pier, and go into the water. He walked in breast deep, and got astride a piece of timber floating there. He had a cord in his hand at the time. The timber immediately turned over, and he went under and came up, and got on the timber again. This occurred three times. The timber had by this time got out seawards, and he struck out in the direction of the pier to get away from it. As he did this the timber turned over and struck him on the head. He called out for a lifeboat. Witness sent a man for a lifebuoy, and tried to throw it out to him, but could not reach him in consequence of the wind. As witness saw he was going down, he went for a lifeboat, but could not save him; the sea was very rough. Every now and then he turned his head to see if another sea was coming.

Verdict: accidentally drowned.

 

Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 18 July 1914.

East Kent Compensation Authority.

"Lord Nelson," Radnor Street, Folkestone (licensee, Frank May; owners, Messrs. Ash and Co. Hythe)

Mr. H. Morris applied for the renewal of the licence and Mr. Wardley opposed on behalf of the Folkestone justices.

The renewal was refused.

 

This page is still to be updated.

 

LICENSEE LIST

KENNETT Stephen c1798-1810 Bastions

TAYLOR Joseph 1810-25 Pigot's Directory 1823Bastions

TAYLOR Christian 1825-40+ Pigot's Directory 1828-29Pigot's Directory 1832-34Pigot's Directory 1839Pigot's Directory 1840Bastions

Last pub licensee had HARRISON William 1840-Jan/46 dec'd Bastions

HARRISON Margaret Jan/1846-64 (age 52 in 1861Census) Bagshaw's Directory 1847Melville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862BastionsFolkestone ObserverSouth Eastern Gazette

SANDERS Richard Godden 1864-80 Post Office Directory 1874Bastions

MARSH William Harrison & Ellen 1880-89 Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

MARSH Mrs Elizabeth 1889-97Post Office Directory 1891Bastions

TAYLOR George 1897-1902 Kelly's 1899Bastions

MILES John 1902-03 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Bastions

Last pub licensee had HERITAGE William 1903-08 Bastions

MINTER Albert 1908-09 Bastions

CHAMPION Albert 1909-12 Bastions

MONK Wm James 1912-13 Post Office Directory 1913Bastions

Last pub licensee had MAY Frank 1913-July/14 Next pub licensee had Bastions

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Pigot's Directory 1840From the Pigot's Directory 1840

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

South Eastern GazetteSouth Eastern Gazette

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

Folkestone ObserverFrom the Folkestone Observer

 

The following has kindly been researched and sent by Jan Pedersen and is still to be formatted.

 

Lord Nelson, Radnor Street c1798 – 1914

Licensees

Stephen Kennett c1798 c1810
Joseph Taylor c1810 c1825
Christian Taylor c1825 1840
William Harrison 1840 1848 From Black Bull
Margaret Harrison 1848 1864
Richard Godden Sanders 1864 1880
William Harrison Marsh and William Ellen 1880 1889 William Harrison Marsh From Raglan
Elizabeth Marsh 1889 1897 Ex Tramway Tavern
George Taylor 1897 1902
Mr. Bunney 1902 1902
John Miles 1902 1903
William Heritage 1903 1908 From Marquis Of Lorne. To Princess Royal
Albert Minter 1908 1909
Albert Champion 1909 1912
James Monk 1912 1913
Frank May 1913 1914 Perhaps Later Alexandra Hotel

Kentish Gazette 11 January 1848
On Sunday morning last several fishermen put off to a Dutch schooner from this harbour; one of the boats was towed by the owner, Mr. William Harrison, of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, who, on attempting to land on his return, was observed to fall backwards into the boat. Assistance was immediately rendered, but life was quite extinct. It is conjectured that the deceased had used much exertion to get his boat first out of the harbour, and had thereby ruptured a blood vessel.

Kentish Gazette 5 June 1849

Auction Extract:

Canterbury: Important sale of the extensive brewery of Messrs. Flint, including thirty old-established inns and public houses. Mr. V.J. Collier has received instructions to sell by auction, at the Fountain Hotel, Canterbury, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 26th and 27th of June, at twelve o`clock each day (in consequence of the death of the senior acting Partner and the retirement of the surviving Partners), the valuable property known as Messrs. Flint`s Brewery, in Stour Street, Canterbury, and the inns, public houses, and other valuable property connected therewith.

The second day`s sale, on Wednesday, 27th June, will comprise the following property:

Lot 46 – The Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, near the harbour, Folkestone – Freehold
Lot 47 – The Bricklayers` Arms, Fancy Street, Folkestone - Freehold

The Public Houses are for the most part in the occupation of unexceptionable tenants, and the majority of them are doing trades, both in beer and spirits, considerably above the average run of country houses, (none of them here been beer-shops; they are old licensed houses, with connections of long standing, thereby affording ample security for the permanence of the trade.) The premises generally are in a superior state of repair.

Particulars and plans (price 1s. Each) may be had of Messrs. Furleys & Mercer Solicitors, Canterbury; at the Fountain Hotel; and of Mr. V. J. Collier, 3, Moorgate Street, London.


Kentish Gazette 3 July 1849

Messrs. Flint`s Property: The sale of the extensive property of Messrs. Flint, brewers, Stour Street, Canterbury, took place on Tuesday and Wednesday, at the Royal Fountain Hotel, under the able administration of Mr. V.J. Collier. The sale room was crowded by respectable company, and the competition for most of the lots was very keen. At the close the auctioneer received many compliments for the gentlemanly and straightforward manner in which he conducted the business throughout. The following is a statement of the result:

Second day`s sale:
Lot 46 Lord Nelson, Folkestone 300 Mr. Ash
Lot 47 Bricklayers` Arms, Folkestone Not sold


Southeastern Gazette 15 May 1855

Local News

Monday. Before the Mayor, Wm. Major, and J. Kelcey, Esqs., and Capt. Kennicott.)

Richard Underdown was charged with having committed an assault upon James Grant.

It appeared that complainant left the Lord Nelson public-house, which is kept by his sister, about 12 o’clock on Saturday night, having heen there to fetch his washing, and was proceeding home to Capel, when, near Mr. Johnson’s stone yard, the defendant rushed upon him and knocked him down ; someone took his bundle away from him into a house. He was struck three times by the defendant, and much punished (which his appearance clearly showed); his bundle was afterwards given to him, when he found a pair of drawers missing from it, which he had not seen since.

The defendant, in answer to the charge, said he was leaving Johnson’s house between 12 and 1 o’clock on Saturday night, and the complainant was standing against the gate; he told him to get away, as he wanted to go out, when ne received a blow from the complainant under the ear; he then jumped over the gate and struck the complainant twice.

Mr. Johnson stated that as he and the defendant were coming out of the stone yard, the complainant was leaning against the gate ; he was requested to move, but would not, and struck the defendant, who jumped over the gate and struck in return.

The magistrates, after cautioning Underdown, who had previously been before them, fined him 1 and 8s. costs, which were paid.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 July 1861

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at the Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, before s. Eastes Esq., coroner for the borough, and a respectable jury of which F. Denibas was chosen foreman. The enquiry was held on the body of a man which was found as detailed in the following evidence.

The jury, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which was lying in the tan house. The coroner, in opening the proceedings, said he felt bound to hold the inquest from the concluding words on a piece of paper which showed a determination to commit suicide in his opinion; he had at first thought it not necessary, but to remove any responsibility from himself he had determined to make the enquiry.

James Grant, fisherman, residing in Folkestone, identified the body as that of a man he brought ashore yesterday. About half past three witness went off in a punt alone, and about quarter of a mile off the harbour saw the body of a man floating; witness rowed to it, put a rope round it, and towed it into the harbour. Deceased had clothes on, but no hat nor cap, and only one slipper on his left foot; no stockings. Saw no marks of violence on him; judged him to be a French fisherman from his dress; should think he had been in the water eight or ten days; as soon as witness came to shore he gave information to the Coroner, who desired him to have it removed to the tan house; had heard the body was floating out at sea, and went out on purpose to find it.

William Woodland, P.C., deposed, yesterday afternoon, about half past three, found the dead body of a man lying on the beach, covered up with a sail; witness had it removed to the tan house.

Thomas Morford, town sergeant, deposed, about half past six last evening he first saw the body of deceased lying in the tan house; in looking at the body witness found he had earrings, and by request of the Coroner he searched the body; he searched the pockets, and found the leather purse produced in the left hand trousers pocket; it contained three gold 20 franc pieces, 2 ten franc pieces, 3 five franc pieces, a two franc and one franc piece, and 20 centimes, one shilling (English) and a paper with something written on it; the earrings were very small ones. He was dressed in a flannel jacket next the skin, a pink plaid shirt with white enamelled buttons, a good blue Guernsey of English manufacture, trousers of coarse grey cloth, light coloured, no stockings, and one cloth sock on the left foot, similar to those worn by the peasantry in France. He man was about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches, with dark brown whiskers, no moustache, bald headed about the front part; thought he was about 45 years of age; the face was disfigured.

Copy of the letter written in French:-

“On board the lugger Young Charles, of Nantes, Captain Peron. I can tell the number. I have taken my turn at an early hour (two lines not intelligible). Farewell for ever. Pray for me.” (no name).

The coroner thought from the paper that he appeared to have destroyed himself.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned”, no evidence being forthcoming as to the cause of death.

The French Consul had intimated to Mr. Eastes that he intended to follow the body to the grave, being a French citizen. Part of the money found would be devoted to paying for a plain coffin, and the Consul intended to write to Nantes to make enquiry respecting the lugger “Young Charles”, and also respecting any person being missing from the vessel.

Southeastern Gazette 30 July 1861

Inquest

An inquest was held before the borough coroner, S. Eastes, Esq., at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, on the body of a man, name unknown, which was found floating outside the harbour by a fisherman named Grant. On his person were found upwards of 50 francs in gold and silver, and a part of a letter written in French, “Onboard the lugger Charles of Nantes, Peron master. I cannot tell the number. Pray for me.”

The coroner thought that by the manner it was written the deceased did not know what he was about.

Verdict, “Found drowned.”

Folkestone Observer 15 February 1862

Saturday February 8th:- Before the Mayor and W.F. Browell Esq.

Selling Beer On Sunday Morning

Margaret Harrison, Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, pleading guilty to a charge of selling beer at half past 11 on Sunday morning, was fined 1s. and costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1863

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest was holden on Thursday last before John Minter Esq., the coroner, and a respectable jury, at the Lord Nelson Inn, touching the death of William Hall.

Thomas Hall deposed he was a mariner, residing at Folkestone. He identified the body as that of his son from his clothes and from wearing a silver ring on his finger.

Edward loach deposed he was a mariner, living at East Cliff, Folkestone. He went alongshore last evening, and found a flannel shirt on the sand, in East Wear Bay, about a quarter of a mile from where he found the body. He took the shirt to the last witness this morning; witness went along shore to search for the deceased, and found it abreast of Copt Point, on the rocks, one arm being jammed in the rocks. Witness helped put the deceased in a hammock; found a ring on deceased`s finger, which witness gave to Mr. Hall.

William Henry Bradley deposed he was a timekeeper in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company; knew the deceased; saw him on Monday the 29th December about 5 minutes past 9 a.m.; saw him leave the blacksmith`s shop on the new pier, Folkestone, and jump over the railings, and saw him go into the sea at the west side of the pier, and get astride a piece of timber floating close to the shore; he had a cord or line in his hand. Directly he got on the timber it turned round three times; he went under each time, but got on the timber again; he next got off the timber and swam towards the pier, apparently to get away from the timber; the piece at the same time gave a half turn and struck him on the head; deceased called out, I believe “Life-buoy”. Witness sent a man for a life buoy and tried to throw it out, but could not for the wind. Witness then saw deceased sink; the sea was unusually rough.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased was accidentally drowned.

Folkestone Observer 31 January 1863

Inquest

An inquest was held on Thursday before J. Minter Esq., coroner, at the Lord Nelson, on the body of Thomas Hall, 19 years of age, which had been washed ashore at Copt Point, unrecognisable except by portions of dress and a ring.

Thomas Hall, father of deceased, identified the body.

Edward Loach found the flannel shirt of deceased on Wednesday evening on the shore, and went next morning to look for the body, which he found at Copt Point, one arm jammed in the rocks.

William Henry Bradley, timekeeper, in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company, saw William Hall on Monday the 29th December, about five minutes past nine, leave the blacksmith`s shop against the new pier, jump over the railings on to the beach south of the pier, and go into the water. He walked in breast deep, and got astride a piece of timber floating there. He had a cord in his hand at the time. The timber immediately turned over, and he went under and came up, and got on the timber again. This occurred three times. The timber had by this time got out seawards, and he struck out in the direction of the pier to get away from it. As he did this the timber turned over and struck him on the head. He called out for a lifeboat. Witness sent a man for a lifebuoy, and tried to throw it out to him, but could not reach him in consequence of the wind. As witness saw he was going down, he went for a lifeboat, but could not save him; the sea was very rough. Every now and then he turned his head to see if another sea was coming.

Verdict: Accidentally drowned

Folkestone Chronicle 25 September 1869

Local News

On Wednesday, a little fellow, six or seven years old, son of Mr. Saunders, of the Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, was gathering blackberries in the Warren, and partook of some poisonous berries. He lay insensible for hours, but we are glad to hear he is now out of danger.

Folkestone Express 28 February 1880

Monday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and Captain Fletcher.

Mark Coombs, an old man with only one leg, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street, with refusing to quit licensed premises, assaulting the landlord, and breaking a square of glass. He pleaded Guilty to being drunk, and said he knew nothing about the other charges.

Wm. Marsh, landlord of the Lord Nelson in Radnor Street, said the prisoner went to his house about nine o`clock on Sunday evening. He appeared to be sober, and said he only wanted a light. Witness told him to take a light, and the prisoner then became very abusive. Witness attempted to remove him, and prisoner then struck him with a stick on the forehead, and at the same time broke a window, doing damage to the amount of 1s. 6d. Witness secured him, and when a policeman came he was taken into custody.

P.C. Hogben said he was sent for to the Lord Nelson, and on going he found Mr. Marsh was holding the prisoner down, and he took him into custody on a charge of assaulting Mr. Marsh and breaking the window. When in the street, prisoner “unshipped” his wooden leg, and the assistance of P.C.s Sharp and Swain had to be obtained to get him to the station.

For the first offence he was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`, for breaking the window, 5s., the damage 1s. 6d, and costs 3s. 6d., or seven days`.

Folkestone Chronicle 17 October 1885

Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.

William Ellen, butcher, was charged with keeping open a public house, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours.

Mr. Ellen, in answer to the charge, said he did not carry on the business. He only held the license for Mrs. Marsh and received no benefit from the business.

Sergt. Harman, sworn, said: On Sunday morning last I was in company with P.C. Smith in Radnor Street about 7-40. I sent Smith to the front door and I went to the back door of the Lord Nelson public house. I found two men standing outside in the yard. I knocked at the door, and found it was fastened. In a few seconds there was a rush down some steps to the back door, where I was standing, and a noise and confusion inside, sounding like pots and glasses. Some of the men present here on another charge opened the back door. I saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw me they turned and ran back to the tap room. I ran after them, pursued them through the tap room and passage to the front room, and from there to a room looking like a store-room. I noticed a servant standing in the tap room. When I got into the store-room I saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducts the business of the house. She was opening a window leading into the back yard and assisting a man to jump out the window, which he did, a distance of about nine or ten feet into the yard. In preventing a further escape that way I lost one man, who went out of the door as I went in. When they had quieted down I requested Mrs. Marsh to open the front door and let in P.C. Smith. At that time her husband, Mr. Marsh, came down and said “Hello. What`s up? This is all through me laying a-bed”. I told them I should have to report them, and they would be summoned for keeping their house open and serving intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. Marsh said “All right, we must make the best of it”, or words to that effect. Mrs. Marsh said she did not know what she should do. I reported them, and also the men here for being in the house. I searched, and in the tap room saw from eight to ten stains of fresh beer marks on the table. The defendant is a butcher living in Beach Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carry on the business.

P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Galbraith, in defence, said Mr. Ellen was trustee for Mrs. Marsh, who had been parted from her husband. He would prove that the door had been opened for domestic purposes, when some men had taken the advantage and rushed in; and he would further show that Mrs. Marsh had not served any beer.

Mrs. Marsh and a servant were called as witnesses for the defence and stated that they drew no beer on the occasion, and the stains on the table were the remains of liquors consumed on the previous evening.

The Magistrates said they were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but they considered the charge proved and they had no alternative but to inflict a fine, which would be 2 10s., with 12s. costs, and they would advise him to get rid of his trusteeship as soon as possible.

Mr. Ellen said that was what he intended to do.

G. Brewer, R. Fagg, G. Hill, J. Longhurst, J. Hail and J. Todd were then charged with being in a public house during prohibited hours, and pleaded guilty. Fined 2s. 6d. each, or three days` imprisonment.

The Bench said the fine was very lenient, as they considered it was a great temptation to them for public houses to be open.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1885

Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.

William Ellen was summoned for keeping open licensed premises, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours. Mr. Ellen said he was merely the trustee to the landlady of the house, and had nothing to do with the management of the business. Mr. Bradley, however, told him he was responsible.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday last, at about 7.40 in the morning, he went to Radnor Street and visited the Lord Nelson. He sent P.C. Smith to the front door, and went to the back door himself. He found two men standing outside in the yard. He knocked at the door and found it was fastened. In a few seconds he heard a rush down some steps leading from the taproom, and a confusion inside sounding like pots and glasses. Someone opened the back door. He saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw him they turned and ran up into the taproom. He ran after them through the taproom and a passage into a front room, and from there to the back of the house into a room resembling a storeroom. He noticed the servant standing in the taproom. In the storeroom he saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducted the business of the house. Mrs. Marsh was opening a window leading into the back yard, and assisting a man to jump out, which he did. In preventing a further escape that way he lost one man who got out of the door as he went in. P.C. Smith was then let in at the front door. Mr. Marsh came down and said “Hello, what`s up? This is all through me laying abed”. He told them he should report them and they would be summoned. Marsh said “All right, we must make the best of it”. He then let Brewer, Fagg, Hills, Longhurst, Hall and Todd out. Two others he was not certain about. In the taproom there were from eight to twelve round wet marks on the table where glasses or mugs had stood. Defendant did not conduct the business himself. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business.

P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Galbraith said the defendant was a trustee for Mrs. Marsh, who he understood was separated from her husband. He said the door was open for domestic purposes, and the men ran in, the constable following them. Mrs. Marsh and the servant would tell them no beer had been drawn, and therefore there was no offence on the part of the holder of the licence.

Eliza Marsh said she carried on the Lord Nelson, and Mr. Ellen was trustee for her. On Sunday morning she was frying fish in the parlour. The girl was cleaning the taproom and steps, and the back door was not open to her knowledge. She heard someone coming up the steps to the parlour, and she thought they were her lodgers, who were “Hastingers”. She then heard the men rush through, and immediately after she saw Sergeant Harman. She did not serve them with a drop of beer. The marks on the taproom table were left from the night before. The men tried to get out of the house, and she was confused.

Sarah Brand, servant to Mrs. Marsh, said she was sweeping the taproom back steps down on Sunday morning, and carried the dust to the dustbin, leaving the back door open. She went out a second time to shake the mats, but saw no-one enter the house, nor did she see a constable. She saw the men rush in, and Mrs. Marsh asked her why she let them in. The men had not been there two minutes when the police came. They had nothing to drink, and did not ask for any. The taproom table had not been scrubbed, and the marks were on it from Saturday night. The men said “Is there any chance for a glass?”, and she replied “No. Mrs. Marsh never draws any beer on a Sunday morning. You had better go out again”.

The Bench said there was no doubt the charge was proved. They were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but he must pay a fine of 50s., and 12s. costs. It appeared to them that it was not for the benefit of Mr. Ellen that the people who conducted the house should continue to do so, and they advised him to get rid of his trusteeship as soon as he could.

Mr. Ellen: You may depend upon it, gentlemen, I shall.

Mr. Bradley said he did not think it was at all likely the Magistrates would transfer the licence to Mrs. Marsh or to Mr. Marsh.

The six men whose names are given above were fined 2s. 6d. each, without costs.

Folkestone News 17 October 1885

Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.

William Ellen was summoned for keeping open licensed premises, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours.

Mr. Ellen said he was merely the trustee to the landlady of the house, and had nothing to do with the running of the business.

Mr. Bradley said defendant was responsible.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday last, about 7.40 in the morning, he went to Radnor Street and visited the Lord Nelson. He sent P.C. Smith to the front door and went to the back door himself. He found two men standing outside in the yard. He knocked at the door and found it was fastened. In a few seconds he heard a rush down some steps leading from the taproom, and a confusion inside sounding like pots and glasses. Someone opened the back door. He saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw him they turned and ran up into the taproom. He ran after them through the taproom and passage into a front room, and from there to the back of the house into a room resembling a storeroom. He noticed the servant standing in the taproom. In the storeroom he saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducted the business of the house. Mrs. Marsh was opening a window leading into the back yard, and assisting a man to jump out, which he did. In preventing a further escape he lost one man who got out of the door as he went in. P.C. Smith was then let in at the front door. Mr. Marsh came down and said “Hello, what`s up? This is all through me laying abed”. He told them he should report them, and they would be summoned. Marsh said “All right. We must make the best of it”. He then let Brewer, Fagg, Hills, Longhurst, Hall and Todd out. In the taproom there were from eight to twelve round wet marks on the table where glasses or mugs had stood. Defendant did not conduct the business himself. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business.

P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Galbraith said the defendant was a trustee for Mrs. Marsh, who he understood was separated from her husband. He said the door was open for domestic purposes, and the men ran in, the constable following them. Mrs. Marsh and the servant would tell them no beer was drawn, and therefore there was no offence on the part of the holder of the licence.

Eliza Marsh said she carried on the Lord Nelson, and Mr. Ellen was trustee for her. On Sunday morning she was frying fish in the parlour. The girl was cleaning the taproom and steps, and the back door was not open to her knowledge. She heard someone coming up the steps to the parlour, and she thought they were her lodgers, who were “Hastingers”. She then heard the men rush through, and immediately after she saw Sergeant Harman. She did not serve them with a drop of beer. The marks on the taproom table were left from the night before. The men tried to get out of the house, and she was confused.

Sarah Brand, servant to Mrs. Marsh, said she was sweeping the taproom back steps down on Sunday morning, and carried the dust to the dustbin, leaving the back door open. She went out a second time to shake the mats, but saw no-one enter the house, nor did she see a constable. She saw the men rush in, and Mrs. Marsh asked why she let them in. The men had not been there two minutes when the police came. They had nothing to drink and did not ask for any. The taproom table had not been scrubbed, and the marks were on it from Saturday night. The men said “Is there any chance for a glass?”, and she said “No, Mrs. Marsh never draws any beer on a Sunday morning. You had better go out again”.

The Bench said there was no doubt the charge was proved. They were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but he must pay a fine of 50s. and 12s. costs. It appeared to them that it was not for the benefit of Mr. Ellen that the people who conducted the house should continue to do so, and advised him to get rid of his trusteeship as soon as he could.

Mr. Ellen: You may depend on it, gentlemen, I shall.

Mr. Bradley said he did not think it was at all likely the magistrates would transfer the licence to Mrs. or Mr. Marsh.

The six men whose names are given above were fined 2s. 6d. each without costs.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1886

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs., and Capt. Carter.

This being the Annual Licensing Day the magistrates attended at ten o`clock in order to prepare for the issue of licenses at eleven o`clock. Upwards of 100 licenses were granted.

Mr. Minter appeared for Wm. Ellen, trustee to Mrs. Marsh, of the Lord Nelson, against whom the Superintendent had raised an objection that Ellen was not the resident landlord, and also that in October last year he was convicted for keeping open the house during prohibited hours, and fined. Mr. Minter stated that the notice of objection had not been served in time for him to give notice to have the licence transferred to Mrs. Marsh, but he would take steps to have the licence transferred.

The Bench granted the licence on the understanding that a transfer be applied for at the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1889

The Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, before Dr. Bateman and a full Bench.

Objection

Supt. Taylor objected to the licence of the Nelson Inn on the grounds that the house had not been properly conducted, and the Bench decided to let the case stand over until the adjourned meeting.

Folkestone Express 31 August 1889

Wednesday, August 28th: Before Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole, J. Pledge and F. Boykett Esq.

The General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

All the old licenses were renewed without opposition or comment except the following:-

The Lord Nelson, in which case the Supt. called attention to the fact that the house was not conducted satisfactorily. The police had, on Sunday, the 25th June, been refused admission. There was also an undertaking given on the last licensing day that the licence should be transferred to Mr. Marsh, the present applicant`s husband. It was decided to let the application stand over till the adjourned licensing day.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1889

Wednesday, September 18th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Mr. Minter applied for a transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson from Mr. Ellen to Mrs. Eliza Ann Marsh. Mr. Ellen, he said, was a trustee for Mrs. Marsh under a settlement, and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business. The Superintendent made some objection to Mr. Ellen holding the licence, he not being a resident. Mrs. Marsh had conducted the house, he would not say to the entire satisfaction of the Superintendent, because probably he was not entirely satisfied with the conduct of the house, but it had been satisfactorily conducted.

There was no objection, and the transfer was sanctioned.

Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1890

Annual Licensing Session

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Upon Mr. Marsh applying for a renewal of the licence of the Lord Nelson, Superintendent Taylor said a couple of men were found on these premises at ten minutes to twelve on one occasion, but this was the only offence against the applicant.

The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Lord Nelson

Supt. Taylor said some people were found in this house at 10 minutes to 12 at night. It was the only complaint since the applicant had held the licence.

Granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 6 December 1890

Local News

At the Police Court on Thursday before Mr. Fitness and Major Penfold, Thomas ryan was charged with assaulting William Marsh, of the Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street.

Prosecutor said the prisoner, with several other soldiers of the Leinster Reguiment, had some beer at his house, and ran out with a jug and a glass. He pursued them, and when the prisoner got to the Tramway Tavern he poured some of the beer into a bottle which a girl named Lily Hogben, who lived at the Tramway, was holding. Witness asked him to give up the jug, when he “butted” him in the chest with his head, knocking him down.

Lily Hogben was called, but stated that prisoner was not the man at all. It was one of the prisoner`s witness`s, named Cunningham, who committed the assault. She could swear to it, as she knew him well.

The Magistrates discharged Bryan, and Cunningham was placed in the dock and ultimately fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 8 May 1897

Saturday, May 1st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert and others.

Eliza Ann Marsh appeared in answer to a summons charging her with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 18th April. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Lilley said that on the day in question, in company with P.S. Swift, he watched the defendant`s house, the Lord Nelson, in Radnor Street, from St. Peter`s Working Men`s Club, from a window that looked down the yard. At 8 a.m. a man went to the window and was served with a pint of beer.

Mr. Minter objected to any evidence as to the supply of beer except that to H. Roach. The Bench decided to hear all evidence.

P.S. Lilley, resuming, said he could not see who served the man. He came from The Stade. Immediately after three men went up, and were served with glasses and paid for them. Between 8.10 and 9.15 in all forty four men were served, chiefly by the defendant`s daughter, with beer or spirits. Witness gave the evidence in detail, both as to the drink supplied, and the time served. All paid for their drink. At 9.20 two men were served with a pint of beer by defendant. Witness and Sergt. Swift then went to the back of the window, and the two men – Horace Roach and Thomas Hogben – had a pint of beer each. There were two other men there then, and one was about to be served with a pint of beer by the defendant`s daughter, but when she saw them she took it back. Mrs. Marsh was standing behind her daughter, and when she saw them she shut down the window.

By Mr. Minter: They could see clearly for about a yard into the room. All the sales up to 8.36 were made by Mrs. Marsh. After, some were served by her, and some by her daughter. It was not witness`s idea of a constable`s duty to warn people when they knew perfectly well that they were breaking the law.

P.S. Swift corroborated his fellow sergeant`s evidence.

Mr. Minter, addressing the Bench, said it was new to him to admit the evidence he had objected to. Much of the evidence was a surprise to him, as the defendant denied a great deal of it. He thought the admission of it was straining the law. They were indicted on a specific offence, and then called to answer 50 charges.

The Magistrates` Clerk said that if Mr. Minter thought the defendant`s case had been prejudiced, he had better ask for an adjournment.

Defendant`s husband, who was at the back of the Court, desired Mr. Minter to ask for an adjournment, so that he could call witnesses.

Mr. Minter said it was a matter of very serious moment to the defendant and also for the police if they were not speaking the truth. He frankly hesitated to disbelieve the police evidence, but he could not help noticing that they gave their evidence with a considerable amount of animus. He was anxious to call evidence to contradict the police, and therefore asked for an adjournment until Wednesday. He also requested that P.S. Lilley be asked for the names of the people he saw served.

P.S. Lilley said they were Golder, Ashby, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Austin, Kosh, Stockton, Stiff, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint. The majority of them were served more than once.

Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said he should withdraw his application for an adjournment so far as he personally was concerned. If defendant persisted she must find another advocate. He could not be a party to suggesting that the police were telling untruths when giving the names. He advised his client to plead Guilty and throw herself on the leniency of the Bench.

The defendant did, but she said the policemen had always been against her.

P.S. Lilley said this was the first charge against defendant.

Folkestone Express 8 May 1897

Saturday, May 1st: Before W.G. Herbert and others.

Eliza Ann Marsh was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday the 18th April. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Lilley said on Sunday, the 18th April, in company with Sergeant Swift, he watched the Lord Nelson public house, in Radnor Street, from half past seven in the morning. They watched from the windows of St. Peter`s Working Men`s Club, which looked down into the yard. The distance was about 15ft. between them and the public house and they were perhaps 80ft. up away from it. At eight o`clock a man went to the window and was served with a pint of beer.

Mr. Minter objected to any evidence except as to the supply of beer to one Horace Roach. The Bench, however, overruled the objection.

Sergeant Lilley resumed: He could not see who served the man. He came from a covered passage from The Stade, which led to the Lord Nelson and one or two other houses. The window was only about 7ft. from the ground Immediately after three other men went up and were served in glasses.

Mr. Minter again objected. He said they were charged with selling to one Horace Roach – at a certain time.

Mr. Bradley said his advice to the Bench was to admit the evidence.

Sergeant Lilley resumed: These men were served with pints of beer, and each paid for them. At 8.10 four other men were served, one with a pint, one with half a pint, one with a small glass of apparently white spirit, and one with a bottle, apparently beer. One man paid for three, and one for what was in the bottle. At twelve minutes past eight another man was served with a pint of beer by defendant, and received change. At 8.16 two other men were served, and both paid. At 8.24 one man was served with beer in a bottle, and received change. At 8.25 a man was served with half a pint by defendant, paid, and received change. At 8.28 one man was served with beer in a bottle by defendant. At 8.30 eight men were served, six with pints of beer, and with two small glasses of apparently white liquor by defendant, and all paid. At 8.34 one man was served with two bottles, and paid. At 8.36 two men were served with a pint each, and paid. At 8.41 one man was served with a pint by defendant`s daughter, and paid. At 8.44 one man was served with a bottle of beer, apparently by the daughter, and paid. At 8.47 two men were served by the daughter with a pint each, and paid. At 8.49 two men were served, one with a pint of beer, and one with a glass of liquor, by the daughter. (In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he made the memoranda he was reading from as the men left). In all cases the man with the bottle was the same man. He was known to witness. At five minutes past nine, seven men were served by defendant with a pint each, and received change. At ten minutes past nine, seven men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 9.15 three men were served with a pint each, and one with a small glass containing liquor. At 9.20 two men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. The latter were Horace Roach and Thomas Hogben. The witness and Swift then went to the back of the window, and the two men, Roach and Hogben, had a pint glass each, containing beer. There were two other men there, and one was about to be served with a pint of beer by defendant`s daughter, but when she saw them she took it back again. Mrs. Marsh was standing behind her daughter, and on seeing them she shut the window down. Witness asked to see her, and she went to the window, and he told her she would be charged with selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. She said “All right”. There were 59 different sales to 45 men – some were served twice, and some three times – and the man with the bottle six times. They left off watching at 9.20. All the liquor was sold from the window.

By Mr. Minter: We could see clearly for about a yard into the room from where we were. All the sales up to 8.35 were made by Mrs. Marsh. I have no doubt about that. Afterwards some were served by her and some by her daughter.

Mr. Minter: Why didn`t you go in after the first sale and warn her?

Witness: That is not my idea of police duty, when people know perfectly well they are breaking the law.

Sergeant Swift corroborated Sergeant Lilley`s evidence.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench. He first referred to the admission of the evidence which he had objected to, and said it was new to him that such evidence should be admitted. The summons said that at a certain time, to wit, twenty minutes past nine in the forenoon, on the same day, she sold to Horace Roach a certain quantity of beer. All the evidence which had been given had been an utter surprise to him. It had not been disclosed by the defendant, who, on his asking her, denied a very great deal of it. However, it was ruled that it was admissible. It seemed to him to be most unfair and most unsatisfactory as an indictment (because they were really there on an indictment) for a specific offence, yet 50 other charges were brought against the defendant. He really thought it was a straining of the law.

Mr. Bradley: If you think the defendant is prejudiced you can ask for an adjournment.

Defendant`s husband, who was at the back of the Court, requested Mr. Minter to ask for an adjournment so that they could call witnesses.

Mr. Minter said it was a matter of very serious moment to the defendant, and it was a matter of serious moment for the police if they were telling that which was untrue. Frankly, he might say (and he was sure it would not prejudice the defendant`s case), he hesitated to disbelieve a great portion of what the police constable had stated, because if he was telling an untruth he certainly was not fit for the post he occupied. But one could not help noticing that there was a great deal of animus in the way in which he gave his evidence. It appeared to be full of hostility against the defendant, and it made the husband of the defendant (who was the man they had heard speak just now in the Court), desire to have an adjournment. The defendant was also naturally desirous, and he (Mr. Minter) was desirous, that there should be an adjournment of the case in order that they might call evidence to contradict that which the police had stated. As he had said, he could not believe the two policemen would be guilty of such atrocious conduct as to come there and tell such a tissue of lies. He therefore asked for an adjournment until the next Wednesday, and, further, he asked that Sergeant Lilley should be requested to give the names of those whom he knew were served by defendant, in order that they might be summoned to give evidence.

Sergeant Lilley said the first was known to him as Golder, and other names he gave were Ashby, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Austin, Kosh, Stockton, Stiff, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint. He said the majority of those he named were served more than once.

Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said he should withdraw, so far as he was concerned, his application for an adjournment. If the defendant persisted, she must get someone else to act for her. Although he could not say he could always put implicit faith in what policemen said, he could not be a party to suggesting that they were telling an untruth in giving the names of the men who were there. His advice to the defendant was to plead Guilty, and ask for the merciful consideration of the Bench, and he was sure she would not be prejudiced by that course.

The defendant then pleaded Guilty, and asked the Bench to deal leniently with her, She added that the policemen had been against her for years.

Sergeant Lilley, in answer to Mr. Bradley, said it was the first charge of the kind against the defendant.

Mr. Minter then appealed to the Bench to be merciful, and remarked that it was perfectly well understood that publicans believed that policemen had their favourites, who were favoured by them, but he was loth to believe in that. He urged that the Bench should not endorse the licence, as the house was the woman`s livelihood. It would be a lesson to her in the future to obey the law, and not to open her house at hours when she was not allowed to do so.

The Bench said they considered it was a serious case, and there was not the slightest doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the defendant. They considered that Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in advising the defendant not to go into the witness box to contradict the evidence of the police. She would be fined 10 and 10s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed, but they cautioned her not to offend again in a similar way.


Mr. Minter appealed for mercy, and urged the Bench not to endorse the licence, as the house was the woman`s livelihood. She had received a severe lesson.

The Bench said they had considered the case, and it was a most serious one. There was not the slightest doubt as to her guilt. Mr. Minter had exercised a wise discretion in advising defendant not to contradict the evidence of the police. She would be fined 10 and 10s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed, but they warned her not to offend again.

Folkestone Herald 8 May 1897

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday – Mr. Herbert presiding – Mrs. Eliza Ann Marsh was charged with selling intoxicating liquors to Horace Roach at prohibited hours on the 18th April. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.S. Lilley said on Sunday, 18th inst., in company with P.S. Swift, he watched the Lord Nelson public house, Radnor Street, commencing at half past 7 a.m. They watched from the windows of St. Peter`s Working Men`s Club, the back of which was in a yard, and a door led from the back of the Lord Nelson into this yard. Between where they were and the public house there was about 30 feet. About 8 o`clock a man came to a window and was served with a pint of beer or ale, he could not see by whom.

Mr. Minter here objected to any evidence except as to the supply to Roach, as that was the charge, but the Bench ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Witness, continuing, said that the man came from a covered passage leading from The Stade into the yard and to the houses. The back door of the Lord Nelson opens into the yard, and the window is about 7 feet from the level of the ground. Immediately after this three other men came and were each served with a pint by the defendant from the window, and each paid. At 8.10 four more men came to the same place, one being served with a pint, one with half pint, one with a small glass of spirits, and one with a quart bottle, apparently containing beer. One man paid for the three, another for what was in the bottle. Shortly after, another man came, and was served with a pint of beer, paid, and received change from the defendant. At 8.16 two men were served with a pint each, and each paid. At 8.24, one man was served with beer in a bottle, paid, and received change. At 8.25 a man was served by the defendant with a pint, paid, and received change. At 8.28 one man was served by the defendant with beer in a bottle, and he paid. At 8.30 eight men were served by defendant with six pints of beer and two small glasses containing liquor, and all paid. At 8.34 one man was served with two bottles, and paid. At 8.36 two men were each served with a pint and paid. At 8.41 one man was served with a pint by defendant`s daughter, and he paid. At 8.44 one man was served by the daughter with a bottle, apparently of beer, for which he paid. At 8.47 two men were served with a pint each by the daughter, and paid. At 8.49 two men were served by the daughter, one with a pint of beer and the other with a small glass containing liquor.

Mr. Minter: When did you make all these memorandums?

Witness said he made them at the time. At 8.51 eight men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 8.56 one man with a bottle was served, and received change. In all cases the man with the bottle was the same one, and witness knew him. At 9.05 seven men were each served with a pint by defendant, paid, and two received change. At 9.10 seven men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 9.15 three men were served, two with a pint each and one with a glass apparently containing liquor. At 9.20 two men were served by the defendant with a pint each and they paid. Horace Roach and Thomas Hobson were the names of these men. P.S. Swift and witness then went to the back of the window, and Roach and Hobson had pint glasses of beer about half emptied. There were two other men there, and one was just about to receive a pint glass of beer, which was being handed to him by the defendant`s daughter, who, on seeing the police, took it back again. Mrs. Marsh was behind her daughter at the open window, and he told her she would be charged with selling intoxicating liquors in prohibited hours. She replied “All right”. There were 59 different sales and 45 different men, the man with the bottle being served six times. All the liquors were sold from the window to the men in the yard, none of them entering the house.

Cross-examined: From where they were they could see the window by looking obliquely, and could see about a yard into the room at the farthest end of the window. All sales up to 8.36 were made by Mrs. Marsh, he had no doubt about that. Afterwards some by the defendant and some by her daughter.

Asked why he did not warn the defendant at first, witness said it was not his idea of police duty to warn people who knew they were breaking the law, and he used his discretion.

P.S. Swift said he had heard the previous witness`s evidence and it was correct. The evidence given agreed with witness`s notes, which he made at the time.

Mr. Minter said that notwithstanding the ruling of the Bench he must observe that it was new to him that this evidence should have been admitted while the summons charged them only with selling a certain quantity of beer to one Horace Roach, at twenty past nine on Sunday. All this evidence was an utter surprise to him, and upon his asking her, the defendant denied a very great deal of it. Of course if a person was indicted, and this was equal to an indictment, for a specific offence he would know how to answer it. The matter was of very serious moment to the defendant and to the police if they were telling that which was untrue. He was sure it would not prejudice the defendant`s case when he said that he did not hesitate to believe most of what the police sergeant had said. He could not help noticing that there was a great deal of animus in the way he gave his evidence, it appeared to him to be a feeling of hostility against the defendant. The defendant and her husband, who was in court, desired to have an adjournment of the case in order to call evidence, and as he was taking on himself the responsibility of defending the defendant he would not be a party to allowing her to go into the box. He could not believe that the policeman could be guilty of such atrocious conduct as telling a tissue of lies. They desired an adjournment so that they would have time to consider and get the evidence of these different men. It would be an advantage if the police would give the names of the men, as they might be summoned as witnesses.

P.S. Lilley said the men were:- Golder (this might not be his real name, but he was known by it), Ashley, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Anslow, Kosh, Stockton, Smith, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint.

Mr. Minter now said he had advised the defendant to plead guilty, but she must exercise her own judgement. He was sure the Magistrates would not be prejudiced by the observations he had made.

The defendant then pleaded guilty, and said these men (the police sergeants) had been against her for years.

Mr. Minter said it was his experience that they had their favourites amongst the police and their enemies. They imagined that one was persecuted and one was favoured, but he was loth to believe that. It was quite clear in this case that although the defendant did not serve as often as they said she did, still her daughter must have, and the defendant could only ask for their merciful consideration, and hope they would not endorse the licence, as she had to earn her own living. It would be a lesson for her in the future.

The Chairman said that the Bench had listened very carefully to the evidence and considered there was not the slightest doubt that she did wilfully serve these men with beer, and they thought Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in advising her as he had. It was a bad case, but as it was the first offence they would not go to the extent of endorsing her licence, but would fine her 10 and 10s. costs. She might be perfectly certain it would be endorsed if she came there again.

Folkestone Up To Date 8 May 1897

Police Court Proceedings

Eliza Ann Marsh was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 18th April. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

The Bench said they considered it was a serious case, and there was not the slightest doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the defendant. They considered that Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in advising the defendant not to go into the witness box to contradict the evidence of the police. She would be fined 10 and 10s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed, but they cautioned her not to offend again in a similar way.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 December 1897

Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert.

Mr. George Taylor was granted the transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson.

Folkestone Express 11 December 1897

Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Lord Nelson was transferred to George Taylor.

Folkestone Herald 11 December 1897

Local News

The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the sitting of the Folkestone Justices: Lord Nelson inn to Mr. Geo. Taylor.

Folkestone Herald 1 March 1902

Felix

A few days since, a respectable young married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Bunney, came to Folkestone. They had entered into possession of the Lord Nelson tavern, but had only been in business nine days when death took the husband away. Deceased was a Cornishman, and had acted for several years as a clerk in the employ of Mr. Bugler, at Ashford, where he was highly esteemed. These young people had been married but ten months, but now a widow and a little child are left behind. The good-hearted people of Radnor Street have not been behind hand in showing their genuine sympathy with this poor woman – a stranger in our midst – in her hour of trial.

Note: No mention of this in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1902

Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. John Miles was granted a transfer of the Lord Nelson.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 July 1903

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority, full transfers of licences in relation to the following houses were granted:- The Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Mr. John Miles to Mr. William Heritage, who formerly held the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, which was closed at the last Sessions.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson Inn was granted from John Miles to William Richard Heritage.

Folkestone Herald 19 December 1903

Friday, December 18th: Before Alderman Banks, The Mayor, Alderman W. Salter, and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Stephen Punnett was charged with deserting from H.M.S. Jupiter on the 27th September, 1898.

P.C. Allen stated that at 8 p.m. on Thursday he was on The Stade, where he saw the prisoner go in by the back entrance to the Lord Nelson public house. Shortly afterwards witness went in and saw Punnett sitting in the back parlour. He asked him to come outside, which he did. Witness then asked “Is your name Stephen Punnett?”, to which he replied “John Punnett”. Further questioned, Punnett said he had never been in the Navy. Witness told him he should take him to the police station, when prisoner said “You have made a mistake for once”. At the police station, prisoner gave the name of John Punnett, and still denied ever having served in the Navy. When told he would be detained while enquiries were made, he said “My name is Stephen Punnett, and I am a deserter from the ship Jupiter, from Portland, some four or five years ago”. He was then charged, but made no reply.

The Chief Constable stated that Punnett was “Gazetted” in October, 1898. He asked for a remand until this (Saturday) morning, for instructions from the Admiralty.

This request was granted.

Folkestone Express 26 December 1903

Friday, December 18th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks and Salter, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Stephen Punnett, who entered the dock in a fisherman`s rig-out, was charged with being a deserter from His Majesty`s ship Jupiter.

P.C. Allen`s evidence was to the following effect:- At eight o`clock last evening I was on The Stade, where I saw the prisoner, who went into the Lord Nelson public house by the back entrance. Shortly afterwards I went in, and saw prisoner sitting in the back bar. I asked him to come outside, which he did. I said to him “Is your name Stephen Punnett?”, and he replied “John Punnett”. I then inquired “Have you been in the Navy?”, and he said “No, never”. At the police station he gave the name of John Punnett, and again denied that he had been in the Navy. When I told him that he would be detained while inquiries were made, he admitted that his name was Stephen Punnett, and that he was a deserter, having absconded from the Jupiter at Portland some five years ago.

Supt. Reeve said prisoner was gazetted on the 11th of October, 1898. He also asked for a remand until the following morning in order that he might make inquiries from the Admiralty.

The Bench thereupon granted a remand.

Prisoner was eventually discharged, the Admiralty refusing to take action.

Folkestone Express 10 October 1908

Wednesday, October 7th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, R.G. Wood, and C. Jenner.

In granting the transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson public house, Radnor Street, from Mr. Heritage to Mr. Minter, the Chairman remarked that it was a very awkward house, and would want very careful management.

Folkestone Herald 10 October 1908

Wednesday, October 7th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillors R.G. Wood and C. Jenner, Messrs. R.J. Linton and G.I. Swoffer.

A special session for granting alehouse licences was held.

The licence of the Nelson, Radnor Street, was transferred from Mr. Heritage to Mr. Herbert Minter.

Folkestone Daily News 24 February 1909

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Fynmore, Stainer, Leggett, Linton, and Boyd.

William Spearpoint was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Lord Nelson.

P.C. Allen said at 5.50 on the 15th inst. he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the defendant very drunk. Before witness could get to him he went into the public bar of the Lord Nelson. Witness went in and saw the defendant leaning on the counter. The landlord told defendant to get out of the house, and as he refused he ejected him. A friend then took defendant away to a restaurant in Beach Street. Witness then told him he should charge him with being drunk on licensed premises.

Defendant denied being drunk, and said Allen trod on his toe and tried to make him quarrel, so as to get him before the Bench.

The Chief Constable said there were 19 convictions against defendant, and he was now fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1909

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

William Spearpoint, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk upon licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen said at 5.50 on the 15th February he was in Radnor Street, when he saw defendant, very drunk, staggering about the pavement near the Lord Nelson. Before witness could get to him, defendant went into the public bar of the Lord Nelson. Witness immediately entered the bar, where he saw defendant leaning on the counter. He heard the landlord order defendant out of the house, and as Spearpoint did not move the landlord ejected him. Witness told defendant he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

Defendant handed in a letter, which showed that he had taken the pledge in 1908.

The Chief Constable said there were nineteen convictions against defendant, but he had not been there for drunkenness for about four and a quarter years.

Spearpoint was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or seven days`. He was allowed a week in which to pay.

Folkestone Herald 27 February 1909

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Wm. Spearpoint was summoned for being drunk at the Lord Nelson on the 15th February. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen said that at 5.50 p.m. on the 15th inst., he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the defendant very drunk, staggering on the pavement outside the Lord Nelson. Before witness could get to him he went into the public bar. Witness followed and saw him leaning on the counter. The landlord told Spearpoint to get out of the house. A friend took him to a restaurant in Beach Street.

Defendant handed up a letter to the Magistrates, stating that he signed the pledge in July, 1908, and kept it till February, 1909.

The Chief Constable: It is a pity he did not keep it.

There were 19 convictions against the defendant.

A fine of 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs was imposed.

Folkestone Daily News 24 August 1909

Tuesday, August 17th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Penfold, Spurgen, Vaughan, Fynmore, and Stainer.

Henry Johnson, on remand, was charged last week, was charged with stealing three dozen and a half teddy bears, the property of Louis Freeman.

At the last hearing the accused was remanded in order that further enquiries might be made. The Chief Constable now said he had a further charge to prefer against him, and also further evidence in relation to the first charge.

Richard May said he bought a teddy bear off the prisoner for 2d.

The second charge was now taken, viz., that of stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton deposed that he was a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace. He had charge fo the tennis courts on the Plain. There were two pairs of tennis shoes in the pavilion. On the 13th inst. they were secure, but on the 16th they were missing. The door had been forced, the lock laid inside on the floor, and two pairs of tennis shoes were missing. Later he went to the police station and was shown the tennis shoes (produced).

William Featherbee said he lived at 12, Warren Road, and was a ship`s carpenter. On the 16th inst. at 8.30 a.m. he was in the Packet Boat Inn when the prisoner came in with the two pairs of tennis shoes, which he offered for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for a pair of them. Witness asked him if they were his property, and prisoner replied “Everything is fair and above board”. Witness bought one pair for 2s. 6d., and the next day witness handed them to the police.

Emily Minter deposed that on the 16th the prisoner came into the Lord Nelson public house, and had with him a pair of shoes, which he asked witness to buy. She declined, as they were too large for her. Later she bought them for 2s. 6d.

P.C. Watson said that at 5 o`clock on the 16th inst. he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by Louis Freeman, who said he wished to give the prisoner into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy bears. Witness took him into custody, whereupon he became very violent. Prisoner had in his possession ten teddy bear toys. On being charged, prisoner replied “All right”. On the 16th last witness received information of two pairs of shoes being stolen from the lawn tennis pavilion on the Plain. At 8.30 a.m. on the 17th inst. he went to the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, and saw the last witness, who handed him a pair of shoes. Later in the day he was in High Street when William Featherbee handed him the other pair of shoes. This morning witness charged him with stealing the two pairs of tennis shoes, valued at 1, and he replied “All right”.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said 12 months ago he had an accident to his head, and as soon as he took anything to drink he did not know what he was doing. He knew he had been a fool to steal such paltry things, and said it was through drink.

The Chief Constable said there was a long list of convictions against the prisoner in different parts of the country.

He was sentenced to six months` hard labour.

The witnesses Featherbee and Minter were severely reprimanded by the Chairman for buying the stolen shoes.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1909

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer.

Harry Johnson was charged on remand with stealing 3 dozen mechanical toys, the property of Jules Freeman.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had an additional witness to call to complete the case. A further charge would be preferred against Johnson.

The evidence given at the previous hearing of the case was read over.

Richard John May, a fisherman, of 34, Radnor Street, said on August 16th he was in the private bar of the Ship Inn, at half past two, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had a teddy bear top with him. It was in a box. The prisoner asked him if he would buy it for twopence, and witness bought it for that amount. As soon as he got it he tried it, but found it was broken. Later in the day he took the top to the police station and handed it to P.S. Sharpe.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton, a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace, said he had charge of the tennis courts and pavilion of Bayham House School, on the Plain. In the pavilion, which was locked, there were two pairs of tennis shoes. On Friday evening, the 13th, the pavilion was secure, and on August 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion. The door was swinging home, and the lock, which had been forced, was lying inside on the floor. Two pairs of tennis shoes were missing, and he gave information to the police. A day or two afterwards he went to the police station, where he was shown the two pairs of tennis shoes produced, which he identified as those left in the pavilion, and the property of Miss Irene de Tiere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

William Featherbe, a ship`s carpenter, of 12, Warren Road, said on August 16th he was in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, at about half past eight, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had the two pairs of shoes with him and offered them for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for one pair, and witness asked him if they were his property. He said that everything was fair and above board, and witness gave him 2s. 6d. for one pair. The next day he handed the shoes to the police.

Emily Minter, the wife of Albert Minter, the landlord of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on August 16th the prisoner came into the bar, and had the pair of shoes produced with him. He asked her if she would buy them, but she said she would not, as they were too large for her. She asked him if they were his property, and he said they were. She eventually bought them for 2s. 6d. The next day she gave the shoes to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said at five o`clock on August 16th, from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by the witness Freeman, who said “I wish to give this man into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy near toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street”. Witness took him into custody, when he became very violent. He had ten teddy bear toys in his possession. He was afterwards charged with stealing the three and a half dozen toys, and he replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the same day he received information about the two pairs of shoes having been stolen. He made enquiries, and at 8.30 a.m. on the 17th he went to the Lord Nelson, where he saw Mrs. Minter, who handed him the shoes produced. Later in the day Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes. That morning witness charged prisoner with stealing the shoes, valued at 1.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and attributed his thefts to drink. If they would give him a chance he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had been convicted in different parts of the country. There were eight convictions altogether against him, ranging from twenty one days to twelve months.

The Magistrates sentenced the prisoner to three months` hard labour in each case, the sentences to run consecutively.

Mrs. Minter and the witness Featherbe were admonished by the Chairman for purchasing the goods, and were told that they ought to be ashamed of encouraging thefts by purchasing the articles.

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1909

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

Henry Johnson was charged, on remand, with stealing 3 dozen mechanical toys.

The Chief Constable explained that the prisoner was before the court a week ago that day, and was remanded until that morning in order that further inquiries might be made.

After the evidence of the previous hearing had been read, Richard John May said that he was a fisherman, living at 34, Radnor Street. On the 16th inst., at 2.30 p.m., he was in the public bar of the Ship Inn. Whilst he was there the prisoner came in. He had the teddy bear (produced) with him. It was in the box. He asked witness to buy it for 2d. Witness bought it for 2d. He took it out of the box when the prisoner left, and found it was broken. Later witness took it to the police station.

Prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

Wm. Hy. Hammerton said that he was a gardener, and lived at 1, Shorncliffe Terrace. He had charge of the tennis courts at Bayham House School, situated on the Plain. In the pavilion were two pairs of tennis shoes. The pavilion was locked. On Friday, the 13th inst., in the evening, he saw that the pavilion was secure. On Monday, the 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion and found the door swinging open. The lock had been forced and lay on the floor inside, and witness found that two pairs of tennis shoes were missing. He gave information to the police. Later in the week he went to the police station and was shown the tennis shoes (produced). He identified them as the property of Mdlle. Irene de Tere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

Wm. Featherbe, living at 12, Warren Road, said that he was a ship`s carpenter. On Monday, the 16th inst., at 8.30 a.m.. he was in the Packet Boat Inn. Whilst he was there the prisoner came in. He had the two pairs of tennis shoes (produced) with him. He offered them for sale, and asked 2s. 6d. for one pair. Witness inquired if they were his property, and he said that everything was fair and above board. Witness bought one pair for 2s. 6d. The next day he took them to the police station.

Mrs. Emily Minter said that she was the wife of the landlord of the Lord Nelson public house. On Monday, the 16th inst., the prisoner came into the bar. He had a pair of tennis shoes with him. He asked witness to buy them. She refused because they were too long. On being asked whether they were his property, he said they belonged to his wife. Witness gave 2s. 6d. for them. He left the bar very shortly after. The next day she gave them to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said that at 5 p.m. on the 16th inst., from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner detained by the witness Freeman, who said that he wished to give him into custody for stealing 3 dozen teddy bear toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street. Witness then took him into custody, and he became very violent. He had in his possession ten teddy bear toys (produced). He was afterwards charged by witness Freeman with stealing them. He replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the 16th inst., he received information about two pairs of tennis shoes having been stolen from the lawn tennis pavilion situated on the Plain. At 8.30 a.m. on the 17th inst. he went to the Lord Nelson public house, where he saw the witness Emily Minter, who handed him the shoes (produced). Later in the day he was in High Street, where the witness Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and said that he owed the thefts to drink. He asked for a chance, saying that he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said that prisoner was a stranger to Folkestone, but had many previous convictions against him.

Prisoner was sentenced to three months` hard labour for each offence, the sentences to run consecutively, and the Chairman severely censured those who had received the goods.

Folkestone Daily News 20 October 1909

Wednesday, October 20th: Before Messrs. Ward and Fynmore. The Mayor occupied a seat on the Bench, but took no part in the proceedings.

The licence of the Lord Nelson was transferred from Mr. A.E. Victor (sic) to Mr. A.E. Champion.

Folkestone Herald 23 October 1909

Wednesday, October 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

The licence of the Lord Nelson Inn was temporarily transferred from Albert Victor Minter to Albert Edward Champion.

Folkestone Express 4 December 1909

Wednesday, December 1st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G.I. Swoffer.

The transfer of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Albert Minter to Albert Edwards Champion was confirmed, temporary authority having been granted.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1911

Monday August 7th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Cornelius Murphy was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Kennett said at 10.40 on Saturday night he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Lord Nelson public house. He requested him to go away, but the prisoner used bad language, offered to fight him, and said he meant to have some more beer. A large crowd assembled, so with the assistance of P.C. Butcher he brought Murphy to the police station.

Prisoner, a plant hawker, said he would own that he was drunk and disorderly, but it was six months since he last drank any beer.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 12 August 1911

Monday, August 7th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

Cornelius Murphy was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Kennett stated that he saw the accused in Radnor Street. He was being ejected by the landlord from the Nelson public house. Witness requested him to go away. Accused became most abusive and used filthy language. He said he meant to have some more beer before he went. With the assistance of P.C. Butcher, he brought the accused to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Daily News 16 February 1912

Before Justices Vaughan and Fynmore.

John Harrison pleaded Guilty to accidentally breaking a window at the Lord Nelson, value 3s.

Sergeant Prebble deposed to the landlord charging the accused with breaking the window. On being charged, he said he had a grudge against the landlord and it was alright. He further said he was going to strike someone whom he missed and struck the window instead.

Prisoner, who had been previously convicted for assaulting a gentleman in Sandgate, was fined 12s. 6d., including damages and costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Herald 17 February 1912

Friday, February 16th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Harrison was charged with wilfully breaking a window, value 3s., the property of the landlord of the Lord Nelson public house. Prisoner admitted breaking the window, but pleaded it was an accident.

P.S. Prebble deposed to being called by the landlord of the Lord Nelson, where he saw prisoner. The landlord said “This is the man who broke my window”. Prisoner said “Yes, I did it. I have a grudge against the landlord”. Accused was conducted to the police station and there formally charged. When asked if he had anything to say, prisoner said he had not got a grudge against anyone. He had had a few words with his friend, and he went to hit her, but missed and broke the window.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said prisoner had been convicted on the 7th December for unprovoked assault and drunkenness, being sentenced to 14 days` hard labour for the assault and 7 for drunkenness.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days`. No time allowed to pay.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1912

Friday, February 16th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Harrison was charged with doing wilful damage by breaking a window at the Lord Nelson public house. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Prebble said at about 10.35 the previous evening, from information he received from the landlord of the Lord Neslon public house, he went with him to Beach Street, where he pointed out the prisoner and said “This man has broken my window”. He took the prisoner to the Lord Nelson public house, and he said “Yes, I did it. I had a grudge against the landlord”. He (witness) then asked the prisoner to have a look at his hand, and he found it was cut and bleeding. He brought him to the police station, when he was charged by the landlord, and he replied “Yes, it`s all right”. The damage done amounted to 3s.

Prisoner said he did not break the window wilfully. He did not mean to do it, but he struck at a friend of his. It was more an accident than anything else.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was staying at a lodging house. On Dec. 7th he was charged with assaulting a gentleman and was sent to prison for 14 days, and also for a further seven days for being drunk and disorderly at the same time.

Fined 5s., and ordered to pay 4s. 6d. costs and 3s. damage. In default of payment he went down for seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Daily News 6 March 1912

Tuesday, March 5th: Before Justices Spurgen, Vaughan, Fynmore, Wood and Boyd.

Dominic Podesta was charged with stealing a gold watch and chain from a person unknown.

Mr. Harris, a watchmaker of Harbour Street, deposed to accused coming to his shop and asking him to buy a watch and chain. He said he was a sergeant in the Carabineers, and that the said articles were his own property and that he wanted half a sovereign for them. Witness said he would give him half a sovereign now and half a sovereign in a week`s time if it was alright. He paid the half sovereign to the accused, who then left the shop. At 7.30 Inspector Lawrence came to his shop and took the watch and chain.

Cross-examined by prisoner: The watch was 9 carat gold and worth 2. He thought he gave full value for it.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to going to witness`s shop and recovering from him the watch and chain produced. He and Detective Johnson went to the Nelson in Radnor Street and called prisoner out. They asked him where he got the watch and chain from, and he replied that it was given to him, and declined to say more about it. They took him to the police station to make enquiries, and charged him with stealing from a person unknown.

He was remanded for a week.

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1912

Tuesday, March 5th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaighan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillor R.G. Wood and Mr. G. Boyd.

Dominic Podesta was charged with stealing a lady`s gold watch and chain the previous day.

Mr. Sidney Harris, a watchmaker, carrying on business at 7, South Street, said that he recognised the prisoner, who was a stranger to him. He came to his shop at about 4.30 the previous afternoon, and showed him the watch and chain produced. He said “Will you buy this?” Witness asked him whether it was his own property, and he said “Yes”. Witness said “Are you sure it is your own property?”, and he again replied “Yes”. He said “I`m a sergeant from the Carabineers. I would not risk selling a thing like this for the sake of my little bit”. Witness then asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied “Half a pound?” He asked him what he meant by half a pound, and said he would give him half a sovereign then and half a sovereign in a week`s time if everything was all right. Podesta agreed. Witness paid him the half sovereign, and the prisoner left the shop, leaving the watch and chain. In the evening Inspector Lawrence came to his shop and made a communication to him. Witness then handed the watch and chain over to the Inspector.

Cross-examined by prisoner, witness said that it was of 9 carat gold, and as a second hand article was worth 2.

Inspector Lawrence deposed that he went to the shop of the last witness, and received from him the watch and chain. Later, in company with Detective Officer Johnson, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw prisoner in the bar of the Lord Nelson. Johnson called him out. Witness cautioned him, and said “Your name is Dominic Podesta”. He replied “Yes”. Witness said “Where did you get the watch and chain from that you sold to Mr. Harris this afternoon for 10s.?” He answered, after a little hesitation “It was given to me”. Witness replied “Who might have given it to you?”, and he said “It was a present, and I decline to say any more about it”. Witness said “I shall take you to the police station and detain you while I make inquiries”. Witness did so, and later charged him with stealing the watch and chain, the property of some person unknown. He replied “I had nothing to do with the stealing part of it”.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand till Tuesday next.

Prisoner asked for an opportunity to give evidence on oath.

The Magistrates` Clerk said that he could not do so at this stage.

The case was accordingly adjourned.

Folkestone Daily News 13 March 1912

Monday, March 11th: Before Justices Fynmore and Wood.

Dominic Podesta was brought up on remand.

The Chief Constable asked for a further remand for a week, stating that they had discovered that the watch and chain had been stolen from a lady in Sandgate, and that another man in connection with the robbery was serving a fourteen days` sentence for drunkenness, such sentence expiring on Monday next, when he would be re-arrested and brought up for trial on Tuesday.

The remand was granted.

Folkestone Express 16 March 1912

Tuesday, March 12th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood and G. Boyd Esqs.

Dominic Podesta was brought up on remand, charged with stealing a lady`s gold watch and chain from some person unknown.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was before the Court a week ago that day on a charge of stealing a lady`s gold watch and chain, the property of some person unknown. He was remanded until that morning to enable the police to make inquiries with a view to finding the owner. He was pleased to be able to inform the Magistrates that they had found the owner. The watch and chain belonged to a lady at Sandgate and was apparently stolen from her house at Sandgate. As another man would be charged with the prisoner with being concerned in the theft, he must ask the Magistrates to be kind enough to grant a further remand. The other man was at present serving a sentence in Canterbury prison, and would be released next Monday morning. He would make arrangements to have him arrested on his release, and he intended bringing him up next Tuesday. He would like the Magistrates to remand the prisoner on the evidence given last week until then so that the men could be brought up together.

The Clerk asked the prisoner if he had any objection to a remand.

Podesta said he had no objection to being remanded, so long as the other man had pleaded Guilty.

The Magistrates thereupon remanded the prisoner for another week.

Folkestone Herald 16 March 1912

Tuesday, March 12th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Mr. G. Boyd.

Dominic Podesta was charged on remand with stealing a lady`s gold watch and chain.

The Chief Constable stated that the prisoner was before the Bench a week ago that day, charged with staeling a lady`s gold watch and chain, the property of some person unknown. He was remanded until that morning to enable him (Mr. Reeve) to make inquiries in order to find out the owner. The watch and chain he found belonged to a lady at Sandgate, and were apparently stolen from her house at Sandgate, but as another man would be charged with the prisoner with being concerned in the theft, he asked the magistrates to remand him again on the evidence already taken. The other man was at present serving a sentence of 14 days` hard labour for drunkenness at Canterbury, but he would be released next Monday morning. He (the Chief Constable) had taken out a warrant for his arrest, and he would be brought up next Tuesday.

In answer to the Magistrates` Clerk prisoner said he had “nothing to say against being remanded so long as the other man pleaded Guilty to it”.

The Chairman: You will be remanded till this day next week.

Prisoner: Thank you.

Folkestone Daily News 19 March 1912

Tuesday, March 19th: Before Justices Spurgen, Fynmore and Wood.

Dominic Podesta was brought up on remand for stealing a watch and chain from a person unknown. William Smith was charged with him.

Mrs. Prescott, of the Esplanade, Sandgate, identified the watch and chain as her property, which she missed on Tuesday, the 5th inst. On the 4th she discovered that a window had been broken and an entrance effected. The value of the watch and chain was 10. She had seen the prisoner Smith near the house some time since with a bag, collecting rags and bones.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor. Lodging at 12, Fenchurch Street, deposed to knowing prisoners very well. He saw them at the Nelson at 11 a.m. on the 4th inst. One was in the yard and the other in the bar. Smith asked him to send Podesta out into the yard to him. Witness did so, and subsequently defendants returned together and had some drink, and left together accompanied by some other men. At 4 p.m. they returned, and Podesta ordered several pints of beer and cigarettes which were handed round the bar. Smith left, saying he was going to dinner. Podesta waited in the bar till he was arrested by the police.

Miss Hilda Lilian Chapman, who assisted her uncle in the bar at the Nelson, deposed that on the 4th inst. several men entered the bar with defendants. Podesta called for several pints of beer and paid for them with a half sovereign. She gave him 8s. in change and two sixpences. Smith then left and Podesta was arrested.

P.C. Smoker, who took the prisoner to Canterbury on remand, said Smith volunteered a statement that he took the watch, not Podesta. He told him where he stole it from, sayine he went to the house begging, and getting no answer he put his arm through an open window and took the watch from the table.

Detective L. Johnson deposed to arresting Smith at Canterbury. On being charged he replied he was Guilty, and did not want Podesta to have all the blame.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to charging prisoners with being concerned together in stealing the watch. Smith said he stole it. Podesta said he had nothing to do with stealing it.

Podesta, who was sworn and gave evidence on his own behalf, deposed to being in the Nelson having a drink when Armitage told him Smith wanted him. He went out and saw him. He asked witness to get rid of a gold watch and chain. He said he had found it while collecting rags and bones and left-off wearing apparel. He wanted 1 for it. They went back to the bar. He had a pal there who might tell him where to sell it. He showed him the watch. Smith said he could have half of what he could get for it. He left the price entirely to him. He sold it to Mr. Harris in South Street. They went back to the Nelson. He stood six pints of beer to the crowd who had followed him.

Both prisoners were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 23 March 1912

Tuesday, March 19th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Dominic Podesta and William Smith were charged with being concerned together with stealing a gold watch and chain from Sandgate.

The Chief Constable said that Podesta had been remanded on two previous occasions. Smith was arrested the previous day. There were four or five additional witnesses to be called. The evidence given at the previous hearing was then read over.

Annie Francis Prescott, wife of John Prescott, 31, The Esplanade, Sandgate, said on Sunday, the 3rd of the month she placed the watch and chain either on the dressing table in her bedroom or on the dresser in the kitchen. Both rooms were in the basement of the house. The bedroom fronted the road and was approached by a flight of steps leading from the garden. On the following morning witness left the bedroom secure at 7.30. Later in the day, at three o`clock, on going to it again she found the window open and a square of glass broken. She did not then miss the watch. About seven o`clock in the evening on the 5th, witness searched the room for the watch and chain, and could not find them. She identified the watch and chain as her personal property by their general appearance. The value of the articles was about 10. Witness thought she had seen the prisoner Smith several months ago in the backway of the house.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, said he lodged at 10, Fenchurch Street. He knew the prisoner Smith very well. On the morning of the 4th inst., he was entering the Lord Nelson by the back entrance, when the prisoner Smith, who was in the yard, asked him if he was going in the bar would he mind telling Dominic that he wanted him. Witness did not understand who he meant by Dominic. He entered the bar and saw several men, who were strangers to him. Witness said to them “Who is Dominic?” Podesta, who was present, said “I`m Dominic”. Witness said that “Compo” (meaning Smith) wanted him in the back yard. Podesta replied “Who is Compo?” Someone in the bar answered “The man with the cross-eyes”, which described the prisoner Smith. Podesta left the bar by the back entrance and returned a few minutes later accompanied by Smith. Podesta gave Smith a drink from his pint of beer, and the prisoners left the bar together, accompanied by several other men. Witness next saw them at four o`clock in the afternoon. He was in the bar of the Lord Nelson, when the two prisoners returned with others. Podesta ordered several pints of beer, tobacco and cigarettes, which were handed round to the men in the bar. Smith had some of the beer and then left the bar alone. Podesta remained in the house.

Hilda Lilian Champion, barmaid at the Lord Nelson, said on the 4th inst. she was serving in the bar about 4.30 p.m. when several men entered the bar, amongst whom were the two prisoners. Podesta called for six pints of ale, which witness supplied, and he paid for them with half a sovereign. Witness gave him nine single shilling in change, and he asked her to give him two sixpences for one of the shillings, and she did so. Smith drank some of the beer, and he then left the house. Podesta remained behind in the bar.

P.C. Smoker said on the 5th of March he was escorting the two prisoners to Canterbury, Podesta on remand on the present charge, and Smith on committal for another charge. Whilst awaiting the arrival of the train at the Central Station, Smith called witness to him. He said to him quite voluntarily “Constable, I wish to tell you that I stole the watch – not this man”, indicating Podesta. Witness asked him where, and Smith replied “The other end of Sandgate. I went to the house begging. I rang the bell and there was no answer. There was a window open. I put my arm through and took a watch off the table”. Podesta stood close by and heard the whole of the statement.

Detective Officer L. Johnson said about ten o`clock the previous morning he arrested the prisoner at Canterbury on a warrant. He read the warrant over to him and cautioned him. He replied “I am Guilty. I don`t want Dominic to have all the blame. I went to the house with some laces. I rang the bell, but nobody came. The window was open, and the watch and chain laid on the table. I put my hand in and took them”.

Inspector Lawrence said he formally charged the two prisoners together that morning. He showed them the watch and chain (produced). Smith replied “I stole it”. Podesta said “I have nothing to do with the stealing of it”.

The Chief Constable then asked the Magistrates, if they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, to commit the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Smith said he did not wish to say anything.

Podesta then went into the witness box. He said he was a labourer, and had been living in Radnor Street. On the 4th of March he was in the Lord Nelson, when Armitage came into the bar and asked if there was a man there named Dominic. Witness replied “That`s me”. Armitage said he was wanted down the back by a man of the name of Compo. Witness went into the back yard and saw Smith, who showed him the gold watch and chain and asked him if he could get rid of it for him. Witness asked him if he had come by it straight, and Smith said it was his own property. He understood him to say he had found it among some rags and bones. Witness looked at it and found it was gold. As he did not know the value of it he asked Smith how much he wanted for it. Smith replied “Ask a pound for it”. Witness said he had a pal in the bar who might tell him where to sell it, and they both went into the bar. Witness showed it to the two men in the bar and told them that Smith had given it to him to sell. He then asked Smith how much he was to have of the pound, and Smith said “Half of what you get”. Witness said he was going for a walk with the other fellow, if he (Smith) would stop there. If he could only get half a sovereign, was he to take it? Smith said “Very good”; he would leave it entirely to him. With that witness went away with the other man, promising to meet Smith when he had sold it. After trying to sell the articles to three different people in the afternoon, witness went into several public houses. About two o`clock Smith came and found him in the Standard and called him out and asked him if he had sold it. Witness said he hadn`t, and he was not going to try much more. Two hours later Smith came to him at the bottom of High Street and said “Have you sold it now?” Witness said “No, and what`s more you can take it back. It`s a trouble”, and he gave it to him back. He went and spoke to two or three other men, and told them that he had given the watch back to Smith. One of them asked why he did not take it to the watchmaker in South Street. He went to Smith and said “Give it to me again. I will have one more try for the last”. Witness took the watch and chain to the jeweller (Mr. Harris) and sold it. He went straight from there to the Lord Nelson. The other men all followed in, and he called for six pints of beer, and put down the half sovereign that the jeweller had given him. Of the change he gave Smith 4s. 6d. and kept 4s. 6d. himself. He asked Smith if he was satisfied, and he said “Yes”. Witness stopped there and was arrested.

Prisoners were then committed for trial.

Podesta applied for legal aid, but the Clerk said he was not entitled to it, as he had not disclosed any defence.

Bail was fixed for Podesta, himself in 20 and two sureties of 10 each. Smith did not ask for bail.

Folkestone Herald 23 March 1912

Tuesday, March 19th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Councillor R.G. Wood.

Dominic Podesta and William Smith were charged with being concerned together in the theft of a lady`s gold watch and chain.

The Chief Constable said Podesta had been remanded on two previous occasions on the charge, and Smith had been arrested the day before.

The evidence given by the witnesses at the previous hearings was read over and confirmed.

Mrs. Annie Frances Prescott, wife of Mr. John Prescott, 31, The Esplanade, Sandgate, said that on Sunday, March 3rd, she placed the watch and chain produced either on the dressing table in her bedroom or the dresser in the kitchen. Both the rooms were in the basement of the house, the bedroom fronting the road, and being approached from a flight of steps leading from the garden in the front of the house. On the following morning she left her bedroom secure at about 7.30 a.m. Later in the day (at about 3 p.m.), on going to the room, she found the window open and a square of glass broken. She did not then miss the watch, but at about 7 on the evening of the 5th March she looked for it, but could not find it anywhere. She identified the watch and chain produced by their general appearance as her property. They were worth about 10. Witness had seen the prisoner Smith at the backway of her house with a bag, apparently looking for rags and bones. That was some months ago. The other prisoner was a stranger to her.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, lodging at 10, Fenchurch Street, said he knew the prisoner Smith very well. On the morning of Monday, March 4th, at about 10 minutes past 11, he was entering, by the back entrance, the Lord Nelson Hotel. The prisoner Smith, who was in the yard, spoke to witness, saying “If you are going in the bar, Steve, would you mind telling Dominic that I want him?” Witness went into the bar and saw several men there, the majority being strangers to him. Witness said “Who is Dominic?” The prisoner Podesta was present and said “I`m Dominic”. Witness said that “Compo”, meaning Smith, wanted him in the back yard. Podesta asked “Who is “Compo”?” Someone in the bar answered “The man with the cross eyes”, which described the prisoner Smith. Podesta left the bar by the back, and returned a few minutes later, accompanied by the prisoner Smith. Podesta gave Smith a drink from his pint of beer, and they then left the bar together, accompanied by other men. About 4 in the afternoon witness was in the bar of the Lord Nelson, when the prisoner returned, accompanied by other men, and Podesta ordered several pints of beer, some tobacco, and cigarettes, which were handed round to the men in the bar. Smith had some of the beer and went out alone, saying that he was going to get some dinner. Podesta remained in the house. The two prisoners did not hold any conversation with each other when they came in the second time.

Miss Hilda Lilian Champion, barmaid at the Lord Nelson, said that on Monday, the 4th inst., she was serving in the bar at about 4.30, when several men came in, amongst them being the two prisoners. Podesta ordered six pints of beer, which witness supplied. He paid for them with half a sovereign. Witness gave him nine single shillings in change, and he asked witness for two sixpences in exchange for one of the shillings. Witness gave them to him. Smith drank some of the beer, and he then left the bar, Podesta remaining behind in the bar. Witness did not know when Podesta left the house.

P.C. Smoker said that on Tuesday, 5th March, he was excorting the two prisoners to Canterbury, Podesta being on remand on this charge and Smith on committal on another charge. Whilst awaiting the arrival of the train at the Central Station, Smith called witness to him, and said to him quite voluntarily “Constable, I wish to tell you that I stole the watch, not this man”, indicating Podesta. Witness asked him where, and Smith replied “At the other end of Sandgate. I went to the house begging. I rang the bell. There was no answer. There was a window open; I put my arm through and took a watch off the table”. Podesta stood close by and heard the whole of the statement made by Smith.

Detective Officer Johnson deposed that at 10 o`clock the previous morning (the 18th inst.), he arrested the prisoner Smith at Canterbury on a warrant on this charge. He read the warrant over to him and cautioned him. He replied “I am Guilty. I don`t want Dominic to have all the blame. I went to the house with some laces. I rang the bell; nobody came; the window was open; the watch and chain lay on the table. I put my hand in and took it”. Witness brought the prisoner to the police station, and when formally charged he made no reply.

Inspector Lawrence stated that he formally charged the two prisoners that morning, and showed them the watch and chain (produced). Smith replied “I stole it”. Podesta said “I had nothing to do with the stealing of it”.

The Chief Constable said that this concluded the evidence for the prosecution. He would ask the Magistrates, if they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, to commit the prisoners for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Smith said he did not wish to say anything.

Podesta persisted on giving evidence upon oath. He said he was a labourer, and his Folkestone address was Radnor Street. On the 4th March he was in the Lord Nelson, when the witness Armitage came into the bar, and asked if there was a man there named Dominic. Witness said “That`s me”. He said “You`re wanted round at the back by some man by the name of “Compo””. Witness went round the back, and Smith was standing there. He showed witness a gold watch and chain, and asked if he could get rid of it for him. He said “How have you come by it, straight, honest?” He replied “Yes, it is my own property”. Witness understood him to say that he had been out gathering rags and bones, and found it among them, and had left off wearing it. Witness looked at the watch and saw that it was gold. As he did not know the value he asked Smith how much he was to bring him back for it. He said that he wanted 1 for it. Witness said that he had a pal in the bar who might tell him where to sell it. He invited Smith into the bar, where they both went. Witness showed it to the chaps he was with at first, and explained that Smith wished him to sell it for him. Witness said “If I sell this for 1, how much am I to have of the 1?” Smith said “Half what you get”. Witness said “I`m going for a walk with this other fellow; you`ll stop here. In the meantime if I only get half a pound, am I to take it or not, as it`s yours, not mine?” He said “Very good. I`ll leave it entirely to you”. With that witness left Smith in the bar and went away with the other fellow, promising to meet him when he had sold it. After trying to sell it to three different people during the afternoon, and not being able to sell it, he waited about and went into several public houses trying to sell it. At about 2 o`clock Smith came and found him in the Standard, and asked him if he had sold it. Witness told him that he had not, and was not going to try much more. At about 4 o`clock Smith saw him at the bottom of High Street, and asked him if he had sold it now. Witness replied “No, and what`s more, you had better take it back. It`s a trouble”. He gave it back to him. With that witness returned to his companions, one of whom said “Why don`t you take it to the watchmaker`s in South Street?” Witness went back to Smith and said “Give it to me again, and I will have one more try for the last”. He then took the watch and chain to the jeweller`s, and sold it there and then to Mr. Harris. He went straight from there to the Lord Nelson; his companions all followed in. Witness paid for six pints, and put down the half sovereign, which the jeweller had given to him. He recei9ved 9s. change, gave Smith 4s. 6d., kept 4s. 6d. himself, and asked him if he was satisfied. He said “Yes”. Witness stopped there, and got arrested. Smith went away.

Prisoners were committed for trial, but were granted bail, themselves in 20, and two sureties of 10 each.

Folkestone Daily News 15 April 1912

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Dominic Podesta, 47, labourer, and William Smith, 29, labourer, were charged with feloniously stealing one gold watch and one gold chain, together of the value of 10, the goods and chattels of Annie Frances Prescott. Smith pleaded Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted, and the Recorder asked Mr. Fletcher to defend Podesta.

Mrs. Prescott, of Sandgate, deposed to losing the watch and chain produced, valued at 10. It was stolen from the house on March 3rd.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, deposed to seeing Smith in the yard near the Nelson and was asked if he would tell Podesta that he wanted him. He did so, and they went out. They returned at 4.30, and Podesta called for drinks and cigarettes.

Hilda Champion, niece of the landlord of the Lord Nelson, also gave evidence.

Smith, who had 17 convictions recorded against him, was sentenced to three years` penal servitude.

Podesta, who was a well-known card sharper, and against whom there were 30 convictions, was also sentenced to three years` penal servitude.

Folkestone Express 20 April 1912

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Dominic Podesta, aged 47, a labourer, and William Smith, 29, labourer, were indicted for stealing a lady`s gold watch and chain, valued at 10, the property of Mrs. A.F. Prescott, at Sandgate, on March 4th. Podesta was also charged with receiving them, well-knowing them to have been stolen. He pleaded Not Guilty to both charges, and Smith pleaded Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. L. Fletcher, at the request of the Recorder, defended Podesta.

Mrs. Prescott, of 31, Esplanade, Sandgate, said the watch and chain were her property, and she valued them at 10. She remembered, on Saturday, March 3rd, putting the watch and chain either on the dresser in the kitchen or on a chest of drawers in the bedroom. She missed them on Tuesday evening.

Cross-examined, she said she had seen Smith once before at the bag of her house. He was a begging man and went about getting old clothes, rags and bones.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, of 10, Fenchurch Street, said Smith was a casual acquaintance of his, and lodged in the same house for a period of a month. On the morning of March 4th he saw Smith at the back entrance of the Lord Nelson Inn about a quarter to eleven. He said to him (witness) “Will you tell Dominic I want him?” He went into the bar and said “Who is Dominic?”, and Podesta turned round and said “I am”. He then told him Compo wanted him and Podesta then inquired who Compo was, and one in the company said “The man with the cross eye”. Podesta left the bar and returned accompanied by the prisoner Smith. They eventually quitted the bar. About four in the afternoon Podesta and Smith, accompanied by several other men, came into the house again and Podesta called for drinks all round. Smith afterwards got up and said he was going to have some dinner. He never saw Smith again until he saw him arraigned before the Magisterial investigations. (Laughter)

Cross-examined: He knew Smith went about with a bag buying and selling old clothes and collecting rags and bones. He did not see Podesta, when he returned with Smith into the bar for the first time show a gold watch and chain to the other men, nor did he hear him ask the men what the value of them was.

Hilda Champion, the barmaid at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on March 4th, at about half past four in the afternoon, the two prisoner came into the house with sic or seven other men. Podesta called for six pints of beer, and laid down half a sovereign in payment for them. She gave him nine separate shillings in change, and he then asked for two single sixpences instead of one shilling.

Sidney Harris, jeweller and watchmaker, of 7, South Street, gave evidence of Podesta coming to his shop and asking for a pound for the watch and chain. He questioned him about it and the prisoner said it was his property, and eventually he gave him half a sovereign for the watch and chain, and promised him another 10s. in a week`s time if that was all right. He valued the watch and chain at 2. He would not have got more than that for it as it was old gold.

Inspector Lawrence said on the evening of March 4th he went to Harris`s shop and got the watch and chain. He later saw Podesta, and after cautioning him, told him he should take him to the police station on suspicion of stealing the watch and chain. He asked him where he got the watch, and Podesta replied “It was given to me. It was a present. I decline to say any more about it”. When charged with stealing the watch and chain an hour later, Podesta replied “I had nothing to do with the stealing part of it”. On March 19th he saw Smith and Podesta together at the police station and charged them with stealing the watch and chain. Smith replied “I stole it”, and Podesta said “I had nothing to do with stealing it”.

P.C. Smoker said on March 5th he was escorting the prisoners to Canterbury. While waiting at the Central Station, Smith, in Podesta`s hearing, said “Constable, I wish to tell you I stole that watch, not this man” (referring to Podesta). He (witness) then asked where, and he replied “At Sandgate. I went there on purpose of begging. I rang the bell. There was no answer. I saw a window open. I put my arm through and took the watch off the table”.

Podesta gave evidence on oath. He detailed the conversation in the Lord Nelson following on Armitage`s inquiry as to Dominic, and further said when he went out he saw Smith, whom he knew by sight. Smith said “I have got a gold watch and chain. Can you do something with it? Can you get rid of it for me?” He replied “Well, is it gold? Why can`t you sell it yourself?” Smith said he did not know where to get rid of it. He (Podesta) then asked him how he got it, and he understood him to say he got it out of some left-off wearing apparel. He took the watch and chain, went back into the house with Smith, and showed them to the men inside. He asked Smith how much he wanted for the watch and chain, and he eventually said “Give me half of what you get for it”. He failed to sell it at first, and he went back to Smith and said he could not sell the watch and chain, as it was trouble – everyone thought he had stolen it. He, however, sold them to Harris. When he took the watch and chain from Smith he had no idea they had been stolen.

Cross-examined, Podesta said he was rather surprised when he got outside the Lord Nelson and saw Smtih with the watch. He knew nothing about Smith at that time. He knew such thing as a watch and chain were found in left-off wearing apparel; in fact, he had found things in such apparel himself. Smith did not tell him where he got the wearing apparel. He thought, however, he had come by the watch and chain honestly. He told Smith he could sell the watch and chain himself if he had come by them honestly, but Smith said he (Podesta) being a little more respectable, had a better chance of selling it. There was much more chance of a watchmaker thinking he had come by them honestly. Smith told him it was straight. Everyone seemed to think he had stolen the watch and chain when he offered it for sale. Before Smith was in custody he declined to say where he got the watch and chain from.

Both Mr. Weigall and Mr. Fletcher addressed the jury, and the Recorder summed up at some length.

The jury found Podesta Guilty of receiving the watch and chain, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Smith then admitted a conviction for felony at Hythe Police Court on November 22nd, 1910, and Podesta admitted a conviction for felony at Hastings Quarter Sessions on June 27th, 1911.

Neither of the prisoners had anything to say why judgement should not be passed upon them.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) gave the records of the two men. Smith had seventeen previous convictions, commencing on March 15th, 1901, when he was sentenced to seven days at Greenwich for stealing. On July 20th of the same year he received two months hard labour at the same Court, and again on December 4th six weeks hard labour for stealing. His sentences included nine months at the London Sessions for shop-breaking and larceny, and three months at Lambeth for being on enclosed premises, three months at Canterbury for attempted stealing, and three months at Greenwich for being on enclosed premises. Podesta was well known all through that district as a card-sharper. There was a list of thirty convictions against him, commencing March 22nd, 1884. The sentences included six months for burglary at Lewes Assizes in 1901, various terms for stealing, and on January 22nd last year to six months hard labour for bag-snatching at Hastings.

The Recorder: Why are not these men prosecuted for being habitual criminals?

Mr. Weigall: I understand it is a regulation issued by the Home Secretary that such proceedings should not be taken unless there was a sentence of penal servitude in the list of convictions.

The Recorder said if there was a case where the prisoners ought to be put away that was one. Smith had pleaded Guilty to the charge, and Podesta had been found Guilty, after a very able defence had been put before the jury by Mr. Fletcher. He entirely agreed with the jury`s verdict. The men presented a record which he had never known before presented in that Court. He was not going to waste time on them. They would be detained in penal servitude for three years.

Folkestone Herald 20 April 1912

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

William Smith, 29, labourer, and Dominic Podesta, 47, labourer, were indicted for stealing, on the 4th March, 1912, at Folkestone, one gold watch and one gold chain, of the value of 10, the goods and chattels of Annie Frances Prescott. Smith pleaded Guilty and Podesta Not Guilty. Podesta was also charged with receiving the articles well-knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr. Weigall prosecuted, and Mr. Fletcher defended Podesta.

Mrs Annie Frances Prescott stated that she was the wife of John Prescott, and lived at 31, Esplanade, Sandgate. She identified the gold watch and chain as her property. She valued them at about 10. She remembered Sunday, 3rd March. She left the watch on the chest of drawers in the bedroom or on the table. She missed the watch on Tuesday evening, and saw it, eventually, on the Wednesday morning, when the police showed it to her.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fletcher, witness stated that she had had the watch for twenty years, and the chain for about ten years. She knew that Mr. Harris valued the article at 2 altogether. She had not seen the prisoner Smith before, except when he came round to the back of the house once with a bag.

Stephen Armitage stated that he lived at 10, Fenchurch Street, and was a tailor. He knew Smith as a casual acquaintance. On the 4th March he was in the Lord Nelson at about 11.15 a.m., when he saw Smith. He said to witness “Are you going into the bar? If you are, will you please tell Dominic I want him?” Witness entered the bar and said “Who is Dominic?” The prisoner Podesta turned round and said “I am Dominic”. Witness said “Compo wants you”. Podesta replied “Who is Compo?” Witness replied, with no disrespect to the prisoner, “The man with cross eyes”. Podesta left the bar, and returned a few minutes later with the prisoner Smith. Podesta gave him a drink, and eventually all quitted the bar. Witness was in the bar in the afternoon at 4 o`clock, and saw Podesta and the other prisoner return with several other men. Podesta called for drinks, tobacco, and cigarettes. They all had drinks.

The Recorder: Did you have one?

Witness: No, sir. I was not in the company. (Laughter) Continuing, he said Smith then left, and he never saw him again until the Magisterial investigation. (More laughter)

In reply to Mr. Fletcher, witness stated that “compo” was a paste used for polishing. (Loud laughter) He knew “Compo” went about with a bag. He had seen him with a bag on many occasions. He believed that Smith and Podesta were unacquainted, because Podesta said “Who is Compo?” He did not see Podesta hold out the gold watch or show it to any men in the bar. He did not hear Podesta ask any of the men in the bar the value of the watch. Witness was sitting in a corner, and was rather short-sighted. The men were all congregated together.

Miss Champion, barmaid at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, stated that on the afternoon of the 4th March she was serving in the bar at 4.30 p.m. She saw both the prisoners. They were there with six or seven other men. Podesta called for six pints of beer, which she supplied. He laid down 10s. in gold, and she gave him change. She gave him nine separate shillings, and accused asked for two sixpences for a shilling. Smith then went out, and the others remained in the bar.

In answer to Mr. Fletcher, witness stated that Podesta paid for all the drinks.

Sidney harris, jeweller and watchmaker, 7, South Street, stated that on the 4th March Podesta came into his shop and asked him whether he wanted to buy a watch and chain. Witness said “Does it belong to you?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Are you sure it is your property?” Accused said “You do not think I would sell it if it was not my own property”. He then stated that he had been a sergeant in the Carabineers, and he would not sell a stolen watch for the sake of his pension. Witness asked him what he wanted for it, and he said “half a pound”. Witness said he would give him 10s., and 10s. in a week`s time, providing it was all right. In the evening he handed the watch over to the police.

In answer to Mr. Fletcher, witness stated that he valued the articles at 2. They were old fashioned.

In reply to other questions witness stated that he had not time himself to communicate to the police. He was out on business in the afternoon, and on his return his wife told him that the police had been. He thought at the time that the property was come by honestly.

Detective Inspector Lawrence stated that on the evening of the 4th March he went to Mr. Harris`s shop, and got the watch and chain produced. He then went to Radnor Street and saw Podesta outside the Lord Nelson. He said “Is your name Dominic Podesta?”, and accused said “Yes”. Witness then cautioned him and said “Where did you get that watch and chain that you sold to Mr. Harris this afternoon for 10s.? I shall take you to the police station on suspicion of having stolen the watch”. Podesta said the watch was given to him, that it was a present, and that he declined to say anything more about it. He brought accused to the police station, and detained him while he made some inquiries. He then charged him with stealing the watch, the property of some person or persons unknown. Podesta replied “I do not know anything about the stealing part of it”. Later he saw the two prisoners together at the police station, and said “I shall charge you with being concerned together with stealing the watch and chain from a house at Sandgate, the property of Annie Frances Prescott”. Smith said “I stole it”. Podesta said “I had nothing to do with stealing it”.

P.C. Smoker said that on Tuesday, 5th March, he escorted both prisoners to Canterbury. While waiting at the Central Station Smith said “Constable, I wish to tell you I stole the watch, and not this man” (referring to Podesta). Witness said “Where?”, and accused replied “The other end of Sandgate. I went there on purpose to beg. I rang the bell. There was no answer. I saw the window open, and I put in my arm and took the watch off the table with my hand”. Podesta never said anything at all, but he heard the conversation. The prisoners were handcuffed together.

Podesta, on oath, stated that he was in the Lord Nelson on the 4th March, when the witness Armitage came in the bar and said a man named “Compo” wanted to speak to him outside. He saw the accused outside. Smith said “I have a gold watch and chain. Can you do anything with it for me?” Witness said “Why, is it gold? Cannot you get rid of it yourself?” Accused said he got the watch out of some old wearing apparel. Witness took the watch and went into the public house with Smith. He showed the watch openly in the bar. He asked Smith what he wanted for it. Smithj said he wanted him to try and sell it. People might think he (Smith) had stolen it, on account of his not being so well dressed as he (Podesta). Smith said he wanted half of what witness got for the watch. Witness tried, but failed to sell the watch. Everyone thought he had stolen it. He wished he could have found the man to give it back. Eventually he went back to the Lord Nelson and saw the accused, and after that sold the watch to Mr. Harris. He (Podesta) went back to the Lord Nelson, and they had drinks all round. When he took the watch he had no idea it was stolen, and he had no idea that it was from beginning to end.

Cross-examined, Podesta stated that he only knew Smith casually before this to speak to in the street. He had never been in his company in his life. He knew nothing about him. Witness was not a native of Folkestone. He was surprised to see accused with a gold watch. He knew that things were found in old clothes occasionally, and accused said he got this watch out of some old wearing apparel. Smith did not say where he got the apparel. He said he came by the watch “straight”. Smith did not know where he got it from, and he did not know where he got the clothes.

In answer to the Recorder, Podesta stated that he was 16 years in the Army, and was a labourer.

Further cross-examined, Podesta said he did not think half the money was too much commission, and he did believe the watch was come by honestly, but he was a little bit dubious about the watch when he found he could not sell it.

Mr. Wiegall submitted that the story of Podesta was one which no reasonable jury could accept as being true.

Mr. Fletcher made a strong appeal to the jury not to be prejudiced against Podesta. They knew not that the watch and chain was stolen, but did Podesta know that at the time he sold it on the 4th March? He submitted that his story was quite a reasonable one.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury found Podesta Guilty of receiving the property, well-knowing the same to have been stolen.

The Chief Constable read out a list of 17 convictions against Smith, dating from the 15th March, 1901, including convictions for stealing, drunkenness, shopbreaking, and other offences. Continuing, the Chief Constable stated that Podesta was well known in the district as a card sharper. He had a list of 30 convictions against him, dating from 20th March, 1884. He had been imprisoned for drunkenness, assault upon his wife, burglary, stealing, obscene language, etc.

The Recorder: Why has he not been described as an habitual criminal?

Mr. Weigall pointed out that there had been no sentence of penal servitude, which was one of the conditions necessary before the prisoner could be described as an habitual criminal.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that Smith had pleaded Guilty, but Podesta had not. He entirely agreed with the verdict of the jury in respect to Podesta having received the property well-knowing it to have been stolen. Those two men had records such as he had never known before to be presented in that Court. He was not going to waste time upon them. He sentenced each to be detained in penal servitude for three years.

Folkestone Daily News 16 May 1912

Wednesday, May 15th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, together with Messrs. Morrison, Boyd, Linton, Swoffer, Stainer, Leggett, Owen, and Jenner.

The transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, was granted to James Monckton (sic) from the last tenant, A.E. Champion. The late tenant was unable to be present owing to being an inmate at the Victoria Hospital.

Folkestone Express 18 May 1912

Wednesday, May 15th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd and E.T. Morrison Esqs., Alderman Jenner, Major Leggett, and Colonel Owen.

The transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson from Albert Edward Champion to William James Monk was confirmed. Temporary authority had already been granted.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912

Monday, July 15th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

Frank Broad was charged with being an absentee from the 4th Batt. Royal Warwickshire Regt. He pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Prebble said at 9.50 on Saturday he saw the prisoner in the Lord Nelson Inn, and asked him his name. He replied “Ferguson”. He asked if he had been in the Army, and he said “Yes. I have got my discharge”. Prisoner then went outside and said his name was Broad and he was an absentee.

The Chief Constable said he had had a telegram from the commanding officer, saying he would send an escort for the prisoner.

He was ordered to be detained until the escort arrived.

Folkestone Herald 9 November 1912

Tuesday, November 5th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman F. Hall, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Councillor A. Stace, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

John King was charged with stealing a waterproof coat, value 2 4s., the property of the Rev. Ambrose Hertzberg, from the hall of a dwelling house at 16, The Leas.

P.S. Sales deposed that at about 10 p.m. the previous day, from information he received, he went, in company with P.C. Hy. Johnson, and made certain inquiries. At about 10.15 he went into the Lord Nelson public house in Radnor Street, and in there he saw prisoner sitting on a seat in company with another man and a woman. The coat produced was lying on the seat, by the side of prisoner. Witness picked it up and, examining it, asked the three persons where they had got it from. The other man replied “You let that alone”. Prisoner said “That`s mine, sergeant. I bought it off a man for 1s.”. Witness asked him who the man was, and prisoner replied that he did not know him. Witness then told King that he was not satisfied with his statement, and he would have to come to the police station for inquiries. The other man said “I was with him when he bought it”. Prisoner picked up a basket that was lying on the seat, and witness brought him to the police station. Later, in consequence of a telephone message, he went to 16, The Leas, where he showed the coat produced to the Rev. Hertzberg. He then returned to the police station, and charged prisoner with stealing the coat from the hall of 16, The Leas. He replied “Right, you charge me with stealing it”.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand for a week as the Rev. Hertzberg was away.

A remand was granted.

Folkestone Daily News 12 November 1912

Tuesday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Boyd, Vaughan, Harrison, Stace, Linton, Ward, Stainer, Fynmore, Giles, Morrison and Wood.

John King was charged, on remand, with stealing a coat from No. 16, The Leas.

The Rev. E. Hertzberg, residing at 16, The Leas, now identified the coat as his property. He gave 2 10s. 0d. for it in August. On the 4th inst. he saw the coat safe in the hall. It was there at 7 p.m., and witness missed it at 10 p.m., and at once gave information to the police by telephone. At 10.30 the same evening Sergt. Sales brought the coat to witness, who identified it.

Arthur Goddard, a fisherman, residing at 58, Dudley Road, said on Monday, November 4th, at 8.30 p.m., he was in the public bar of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street. Prisoner came in the bar. Witness saw the man offer a coat for sale for 3s. to anyone in the bar. The coat was similar to the one produced, both in appearance and colour. Prisoner said the coat had been given to him at the upper end of the town. The landlord told prisoner he would not allow anything to be sold upon his premises. After that witness did not know what became of the prisoner or the coat.

Sergt. Sales proved the arrest of the prisoner at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, on the 4th inst.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

The Chief Constable said that from enquiries (by means of the man`s fingerprints) he had found that the man was a travelling thief with over 20 convictions against him. Quite recently he had been convicted of a similar theft at Eastbourne.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months` hard labour.

The Chairman of the Bench (Alderman Herbert) publicly thanked the landlord of the Oddfellows for refusing to allow goods to be sold on his premises.

Folkestone Herald 16 November 1912

Tuesday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

John King appeared on remand, charged with stealing an overcoat, the property of the Rev. A. Hertzberg.

The Rev. Abraham Mendel Hertzberg, of 16, The Leas, identified the coat produced as his property. He valued it at 2 4s. On Monday, November 4th, at 10 p.m., he missed it from the outer hall of his residence. He gave information to the police at once by telephone. At about 10 the same night the coat was handed to him by P.S. Sales.

Arthur Goddard, a fishmonger, of 38, Dudley Road, deposed that on Monday, November 4th, about 8.30 p.m., he was standing in the bar of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, when he saw the prisoner in the bar. Accused offered the coat for sale for 3s. It was a general offer to everyone. The coat was one similar in colour and appearance to the one produced. He said a gentleman or a friend (he could not remember which), who lived at the other end of the town, had given him the coat. No-one bought it, because the landlord said he would not allow anything to be sold on the premises. Prisoner went out.

P.S. Sales was then called, and the evidence he gave at the previous hearing was read over and confirmed.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he had nothing to add.

The Chief Constable said that when he was arrested nothing was known about the prisoner. However, he had had his fingerprints taken, and had found out there were over twenty previous convictions against him. He was convicted at Hastings, Eastbourne and Brighton for similar offences.

Mr. Herbert, who was Chairman when the case was first heard, said that evidently prisoner made a practice to go about, and when he saw a door open go in and get what he could. He would be sentenced to two months` hard labour.

The landlord of the Oddfellows Arms was then called, and Mr. Herbert said the Bench wished to thank him for the action he had taken in refusing to allow anything to be sold on his premises. He only wished that all the publicans would take up the same attitude as he had.

Folkestone Daily News 13 February 1913

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Licensing Bench on Wednesday, February 12th, was constituted as follows: Messrs. Ward, Boyd, Leggett, Swoffer, Stainer, Herbert, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The Chief Constable read his report (for which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, but the Bench were still of opinion that there were too many licensed houses in a certain portion of the town. Therefore a number would have their licences withheld until the adjourned sessions on the ground of redundancy. Formal opposition to the renewals would be served so that full enquiries could be made into the trade of these houses, with a view of referring some of them to the Compensation Authority.

The following were the licences which were held over: The Raglan, Dover Street; Oddfellows, Dover Street; Royal Oak, North Street; Isle of Cyprus, Bayle; Lord Nelson, Radnor Street; Lifeboat, North Street; Wellington, Beach Street.

Folkestone Express 15 February 1913

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Justices present were E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer Esqs. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Stainer did not take part in the licensing business, not being on the committee.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 119 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full Licences 73, Beer On 7, Beer Off 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers Off 15, Grocers, etc. Off 9, Confectioners` Wine On 3, Chemists Wine Off 5. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 281 persons, or one on licence to every 418 persons. As compared with the return submitted last year this is a decrease of two licences. At the general annual licensing meeting last year a new licence was granted for the sale of beer off the premises at Morehall, and two other off licences were discontinued.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of that Committee on the 7th August, 1912, the licence was refused, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on the 28th December last.

During the past year fifteen of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Six occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 34 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

In the preceding year 54 males and 31 females were proceeded against, of whom 66 were convicted and 19 discharged.

The number convicted of drunkenness last year, viz., 46 males and 18 females, is, I find, the smallest number convicted in any year since 1896.

Of those proceeded against, 31 were residents of the Borough, 34 were persons of no fixed abode, 13 residents of other districts and seven were soldiers.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken against the holder of an off licence for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, eight for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I have no complaint to make as to the conduct of any of the licensed houses, and offer no opposition to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

The Chairman said it was a very satisfactory report indeed, but they felt that there were still too many licensed houses, particularly in certain portions of the Borough, and the Justices would direct that a certain number of the applications for renewal should be deferred till the Adjourned Sessions, so that they might have evidence as to the trade those houses were doing, and decide whether any of them ought to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

The houses to be dealt with were seven in number, namely; the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, the Royal Oak, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington.

With those exceptions the existing licences were granted.

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1913

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

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

The Chairman remarked that the report was a very satisfactory one, but, in the opinion of the Bench, there were still too many public houses in certain portions of the town, and they would defer the renewal of certain of the licences to the adjourned sessions, so that they might have evidence as to what trade they were doing, and see if any of them were to be referred to the compensation authority.

The licensees of the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, Dover Street, the Royal Oak, North Street, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington were called forward.

The Chairman said the renewal of the licences of those public houses would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions, and notice of opposition would be served in the meantime on the ground of redundancy. The Chief Constable would be directed to serve the notices.

The licences of all the other houses were then renewed.

Folkestone Daily News 10 March 1913

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 10th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Stainer, Herbert, Harrison, Morrison, Linton, Boyd, Stace, Jenner, and Giles.

There was again a large crowd in Court on Monday morning, when the fate of 7 licensed houses (referred for redundancy) hung in the balance.

At the commencement of the proceedings the Chief Constable said the Bench had to consider the seven licences adjourned from the annual sessions on the ground of redundancy. He invited the Bench to hear the evidence in regard to such houses separately and give a decision after hearing all the evidence.

The Lord Nelson

In the case of the Lord Nelson and the Lifeboat (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. Arrowsmith (barrister) appeared to show cause for the re-granting of the licence.

The Chief Constable gave statistics, and said that the present licence holder was William James Monk, and the rateable value of the house was 24. The house was situate in Radnor Street – a street about 181 yards long. There were 51 houses in the street, five being fully licensed houses. The house was entered from the street by two doors leading into two compartments. Behind there was a bar parlour opening on to the front bar and also by a window overlooking the back yard. The back yard had also an approach to the licensed premises. The trade of the house appeared to him (the Chief Constable) to be small, and he considered it to be the least suitable house for licensed premises, and he further considered it unnecessary. Since 1902 the present tenant was the fifth.

By Mr. Arrowsmith: The Star, Marquis of Lorne and Railway Tavern had been closed since he (the Chief) had been there. Others had been closed previously.

Inspector Swift gave evidence of the unsuitability of the premises, and said that in 1907 (sic) on a Sunday morning he saw 97 persons served from the back window.

By Mr. Arrowsmith: He had not had any complaints since.

Mr. Monk, the licensee, said the trade of the house kept about the same average; the trade was principally with fishermen and the people from the lodging houses, and a good summer trade. In the summer he let rooms and provided lunches.

Mr. C. Moxon (Ash & Co.) deposed that the licence was acquired by his firm in 1849; the house had held a licence since 1829. The rent of the house was 20. For several years the average trade per annum was 235 barrels; the spirit trade 50 gallons in the year. The house was in very good condition. The firm had lost the Marquis of Lorne, the Star, Blue Anchor, Railway Inn, and the Welcome during the last few years. Compensation was paid in all cases excepting the last. He had heard of the complaint referred to by Inspector Swift, 15 years ago, and there had been no complaint since.

Mr. Councillor Jones was called by Mr. Arrowsmith, and he said he had lived in the neighbourhood for 50 years and had known the Lord Nelson since 1862. He was well acquainted with the habits of the fishermen. In his opinion the house was one decidedly required for the convenience of the fishermen. In 16 years there had been an increase of 600 houses and 7 licensed houses decreased in that area. These houses in the market were not used so much for drink as in the nature of clubs where they discussed the requirements of the market. Again there was a large number of steam trawlers from the west coast. The house had always been found useful for fishermen for the purpose of sharing, and the conduct of business. The house was an exceedingly quiet one.

By the Chief Constable: The whole of the area up to the Thanet Gardens he included in the increase of houses built. The whole area in fair proportion used the houses in the fishmarket. He said emphatically that it would be cruel to take the licence away from the enjoyment of the fishermen. He spoke as a teetotaller and from a conscientious point of view.

The Bench retired at 4 p.m., and returned at 4.10, the Chairman announcing that the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to Canterbury and the other five licences would be renewed.

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Lord Nelson

The renewal of the licence of the Lord Nelson was first considered. Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, appeared for the owners and licensee.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said he would first put in a plan of the congested area. The area commenced at the Harbour corner, up the steps to the Bayle, along the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road, to the Raglan, and then across Radnor Bridge Road to the sea. That embraced the whole of the old portion of the borough. Within that area there were 841 houses, giving a population approximately of 4,205 persons, reckoning five to a house. There were 30 “On” houses – 26 full and four beer on. There were also seven other premises licensed, making a total of 37 houses for the sale of drink by retail, giving an average of one licence to every 113 persons, and one on licence to every 140. Taking the borough alone they had 117 premises licensed for the sale of drink. The proportion was one licence to 286 persons. Of those 117 houses, 73 were full licences and 7 beer on, making a total of 80, and one on licence to every 418 persons. There were also in that area three registered clubs, with a membership of 1,904. During the last year he found that of the 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with by the justices, 46 of them arose in that small area. He put in the formal notice of objection to the renewal of the licence of the Lord Nelson, and the objection was that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was William James Monk,, who obtained the transfer of the house in May, 1912. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury, and the rateable value was 24. The house was situate in Radnor Street, just behind the Fish Market. Radnor Street was about 180 yards long. There were 51 houses in the street, five of them being fully licensed houses. The house was next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering from the street into a bar, which was divided by a partition 6ft. 3in. in height. Behind there was a bar parlour, with a window overlooking the backyard. From the bar parlour there were six steps leading to the backyard, where there were two stores for fish boxes, and which were let to two tenants, and there was also a door leading from the back of the cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. The windows of the lodging house opened in the yard from the ground floor, and there was also a door leading from the house in the yard. The door had not apparently been opened for some time. The Jubilee was the next public house, 45 yards further down, on the same side of the street, and the rateable value was 32. The Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, opposite the end of Radnor Street, was 50 yards, and of the rateable value of 36. The other licensed houses in the street were the Oddfellows, the rateable value of which was 32; the Ship, 32; and the Packet Boat, 30. That house was, as they would see, the lowest rated public house in the area. Within a radius of 15o yards there were 18 other on licensed premises – 15 fully licensed and three beer on. The trade of that house appeared to have been small, and he considered the premises to be the least suitable for licensed premises of any house in Radnor Street. The backway, which opened to the Fish Market through a narrow archway, made it very difficult to give it proper and efficient police supervision for the conduct of the premises. He considered the licence to be unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood. If the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation to supply the customers who used the house. Since 1902 the present licensee was the fifth.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said there had been three other licensed houses taken away during the last few years.

Inspector Swift said he had known the house for 30 years. His experience was that the premises were very difficult to supervise efficiently. In 1897 he kept observation on the premises between seven and eight until 1.30, and he saw 70 persons served from the window in the back yard.

Mr. Monk said he had been in the house for 12 months. He was making a trade. At the present time trade was about the same, keeping the same average. His business was chiefly with fishermen and men from lodging houses. In the summer they got visitors from the Warren, and he let rooms and served lunches.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he used his own living room, which was licensed, as the place where he served lunches.

Mr. C. Moxon, Manager to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the house was acquired in 1849, and it had been licensed since 1828. The rent of the house was 20. The trade of the house in beer in seven years averaged 235 barrels, and in the last three years it had averaged 234. The spirit trade averaged just over 50 gallons during each of the last three years. He thought the house was in very good condition for old property. They had other houses in the street, two of which had gone. Three others on the other side of the arch had gone. Those five houses had gone for compensation. Their last tenant, Champion, left owing to bad health and domestic troubles. Their previous change was in 1908. They had had no complaint for the last 15 years against the house. The backyard was a public yard.

Cross-examined, witness said that house was their last one left in the street. The True Briton was a good step from Radnor Street. That was their property. He did not consider there were too many houses in the congested area. He thought the Justices should stay their hand, as he considered they had closed sufficient. All the houses were getting a living.

Mr. J. Jones said he had known the house since 1862, and had used it. He considered the Lord Nelson was required more than any house by the fishermen because they could get so easily to the backyard. The fishing trade had increased while the houses in that neighbourhood had decreased by seven. They wanted the hoses to discuss the fishing business.

Mr. Arrowsmith, in his address to the Justices, said with regard to the Lord Nelson, the great argument for the licence being renewed was the Fish Market. There were five houses along the Fish Market; some time ago there were ten, but five had gone. The accommodation was half what it was, whereas the fishing trade had increased, and was likely to increase. Messrs. Ash and Co. had lost six out of eight licences, and both the remaining houses were threatened.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licences of the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to the Quarter Sessions. For those there would be provisional licences. The five other licences would be renewed, but they thought that the owners of the Wellington and the Raglan should consider the question of the urinals.

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The adjourned Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Police Court on Monday, when the licences of the seven houses deferred at the Annual General Sessions came up for hearing. Mr. E.T. Ward was in the chair, and he was supported by Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel C.J. Hamilton, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Captain Chamier, Mr. J.J. Giles, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison and Councillor A. Stace.

The Lord Nelson

Mr. Arrowsmih, of Canterbury, appeared on behalf of the brewers, Messrs. Ash and Co., of Canterbury, in support of the licence of the Lord Nelson, which had been deferred.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) drew the attention of the Magistrates first to a plan on which he had marked out the congested area on a new line. That new line they saw commenced at the Harbour corner, went up the Bayle Steps to The Bayle, along the top of High Street, and Dover Road, to the Raglan Hotel corner, and along Radnor Bridge Road to the sea. That embraced all the old portion of the Borough. Within that area there were 841 houses, giving a population, approximately, of 4,205 persons, reckoning five per house. There were thirty on-licensed public houses within the area, twenty six being fully licensed, and four beer on. There were also seven other premises licensed, making a total of thirty seven premises licensed for the sale of drink by retail, giving a proportion of one licence to every 113 persons, and one on licence to every 140. Taking the Borough as a whole, they had at present 117 premises licensed for the sale of drink, and he would like to say in passing that this was a decrease of two as shown in his report at the General Licensing Sessions, in consequence of two of the off licences not having been renewed this year. There were now 117 premises licensed altogether, giving a proportion of one licence to every 286 persons. Of this 117, 73 were fully licensed and seven were beer on, making a total of 80 on licences for the whole Borough, and one on licence to every 418 persons, according to the Census of 1911, when the population of the Borough was 33, 495. There was also within the congested area three registered clubs, with a total membership of 1,904. During the past year he found that out of 85 cases of drunkenness dealt with by the Borough Bench, 46 arose in this small area.

Referring to the Lord Nelson, Mr. Reeve stated that formal notice of objection had been served that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was William James Monk, who obtained a transfer of the licence on the 15thy May, 1912. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was 24. The house was situated in Radnor Street, behind the Fishmarket, and was on the right hand side of the street, entering from Beach Street, and next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering into the house from the street. The front bar was divided into two compartments by a partition 6ft. 3ins. high. Behind was a bar parlour, opening from the front bar, with a window overlooking the back yard. From this bar parlour there were six steps down to the back door, opening into the back yard. The back yard could be approached from the Fishmarket down four steps under an archway 3ft 2ins. wide. In the back yard there were two stores for fish boxes, let to two different tenants. There was also a back door opening into the yard from the next cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. The windows of the kitchen of the Radnor lodging house next door opened into the yard on the ground floor. There was also a small door from the lodging house opening into the yard. This, when he visited the house a week or two ago, did not appear to have been used for some little time. The Jubilee was the next house in Radnor Street, forty five yards further down on the same side, and the rateable value of the Jubilee was 32. The Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, at the opposite end of Radnor Street, was fifty yards away, and the rateable value of that house was 36. The other licensed houses in Radnor Street were the Oddfellows, with a rateable value of 32, the Ship, with a rateable value of 32, and the Packet Boat, with a rateable value of 30. The Lord Nelson was the lowest-rated house in Radnor Street. There were within a radius of 150 yards 18 other licensed premises, 15 being fully licensed and 3 beer on. The trade of this house at the present time, and for some time past, had been very small, and he considered the premises to be the least suitable for licensed premises of any of the houses in Radnor Street. The backway, which opened to the Fishmarket through this narrow archway, made it very difficult to give proper police supervision over the back of the premises. He considered the licence to be unnecessary to the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood, and if taken away there would be ample accommodation, in his opinion, to supply the customers who now used the house. The present was the fifth tenant since 1902.

Cross-examined by Mr. Arrowsmith, the Chief Constable stated that since he had been in Folkestone three licences had been taken away in that neighbourhood.

Inspector Swift said he had known the Lord Nelson, in Radnor Street, for thirty years; it was difficult to supervise it properly. Some years ago he had some experience of the back entrance. In consequence of complaints he kept observation on the 10th April, 1897. He secreted himself, when he saw 70 persons served from the window at the back of the premises.

Mr. Monk, the licensee, stated that he had been in the house twelve months, and was making a trade there. The trade was not decreasing; it was about the same. He traded chiefly with the fishermen, and visitors from the Warren in the summertime. He also did a trade in lunches, and let rooms.

The Chief Constable: What accommodation have you for private lunches?

Witness replied that he had the large room leading from the bar parlour on the left.

The Chief Constable: Your own sitting room? – Yes.

In answer to the Chairman, witness stated that the back yard did not belong to him. There were two different owners.

Mr. Charles Moxon, Manager of Messrs. Ash and Co., said that the house was acquired in 1849, and it had been a licensed house since 1828; it might have been licensed before that. The rent of the house was 20, and the trade of the house during the last three years had averaged 235 barrels. The average for the last seven years was 234. His spirit trade was about a gallon per week. The average for the last three years was 50 gallons per year. The house was in very good condition so far as repairs were concerned. It was old property. They had five other houses in the district some years back, but now they had gone. With regard to the last tenant, he left because of domestic troubles and ill-health. Otherwise he had reason to believe he would be there now. There had only been one change since 1908.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness stated that although some of the houses had gone there were still others left. He did not consider there were too many houses, and he did not say there were too few.

The Chief Constable stated that he had no complaint to make against the conduct of the house.

Councillor John Jones said he had lived in the neighbourhood for fifty years, and had known the house since 1862, and had used it. He said decidedly that the house was required. Folkestone had about 100 to 110 fishing boats, and he should say that there was a working population of between 400 and 500 in the fishmarket, giving an average of about 100 per house. The accommodation was not sufficient. He characterised it as being riven out of their old home, and their little institution, when they met for business matters.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, Mr. Jones said the house was not used so much for drinking as for little suppers, and he said it would be a cruel shame if these facilities for meeting were done away with.

The Chief Constable drew attention to the fact that a licence was not needed for the purpose of holding suppers.

Mr. Arrowsmith, turning to the Lord Nelson, said that that was doing an exceedingly good trade. According to the landlord, he catered for lunches and let bedrooms. A great argument in its favour was the Fishmarket. He pointed out to the Justices that they had a duty to the brewer as well as to the public, and they had to licence to the requirements of the public, and it might even be to increase the number of licences. He imagined that in the future, with so many houses being taken away, it would be a question of how many new houses there would be. During the last few years Messrs. Ash had lost six out of eight houses in this district. Six had gone, and only two were left, and those two houses were now being threatened. He alluded to the detriment to the trade of the firm, and said if these two houses were closed, eight houses would be taken away in one district belonging to the same firm, and the proportion, to him, seemed to be too large. He asked that both should be renewed.

The Magistrates retired for a period to consider their decisions. On their return the Chairman said that with regard to the Lord Nelson, they had decided to refer that to Canterbury, but would grant a provisional licence for the time being.

Folkestone Daily News 8 October 1913

Wednesday, October 8th: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Harrison, Vaughan, Swoffer, and Linton.

The licence of the Lord Nelson was transferred from William James Monk to Frank May (from Betherseden).

The Chief Constable said he should like to put it to the incoming tenant that this house was referred at the last sessions.

The Chairman: Were you aware of that?

Applicant: No.

The Chairman: Does the knowledge of that make any difference to your application?

Applicant: No, sir.

The Chairman: It is only fair to warn you. What house did you keep before? – The Royal Standard, Bethersden.

The Chairman: How long?

Applicant: 14 months.

The Chairman: Had you any previous experience?

Applicant: Yes, in the canteen of the West Riding Regiment in South Africa.

The Chairman again warned the applicant of the possibilities of the future and granted the transfer.

Folkestone Herald 11 October 1913

Wednesday, October 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Alderman C. Jenner, and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

Application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Mr. W.J. Monk to Mr. F. May.

The Chief Constable said he thought the incoming tenant should be reminded that at the last licensing sessions the licence of this house had been referred back.

Mr. May said he was not aware of that fact.

The Magistrates` Clerk said that point was whether that fact would alter the applicant`s attitude.

Mr. May: No, sir.

The Chairman said he wished Mr. May to understand that he might have to leave next year.

Mr. May said he quite understood this, and the transfer was granted on this understanding.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1914

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 11th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, T.J. Vaughan, J.J. Giles, G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, and G. Boyd Esqs., Colonel Owen and Colonel Fynmore.

The Chief Constable presented his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 116 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences 72, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and spirit dealers off 15, grocers, etc. off 7, confectioners` wine on 3, chemists wine off 6, total 116. This gives an average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 288 persons, or one on licence to every 423 persons.

This is a reduction of three licences as compared with the return submitted to you last year.

At the last general annual licensing meeting the renewal of two grocers` off licences were not applied for, as the sale of intoxicating liquor had been discontinued.

At the adjourned general annual meeting held on the 10th March last the licences of the Isle of Cyprus Inn, The Bayle, and the Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. The licence of the Lord Nelson Inn was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Compensation Committee, and the licence of the Isle of Cyprus Inn was refused at the principal meeting of the Committee held on the 9th July, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on 31st December last.

During the year ended 31st December 71 persons (48 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness of whom 49 were convicted and 22 discharged.

In the preceding year 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

It is very gratifying to again have to report a decrease in the cases of drunkenness, the number of persons proceeded against last year being the smallest for the last 17 years.

The decrease in the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness in this borough is in no way due to any relaxation in the methods of the police in dealing with drunken persons, but is undoubtedly due to the improved habits of the people, which must be apparent to all by the fewer drunken persons to be seen in the streets, also the provision of cheap and popular forms of amusement, as well as the gradual decrease of facilities for obtaining drink by closing the less desirable of the public houses, together with the greater care of the licence holders in the conduct of their houses.

Of those proceeded against last year, 23 were residents of the borough, 25 persons of no fixed abode, 12 soldiers, and 11 residents of other districts.

No conviction has been recorded during the year against any licence holder for a breach of the Licensing Laws. Proceeding were taken against one hotel keeper for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed; the licence of the house in question has since been transferred to a new tenant.

Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, 8 for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner.

There are no applications for new licences to be made at these Sessions.

The Chairman said the report was extremely satisfactory, especially that portion of it which referred to the decrease of drunkenness. The Magistrates were also glad to find that the houses generally had been well conducted. With regard to the licences that day, they would all be renewed, with the exception of the Lord Nelson, the granting of which would be deferred until the adjourned meeting.

Folkestone Herald 14 February 1914

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 11th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Aldermand T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report. (For details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said they were very much obliged to the Chief Constable for his very satisfactory report. They were also very glad to find that the houses were being so well conducted. With regard to the licensing that day, all the alcohol, music, dancing, and public billiard playing licences would be renewed, with the exception of that of the Lord Nelson, the hearing with regard to which would be left to the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Express 14 March 1914

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 9th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, R.G. Wood and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The question of whether the licence of the Lord Nelson public house should be referred to the Compensation Authority was the only business.

Mr. Arrowsmith (Canterbury) appeared on behalf of the owners (Messrs. Ash & Co.) and the tenant (Mr. Frank May), and applied for the renewal of the licence.

Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, put in a copy of the notice of objection, which was on the ground that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. He also handed in a plan showing the district in which the public house was situate. He said the Lord Nelson was a fully licensed “on” public house, and was situate in Radnor Street. Mr. Frank May, the licensee, obtained a transfer on October 8th last. The rateable value of the house was 24. The present tenant was the sixth who had been in the house in 11 years. Radnor Street, North Street, and East Street practically comprised the fishing quarter of the town. In that quarter there were 143 houses, including seven on licensed houses. Allowing five persons to a house there was one licence to every 102 persons in the district. For the borough at large there were 79 on licensed houses, being an average of one on licence for 423 persons. Radnor Street was about 180 yards long, and there were 51 houses in the street, five of them being fully licensed public houses. The Lord Nelson was on the right hand side of the street entering from Beach Street, and was next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering from the street to a front bar, which was divided into three compartments. Behind was another tap room or bar parlour, with a window overlooking the back yard. From that room there were six steps leading down to the back door of the house, which opened into the back yard. The yard was approached from the fish market by four steps, under an archway which was three feet two inches wide. In the yard there were two stores let to different tenants. There was also a back door opening into the yard from the cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. The windows of the kitchen of the Radnor lodging house opened into the yard, and there was also a door from the lodging house opening into the yard. That door, however, appeared to be very rarely used. There was no light in the approach or in the back yard. The nearest house was the Jubilee, 45 yards down the road, and the rateable value of that was 36. The Wonder Tavern was 50 yards away, and the rateable value was also 36. The other licensed houses in Radnor Street were the Oddfellows, rateable value 32, the Ship, 32, and the Packet Boat, 30. Within a radius of 150 yards there were 18 other on licensed premises. The trade for the house appeared to him to be small, and of rather low class. He considered the premises were the least suitable of any of the houses in the street, and owing to the back entrance through that narrow archway, it was rather difficult for proper police supervision. He had no complaint as to the manner in which the house was conducted. The Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows all fronted on to the fishmarket, and their principal business was from the fishmarket.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said what he meant by a low class trade was that the house was frequented by the people using the Radnor lodging house and the other lodging houses. He should not say that the people were all perfectly respectable, and that it was respectable. His objection was on the ground that the house was not required. He would still say it was not required even if Mr. Arrowsmith brought 100 or 200 people to give evidence that it was required, for that would not alter his opinion that they had more houses than they required in Folkestone. His opinion was that they had too many houses in Folkestone for the legitimate requirements of the population. During the past year they had 71 proceeded against for drunkenness.

Mr. Arrowsmith: Do you know what the proportion of on licences to the population in Canterbury is?

Mr. Reeve: I believe Canterbury is worse than any town in England. Proceeding, he said he had the statistics there for all England per 10,000 persons. The figures for Canterbury were 54.90 against Folkestone 24.47. They had in Canterbury one on licence to every 200 of the population.

Mr. Arrowsmith: That is to say double the number of houses per population that you have?

Mr. Reeve: Yes, but I do not think it is to the credit of Canterbury.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Reeve said the number for Dover and its liberties worked out more than at Folkestone. He would not like to say that Dover was the soberest town in England. The proportion of proceedings for drunkenness worked out at Dover at 1.58, while at Folkestone it was nearly 2.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said he frequently visited the licensed premises in the borough, and amongst them he went to the Lord Nelson. With regard to the trade of the house, he would describe it more of a casual trade chiefly from the lodging houses. It was not a house used to any great extent by the fishing people, for he very rarely saw fishermen use it. He had not seen any of the employees of the Railway Company in it. During the past few months he had made notes of the number of customers in the house when he had visited there. The witness then detailed the visits, which took place at various times of the day, and according to his figures the most persons he had seen in the house at one time was 12, while on two other occasions there were none. Proceeding, he said the general character of the customers was that they were chiefly of the casual class, labourers, and rag and bone collectors. He had never seen a fisherman in the house on any of his visits, except on one occasion when there were two. The bulk of the trade at the Oddfellows, Ship and Jubilee was done on the fishmarket side of the premises. He considered if that licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation elsewhere to supply the customers who at present used that house.

Cross-examined, witness said in spite of evidence that was brought to the contrary, he would still say it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Inspector Swift said he had known the house for 31 years. It was not now a fisherman`s house, but was now generally used by the casual class and people who used the Radnor lodging house. He was familiar with the back entrance, which made it difficult of proper police supervision. He had had an experience of that, and he had reported one licensee of the house for supplying drink during prohibited hours. On Sunday morning, April 18th, 1897, from eight o`clock to twenty minutes past nine, no less than 67 men were served through the back window opening from the tap room overlooking and back yard. That window and back entrance was still the same as it was then. He agreed with Det. Sergt. Johnson that the bulk of the trade of the three adjoining public houses was with the fish market.

This concluded the evidence on behalf of the police.

Mr. Richard Moxon, the senior member of Messrs. Ash & Company, said in 1909 the trade done in beer was 232 barrels; in 1910, 268; in 1911, 257; in 1912, 178; in 1913, 146. With regard to spirits, in 1910, 47 gallons were sold; in 1911, 59; in 1912 45; in 1913, 41. Since the present tenant had been in the house the trade had nearly doubled. From October 8th to February 28th, 1913, the former did 54 barrels, while the present tenant that year had done 93 barrels in the corresponding period. That roughly represents 4 barrels a week, and that time had been the worst of the whole year. The previous tenant (Mr. Monk) was totally unsuited for the trade, although he was a very respectable man, but he never really troubled about the trade. That house was scheduled last year. Some years ago they had 19 houses in Folkestone, but they had lost six of them. If that house was taken away from them they would not have one in that particular district, unless they went up North Street, and that house was only a beerhouse. The Marquis of Lorne and the Welcome were not closed under the compensation clause.

Mr. Frank May, the licensee, said since he had been in the house he had gradually increased the trade, and he now averaged about 4 barrels a week. He was satisfied with the trade of the house, and would like to stay. The class of the customer using the house was mostly fishermen and casuals from the lodging house. He handed in a petition asking for the licence to be renewed, and the signatures were thos of Rye fishermen, Flushing fishermen, and Folkestone fishermen. The signatures numbered about 250.

The Chairman pointed out that the addresses given included all parts of the town.

The Clerk said the addresses given included Manor Road, Ingles Mews, Cheriton Road, Coolinge Road, and Castle Hill Avenue.

Mr. May said Mr. Hart obtained some of the signatures. He (witness) got about half of them, and they were the signatures of people using his house.

The Chairman, reading from the petition: Bouverie Road, Bouverie Square, Manor Road, Broadmead Road. Those are not customers of your house, surely?

The Clerk said that they had got it in evidence that the signatories were mostly fishermen and harbour men, but it was obvious to anyone who knew, a considerable number of them were nothing of the kind.

Mr. John Jones said he had known the Lord Nelson since 1862. He had recently been frequently in the house, and he did not agree with the Chief Constable that the class of person who used the house were low class. He knew one man named Sturgess, who had used the house for 50 years. He considered the house was the most convenient for fishermen. When the fishermen came ashore they would find at times it was impossible to get in any of the houses on the Stade. There were times, however, when all the houses were empty. On July 30th last, he was conducting an election for Mr. King-Turner, and he went in a taxi-cab to all the licensed houses on the Stade, but he could not find a single voter in any of them. He should say with the increased business done at the fishmarket that the present houses did not find sufficient accommodation. In recent years the number of houses had been reduced by one half. They had held meetings at the Lord Nelson in past years, and they would begin holding them again in the house if the tenant would have them. The East Cliff district was an increasing one, and at present he should say there were 5,000 or 6,000 people residing in it. To meet that population they had only seven houses. That made one licensed house to 1,000 inhabitants, which was not sufficient. He thought they wanted two or three more houses on the East Cliff.

Cross-examined, witness said he certainly considered the house was most convenient. He believed the house was doing a better trade than it did. He agreed that a year ago in the Folkestone Daily News there was an article published, for which he took full responsibility, that the licensed victuallers were not doing so well.

Thomas Edward Saunders, a fisherman, boat proprietor, and Fishery Officer appointed by the local committee, said he had known the house for 35 years. He did not altogether agree with the Chief Constable that the trade was a low class one. The people who went into the house were not the class with whom the fishermen would not associate. He considered it was the most convenient house for the fish market. He did not think there were sufficient houses now for the use of the fishermen. The trade at the market had increased quite 50 percent since he had been collecting statistics during the past six years. He complained that there was no night house for the fishermen when they came in at night.

Mr. Reeve (to witness): You think you ought to have more houses?

Witness: I think we ought to have one at least open all night, and when I have been coming home in the boat at half past two in the morning I have run into Dover to get a drink.

Mr. Reeve: You have been thirsty.

Mr. A.J. Hart said he had lived in Folkestone all his life, and he knew the Radnor Street district very well. He had known the house since the late Councillor Saunders kept it. The class of people who used it were fishermen and the people who lived in that neighbourhood. It might also be used by casual labourers, but he would not call it low class. He had constantly seen fishermen writing their letters in the house, at which letters were also received for them.

The Chief Constable referred to four men who had been arrested in the house at different times and sentenced, two of them to three years` penal servitude, and asked Mr. Hart if he considered they were low class.

Mr. Hart admitted that he should think such men were low class.

The Town Clerk asked witness how many signatures he obtained to the petition.

Mr. Hart, in explanation, said he had got about half of them. A large number of the signatures were those of people who frequently went down to the fishmarket, and they occasionally used the house. That was the reason they signed the petition. He admitted that those people could go into some of the other places there. He did not represent any of the brewers in that locality, with the exception that he was a tenant of one of their houses. He was, however, secretary of the Licensed Victuallers` Association.

Mr. Arrowsmith addressed the Magistrates, and in the course of his remarks he said the evidence of the police was somewhat perfunctory, while the evidence he had called proved, he contended, that the house was required. He pointed out that where the number of licences had been considerably reduced there had been an increase in drunkenness, as was foreshadowed in the minority report of the Licensing Commission. He also referred to the fact that his clients had been hardly hit under the compensation clause, for if that licence went they had lost practically all the licences they held in that particular district before then. It seemed to him that an undue proportion of the burden of reduction had fallen on his clients.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said that they were unanimously of opinion that they should not grant the renewal of the licence, and the case would be referred to Canterbury on the grounds that it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. They, however, provisionally renewed the licence.

Folkestone Herald 14 March 1914

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 9th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The only case before the Court was that of the Lord Nelson, the renewal of the licence of which house was deferred at the Annual Licensing Sessions held on February 12th.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Ash and Co., and the tenant of the house, Mr. Frank May, for the renewal of the licence.

The Magistrates` Clerk pointed out that at the Annual Licensing Sessions there was an application to serve a notice on account of redundancy.

The Chief Constable put in a copy of the notice of objection served on the applicant, Mr. Frank May, on the ground that the house was not needed. A plan of the district was also produced with the public houses marked in red ink.

After Mr. Arrowsmith had admitted all formal evidence, the Chief Constable said this was a fully licensed public house known as the Lord Nelson, situated in Radnor Street. The present licensee was Mr. Frank May, who obtained the transfer on the 8th October last. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., of Canterbury. The rateable value was 24. The present tenant was the sixth in 11 years. The house was situated in Radnor Street, behind the Fish Market. Radnor Street, the Stade, North Street, and East Street comprised the fishing quarter, which adjoined the outer harbour, and was cut off, as they knew, by the Harbour branch of the S.E. and C. Railway. In this quarter there were 143 houses, including 7 on licensed houses, and allowing five persons per house there was one licensed house for every 102 persons – men, women and children. For the borough at large there were 79 on licensed houses, the average being one on licensed house to every 423 persons. Radnor Street was about 180 yards long. There were 51 houses in it, five being fully licensed public houses. The Lord Nelson was on the right hand side of the street, entering from Beach Street, and next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering from the street to the front bar, which was divided into two compartments with a partition about 6ft. 3 ins. high. Behind was another room, a tap room, or bar parlour, with a window overlooking the back yard. From this back room there were six steps leading down to the back door of the house, which opened into the back yard. This yard was approached from the Fish Market by four steps under an archway just 3ft. 2ins. wide. In this yard there were two store let to different tenants, used for storing fish boxes, etc. There was also a back door opening into the yard from the cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. Two windows of the kitchen of the Radnor lodging house opened into the yard on the ground floor. There was also a door from the lodging house opening into the yard; that, however, appeared to be rarely used.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Can you say whether the approach or archway is lighted?

The Chief Constable: There is no light in the yard or the approach to the yard. There is only light from the Fish Market. Continuing, Mr. Reeve said the nearest licensed house was the Jubilee, 45 yards further down the street. The rateable value of that was 36. The Wonder Tavern in Beach Street, opposite the end of Radnor Street, was 50 yards away, and the rateable value of that was also 36. The other licensed houses in Radnor Street were the Oddfellows (rateable value 32), the Ship (rateable value 32), and the Packet Boat (rateable value 30). Within a radius of 150 yards of the house there were 18 other on-licensed houses. The trade of the Lord Nelson appeared to him to be small, and of rather a low class. He (the Chief Constable) considered the premises to be the least suitable of any of the licensed houses in the street, and owing to the back entrance through this narrow archway very difficult for proper police supervision. He made no complaint as to the manner in which the house was conducted.

In answer to the Magistrates` clerk, the Chief Constable mentioned that the Jubilee, Ship, and Oddfellows had a front entrance to the Fish Market, and their main business was on the Fish Market side.

In answer to Mr. Arrowsmith, the Chief Constable, explaining his expression “a low class trade”, said the house was frequented by people using the Radnor common lodging house, and in his opinion they were not all respectable people. He objected to the house on the ground that it was not required. There was no objection before the Court as to the construction or the accommodation of the house. He would say that the house was not required even if six, a hundred, or two hundred people said that it was wanted. His opinion was that it was not required in Folkestone for the legitimate requirements of the public, and no evidence brought forward would alter or shake his opinion.

Mr. Arrowsmith commented upon there being 71 convictions last year for drunkenness, and the proportion of licensed houses being one for every 423 people.

Asked by Mr. Arrowsmith what the proportion of houses was at Canterbury, Mr. Reeve replied that he thought it was the worst town in England in that respect.

Mr. Arrowsmith pointed out that in Canterbury there were 120 fully licensed houses, which was one to every 200 of the population – double the number they had at Folkestone.

The Chief Constable: I do not think it is to the credit of Canterbury.

Mr. Arrowsmith: And the number proceeded against was 48, considerably less than in Folkestone. Was that not gratifying, considering they had so many houses? Turning to Dover, he said the statistics showed they had 156 fully licensed houses, a proportion of one to every 270 of the population, and Dover was the soberest town of Kent.

The Chief Constable: I should not like to say so.

Mr. Arrowsmith: The proportion of proceeding is 1.58 per 1,000, while you are nearly 2 percent. Apparently they were a good deal more sober in Folkestone with a greater proportion of houses.

The Chief Constable: There may be reasons for that.

Det. Officer Leonard Johnson said that in the course of his duties he frequently visited the licensed premises, and amongst others the Lord Nelson. The trade was a casual one, chiefly from the lodging house next door.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Is it a house used to a great extent by the fishing people? – No, sir. Very rarely you see fishermen using the house.

In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said he had never seen the house used by employees from the Harbour and the Railway. Continuing, he gave particulars of visits made. On the 8th December he visited the house at 9 p.m., when there were twelve customers; on the 22nd December at 1.10 p.m., none; on January 6th at 8.10 p.m., 8; Friday, January 9th, 9.15 p.m., 8; Tuesday, January 27th, 8.15 p.m., 8; Thursday, 12th February, 6.45 p.m., 3; Friday, 20th February, 10.55 a.m., none; Tuesday, February 24th, 6.45 p.m., 3; Wednesday, 4th March, 12.30 p.m., 7. The customers were chiefly of the casual class, rag and bone collectors, etc. The bulk of the trade of the Jubilee, Oddfellows, and Ship Inn was done on the Fish Market side, and those houses were principally used by the fishing fraternity. He considered there would be ample accommodation to supply the customers who used the Lord Nelson, which he did not consider was needed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Arrowsmith, witness said he could not give statistics as to the numbers in the Jubilee or other houses at 1.10 p.m. He would say that the house was not required in spite of any evidence.

Inspector Swift said that he had known the Lord Nelson for 39 years. It was not a house used by fishermen. The back entrance made proper police supervision difficult. He gave particulars of a report he made of intoxicating liquor having been supplied during prohibited hours on Sunday, 18th April, 1897. No less than 67 people were served through the back room window in the back yard. No-one would suffer if the house was taken away.

In answer to Mr. Arrowsmith, witness said the case of 17 years ago was only mentioned to show the difficulty of supervision. He would adhere to his opinion that the house was not necessary.

Mr. Richard Moxon, a member of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Co., gave the barrelage of the house as follows: 1909, 232; 1910, 268; 1911, 257; 1912, 178; 1913, 146 – an average trade of 216 barrels per year. The spirit trade averaged 48 gallons; in 1911 it was 59 gallons; 1912, 45; and 1913, 41. He added that since the present tenant had been there he had nearly doubled the trade. Between October and the present time the tenant had disposed of 93 barrels; during the same time the former tenant only did 54 barrels. This was the worst time of the year. Continuing, Mr. Moxon gave the reasons why six tenants had left the house, and ascribed the changes to domestic troubles and illness generally. Large sums had been spent in repairing the house. Some years ago the firm had something like 19 houses in Folkestone. They had lost six or seven, all in this district, including the Star, Marquis of Lorne, Welcome, Blue Anchor, Hope, and Railway Tavern. If this house was taken away, they would have none in this particular district. He was of opinion they had been exceptionally badly used.

Mr. Frank May said he had gradually increased the trade to four or five barrels a week. He was satisfied with the trade, and would like to stay on. He had a petition signed by between 200 and 300 people, and pretty well all were customers of his.

The Magistrates` Clerk said he noticed that the addresses of some of the signatories were Manor Road, Cheriton Road, Castle Hill Avenue, etc., and asked witness how many signatures he obtained.

Mr. May: About half.

The Chairman then noted addresses from Bouverie Road, Bouverie Square, Manor Road, Broadmead Road, and the Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe.

Mr. Arrowsmith said that Mr. Albert Hart obtained some of the signatures.

Councillor John Jones said he had known the Lord Nelson since 1862. He did not agree with the Chief Constable that the trade of the house was low class. He mentioned Messrs. Sturgess and Taylor who had used the house for 50 years. It was the most convenient house for the fishermen, though he said nothing against the other houses. Sometimes they could not get in the houses, though sometimes they were empty. He maintained that the other houses were not sufficient for the accommodation of the fishermen. He estimated they had about 5,000 people in that quarter, and believed there were 11 houses formerly in the district. At the same time the fishing industry had increased considerably, and there was now far more business that he had ever known since 1862. He argued that they could ignore all the houses except two, because it was too far for the men to go to leave their fish. Someone might “borrow” their fish in their absence. Alderman Vaughan used the house in the old days as a committee room at election times. There were about ten hundred to twelve hundred houses on the East Cliff; taking the Chief Constable`s figures of five to a house, that would give a population of 5,000 to 6,000, and there were only six or seven houses to supply the neighbourhood. He agreed with Mr. Arrowsmith that there would be about one licensed house to every 1,000 of the population.

In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Jones said the trade was increasing, and looked like increasing, and that of the other houses was increasing. He did not think he had altered his opinion that the houses were doing well. He was the proprietor of the Folkestone Daily News, and he agreed with the article written twelve months ago, or nearly so, in which he said “Now, it is a well-known fact with everyone that owing to the Budget, Compensation Act, and other agencies, the licensed trade has been very hardly hit during the last few years. In fact, many licensed victuallers are doing badly, and hardly get a living, and no houses in Folkestone, not even the best, are doing so well as they have done”. He agreed with that, of course. It did not affect the question.

The Chief Constable: You think not? – Certainly.

The Chief Constable: Well, I do.

Mr. Thomas Edward Saunders stated that he was a native of Folkestone, was formerly a fisherman, and was now a boat proprietor and the Fishery Officer appointed by the local committee of the Board of Trade. He had known the Lord Nelson for 35 years. The people were not such as fishermen would not associate with. They did associate with them. He considered that the fishing trade had increased 50% during the last six years. They had nearly a hundred men from the port of Rye landing fish there, and they had trawlers and boats from Flushing. The men on the boats that came into the port were not included in the Chief Constable`s figures They had no night house in Folkestone, though they had one at Dover, where there was not half so much done.

In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said he had never experienced any difficulty with regard to the steps leading to the yard and into the house. There were other houses close at hand.

Mr. Albert James Hart said he had known the Lord Nelson for 50 years. He considered the house to be a convenient one.

Questioned by the Chief Constable, he did not agree that the trade was low class.

Mr. Reeve quoted some instances in which men had been arrested on the premises and convicted to terms of imprisonment.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, Mr. Hart said those people certainly did use the house in Mr. Champion`s time.

Questioned by the Magistrates` Clerk, Mr. Hart said he was the Secretary of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, but was in no way connected with the house.

Mr. Arrowsmith made a strong appeal to the Magistrates to renew the licence. He said it was the duty of the Justices to regulate the licences according to the requirements of the public; it might even be to increase the number. He referred to the evidence of Mr. Jones, who knew the district probably better than anyone else in Folkestone, to that of Mr. Saunders, and to the petition. At the present moment the trade was increasing, and the barrelage represented about 2,300 glasses of beer a week – a considerable consumption. He commented upon the growing trade at the Fish Market, emphasised the increasing numbers of fishermen who used the Harbour, who went on their boats, and who were not included in the figures given by the Chief Constable, and maintained that a reduction of licences did not tend to a reduction of drunkenness, but tended to an increase rather than otherwise. It must be so, because when they had four men in a house where there were formerly only two, the chances were more beer would be consumed. He asked the Magistrates to renew the licence on the ground that the evidence was entirely in his favour, and went to prove conclusively that the house was required.

The Magistrates, after a short deliberation, intimated that they would not grant the renewal, and the case would be referred to Canterbury on the ground that the house was not required.

The Magistrates` Clerk: You provisionally grant the licence.

Folkestone Daily News 14 March 1914

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Lord Nelson Licence.

The Licensing (adjourned) Sessions were held on Monday morning, when the Bench consisted of Mr. E.T. Ward, Messrs. Herbert, Vaughan, Stainer, Swoffer, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, and Wood.

It will be remembered that at the Annual Licensing Sessions the Chief Constable, Mr. H. Reeve, objected to the renewal of the licence on the grounds of redundancy, and the renewal of the licence was put back until March 9th. On Monday morning the Chief Constable formulated his objections, principally upon the small trade.

The tenant (Mr. May) deposed to being quite content with the business done, and produced a petition signed by between 250 and 300 persons, mostly customers, asking that the licence be renewed.

Councillor J. Jones gave evidence as to why the licence should be renewed. Mr. Saunders, Inspector under the Fisheries Act, and Mr. A.J. Hart all gave evidence in favour of the renewal of the licence.

At 1.50 the Bench retired, and upon returning into Court at 1.55, an absence of five minutes, the Chairman said: On the grounds that the house is not wanted we are unanimously of opinion not to grant the renewal of the licence, but to refer it to Canterbury.

Folkestone Daily News 10 July 1914

Comment

We have not been able to comment on the action of the authorities on the licensing question for some time past, as the matter of the Lord Nelson was sub judice, and during our many years` connection with the press of Folkestone we have never descended to deal with matters sub judice, or influencing one way or the other any judicial decision.

The matters are now settled, and hence we consider ourselves free to criticise the action taken by the licensing authorities. In 1913, seven houses were scheduled on the score of redundancy. To our mind not a tittle of evidence affecting the question was brought in support of those houses, with the result that five out of the seven were disposed of by the local justices, leaving two to be further considered at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. That body met before the Sessions and returned the Lord Nelson, referring the Cyprus to the Quarter Sessions. They refused it more for sanitary reasons than on the score of redundancy.

The case of the Lord Nelson did not differ in 1914 from that of 1913, yet the county licensing authorities said on Wednesday exactly the reverse to that which they stated a year ago. No explanation was given why they altered their decision.

It is not our province to differ from the justices, either county or town, but we are entitled to say that erratic decisions, peculiar and inconsistent conduct, inflict a very great hardship on those who are interested in the trade. If the local licensing justices say that seven houses ought to be referred on the score of redundancy in 1913, and there is no difference in 1914, and they are content to say that only one house is in excess of those required, reasonable men, unbiased by any interests or sentiment, cannot understand their action. Neither can they understand the county licensing authorities altering their mind from one year to another without giving any reason.

The licensing trade is a legitimate business, and public houses should be properly and fairly dealt with by the State the same as any other property. While the proprietors of licensed property and the tenants of the same are harassed and kept on tenterhooks by such erratic conduct on the part of those whom the Legislature has entrusted to carry out the provisions of the Licensing Act, what chance is there for genuine improvement of either property or tenants?

In the olden days a man invested his savings and took a licensed house. He whole of his interests were bound up in the same, and as a rule he had decided to end his days in his house. He took a pride in the same, a pride in his customers, and the characteristics of his business. Our memory takes us back to numbers in Folkestone and in other places who have been honoured and respected citizens, intelligent far above the average, broad-minded in the extreme, good husbands, sons and fathers, maintaining self-respect themselves and commanding self-respect from others.

These men are being ruthlessly swept out of their business by cranks, faddists and fanatics, who lack intelligence, foresight, and statesmanship. The community is suffering from the loss of such men, who were a national asset, not now to be replaced.

The whole country furnishes object lessons similar to Folkestone. The professed intention of the Temperance faddist seems to be that of increasing Temperance or reducing drunkenness. This was their pretence. Were they ever sincere, or are they sincere now? The tendency of present legislation is to penalise respectably conducted houses because they do not sell enough drink, and a premium is given to those houses which sell a large quantity.

The Lord Nelson, from time immemorial, has been a fisherman`s house, from the time Mr. William Harrison kept it up to now. It never did a large trade. The proprietor and the various tenants never took steps to make it do a large trade. They were content with a respectable, cosy house to meet the requirements of a certain class, and did so.

The authorities closed two common lodging houses on either side of the house. By doing so some of those who lived at common lodging houses were driven to the Lord Nelson. The tenants, by their licence, were bound to serve them, even though some of their more respectable customers went elsewhere. The owners of the Lord Nelson spent enough money to re-build the house in partitioning and making bars to suit the customers they would have preferred not to supply, with the nett result that for doing what the law compelled them to do their licence is taken away, the evidence relied upon being that they did not sell sufficient drink, and served, as it was put, rag and bone people.

As another object lesson of idiotic legislation administered locally with a lack of intelligence we would call the attention of our readers and old residents to a triangular block of buildings in Beach Street. We remember four licensed houses adjoining each other in this block – The Providence, Blue Anchor, Queen`s Head and Wonder Tavern.

The teetotal prating about this block was nauseous, and cases of drunkenness on being heard by the justices were always attributed to this block. They were four respectable houses, well conducted in every way, and provided for various classes of fishermen, South Eastern employees, and workers in the neighbourhood.

Three houses out of this block have been closed by the authorities on the score of redundancy. The fourth one is always crowded and sells more beer now than all the four put together, while it is secure from interference. Why? Because the premium offered for increased trade is such that the evidence of redundancy could not be produced, and the amount required for compensation, were it closed, would be more than the commissioners would give.

We have no wish to close any well conducted house on the score of redundancy. The more there are the less there is of drunkenness and more easy the supervision, and also the greater comfort and convenience for the public. The statistics of drunkenness, as at present given by convictions, are utterly fallacious. The young, energetic policemen, wanting to earn promotion, will often arrest people for drunkenness when older and more common-sense men will send them home and prefer no charge. Thus the number of public houses has nothing to do with it.

On Wednesday last twelve houses were referred to the Canterbury Quarter Sessions, eight of which were undefended. Two were given their licence, and two refused. This means that on the 1st of January, 1915, there will be ten less beerhouses in Kent than there were in 1914. There will be just as much drink consumed, or even more, but the revenue will not be so large. Kent will follow Northern towns, and the public will insist on their liberty and choice of having moderate refreshments to suit their tastes, and also accommodation which they require. This has been provided in the North by clubs; it will be provided in the South.

Such clubs, on being conducted as respectably as the houses which are being swept away on the excuse of redundancy, can defy the police and Temperance faddists. They will be under no restriction as to opening or closing to a minute, and furthermore will not have to contribute to the revenue. When the Lord Nelson is closed, a Fishermen`s and Mariners` Club will be formed to take its place. Such club will be allowed to supply its members if they go to sea or land between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The proprietors will not be compelled to serve rag and bone dealers, for serving which the licence of the Lord Nelson has been taken away. And such club will also, as time goes on, reduce the trade of licensed houses which are now doing well in such a manner that they will be closed on the score of redundancy.

We shall have more to say as time goes on.

East Kent Licensing.

The Kent Licensing Committee held their annual sessions at St. Augustine`s, Canterbury, on July 8th. Lord Harris presided up to lunchtime, when Parliamentary duties called him to London, necessitating the Vice Chairman, the Hon. Plumptre, taking his place.

There were twelve cases that had been remitted, eight of which were uncontested, leaving the Coach and Horses at Deal (Flint and Co), a house in Sandwich belonging to Mackeson and Co., the King`s Head in Herne Bay, and the Lord Nelson in Folkestone belonging to Ash and Co. Learned counsel were engaged on both sides. The evidence was of the similar stereotyped kind as that usually given in these cases, which it seems are decided more by the fact of the funds in the hands of the Commission Committee than anything else. No doubt this is the reason why the other eight houses were not defended.

The following evidence was submitted:

Number of tenements in the area isolated by the railway line:

1 The Stade 23 tenements
2 Radnor Street 52 “
3 East Street 32 “
4 Clout`s Alley 11 “
5 Dunn`s Alley 12 “
6 Bates` Alley 11 “
7 North Street 64 “
8 East Cliff Gardens 19 “
9 East Cliff 56 “
10 Radnor Bridge Road 8 “
11 East Cliff Villas 4 “
12 Dudley Road 70 “
13 Seagrave Road 6 “
14 Stanley Road 39 “
15 Burrow Road 30 “
16 Penfold Road 73 “
17 Warren Road 63 “
18 Thanet Gardens 54 “
19 Wear Bay Crescent 67 “
20 Wear Bay Road 16 “
21 Radnor Bridge Cottages 8 “

In Institutions

22 St. Andrew`s Convalescent Home 200 persons
23 Wear Bay 100 “
24 Sanatorium 40 “

Public Works in the isolated area
Approximate estimate of number of men who need refreshments

Flushing Service 200
South Eastern Good Service 300
Porters` Passenger Service 250
South Eastern Works Permanent Staff 40
Casually Employed 50
Customs Officials 100
Colliers and Traders 100
Ramsgate Smacks 70
Rye Steam Trawlers 60
Fishermen 300
Fish Packers, etc. 100
Fish Dealers 100
Marx, Builder 100
Dust Destructor and Engineering Works 50
Allotment Gardens 60
Plicher`s Market Gardens 50
Sundry Servants and Employees 100
Total 2040

Licensed Houses in the Isolated Area:
Fully Licensed
Lord Nelson, Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Packet Boat, Royal Oak, East Cliff Tavern (the Warren Inn, a fully licensed house at the extreme end of the area, provided with pleasure gardens, was deprived of its licence)
Beer Licence – The Lifeboat

During the season numbers are greatly augmented by visitors, especially at boarding houses. Several houses have from 40 to 60 boarders between July and August.

The Lord Nelson is the largest house, and more conveniently situated, especially for visitors. I has a frontage of 30 feet and a depth of 26 feet, with a club room for visitors 16ft. 3in. by 12ft. 7in. It is admirably situated for private parties, etc.

The Jubilee is a house with a smaller frontage, and has been extended over that which was known as the Skittle Alley. The Oddfellows and the Ship have also been extended over yards, the same as can be done by the Lord Nelson.

The Royal Oak and the East Cliff Tavern are negligible quantities as far as accommodation is concerned. They are simply cottages that have been adapted for small public houses.

The want of accommodation is seriously felt by those who have invested their money in property in this isolated district. Formerly there were more houses to supply the refreshments. They have been closed by the authorities. The North Foreland has been transformed into a Bethel or Temperance tavern. The Radnor, Tramway, Star, and Marquis of Lorne have been deprived of their licences and are now common lodging houses, accommodating 100 to 150 of the travelling class, who require refreshments, which the westernmost bar of the Lord Nelson has been partitioned off to supply (shown on the plan marked A). The centre bar (marked B) is used by the fishermen and others for temporary refreshments during the daytime, and the club room (marked C) is used during the evening by the better class of fishermen to discuss business problems, and during the day for visitors to the Warren to obtain refreshments.

The annexed plan and rough model show how this eastern district is cut off and isolated from the rest of the town.

The South Eastern Pier continues through the Harbour Station and a few yards across the bridge, which divides the inner and outer harbours, from whence it rises on a gradient to 20 feet, and continues about halfway up the Tram Road to the level crossing at East Cliff, then follows on a spur line which joins the main line beyond the Junction Station.

Thus the whole of the inhabitants and workmen mentioned are prevented from getting into the town, except by the level crossing in Warren Road, which is kept shut. A few yards lower down is a style, very dangerous to children, and where many accidents have occurred. Further down is the East Cliff crossing, and nothing between that and Radnor Street, where the bridge is about 20ft. high.

There are three arches on the Stade for vehicular traffic. These are very dangerous for foot passengers, and no pathway exists on either side. Two fish carts passing each other under these arches make them impassable and very dangerous for pedestrians, who have to divert when coming from the Harbour round the Fish Market and through May`s Alley (marked on the model), and round to the right, past the Nelson and through the Radnor Street arch. The gates at the Harbour have to be often closed, necessitating the men walking along the pathway on the easternmost side of the line, as shown on the model.

The slipway or landing stage is used by the fishermen and all those who enter the Harbour. The steps further along are used the same for fish carrying, but not by the general public.

Take a similar area outside the isolated district west of the Tram Road, including Beach Street, Seagate Street, Dover Road (from the Raglan), London Street, Tram Road, Radnor Bridge Road, Martello Avenue, Folly Road, Morrison Road, Swiss Terrace, Warwick Terrace, Grosvenor Terrace, Saffron`s Place, Rossendale Road, and Dover Street (to the Raglan).

Fifteen streets with under 500 tenements are allowed twelve licensed houses, including the Royal George, Alexandra, Wonder, South Foreland, Chequers, Wellington, Oddfellows, Granville, Swan, Raglan, Martello, and Raglan Tavern. This averages one house to 80 tenements, and the isolated side means one house to 103 tenements. It is almost incredible to say, with all the working population, that the Lord Nelson is unnecessary.

The house at Ashford had its licence renewed, also that at Sandwich, but house at Herne Bay and the Lord Nelson were refused, notwithstanding the very able defence set up by Mr. Herbert Morris, especially in the case of the King`s Head at Herne Bay. It seems to us that the law must sooner or later be altered to prevent difficulties that must arise if the present state of things continues.

The justices adjourned for some time and considered the matter, and on their return refused both licences.

As far as the Quarter Sessions is concerned, it certainly presents a very excellent opportunity for a pleasant day`s outing for chief constables, officials, policemen and others, and nice little easy jobs for learned counsel. If the licensed victuallers were to devote their energies in attempting to secure common-sense reforms rather than frittering them away on congresses, delegates, etc., there might be hopes for better things. As it is, the reforms must be brought about by healthy expression of public opinion, independent of the interests of monopolies on one side and sentimental faddists on the other.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1914

East Kent Licensing

On Wednesday the East Kent Licensing Justices had before them at Canterbury a number of licences which had been referred to them for consideration by the Magistrates in various boroughs and petty sessional divisions. One licence had been referred by the Folkestone Bench, that of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, the tenant of which was Mr. F. May, and the owners Messrs. Ash and Co.

Mr. Wardley appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Magistrates and police, and Mr. Morris represented the owners and tenant of the house.

Evidence was given by Chief Constable Reeve, Inspt. Swift, and Det. Sergt. Johnson to the effect that the house was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. C. Moxon, sen., Councillor Jones, Mr. May (the tenant) and Mr. Saunders gave evidence in support of the application that the licence should be renewed.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on their return Mr. Plumptre (the Chairman) said they had decided that the house should go for compensation, and the licence would be temporarily granted for the period until the compensation was paid.

Folkestone Herald 11 July 1914

East Kent Licensing

At the meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Wednesday, Lord Harris presiding, the licence of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, Folkestone (tenant, Mr. Frank May; owners, Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury) was considered. Mr. Morris applied for the renewal, and Mr. Wardley opposed on behalf of the Borough Justices.

Mr. Wardley stated to the Committee that in the same street there were three other on licensed houses. This house had a back entrance through an archway, which made it very difficult for police supervision. There had been six changes in 11 years. Before the Licesning Justices a petition was put in signed by 215 people, it being claimed that the house was required. An analysis of that petition showed that only nineteen of the petitioners resided in the fishing quarter, 37 resided in the larger area, and 136 came from the rest of the borough, while eleven came from Rye, twenty two from Flushing, and nine from other places. Seven were publicans, and seven others were either relatives or employees of the gentlemen presenting the petition, while among those who signed were eight who had been convicted for drunkenness. (Laughter)

Chief Constable Reeve considered that the house was the least suitable of any in the street, and not required. Messrs. Ash and Co. served two other houses and supplied a third in the neighbourhood. He did not thing the fishmarket was increasing, although he knew an additional inspector had been appointed.

Detective Sergt. Johnson said he had frequently visited the house, which did a very small trade, among a rowdy class of people, chiefly consisting of “rag and boners”. He very rarely found a fisherman go in.

Inspector Swift denied that fishermen used the house, and declared they would not be seen there. If there was a meeting held there the other night, it was held purposely.

Mr. Frank May (the tenant) said he had done a very fair trade. His customers were mostly fishermen. He was making a living out of the house. He sometimes had meetings in the fishermen`s parlour.

Questioned by Mr. Wardley, witness said they had one last week, but had not had one before during the time he had been there (since October last).

Mr. R. Moxon, of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Co., stated that the trade had improved. In 1900 they spent over 270 on the house.

Councillor John Jones said he was a teetotaller. This house was used by the best class of fishermen, fish packers and hawkers, and steamboat men, and the rag and bone men went there since the other houses had been closed. Since 1862 meetings of fishermen had been held at the Lord Nelson, and one was held there last Saturday (not got up on purpose, but for the consideration of the introduction of motors to trawlers). The other houses had not got much accommodation for meetings. He considered the Fishmarket had grown, and that the house was required.

Questioned by Mr. Wardley, witness said he could not stand going to bethels.

Mr. Thomas Edward Saunders, pleasure boat proprietor, an official inspector appointed by the Board of Trade, said he had known the house many years as being used by fishermen, and after a gradual drop, the trade had increased within the last five years, several new boats having been put on.

The Committee decided to refuse the renewal of the licence.

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room