DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 17 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1901

Morehall

Latest 2009

284 Cheriton Road

Folkestone

Morehall 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Morehall sign 1986

Morehall sign July 1986.

Above with thanks from Brian Curtis www.innsignsociety.com

Morehall 2016

Above photo, December 2016, kindly sent by Kay and Mick.

Morehall

Above photo, date unknown by Darkstar.

Morehall 2012

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

 

I have been informed (Dec 2010) that the pub has a for sale sign on it, but do not know whether it is still serving beer.

Latest information tells me it actually closed for business at the end of 2009.

I am informed by Neil Morris that the building was in shown in the BBC programme Homes Under the Hammer, Series 20, Episode 53 first broadcast in 2016. It sold for 220,000 and had more than twice that spent to convert it into eight flats with storage in the basement.

 

Further information gathered in June 2013 says the following:- "FREEHOLD PREMISES WITH PLANNING FOR CHANGE OF USE TO EIGHT FLATS - POTENTIAL FOR ALTERNATIVE USE."

"An attractive period three storey, plus basement and car-park property situated on the corner of Cheriton Road and Coombe Road, which is being offered with Planning Permission for the Change of Use and conversion to form eight self-contained flats.

It is, however, considered that the building may offer potential for a variety of alternative uses or, perhaps, demolition of the existing site and re-development, subject to all the necessary consents being obtainable.

Interested applicants are advised to make their own enquiries with the Local Planning Authority, the Shepway District Council, Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 2QY. Tel: 01303 853278.

Planning

Planning Permission has been granted by Shepway District Council, under ref: Y11/0373/SH, dated 15th July 2011, for the Change of Use and conversion of public house to eight self-contained flats incorporating minor external alterations, the construction of railings and fencing to the boundaries, a bin/bicycle store, associated parking and the removal of the existing garage to the rear, subject to conditions.

A copy of the Planning Consent and proposed plans are available for inspection at the Auctioneer's Office or via the Shepway District Council website.

Proposed Accommodation

The scheme shows a development for conversion to five, two bedroom and three, one bedroom apartments.

10 parking bays and photographic studios on the basement level.

Morehall Map

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 September 1901.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pursey, Herbert, and Hamilton.

There were but two new applications, and both these were refused. The legal luminaries engaged included Mr. Minter, Mr. Mowll (Dover), Mr. Hall, Mr. G. Haines, Mr. Norman (Lord Radnor's agent), Mr. M. Bradley (Dover), and Mr. James (Cheriton). The most remarkable episode of the morning was a powerful speech by Mr. Minter, who, in opening the application in respect to a proposed new hotel at Cheriton, occupied over forty five minutes, during which time (figuratively speaking) he unmercifully belaboured the representatives of the opposition. There were those in Court who were of opinion that the appeal made by Mr. Minter was one of the most brilliant he had made these ten years past, and it must have been disappointing to him that after all the case was overthrown on a technical objection cleverly raised by Mr. Martin Mowll.

Cheriton's Proposed New Hotel.

In this case Mr. Minter said he appeared to support the application of Mr. Hanns for a provisional licence for an hotel which it was proposed to erect on the Moorhall estate near Cheriton. He argued that the continual erection of houses in addition to those already in existence was a sufficient reason for the granting of the licence. He was certain that the Magistrates, in their own minds, would be satisfied and that the application was a most reasonable one. Looking at the already large and increasing population it would be unnecessary to labour the application inasmuch as the merits of the case were beyond opposition. He saw that his friend Mr. Mowll was present, and also Mr. James of Cheriton, and at that stage he would like to know whom they represented. As it was the practice not to reply to their opposition, he felt he was entitled to know what and whom he had to meet, and would invite those gentlemen to give the requisite information.

Mr. Bradley: I represent the Folkestone Temperance Council.

Mr. Mowll: I appear to oppose for Messrs. George Beer and Co., owners of the White Lion, Cheriton.

Mr. James intimated that he opposed on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, while Mr. Norman opposed for Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter: Very well. There are four opponents to deal with. Mr. Bradley's is a stock objection. The Temperance party, who no doubt man right, are taking a wrong course. If, instead of opposing applications, they devoted their money to the better habitation of the lower classes they would be doing some good. The advocate here quoted Mr. Ritchie, who in reply to a deputation, said that although the licensed houses during a period of 20 years had decreased by 20 percent, yet drinking had during the same period been on the increase, and that to create reform attention should be given to the housing of the working classes. He also read passages from a speech by Lord Derby, who said the Temperance question was on of class. Temperance reformers were not honest in their opposition. They pitched into the lower classes and left the others alone. They divided between that part of the population which possessed cellars and those that did not. Those with the cellars were left alone. The reformers did not fly so high. Continuing, Mr. Minter said that with regard to Mr. Mowll, he was there to oppose for Messrs. Beer and Co., who held a licensed house in Cheriton. It was for the Magistrates to decide if he had any locus standi. If Mr. Mowll was entitled to speak, then the Bench would discount the opposition, which was only trade opposition. They had the loaves and fishes in Cheriton, and wished to keep them. It was human nature. What they had they liked to keep and did not wish anyone to interfere with. Then there was Mr. James, who appeared on behalf of a body called – What?

Mr. James: The Licensed Victuallers.

Mr. Minter: Oh, the Licensed Victuallers? Their opposition is impertinent. My clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, are members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and subscribe to it, and I am sure they have given Mr. James no instructions to oppose. Mr. James has got our money in his pocket (laughter), and comes here to oppose us. There never was a more impertinent or ridiculous opposition. Coming to Lord Radnor, he stood amazed to hear that his Lordship had given his agent authority to oppose. He was astonished that a nobleman in such a position should come there and oppose a humble individual, especially when only two or three years ago Mr. Norman applied for a licence within a hundred yards of the spot in respect to which the present application was made. He (Mr. Minter) was loth to think that Lord Radnor knew anything about the opposition. Why? Because (and he was bound to say so), the opposition would be from the most sordid motives. His Lordship could not say that the opposition was on the ground that the licence was not necessary, as only two or three years ago he made a similar application; it would appear, therefore, that he wanted to get the profit himself. He was sorry to drag Lord Radnor's name in, but if his Lordship's agent dragged his name in the mire, then he (Mr. Minter) was bound to deal with it. Referring to Mr. Norman's presence at a recent auction sale, the speaker said that if Mr. Norman had his way “we should neither be allowed to eat, drink, or sleep without Lord Radnor's agent's permission”.

Thomas John Taylor, ex-Supt. of Folkestone Police, was Mr. Minter's first witness. He said: I live on the Moorhall estate, and I know the plot of land upon which it is proposed to erect the hotel. I prove the formal exhibit of the usual advertisement in connection and with regard to this application.

Mr. Montagu Bradley took exception to the form of the application notice, as it did not comply with Section 22 of the Act, 1874.

Mr. Mowll followed in the same strain, the objection being that no provision in this Section of the Act was made for provisional licence, and that the formal application was not in order.

The Bench overruled the objection.

Mr. Charles Hanns, a collector in the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said : I am the lessee of land on which the provisional licence is asked for, and produce certificates as to character. I have known Folkestone in my business capacity for years, and know the district in question very well. In my judgement the locality is likely to increase and develop, and I am desirous in returning from the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, and making this my living.

By Mr. Bradley: The site is not far from Shorncliffe Station. At the station there are two fully licensed refreshment rooms. Within mile is another licensed house, the property of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer. The houses in the immediate district would be rented at about 50 per annum. The houses on the estate I look upon as weekly tenements for the middle classes. The term of the lease is to commence when the hotel is complete.

By Mr. Mowll: If the application is not granted, I shall continue with Messrs. Nalder and Collyer until I find a suitable site.

By Mr. James: With the exception of a few properties, the houses in the neighbourhood are at rather high rentals. There are 148 houses now built on the Moorhall estate.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: The station hotel is half a mile from the proposed site, and the White Lion is another half mile.

Mr. Mowll again raised a technical objection. He said that under Section 22 of the Act, 1874, the person making an application should be interested in the property. He held that applicant was not interested, inasmuch as he would not take the property unless the application was granted. Therefore he held no real interest in the present application.

Mr. Bradley and Mr. James supported the objection.

Mr. Minter: It shows what desperate straits my friends are in. The mere showing o a letter from Messrs. Nalder and Collyer to my client is sufficient evidence of interest. The advocate also quoted specific terms contained in the lease, which he held was clear evidence of interest.

The Chairman: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that the agreement is bad. There is a proviso dealing with an Hotel which does not exist and the land not conveyed. If there had been a proviso dealing with the land it would have been showing an interest, which, however, does not exist in the agreement, which we are unanimously of opinion is bad.

Mr. Minter: But we say in the agreement “Hotel and premises”. I submit that “premises” mean land.

The Chairman: The Bench are unanimous that the agreement is bad.

Mr. Minter: Very well. I submit.

Thus a case which opened brilliantly and promised some warm cross-examination came to a tame and abrupt ending.

 

Folkestone Express 21 September 1901.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. Hands applied for a provisional licence for a house proposed to be built on the Morehall Estate, nearly opposite Shorncliffe Station.

Mr. Minter, for the applicant, pointed out that there was a large growth of houses and population in the neighbourhood, that the application was reasonable, and that the house was necessary. He alleged that the application was beyond opposition, but he understood it was opposed by two gentlemen – one from Dover and one from Cheriton, and he would like to know on whose behalf they were opposing.

Mr. Bradley said he appeared for the Folkestone Temperance Society, Mr. Mowll for Messrs. Geo. Beer and Co., owners of the White Lion (Cheriton), Mr. James, on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, and Mr. Norman on behalf of Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter, in continuing his remarks, said the Folkestone Temperance Society had better devote their attention to the improvement of the houses of the working classes, and he quoted the remarks of Mr. Richie upon the subject, who said during the last 30 years the licensed houses had decreased 20 per cent, but notwithstanding this, the consumption of alcoholic liquor had greatly increased. As far as the opposition of the Temperance Society, he said they only attacked the poorer classes, and those who possessed cellars were not interfered with or censured, and no-one tried to make them sober. Everyone knew there were more licences than were necessary in certain congested districts of Folkestone. They all admitted it. But that was no reason for refusing a licence in a new district. He asked the Bench if Mr. Mowll would be allowed a locus standi, he appearing for the owner of a house outside the district. Anyhow, it was a mere trade opposition, which he was sure would have very little weight. In dealing with the Licensed Victuallers' opposition, he said it was an impertinent opposition, and Mr. James had no right there, because his clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, were members of that association, and they were actually being opposed with their own money. In dealing with Lord Radnor's opposition, he said he was amazed to hear of it, and he doubted whether Mr. Norman had the authority of Lord Radnor to come there and oppose that application. It was not perhaps right for him to say Mr. Norman had no authority. But he was going to suggest it, and he should ask him the question distinctly. He referred to the respect and affection in which his Lordship was held, and said he could not believe he would oppose the application of a humble individual for a licence. If he did so, it could only be from the most sordid motives, and because he wanted to enhance his income by getting a licence himself for the plot of land for which he applied for a licence a few years ago. He felt sure Lord Radnor would not be a party to such an opposition as that. If he did, then it was only a trade opposition. His agent was there, and if he was the cause of his Lordship's name being dragged through the mire he could not help it. Whenever there was a sale, his agent was present trying to depreciate the value of the property, so that he might purchase it for less than it was worth. He felt sure his Lordship did not know of those proceedings, and did not know what was taking place. Only the other day even the name of an estate was grabbed at. Mr. Norman contended that the vendors had no right to use the name of “West Cliff”, which was the name of Lord Radnor's estate. Presently they would neither be able to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep without the consent and permission of Mr. Norman. (Laughter)

At the end of Mr. Minter's address, which occupied half an hour, Mr. Videan put in the plans, which were explained by Mr. Minter, who pointed out that several hundred houses would be erected not only on the Morehall Estate, but on Mr. Edwards's estate adjoining, and the Football Field was to be developed also.

Formal evidence of the notices having been given, Mr. Montague Bradley raised an objection on the ground that the application was not for a provisional licence under the Act of 1874, but was simply for the grant of a licence.

Mr. Mowll said the Bench could only grant a provisional licence under Section 22 of the Licensing Act of 1874, and not under the Act of 1828, which contained no section relating to a provisional licence, and he submitted that the application could not proceed.

Mr. Minter said he could not appreciate the objection, and contended that the form of notice was good.

The Magistrates overruled the objection.

Charles Hand, of Croydon, brewers' collector in the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, owners of the land, said he was the lessee of the land, and put in the lease and certificates as to character. He knew the district well, and in his opinion the inhabitants were likely to increase considerably.

By Mr. Bradley: The site was not very far from Shorncliffe Station, but more than two minutes' walk. There were refreshment rooms at the Station, and an inn a short distance away on the south side. His lease would commence when the hotel was completed.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, he said he did not know that Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were prepared to give up a licence.

In reply to Mr. James, he said the houses in the neighbourhood were middle class houses as a rule. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were the owners of the site, but he could not say of whom they purchased it. He did not know that on a former occasion, when Messrs. Beer and Co. applied for a provisional licence, they were supposed to be the owners.

Mr. Mowll pointed out that the section provided that this application must be made by a person interested. He contended that the applicant had no interest whatever until the house was completed.

Mr. Bradley followed by saying there was no clause binding the owners to erect the house, and Mr. James suggested that it was very probable there was only a provisional agreement for sale.

Mr. Minter replied that there was no necessity for an agreement at all. A simple letter from the owners to the applicant promising to grant him a lease would be sufficient.

Mr. Mowll: Where is his present interest?

Mr. Minter: Too frivolous. I can't explain a thing to a man who won't understand.

Mr. Mowll said he always was avers to taking technical objections, but he must do so in the case of that agreement. Inasmuch as it did not grant a lease of the land upon which the house was to be built. Therefore the applicant had clearly no present interest in it.

Mr. Bradley (the Magistrates' Clerk): It is a badly drawn document. It should have been a lease of the land, with a covenant to erect an hotel upon it.

Mr. Minter: It says “All the hotel and premises intended to be built”.

Mr. Bradley said there could not be any present interest in that which did not exist. There ought to have been a lease of the plot of land. It was only an agreement to erect an hotel upon it.

Mr. Minter: Don't you think this is sufficient interest?

Mr. Wightwick: I don't think we need discuss it further. We are unanimous that the agreement is not sufficient, and we are so advised by our Clerk.

The application was refused.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 September 1901.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Minter appeared in support of an application for a provisional licence for the Morehall Hotel, which is to be built on the Morehall Estate, nearly opposite Shorncliffe Station.

It was within the knowledge of the Magistrates, he said, that there was a rapid extension of Folkestone in that direction, and a continual erection of houses there. He was certain that in their own minds they would feel convinced that the application he was now making was a reasonable one, and one it was necessary should be granted for the convenience of a large population which was now resident there, and the increased population which would be there by the time the hotel was erected. He did not know whether there was any opposition, but from the faces he saw around him he should judge that there was. Before going any further he should ask what the opposition was.

Mr. M. Bradley said he was opposing on behalf of the Temperance Society; Mr. H. Mowll said he represented Messrs. Beer and Co., the owners of the White Lion, Cheriton; Mr. W.C. James represented the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association; and Mr. Norman opposed on behalf of Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter went on to deal with the opposition. First, he said, Mr. Bradley on behalf of the Temperance Society made the stock application. Whilst doing credit to their intentions, he said one could not help feeling that the Society was taking the wrong course. If, instead of opposing applications for licences, they would devote their energies and their money to the better habitation of the working classes, they would be doing more towards preventing the lower classes from going into public houses. That was not merely his opinion, but that of Mr. Ritchie, and he quoted it as the opinion of the Home Secretary. Then again, Lord Derby had said that the Temperance party divided the country into rich and poor, those having power and those not having power. The Temperance reformers did not interfere with those persons who had cellars, but they did with those who did not possess cellars. It was well known to everyone that there were more licences than necessary in certain congested districts, but that was no argument against granting a licence where it was needed. It was for the Magistrates to determine whether r. Mowll had any locus standi. Why should he come into Folkestone and interfere with them just because he had a public house in Cheriton? Even if he was entitled to appear, they would discount his opposition, because he was out of the district. One wondered what the Association which Mr. James represented was. The Association had the impudence to dare to come here and oppose. It had no right there at all, for the simple reason that his clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, were members of the Association, and paid their three, four, or five guineas a year to it. They had given no authority to Mr. James to appear. The Association were actually taking his client's money to oppose their application. (Laughter) A more impudent opposition he had never heard of. Now he came to Lord Radnor. It was well known that Lord Radnor was looked upon in Folkestone with a degree of affection, and they knew he would do what he could for the town. He stood amazed that his agent should come there and say he had Lord Radnor's authority to oppose. If he had that authority he was astonished that a nobleman in his position should come and oppose a humble individual who was desirous of getting a licence for a living. For his Lordship, with his thousands and his many public houses in Folkestone, to come and oppose that application, it must be from the most sordid motives. It must be made to enhance the value of the property in order that he might come there next year and apply for a licence on the very spot which was applied for two years ago. He said Lord Radnor would not be a party to such an application, and he could not say that the licence was unnecessary, for he applied for it himself two or three years ago. The application was then refused because the neighbourhood was not developed enough. It appeared that Lord Radnor wanted to get the licence himself. That was trade opposition. He was sorry he had been obliged to use Lord Radnor's name in that way, but he could not help it, because his agent was there, and if he was dragging his Lordship's name in the mire, it was not his fault. Whenever there was a sale his agent was there to depreciate the value of the property. He was sure his Lordship did not know of those tactics. He was too high-minded a gentleman for that. If the people of Folkestone were to be under Lord Radnor's agent, they would soon not be able to sleep, drink, eat, or live without his permission. The estate was about 30 acres in extent, and was formerly owned by Messrs. Hall and Swoffer. There were 148 houses on the estate, and close handy there were 240. There would be roughly a population of about 1,500. In addition to that, a number of other houses were being erected on the Ashley Grange estate, a little further to the west, and the football field was to be built upon.

Mr. Jn. Taylor, retired Superintendent of Police, who resides on the Morehall Estate, and Mr. Andrew gave evidence as to the posting of the notices.

Mr. Bradley said the notice itself did not ask for a provisional licence, but for an excise licence under the Alehouse Act, 1828.

Mr. Mowll said they could only grant a provisional licence under Sec. 28 of the Licensing Act, 1874. He submitted that the application could not proceed.

Mr. Minter said the form of notice was the proper form, and he could see nothing in the objection. He submitted that the form of notice was perfectly good.

The Chairman said the Magistrates overruled the objection.

Charles Hanns, a collector employed by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, brewers of Croydon, said he was the lessee of the land, and produced hios agreement, together with certificates as to character. He had known Folkestone for years, and, in his judgement, that locality was likely to develop.

By Mr. Bradley: The site is about five minutes' walk from the station, where there were two fully-licensed refreshment rooms. The fully licensed house which belonged to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer was half a mile from the station.

By Mr. Mowll: I do not think Messrs. Nalder and Collyer are prepared to give up a licence if this is granted.

By Mr. James: The houses on the Morehall Estate are let out at 30 to 40 a year.

Mr. Mowll pointed out an important point in the agreement. In the Section of the Act under which the application was made, it stated that an application can only be made by anyone interested in the property. He submitted that the applicant had no interest in the house.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Hanns' interest was quite sufficient. He was promised a lease if the Bench would grant the provisional licence. The objection was too frivolous.

The Chairman said the Bench were of opinion that the agreement was bad, because it did not grant any land whatever. It granted a hotel which did not exist, and then all the premises. They were unanimously of opinion that the agreement was not sufficient, and were so advised by their Clerk.

Mr. Minter: Very well then, sir, I must submit.

 

Folkestone Programme 23 September 1901.

Local News.

At the adjourned Licensing Sessions on Wednesday there was an application for a new licence, being for the Morehall Hotel. The Folkestone Temperance Party, the Licensed Victuallers, and private residents offered opposition. The application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Express 10 January 1903.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish and Township of Folkestone in the County of Kent and to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough of Folkestone in the said County and to Henry Barrell Bradley, Esq., the Clerk of the Licensing Justices of the aforesaid Borough of Folkestone.

I, Walter Tom Tame, now residing at the Queen's Head, Beach Street, Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Licensed Victualler, and being a person interested in the premises hereinafter mentioned, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply to the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town hall, in the said Borough, on the Fourth day of February next ensuing, for the provisional grant of a licence for the sale by retail of all intoxicating liquors to be drunk or consumed in a certain House and in the premises thereunto belonging about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail to be consumed on such premises, the same being about to be constructed on a plot of land situate on the Morehall Estate in Cheriton Road (at its junction with Coombe Road), and having a frontage to Cheriton Road of fifty feet or thereabouts, in the Township and Borough aforesaid, of which premises Nalder and Collyer's Brewery Company Limited, of Croydon, in the County of Surrey, Brewers is the owner, and I am the tenant or lessee, and which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse or Victualling House.

Given under my hand this Ninth day of January, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Three.

Walter Tom Tame.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

New Application.

Mr. T. Matthew, barrister, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, applied, in the interests of Mr. Walter Tame (at present holding the licence of the Queen's Head), for a new full licence for a house fronting the Cheriton Road at the Folkestone and Cheriton boundary.

Said Counsel: If ever there was a meritorious application for a new licence, this was one. The site of the house is on the Moorhall building estate, and Messrs. Nalder and Colyer had entered into an agreement with Mr. Tame for seven years, one of the provisions of the agreement being that no more licensed houses were to be allowed on the estate. At present the number of houses on the estate alone was about 360, with a surrounding population of 2,000, while there was no other licensed house within a considerable distance. Having dealt at length with the merits of the application, Mr. Matthew formally proved that the usual legal formalities had been complied with.

Mr. Videan, architect, said that over 40 acres had been developed upon the Moorhall estate at a cost exceeding 265,000, which had been spent upon building operations. Under the instructions of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer he had prepared plans of the proposed hotel, which was estimated to cost 3,000. With reference to other licensed houses, the Railway Hotel was four ninths of a mile away, the White Lion half a mile, and the Bouverie Arms (Folkestone), one and one sixth of a mile away, while to the north there was not another public house in the Borough. He was strongly of opinion that there was a necessity for a licensed house upon the proposed site.

Mr. Montague Bradley (Dover), representing the Temperance Council, cross-examined, and witness, under pressure, could not give any particular reasons as to the necessity of the house.

Mr. Matthew handed to the Bench the name of a licence which his client was prepared to surrender providing the application was granted. He did not disclose the name of the house publicly, but stated that it was in the congested area.

Mr. Walter Tame said that his agreement with the brewers was for seven years at a rental of 100 per annum. Of course the agreement was conditional upon the application being granted.

Mr. Mowll (Dover), appearing for the owners of the White Lion, Cheriton, asked witness whether he was a member of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Witness replied that he was, but that he was unaware that his Association had opposed an application in reference to the same site in 1901.

Mr. William White and Mr. Mercer, builders, were examined by Mr. Matthew, and both gave it as their opinion that a new licence was necessary.

Mr. Thomas Hesketts, the engineer of the Folkestone Electricity Company, also supported the application, and while under cross-examination by Mr. Mowll caused roars of laughter by pretending to impart secrets to the advocate, the information being accompanied by a deal of quiet pantomime.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, and Mr. Graham Hills, draper, of Folkestone, who reside upon the estate, both gave very definite evidence as to the necessity for a licence on the estate.

Mr. John Taylor (late Chief Constable of Folkestone) produced a memorial signed by 48 occupiers upon the estate who were in favour of the new licence.

Mr. Mowll and this witness had about five minutes' good natured banter, the advocate suggesting that with Mr. Taylor's great popularity only 48 signatures were but poor evidence of the necessity of the licence.

The Bench, without calling upon the opposition to address them, said, through the Chairman, that they had decided to refuse the application.

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1903.

Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

New Application.

Mr. Walter Tom Tame applied for the grant of a full licence for a house proposed to be built on Cheriton Road on a corner plot of what is known as the Moorhall Estate.

Mr. T. Matthew, in opening the case, said if ever there was a justifiable application for a new licence, he could not help thinking it was that one. The site was on the Moorhall Building Estate. The landlords were Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, an eminent firm of brewers, who had entered into an agreement for a lease at a rent of 100 per annum to Mr. Walter Thomas Tame. There was no fear of the district ever being a “congested district”, and he described the situation of the nearest houses.

Mr. Mowll said he opposed on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, at Cheriton.

Mr. Videan, architect, put in and described the plans, and also the nature of the estate, and the property upon it. The owners expected to expend about 3,000 on the house for which the licence was asked. He resided on the estate himself, and said he considered the licence was necessary for the accommodation of the residents.

It was stated that it was proposed to give up the licence of a house in another district. The name of it was not disclosed, but on the application of Mr. Mowll it was communicated to the gentlemen retained to oppose.

Mr. Walter Tame gave evidence, and was cross-examined by Mr. Mowll and Mr. Bradley at some length as to the nature of the trade likely to be done, and he said he hoped there would be both “on” and “off” trade. There would be six bedrooms – more than would be required by the licensee and his staff.

Mr. Wm. White (builder) and Mr. Alfred Edward Mercer (builder) gave evidence that in their opinion a licence was required there.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, manager of the Electric Lighting Company, also supported the application, on the ground that it would be a convenient house for the men employed at the works, varying from 50 to 100.

Mr. Edward Gibbons and Mr. Graham Hill also gave evidence in support.

Mr. John Taylor put in a memorial signed by 74 persons – 12 owners and occupiers, 15 owners, and 47 occupiers.

Mr. Mowll caused some fun by his cross-examination of this witness, who, he said, with all his influence and suavity of manner could only get 74 signatures out of 360 houses on the estate,

Mr. Mowll wanted Mr. Nalder to be called, but Mr. Minter objected.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

New Application.

All the existing licences now having been dealt with, the Court adjourned for lunch.

Upon resuming at two o'clock, the Justices proceeded to consider the new application for a full licence. This was that of Walter Tom Tame, at present the landlord of the Queen's Head, who applied for a full licence in respect of a house on the Morehall Estate in Cheriton Road. Mr. T. Matthew, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Minter), represented the applicant, and Mr. M. Bradley, solicitor, Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. Mowll, Dover, on behalf of the landlord of the White Lion, Cheriton, opposed the application.

In opening, Mr. Matthews observed that if ever there was a meritorious application for a new licence this was one. The site in respect of which the application was made was on the Morehall building estate, the house being on two plots fronting Cheriton Road. The land was owned by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, a firm of brewers, and they had entered into an agreement with applicant on a lease of seven years. There was no fear of the district ever becoming congested, because there was a restricted covenant by which it was agreed that there should be no oter house on the estate. Until quite recently it was, so to speak, a rural district, but of late it had been very extensively developed, and upon the adjoining estate there were some 360 houses, of which 330 had been erected quite recently. Land to the extent of 40 acres had been developed, and he was told that something like 260,000 had been spent in recent years on buildings in that district. At present the houses accommodated about 2,000 persons. In a short time those 360 houses would be increased to 400, providing accommodation for some 2,400 folk. In addition to this large growth of houses there were three considerable establishments adjoining the estate – the electricity works, the brickyard, and the joinery works. If they examined the plan showing the distances of the nearest public houses they would see that there was insufficient accommodation for the supply of intoxicants. The nearest was the Railway Tavern, four ninths of a mile away, the White Lion was half a mile away, and the Bouverie one mile and a sixth away. As to the White Lion, he could quite understand why they opposed the application, because it was a rival house. Two years ago the White Lion applied for licensed premises to be erected, not exactly on the very spot, but within 100 yards. As to the opposition from the Temperance Party, of course, one had the greatest respect for temperance organisations, but it was the duty of Justices to grant licences where they thought a reasonable case of need had been made out.

Mr. Craven, clerk to Mr. Minter, proved the service of the necessary notices in connection with the application.

Mr. Henry Videan, civil engineer and architect, said that up to a few years ago the Morehall Estate was open country. He had been instructed by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer to erect an hotel for them, and the cost of the building would be about 3,000. Being half a mile away the White Lion was no use whatever to the neighbourhood. He thought there was a great necessity for a licensed house.

Mr. Bradley: What particular class of trade do you think this house will do in this neighbourhood?

Witness: I think licensed premises are required there.

Do you mind particularising? Do you think it is required for the on trade? – I think it is required for both.

Do you consider the people of this locality require it for on purposes alone? – I don't say that.

I take it your view is that it is required for the off licence chiefly? – It is required because it is a licensed premises, because it is a necessity to the neighbourhood.

Do you think people living in that locality are of a kind to use a public house other than for sending for beer? – I could not say that.

Many of these houses in the plan are of a greater rental than 50. – No, sir.

It was stated just now that this was the only plot available for licensed houses on the Morehall Estate. The Morehall Estate affects only one side of Cheriton Road. – That is so.

There will be nothing to prevent licensed houses on the other side of any of these plots? – Certainly, they are not all tied.

You did not mention the Station refreshment room. – I think there is a bar there.

Practically you have four rooms supplied with bars on the ground floor. – No, three.

What accommodation upstairs? – Six bedrooms.

They would not go very much beyond an ordinary family and servants. – Well, I should think so. (Laughter)

At this stage Mr. Matthews intimated that they were willing to surrender another licence if this application was granted.

Mr. Bradley asked counsel to state the name and particulars of the house they were willing to give up, but Mr. Matthews refused to disclose the name, at the same time handing to the Justices a photograph of the house.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, then gave evidence. He stated that on the 8th of January this year he entered into an agreement with the company to take the house on a lease for seven years, the rent to be 100 per year. He certainly thought a licensed house was necessary in the locality.

Replying to Mr. Bradley, applicant said that so far he had not paid any rent, but it was to be 100 per year.

Here Mr. Matthews interposed with the remark that the rent would only be nominal until the licence was granted.

Mr. Bradley: It is 1 a year for the first year till the house is up.

Mr. Bradley (to applicant): Until the house is built you won't pay your 100 a year. – Certainly not. (Laughter)

Therefore the lease will fall through if the licence is not granted? – It would be so.

Are you fully tied by this lease to the brewers? – In the ordinary way in which tenants are tied.

Is this a usual clause, as far as you know, “Provided always, and it is hereby agreed, that the Company shall be the sole judge as to the quality, character and brand of the alcoholic liquors”? – Yes, sir.

What character of trade do you expect to do at this house, off or on? – Both.

Which do you attach most importance to? – I should hardly be prepared to say.

You hope to do both? – Certainly I do.

But as to the convenience of the locality. Isn't it a question of the off licence? – As much one as the other, likely to be more on than off.

Now you know this is on the main road? – Certainly.

And the road is used very largely by soldiers coming from the Camp into the town? – Yes.

I expect you would get some of the trade? – Naturally you could not avoid it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: I have been the licence holder of the Queen's Head 14 years. I am a member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. I am not aware that the Association opposed this licence last time.

Having known the place some time, you know the White Lion some years ago was quite a small place, was it not? – Yes.

And then it was rebuilt. It's a beautiful place now isn't it? (Laughter) You don't expect this to be any better than the White Lion, do you? – No.

Or to be quite as good? – Probably much the same. (Laughter)

You think the class of people who live up there will be the class of people who will use your house? – Yes, sir.

You propose to serve people as they come in, and to conduct a restaurant there? – I shall try to.

Have you had any experience in that class of business? – Yes.

But you want to conduct this as a public house, don't you? – Yes.

Mr. Mowll then resumed his seat, his cross-examination of applicant having caused much amusement.

Mr. White and Mr. Mercer, builders, said they thought a public house there was a necessity, the former remarking it was not convenient for the people to go to the White Lion, as it was too far.

In answer to Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mercer said he was not asked to attend and give evidence.

Mr. Bradley: You came here voluntarily! I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Mowll (smiling): How does that gentleman (pointing to Mr. Matthews) know your name if he did not know you were coming?

Witness: I told Mr. Minter I was coming.

Mr. Mowll: Ah! That is very good of you.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, resident manager and engineer of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Company, whose works are situate on the estate, also stated that he thought the house was needed. Sometimes they employed between fifty and one hundred men, most of whom stayed to their dinners. If they wanted drink they had to cross the line.

Mr. Mowll: Have you come here in order that you may have better facilities for your men in getting their dinner beer? – Yes.

In the very strictest confidence, are you a teetotaller? – No. (Loud laughter)

Are you a semi-teetotaller? (Renewed laughter) – Well, I don't know what a semi means. I am a temperate man.

You come here today as an employer of labour? – Yes.

Do you think as an employer of labour that it is a good thing to have a public house just opposite your works? – I do.

Rather curious statement to make, isn't it? – No, certainly not.

You think it is a constant thing for employers to always insist upon a public house for their men to be in all day? – That is a statement of your own.

Is that your opinion? – No.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, also thought that it was necessary that there should be licensed premises there as he thought it would be a great advantage to the district.

Mr. Bradley: Are you one of those independent gentlemen who signed your name as being so anxious to come here this afternoon? – I was not aware a gentleman had sent it in.

Has a friend spoken to you? – A gentleman asked me to come.

Are you living on the estate? – Yes.

Mr. G. Hills, draper, High Street, who lives on the estate, was also called as a witness, and he also gave it as his opinion that licensed premises were necessary.

A memorial signed by 12 owners and occupiers, 15 owners, and 47 occupiers making a total o 74 residents in the district, was presented in favour of the establishment of the public house, and asking that the application should be granted.

This closed the case for the applicant.

After a brief consultation, the Justices, without calling upon Mr. Bradley or Mr. Mowll to reply for the opposition, refused the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 February 1904.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

Mr. Minter applied for full licences for Mr. W.T. Tame and Mr. Gregory, but no new facts were forthcoming and the Bench declined to grant them, stating that they would grant no new licences this year.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

New Application.

Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Mr. Tame for a full licence for a house proposed to be built in Cheriton Road.

This application was refused last year.

Mr. Wightwick said unless Mr. Minter had any fresh facts, the Bench would not be disposed to grant it.

Mr. Minter replied that with regard to this house, it was in an important neighbourhood, but they could well understand how it embarrassed him for the Bench to tell him really in a word that they would not grant the application.

It appeared there were really no new circumstances, and therefore, after some argument, Mr. Minter said he would withdraw.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.

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

Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases of drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police in carrying out their duties.

Mr. Clarke Hall applied on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer and Mr. Walter Tame for a transfer of the Queen's Head licence to the Morehall Hotel on the Morehall Estate. He pointed out that the locality comprised over 1,000 acres without a licensed house. Four hundred and forty one houses had been erected, and the population numbered 2,646. By a covenant in the agreement only one licence was allowed on the estate.

Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed the application on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, Messrs. Beer and Co.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Temperance Party.

The Rev. W. Bennett opposed the application on his own behalf, and the application was also opposed by the military authorities.

The applicants were also prepared to give up a second licence, the name of which was given to the Bench, but was not for publication.

Mr. Crouch, manager to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, proved the conveyance showing that no other licensed house would be allowed on the Morehall Estate. He consented to the transfer of the two licences.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: The two licences to be transferred were the freehold of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, and were embodied in the debenture holders. He did not know if their consent had been obtained.

Mr. Mowll then took the objection on the ground that the consent of the trustees of the debenture holders was necessary in order to give the Bench jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Bench, however, overruled the objection.

Mr. Videan, who prepared the plans, confirmed counsel's statement.

Mr. Bradley, Mr. Haines, and Mr. Mowll cross-examined with a view to showing that no necessity existed for an additional licence.

Mr. W.T. Tame said he had held the licence of the Queen's Head, Beach Street, for 16 years. It was a good house, and the rent was 40 a year. He thought the proposed house at Morehall would do a good trade, while the Queen's Head was situated in a congested district.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: This was his fourth application. He expected to do a somewhat better class of trade at Morehall. It would be chiefly bar trade, but he expected to do well in teas and refreshments. He thought there would be a good jug and bottle trade. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer by their usual agreement, which stated that the firm were to be the sole judges of the quality and character of the liquor supplied.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He still had the agreement with the brewers formerly produced, and it remained uncancelled. He had paid no rates for the site.

By Mr. Clarke Hall: Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had never offered to transfer a licence before.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, engineer to the Electric Light Company, said there was a need for a licensed house in the neighbourhood of Morehall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall. He declined to say who asked him to give evidence and the Bench agreed.

Mr. W. White, builder, said he had 29 plots on the estate, and had built 15 houses, of which 10 were let. He thought a licence might help to let the property.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, and Mr. W. Attwood, landlord of the Castle Inn, both spoke of the necessity for a licence.

Mr. Clarke Hall handed in a memorial signed by 135 persons in favour, and Mr. Montague Bradley one signed by 230 against.

Major Long, Brigade Major, Shorncliffe, said the General Commanding opposed on the ground that it would offer further inducement to soldiers to drink, when going to the station especially.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: there were other houses both at Cheriton and Sandgate, and bars on both platforms of the station.

Mr. Montague Bradley addressed the Bench on behalf of the Folkestone District Temperance Council, and said he did not propose to call any evidence.

Mr. Haines, on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, said they opposed on the ground that there was no necessity for another house. He called Mr. J.G. Parsons, builder, who owned property opposite, and did not oppose as such, although a teetotaller. He felt sure a public house would injure his property.

Cross-examined: He did not say there was always drunkenness where there were public houses.

Mr. Archie Tolputt opposed as a property owner because he contended there was no necessity.

Cross-examined: Perhaps he did sign the petition in favour two years ago. Anyway, he was opposed now.

The Rev. W. Bennett, Chart Road, said that there were altogether 63 empty houses in the neighbourhood of the site. He opposed as a resident. He admitted the residents were sober and respectable.

Cross-examined: He was a teetotaller, and did not like public houses anywhere.

Mr. Mowll said he understood that the name of the house whose licence would be given up had been handed in, and he should like to know the name of the house.

Mr. Clarke Hall refused to give it, the Bench upholding him.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, addressed the Bench, arguing that the district was already fully supplied.

The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said the application was refused.

The adjourned licensing sessions will be held on March 5th.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C. Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.

On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:-

“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons.

Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons.

At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences were refused and two renewed.

The licences which were refused were:- the Victoria Inn, South Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street; and Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the houses closed.

Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.

During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

During the year ended 31st December last 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.

Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined 5 and costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred the licence and left the house.

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

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested area, also the public houses within the area.

Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 109 persons.

There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”.

The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained.

The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope, Fenchurch Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.

Mr. Walter Thomas Tame, licensee of the Queen's Head, made an application for a new licence to be granted for a proposed hotel, to be called the Moorhall Hotel, on the Moorhall Estate. The applicant offered to surrender the licence of the Queen's Head and the brewers further offered the surrender of another house if the present application was granted.

Mr. Clark Hall, instructed by Mr. Fredk. Hall, appeared for applicant; Mr. Montague Bradley, Dover, opposed on behalf of the local Temperance Council; Mr. Haines opposed for the licensed victuallers; and Mr. Martin Mowll, Dover, also opposed the granting of the licence on behalf of Mr. Smiles, the licensee of the White Lion.

Mr. Clark Hall, in opening the application for Mr. Walter Tom Tame, said that his client asked for the transfer of the licence of the Queen's Head and the provisional grant and confirmation of a new licence for new premises on the Moorhall Estate, to be known as the Moorhall Hotel. The estate comprised about 17 acres, and one of the covenants was that only one licensed house could be erected on the estate. The covenant, by the agreement, would have to be observed in perpetuity. The Moorhall Estate was adjoined by two other estates, the boundaries, and Lord Radnor's, the three covering an area of one square mile, upon which at present there was no licensed house. Since a similar application had first been made there had been an enormous increase of buildings on the three estates. There were 441 houses; of that number only 28 were old houses, while there was a population at the present time of 2,646. In a very short space of time on this estate would have been 400 houses erected upon it, and would approximately have a population of 2,000. With regard to the opposition, Counsel could not quite see the logic of Mr. Mowll, who a few years since had made an application on behalf of Messrs. George Beer for a licence almost on the present site. He could quite understand the opposition of the licensed victuallers, who naturally wished to protect themselves, but it was for the Bench to determine the value of that opposition, as to whether it was merely selfish or not. Counsel also dealt with the opposition of the Temperance Party. In his opinion that party were not acting in their own interest when they opposed a new licence, the main consideration of which was the closing of a house in what was admitted a congested area. In offering to give up the licence of the Queen's Head, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were making a great sacrifice indeed, and in addition to that they were offering to give up a second licence. The Bench would note that neither of the houses offered were included in those objected to, therefore a very substantial offer was made. In conclusion, Counsel made out a strong argument in favour of the Bench granting a licence which he submitted was required by the inhabitants of this now thickly populated and growing area.

Mr. Douglas De Wet formally proved the service of requisite notices.

Mr. Charles Edward Wenham, clerk to Mr. Fredk. Hall, proved the publication of the intended application on the door of the Parish Church.

Mr. W.T. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, also put in the necessary authorities granted by the brewers to the applicant in relation to the proposed transfer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, this witness said he had been with Messrs. Nalder and Collyer about 40 years. He knew Mr. C. Hands, one of the firm's collectors. Mr. Hands had made an application for a licence on this site a few years since. When Mr. Hands made the application, he told the Magistrates that he was thinking of retiring. The licence was not then granted, and Mr. Hands was still with the firm. (Laughter) The property of the Queen's Head, witness understood, was included in the holdings of the debenture holders. He did not know whether the consent of the debenture holders had been obtained with regard to the proposed transfer and surrender of a licence.

Mr. Mowll here raised a technical objection, and invited the Magistrates to say that they had no jurisdiction to hear the application unless it was proved to them that the consent of the trustees of the debenture holders had been obtained. The advocate quoted authorities and submitted that his objection was fatal to the further progress of the application.

Counsel said his friend, Mr. Mowll, had made his objection upon an entirely erroneous assumption of the reading of the section. The debenture holders had an interest invested in the bricks and mortar, not in the licence.

The Bench retired to consider the objection, and after an absence of ten minutes returned into Court, when the Chairman said the Bench overruled it.

Mr. Videan produced the plans of the proposed house, the estate, and adjoining estates. Forty acres of the three estates, he said, were developed, 17 acres on the Moorhall Estate.

At this stage Mr. Videan's evidence was dispensed with until the conclusion of the applicant's evidence.

Mr. Walter Tom Tame, examined by Mr. Clark Hall, said he paid Messrs. Nalder and Collyer 40 per annum for the Queen's Head, where he did a good trade. He considered that a licence on the Moorhall Estate was necessary, and it was his intention, if the transfer was granted, to take over such licence.

Arguments, etc., were here put in.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, Mr. Tom Tame said that this was the fourth time of asking. The trade he expected to do at the new house would be similar to that he now did at the Queen's Head, of course slightly better. He also expected to do a good trade in teas and refreshments. A number of the military frequented this road. The house would be the first licensed house after passing the station. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer.

Mr. M. Bradley: One of their usual agreements; I have seen them before. (Laughter)

Witness (continuing): One of the terms of the agreement was that Messrs. Nalder and Collyer should be the sole judges of the goods supplied.

By Mr. Mowll: Witness said the old agreement which he produced two years ago was still in existence. He had not exercised any tenant rights over the site, except to walk over and see that it had not run away. (Laughter)

Mr. William White, a builder, largely interested in the estate, gave an emphatic opinion that a licence was required on the estate, and would improve the property.

By Mr. Bradley: There were a number of houses on the estate which were empty, but not beyond the average, as compared with elsewhere.

Mr. T. Hesketh, manager of the Electric Light Works, was called. This gentleman said he lived on the road of the proposed site, and he considered that a licence was required, and would be a convenience to the surrounding householders, etc.

Mr. Mowll: Who asked you to come here and give evidence?

Mr. Hesketh: I can assure the Magistrates that I am here of my own free will; there has not been the slightest pressure from anyone. I do not think I should be called upon to answer that question.

Mr. Mowll: It is because you do not want to answer that I want to know.

The question, however, was not pursued.

It was now 1.30, and the Chairman announced the adjournment for one hour.

On the resumption of the hearing at 2.30, the case for the opposition was opened by Mr. M. Bradley, who called Major Long, the Brigade Major of Shorncliffe Camp, who spoke from a military point of view, and gave a number of reasons why the licence, in the interest of sobriety, should not be granted.

Mr. Montague Bradley, for the Temperance Council, said that the surrounding circumstances of the present application were practically the same as when last year the licence was refused by the Bench. He quite agreed with Mr. Clark Hall as to the necessity of reducing the number of licences in congested areas, but that was no reason for granting a new licence in a new area. The reasons for refusal were many. One weghty one was the memorial (previously handed in) signed by 235 residents in the immediate neighbourhood, and other influential residents in the locality of the proposed hotel. It was shown that the people in the locality did not require the hotel, then it was clear that the application must fall to the ground. From a perusal of the plans, it became quite clear that the main object was not to cater for visitors staying in the hotel, but simply the provision of large bar space and large rooms where people could congregate. The real trade would probably come from those using the road, soldiers and other pedestrians.

Mr. G. Haines made a short protest against the granting of the transfer to new premises on behalf of the licensed victuallers. The feeling throughout the county, he said, was to reduce, not create, new licences. A licensed house on that site, too, would be detrimental to a number of influential residents in the locality, a number of whom he represented. One of the features of the case which one could not help noticing was the fact that of all the witnesses called who had taken notice of the number of empty houses in the locality.

Mr. J.G. Parsons, a builder, was called by Mr. Haines, and said that although a teetotaller, he did not oppose the granting of the licence on those grounds, but on the general ground that the licence was not required. Close to the estate he had between 3,000 and 4,000 at stake. A public house, he contended, would materially damage his property. The site, he contended, was placed among the best residential property, and it would be a great injustice to the owners to allow a licensed house to be erected so near to valuable buildings, etc.

Mr. Clark Hall: It is because you are a teetotaller, Mr. Parsons, that you are assisting the licensed victuallers? (Laughter)

Mr. Parsons: No, it is quite an accident. I instructed Mr. Haines this morning; until then I did not know he represented the licensed victuallers.

Mr. A. Tolputt was next examined by Mr. Haines. This gentleman said he was not interested in the licensed victuallers' opposition. He objected to the erection of a licensed house close to his property. There was no necessity for a licensed house on the estate. At present the soldiers on the way to and from the Camp were extremely orderly; true, in passing on chars-a-banc, etc., they sang songs, etc., but they were well behaved; it might be different if a licensed house was put up, and an additional inducement for them to stop on the road offered. The site of the proposed hotel was within three doors of his own house.

Mr. Clark Hall: Did you sign in favour of a public house two years ago?

Witness said he did not; at least he did not think so. He did not remember.

Mr. Clark Hall: Would you like to see your signature?

In re-examination, witness said that even if he did sign in favour two years ago, he was certainly opposed to it mow.

The Rev. W. Bennett, of Chart Road, said he opposed the application as a resident who considered the erection of a licensed house would be detrimental to the neighbourhood. During the adjournment he had counted the empty houses in the block comprising the three estates (naming the roads), and found that there were 63 empty properties. With two years' residence in the road, his experience was a decrease of inhabitants in the neighbourhood. He thought that was a correct statement. There was no need for a licensed house, and further, in his opinion, it would decrease the value of the property in the locality.

By Mr. Clark Hall: He was a teetotaller, and was proud to say so.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench on behalf of the owner of the White Lion, Mr. J. Smiles. In opening, he said he was somewhat handicapped, as he was in complete doubt as to the house which Messrs. Nalder and Collyer proposed to surrender in addition to the Queen's Head.

Mr. Clark Hall could not see any reason for disclosing the name of the house; the Bench had it, and that was sufficient. Mr. Mowll was the least entitled to the name, as his opposition was only in the interest of rival owners, the White Lion.

The Chairman said Mr. Mowll was not entitled to the name of the house.

Mr. Mowll, continuing, said a few years since, his clients, Messrs. George Beer, were refused a licence on an adjoining site. His clients then set to work to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood by increasing the accommodation at their own house and building a palatial house. Subsequent to that Mr. Minter applied to the Magistrates at Seabrook, and was granted a licence for the Victoria, on the other side of the line. Their trade (the White Lion's) was taken away on that side, and now Messrs. Nalder and Collyer came along and wished to take the trade from the other side.

At 3.30 the Bench retired, and ten minutes after returned into Court, when the Chairman made a brief announcement “The Committee refuse the application”.

The adjourned licensing meeting will be held on Monday, March 5th.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone Chronicle for details)

The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their premises.

All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of misconduct.

Mr. W.T. Tame, the licence holder of the Queen's Head, Beach Street, applied for the transfer of the licence to the Moorhall Estate.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, instructed by Mr. De Wet, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Clarke Hall said the application was under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for the transfer of the present licence, which Mr. Tame held at the Queen's Head in Folkestone, to be taken to the Moorhall Estate, near Cheriton. It was also an application under Section 22 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for a licence to be granted to new premises to be called the Morehall Hotel, situate on the Morehall Estate. The estate consisted of 17 acres. One of the covenants contained in the plan of the property was that upon the estate only one licensed house could be erected, so that if the Justices decided that the application could be granted, no other at any time could be given to any house on the estate. Adjoining the estate were two other estates, the Boundaries Estate and Lord Radnor's estate. The whole of that area comprised one square mile, and upon it there was no licensed house. The houses on the estate were rented at 7s. per week, and new roads were being constantly opened. There were 443 houses on the area mentioned, and only 28 of them were old houses. They gave at the present time a population of something like 2,646. On the estate there were at present 237 houses, and there were 400 houses arranged for. He understood he was being opposed by various persons, and he would be glad to know who they were, as it was difficult for him to deal with the opposition.

An officer from the Camp said he objected on behalf of the Camp. The Rev. W. Bennett objected as a resident.

Mr. Haines appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. Rutley Mowll on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel.

Mr. Clarke Hall then proceeded to deal with the opposition he would have to meet. Having done so he said the duty of the Justices was to consider whether or not the requirements of the district needed a licence. He commented upon the offer of the brewers, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, to give up the licence of the Queen's Head, which was in the congested area in Folkestone. It was not suggested that that house was not a valuable and useful house. It was a prosperous house doing a very considerable trade, and in offering to give up the licence the brewers were making a very great sacrifice indeed. The White Lion at Cheriton was the nearest house to the site, and it was something like half a mile away. The only other house in the neighbourhood was the Railway Tavern, which, although not a long distance away as the crow flies, yet by road it was further than the White Lion. In addition to the Queen's Head, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were prepared to give up a second licence, the name of which he would hand to the Magistrates. In conclusion he said there was very strong ground for the justices to grant the application, and he suggested it was impossible to put forward a strong case against it.

Mr. De Wet, Charles Edward Wenham, and Walter Tom Tame proved the serving and posting of the notices.

Mr. W.F. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder, produced the conveyance for the four plots of land. His firm were the freeholders of the site of the Queen's Head, and the house, the name of which was handed to the Magistrates.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Hands, who was in their employ as a collector, had applied for a licence for the house a few years ago. He did not know whether the debenture holders of the Queen's Head had consented to the licence being given up.

Mr. Clarke Hall: I am not bound to prove the consent of the debenture holders.

Mr. Mowll said he thought he was, and he asked for the justices' ruling on the point. The application was made under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872. The words of the Section were; “The justices to whom the application is made shall not make an order sanctioning the removal of licence unless they are satisfied that no objection of such removal is made by the owner of such premises, or by the holder of the licence, or by any other person whom such justices shall determine to have a right to object to the removal”.

Mr. Clarke Hall said the debenture holders had no interest in the licence. Their interest was in the bricks and mortar.

The justices retired to consider the point, and on their return they said they must overrule Mr. Mowll's objection.

Mr. Videan, an architect, said he had surveyed the district, and had prepared the plan produced. There had been upwards of 48 acres developed in the district, including 17 acres on the Morehall Estate. The plan showed that on the ground floor there would be a restaurant, bar parlour, parlour, dining room, tenant's room, and enquiry office, and on the first floor there were six bedrooms. The entrances to the house were all recessed from the public footpath. The estimated cost of carrying out the plans was 3,000.At the present time on the Morehall Estate there were 237 houses and shops, of which over 200 were occupied. On the Boundaries Estate there were 82 houses and shops, and on Lord Radnor's Estate there were 94 houses and shops. That made a total number of houses and shops of 443. During the past three years there had been an increase of 20 percent in the number of houses. In the area there was the Electricity Works and three brickyards, but there was no licensed house. The houses varied from 7s. per week to 55 per year, and principally consisted of cottage property. He estimated the population at 2,400, and the nearest licensed house for those people was the White Lion, half a mile away. The Railway Tavern was about five ninths of a mile away. About 50 or 60 houses would complete the Morehall Estate.

Cross-examined by Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said there would be six separate rooms or lobbies in which liquor would be served from a bar. The bedrooms numbered six altogether. There were five entrances to the house. There had been a twenty percent increase of houses since the last application was made. There were upwards of twenty empty houses on the estate. The site was about 700 feet from the railway station. A considerable number of houses on Lord Radnor's Estate were between the site and the railway station. Those houses would be very little nearer to the station and to the Railway Tavern than to the site.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he did not think that the people on the estate could get their drink more conveniently from the site than the White Lion. The distance from their site to the north east corner of the estate was a mile and two thirds.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, and licence holder of the Queen's Head, said he had been a licence holder for sixteen years, and during that time he held the licence of the Queen's Head. The Queen's Head was a good house, and he was paying Messrs. Nalder and Colyer 40 a year. He had entered into an agreement to take over the house if the application was granted. His opinion was that the house would do a good trade.

In answer to Mr. Montague Bradley, he said that was the fourth time of asking. The class of trade he expected to do was much the same class as he was doing now, or in fact slightly better. He was principally doing a bar trade now. He expected to cater for tea and light refreshments. He expected to do a large bottle and jug trade, but it had not struck him that more provision was being made for the bar trade than the bottle and jug trade in comparison. A large number of military used that road, and that would be the first house they would come to after leaving Folkestone. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Colyer for everything. They were to be the sole judges of the quality, brand, and character of the liquor sent to him according to the agreement. The rent would be 100 a year.

Re-examined, th applicant said Messrs. Nalder and Colyer had never offered to give up another licence.

Mr. T. Hesketh, residing at No. 116, Cheriton Road, said he was the manager of the Folkestone Electricity Co., who employed on the average about 80 men. In his opinion there was a need for the licence.

Mr. Mowll: Who asked you to come here?

Mr. Hesketh: I came here. I do not think I should answer the question.

The Magistrates thought the question should not be answered.

Mr. White, builder of Folkestone, said he had purchased 29 plots on that estate. He had built 15 houses, ten of which were let. He thought the licence would be in the interests of the people in that neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said there was a large percentage of houses empty.

Mr. Mowll: Have you not built any houses on the estate for twelve months?

Mr. White: I have not.

The Court then adjourned for lunch, and after the adjournment Mr. Clarke Hall called Mr. Henry Gibbons, a builder, residing at 99, Morehall Avenue, in the estate. People who had been thinking of taking houses on the estate had asked where the nearest hotel was. He had been inconvenienced at nights by having to go such a long way to get the supper beer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said he had built 15 houses on the estate during four years, thirteen of which he had sold. There were a good few houses empty, but he could not say how many there were.

Mr. Attwood, the licence holder of the Castle Inn, said he owned five houses on the estate. He considered a licensed house there was necessary. He had had tenants who complained of there being no licensed house near.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: Who is your brewer?

Mr. Attwood: Messrs. Nalder and Colyer.

Mr. Clarke Hall handed in a memorial signed by 135 people, 129 of whom were residents and six were owners of property.

This was the case for the applicant.

Mr. Montague Bradley handed in a memorial against the granting of the licence, which had been signed by 235 residents. He said it was not merely a temperance memorial, but signed by residents generally who objected to it on the ground that it was not required.

Major Long, on behalf of the General Commanding at Shorncliffe Camp, said that General Lomax wished him to say that there was a very large number of men, varying between three and four thousand, and they used that road a great deal in order to get to Folkestone. In addition all the men arrived at went from the Shorncliffe Station by train when on furlough, and if they had to wait a few minutes there would be a great tendency on their part to go into that public house. They thought if the licence was granted it would not be in the interests of discipline and sobriety as far as the Army was concerned.

Mr. Montague Bradley said the petition presented by him was signed by several town councillors and ministers of religion. The brewers were catering for a public house pure and simple, and his opinion was that the residents in that part would be annoyed of the licence was granted, while it would be a detriment to them and the property in that neighbourhood as well.

Mr. Haines said his objection was on the ground that the licence was not necessary, and he also referred to the feeling existing throughout the country against the increase of licensed houses. On behalf of several residents in the neighbourhood, he also wished to object.

Mr. J.G. Parsons, builder, said he owned several properties almost opposite to the site. The rental of the houses was 42 and 36 a year. There were two of the houses empty. He contended if a licence was granted it would materially injure his property. The site was right in the centre of the best residential property.

Mr. A. Tolputt also objected on the ground that it would be detrimental to his property, and would not be to the interests of the inhabitants of the district. The road was fairly quiet at night at present.

In answer to Mr. Montague Bradley, the witness said there were close to him eight houses empty in the district.

The Rev. W. Bennett said he appeared as a resident near to the site, and during the adjournment he went round the neighbourhood to try and find the number of empty houses in the district. In Surrenden Road there were eight houses empty, in Chart Road fourteen, in Morehall Avenue 21, in Trimworth Road four, and in Cheriton Road eight houses. There were also at present eight Morehall shops. He objected to the licence being granted on the ground that there was no need for it.

Mr. Mowll asked for the name of the second licence to be made known to him, although he did not wish it to be publicly known. Mr. Clarke Hall refused to tell him the name of it.

Mr. Clarke Hall: How can it affect the White Lion? - They are our rivals as brewers and as publicans.

The Chairman said the information could not alter Mr. Mowll's case, therefore they could not give him the name.

Mr. Mowll stated his objections to the granting of the licence. They were to the effect that it would injure his house, which he contended was quite sufficient to meet the needs of the district.

The justices retired, and on their return the Chairman said they refused the application.

The adjourned licensing sessions, when the six licences will be considered, were fixed for March 5th.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Chronicle)

It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions the licences of the Blue Anchor, the Providence, the Welcome, the Tramway, the Channel, and the Hope would be opposed, on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood. The licence holders of those houses received this information as they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.

After the various licensees had paid over their fees to the Assistant Clerk (Mr. John Andrews), interest centred in the application by Mr. Clarke Hall (Barrister, instructed by Mr. F. Hall), on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, brewers, of Croydon, for a licence for a new hotel at the corner of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road, Morehall. Mr. Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Temperance Council, Mr. Haines on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. Martin Mowll on behalf of Messrs. Beer and Co., and Major Long (Brigade Major) on behalf of the Military Authorities.

Mr. Clarke Hall said this was an application, under Section 22 of the Act, for the transfer of the licence of the Queen's Head Hotel to new premises proposed to be built, and known as the Morehall Hotel. The Morehall Estate comprised 14 acres, and one of the covenants was that only one licensed house should be erected on the estate. There were, at present, 237 houses at Morehall, and upwards of 400 within a comparatively short distance of the proposed hotel. The population comprised 2,400 persons, and he (the learned counsel) submitted that there was a great need for such accommodation as the proposed hotel would give. His friend, Mr. Bradley, was opposing on behalf of the Temperance Party, and they were all agreed with him that houses in congested districts should be reduced. There were those, perhaps, who honestly took the view that public houses should be abolished altogether; but he submitted that they must take things as they found them, and he put before them the legal view – that was, did this new and growing district need a licence or not? He thought the opposition from the Temperance Party was somewhat mysterious, for there they proposed not a new licence, but a transfer of two houses – one the Queen's Head (in an admittedly congested area), and another, the name of which had been handed to the Bench. He thought he ought to have the support of all real temperance reformers. The very fact that under the new Act it was proposed to extinguish six licences proved that there was no question as to the congestion. It was not suggested that the Queen's Head was a very important house. However, a considerable trade was done there, and it was the best of the four licensed houses that stood in that row. The nearest public house to Coombe Road was half a mile away, with the exception of the Railway Hotel across the line. Mr. Hall concluded a most able speech by claiming that he had proved that the need of the transfer of the proposed licence was unanswerable, and he submitted it was impossible to produce a stronger case that he had brought before the Bench.

Mr. De Wet and Mr. Denham proved serving and posting of notices.

Mr. Crouch, one of the managers of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, supported the application, but said he was not prepared to say that the debenture holders in the firm he represented had knowledge of it.

Mr. Martin Mowll: I submit to the Bench that the application must fall under Section 50 of the Act, 1872, and on the ground that consent has not been obtained from the debenture holders.

Mr. Clarke Hall submitted that the debenture holders had no interest legally.

The Bench retired, and on again coming into Court, the Chairman said: The objection raised by Mr. Mowll is overruled.

Mr. Videan, architect, produced plans, and said the estate was 40 acres in extent, upon which there were considerably over 200 houses. There were, witness said, also 820 on the Boundaries Estate, and 443 on Lord Radnor's. These houses were let at prices ranging from 7s. per week to 50 per year. The population would probably be equal to 2,500. Several new houses were projected.

In answer to further questions, witness said there would be three bedrooms in the proposed hotel, and six public rooms downstairs. The hotel would practically have five entrances, and it would be 500 feet from the Boundaries Estate.

In answer to Mr. Haines, witness thought many of the people in this neighbourhood would prefer to have their malt liquor from a public house rather than by bottle, or through the grocers.

Mr. Walter Tame, the applicant, said he had been tenant of the Queen's Head for 16 years, and was paying a yearly rental of 40. He had entered into an agreement, and was quite ready to give up his present house, which was adjoining and opposite other licensed premises.

Examined by Mr. Bradley (Dover), witness said that that was his fourth application before the Bench. If the licence he asked for was granted he hoped to do the same class of trade. His was not altogether a bar trade, and he proposed at Morehall to cater also for teas and light refreshment. He honestly believed such a house would be useful to visitors and others who were going to and from Shorncliffe Camp. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, who were sole judges of the quality of the liquor he supplied.

By Mr. Mowll: The old agreement between himself and Messrs. Nalder and Collyer remained uncancelled. He had walked over to Morehall to see if the partly-erected hotel had not walked away.

Mr. T. Hesketh, manager at the Folkestone Electricity Works, gave it as his opinion that such an hotel was wanted. They employed over eighty hands at the works, and if any of the men needed any refreshment they had to walk either to the White Lion of the Railway Tavern (sic).

Mr. Mowll: May I ask who induced you to come here and give evidence?

Mr. Clarke Hall: I object.

The Bench: The question is disallowed.

Mr. Hesketh: I may say, in reference to this, that no pressure of any sort has been brought to bear on me. I came here entirely of my own free will.

Mr. White, builder, said he was the owner of 29 plots on the estate, principally in Surrenden Road, and he was naturally anxious to see the neighbourhood develop. Such a hotel as was proposed he thought desirable. He finished his last pair of houses about twelve months ago.

Major Long (Brigade Major, Shorncliffe) said he appeared on behalf of the General commanding the district. There were from 3,000 to 4,000 troops, and he thought that if the proposed licence was granted it would be opposed to discipline and sobriety.

Mr. Bradley said he had opposed, on behalf of those he represented, on three different occasions, and in spite of what had been advanced, he still submitted that such a hotel would be contrary to the best interests of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Haines submitted, on behalf of the “Trade”, on broad principles, that such a house was not required by the existing necessities of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Parsons, builder, in answer to questions, said he had been a lifelong teetotaller, but not a bigoted one. He owned seven houses, valued at between 4,000 and 5,000, directly opposite where it was proposed to erect the hotel. Such an establishment, if erected, he considered would materially deteriorate his property, and if the licence was granted it would be doing him a great injustice.

Mr. L.A. Tolputt also objected, on the ground that such an hotel was not necessary. His property was near at hand. At present the soldiers going to and from the Camp were extremely orderly. Perhaps they indulged in a song now and then – that was all. If another public house was erected it might have an undesirable effect in this connection.

The Rev. W. Bennett, of Chart Road, also expressed himself strongly against the granting of a licence. He said there were 68 empty houses in the near vicinity of the proposed hotel.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of the owners of the White Lion. To meet the requirements of the case the owners had built palatial premises which had been set back from the road. He protested against the granting of a licence in order to gratify some of the builders, so that their houses might be full.

The Bench retired at 3.20, and in a short time the Chairman announced their decision. The licence, he said, was refused.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such offences.

The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were illegal. Every licence holder must understand that they were to be immediately removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be removed.

The Morehall Hotel Licence.

The fifth application for this licence was made by Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet), on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, the brewers, and Mr. Walter Tame, the prospective tenant.

The application was opposed by Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of other interested parties.

A letter was read from the Commandant at Shorncliffe Camp to refuse the licence on behalf of the military, and an officer from the Camp attended.

The Chairman, with a view to saving time, asked Mr. Clarke Hall if there were any new phases in the case, as this was the fifth application in four years before the same licensing committee. He said they were bound to hear any application Mr. Hall might make, but with a view to saving time he thought it was not necessary to traverse the old ground.

After these remarks it was apparent that the licence would be refused, and after Mr. Clarke Hall had addressed the Bench and called a few witnesses, which were duly cross-examined by the opponents, they refused the application without adjourning to give it any consideration.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

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

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

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

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

New Application.

Walter Tom Tame applied for a full licence for a house in the course of erection on the Morehall Estate.

This was an application really to transfer the licence of the Queen's Head to a house in the course of erection on the Morehall Estate, and it was also proposed to give up another licence, but which one did not transpire.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, instructed by Mr. De Wet, appeared for the applicant, and said before he addressed the Bench he would like to know what opposition he had to meet.

The Chairman said before they went any further with the application, the Committee would like to hear what fresh grounds there were. The application had been before them four times in five years.

Mr. Clarke Hall gave several fresh grounds. He did not want to waste the time of the Committee. There were several new houses on the estate and the number of occupiers was greater.

The Chairman said they could not refuse to hear Mr. Hall.

Mr. Haines said he appeared to oppose on behalf of two licensed houses and some 200 residents; Mr. Mowll said he appeared for Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion Hotel, and Mr. Montague Bradley for the temperance societies.

Mr. Clarke Hall proceeded to address the Bench. He said the Morehall Estate covered 17 acres, and there was room for 400 houses upon it. Two hundred and forty eight had been erected, and 190 of those were occupied when the figures were given to him. At the present time there were more. The nearest house was the Railway Inn, half a mile distant, and there was no other house this way until they came to the Bouverie Arms, over a mile away. There was no other house in the vicinity except the White Lion, more than half a mile distant. There would shortly be 2,000 inhabitants, and no house nearer than the Railway Inn where they could obtain refreshments. Half the owners of houses thought it desirable that the licence should be granted.

The Chairman here intimated to Mr. Clarke Hall that there was opposition on behalf of the Camp. Colonel Cunningham, the Colonel Commanding at Shorncliffe, had written pointing out that on several grounds it was very undesirable to have a public house where it was proposed.

An officer attended from the Camp to support the opposition.

Services of the necessary notices having been proved by Mr. Charles Wenham, a clerk in the employ of Mr. F. Hall, Mr. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, produced the conveyance of the property, which contained a proviso that no other licensed house should be allowed on the estate.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, said he had held a licence at the Queen's Head for over seventeen years. He produced an agreement with Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, and thought the conditions fair and reasonable. He was satisfied a good trade could be done there. Since the last application a private entrance had been added to the plans.

In reply to Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said the brewers were to be the sole judges as to the quality of the beer supplied for sale. There would be five bars and five bedrooms to be let. He had no memorial in favour.

In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Clarke Hall said Mr. Videan would explain the alterations in the plans.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, applicant said he did have a try to get a memorial in favour, but he did not produce it. He paid a rent of 1 a year for the unfinished house. He did not get it repaid the next moment. The agreement, all well, would be for seven years. It never struck him that the place might be converted into shops. If it were, his tenancy would come to an end. A new agreement was prepared each year, and the old one cancelled when the licence was refused. He could not say when the 1 was paid. (The receipt was put in, and it was dated December, 1906).

Mr. Mowll: It seems you were paying rent for premises in which you had no interest.

In reply to Mr. Haines, he said he was satisfied with the business he did at his present house, but he thought he would do better business in the new house if a licence was granted. The memorial referred to was not got up by his direction. On every previous occasion the Licensed Victuallers' Association had opposed the application.

Mr. Videan produced the plans of the house, and explained the alterations to the Bench.

The Chairman said the Bench had not the old plans before them to compare with the new. As far as they could see, they were most unsatisfactory. The alterations had been explained, but they did not commend themselves to the Bench. He asked if they had any evidence as to the number of houses. That was what they wanted.

Mr. Videan said eleven new houses had been erected since last year, making 248, of which 190 were occupied, and the population would be about five per house.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, he said two of the new houses were in Chart Road, where there were 36 houses occupied and 22 unoccupied. In Morehall Avenue there were 17 unoccupied, and in Cheriton Road six. The total alteration was eleven more houses.

By Mr. Mowll: I do not know that I stated last year there were 200 houses occupied and now 190. That was a newspaper invention. I said there were 237 houses on the estate.

Mr. Hall: Even a Folkestone newspaper can sometimes make a mistake.

Mr. William White, builder, said he purchased 29 plots, and erected 15 houses in Surrenden Road; about 500 houses. Twelve of the fifteen were let. In his opinion the grant of a licence would be advantageous.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, he said one new fact was that a new school was to be erected in the locality.

Re-examined: The houses could not let worse than they do without a licensed house there. The school would tend to increase the number of residents.

The Chairman told Mr. Clarke Hall that they had no new facts before them.

Mr. Pilcher said he was the owner of nine houses on the estate, all occupied. He thought a licensed house was very much needed. When the Victoria Inn was built in Risborough Lane a number of small new houses were erected.

Mr. Mowll: It is the old story of a builder with all his houses full, and he wants a public house to keep them full.

The Chairman said the Bench had heard nothing to induce them to alter their views. The licence was refused.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

Morehall Hotel Application.

Mr. Walter Tom Tame applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, which is being constructed on the Cheriton Road.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, appeared in support of the application, and before addressing the Bench asked what opposition he had to meet.

Mr. A.M. Bradley: I appear for the Church of England Temperance Society and the Diocesan Temperance Council.

The Chairman: I think this is the fifth application in five years. You come again before us and ask us to renew the application, but what fresh facts are there?

Mr. Clarke Hall said he thought there were fresh grounds. If he was right, one matter which seriously weighed with the Bench on the last occasion was that there were a large number of empty houses on the Morehall Estate. These were filling very rapidly. More than that, the house in respect of which the licence was asked was, on the last occasion, in an entirely incomplete state, but was now practically finished, and would have been finished were it not for the severe weather. The estate was increasing in development, while the tramway scheme had been allowed, and would pass the estate. Then there was an elementary school to be erected there, and by that time Morehall would form a small town of itself. He thought that these facts were sufficient for the Bench to hear him.

The Chairman: We cannot refuse to hear you.

Mr. Clarke Hall went on to say that an additional reason for being heard was that the Queen's Head was considered redundant, and that was the house of which the applicant was at present the licensee.

Mr. Haines: I appear for Mr. P.T. Rule and Mr. Burvill, and about 200 other people.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: And I appear for Mr. J.G. Smiles.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Are there any more? (Laughter) Proceeding, he said that the Morehall Estate consisted of some seventeen acres, on which it was proposed to build some 400 houses. At the present time there had only been 248 houses erected, and out of that no less than 190 were actually occupied, though he learned that since the figures had been given to him several more of the houses had been taken. There was no doubt whatever that the estate was becoming popular. There was no house licensed in the district nearer than the Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, which was on the other side of the railway line, and that was just under half a mile away. The only other house was the White Lion at Cheriton, and in the Folkestone direction there was nothing nearer than the Bouverie Arms. So beyond question that was a case in which there was a complete dearth or absence of licensed houses to which people living in the neighbourhood, numbering about 2,000, had to go for refreshment. The speaker then went on to deal with the number of cases dealt with by the Bench in what was known as the congested area, and the amount of compensation which the East Kent Committee were having to pay as compensation for licences not renewed. If the Bench acceded to his application that day, that the Queen's Head licence should be transferred to the Morehall Hotel, then the application would have been in the best interests of the Compensation Committee, and of the town. The offer made was a generous one. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had only eight licensed houses in Folkestone, but they were ready to give up one and to transfer another.

The Chairman announced the receipt of a letter from the Brigadier at Shorncliffe, who was against an additional house on the Cheriton Road, as there was already one at Cheriton, and one at the Shorncliffe Station.

Major Long (Brigade Major) said he represented the Camp authorities in that matter.

Mr. Charles Wenham, a clerk in the employ of Mr. F. Hall, proved service of notice in this case, and also the deposit of plans.

Mr. W. Crouch produced the conveyance of the land at Morehall to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, in which it was said that no other licensed houses should be erected on the estate.

Mr. Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, said that for over seventeen years he had been the licensee of the Queen's Head, Beach Street. He was desirous of becoming the licensee of the proposed hotel on the Morehall Estate. The conditions under which the brewers asked him to take the house were perfectly reasonable. He was satisfied that there was a good trade to be done at Morehall. On the last occasion the Licensed Victuallers' Association opposed the licence, but they did not now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were to be the sole judges of the quality of the beer sold. There were to be eight bedrooms in the house, and five bars. He would require about three bedrooms for himself and servants, but there was sufficient room for three attics if necessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He was aware that a memorial had been got up on his behalf, but he was not going to produce it. He had been charged 1 a year rent for the house at Morehall. If the licence were granted he would be the tenant for four years. If the Magistrates decided against him his lease with the brewers would terminate. Last years agreement was cancelled immediately after the licence was refused. He paid the rent, and produced the receipt.

Mr. Mowll (looking at the receipt): Dear me, you are a good tenant, and pay it in advance. (Laughter)

Mr. Tame: No.

Mr. Mowll: Then you paid it when the agreement was cancelled.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Mowll said the receipt was dated four days ago.

Witness further said he had been over the Morehall Estate, but he had not counted the empty houses. By walking round he came to the conclusion that the house was necessary. A memorial was not got up by his instructions, and although it was started, it was not given up because it could not make a good show.

Re-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: The agreement he held would terminate at the end of the year unless the licence was granted.

Mr. Mowll: More interest is in the agreement than the memorial.

The Chairman: It is the only fresh point, as far as I can see.

Mr. Walter Videan, architect and surveyor, produced plans showing alterations as proposed.

The Bench scrutinised the plans, and, after a while, the Chairman said that he was very sorry to find that the old plans were not put in.

Mr. Clarke Hall said they were deposited last year with the Justices, and had not been returned.

The Magistrates' Clerk replied that that was not the case.

Mr. Videan said that eleven new houses had been added since last year, making a total of 248 on the estate. Of that number 190 were occupied. Six new houses had been erected on the boundary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Ten of the new houses were in Chart Road, and there were 22 in that road unoccupied. Four or five of them, however, were unfinished. In all there were 43 unoccupied. In Morehall Avenue 17 were empty, but two of them were let. In the Morehall Estate portion of Cheriton Road there were six empty houses. He did not say 200 houses were occupied.

Mr. Clarke Hall: As a matter of fact, you did not give particulars of the unoccupied houses, but of the number on the Estate.

Witness: Yes.

The Chairman: I am very sorry that the Bench have not with them the old plans. The present were unsatisfactory.

Mr. W. White, builder, said he had erected fifteen houses on plots in the Surrenden Road, and twelve of them were let. More houses had been let this year.

Mr. A.M. Bradley: Are you not going to give any fresh facts?

Mr. Clarke Hall: It is not for this witness to do that.

Mr. Bradley: Somebody will have to give us something new.

The Chairman: We have not had much yet.

Mr. Bradley: Are you going to give us any new fact?

Mr. White: There is the new elementary school to be built. (Laughter)

Mr. Bradley: And you suggest the erection of the elementary school is sufficient for a new licence?

Witness: I don't say so.

Mr. Bradley: That is the inference.

Mr. R. Pilcher said he thought a licence would increase the development of the Estate.

Mr. Mowll: You are a new phase in this case, are you not?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Mowll: But you give us no new phase of evidence. It is the old story of the builder whose houses are full wanting a public house to keep them full.

The Chairman: Mr. Clarke Hall, I may as well tell you that the Bench have heard nothing to make them alter their minds.

Mr. Clarke Hall: I have indicated everything fresh we have on behalf of my client.

The Chairman: Very well, we must refuse the application.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

Mr. James Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, and also for a beer off licence for the Morehall Hotel.

The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.

The application for a licence for the Morehall Hotel was made by Mr. Clarke Hall.

The Chairman pointed out that he hoped new arguments in favour of a licence would be submitted, as six applications had been made in 7 years.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he had new arguments to offer in support of his application. There was no licensed house within half a mile, and he thought under the new Act the Magistrates would see it was within their power to grant a licence without inconvenience to the residents in that particular vicinity. The surroundings of the particular neighbourhood fully justified a licence, because there was no other house to supply the requirements of the residents there. The only opposition came from those who thought no licence should be granted anywhere, and also from those who would like to have the licence themselves.

The Chairman at this point said Mr. Clarke Hall had not produced any fresh arguments in favour of a licence being granted, and the application must therefore fail.

 

Folkestone Express 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Superintendent's Report.

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen's Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen's Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4 gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates' certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The Morehall Application.

This application was on behalf of Mr. James Henry Kent, Morehall Hotel, for a full licence.

The application was opposed by Mr. H. Maurice, on behalf of Mr. A. Hart, St. Francis House, Cheriton Road; Mr. W.R. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White Lion, Cheriton; Mr. Montague Bradley, for the Temperance Council and private owners and residents; and Major Long, on behalf of the War Office Department.

When Mr. Clarke Hall rose to address the Bench on behalf of the applicant, the Chairman said he remarked last year that it was the fifth application in six years, and the present was the sixth in seven years before a Committee of the same Justices as last year. He advised Mr. Hall to base his application upon new grounds.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he quite appreciated that. Last year they proposed to transfer the licence from a valuable house in another part of the town, whereas the application this year was for a new licence. He proceeded to ask the Magistrates to grant a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1904, by virtue of which they could impose conditions which they thought right to put upon any licence granted in the neighbourhood if the Bench was satisfied there were requirements for a new licence. He submitted there were very few districts where there had been such a development as in the Morehall district, where there was no licence at all. The population was something over 2,000. The nearest public house was the White Lion, which was half a mile away, and the nearest public house coming towards Folkestone was the Bouverie Arms, which was nearly a mile away. The brewers were anxious to meet in every possible way what the Bench thought was right in that matter. It was not a sort of freehold, but could be terminated at any time the Bench liked to mention. Dealing with the opposition, Mr. Clarke Hall said the opposition was of two kinds. First, there was the opposition of those persons who honestly thought there ought never to be licences of any kind. Then there was the opposition of those who would like to have the licence for themselves. (Laughter) That kind of opposition had very little value indeed. One could fully appreciate the point of view of those who thought the Bench ought not to grant licensing facilities of any kind. It was a perfectly reasonable and tenable one, but it was not a proposition that the legislature recognised. The Act of 1904 was at present the final word upon the licensing question, and if a certain number of people required that licence it was the duty of the Bench to afford those facilities, subject to the conditions which the Act required. He submitted there was that requirement. The speaker then put in a petition signed by 300 persons resident in that neighbourhood.

The Chairman said he did not quite see what new grounds there were. He (Mr. Clarke Hall) said there were thirteen more houses occupied since last year. Did he mean to say that was sufficient new ground for the Bench to grant the licence?

Mr. Hall said the hotel had a wholesale excise licence, and he pointed out that the number of persons signing the petition was much larger than the number last year. If the Bench did not think he could add to his case by calling evidence, well, he wouldn't.

The Chairman said the Committee thought that Mr. Hall had really not put in any new grounds. He had only said there were 13 more houses occupied since last year. Did he think that was sufficient ground?

Mr. Clarke Hall said the house was completed now and had a wholesale licence.

The Chairman: We know that. We are thoroughly conversant with the neighbourhood.

Mr. Clarke Hall said then it was not worth while to call evidence. He was about to proceed with his second application, for an off licence, when the Chairman said: I don't think we should be inclined to grant that either.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Then I won't say anything further.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report. (For which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well conducted.

The various licensees then came forward for their renewals.

Applications for new licences were then considered. Messrs. Stainer and Boyd retired from the Bench while these were being considered.

Mr. James Henry Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, Cheriton Road, Morehall. He was represented by Mr. Clarke Hall. Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on behalf of Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion, Cheriton, Mr. Howard Morris, on behalf of Mr. Hart, who was applying for a beer off licence at Morehall, Mr. Montague Long, on behalf of the Temperance Council, Col. Greek, Messrs. Green, Thos. Lean, Tolputt, Parsons, Rule, and others, and Major Long on behalf of the War Office Authorities.

The Chairman said that this was the sixth time in seven years that this licence had been applied for, having been previously refused each year, and the Bench therefore wanted Mr. Clarke Hall to keep to perfectly new ground.

Mr. Clarke Hall said his position was altered in a very material respect. Last year the proposal he put before the Bench was that they should grant a transfer from the congested area to Morehall. That was refused. The present application was for a new licence. That made a great difference, because if the Bench granted a new licence they would be able to impose all the conditions granted them by their powers under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, whereas if a transfer was applied for, they could not impose those conditions. They asked the Bench to say, therefore, under that Section, what conditions they thought should be laid upon any licence that was granted in the Morehall district, and they, of course, would carry them out. The Act of 1904 was a very important one, because the view the Legislature had taken was that an applicant for a new licence must satisfy the Bench that there were needs in that neighbourhood for a new licence. He did submit that there were very few districts where there had been such a development as in Morehall, and where there was no licence at all. The population represented was something over 2,000, and since last year the number of houses in the district had increased by 13. The nearest licensed house to the Morehall Hotel was the Railway Inn, which was half a mile away, and then there was the White Lion, which was over half a mile off. Bearing in mind the minority report of the Commission as to what was about the proper number of licences for a district, here they had, he thought, a clear case in which it would be allowed that a licence was a necessity. The present application was a very different thing from trying to obtain the transfer of a licence which the Bench thought was one that ought not to exist. The brewers had been anxious right through to meet what the Bench thought was right in the matter. They placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Bench to grant a licence, which should be safeguarded in every possible way in which a licence could be safeguarded. The population in the district had increased since last year, and it would, he repeated, be difficult to find any locality with such a population where there was no licensed house within a radius of half a mile to supply that population. The opposition was of two kinds. First of all there was the opposition of those persons who thought that there ought to be any licence of the kind, and then there was the opposition of the persons who thought that they ought to have the licence. The kind of opposition they ought to attach considerable importance to was the first class. One could fully appreciate the point of view of those who said that no Bench ought ever to grant licensing facilities to any man. That was a perfectly reasonable and tenable position, but it was not a position which the Legislature recognised, because the Act of 1904 was, at present, at any rate, the final word upon the licensing question, and that final word was that if a sufficient number of people required that licence, it was the duty of the Bench to furnish that licence, subject to the conditions which they had power to impose. He would put before them a petition for the licence signed by over 300 persons in the district, and he was told that in nearly every case the signature was that of an actual occupant.

The Chairman: Mr. Hall, we do not quite see what new ground you have got. You say there are 13 more houses occupied. Do you mean to say that that is sufficient new ground?

Mr. Hall: And that the house has actually applied for, and that it actually has a wholesale licence. Then I have this petition of over 300 occupiers, which is a very much larger one than I was able to present last year.

The Chairman: The Committee think it is of no use your calling evidence in this matter.

The application was therefore again refused.

Mr. Hall then applied, on behalf of Mr. Kent, for a beer off licence in respect of the same premises, but this application was also at once refused.

 

Folkestone Express 9 January 1909.

Notices.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Boro' of Folkestone, to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough aforesaid and to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough aforesaid.

I, James Henry Kent, now residing at the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, Strong Beer Dealer, hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden in the Town Hall in the said Borough, on Wednesday the 3rd day of February next for a Certificate of Justices for the grant to me of an additional Excise Licence to sell by retail at the House and Premises thereunto belonging situate at the junction of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid and known as the Morehall Hotel, Beer to be consumed off the premises in pursuance of the Act 26 and 27 Victoria, Chap. 33, sec. 1.

Given under my hand this 7th day of January, 1909.

James Henry Kent.

 

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Boro' of Folkestone, to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough aforesaid and to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough aforesaid.

I, James Henry Kent, now residing at the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, late Licensed Victualler, hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden in the Town Hall in the said Borough, on Wednesday the 3rd day of February next for the grant to me of a licence to hold any Exclise Licence or Licences to sell by retail under the Alehouse Act, 1828 all intoxicating liquors to be drunk or consumed either on or off a certain House and Premises thereunto belonging situate at the junction of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid and known as the Morehall Hotel, and which I intend to keep as an Alehouse, Inn, or Victualling House, and of which premises Nalder and Collyer's Brewery Company Ltd., of Croydon, is the Owner and I am the Tenant.

Given under my hand this 7th day of January, 1909.

James Henry Kent.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing sessions for the borough were held on Wednesday before the licensing magistrates, Mr. E.T. Ward being in the chair. No opposition was raised to the renewal of any of the licences, and after these had been handed to the several applicants the Chief Constable read his annual report. (See Folkestone Express for details).

Mr. Clarke Hall, instructed by Mr. De Wet, applied for an off licence on behalf of the owners of the Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Montague Bradley (on behalf of the local Temperance societies) and Mr. Mowll (on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel) opposed the application.

The Chairman asked Mr. Clarke Hall if he had any further evidence to offer to that produced when the last application was made.

Counsel replied in the negative, but added that he thought his modest application (he was only applying for an off licence) might appeal to the Bench.

Mr. Mowll (to Mr. Clarke Hall): But you applied for an off licence at the last sessions.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Yes, that was a subsidiary application.

The Chairman said the Bench had decided not to grant the application.

 

Folkestone Express 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, C. Jenner, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 125 premises licensed for the sail by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 76; beer “on” 7; beer “off” 6; beer and spirit dealers 15; grocers, etc. 11; chemists 7; confectioners 3, total 125. This gives an average according to the Census of 1901 of one licence to every 245 persons, or one “on” licence to every 369 persons.

At the adjourned licensing meeting last year three licences (two full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and refused renewal by that Committee on the 9th July last.

Two of the houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street were closed after the payment of compensation on 28th September last.

The amount of compensation in the case of the other licence refused, viz., The Eagle, High Street, has not yet been settled. A provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be necessary, although the house has been closed for the sale of intoxicating drink since October last, the Excise licence, which expired on the 10th of that month, not having been renewed.

There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue Authorities for the sale of beer, wines and spirits, in certain quantities, off the premises, under the provisions of the Excise Acts, for which no Magistrates' certificate is required.

Since the last annual licensing meeting twelve of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Three occasional licences were granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 40 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

During the year ended 31st December last 107 persons (86 males and 21 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 101 were convicted and six discharged. This is a decrease of 18 persons as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 29 were residents, 17 non-residents, 48 of no fixed abode, and 13 were soldiers.

Two licence holders were proceeded against and convicted during the year, viz.:- Permitting drunkenness – fined 40s. and costs 11s.; selling beer to person when drunk – fined 20s. and costs 11s.

In the former case the house has since been closed under the provisions of the Compensation Act.

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

There are sixteen places licensed for music and dancing and two for public billiard playing.

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

I have received notice of four applications to be made at these sessions for new licences, viz.:- one full licence, two beer “off”, and one billiard licence.

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

Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet) applied for a beer off licence on behalf of Mr. James Henry Kent, of the Morehall Hotel (Messrs. Nalder and Collyer).

The application was opposed by Mr. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White Lion; Mr. Bradley, for the Temperance Council; an officer from Shorncliffe Camp, for Brigadier General Stuart-Wortley; and Mr. G.W. Haines, for Mr. A.J. Hart.

The Chairman (smiling): The hardy annual.

Mr. Clarke Hall said it had been before the Bench on several previous occasions. The application was very modest in character, and he hardly anticipated any serious opposition that day.

The Chairman inquired if Mr. Clarke Hall had any new facts to put before them.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he must honestly say “No”. The estate, however, was continuing to develop. Last year there were 49 empty houses; this year there were only 22, which showed the estate was gradually filling up. He felt he should not have been justified in coming there that day on the evidence he had before him as to any change in the neighbourhood, to ask for a full licence. Therefore he only asked that day, although it was true that they had been served with regard to a full licence, for an off licence for the house. He had entirely abandoned the full licence. There was a great deal of opposition, but he ventured to think that they did not understand the nature of the application. Possibly the applicants were to blame for that opposition. For instance, his friend who represented the Temperance Party only came there on the supposition that what they were asking for was a full licence. They were responsible for that impression, but he thought if it had been known throughout that district what they were really asking for, which was only an off licence, probably a great deal of the opposition would not have been there. He ventured to submit that so far it did not concern, and could not concern, many of those who were there if the Bench granted that application. Mr. Clarke Hall then read the section of the Act under which the application was made and, continuing, he said if the Bench granted the application the licensee would be able to sell, in addition to quantities of 4 gallons and a large number of bottles, one single bottle and a jug of beer, not to be consumed on the premises. It did seem reasonable that those people living in the neighbourhood should be able to send their sons or go themselves for a jug of supper beer without going a great distance to other public houses situated in that district. The Bench had to consider the wants of the neighbourhood, and there was a large number of people in that district who did want a place to which to send for their beer, and that being so, they were entitled to have some place to which to send. It was surely more desirable to send or go to a house of this kind, which could not permit any drink to be consumed on the premises, than to send or go to a fully licensed house, where they might consume spirits or anything else before they took away their jug or bottle. It was in the interests of Temperance, and not against it. With regard to the Army opposition, that clearly must be upon the basis that what they were seeking was to set up a public house. He therefore ventured to submit that the application was very modest and that it was desirable in the interests of the people residing in that district, 253 of whom had signed a petition asking for it. He thought the licence should be granted. It would be said that that was an attempt to get in the thin edge of the wedge, but the argument was wholly fallacious.

The Chairman said Mr. Clarke Hall applied for an off licence last year.

Mr. Clarke Hall: In a subsidiary way. I think I was too greedy. (Laughter) Now I am very modest.

The Chairman said the Bench refused both last year.

Mr. Clarke Hall said if the Bench were against him, he did not wish to waste their time.

The Chairman said the Bench were strongly against him.

Mr. Clarke Hall said if he could show those 253 were genuine residents and really needed it he did not know whether it would have any weight?

The Magistrates refused to grant the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore. Messrs. Boyd, Stainer and Jenner did not adjudicate.

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

The Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, (instructed by Mr. De Wet) applied on behalf of Mr. James Henry Kent for an off licence for the Morehall Hotel, Cheriton Road )owned by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer). Notice had also been given for an application for a full licence, but this was withdrawn.

The Chairman: This is the hardy annual, is it not?

Mr. Clarke Hall: It has been before you for several years, but my application is of so modest a character on this occasion that I venture to think there will be hardly any opposition to it.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who opposed on behalf of the holders of the licence of the White Lion, Cheriton, said that the application was exactly the same as last year, when there was an application for a full, and also an off licence.

Mr. Montague Bradley opposed on behalf of the Temperance Council; an officer present opposed on behalf of Brigadier General Stuart-Wortley, and Mr. Haines opposed as representing a rival organisation.

The Chairman inquired if there was any new evidence to be brought forward.

Mr. Clarke Hall said that he quite appreciated the position that the Bench took up, and he must honestly say that he had no very new facts to bring before the Bench. He might, however, say with regard to the growth of the district that whereas there were 49 houses unoccupied there last year, there were now only 22. What he felt was that he would not have been justified in coming there that day on the evidence that he had as to the change in the neighbourhood and asking for a full licence. He abandoned that, and his only application was for an off licence for the house. There was a great deal of opposition – the same practically as last year – and he ventured to think that he, to some extent, was to blame for the opposition in applying in the first instance for a full licence. The opposition of his friend of the Temperance Party he could only suppose was due to the idea that they were going to ask for a full licence. The effect of the grant of the licence would be simply that instead of it being necessary for the licensee to retail nothing less than 4 gallons or six large bottles of beer, they would be able to sell one bottle or a jug of beer at the time, in no case to be consumed on the premises. It did seem reasonable that the people in the neighbourhood of the hotel should have the opportunity, not of going to a public house, and there drinking, but of being able to send their servants, or go themselves, and get a small bottle of beer without having to go the very great distance to the other public houses nearest to that quarter. What the Bench had to consider was that there was a large number of people in the district who wished to have a place where they could send for their beer. Surely it was much better that they should send to a house of that kind, where people could not be permitted to drink on the premises, than that they should have to go to a house where they could drink on the premises. He should have thought that that would have been in the interests of temperance. He thought, also, that the Army opposition was there owing to the idea that they were going to apply for a full licence, and to set up as a public house. He had a petition signed by 23 people in the district asking for the licence to be granted. It would, he supposed, that that was an attempt to get in the thin end of the wedge. Surely that was foolish, because the full control of the matter was in the hands of the Bench, and because they had granted an off licence was no reason why on a future occasion they should extend it.

The Chairman: You applied for an off licence last year.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Yes, in a subsidiary way; I also applied then for a full licence.

The Chairman: We refused both.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Last year I was too greedy, but now I have become very modest. I hope it may appeal to the Bench.

The Chairman: The Committee seem to be all rather against you. You have no really fresh evidence, I presume.

Mr. Clarke Hall intimated that he had the evidence as to a few more houses being filled up, but added that the Bench, no doubt, knew more than he did as to the way the district was advancing. He intimated that he could call evidence to show that the petition was signed by people who really desired the facilities he asked for in the district.

The Chairman: You have the Committee very strongly against it.

Mr. Clarke Hall: I am quite prepared to take the intimation from the Bench. I have the petition............

The Chairman: We know what petitions are, Mr. Hall.

The application was then dismissed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Hamilton, Stainer, and Leggett.

Morehall Hotel.

Mr. De Wet appeared in support, Mr. A.K. Mowll opposed on behalf of Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion, Cheriton, and Mr. Watson opposed on behalf of the Cheriton Council.

The Mayor asked if there were any fresh facts. If not, the Bench had decided so many times not to grant the licence, and that would be their decision now.

Mr. De Wet, after further addressing them as to there being less empty houses in the neighbourhood, asked them to indicate as to new facts.

The Mayor said they could not do that, and the application was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Morehall Hotel.

An application was then made by Mr. De Wet on behalf of James Henry Kent, of the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, for an additional excise licence to sell beer to be consumed off the premises.

The application was opposed by Mr. Watson (Dover), on behalf of the Temperance Council, and by Mr. A.K. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White Lion, Cheriton.

Mr. De Wet said he made his application in pursuance of the Revenue Act of 1863. Continuing, he said he noticed the opposition was not as large as on former occasions.

The Chairman, interposing, said that application had been made, as they knew, over and over again, and it had become quite a hardy annual.

Mr. De Wet said that was an expression which he was expecting to hear from them.

The Chairman, continuing, said the Bench would like to know whether Mr. De Wet had any fresh grounds at all to urge. He was coming before the same tribunal with the same facts, and unless he had any new facts to bring before the Bench it was only a waste of his time and theirs.

Mr. De Wet said he was going to submit that he had come before the same tribunal, but that was not an application that had been before them six or seven times; it was only the second. (The Clerk: The third). On the previous occasions they were applying for a full licence, and he could appreciate their feelings in that matter then. He thought there was not sufficient scope for a full licence. The circumstances had altered, inasmuch as now he had evidence that instead of there being upwards of 52 empty houses, as there were when they made their application in 1908, and 49 in 1909, there were now only 12, and that there had been four new houses built and three more new houses in the course of erection. He submitted that all these were, if he might so put it, fresh ground. There was an increasing neighbourhood and a diminishing opposition. He had not come before them on that occasion armed with a memorial, because memorials in the past had received scanty attention, and he had not heard of any memorial from the opposition. He submitted that after they had heard the evidence of Mr. Kent and the evidence as to the neighbourhood, etc., they would see their way to exercise their discretion and grant the licence. If they felt there were no fresh grounds, he was entirely in their hands.

The Chairman said the Bench felt that Mr. De Wet had not disclosed any new ground at all, and that the application wore the old aspect.

Mr. De Wet then asked if the Magistrates could see their way to give him some sort of guidance for the future. What did they hold as new ground? (Laughter)

The Chairman said he did not think they could anticipate.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. R.J. Linton, E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer.

Morehall Hotel.

Mr. De Wet made an application for a beer off licence on behalf of Mr. Kent, and was opposed by Mr. Watson (in the absence of his partner, Mr. Montague Bradley) on behalf of the Temperance Council, by Mr. A.K. Mowll, on behalf of the licensee of the White Lion, Cheriton (Mr. Smiles).

The Revs. J.C. Carlile, A. Allon Smith, and J. Hugh Morgan were interested auditors.

The Mayor said: Mr. De Wet, this application has been made over and over again. It has become quite a hardy annual. The Bench would like to know whether you have any further grounds to urge in this matter. You are coming before the same tribunal with the same facts as last year, and unless you have any new facts it is only a waste of your time, and ours, too, to make the application.

Mr. De Wet said with a smile that he was not coming before the same tribunal through any fault of his. The present was not the same application that had been before them for seven times. This was only the third time that an application for a beer off licence had been made in respect of this hotel. On the other occasions they were applying for a full licence. Then again the circumstances had altered somewhat, inasmuch as when the application was made in 1908 there were upwards of 52 empty houses on the Morehall Estate, and in 1909 about 49, and there were now only 12. Besides, four new houses had been built there since last year, and three more were being built. He thought that, therefore, he had sufficient grounds for again making the application; there was an increased population and a diminished opposition. He mentioned that he had not come before the Bench with a memorial on this occasion, because memorials in the past had received scant attention from the Bench, and, moreover, there was always in such cases a memorial from people whe were opposing the licence.

The Mayor: Mr. De Wet, the Bench think that you have not disclosed any new grounds at all that they could take into consideration, and therefore the thing wears its old aspect, and we shall be obliged to come to the same conclusion. The application is not granted.

Mr. De Wet enquired whether the Bench could give him some idea of what they would consider new grounds for making the application.

The Mayor said he was afraid they could not anticipate matters in that way.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 February 1911.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Monday, February 6th: Before Justices Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Linton, and Jenner.

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

Mr. De Wet applied on behalf of Mr. Kent for an off licence for the Morehall Hotel. Sir Montague Bradley, of Dover, opposed on behalf of the temperance bodies.

Mr. Kent deposed that he had resided at the present premises for three years. Up to June last year he held a wholesale licence, which only permitted the sale of three dozen pints or 4 gallon casks. He was repeatedly asked for small quantities, both in bottles and on draught.

The Bench retired for a few moments, and on their return decided to refuse the application without calling upon Sir Montague Bradley for the opposition.

 

Folkestone Express 11 February 1911.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Monday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Ald. Jenner, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. De Wet appeared in support of an application by Mr. J.H. Kent for an off licence for the premises known as the Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, appeared in opposition on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council.

Mr. De Wet said applications had been made other years for a full licence. Now the opposition dwindled down to one. That was one altered circumstance in connection with his request. The second altered circumstance was that under the new Act and forms of licence he was applying for a beer off licence. Since their last application further houses had been erected, and just facing the premises in question the foundations were in for eleven cottages on the road leading to the station. Outside the Morehall Estate 14 houses had been built and finished since the last application. On the Morehall Estate there were 296 houses and shops, and there were only 12 empty out of that number. Under those circumstances he did submit that he had more reason – he had reason before – for coming before them and asking for a licence. Perhaps the Magistrates had no reason to appreciate the usefulness of an off licence. He asked them to favourably consider the application.

Mr. James Henry Kent said he had been in the premises for three years, and during that time he had held a strong beer dealer's licence until July last. He had innumerable requests for small quantities of bottled beer and draught beer. Under the wholesale licence he could not sell under three dozen reputed pints at a time, or 4 gallons in a cask. Everything was in the house except the engine. Since his last application 14 houses had been erected in the neighbourhood, and 11 cottages were being started upon opposite the premises. His were the only premises on the estate, and in the neighbourhood, selling any beer in any quantity. There was another wholesale dealer's shop in the vicinity, but in no longer existed, as it had been opened now as a confectioner's and tobacconist's shop. There were only 18 empty houses on the Morehall Estate. The rateable value of the house was 58 at present, and the gross was 74.

Mr. Herbert asked if the grocer's shop at the opposite corner did not sell wines and spirits.

Mr. De Wet said the shop was restricted from a licence. He could have brought a covenant showing that there was to be no other licence put on the estate.

Cross-examined, witness said he was not an hotel keeper. He prepared the notice for the application, and in it the premises were described as the Morehall Hotel. He kept the Morehall Hotel, but that was only the sign of the premises, which were built for an hotel. There were seven bedrooms on the premises, and provision for five more. He had no doubt in time they would make an application for a licence for the hotel. He felt it would improve the value of the surroundings to have an off licence. He had no memorialists in favour of his application. He would take it from Sir M. Bradley that there was only one more occupied house than there was last year on the two estates.

In reply to Mr. De Wet, Mr. Kent said he had not heard of a memorial against his application. The reason he gave up the wholesale dealer's licence was that it did not pay him to hold it as the demand was so small for large quantities.

The Magistrates retired for a short time, and on their return into Court the Chairman said they had considered the application, and their decision was the same as before – not granted.

The Revs. Cannon Knollys, J.C. Carlile, R.M. Ross, A. Smith, and J. Daniel were present in Court during the hearing of the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1911.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Monday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, and Messrs. J.Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Morehall.

Application was made by Mr. J.H. Kent for an off licence for the premises at the corner of Cheriton and Coombe Roads. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Montague Bradley represented the Folkestone Temperance Council.

Mr. De Wet said he had been instructed to again appear before them in respect of the licence for Morehall. The circumstances, he was glad to say, in this case were somewhat different from the circumstances in other years, but before proceeding he would like to know what opposition he would have. He saw his friend Sir Montague Bradley was present. He knew for whom he appeared. He did not know whether Mr. Haines was opposing him on this occasion.

Mr. Haines: I am taking no part.

Mr. De Wet: I am glad to hear that. Continuing, he said that they would appreciate the fact that the opposition had dwindled down to one. On former occasions they had had the Army, and Mr. Mowll, for whom he had kept a chair, had been there. He had also had opposition from Mr. Smiles and others. Now he submitted that that was one of the altered circumstances. The second altered circumstance was in the new Act. There had been new licences and new forms of licences, and under the new Act he applied for a beer off licence. There were further altered circumstances. Since the last application other houses had been erected. Each time he had been there the Magistrates asked if there were any altered circumstances. New houses had been erected, and just facing where these premises were were the foundations for eleven cottages. That was just in front, on the road approaching the station. He wanted them to bear in mind that these houses had actually been started. When they were occupied shortly they would be creating a further demand out there. On the estate, which did not include the other houses mentioned on the other side of the road, 14 houses had actually been built and finished since the last application. On the Morehall Estate, at the present time, there were 296 houses and shops, and of that number there were only 12 empty. Out of that 12 empty he might say, in spite of contradiction, that before March 50 percent of that 12 would be filled. He found under the circumstances that they had more reason – they had reason before – to come before them and ask for a licence. He had heard certain words of the Chairman that there were too many licences; he was not asking for a full licence, but for an off licence. There was no need to tell them what an off licence was, although, perhaps, they had no reason to appreciate its usefulness. Under the circumstances he asked them to favourably consider the application, having regard to the fact that the circumstances had altered.

Mr. Kent, in giving evidence, stated that he had been on the premises for the last three years. During those three years he had held what was known as a strong beer dealers' licence. He had held that licence until last July. He had had innumerable requests for small quantities of beer. He had had applications every day. Some asked for draught and some for bottled beer in small quantities. At present he could not sell anything under three dozen reputed quarts. His premises were specially suited for an off licence. They had everything there except the engine. He had taken the trouble to go over the property, and found that since making their last application there had been 14 houses erected on the Estate, and 11 cottages directly opposite Morehall on the station approach. The foundations for the latter were already in the ground. His were the only premises on the Estate or in the neighbourhood that were at present selling any beer at all in any quantity. There used to be another wholesale dealer, but that shop had now opened as a confectioner's. There were 12 houses empty in the Morehall Estate on Friday last, and three or four of these were occupied before Christmas. He was thoroughly conversant with the trade. He had been in it for some years, and knew how to conduct a house thoroughly. The rateable value at present was about 58, and about 74 gross. There were no grocers' licences anywhere in the neighbourhood. There was a covenant that there should be no other licensed premises on the Morehall Estate.

Cross-examined by Sir Montague Bradley, witness stated that he was a wine and spirit merchant. He was not an hotel keeper. He prepared the form of application for the licence.

Sir Montague Bradley: You describe it as the Morehall Hotel. Is it a hotel? – It is built for an hotel. It is not carried on as an hotel.

As a matter of fact there are only five or six bedrooms available for hotel purposes? – There are seven, and there is still room to build five more.

Is it your idea, in applying for the licence, that the premises may be used as an hotel? – Not necessarily.

Is it in the future? – No doubt, in time, when the neighbourhood grows, we might make application. All we need at present is an off beer licence.

You thought it more discreet to apply only for the off beer licence? – No.

You did not think it more discreet? – No.

Less discreet? – At present, yes.

Do you think it would improve the value of the surrounding property? – Somewhat, I think it would.

What, to have a beer licence, and have people coming in and out with jugs of beer? It is a very good class of house in the immediate neighbourhood, I believe? – Yes, a fairly good class.

About what rental? – I have no idea.

You have no memorial this year. It has not been spoken about? – No.

With reference to the number of houses, is it not a fact that on Morehall Estate, on which your house stands, there is only one more occupied house than at this time last year? – I do not exactly know. I think we have the lists somewhere. Some have been let since that date.

Would you take it from me that there is only one additional occupied house? – Yes.

On the town estate boundaries of Morehall there is a decrease of seven in the number of houses occupied? – We have not gone into that.

Do you agree with your solicitor's statement that the empty houses are quite certain to be filled up within the next few months? – Not quite certain.

Do you think they will be filled up? Is it such a populous neighbourhood? – I think they will fill up.

You spoke of the demand for beer, and emphasised the fact that the demand was for bottled beer. – Very largely; in fact, all classes of beer in small quantities.

And already you have beer in the house? – We have everything except the engine.

You have not ordered that yet? – No.

Mr. De Wet: It would not take long to get that, would it? – No.

In answer to other questions by Mr. De Wet, Mr. Kent stated that there was a grocer's store opposite. The fact of people taking jugs of beer in and out would interfere with no-one. He had heard of no memorial this year. There was a reason for dropping that. The memorial was not looked at on the previous occasion.

The Magistrates Clerk: It had not the desired effect.

Witness: There was no necessity for it.

In answer to a question by the Magistrates' Clerk, witness stated that he did not hold a wholesale business licence. It did not pay him to hold it, as the demand was small for large quantities, and he would not require to hold it if this application was granted.

The Bench then retired, and on their return the Chairman said: We have considered the question carefully, and our decision is the same as before – not granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Herbert, Leggett, Stainer, Swoffer, Fynmore, Hamilton, Boyd, and Jenner.

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

Mr. Kent applied through Mr. De Wet for an off licence for the Morehall Hotel.

There was no trade opposition and only a very weak fight on the part of the Temperance Party.

The Bench decided to grant the application on Mr. Kent agreeing not to open on Sunday.

This came as a surprise to all, as after nine refusals even the applicant began to lose heart. It is a most necessary licence, and will confer great benefits in the neighbourhood.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual Brewster Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning. The licensing Justices were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, and Alderman Jenner.

The Chief Constable reported as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 121 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.: Full licences 74, Beer “on” 7, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 14, Grocers, etc., “off” 10, Confectioners Wine “on” 3, Chemists Wine “off” 7. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 276 persons, or one “on” licence to every 413 persons. This is a decrease of two “on” licences as compared with the return submitted last year.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting, the renewal of three “on” licences was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of the Compensation Committee held at Canterbury on 19th July, one licence, viz., the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was renewed, and the other two, the Duke of York and the Castle Inn, both situate in High Street, Sandgate, were refused. After the payment of compensation, the two latter houses were closed on December 30th last.

Since the last annual licensing meeting, 12 of the licences have been transferred.

Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 38 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 (54 males and 31 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 66 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is a decrease of 15 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 35 were residents of the borough, 27 persons of no fixed abode, 10 soldiers, and 13 residents of other districts.

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

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

There are 20 places licensed for public music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing.

There is also one house licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of wines and spirits off the premises, for which no Magistrates' certificate is required.

I am pleased to report that the licensed houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner, and beg to point out that this is the second year in which no conviction has been recorded against a licence holder for a breach of the licensing laws.

I beg to give notice of my intention to oppose the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel, on the ground that the premises have been ill-conducted, and respectfully ask that the consideration of the renewal may be deferred until the adjourned meeting.

I have received notice of one application to be made at these sessions for a new licence, viz., one beer “off”.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said it was very satisfactory to think that there had been no proceedings or convictions against any licence holder during the past two years. He thought the cases of drunkenness were the smallest this century. There was only one regrettable fact – that was the number of females that were charged with drunkenness. Of the 85 persons charged at the police court with drunkenness during the year, 31 were females. It seemed to be rather a pity.

The Morehall.

Mr. De Wet then made his application with regard to the Morehall licence, which he said had been made ever since 1903. But the circumstances under which they were now applying were different to those under which they then applied. The trade opposition and the Army opposition had gone, but he was still met with opposition from the Temperance party. In 1903 on the Morehall Estate, the boundaries estate, and the Earl of Radnor's estate, there were 360 houses, occupied and unoccupied. At the present day in the same area there were 512 houses. Out of those there were only 11 unoccupied, and of those eleven, five were uncompleted houses, not actually erected. There were thus only six empty houses on the estate. A new road had been made since the last occasion, called St. George's Road. Since the last occasion also, twenty four new houses had been built on the estate. It might be objected that beer in any form was unnecessary on the estate, but he submitted a demand had arisen for the supply of beer in small quantities.

Mr. Henry Videan produced the plan which he had prepared of the Morehall Estate showing the houses erected thereon.

James Henry Kent said he resided at Morehall. He had been the tenant of the premises in question a little over four years. During that time he had had requests in respect of beer too numerous to mention. The demand increased year by year. He formerly held a strong beer dealer's licence, which he had dropped. He had gone over the property that morning. St. George's Road was not in existence last year. There were two houses in that road. Continuing, the witness gave statistics of the number of houses, occupied and unoccupied, in the area referred to. They made a total of 512 houses and shops, twenty four of which had been built since the last application. He had experienced the use of a petition in the past, and he had prepared no petition on the present occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watson (Sir Montague Bradley and Watson, solicitors), who appeared on behalf of various Temperance bodies, witness said there was a refreshment room at the station. Station Road was rather out of the way of the hotel at Cheriton. The precise request from several people was beer in small quantities. He thought it was desirable in the neighbourhood. It would not affect the soldiers at all.

Mr. De Wet said that was his case.

Mr. Watson said he opposed the application on various grounds. It was rather a select neighbourhood, and one where people could afford to buy beer in large quantities if they required it. The licence was unnecessary, and it was undesirable that people should go backwards and forwards with jugs of beer.

The Chairman: Jugs of milk would not look nice, I suppose. (Laughter)

Mr. Watson said the tendency at the present day was to reduce licences. If an off licence were granted now, they might hear next year that an on licence was required as well, and when once granted it could not be taken away without compensation.

Mr. W.L. Easton, Police Court Missionary, said he had counted the houses in the neighbourhood for the last six years. The last occasion was the previous afternoon. The only houses not included were St. George's Cottages. There were 507 houses altogether, 487 occupied and twenty empty. There were only nineteen new houses since last year.

Mr. De Wet: I think it is your honest belief, whatever the demand, that beer is not required?

Mr. Easton: I am not asked to give a Temperance address. It can be very well done without. (Laughter)

The Rev. J.C. Carlile said he was secretary of a body of Church of England and Nonconformist clergy and ministers in Folkestone and district, and they had had a meeting at which the question of the application was discussed. They passed a resolution to join the opposition to the licence being granted, on the ground it would be the first step to a full licence.

The Rev. John Hugh Morgan said he was Superintendent of the Folkestone Circuit of the Wesleyan denomination. He produced a memorial in respect to the application, signed by property owners, ratepayers and others. It stated that no need existed for a licensed house and that it would be detrimental to the district.

The Chairman, after perusing the memorial, said eight or ten of the people who had signed it did not live in the district at all.

Mr. J. Daniel said he was in charge of the Baptist Church in the neighbourhood, He also produced a memorial against the licence being granted.

Mr. Kent, in answer to Mr. De Wet, said he had no intention of opening the premises on Sunday.

The Bench then retired, and on their return the Chairman said that application had been before them a great many years, and had been refused on every occasion. But it had always been in their minds that one day they would have to grant a licence, and they very nearly granted it last year. That day they were unanimous in granting the licence required. They understood it would not be kept open on Sundays.

Mr. Kent: No, sir.

The Magistrates fixed the adjourned licensing sessions for March 6th.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

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

The Chairman said it seemed to be very satisfactory that there had been no proceedings against any licence holder during the past two years, and that the number of cases of drunkenness was, he thought, the smallest this century. One little disquieting fact was the number of females charged with drunkenness. Out of 85 persons so charged at the Folkestone Police Court, 31 were females. It seemed rather a pity. Mr. De Wet applied for an off beer licence for the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores. Mr. Watson, of the firm of Sir Montague Bradley, of Dover, opposed on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council. Alderman Jenner and Mr. Boyd did not adjudicate in regard to this application.

Mr. De Wet stated that the first time application was made for this licence was in 1903, but the licence was then refused. The circumstances under which they were now applying were different from those under which they then asked, and when the new facts were placed before them he thought the Bench would have no hesitation in granting the licence. His learned friend, Mr. Watson, was appearing on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council. In other years they had had opposition from other bodies. On previous occasions the Army had been represented, and opposed the licence, and his friend Mr. Mowll had appeared to oppose the licence on behalf of trade opposition. The trade opposition and the Army opposition had been taken away; there remained only the Temperance party. In 1903, on the Morehall, Boundaries, and Lord Radnor's Estates there were 360 houses, occupied and unoccupied. At the present time there were 512 houses, and only eleven were unoccupied. Five out of the eleven were uncompleted houses. That meant that there were only six really empty houses. The Bench would also recollect that a short time ago Mr. Nicholls, the Borough Engineer and the Chief of the Fire Brigade laid before the Watch Committee a report in which he referred to the Morehall District, and stated that there were 550 inhabited and 190 uninhabited buildings there, and that it was desirable that a sub-station be built for fire purposes. Mr. Nickolls, however, took rather a wider boundary than he (Mr. De Wet) was taking, and his figures would, of course, include sheds and other outbuildings, which were not houses, but which, of course, were buildings that would be affected by fire. During the past few years a new road (St. George's Road) had been laid down in the district, and since the last application for the licence 24 new houses had been built. The licence they asked for these premises was a beer licence only. Under the present licence they were not allowed to sell a smaller quantity of beer than three dozen. There was a demand for smaller quantities, and also the inhabitants of that district were of a station in life that could not afford to purchase such a quantity of beer at a time.

Mr. Henry Videan deposed that he prepared a plan of the district. In 1903 there were only 360 houses in the Morehall, Boundaries, and Lord Radnor's Estates. In 1903 an application for a full licence was made.

Cross-examined, witness stated that the boundaries he took in 1903 were the railway to the south, Chart Road to the north, and the road now known as Cherry Garden Avenue.

Mr. Jas. Henry Kent said he had been the tenant of the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores since 1907. During that time he had had many requests made to him for small quantities of beer, requests too numerous to mention. The requests had been more numerous lately. He had formerly only held a strong beer licence. That morning he had gone round and secured the following facts from his observations. There had been one new road made since he last made application, St. George's Road. There were three houses there. In St. Francis Road there were 17 houses, three being unoccupied; in St. Hilda Road there were 35 houses, and one unoccupied; in St. Winifred's Road 33 houses, none being unoccupied; in Geraldine Road 26 houses, all occupied. These roads were on the Boundaries Estate. On the Morehall Estate he had found that there were 65 houses in Chart Road, all occupied; 97 houses in Morehall Avenue, one of which was unoccupied; in Trimworth Road there were 30 houses, one being unoccupied; 34 houses in Surrenden Road, all occupied; four houses, all occupied, in Coombe Road; and 19 houses, all occupied, in Station Road. Eleven of these houses had been erected since last year. Plans for eight more had already been passed by the Corporation, and these were now in the course of erection. In Waverley Villas there were 12 houses, all occupied; from Cherry Garden Avenue to Trimworth Road there were five houses, none being empty. There were nine houses in Morehall Villas, all occupied. In Shorncliffe Terrace there were 24 houses, two being empty. In St. George's Cottages there were six houses, all occupied. There were 13 houses in Cherry Garden Avenue, all of which were occupied. In Beachborough Villas and Salisbury Villas there were 25 houses, all occupied. In Limes Road there were 28 houses, all occupied. In Morehall Terrace there were 16 houses, all occupied. This made a total of 512 houses and shops. Of these 11 were unoccupied, and of these eleven, five were uncompleted. This meant that there were really only six empty houses.

Cross-examined, Mr. Kent stated that Station Road led to the refreshment room on the station. It was, however, a long way out of the way. There was also an hotel in that direction, but that was even further out of the way. With reference to the number of requests made for beer in small quantities, witness stated that he never had soldiers in after it. He did not think it would be a very objectionable thing to see people going about with jugs of beer.

Mr. Watson, for the opposition, said he had been instructed to oppose the application on various grounds. He thought that the neighbourhood in which the stores were situated was a rather special neighbourhood, rather select, and that it was a neighbourhood where people could afford to buy beer in larger quantities than was generally required. There were residents who could purchase three dozen of beer when they wanted any. The licence, therefore, he held to be unnecessary, because if anyone wanted a small quantity of beer they could get it from the hotel, which was situated just outside the boundary spoken of. He thought also that it was a very undesirable thing that in a neighbourhood like this people should be going about with jugs of beer in their hands.

The Chairman remarked amidst some laughter that it was not a very objectionable thing to see people going about with jugs of milk.

Continuing, Mr. Watson said it was also undesirable for soldiers to get the beer in small quantities and drink it in the fields or road. In his opinion if an off licence was granted now it would only be the first step to getting a full licence. His learned friend had pointed out that from 1903 to 1912 the number of houses had increased from 360 to 512. That was 152 houses in nine years, making an increase of 17 per year. That was the particular reason put forth by his learned friend why the licence should be granted this year. He himself did not think that this was a very marked sign of the quick growth of the district.

Mr. W.L. Easton said that he had counted the houses in the neighbourhood year by year. The last occasion he counted them was on the previous afternoon. He used the same boundary, practically, as that used by Mr. Kent, with the exception of St. George's Cottages. He found that altogether there were 507 houses, and 487 occupied, making the number of empty houses 20 at the present time. There had been only 19 new houses since the previous year.

Cross-examined, Mr. Easton said he had included in his figures the houses that they were building. It was his honest belief that beer could very well be done without.

The Rev. J.J. Carlile deposed that he was the Secretary of the Folkestone Temperance Council. It embraced the whole of the various Temperance bodies in the town. It included bodies of all denominations, under the Chairmanship of the Vicar (the Rev. Canon Knollys). At a recent meeting of the Council the question of the present application had been discussed, and a resolution passed to oppose the licence on the ground that it was detrimental to Temperance work in the neighbourhood, and also because they considered it would be the first step towards the granting of a full licence. He went on to say that they had had the opposition of the Army officials during the previous years, when they had opposed the licence, and had it not been for the fact that the organisation of the opposition was not well arranged, he believed that they would have no difficulty in getting it this year.

Cross-examined, Mr. Carlile admitted that the soldiers would have to pass other licensed premises before they came to the premises in question.

The Rev. John Hugh Morgan said that he was the superintendent of a church near the premises. He produced a memorial in respect to the application which had been displayed in the church, and signed by a number of the congregation. He had examined the personnel of the people who had signed the memorial, and they were some of the most influention people in the district. He thought that if the licence was granted it would be detrimental to the interests of the neighbourhood. He put in the memorial, which was read by the Chairman. It contained a protest against the licence being granted, on the ground of detriment of the church work, and the religious work of the church.

The Rev. John Daniel, in charge of the Cheriton Baptist Church, also produced a memorial, which he said had been signed by the heads of the families that worshipped at the church, who all felt very strong on the matter. The membership of his church was about 100. The congregation on Sunday morning would amount to about that number, but in the evening it would be about 350 or 400.

Mr. De Wet said it was not the intention of the licensee to open on Sundays.

The Magistrates retired to discuss the matter, and after an absence of some minutes returned, when the Chairman said that the question of the licence had been before the Bench now for a great many years, but one had never been granted. It had, however, always been the opinion of the Magistrates that one day they would have to grant the licence; in fact, the applicants nearly secured it last year. The Bench on this occasion were unanimously of the opinion that the licence should be granted. The licence was therefore granted –(slight applause, which was, however, suppressed) – on the understanding that there should be no Sunday trade.

Notes.

The French have a proverb to the effect that everything comes to him who waits. But one's object is not always achieved by mere waiting. Persistency must sometimes be allied to patience. This was recognised by those interested in the securing of a licence for the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores. The first application in respect to these premises was made as far back as 1903, and there have been repeated requests to the licensing Magistrates since then. Prior to last Wednesday all efforts were unsuccessful, but the justices have at length recognised that the applicants have a good case, and have granted an off beer licence for the premises at the corner of Cheriton Road and Coombe Road. And I do not think that any reasonable, unprejudiced person will find fault with the licensing authority in coming to the decision which Mr. E.T. Ward, as Chairman, announced on Wednesday last. The commonsense view of the unbiased man who is acquainted with the district must be that is such facilities as those asked for are to be allowed at all, there is a strong case in favour of their being granted in this instance. Not only is there no public house within convenient reach, but there is no grocer's licence. Hitherto Mr. J.H. Kent has only been able to supply beer in quantities of no less than three dozen bottles. It is not merely a question of householders being able to afford to “lay in” three dozen bottles at the time. There are many households in which beer is consumed, but only in small quantities, say half a dozen bottles, or even less, during the week, and in which it is inconvenient to find room for three dozen bottles. Again, there are the visitors to consider, for in the summer a good many holiday keepers take their quarters in the Morehall district. The majority of these probably only stay a week or two, and would not require anything like three dozen bottles of beer during their holiday. In all the circumstances it is certainly not surprising that the Magistrates were unanimously of opinion that the licence should be granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Justices Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held at the police court this morning. All licences were confirmed excepting that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

The Morehall licence was confirmed.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1912.

Local News.

The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough of Folkestone were held at the police court on Wednesday morning. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton. Only one licence had been deferred – that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Morehall.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make in respect to the off licence which the Magistrates were kind enough to grant after nine or ten years' patient hearing in respect to certain premises out at Morehall. He now asked them to confirm that, and thus put the crown on all his applications.

The Clerk said he understood there was no objection. Under a regulation made many years since, no person could appear to object to the confirmation unless seven days' notice had been given.

The Chief Constable said no notice had been received.

The licence was then confirmed.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Mr. De Wet applied on behalf of the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores for the confirmation of the off licence granted at the original sessions. He reminded the Bench that the new licence had been kindly granted by them after eleven years, and so he now applied for confirmation of the licence to crown his efforts.

The Magistrates' Clerk said it was now the rule, and had been for some years, that any notice of objection should be given seven days before the confirmation. As no notice had been received, he assumed there was no objection.

The Bench confirmed the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 July 1916.

Friday, June 30th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and other Magistrates.

James Henry Kent, the licensee of the Morehall Stores, was summoned for sending out a quantity of liquor which had not previously been paid for. Mr. A.K. Mowll, of Canterbury, defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Det. Con. Kenward, of the K.C.C., stated that at 10 a.m. on the 13th June he was passing West Lawn, Sandgate, where he saw Thos. Avery, in the employ of defendant, delivering a crate of two dozen bottles of gin. He asked to see the delivery book and invoice. The liquor was correctly entered in both. He asked Avery if the goods had been paid for, and he said he did not know. He later saw theb defendant at his premises, where he was shown the entry in the day book. He stated what he had see at Sandgate, and asked if the liquor had been paid for. Defendant replied “No. The mess run a monthly account”. Witness told him he had committed an offence, and he would have to report him. Mr. Kent replied “I quite thought that sergeants' messes and officers' messes were classed as canteens”. Witness told him they were not.

Cross-examined, witness said Mr. Kent was perfectly open with him. He did not know there were 130 sergeants at the mess. He would not call it a canteen.

Mr. Mowll said Mr. Kent thought that this sergeants' mess was a canteen, and if that was so, no possible offence could have been committed. He would satisfy them that this sergeants' mess was inaugurated under proper military authority. They had to decide whether the sergeants' mess was a canteen or not.

Defendant said he was aware of the Control Board Regulations, and he was of opinion that the word canteen included a sergeants' mess. He had always heard this spoken of as a canteen. He was asked to supply this mess before the proper authority was given. The whole of the trade had treated messes as canteens.

Lieut. James Horne, of the C.A.M.C., who said he was present under the direction of his commanding officer, produced a letter, dated 18th May, giving the proper military authority. The mess was then opened. They regarded the bar in the mess as a canteen.

In reply to the Bench, witness said he believed the word canteen had been dropped with regard to a mess. A sergeants' mess was a canteen for sergeants.

The Chairman said this was the first time this question had been heard of there. Mr. Kent had done the thing in a bona fide manner, but the Bench thought it was not permissible. He would be fined 1.

 

Folkestone Express 8 July 1916.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, before E.T. Ward Esq., and other Magistrates, an interesting point was raised during the hearing of a summons under the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) Order. Mr. J.H. Kent was the defendant and he was summoned for sending intoxicating liquors from his licensed premises without it having been previously paid for. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared for the defence.

Detective F. Kenward, of the Kent County Constabulary, said at 10 a.m. on June 13th he was passing West Lawn, The Esplanade, Sandgate, where he saw Thomas Avery, who was in the employ of Mr. Kent, a wine and spirit merchant, of Morehall, delivering a crate containing two dozen bottles of gin. He asked him to show the delivery book and the invoice. The gin was correctly entered in the book and on the invoice. He then asked the man whether he knew if the goods had been paid for, and he said he did not know. He later saw Mr. Kent and asked to see the day book. He was shown the day book, and the entry was made in it. He then told him that he had seen at Sandgate 24 bottles of gin being delivered to the Sergeants' Mess, and asked him whether they had been paid for, and he replied “No, the Mess run a monthly account”. He told him he had committed an offence under the Liquor Control Regulations, and that he should report him. He replied “I thought that Sergeants' Messes and Officers' Messes were classed as canteens”. Witness told him they were not.

In reply to the Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve), witness said Mr. Kent admitted he despatched the gin from his licensed premises at Morehall that morning.

Cross-examined, Det. Kenward said he did not know that there were 130 sergeants at that particular Mess. He knew the premises were used as a Sergeants' Mess, and had been so for many weeks past. He would not call it a canteen.

Mr. Mowll said the case was really an extremely simple one, and he thought when the Magistrates had heard what he had to say on the subject and had heard the evidence, they would come to the conclusion that no offence at all had been committed. Mr. Kent was of the opinion that the Sergeants' Mess was a canteen, and, of course, if it was a canteen it was quite clear that under the Act no possible offence could have been committed. In the Order was a provision which read as follows: This Order does not affect the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor to or in any canteen where the sale of intoxicating liquor is carried on under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Admiralty”. He thought he would be able to satisfy them that the Sergeants' Mess was inaugurated under proper military authority. On April 25th of that year representation was made that it might be properly constituted, and on May 1st the authority was granted, and although Mr. Kent was also asked by the military to supply that Sergeants' Mess before May 1st, he very properly stated that until he got the proper authority he was not going to supply any sort of liquor to them. After he got that authority he supplied the Mess, and on that particular date he supplied the 24 bottles of gin, thinking that he was entitled so to supply. The Magistrates had therefore to decide the perfectly simple point as to whether the Sergeants' Mess was a canteen or whether it was not. If a Sergeants' Mess was not a canteen, what was it? He thought if he could prove to the Magistrates that the Sergeants' Mess was authorised by the proper military authority, then it was perfectly clear that the Sergeants' Mess was a canteen.

Mr. Kent, giving evidence, said he was aware of the regulations. He was of opinion, and the trade generally were of opinion, that the word canteen covered a Sergeants' Mess. What he had done was in perfect innocence, and he believed he had a perfect right to do as he had done. Everything was open and above board. He believed there were 130 sergeants using the Mess, which had been spoken of as a canteen, and which he understood to be a canteen.

Mr. Mowll, at this point, said the definitions of a canteen in a dictionary which he had were: (1) a tin vessel for liquors; (2) a sutler's shop in a garrison.

Mr. Kent, replying further to Mr. Mowll, said he refused to supply that particular Mess before authority was produced to him that permission was granted for the use of the particular Mess.

The Chairman: Have you had any official notification that this was a canteen?

Mr. Kent: No, sir, only we have treated Sergeants' Messes from the time of the Liquor Control Order coming into force as a canteen. Proceeding, he said when the Order came into operation the whole of the trade met at the Town Hall, and it was then thoroughly understood that a Sergeants' Mess was a canteen, and they were all agreed on that. They had been supplying Sergeants' Messes and treating them as canteens ever since. He had heard nothing different to alter that opinion.

The Chairman: You had a notification that this was an authorised Sergeants' Mess? – Yes.

From the military authorities? – Yes.

The Chief Constable: You say the whole of the trade understood that? Do you know, Mr. Kent, that certain firms of brewers had refused to serve certain premises?

Mr. Kent: I have personally seen brewers delivering beer to Messes at the Camp.

You said all the trade understood that Messes were canteens. Do you know one or two firms have refused to supply them on credit, and refused to deliver as prohibited areas? – That I do not know.

Lieut. James Horne, Canadian Army Service Corps, said he produced a letter written on April 25th last asking for the particular Sergeants' Mess to be authorised. He also produced a letter of May 1st, which authorised the Sergeants' Mess. On that authority the Mess was opened, and since it had been considered as a canteen. From 120 to 150 sergeants used it.

In reply to the Clerk, the witness said it was only necessary for them to have the authority of headquarters, who would approach the Secretary of State.

The Chief Constable: Do you know if any application has been made to the Secretary of State to open this canteen?

Witness: It would be for headquarters to see to that.

The Chairman: What is a canteen?

Witness: A Sergeants' Mess is a canteen.

The Chairman: Is not the difference a Sergeants' Mess is confined to sergeants, and the canteen anyone can go in?

Witness: The Sergeants' Mess is a canteen confined to sergeants.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said that was the first time that question had been raised in that Court at all events. They had no doubt Mr. Kent acted really bona-fide, thinking he was entitled to do as he had done. They were of opinion that he was not entitled to serve a Sergeants' Mess in such a manner, but they would impose a nominal fine of 1.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1916.

Monday, September 11th: Before Alderman Jenner, Alderman Pepper, and J.J. Giles Esq.

James Ballantyne, Canadian soldier, was charged with attempting to commit burglary at the Morehall Wine Stores.

Mr. J.H. Kent, of 284, Cheriton Road, said there was an entrance to a cellar at his house by means of a double flap door, one half of which flanged over the other and was fastened below by a chain. The door was secured safely at 8.10 the previous night. At 10.15, from something that was told him, he examined the door and found the upper half of the door had been forced, so that the other half could be raised and entrance effected into the cellar. The chain, which was attached to the half door by a staple, and secured in the cellar by another staple, had been removed, and was lying in the cellar, where the case containing wine had been removed from its position and placed under the flap, and six bottles were missing from it. He secured the flap and watched it until about 10.30, when he saw three soldiers come across the road to the flap. One took out an instrument, and he and another knelt down and tried to force the flap, the third man standing close by. He watched them for two or three minutes, and then rushed out. He caught hold of one of the soldiers and the other two struck him, making him release his man. The three men ran towards Cheriton, and he gave chase, shouting “Stop them”. A soldier, whom he afterwards found to be Sergt. Hurley, of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, knocked the prisoner down about thirty yards from witness' premises. He took charge of the prisoner, who was taken back to his house. He telephoned for the police, and P.C. Pritchard arrived. He gave the prisoner into his custody. He examined the door, and found marks of an instrument on the woodwork.

P.C. Pritchard said about 11 o'clock the previous night he went to 284, Cheriton Road, where he saw the prisoner detained by the last witness. Mr. Kent told him that he had caught the prisoner trying to get into his premises, and wished to give him in charge. Prisoner made no reply. He examined the flap, and on it he found the knife (produced) with the spike open. There were marks on the wood, and he should say they were similar to those which might have been done by the spike. At the police station, when formally charged, he replied “I made no attempt”.

Prisoner said he could not get a bus to get to Cheriton, so he walked. When opposite to Mr. Kent's he saw two men kneeling down, and another soldier asked him for a cigarette. He asked that man what the two soldiers were doing, and he said they had lost some money. He went across and he knelt down by the side of them, but one of the men went away. At that moment Mr. Kent came round the corner, and he stood up. Mr. Kent got hold of him, but when he found he was released he ran. The sergeant tripped him in the road, and placed him under an escort. Mr. Kent came up, and he went down to the house. He knew nothing about the wine.

The Magistrates committed the prisoner to the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1916.

Monday, September 11th: Before Alderman Jenner and other Magistrates.

James Ballantyne, a Canadian soldier, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of attempted burglary.

Mr. J.H.O. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, Cheriton Road, said he had an entrance to his cellar from the front by means of a double flap door, fastened below by a chain. On Sunday evening he saw the door safely secured about 8.10. About 10.15 the same evening he examined the door and found the upper flap had been forced, so that the other half could be raised and an entry effected into the cellar. Someone had apparently been down the cellar, as the chain had been unfastened. A case of wine had been carried from one place to another in the cellar, and six bottles of wine were missing from it. Witness secured the flap, and watched it till about 10.30, when he saw three soldiers come across the road and try to force the flap open with some instrument which one of them produced. Witness rushed out and took hold of one of them, whereupon the other two struck him, making him release his prisoner. The three men ran towards Cheriton, witness pursuing them and shouting “Stop them”. A soldier stopped prisoner by throwing him in the road. Between them they took the man to witness's house and telephoned for the police, into whose custody prisoner was given.

By the Clerk: On examining the flap later, witness found marks of an instrument on the lower flap.

P.C. Pritchard said about 11 p.m. on Sunday he went to prosecutor's premises, where he found prisoner detained. When handed over to witness accused made no statement. Outside the flap witness found a large knife with a strong spike, and there were marks of a similar instrument on the woodwork of the lower flap. When charged at the police station, prisoner said “I made no attempt”.

Defendant said he could not get a bus to Cheriton, and started to walk. When he was opposite prosecutor's premises a soldier stopped him and asked him for a cigarette. Two men were kneeling on the pavement, and prisoner asked what they were doing. The soldier replied that they had lost some money. Prisoner went and knelt beside them, and one got up and ran away. At that moment prosecutor came round the corner and prisoner waited for him. Prosecutor got hold of him, but prisoner soon found himself free and ran. He was tripped up in the road and taken back to prosecutor's premises. He knew nothing about the wine being gone.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions on September 29th.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 September 1916.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, September 29th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

James Ballantyne, 21, a Canadian soldier, was indicted for attempted burglary at the premises of James Henry Kent, with intent to steal, on 10th September. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. J.W. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and briefly outlined the facts.

Mr. Kent, licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road, said he left the cellar flap locked at 8 p.m. on September 10th, and at 10 o'clock found it was partly open. He secured it, and found that a case of Hall's wine in the cellar had been opened, and six bottles taken out. Going outside, he saw three soldiers come to the flap. One attempted to open the flap with a jack-knife, the second man helping him, whilst the third appeared to be directing. Prisoner was the one who tried to force the flap. Witness took hold of prisoner, but was struck by the other two, and released the man. They ran away, with witness in pursuit, and a soldier tripped up prisoner, whom witness brought to his house, where he telephoned to the police.

By the Recorder: Prisoner did not attempt to strike him.

P.C. Pritchard spoke to receiving prisoner into custody at Mr. Kent's premises on September 10th. He found a knife (produced) on the cellar flap, with the spike open, and several recent marks on the flap corresponding with the spike. Charged at the police station, prisoner said “I made no attempt”.

By the Recorder: Prisoner was in the Canadian Forces. The knife was one of a Canadian knife issue, each man being given one. Accused had no knife on him when he was arrested.

Prisoner said he was in the First Canadian Battalion, and came from St. Lomas, Ontario. On the night in question a soldier stopped him outside prosecutor's premises and asked him for a match. Two men were kneeling down, and on him asking what they were doing, he was told that they had lost some money. Mr. Kent came out and took hold of him, and when he found himself free he ran with the others until tripped up by a soldier. Mr. Kent was then 30 yards behind, and there were two soldiers between him and prosecutor. He was quite innocent of the charge.

Cross-examined: He had had a jack-knife, but had lost it in France He had not had one since returning to England. He must have run over 100 yards when he was tripped. He did not know why the soldiers should strike Mr. Kent, or that they did strike him.

By the Recorder: He had not applied for another knife because it was not necessary.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Chief Constable Ballantyne was in February last charged with assaulting a woman at Folkestone and fined 40s. The facts were that he struck the woman and snatched a bottle of stout from her.

The Recorder: Knocked a woman down in Folkestone, and the Magistrates did not order imprisonment. Monstrous!

Captain Bridges, C.A.M.C., handed in prisoner's crime sheet.

In passing sentence, the Recorder said however little it was desired to send accused to prison, in view of the fact that he came from Canada and was prepared to fight for his country, he must be imprisoned for a term he richly deserved. He would be committed to prison for six months, with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 7 October 1916.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, September 29th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

James Ballantyne, 21, a Canadian soldier, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of attempted burglary at the premises of James Henry Kent, with intent to steal, on 10th September. Mr. J.W. Weigall (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road, said he left the cellar flap locked at 8 p.m. on September 10th, and in consequence of what he was told at 10 o'clock he found it partly open. He secured it, and found that a case of Hall's wine in the cellar had been opened and six bottles taken out. He decided to keep observations on the cellar door, and when he had got to the corner of his premises he saw three soldiers come across the road and go to the flap. One attempted to open the flap with a jack-knife, the second man helping him, whilst the third, who was standing up, appeared to be directing them. Prisoner was the one who tried to force the flap. He rushed out and caught hold of prisoner, but was struck by the other two, which made him release the man. They ran away, with witness in pursuit, and a soldier tripped up prisoner. He was on the prisoner's heels all the time. He brought him to his house, where he telephoned to the police.

P.C. Pritchard said he received the prisoner into custody at Mr. Kent's premises on September 10th. He found the knife (produced) on the cellar flap, with the spike open, and several recent marks on the flap corresponding with the spike. When charged at the police station, prisoner said “I made no attempt”.

In reply to the Recorder, prisoner said the knife was a Canadian issue, each man being given one. Accused had no knife on him when he was arrested.

Prisoner, giving evidence on oath, said he was in the C.A.M.C., and came from St. Thomas, Ontario. On the night in question a soldier stopped him outside prosecutor's premises and asked him for a match. Two men were kneeling down, and on him asking what they were doing he was told that they had lost some money. He therefore helped them to look for it. Mr. Kent came round the corner and took hold of him, and when he found himself free he ran with the others until tripped up by a soldier. Mr. Kent was then thirty yards behind, and there were two soldiers between him and prosecutor. He was quite innocent of the charge.

Cross-examined: He had a jack-knife, but had lost it in France. He had not had one since returning to England. He must have run over 100 yards when he was tripped. He did not know why the soldiers should strike Mr. Kent, or even that they did strike him.

Questioned by the Recorder, he said he had not applied for another knife because it was not necessary.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Chief Constable said Ballantyne, on February 19th, was charged with assaulting a woman at Folkestone, and fined 40s. He met the woman, who was carrying a bottle of stout, and struck her a violent blow. He then snatched the bottle from her. A Military Police officer caught him, and the Magistrates fined him 40s.

The Recorder: What! Knocked down a woman in the streets of Folkestone and got off with a fine of 40s. and without imprisonment.

Captain G.W. Bridges, C.A.M.C., handed to the Recorder the prisoner's conduct sheet.

The Recorder, after examining it, said the man appeared to be a liar.

Captain Bridges: Yes.

The Recorder, in giving judgement, said in his opinion the Magistrates' sentence was very light treatment for a grave assault on a poor woman in that town. He, however, that day was before the Court of Quarter Sessions and a jury had found him Guilty, a decision with which he agreed. His conduct on his sheet was described as indifferent. However much one would desire that he should not be sent to prison, especially considering that he was a Canadian and was prepared to fight for the country, he must be imprisoned for a term he richly deserved. The sentence was that he should go to prison for six calendar months with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

For the year ended 31st December last 55 persons (28 males and 27 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 32 were convicted and 23 discharged without conviction. Of the persons proceeded against 17 were residents of the Borough, 9 members of the Naval and Military Forces, 13 persons of no fixed abode and 16 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against, of whom 129 were convicted and 45 discharged.

Proceedings have been taken during the year against 14 of the licence holders for various offences, 7 of whom were convicted and 7 dismissed. The following are the cases in which convictions have been recorded, viz; 9th March, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel was fined 1 for a breach of the “No Treating” Order; 24th March, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms Inn was fined 1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 23rd June, the licensee of the Chequers Inn was fined 1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without a licence; 30th June, the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores was fined 1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without the same having been previously paid for; 30th June, the licensee of 27 Rendezvous Street (off licence) was fined 1 for a similar offence; 1st December, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel was fined 5 for a breach of the No Treating Order; 1st December, the licensee of the Pavilion Shades was fined 5 for a similar offence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

The Order of the Liquor Control Board which came into operation on 10th January last year, restricting the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to 4 hours each weekday and 4 hours on Sunday remains in force, and in my opinion is mainly the cause of the decrease in the cases of drunkenness recorded.

Under Regulation 10 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Orders have been made by the Competent Military Authority, and are still in force, closing 3 of the licensed houses to all members of H.M. Forces. The houses are the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, and the True Briton, Harbour Street.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or 100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month's time.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said with regard to the premises licensed for music and dancing the Magistrates had made new regulations. In future no structural alterations should be made in the licensed premises, and no alterations should be made in the stage, gangways, passageway or exits without the previous approval of the justices, and such gangways should be kept free from chairs or other obstruction during the hours of public entertainment, and all performances should be of an unobjectionable character, and good order and decent behaviour should be kept and maintained on the premises during the hours of licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

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

The Chairman said he was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans, the greatest number he had seen for years. No doubt the difficulties of publicans were great owing to abnormal times. He would advise them to be very careful not to serve wounded soldiers or those who were soldiers about to embark. In regard to the licences, they would all be renewed, with the exception of seven, which would be considered at the adjourned sessions on March 7th.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1917.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions were held on Wednesday, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding on the Bench, when the licences of the Guildhall, the Mechanics Arms, the London and Paris Hotel, the Chequers, the Pavilion Shades, the Morehall Wine Stores, and Finn's Store, Rendezvous Street, were renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1917.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. H. Kirke.

The licences of the Pavilion Shades (Mr. E. Bishopp), the Mechanics Arms (Mr. J. Lawrence), Paris Hotel (Mr. G. Gray), Guildhall Vaults (Mr. Cousins), and those of Mr. J. Kent (Morehall), and Messrs. Finn and Co. Ltd. (Rendezvous Street) were renewed.

The Chairman, addressing the licensees, impressed upon them the great necessity of taking the greatest care in the conduct of their businesses, whilst at the same time acknowledging their difficulties.

 

Folkestone Express 17 March 1917.

Friday, March 9th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Pepper, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. H. Kirke.

John Sim, a Canadian soldier, was charged with having stolen two bottles of whisky from a truck at Shorncliffe Station. He was defended by an officer, a Canadian solicitor.

Frederick J. Burbridge, checker employed at Shorncliffe Station, said on March 6th a truck arrived in the goods yard about 10.15 a.m. Among the goods referred to in the invoice were cases of White Label whisky addressed to Mr. J.H. Kent. Witness checked the contents of the truck and the three cases of whisky were intact. When he next went to the truck on the morning of the 8th he found one of the cases broken open, and there was nothing of the contents remaining, with the exception of eleven “straw envelopes”. On the afternoon of the 7th a number of soldiers were employed loading baggage in the goods yard.

Cross-examined: The general public had access to the goods yard.

Corporal Gregson said on March 7th he was in charge of a fatigue party at the goods yard in question loading baggage into trucks. The defendant was one of the party.

A Corporal in the Canadian Military Police said he was on duty at Shorncliffe Station on the 7th at 4.30 and saw the defendant asleep in the waiting room. Witness woke him up and told him to go back to his party. Later witness noticed that he was very drunk, and saw a bottle sticking out of his pocket. He was placed under arrest. On the way to the barracks, prisoner produced another bottle of whisky. They were both “White Label” whisky.

Cross-examined: Witness had his name written on the labels before they were handed over to Det. Sergt. Johnson, but when they were first handed over to the military sergeant they were not so marked. He could not swear that the two bottles produced in Court were the identical bottles.

The Chief Constable said if the officer persisted on this point he would ask for an adjournment in order to call another witness who directed the bottles to be marked.

The officer said he would prefer the case to go on.

Detective Sergt. Johnson said on the previous afternoon he saw the prisoner in custody on Shorncliffe Camp. The two bottles of whisky produced were handed to him by the last witness, who said “I found that on him when he was arrested”. Witness brought him to the Folkestone police station, where he was formally charged, but made no reply.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

The officer asked for the case to be dismissed, submitting that there was no evidence against the man. It was true that the box was opened and the whisky missing and that defendant was found with two bottles of whisky, but there was no connection between these two facts. It had not been proved that the two bottles before the Bench had been stolen. The man had borne a very good character. He was a good soldier, he had been to France, and had come back wounded.

The Bench held that the man was Guilty and sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1917.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the Police Court: Morehall Hotel, from Mr. J.H. Kent, who is going on National Service in France, to his wife.

 

Folkestone Express 4 January 1919.

Local News.

The off licence of the Morehall, Cheriton Road, was transferred from Mrs. Kent to Mr. J.H. Kent.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 January 1919.

Local News.

At a sitting of the Licensing Justices on Wednesday (Mr. E.T. Ward presiding). The licence of the Morehall wine and spirit stores was transferred from Mrs. Alice Kent to Mr. J.H. Kent, the latter being discharged from military service.

 

Folkestone Express 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr .G. I. Swoffer and other magistrates, the following licence was transferred: Rose Hotel, from Mr. Alfred Cope to Mr. James H. Kent.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. Alfred John Cope to Mr. James Henry Kent.

 

Folkestone Express 12 February 1927.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. W. Griffin, Col. P. Broome-Giles, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. J.H. Blamey.

Mr. Davis (instructed by Mr. Haines) said he appeared on behalf of the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores, Cheriton Road, and the application was for the removal of the full licence from the Rose Hotel in Folkestone to the Morehall Wine Stores. The application, and the desire of Mr. Kent, who was the licensee, was to sell by retail at the new premises, either on or off the premises, of intoxicating liquors that he could sell under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, which, of course, was what the licensing justices would have in mind in dealing with a licence of that description. What opposition was there?

Opposition cane from Mr. Rutley Mowll, on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, and the owners of the White Lion Hotel, and of the Victoria Hotel, in Risborough Lane, Mr. Scorer, on behalf of the Rev. D.C. Kenward, and the Rev. G.A. Uden, the minister of the Baptist Church, and property owners.

After hearing the evidence and considerable argument, which included that by Mr. Mowll that the public would not get the benefit of the monopoly value, which was stated to be 3,000, by that transference of the licence, the Magistrates retired, and on their return the Mayor announced that the application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1927.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

Morehall Application.

An application was made by Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, for the transfer of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. A. Davis, barrister, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, appeared on behalf of the applicant, while Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, and also the licensee and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and the licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane. Mr. Scorer, of Ashford, appeared on behalf of the Rev. D. Kedward, the Rev. E. Uden, and several property owners in the district.

Mr. Davis said the application was for the removal of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, to proposed new premises at the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Kent, the licensee, wished to sell by retail at the new premises at Morehall either on or off the premises all intoxicating liquors, and under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel he would be able to do that. Mr. Kent, he imagined, was well-known to the Bench as a licensee of some standing in Folkestone, he having held a licence or various licences for the last seventeen years. At this juncture Mr. Davis asked if there was any opposition, and both Mr. Mowll and Mr. Scorer stated for whom they were appearing.

Mr. Davis (to Mr. Scorer): Is yours a Temperance opposition?

Mr. Scorer: I am opposing on the grounds that the need is not there.

Mr. Davis, continuing, said first of all he proposed to deal with the need of the district around the Morehall Wine Stores. From the map he produced it would be seen that the Morehall Wine Stores occupied a corner site which was regarded as being of some importance having regard to the opportunities such a site gave for police supervision. The Stores were situated right in the centre of a rapidly growing district. On the northern side of the railway there were no less than six hundred houses, besides works such as the Folkestone Electricity Works, and shops which were unprovided for at all in a quarter mile radius by any licensed premises. A half mile away was a fully licensed house known as the White Lion, but if they took half a mile radius from the Morehall Wine Stores on the northern side, they got something like eleven hundred houses without any fully licensed hotel accommodation. If anything was required to convince the Bench of the need for granting the application there was situated very near Morehall one of the finest sports grounds in the world. The mere fact that this fine sports ground was situated in the district was an assurance that the district would be developed rapidly within the next few years. If they took the south side of the half mile radius they got another hundred houses, making in all twelve hundred. There was one licensed house in that district, and that was the Railway Hotel, but access to these premises was only possible from the northern side by crossing the railway under an arch in Shorncliffe Road. Numerous workmen engaged at the Electric Light Works and other places came from long distances and they brought with them their midday meal, and they naturally desired something to drink with their meal, but they would not go this long way round to the Railway Hotel. What was the result? Instead they cut across the railway, which was most undesirable. Fully licensed premises at Morehall would obviate that. There were over a hundred men employed at the Electricity Works. Mr. Hesketh, the managing director of the Works, had given this matter much consideration and he would tell them that from the point of view of economy the men were happier, more content, and better able to do their work if means were provided whereby they could obtain refreshment. Mr. Davis, continuing, pointed out that there was no hotel accommodation in the district; there was no accommodation for travellers, visitors, or club meetings. Provision, it was proposed, would be made so that clubs, friendly societies, etc., could meet on the premises. Mr. Davis then referred to the petition asking the Magistrates to grant a full licence. The Petition, Mr. Davis stated, was signed by three hundred and twenty three persons, and Mr. Kent's instructions to the person taking the petition round was to see that only one person in each house signed. The petitioners represented one hundred and ninety nine occupiers, nearly a hundred owners of property, and some forty to fifty lodgers, and every one of the signatories resided on the northern side of the railway. In those roads nearest the Morehall Wine Stores a very large proportion of the householders had signed the petition for a licence. Continuing, Mr. Davis said that the nearest licensed house to the Morehall Wine Stores on the Folkestone side was the Bouverie Arms, which was a mile and a half away. His submission was that he made the application with some confidence because what was the opposition? There were various forms of opposition. Some they understood and some they did not; some opposition was entitled to respect, and some was not entitled to so much respect. It divided itself under two headings – trade opposition and what was regarded as temperance opposition. With regard to the trade opposition it was opposition for which one could not have much respect. Wasn't it self-destructive? If it was contended that a new house would take away a lot of trade from another house, it could not be said, having regard to the needs of the neighbourhood, that another fully licensed house was not required. He relied upon the opposition to support his case. He was told that twenty years ago Mr. Mowll was applying for a licence on that very spot. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll: I hope learned counsel does not mistake me for a retired publican. (Laughter)

Mr. Davis, continuing, said twenty years ago the owners of the White Lion Hotel applied for a licence on that very spot. They applied on the only grounds which he that day was making the application – that there was a need for such premises. What was a need twenty years ago was a want today. With regard to the other opposition he doubted whether he quite understood it, but he realised that the opposition was put forward on the highest motive and it was opposition for which they must have the greatest respect. He could not help feeling, however, that their opposition was opposition to the law rather than the application. It might be that they desired all licences should be done away with, but the law being what it was, it was laid down that a licence should be provided in a district where it was required, and therefore he did submit with the utmost confidence that the opposition of the Temperance party was not opposition which ought to weigh with them. Counsel next referred to the case for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel. Within a quarter mile radius, taking the Rose Hotel as the centre, he said, there were no less than fifty three licensed houses, fully licensed houses numbering forty three, and off licences eleven. The Magistrates had to decide whether the removal of a licence from such an area was likely to cause any inconvenience to the people in the area. He did not think it could be suggested that there could be any inconvenience. They were proposing to remove a licence from this congested area to an area where there was a great need for a fully licensed house.

Mr. W.B. MacGowan, of 7, Beachborough Villas, gave evidence of the posting and serving of notices. He said that he knew the district well and there was no licensed house between the White Lion, Cheriton and the Bouverie Arms, unless one went to the Railway Hotel. Personally he did not want a licensed house, but he had not the slightest objection to one. There was a very large area with no licensed house, and he had frequently heard it stated by members of the public that a licensed house was required in that area.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said he had not had any difficulty in letting houses in that neighbourhood because there were no licensed premises.

Mr. J.H. Kent said he was the applicant in the application and also the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores. He was also the licensee of the Rose Hotel, the licence having been transferred to him in January. He had over twenty years' experience as a licence holder. In his view there was undoubtedly a need for a licensed house at Morehall. There had been a great demand during the past ten or twelve years, and he frequently had applications to supply drink on the premises. There was no hotel accommodation in the area, or meeting place for friendly societies, clubs, etc. If the application was granted he intended making provision for those needs. He put in petitions signed by the residents in the neighbourhood in favour of the application. The signatures were obtained from persons living within a quarter mile radius of his present premises.

By Mr. Mowll: The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to him on January 5th. Mr. M. Burton, the owner of the Rose Hotel, had a shop next door, but he could not say whether he (Mr. Burton) acquired the Rose Hotel for the extension of his premises. He could not say that the licence of the Rose Hotel would be extinguished in any event. The owners of the Morehall Wines Stores were Messrs. Nalder and Collyer. He could not see how the public were going to get any monopoly value through the transfer.

Mr. Davis interposed here and said that he did not wish to hide anything. A copy of the agreement arrived at between the brewers (Messrs. Nalder and Collyer) and Mr. Burton had been put in. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had provisionally agreed to purchase the licence of the Rose Hotel from Mr. M. Burton if the transfer was granted.

Mr. Mowll: The suggestion is that this is going to put money into Mr. Burton's pocket and deprive the public of monopoly value.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Kent said he had been at the Morehall Wine stores since 1907. He had made two applications in the past for a full licence.

Mr. F.C. Hayward, an architect, said he had prepared an ordnance map dated 1907. Since 1907 the number of buildings erected at Morehall on the north side of the railway was a hundred and seventy, in a quarter mile circle. He was referring to residences, and the number did not include factories, garages, works, and a considerable number of shops. South of the line the number of new houses was seventy. There were a hundred and fifty new houses between the quarter mile circle and the half mile circle, making a total of 320 on the north side.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said it was proposed to construct one new bedroom at Morehall Wine Stores if the transfer was granted. The existing shop would become the public bar and the store and office would be turned into the lounge. The kitchen would be shifted to the back.

Mr. Thos. Hesketh, Managing Director of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Coy., said from one hundred to one hundred and fifty men were employed by the Company. He supported the application on the grounds that he considered it was necessary to meet the requirements of the working men in the district. Some of his own men came long distances and brought their meals with them, and, of course, wanted something to drink when they had their meals. Some of the men crossed the railway line and went to the Railway Hotel. Other workmen had also trespassed across the line, and through the Electricity Coy.'s works to get to their goal – the Railway Hotel.

By Mr. Mowll: He had supported the application on previous occasions.

Mr. Mowll said the Trade had its rights and one of the rights of the Trade was that they paid very heavy taxes, and they were also called upon to pay certain duties and so on. The law had laid down a provision whereby in the case of a new licence a monopoly value should be assured to the public. The application before them that day was a manoeuvre to get over that payment of that monopoly value. He had heard, although it had not been mentioned that day, that the monopoly value was said to be 3,000 some years ago. They had seen the document with regard to the purchase of the licence by Mr. Kent from Mr. Burton and they would see that not one penny of that 3,000 would go into the pockets of the public. It was equally certain that some of the money would go into the pockets of Mr. Montague Burton. If they did not grant the transfer of the licence, the Rose Hotel licence, he contended, would disappear in a short time and no compensation would have to be paid. There was no doubt that Mr. Burton had bought the Rose Hotel with the idea of extending his premises. They were offering this gentleman a very substantial sum if he had the good luck to secure a certain decision from the Magistrates that day. If they made themselves a party to this manoeuvre they established a permanent licence at Morehall, and by removing the licence they would grant to Morehall another licence which could only be extinguished by compensation. Continuing, Mr. Mowll said it was not everybody who wished to live next door to a public house. They also had this significant fact – although there were some eleven hundred houses in the neighbourhood of the Morehall ine Store only just over three hundred persons had signed the petition. He also represented the tenant and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton. That was a fully licensed and equipped house, and some years ago extensive alterations were carried out to meet the increased demands of the district. They looked upon this as an increase to the full licences because they knew that if the application that day failed the licence of the Rose Hotel would become extinct and they would get rid of that licence which Mr. Davis had said was not wanted.

Mr. Davis: I said no hardship would be occasioned by its transfer.

Mr. Mowll said he agreed with Mr. Davis that it was not wanted except by Mr. Burton, and he wanted to put into his pocket money which the public should get as monopoly value.

Mr. Scorer said he saw no connection between the Rose Hotel and Morehall. At Morehall Mr. Kent already had an off licence which, he understood, he had had ever since 1912. Since then the applicant that day had had many opportunities of asking for a full licence, but he had not done so until then. Now he asked for a full licence because he had a peg on which to hang his hat – that was the Rose Hotel. Would he have asked them for a full licence that day if he had not the chance of transferring the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall? The Bench's policy during the past few years had not been to increase the number of full licences, but to decrease them, and that policy had worked very satisfactorily. He asked the Magistrates to continue to adopt that policy by reducing the redundant houses. The demands of the particular locality were well enough served by the Railway Hotel although people might have to go under a railway bridge to get to it. With regard to being near the cricket ground, he understood during cricket weeks a special licence was obtained for selling intoxicating liquors on the ground. He submitted that it had not been proved that there was a big demand on the part of the public in that particular neighbourhood for another fully licensed premises.

The Magistrates retired and upon their return the Mayor said the application for the transfer had been very fully considered and he was instructed to say that the application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 February 1927.

Council Meeting.

A special meeting of the Folkestone Town council was held at the Town Hall on Thursday morning, the Mayor presiding. There were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks and C. Ed. Mumford, Councillors Commander H.F. Russell, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. E. Gore, J. Hanchard, C. Turnham, Mrs. M.I. Anness, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, W.B. Banks, J.W. Stainer, Colonel W. Swinhoe Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, Major General J.N. Younghusband, R. Forsyth, and A.N. Castle, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) and other Officers.

The Mayor said the meeting had been called on his instructions because something of great importance had happened since their last meeting and he thought if the members of the Council knew all the facts they would approve of his action in calling them together. They would hear from the Town clerk what had taken place since the last meeting. It would not have been possible to have waited for the next ordinary meeting, as the matter pressed.

Councillor Stainer asked if the Council had not already decided to defer the question of obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall.

The Town Clerk said that was so.

Councillor Stainer: And yet the matter is to be re-opened?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Stainer said he submitted that before anything in regard to that matter was considered by the Council it should first of all be considered by the Committee affected. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the matter had been before them so recently and deferred, that the Council hardly expected the matter to be re-opened within such a short time. It was an irregular proceeding and he did not think it commended itself.

The Mayor said he still maintained that he had not made a mistake in bringing the matter before the Council that morning. The matter, it was true, had been deferred, but not for any space of time.

The Town Clerk said the following letter, dated February 16th, had been received from Mr. J.H. Kent: Dear Sir, As the owner of the full licence at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, I beg to apply to the Council for the right to supply intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall and can make the necessary application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall at the adjournment of the general annual licensing meeting to be held on the 9th March next, if the Council agree thereto, subject to an agreement being made between the Council and myself on terms to be arranged to our mutual satisfaction.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said he thought the letter practically explained everything. The reason Mr. Kent was in this position was that an application by him for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall had been refused, and he was now willing to make use of that licence at the Leas Cliff Hall if they accepted him as caterer. If the application was made notices must be published in the local papers that weekend. Of course, if the notices were given and then they found they could not come to satisfactory terms with Mr. Kent, he would be able to withdraw the application when it came before the Magistrates, so the Council would have a free hand in that sense between then and March 9th, the date of the adjourned Licensing Sessions. If the removal of the licence was sanctioned by the Magistrates of the borough in regard to general licensing matters, except in regard to any application in reference to that particular building. There was also no question of any monopoly value.

Councillor Stainer said he took it that the acceptance of Mr. Kent's offer meant that they would be taking him on as caterer without throwing the position open to the public.

The Mayor said that was so if they took Mr. Kent's licence.

Councillor General Younghusband: I move that we go into Committee.

This was carried.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to utter a protest against the Council appointing a caterer without any competition. There were hosts of caterers up and down the country who could do the thing well.

Councillor Turnham: They have not got a licence.

Councillor Stainer: I don't know that Mr. Kent has any experience as a caterer; he is a wine merchant.

The Mayor said they could have two caterers – one to supply wines and spirits and the other food.

Councillor Saunders: Is there any monopoly value attached to a place of entertainment?

The Town Clerk: I have no doubt if we went for a new licence we should have to pay a monopoly value.

Councillor Saunders said he understood that for a place of public entertainment it was possible to get a licence on the payment of a yearly duty of 50. That seemed to him to be the licence that they required for the Leas Cliff Hall, and further he did not see why any Bench of Magistrates should refuse to grant an application for such a licence. That they should consider putting the licence in the power of one man right away without giving anyone a chance seemed to him to be grossly unfair. There was a lot of profit in this business and if it was properly run a good deal of revenue could be obtained for the ratepayers. They ought to consider the provision of bars and service rooms before making up their minds what kind of licence they should have. He thought the whole thing was being rushed, and he did not think it was fair. They had other very large ratepayers who were licensees and quite capable of doing the catering at the Leas Cliff Hall. He believed if the Town Clerk were to go into the question of obtaining a licence for a place of public entertainment, he would find that there was no monopoly value attached, and he thought that kind of licence would meet their requirements. Then they had the other hall at the other end of town. He thought they should take that place into consideration too. It was now closed and a big loss to the public. He did not think the public expected a full public house licence, and he did not think it was reasonable to expect them to discuss that matter that morning because they had not got sufficient data before them.

Councillor Turnham: Who is going to hold the licence you suggest, then?

Councillor Saunders: Either our own manager or some caterer who is appointed by the Corporation on terms to be made, and not on terms rushed on the Council.

The Mayor said there was no idea of rushing the matter through. They could send the matter to the Entertainments Committee, which could find out more about the whole matter and see Mr. Kent, and then bring up a scheme for their consideration at an early date.

Councillor Saunders: We have been told the advertisements must appear in the papers this weekend. If we pass a resolution here this morning we shall be tying ourselves down to a particular caterer and a particular form of licence. I am quite prepared, however, for the whole matter to be considered by the Entertainments Committee.

Councillor Russell: Is there anyone on the Council who can tell us something about Mr. Kent? Is he capable of doing this job? I would like to know something about him.

The Mayor: Of course the Entertainments Committee could interview Mr. Kent and find out what is his experience.

Councillor Russell: I submit that he has never done any general catering before.

Councillor Stainer: We decided in Committee that we did not want a full licence. I say the Council are taking a big step much too fast. This proposition will land us with a full licence.

Councillor Russell: That's what we want.

Councillor Broome-Giles suggested the Council should consider buying the licence from Mr. Kent. At the present time the value of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Mr. Kent was very small.

Councillor Saunders said he could not see why the Magistrates should refuse to grant a licence to a public body for a place of public entertainment. A neighbouring town had got a licence last week. They knew that if the licence in question lapsed it would be of no use to Mr. Burton or Mr. Kent, and they (the Council) were simply doing something which was ridiculous, because they were getting something they did not require, and at the same time putting money into the pockets of an outside firm and also tying themselves down to one particular man.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said that day she did see eye to eye with the Mayor. (Laughter) She thought he was working on the right lines. They were proposing shortly to open a very big hall which had cost an enormous amount, and they would never make it pay unless they got a full licence for it. She thought that was a wonderful opportunity and she wanted to see the Council take advantage of it.

Councillor Swinhoe Phelan said he thought they should decide first of all whether the Council wanted a full licence or another kind of licence. Personally, he thought they wanted a full licence.

The Mayor said the decision come to that morning would decide the question of a licence for years to come, as if they turned down the opportunity they now had Mr. Kent would not make an application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. If they did as he suggested that day their hands would not be tied. If they were of the opinion later that the arrangements proposed between Mr. Kent and the Council were not satisfactory, they could still turn them down and Mr. Kent would go to the Brewster Sessions, or write to the Magistrates' Clerk, withdrawing his application. He was not a public house man, and never would be, but he wanted to see the Leas Cliff Hall turn out a financial success in the interests of the town. (Hear, hear) Unless they got a licence they would not hold their own people. They wanted to keep their own people in this country and not let them have excuses for going abroad for their holidays. If they did not avail themselves of the opportunity it would be far more difficult to make a success of this new building. He was out to do what was the best, and the objective he had in view was to make this new hall such an attraction that it would bring people to Folkestone during the off season.

Councillor Russell: I am convinced that unless we have a full licence the catering part of the business is going to be a dismal failure. Cannot we have a vote now whether we go for a full licence or not?

The Mayor: You can only have a full licence by making terms with Mr. Kent.

Councillor Russell: Could we not purchase a full licence and hold it in the name of an official?

The Town Clerk said if an official of the Corporation held a licence he was of the opinion that local Magistrates would be disqualified from dealing with local licensing matters, except in the case of charges of drunkenness. With regard to the transfer of local licences, etc., they would have to get county Magistrates to adjudicate.

Councillor Saunders asked how it was possible for them as a Committee without any competition in the matter to fix terms with Mr. Kent. If they advertised for tenders for the catering, as they had done in the past in regard to the Warren tea houses, they would accept the highest tender. Now it was suggested that they should pass a resolution which would enable the Committee to meet Mr. Kent and they would be tying their hands. They would have no figures to work upon, no facts, or any knowledge as to the price they should ask Mr. Kent. If they were going to have a licence, and he was in favour of one, surely in common fairness they should give other people in the twon a chance. The catering rights and the licensing rights were worth thousands a year. They were being asked to come to a decision without anything to work upon.

The Mayor: I agree it is worth thousands a year and those thousands are going to be divided between the Corporation and the caterer.

Councillor Saunders: Supposing at the end of twelve months we decide to terminate Mr. Kent's agreement, would the licence then be the property of the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Mayor: I think Mr. Kent would either walk out with the licence or the money we paid him for it.

In reply to Councillor Forsyth, the Mayor said there had been no other offers from local caterers so far as he knew.

Councillor Forsyth said he honestly believed that if they were going to make a success of the building they must have a licence, and further, they must have a full licence. It was very awkward; they had no choice. They were in a position that day that a man came to them and to a certain extent he could dictate terms, but he was going to suggest that the Committee which met Mr. Kent should consist of the keenest businessmen they had on the Council. They should see that they got a fair share of the swag, or proceeds. They wanted a fair share, and if anything the biggest share, because they were providing the building. They had got to protect the town. A clause should be inserted whereby the Corporation should have an option to purchase the licence at the end of twelve months at a certain figure. He did not know whether it would not be possible even now, and between then and March 9th, to get some competitive prices from other caterers. They should not rush into the scheme unless they were going to get the biggest half of the profits. Whatever they did he appealed to them to be careful and to see that there was a clause giving them the right to purchase the licence at the end of a certain period at a certain figure.

Alderman Franks: Will the terms of the agreement be submitted to the Council before the matter goes before the Magistrates?

The Mayor: Certainly.

Councillor Stephens said if they did not get a full licence they would never make the place pay. He paid no attention to what Councillor Stainer had said because he was a rabid partisan. If they did not come to a decision at once they would be left in the lurch and lose money for months and months. Councillor Stephens then moved that the Council were willing to let the catering for the sale of intoxicating liquors to Mr. J.H. Kent, and agreed to support his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, subject to terms being agreed with the Council prior to the application being submitted to the Magistrates.

Councillor Barfoot seconded.

Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment that the Corporation apply for a licence for the Leas Cliff Hall for retailing liquor at a place of public entertainment, such licence to be held by an official of the Council or some appointed caterer. He believed that a licence held on those lines would be far more profitable to the ratepayers. The people of Folkestone were getting very cross at these quick decisions, and he did not think the action proposed that morning was fair. There were other people in Folkestone who paid big rates, and who at the same time were licensees and caterers, but they were not to have an opportunity of putting in a price.

Councillor Castle seconded.

Councillor Mrs. Anness: Do I understand that if the Council hold the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall it is going to tie the hands of local Magistrates so that they cannot adjudicate on local licensing matters in the future?

The Town Clerk: That is my opinion, and the opinion of others I have consulted. They could not deal with any question under the Licensing Act, except a “drunk”.

Councillor Saunders' amendment was lost, only Councillor Castle and he voting in favour.

The original proposition moved by Councillor Stephens was then put and carried by fourteen votes to one. Councillor Stainer voted against, and Alderman Mumford and Councillors Castle and Saunders did not vote.

It was eventually decided that the following Sub-Committee should negotiate with Mr. Kent: The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Pepper, Councillors Younghusband, Brett, Giles, Forsyth and Saunders. A resolution that the Entertainments Committee, with the addition of certain members, should enter into negotiations was defeated.

The meeting then went into Council again.

Councillor Saunders suggested the following addition to Councillor Stephens's resolution: “That we negotiate with Mr. Kent for the transfer of his licence to any person the Council should nominate”, and the Council agreed to this.

It was finally resolved “That the foregoing proceedings of the Council in Committee be approved, confirmed, and adopted, and that the Committee appointed by the Council in Committee be instructed to confer with Mr. Kent as to transferring his licence either to the Corporation or another caterer”.

 

Folkestone Express 5 March 1927.

Council Meeting Extract.

On Wednesday the members of the Folkestone Town Council were occupied for several hours in discussing recommendations by the Entertainments Committee, the principal of which dealt with the terms suggested for the proposal to transfer the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Council rejected the terms, and the result will be that there is very little likelihood of there being a licence obtained for at least a year.

The Special Committee's report was as follows: The Committee have had several interviews with Mr. Kent and his Solicitor (Mr. W.J. Mason of Messrs. Hall and Co.), and have visited and inspected with them the Leas Cliff Hall. Suggestions were made by Mr. Kent that if he carried out the catering he should pay the Corporation, as rental, a percentage of the net profits; but after fully considering such suggestion the Committee came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory and simplest way of arriving at the amount to be paid by Mr. Kent was by a percentage on the gross takings, and this was eventually agreed to. Mr. Kent is the absolute owner of the licence, which is a free licence, and he definitely declined to consent to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee. The Committee having carefully considered the whole matter recommend the Council to enter into an Agreement with Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall and for catering there, and submit the following terms as the best they were able to arrange, and recommend their approval and adoption by the Council:—(1) Mr. Kent to be the caterer for all purposes for the Leas Cliff Hall. (2) Mr. Kent rot to sublet, assign or transfer the right of supplying- refreshments without the consent of the Corporation and then only to a person approved by the Corporation. (3) Mr. Kent may sublet the catering for refreshments, other than intoxicating liquor, to a person to he approved by the Corporation. (4) Mr. Kent to pay the Corporation 12 percent on gross takings for intoxicating liquor and 15per cent on gross takings for other refreshments and articles except on cigarettes, the percentage shall be five and on chocolate 7. (5) The prices to be charged shall be usual and reasonable prices as may be agreed from time to time and for the first year the charges for intoxicating liquor shall be “Commercial” charges. (6) Mr. Kent to pay for all gas consumed by him. (7) The period of the agreement shall be until, and may be determined on, the 31st December, 1930, by either party giving six months' previous notice, and if such notice be not given it shall continue from year to year determinable by either party giving six months' notice, to expire on the 31st December in any year. (8) After the expiration of the first 12 months of the Agreement, the terms as to the payment to the Corporation may be considered and revised. (9) On the termination of the Agreement, Mr. Kent shall sell the licence to the Corporation or their nominee for the sum of 2,000, plus an amount not exceeding 500 for Mr. Kent's out of pocket expenses in connection with the acquisition, transfer and removal of the licence, if so required by the Corporation; and if the Corporation shall terminate the agreement, the Corporation shall buy the licence from Mr. Kent, if so required by him. In like circumstances, such equipment as is not stamped with the owner's name belonging to Mr. Kent or to any person to whom he has sublet with the approval of the Corporation shall be sold and bought at a valuation. (10) No person will be admitted inside the Leas Cliff Hall except in accordance with conditions which may he prescribed hy the Council and no intoxicating liqour shall be sold for consumption off the premises except in conformity with restrictions from time to time made by the Corporation. (11) One or more bars shall be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall as may be agreed. (12) Mr. Kent has absolute freedom of purchase for all intoxicating liqours and undertakes not to become tied in any way to any firm. (13) A formal agreement to be settled on behalf of both parties by Counsel, whose fees shall be paid in equal shares by the parties. (14) In case of disagreement between the parties as to any of these heads of agreement the matter shall he left to the decision of Counsel, which shall he accepted as final by both parties.

Mr. Councillor Saunders did not vote in favour of the above terms.

The Town Clerk was instructed to consider as to any further points of detail and if on any point he could not agree with Mr. Kent’s Solicitor, it was understood that the matter should we left to Counsel and each party would accept his decision.

The Committee recommended that there should be a bar on each side of the Cloak Room below the northern entrance of the Hall.

The question was raised that the Committee did not recommend the acceptance of the terms but merely submitted them.

The Council decided to revoke a resolution passed previously by them that no bar should be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall at present.

The Council then agreed to resolve themselves into a public committee for the purpose of discussing the Committee's report.

Councillor Saunders said Mr. Kent's original terms were 25 percent of his net profit, rising to 33 1/3 percent for a period of seven years, with compensation at the end of the first seven years of 5,000 if it was taken from his. He thought that was absolutely accurate.

The Mayor, in reply to Councillor Stainer, said the licence belonged to Mr. Kent, who had bought it for 1,000.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to move Clause 9 should be deleted – that dealing with giving 2,500 to Mr. Kent as compensation should the licence be required from him.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the terms were the final and best terms they could get from Mr. Kent. If they altered those terms the matter would fall through.

Councillor Saunders said he was not convinced that those terms were the best they could get. He thought they should negotiate on the 20 percent basis for intoxicants.

The Town clerk, in reply to Mr. Saunders, read a letter offering 30 percent of the net profits for the privilege of selling cigarettes, tobacco, etc., in the Hall for the first year.

Councillor Saunders said he had received letters from two reputable licensees stating that they would be prepared to pay 1,000 flat rent for the licence in the Hall. The Committee had had to negotiate with a pistol at their head, because Mr. Kent and his legal advisor had not budged. They should get a big revenue from the licence, because their capital charges were about 5,600, and that was the only chance of recouping themselves. For the 12 percent the Council had to provide light, cleaning, heating, bars, bands, advertising and all the usual things that the trader had to pay for out of his profit. He suggested that the probable net profits for the licensee was somewhere about 50 percent. Mr. Kent’s offer was really one of 2s. 6d. in the 1 for all the facilities, and that was ridiculous. Mr. Kent was asking them to put him in the shop front of Folkestone and giving hirn their most valuable site. The Committee never had a chance of discussing the matter on a business basis. Hastings and St. Leonards had got a licence for their new Hall, and there was no question of County Magistrates there. That licence was granted to the Hastings Entertainments Manager. He suggested that the attitude they should take up, unless they could get considerably better conditions, was that they should advertise for the general catering, and take the necessary steps before the next annual licensing sessions. Mr. Kent suggested that he would only get 26 a year out of it, but that was unthinkable.

The Mayor said the Committee majority recommendations were in favour of the terms being accepted. With reference to what Councillor Saunders said about 50 per cent profit, that was not substantiated before the Committee. Mr. Kent’s figures were 35 per cent. The quotations by Mr. Kent were on a commercial hotel basis The prices were similar to the Queen’s Hotel. If they charged Harbour Street prices the profits would be less. The Committee tried to get an offer of 15 percent on the gross takings, but Mr. Kent said it could not be done. The agreement was being brought up on the lines mentioned in the Committee’s report. Those were the best terms they could get.

Councillor Moncrieff: You say we can alter these proposals?

The Mayor: Mr. Kent is not prepared to accept other proposals.

Councillor Moncrieff: Then it means we have to say that we accept or reject? The issue is a very simple one; we ought to reject.

Alderman Franks said the Committee were instructed to negotiate for the best terms. They had done so, and it was for the Council to say what should be done. Those were the best terms the Committee could get, and he thought they were a fair and proper arrangement. He went so far as to recommend them to the Council.

Councillor Moncrieff said he was quite in favour of what had been said by Councillor Saunders, who had put the position so ably before them. At the end of the period stipulated by Mr. Kent they had no chance of retaining that licence except by paying an exorbitant rent. That was a ver bad bargain for the town.

The Mayor said they had been told 12 percent on the gross takings was not sufficient. If Mr. Kent took 100 per week the Corporation's share would be 650. He would have to employ six waitresses and one cellarman, and his expenses would run to nearly 20 a week. Therefore there would not be much profit for Mr. Kent. Hastings had got a licence, the Corporation having been granted it. The Council should be aware that did not mean that the Hastings Corporation were not paying for the licence. The Excise Authorities would fix the monopoly value, and the Hastings Corporation would have to pay some thousands for that licence. Mr. Kent had got the licence dirt cheap - 1,000. When he applied for the licence to be transferred to the Morehall the licensed victuallers fixed the monopoly value at 3,000. They also knew that when the Grand Hotel obtained tbeiir licence they had to pay 9,000. He took a line between the two, and he estimated they would have to pay some 4,000 or 5,000 for such a licence. Out of the 2,500, if they bought the licence at the end of the period for, 500 was for expenses. Therefore Mr. Kent would make 1,000 out of his deal. They did not think a man was coming there to pay to 1,000 a year for supplying drinks only. They would get 1,000 a year if the turnover was 150 a week. He never thought they were going to get 650 out of a 100 a week turnover. They would never get a cheaper licence. He was not satisfied with the 7 percent. That was all they could get. The percentage on smokes and minor details they might negotiate upon. Mr. Kent would not accept anything different on the drinks and the price of licence. The Mayor mentioned that the refreshments, other than intoxicating drinks, would be let to a sub-contractor, who would be Messrs. Gironimos.

Councillor Forsyth said it was a well-known fact that the most prosperous and the biggest profit was made out of the licensing trade.

During the subsequent lengthy discussion Councillor Russell raised the point as to whether they could restrict anyone taking liquor out of the hall, and the Town Clerk said if a condition of that kind was put on the licence by the Magistrates on agreement by the two parties, that would be sufficient to carry such a condition out.

The Mayor said that had been agreed between the parties.

The Mayor moved, and Councillor Broome-Giles seconded, the adoption of the minutes.

Councillor Hickson moved that having received the Committee’s report the Council regarded the terms as entirely unsatisfactory, and decided to reject same, and they further decided to meet the licensing position in some other manner. He said if it was good business for Mr. Kent it was excellent business for the Corporation to do the thing themselves.

Councillor Saunders seconded the amendment, which was carried by 13 votes to 7, and the Council approved of the resolution.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 March 1927.

Editorial.

The question of the hour so far as Folkestone is concerned is that of a licence for the sale of alcoholic liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall. Since it was first before the public it has passed through a variety of phases, and this week one metamorphosis has been swiftly followed by another. On Wednesday the Town Council devoted some hours to the consideration of the subject, eventually rejecting the recommendation of the Special Committee that the Corporation should enter into an agreement with Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, and for catering there, on certain terms, which are set out on another page. We believe that this decision will be approved of by the large majority of the townspeople. But that is not the end of the matter. Previously Mr. Kent had definitely declined to accept to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee, but subsequently to the meeting of Wednesday a letter was received from his solicitors intimating that he would sell the licence for 1,500. To consider this offer a meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held yesterday morning, when it was decided to accept it, and to call a meeting of the Town Council for Wednesday next, at nine o'clock in the morning, to confirm recommendation prior to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions, which are fixed for eleven the same morning. There is just a possibility of those who are against accepting the offer to sell keeping the discussion going so long that a final decision is not arrived at before the hour at which the Licensing Justices take their seats, but it is hardly likely that there will be a repetition of the tactics for which the late Mr. Joseph Biggar earned notoriety as an obstructionist in the House of Commons. Presuming that the recommendation is adopted, the matter will then come before the Licensing Magistrates.

It would be scarcely proper on our part at this juncture to indulge in any speculation as to what thje decision at the Licensing Sessions may be, and we must restrict our brief comments to the action of the Town Council. Whilst, as we have already suggested, that body adopted the right course in declining to agree to the terms embodied in the report of the Special Committee, in our opinion there is a good deal to be said in support of the recommendation to purchase. The one proposal is a totally different thing from the other. In our view, if the Leas Cliff Hall is to possess the advantage of a licence, it should be under the full control of the municipal authority, and the whole of whatever profit may accrue from the business should go to the municipal exchequer. There will doubtless be some difference of opinion as to whether it is reasonable that the holder of the licence should make a profit of 500 or thereabouts on the proposed transaction, but it must be borne in mind that, supposing the Council acquired an absolutely new licence, it would have to pay a substantial amount for monopoly value, an amount probably far exceeding the 1,500 asked by Mr. Kent.

 

Folkestone Express 12 March 1927.

Local News.

During the past week considerable interest if it was taken iri Folkestone regarding the question of the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall. Last week, it will be remembered that the Town Council turned down terms put before them by the Committee by which Mr. J.H. Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, was to remove the licence of that Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. On Friday the General Purposes Committee considered an offer, and recommended its acceptance, from Mr. Kent to sell the licence for 1,500, provided it could be removed to the Leas Cliff Hall. A protest mating was held on Tuesday evening in the Town Hall against the proposal and on Wednesday morning after considerable opposition the Council decided to purchase the licence. Subsequently a Bench of County Magistrates sitting in the Police Court granted the removal of the licence from the Hotel to the Hall, an undertaking being given by the licensee that there should be certain restrictions to the licence.

A special meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held on Friday morning to consider an offer to sell the licence he had previously offered to transfer from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Mayor presided, and there were present Aldermen T.S. Franks, C.E. Mumford, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, J.A.. Barfoot, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, H.F. Russell, R.L.T. Saunders, A. Castle, Mrs. Gore, S. Kingsforth, A.W. Hickson, W.H. Moncrieff, Mrs. Anness, W.B. Banks, C. Turnham, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson).

The Town Clerk read the following letter from Messrs, Frederic Hall and Co., solicitors for Mr. J.H. Kent:— Dear Sir,—Referring to the conversation which has taken place between the Mayor and Mr. Kent, we are now instructed to say that, in view of the decision of the Corporation yesterday, Mr. Kent is willing to continue his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall on condition that if the removal is sanctioned the Corporation will pay Mr. Kent 1,500 for the transfer of the licence to the Corporation of their nominee. As the application will not be continued by Mr. Kent unless the Corporation desire to acquire the licence on these terms, he thinks that, should such application be refused by the Justices, it would only be reasonable for the Corporation to pay his expenses in connection with the application for removal and transfer.

The Mayor said the conversation was between the Town Clerk and Mr. Kent, and not Mr. Kent and himself.

Councillor King-Turner said he had heard other men were prepared to offer their licences to the Council.

Councillor Younghusband: Then why don't they?

The Mayor said he was afraid it would not take them very far that morning.

Alderman Pepper said he thought it was a very good offer, and he moved that it be Accepted.

Alderman Franks seconded.

Alderman Pepper said he took it if the application was made the transfer would be to the Leas Cliff Hall in Mr. Kent’s name, or in anybody’s name.

The Town Clerk said the transfer would be from Mr. Kent to some other individual.

Councillor Kingsnorth: Do I understand, supposing the Council purchase the licence from Mr. Kent, we are free to get another caterer altogether?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Saunders said he would like to point out to the Council the very great difference in Mr. Kent's attitude now, and prior to Wednesday's Council meeting. (Hear, hear). They were told at the Committee meeting that Mr. Kent would not consider the sale of the licence, that he wanted it to trade with. They found, after the attempt to exploit the ratepayers on Wednesday had failed, he was now prepared to sell his licence at a profit of 500. He was strongly of opinion they did not want Mr. Kent’s licence. He believed they wanted a licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, and they should get that licence in a straightforward and honest manner at the Brewster Sessions. They were asked to pay Mr. Kent, whose licence he respectfully submitted was not worth 4d., 1500, which was 500 more than he had paid for it, even if it was paid for. It was all very well to say it was a good business proposition. It was not; it was a rotten one. All they wanted was a licence similar to that obtained at Hastings. There they had their licence endorsed, which would have a considerable bearing on the monopoly value. At Hastings they could serve half-an-hour before an entertainment, and a quarter of an hour after. If they had a seven days' licence they would be the only place of public entertainment in Folkestone that would be selling intoxicating liquor on the seventh day. That was a strong point for the ejectment of this licence.

Councillor Broome-Giles said if Councillor Saunders had two licensed victuallers prepared to pay 1,000 a year for the licence, it would e a very economical thing for the Council to pay 1,500, and be assured of 1,000 a year hereafter. If any other licensed victuallers wanted to transfer their licence they had had plenty of time to do so. He was a teetotaller and a non-smoker, and he knew the evils of drink, and he knew there were more chronic diseases from either tea or cocoa than from alcohol. He supported the purchase of the licence.

Councillor Saunders said the view Mr. Kent was presenting showed he had got a colossal cheek. He asked them to pay 500 profit.

The Mayor said that at Hastings they were not allowed to sell anything outside the bars, which after the Brewster Sessions on Wednesday would not be worth 4d. to him. (Hear, hear).

The Mayor said the licence they had at Hastings was similar to the licence they had at the Theatre, nothing could be taken into the hall, and if they had a licence like Hastings they could not supply anything on the restaurant style. The bars they had at Folkestone would be all right for waitresses to go and get drinks to take into the hall. If they did not accept that offer they could not do anything for twelve months.

Councillor Saunders: If drink is supplied in the main hall of the building will it be possible for a child under fourteen to enter the building?

The Town Clerk: I am afraid I have not considered that point.

The Mayor: Yes, the child would not go into the bar, but the child could be in the hall where drinks are brought out from the bar.

Councillor Stainer said they had a very different proposition before them that morning. On Wednesday Mr. Kent made an offer to the Corporation for the removal of the licence to the Leas Cliff Hall, on terms which were presented to the Corporation, and he trusted to his friends to uphold those terms, and a large sum of money to be put in his pocket.

Councillor Brett said he objected to the statement that Mr. Kent trusted to his friends.

Councillor Stainer: His supporters.

Councillor Younghusband: We are not his supporters.

The Mayor: I do object to this. It is unjust, and it is not worthy, and if you re going to treat people like that you are not going to get people to serve on the Committees.

Councillor Stainer said he did not want to offend anyone's feelings.

Councillor Younghusband: Then don't say these things.

Councillor Stainer said they were told on Wednesday night that they were rock-bottom terms, and not forty eight hours had passed before they found they were not rock-bottom terms. It was a suggestion on the part of Mr. Kent. Heads I win, tails you lose”. There were a great many people who objected to a licence at all. He did not think it was right the Council should involve themselves in a full licence when the opinion of the town was for something more restricted. If they applied for a full licence there would be opposition when the application was heard.

Alderman Pepper asked Councillor Stainer of he would support a modified licence.

Councillor Stainer said he would not.

Alderman Pepper said those people who wanted a drink were just as likely to go to Heaven as those people who did not. Everyone did not want to drink tea, coffee, or lemonade.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said the thing that struck her was Mr. Kent coming down in his terms.

Councillor Parfoot said they should have a full licence. He moved as an amendment that they should offer Mr. Kent 1,000 for his licence and 100 for his expenses, subject to the licence being kept alive.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he believed it was a fair and reasonable proposition.

Councillor Hickson asked, if the off-licence would be of no use to them, could they sacrifice it if they wished? There was a volume of opinion in the town, and if they could do something a bit tactful by surrendering something which would be of no use to them, could they do it?

The Mayor said the off-licence was of no use to them at all. The Magistrates could endorse it, nullifying the off-licence, if the Council consented.

The Town clerk suggested that when the application was before the Magistrates they should ask the Magistrates either to endorse it or for the Council to give an undertaking that they would not use it for off –consumption.

Councillor Hickson said he was of opinion i they wanted a licence, and he wanted to put the building on a footing so that it was going to make it a success. If they were not going to give it a fighting chance, how were they going to justify their future position with the ratepayers? By getting all these things necessary to the elements of success they were giving it a chance. If they dosed with the offer they would have cause to congratulate themselves in two or three years' time.

Councillor Brett said it seemed to him the Council were doing a thing that was clearly in the interests of the ratepayers, and the offer should be accepted.

The amendment was lost by 18 votes to 7.

Councillor Barfoot moved that they should accept Mr. Kent's offer, but that the 1,500 was to include all expenses.

Councillor Mrs. Anness seconded.

The amendment was lost by 10 votes to 6.

Alderman Pepper's resolution was carried by 12 votes to 7, not voting, 1.

It was decided the Council should meet on Wednesday morning to confirm the recommendations of the Committee.

The Town Clerk mentioned the question of bars at the Leas Cliff Hall, and the matter was referred to the Entertainments Committee.

It was decided to give an undertaking that the off-licence would not be used.

Councillor Hickson: What about the Sabbath day?

The Mayor: You will keep it.

Despite the early hour, nine o'clock, of the special meeting of the Council, there was a very large attendance of members, the only absentees being four aldermen and Councillor Hanchard, who is unwell.

The Mayor presided, and there were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks, G. Spurgen, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. Gore, R. Kingsforth, L.J. Stephens, G. Gurr, H.L. Russell, W.H. Moncrieff, R. Forsyth, Mrs. Anness, A.H. Ulyett, C. Turnham, W.B. Banks, W.J. King-Turner, C. Bell, A. Castle, and A.W. Hickson.

The Town Clerk said since the meeting on Friday he wrote a letter to Messrs. F. Hall and Co., stating that at the meeting of the General Purposes Committee it was decided to recommend the Council to accept the offer made on behalf of Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence, subject to the conditions decided upon at the meeting. On the following day he wrote a further letter to Messrs. Hall stating that there was another condition which the Corporation wished made, and that was that the payment of the purchase price was subject to the sanction of the Ministry of Health for a loan of the payment of 1,500 for the licence. He had received a letter from Messrs. Hall in which they stated that they agreed to the first condition that the removal of the licence should be granted and confirmed. With regard to the second condition that Mr. Kent would take any steps necessary and required by the Corporation to prevent the licence from lapsing, Messrs. Hall wrote that Mr. Kent would, if the necessary order was made, remove the licence to the Hall and would hold the licence until required by the Corporation, and that he was not required to render any service to the Corporation. Messrs. Hall agreed to the third condition that if the removal be refused, or not confirmed, the Corporation pay expenses incurred after that meeting, and to the fourth condition that a formal agreement be prepared if the Magistrates grant the removal. With regard to an undertaking being given about consumption of drink off the premises and the endorsement of the licence to that effect, Mr. Kent, Messrs. Hall and Co. stated, was willing to ask the justices to so endorse the licence and to give an undertaking that sale for consumption off the premises would not take place. Concerning the condition that the payment should be subject to the sanction of the Ministry being obtained for a loan, Messrs. Hall wrote they felt the Corporation must see the impossibility of that condition. They felt that the agreed purchase price should be paid in 14 days, and the proposed agreement with the Council must be required for that to be done. Mr. Kidson, continuing, said on Saturday the Rev. D. Kedward and the Rev. J.W. Inglis came to see him and they asked if they would be able to come to the meeting that morning in order to place the views of the people they represented before the Council. After consultation with the Mayor he intimated to them that he could not promise that the Council would receive the deputation inasmuch as they had so recently put their case before the Council, but if the deputation did attend the question would be put before the Council to decide. He had since received a letter in which the Rev. J.W. Inglis expressed thanks to him for letting them know the Mayor's decision, but it was not their intention to wait upon the Council and beg for a hearing. If they wished to insist upon the point they had a statutory right to be heard because the proposal was an entirely new proposal which had not been placed before the Council. They therefore had no option but to oppose the application before the Magistrates. No notice had been taken of the suggestion of a round table conference, which might have obviated such a necessity as going before the Council. Mr. Kidson added that it was not the Mayor's decision that the deputation should not be allowed to speak.

Councillor Stainer said the previous night a public meeting of ratepayers was held to protest against the proposal, and the resolution, which he read, was passed at the meeting by a large majority. The meeting was thrown open entirely to the public, and the expressions of opinion by the meeting was strongly opposed to the application.

The Mayor: You are not suggesting the 1meeting was unanimous?

Councillor Stainer: It was not unanimous. A vast majority of the people voted in favour of the resolution.

Councillor Saunders : Do I understand that Mr. Kent expects us to pay any loss incurred in the keeping of the licence running from the day of our purchase?

The Town Clerk: You have only undertaken to pay if the licence is refused.

Councillor Saunders: The licence has to has to be kept alive until we require it.

The Town Clerk: That does not mean keeping the licence running. It was not necessary for anything to he done.

Councillor Saunders: You mean it is not necessary for him to continue trading on the Leas? The licence can be suspended until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: That is so.

Councillor Saunders: We may possibly incur some expense until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: As soon as the removal to the Hall is confirmed the licence is removed to the Hall.

Councillor Saunders: Then the trade under it would be suspended.

The Town Clerk: That is possible. The Hotel Metropole is a case of a licence suspended for a time.

Councillor Saunders: Has this licence been previously offered to the Corporation before this offer was made by Mr. Kent?

The Town Clerk: Strictly peaking, no. Messrs. Sherwoods' representative called upon me at the beginning of September and said he understood this licence could be purchased because it was going to be discontinued. I brought it up before the Entertainments Committee, and they did not think it necessary to take any steps. There was no record on the minutes. There was a General Purposes Committee at the end of September, and I as not quite certain whether I had been approached in confidence or not, so I went, up and saw Mr. Boughton and asked him if I as at liberty to mention it to the General Purposes Committee. He replied “You are, but it is no use you doing so now as it is sold”. Therefore it did not come before the Committee. I think 1,000 was suggested as the price then.

Councillor Saunders said there was no doubt that the price was 1,000. Could they close a place when they thought fit without losing the licence?

The Town clerk: If you wish to close it one day a week you can do so. You need not keep it open all the year round. You have an instance in the Hotel Metropole.

Councillor Russell: Would 1,500 be a final payment for this licence, or is it likely there will be a reassessment of the monopoly value next February by the Excise people.

The Town clerk: I don't know what you mean by assessment.

Councillor Russell: It is assessed at 1,000.

The Town Clerk: We are buying it for 1,500.

Councillor Russell: Is it possible for the Excise people to largely increase the amount.

The Town Clerk said he knew nothing to come along at all except the annual duty which was paid according to the scale.

Councillor Russell: I understand this payment will not be final.

The Mayor: It will, except for the final duty to the Excise authorities.

Councillor Brett said there was an attempt in 1909 by the Excise authorities to put a monopoly value on a transferred licence. There was a decision in the Divisional Courts that no such assessment could be made on the monopoly value on removal of licence.

Councillor Phelan said in the event of the Council not accepting Mr. Kent's offer, would the Council have to apply for a new licence, if they required a licence?

The Town Clerk: Yes, sir.

Councillor Swinhoe-Phelan: Would it cost you 4,000 or 5,000?

Councillor Turnham: It would cost you 6,000 or 7,000 at least.

Councillor Saunders: It might.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said he understood that a licence in Radnor Street might be abolished and available. Would it be possible to take that licence over instead?

The Town Clerk said if they bought a licence in Radnor Street they would have to apply for the removal of it to the Magistrates.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said if licensed premises fell to them in that way through the Radnor Street scheme, when would they apply to the Magistrates?

The Town Clerk: At next year's annual sessions.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan: If we do not accept Mr. Kent's offer this year we cannot trade in liquor this year?

The Town Clerk: You can only obtain a removal order at the same time as a new licence is obtained.

Councillor Saunders said the matter had been bungled from beginning to end. He hoped the Council was going to turn the recommendation down because it was bad business.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the subject had been decided really by the General Purposes Committee, and they should pass the resolution.

Alderman Franks moved, and Councillor King-Turner seconded that the meeting be resumed as a Council meeting.

Councillor Saunders: Surely we are entitled to more discussion than this?

Councillor Moncrieff: There has not been a resolution moved yet.

The Mayor: You don't want to move a resolution until you go into Council.

Councillor Monerieff: Why not? At the moment we are simply skirmishing, and asking for information. It is a matter of most vital importance to the town. The discussion on a resolution should take place in Committee, and the resolution confirmed at a later date.

The Mayor: Immediately we go into Council I shall move the confirmation of the minutes of the General Purposes Committee, and then discuss it in the usual way.

Councillor Saunders: You are only doing it I to stifle independent discussion. At the previous meeting you moved your resolution in committee, and this morning you don't want to give up a chance to discuss it.

Councillor Barfoot: If it goes before the Council you will have amendment after all.

The Mayor: You want to talk it out, that is all I know.

The resolution was carried by 16 votes to 10.

Councillor Moncrieff moved that the offer in the minutes be deleted, and said they would be wise in waiting until the next Brewster Sessions, and proceed in a straightforward and honourable way to procure a licence. The Council should have the costs that would be entailed by the acquiring of the licence in front of them before they discussed the expediency of the same. The 1,500 would mean a 1 d. rate on next year's rates. They would require two bars, and have to advertise for a caterer. He gathered they would surrender the off-licence part of the licence, and they would not use the bars as an ordinary public house, and no-one would have a drink unless they paid for admission. He would like to know what would be the cost of a new licence. He knew when they were talking about a question like this they were frightened about the monopoly value. Margate had no licence for any of its Halls.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he was one of those people who believed the Leas Concert Hall required a licence, but he believed it required a licence not of the character and description they had offered them that morning. The whole business of this licence had been badly handled, and it had created a bad impression in the town. If they had a round table conference between now and next February they would get a general census of public opinion. He was told that any endorsement or agreement with the Magistrates was not legally binding under the Licensing Law. People were getting frightened over the monopoly value. It was another red herring. They had heard Councillor Dallas Brett's red herring. They had not got a monopoly of red herrings. Councillor Brett had got some. (Laughter) They should set an example as a local government body. They should be perfectly honest. He did not think it was an honest attempt to give the ratepayers, in the best interest of the town, what they wanted. They had not been trying to do what the ratepayers wanted. They had been hustled and bustled into this thing. He hoped the Council would definitely turn it down. In his opinion it was not a clean deal, and the sooner they washed their hands of this thing the better. He had offered at the Council meeting to give the Town Clerk, in confidence, the names of two people whose letters he had in his pocket. Whether they doubted his word or not was immaterial. He had still got the offers in his pocket.

The Mayor: I hope they will prove useful later on.

Councillor Brett said he could not conceive in what way it was suggested that the purchase from any person who had something to sell, which was beneficial to the Council, was in any way not straightforward and honest. His suggestion was that if they could buy for 1,500 what it would coat he them 5,000 to 6,000 to get elsewhere, and if they could start making a profit on that at once so that they got something additional in their pocket, they were making an exceedingly good bargain for the Council.

The .Mayor said it had been mentioned to some authority in the Ministry, and the Town Clerk was encouraged to think there would be no difficulty in getting a loan for it.

Councillor Moncrieff: And pay double the amount.

The Mayor said the Town Clerk would tell them that an endorsement by the Magistrates that morning would be absolutely binding. If they broke that endorsement they forfeited their licence entirely. There was a feeling it should be the same type of licence as at Hastings. When the Council went before the Magistrates for a licence on the same lines as Hasting he would join the opposition, and he would fight against them for all he was worth.

Councillor Saunders: Good.

The Mayor: You say good. When I fight I don't fight for nothing.

Councillor Saunders: Right. Let's take our coats off.

The Mayor said he preferred the cafe system where the family could sit together at a table, and not be divided. At Hastings they would have to go through a door and have drink, and a child could not go through that door. If that was what they wanted at Folkestone he would oppose it. What he wanted was where intoxicating drink could be served on their beautiful balconies, where a wife, and the son and daughter were taking coffee, and if they wanted a liqueur they could have it.

Councillor Stainer rose to speak.

The Mayor: Sit down, cannot I speak?

Councillor Stainer: I wanted to ask a question.

The Mayor: Haven’t you had a good turn, do you want all the talk?

Alderman Pepper: Whenever the Mayor is speaking a member should sit down.

Councillor Stainer sat down.

Councillor Castle asked if the licence could be endorsed, if outsiders could demand to be served.

The Mayor said it would be absolutely illegal.

Councillor Kenny said what was the deal; he could sum it up in one word “Rotten”. It was absolutely wrong the Council should attempt to rush it through when there was so much opposition against it in the town.

Councillor Forsyth said people thought they were not getting a square deal. They would have the choice of two or three licences when they proceeded with the Radnor Street scheme.

The Mayor said that scheme had gone by the board and there was only one house, and it was not proposed to acquire it.

The resolution was lost by 15 votes to 11.

There voted in favour: Councillors Kenny, Stainer, Barfoot, Swinhoe-Phelan, Saunders, Castle, Moncrieff, Forsyth, Bell, Anness and Banks. Those against were the Mayor, Aldermen Spurgen, Pepper and Franks, Councillors Broome-Giles, Younghushand, Brett, Russell, Mrs. Gore, Kingsnorth, Stephens, Gurr, Hickson, Turnham, and King-Turner.

Councillor Barfoot moved that the resolution for the purchase of the licence be not approved, and that an offer be made to the owner of the licence to purchase the licence for 1,000, if and when the Justices consented to the removal of the licence, and the transfer of the licence, and the transfer of the licence to the nominee of the Council.

It struck eleven o’clock at this point, and the Mayor suggested that in common courtesy to the county magistrates they should get on.

Councillor Saunders was speaking, when he said "You are rude, Mr. Mayor, reading when I am speaking.” (Laughter)

The Mayor: I have heard this (the arguments used by the opposition) about half-a-dozen times.

Councillor Saunders: That is right. I shall hear lots of things about six times. It is roughly a d. rate, and Councillor King-Turner tells us it is a piffle. I cannot understand him going up to an election in the East Ward and putting 500 in one person's pocket.

The amendment was lost by 14 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows on this motion: For; Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks, Barfoot, Bell, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer, Swinhoe-Phelan and Ulyett—11. Against: The Mayor, Aldermen franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth, King-Turner, Russell, Stephens, Turner, and Younghusband. Not voting; Councillor Castle.

The Mayor moved that the offer be accepted on the terms previously agreed to in the General Purposes Committee.

Councillor King-Turner seconded.

The resolution was carried by 15 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows:— For: The Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth. King-Turner, Russell, Stephens. Swinhoe-Phelan, Turnham and Younghusband—15. Against: Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks. Barfoot, Bell, Castle, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer and Ullyett—11.

The Entertainments Committee was instructed to proceed with the provision of a bar or bars.

The meeting then closed.

Immediately after the Town Council meeting closed the Magistrates to hear the application for the removal of the licence took their seats in the Police Court. Mr. H. Rigden presided, and there were also on the Bench Brig.-Gen. Tylden, and Messrs H. P. Jacques, W. G. Tester and A. S. Jones. They are members of the Elham County Bench.

Mr. G. W. Haines appeared to make the application for Mr. Kent, and Mr. Rutley Mowll was present representing the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Mr. A. F. Kidson, the Town Clerk, represented the Corporation.

'There was a large attendance in Court, including a number of clergy and ministers, for whom the Rev. Dr. Carlile was deputed to act as spokesman.

Mr. Haines said he appeared in support of that application for the removal of a licence known as the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to a new building called the Leas Cliff Concert Hall, which was the property of the Town Council. By an anomaly of the law by reason of the Justices being ratepayers, and they being interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting on the Bench, in connection with the application. By reason of that, the Bench, being County Justices, had been asked to come there to arrange the domestic affairs of Folkestone. He might say the Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he thought it would be better if he proved the necessary steps for serving and posting notices.

Mr. E. Cook gave evidence of serving notices and the posting of them.

The Clerk read a letter from Mr. Montague Burton, as freehold owner of the premises, consenting to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said the application was for a full licence, and an undertaking would be given asking the Magistrates that the licence should be endorsed that no sale should be made for intoxicants to be consumed off the premises, and he thought he would not have any farther objection from Mr. Mowll.

Mr. MowlI said it was suggested that an undertaking should be given by the licensee as binding upon the licence, and to be endorsed theron, that no person should be served with intoxicating liquor at the Leas Cliff Hall unless such person had (1) previously paid the usual charge for the time being for admission to the building (which was to prevent persons using this place as an ordinary public house), and (2) no intoxicating liquors should be served for consumption off the premises (that was to prevent it being used for supplying persons off the premises). He understood that they were endorsed on the licence, and would become binding upon the licence, and the licensed victuallers would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines: We should have asked for these conditions ourselves.

Mr. Mowll: That means that my friend considers my presence is unnecessary.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Andrew): I think they heard sometime ago that you were likely to oppose.

Mr Haines said it was known that Mr. Kent purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel, and the Corporation had agreed to buy him out for 1,500. Seeing the monopoly value might have been something very considerable, they were to get that licence, subject to the Bench granting the licence's removal, for what they considered to be in the interests of the town from the financial point of view and from other interests. The Leas Cliff Hall had involved a cost of over 60,444. The justices would understand what Folkestone was trying to do in putting its attractions before the visitors that they had with regard to a building like that in its ordinary amenities in which facilities should be given to such a building as those that could be obtained in other places. The Council had arrived at a conclusion by which they had resolved that matter should go through. The Council would be only too glad to comply with any suggestion of the Magistrates to conduct that place as it should be. He did not know what opposition he might have now the Licensed Victuallers' opposition had gone.

The Clerk said he had not received notice of any opposition.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about 50 residents and tenants and occupants on The Leas adjacent to the building.

Mr. Haines: That is all I have to deal with, then.

Mr. J.S. Dahl produced plans of the building, and said it was the suggestion that two service bars should be made in the building on the gallery level. Ample arrangements had been made for closing these during prohibited hours.

The Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided as to what use would be made of the middle floor. It had been suggested it might be used by members of a club, and members of the public could enjoy the club. If it was not used as a club it would probably be used as a writing and reading room.

Dr. Carlile: I want to ask whether Mr. Dahl can tell you whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Arising out of what has been said by the Town Clerk, is it intended to ask the Bench to grant a licence before it is determined what use shall be made of these premises? If there is to be a restaurant, then surely an application should be for the supply of intoxicants there with food. If it was a club then surely they would need a licence for the club. The whole point I want to make is, if it is not clear what the licence is, it is very difficult to oppose it.

The Town Clerk said there had been a meeting of the Council that morning, at which a resolution had been passed, which invested an interest in the new building with the applicant. It was the intention of the Council that no one should be admitted to the building without paying. It was the Council's wish it should be on the licence.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the Council had any power to bind its successors.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said it was an undertaking by the licensee, and if there was a breach of the regulation it would be a subject for the refusal by the Justices to renew the licence. From the legal point of view it did not matter whether the Council agreed or not, it was a binding undertaking rendering a licensee liable if it was not carried out.

Dr. Carlile asked if the Council had come to any decision to give this power to the licensee. If the Council could not bind its successors, surely it could hardly give authority to someone if they could not bind their successors.

The Town Clerk said he did not agree the Council could not bind their successors. The successors of the Council were already bound in respect of the building. The Corporation were constantly binding their successors.

Dr. Carlile said that supposing in a year’s time the Leas Cliff Hall did not attract the number of people who would pay the price determined, and the price was reduced to 2d. or 3d., that would alter the whole complexion of the licence, it would simply be the same that the prison was paying to go in, the payment would be so small that it would practically be a public-house. (Cries of “No”)

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any amount as to the charge mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile said it was purely a matter quite friendly, and he was not trying to score a point. There was a statement made in Council that the charges would be so much, and the point he wanted to ask was, if the charges were reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would not that materially affect the licence?

The Chairman: Is there any chance of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile raised the point of a big conference or public service, where obviously there would be no admission.

The Town Clerk said they must comply with the undertaking, whatever the undertaking was.

Dr. Carlile asked whether it was the intention of the Town Council, and whether any vote had been taken at all, to shut the place entirely from the possible use of congresses or religious conferences.

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates’ Clerk said there could be no sale of liquor except under the circumstances he had mentioned. It was not a question of the Corporation; it was a question of the licensee.

Dr. Carlile said he was asking whether the effect of this would be that the use of the building could not be obtained for a conference and meetings. If so, had it been determined by the Council?

The Town Clerk said he did not see why they should not allow conferences to be held.

Dr. Carlile said there would be no charge for admission.

Mr. Haines: Such members attending the conference would be debarred.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the bars would be in part of the building which was specially licensed, or whether the whole of the premises were proposed to be licensed, whether part of the premises upon which intoxicants were sold would be open to children under fourteen years of age.

The Town Clerk: Yes, I have no doubt they will.

Dr.Carlile: Does that mean that people going to that lovely place will have to leave their children outside?

The Town Clerk: It does not. He further pointed out that children would be excluded from those rooms where drink was sold.

Dr. Carlile asked for the numbers voting for the application to be made to the Magistrates that morning.

The Town Clerk: 15 in favour, and 11 against.

Mr. J.H. Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, said he had purchased it under an agreement from the owner, and he had agreed to be the Council's nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, he said he agreed to surrendering the off licence, and that no one should be supplied unless they paid for admission.

Dr. Carlisle asked if anyone could say whether it was for a full licence.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said the licence in question was a full licence with full conditions, and the magistrates could not attach any agreement with regard to Sunday sales.

Dr. Carlile asked if he would he prepared, if the licence was endorsed, not to trade on Sunday.

Mr. Haines: He has not power to vary the statement already agreed to.

Mr. Kent: No.

Dr. Carlile said he was exceedingly sorry it was necessary he should make any application to the Magistrates that day. He was there with gentlemen who represented the clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all the denominations in that area. They presented a memorial a week ago when the proposals came before the Council. Some important changes had taken place, and for those they were very grateful, and they only regretted the concessions had not gone further so that it might have been possible for them not to appear in opposition to their friends. There was no personal feeling in this matter, and no opposition to the Mayor and members of the Corporation. It was a matter involving very considerable issues. The application they had before them placed the Bench in a very considerable difficulty. They had considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed, the Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or as to what should be done. They were asking the Magistrates now to very seriously consider the application for a Sunday licence. The licensee had told them that he was not prepared to give any undertaking not to proceed with the application for a seven day licence. It sometimes happened that in Folkestone they had a united service. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not large enough to hold the people who wished to go. He was sure it would be the intention of some of the churches to apply for services in this building. It would be a very objectionable feature if they had in one part of the premises religious services going on, and in another part open bars They had in Folkestone, as in all places of this kind, a large number of conferences. They had a church congress, and various other congresses. For these congresses to come, and not to pay admission, would mean that it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That would be a very awkward thing, and exceedingly difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid, and who had not paid. The first year was sure to be an experimental year in Folkestone. It was obvious Folkestone did not know its own mind on the subject. There had been an emergency meeting that morning to decide whether the application should be made, and it showed there was considerable haze on the matter. If the hall on the cliff was no more successful than the Marine Gardens Pavilion on the Lower Road, it would be closed for part of the winter. If this licence was granted the hall must be open, and that would mean the ratepayers would have to pay for the staff to keep the place open, although very few people were going in. They heard it might be possible to have a club in one of the rooms. He submitted to the Licensing Magistrates that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended building a west end club when they agreed to this large sum of money being spent upon this place. Here was a west end club, and anyone who wanted a club could do the same as he did, and pay for it, and not go on the ratepayers for it. To ask them to grant a licence for premises that were not yet determined as to their character was to come before the Bench with an application which was at least premature. The two points that had been conceded were very valuable, and they were glad. A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them this licence was necessary to put Folkestone in the forefront, they did not admit Folkestone was in the background. A large number of places had a licence, but Margate had no licence for its Winter Gardens. There were a number of other places where they had not a licence. A large number of people were concerned in the town as a matter of conscience. They conscientiously objected, as ratepayers, to be made parties directly to the sale of intoxicating drink That was an objection which weighed heavily with a large number of people. The difficulties about a licence were very considerable. No authority had been given from the ratepayers to apply for a licence of that kind. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as of great importance. The presence of little children on the part of the premises in which drink would be served was to them a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record.

Mr. Haines said he wished to assure Dr. Carlile that his clients, and he knew the Magistrates always had lent a sympathetic ear to any dictates of conscience, and they were serious and conscientious in the objections they raised from the Temperance view. They always had them, and it was perhaps wise they should be reminded they had got these points on Temperance. They had in Folkestone a splendid record, and they had a great thing to be proud of, and they did not want to mar it, and up to the present Folkestone was likely to maintain its reputation. They hoped to keep good. Dr. Carlile did not think that when there was a conference anyone would go to the bar and say they had paid for admission when they had not. The instructions would be that people attending conferences who had not paid would not be served.

Dr. Carlile: My point is that it would be a very objectionable thing if you had the open bar while the conference was going on.

Mr. Haines: At one time I see there is a letter by Dr. Carlile in which he is trying to bring the Licensed Victuallers.......

Dr. Carlile: I suggest the whole thing has so changed since that paper was printed that anything it contains is not worth your attention.

Mr. Haines said Dr. Carlile raised the point as to whether it would be fair to Licensed Victuallers in the same neighbourhood. They had surrendered the off licence, so naturally they were not represented that day. This was some of the imagination that got into the head of the people that they had not faith in. Dr. Carlile had said at the last Council meeting “There was a possibility of anybody, accompanied by his young baby, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road”. He suggested they were facing a very serious moral problem, which would make them pause before they took out a licence. That was a libel on their young people, and upon their town – (hear, hear) – and the police who administered the law, to say that such a thing could possibly happen. Imagination ran away with their discretion, and although they meant well, they made that opposition. He rather liked to take Dr. Carlile in what he said – Folkestone had a splendid record, and they should do nothing to mar it, and he hoped they never would.

After the Magistrates had retired, the Chairman said they had decided to grant the licence, but they made the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading, to meet the objections.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1927.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday the application for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall was heard before the following Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional Division: Mr. H. Rigden, Mr. W.G. Tester, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. H.P. Jacques, and Brigadier-General Wm. Tylden.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) was present, supporting the application on behalf of the Corporation, and Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Trade Protection Association.

The Court was crowded, those present including the Mayor, many members of the Town Council, and a strong body of local ministers.

Mr. Haines said he appeared to support the application made by Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to the new building on The Leas known as the Leas Cliff Hall, which was the property of the Folkestone Corporation. The Magistrates no doubt knew the building. By an anomaly of the law, and by reason of the fact that the Magistrates usually sitting there to deal with applications, etc., were ratepayers, and therefore interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting that day to hear the application. As a result, a number of County Magistrates had been asked to hear the application, and they were very grateful to them for kindly sparing their time to consider the matter now before them. The Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application for a removal should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he proposed to commence by proving the preliminary steps that had had to be taken.

Mr. E. Hook, a clerk in Mr. Haines' office, gave evidence of serving and posting of the necessary notices.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) read a letter, dated March 7th, from Mr. Montague M. Burton, giving his consent, as the freeholder of the premises known as the Rose Hotel, to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said so far as the application was concerned, it was for the transfer of a full licence, but he understood under certain circumstances Mr. Mowll, who represented the local licensed victuallers, would object to the transfer. Mr. Kent was practically the nominee of the Town Council. He (Mr. Haines) was going to ask that the licence, if transferred, should be endorsed so that there could be no sale of intoxicating liquors off the premises, and that drinks should not be sold to persons on the premises other than those who paid for admission to the hall in the usual way. If those conditions were endorsed on the licence, he understood the Licensed Victuallers would have no further objection to the transfer.

Mr. Mowll said the suggested undertaking was in the following words: “Leas Cliff Hall. The following undertaking is given by the licensee as binding upon the licence and to be endorsed thereon: (1) No persons shall be served with intoxicating liquor on the said premises unless such person has previously paid the usual charge which for the time being is made for admission to the building. (That, Mr. Mowll said, was to prevent persons using the building as an ordinary public house). (2) No intoxicating liquor shall be served for consumption off the premises”.

The second clause, added Mr. Mowll, was to prevent the supplying of drink to persons not using the building in the ordinary way. He understood that Mr. Haines agreed to those conditions being endorsed on the licence, and therefore they would become binding. Further, if that was done, his clients would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines said if Mr. Mowll had not asked for those conditions to be endorsed on the licence, he (Mr. Haines) would himself have asked for the licence to be endorsed in such a manner.

Mr. Mowll: That means to say my presence is entirely unnecessary. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines said as they were probably aware Mr. Burton had purchased the premises known as the Rose Hotel, and Mr. Kent had purchased the licence from Mr. Burton. The licence was offered to the Corporation, and the Corporation had agreed to purchase the licence from Mr. Kent. The price to be paid was 1,000 to Mr. Burton, and Mr. Kent would be getting the balance - 500. They had nothing to conceal. He would like to point out that if an application for a new licence was made the monopoly value would be very considerable. With regard to the building itself, Mr. Dahl, the architect, would give them any particulars they required. The building was costing something like 60,000, and Folkestone was trying to provide something which would be an attraction to its visitors. They (the Corporation) felt that the ordinary amenities enjoyed by people at home should also be provided at this building. After many, should he say, vicissitudes, the Corporation had arrived at a decision by which they had resolved that the purchase of the licence should be agreed to subject to the transfer of the licence being granted. Any suggestions which the Magistrates would care to make, the Council, he felt sure, would be only too pleased to comply with an order to assist in conducting the building as it should be conducted. He did not know what opposition he might have.

Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about fifty residents and owners and occupiers on The Leas and the adjacent premises.

Mr. Haines: That is all I have to deal with then.

Mr. J.S. Dahl, the architect of the Leas Cliff Hall, then went into the witness box and produced plans. It was proposed, he stated, that two service bars should be provided in the building. Ample arrangements would be made for closing the bars during prohibited hours.

In answer to a question, the Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided yet as to the use to be made of the middle floor, but it would be used by the public. It had been suggested that it might be used for club purposes. It might be used as a reading and writing room, or a restaurant.

DR. Carlile: Can Mr. Dahl tell us whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, and whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Further, arising out of what has been said by the Town Clerk, is it intended to ask the Bench to grant a licence before it is determined what use shall be made of these premises? If there is to be a restaurant there, surely application should be made for the serving of intoxicating liquor there with meals. If there is to be a club, surely they will need a licence for the club. If i is not clear what the licence is actually for, it is very difficult to oppose it.

Mr. Haines said Mr. Dahl could not answer those questions, but Dr. Carlile would have an opportunity of putting them to the Town Clerk.

The Town Clerk, in the witness box, said there had been a meeting of the Town Council that morning, and a resolution gad been passed and sealed. That resolution vested a new interest in Mr. J.H. Kent in regard to the new premises. It was the intention of the Council that no-one should be allowed into the building without payment, and it was the Council's wish that that condition should be endorsed on the licence in regard to the serving of drinks.

Dr. Carlile: Has the Town Council any power to bind its successors?

The Clerk: It is an undertaking by the licensee. If there is any breach of the undertaking given in connection with the licence there would be good grounds for refusing to renew the licence at some subsequent licensing meeting. Whether the Council agree or not, it seems utterly immaterial. If certain conditions are endorsed on the licence, they are binding.

Dr. Carlile: I would like to ask whether the Council has considered and come to any decision upon the position of giving these powers to the licensee. If the Council cannot bind its successors, surely it can hardly give authority to the licensee in regard to something which does not bind its successors.

The Town Clerk: I do not agree that the Council cannot bind its successors. The successors of the Council are already bound in respect of this building. The Corporation are constantly binding their successors. In some circumstances, I admit they cannot.

Dr. Carlile: Suppose in a year's time it is found that the Leas Cliff Hall does not attract the number of people it was hoped, and the price of admission is dropped to twopence or threepence, that will alter the whole complexion of this licence. The payment for admission would be so small that the building would be practically a public house.

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any definite charge for admission mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile: There was a statement made by the Mayor in Council as to the charges for admission, and the point I want to clear up is if the charges are reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would it not materially affect this licence?

The Town Clerk said if the charge for admission was dispensed with, of course they would be breaking the undertaking given.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Is there a possibility of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile: What would be done in the event of these premises being let for a conference or public service? Those people would obviously not pay for admission.

The Town Clerk: We must comply with the undertaking whatever it is.

Dr. Carlile: Is it the intention of the Council to shut the place entirely on conferences?

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates' Clerk: There will be no sales of liquor except under the terms of the undertaking.

Dr. Carlile: I am asking whether the effect of this would be to prevent the building being used for conferences and meetings such as I have mentioned.

The Town Clerk: I don't see any reason why it should have that effect. I do not see why we should not have conferences there. Those taking part in the conference would not pay for admission, but the Corporation would have no power to sell intoxicating liquors to the persons attending the conference.

Dr. Carlile: I should like to know whether these bars will be in a part of the building which will be specially licensed, or whether it is proposed that the whole of the premises shall be licensed. Will that part of the premises where intoxicants are sold be open to children under fourteen years of age?

The Town clerk said children would not be admitted to the bars.

Dr. Carlile: Does that mean that people will be compelled to leave their children outside?

The Magistrates' Clerk said the presence of children in the bars would be restricted.

Mr. Haines said the Corporation would have to conform with the ordinary licensing laws in regard to children.

Dr. Carlile: If children are shut out from a considerable part of these premises, it will be very detrimental to the prosperity of the building. If the premises where intoxicants are sold, however, are to be open to children then there would be an advantage which is not generally given to the trade.

The Town Clerk: I suggest that is not the effect of the Act of Parliament.

Dr. Carlile: Is Mr. Kidson aware of the numbers voting for this application?

The Town Clerk: Yes, fifteen in favour and eleven against.

Dr. Carlile: That means a majority of six.

Voices: Four. (Laughter)

Dr. Carlile: That is better still from my point of view.

Mr. J.H. Kent stated that he had purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel under agreement with Mr. Burton. He had agreed to be the Council's nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, Mr. Kent said he had agreed to surrender the off licence, and further, that no sales should be made to persons other than those paying for admission.

Dr. Carlile: Would you agree to surrender the licence in respect to Sundays?

Mr. Haines: Mr. Kent is under a contract with the Corporation.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The licence in existence is a full on licence without conditions, and the Magistrates cannot attach any undertaking as regards Sunday trading.

Dr. Carlile: Would the applicant for the removal of the licence surrender the Sunday licence?

Mr. Haines: He has no power to do so in view of the agreement entered into with the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Someone must have the power to answer that question.

Mr. Kent then stated that he was not prepared to surrender that part of the licence as suggested by Dr. Carlile.

Dr. Carlile, addressing the Magistrates, said he was exceedingly sorry that he should have to make any application to them that day. He was there with other gentlemen, who represented the Clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all denominations in the borough. They presented a memorial a week ago when certain proposals which were of a very different character to those before them that day came before the Council. Some important changes had taken place, and for those they were very grateful, and they only regretted the concessions had not gone further, so that it would not have been necessary for them to oppose the application that day. He would like to say that there was no personal feeling in the matter in opposing the Mayor or members of the Corporation. The matter involved a very considerable issue, and the ministers and ratepayers, who were deeply concerned for the future of the town, were very much concerned as to what would happen that day. The application before the Bench placed the Magistrates in a considerable difficulty, because there was considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed up to the present, the Town Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or what was to be done with certain rooms. They had not decided whether certain rooms should be covered by the licence or excluded. They were asking the Bench now to very seriously consider the application for a Sunday licence.

The licensee had told them that he was not prepared to give any undertaking not to proceed with the application ofr a seven days' licence. It sometimes happened in Folkestone that they had united services. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not always large enough to hold all the people who wished to come, and he was sure it would be the wish of some of the churches to apply for permission to hold occasional services at the Leas Cliff Hall. It would be a very objectionable feature, however, if drinking was going on in the building whilst those services were being held. They also had from time to time conferences held in the town. They had had the Church Congress at Folkestone, and other conferences. Those attending the conferences would not pay for admission to the building, and therefore it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That, he suggested, would be a very awkward thing, and it would be extremely difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid for admission to the hall and who gad not.

The first year in the history of the opening of the hall would be an experimental year. The Town Council did not yet know its own mind. A special meeting of the Council had been held only that morning, and if the matter had not been got through in the Council no application would have been made that day, and the matter would have had to be left over for a year. If the hall on the Leas was no more successful than the one in the Marine Gardens it would have to be closed for a part of the winter in the ordinary way. If the hall, however, was licensed it would have to be left open, and that meant the ratepayers would have to pay the staff to look after the building whilst it was open. They had heard that possibly a part of the premises would be used for a club. He submitted that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended that the building should be used as a West End club when agreeing to the spending of this large sum of money on the hall. They had also heard something about a restaurant, but there was nothing definite. They were being asked to grant a licence to a building the exact use of which had not been determined in many respects, and he thought the application before the Bench was at least premature.

A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them that that licence was necessary for putting Folkestone in the forefront. They did not admit Folkestone was in the background. They knew that a large number of places similar to Folkestone had not got licences for their halls. Their near neighbour, Margate, had not got a licence for its building. There were a number of other places which had not got a licence. A large number of people were also concerned as a matter of conscience. They did not want to be involved in any complicity with this trade. They conscientiously objected as ratepayers to being made parties to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Continuing, Dr. Carlile said the difficulties in regard to the licence were very considerable. No authority had been given to the Council by the ratepayers to apply for a licence of the kind before them that day. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as a matter of great importance. If the Magistrates agreed to grant the transfer, he urged, as a sort of deathbed repentance, that Mr. Haines should surrender that part of the licence permitting Sunday trading. The presence of little children on premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks was also a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record, and they did not want to see that record marred in any way.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that he knew the opposition were serious and conscientious in the objection they raised from a Temperance point of view. Perhaps it was just as well that they should be reminded that they should keep within the bounds of Temperance, although, in spite of what might be said, they had in Folkestone a splendid record – a great thing to be proud of – and they did not want to mar it. He thought that Folkestone was quite likely to hold that reputation. It showed that the Rev. Carlile did not know the ways of the world when he talked about Sunday afternoon.

Dr. Carlile: I did not restrict myself to Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Haines referred to a letter to the Press from Dr. Carlile, in which the writer referred to the licensed victuallers.

Dr. Carlile (to the Bench): I suggest that the whole thing has so changed since that paper was published that anything it contains is not worth your attention. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Haines referred to a statement by Dr. Carlile in his speech before the Council on Wednesday in last week, when Dr. Carlile said “There was just a possibility of any boy, accompanied by his young lady, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road. He suggested that they were facing a very serious moral problem, a moral problem which should make them pause before taking out a licence or consumption off the premises”. Mr. Haines said that it was a libel upon the young people, upon the town, upon the Judiciary, and upon the police who administered the law to say that such a thing could possibly happen. He thought their imagination ran away with their discretion, although they meant well.

The Magistrates retired for about ten minutes. On their return the Chairman said: “We have decided to grant this licence, but we make the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading”.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 April 1927.

Local News.

Tuesday was the last day in the life of the Rose Hotel. For one hundred years the Rose Hotel has occupied the present site. For many years – generations – it marked the western boundary of the then village of Folkestone. It was from here that the four-horse stage coaches ran to and from London. It was ere, too, that the “wise men of Folkestone” were wont to foregather and periodically settle the small town affairs. The Rose was the principal establishment in the then village. It was known all over the land by commercials of the old school. Although now a thing of the past, the licence of the old house has not been extinguished, but transferred or removed to the magnificent Cliff Hall. Thus a link with the past has been forged with the new.

On Tuesday night a number of townspeople gathered at the Rose to say farewell. A few speeches were made of a character suitable to the occasion, and Mr. J.H. Kent, the departing landlord, appropriately made acknowledgement. “Auld Lang Syne” was sung as the closing hour arrived.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1929.

Notice.

Whereas in the course of the past few months I have published or caused to be published certain scurrilous documents containing libellous statements and innuendoes relative particularly to Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall, Folkestone, and his wife and certain of his friends. Now I desire publicly to state, acknowledge and admit that all such statements and innuendoes are and were entirely false and without any foundation whatsoever, and I tender to all concerned my sincere apology in respect thereof. Further I unreservedly withdraw all and every imputation contained or inferred in such publications.

Dated this 29th day of November, 1929.

(Signed) G.D. Ellard.

 

Folkestone Express 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Licensing Sessions, the justices had before them applications for the removal of the licences of the Princess Royal in South Street and the South Foreland in Seagate Street to premises, for which there were off licences at present, at Morehall and Cheriton respectively, but they refused both. The proceedings lasted throughout the whole of the day until the early evening.

The Magistrates who heard the application with regard to the removal of the Princess Royal to the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores, Cheriton Road, were Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Dr. F. Wolverson and Alderman W. Hollands.

Mr. B.H. Waddy (instructed by Messrs. F. Hall and Co.) appeared for Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, the owners of the Princess Royal, and Mr. J H. Kent, the licence holder of the Morehall Wine Stores.

There was a good deal of opposition. Mr. B.H. Bonniface represented Mr. C. Garland, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel and other licensees, Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for Mr. Samway, the licensee, and also the owners of the White Lion Hotel at Cheriton, and Mr. L. Pocock for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The Rev. W.J.T. Brown represented the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers, the Rev. H. Charleston, the St. Andrew’s Methodist Church and Mrs. Longhurst, 251, Cheriton Road, who, with others, had prepared and presented a petition against the application.

Mr. Waddy said that application, if granted, would have the effect of bringing about a re-distribution of the licences in the borough and a reduction in their number by one. The latter fact should certainly appeal to those who were opposing in the temperance interest.
At the outset he might say if the Magistrates removed the licence of the Princess Royal from the Harbour district they and the licensees in that district would have no need to fear that the premises would thereafter be used club premises, because it was part of the policy of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, pursued in all parts of the country, to insert a clause in the agreement for the sale of the premises that they would not be used as a registered club.

Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw my opposition.

Mr. Waddv, proceeding, said the taking away of the licence of the Princess Royal would not hurt the public in any way. In a quarter of a mile radius of that particular area there were 28 full licences and if they added to that the beer on-licences and the off-licences there were within that quarter of a mile circle 45 licensed premises for the use of the public. Therefore it was quite obvious if they removed the Princess Royal from that district the public were not going to suffer through lack of facilities. The opposition from the Customs and Excise was really on the question of the monopoly value. They all knew of cases where the little country pub was being shifted to a main arterial road, but it could not be suggested that in that case they were, in any way, removing a house with a dying trade. He had figures dealing with the trade at the Princess Royal and he was in a position to prove them. In 1936 the number of barrels of beer sold there was 108, in 1937, 132, and in 1938, 150. Therefore in two years there was an increase of very nearly 50 per cent., so it could not be possibly suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade. The spirits sold were 89 gallons in 1936, 89 in 1937, and 92 in 1938. His clients sought to remove the licence to the Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in existence since the year 1912, when a justices’ off-licence was obtained for the premises. If the removal was granted then that particular licence would go. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was only one licensed house on that side of the railway line, and that was the White Lion Hotel, exactly on the half mile circumference. South of the railway was the Railway Bell (sic), which did not oppose the application.Concerning the opposition of the White Lion Hotel, they would find on looking up the records that in 1904 the proprietors of that hotel actually applied for a full on-licence within 100 yards of the present Morehall Wine Stores. If anyone was going from Cheriton to Folkestone they had to go a long way into Folkestone before they could reach a fully licensed house. There had been a very considerable increase in the number of houses in the district since the magistrates granted the off-licence. He could not give them the actual accurate figures concerning the number of houses, but in the quarter mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there were 900 houses and within a half mile area there were 1,915. Therefore they had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 or 10,000 people in the area. The number of houses erected since 1927 in the area was no less than 727. If the application was granted it was quite obvious substantial alterations would have to be made.

The Chairman: Is the building coming down?

Mr. Waddy: No. He then proceeded to explain the alterations to be carried out according to the plans which he submitted. He said accommodation would be provided for Mr. Robbins, the temporary manager at the Princess Royal, who would be the manager under Mr. Kent if that application was granted.

The Chairman pointed out that the magistrates did not see on the plans any special room for women and children.

Mr. Waddy said there was not such a room at the Princess Royal and they had kept in the plans as near to the accommodation as they had there, because if they had more accommodation the Customs and Excise would say at once they were building bigger premises.

The Chairman intimated that the magistrates that day had decided to deal with the application as an ordinary removal of a licence.

Mr. Waddy said regarding the opposition concerning the monopoly value, a removal was allowed without monopoly value. They were only removing the licence to slightly bigger premises. The White Lion Hotel opposition was purely a trade opposition, which should not carry any weight. The opposition of the Churches was always difficult. His clients respected the views of such opposition, but they thought they were mistaken as to the effect of the granting of such a licence. It would certainly not be putting a licence in the district where there was not one before. He did not know whether a petition was to he presented against the application.

The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said there was a petition signed by 220 people, 21 of whom were nearby residents. The canvass had been taken within the quarter of a mile.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) was handed the petition by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown. It stated that in the petitioners’ opinion the opening of a fully licensed house would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the locality.

Mr. E.F. Carr, manager of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, said the Company would give an undertaking that if the premises of the Princess Royal were sold a clause would be included preventing their use as a club. The figures concerning the trade at the house given by Mr. Waddy were correct.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rutlev Mowll, Mr. Carr said the Railway Bell (sic) was their house. They hoped by the removal of the Princess Royal to have an increased trade, and it might be a much more increased trade.

Mr. J.H. Kent said he had held the licence of the Morehall Wine Stores since 1912, when it came in existence. His experience during the whole of that time definitely was that full licence facilities were required at that particular spot. Almost daily he had had that opinion expressed by people who came to the Stores. If the Bench granted the facilities for the premises, he was prepared to have Mr. Robbins, the present licence holder of the Princess Royal, as the manager.

Mr. W.B. Macgowan, of 7, Beachborough Villas, said he knew the area very well. He supported the application. He happened to be a life long abstainer. They were, in that particular area, expecting a large increase of population which had not been taken into account because a huge building of flats, probably as big as the Grand Hotel, was in course of erection within a few hundred yards of the licensed premises. He thought the licence was very useful and necessary.

Mr. W. Wood, of 285, Cheriton Road, said he was a retired builder and his home was about 50 yards from the Morehall Wine Stores. If he wanted a drink he had either to go to the White Lion, or come into Folkestone, where he went to the Bodega to have a full two pennyworth ride on the bus.

Mr. Mowll: Do you drink beer or do you drink spirits?

Mr. Wood: I drink anything I can get hold of.

Mr. George A. Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, said he was a retired Civil Servant, and had resided in Folkestone since his retirement. He was not a relation of the previous witness. He certainly supported the application. In his case, the only time he went into a public house was to have an opportunity of having a chat with his friends, and under present conditions to do that he had either to go to the White Lion or the Railway Bell (sic), quite a long distance.

Mr Rutley Mowll said if that removal was likely to receive the large amount of custom, which he presumed Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp expected, he suggested it was a case where monopoly value should be paid. He could not go back 30 years as Mr. Waddy suggested, but he did not think that could have any bearing on the position that day. He represented Mr. Samway, of the White Lion Hotel, and if that application was granted his trade was going to be redistributed. Mr. Samway's prosperity would not be enhanced. He also represented Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, the Kent brewers, who opposed the application as a full licence at the Morehall Wine Stores would affect the business of the White Lion Hotel. With regard to the people who resided in the area, they went there knowing perfectly well there was no public house in it.

Mr. Pocock said it would be unfair for a licensee or the owner of a licence not to pay a fair value for being allowed to go to such an area as suggested in that application. He did not think it would be a fair thing to allow a new licence in that rapidly growing area without some payment. Therefore he opposed the application strongly.

The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had seen practically all the new houses grow up and he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing such an application had previously been refused by the magistrates it was clear there was no demand for such a house among the old residents. The people who occupied the new houses were not the kind of people to frequent public houses. Twenty-one tradespeople in the nearby locality had signed the petition against the granting of the licence. There were moral arguments which should be borne in mind by the magistrates, but he did not think there was any need for him to stress some of the evil effects of strong drink to them.

The Rev. H. Charleston said he associated himself with Mr. Brown’s remarks.

Mrs. Longhurst said she owned and lived in a house practically opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. They did not want a public-house because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She and two others obtained the signatures for the petition, and she only had three people who said they wanted a public house there.

The Magistrates retired for some time to consider their finding and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the application for the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal to the Morehall Wine Stores was not granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Two applications were made at the annual Folkestone licensing Sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the removal of the licences of two public houses to other premises in the borough. There was a considerable amount of opposition to both proposals, which affected residential districts that have developed rapidly during the past few years. After a lengthy hearing both applications were refused.

The first application was for the removal of the Justices' Licence respect of the Princess Royal public house, South Street, to the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road. The second application was to remove the licence of the South Foreland public house, Seagate Street, to the Imperial, Tile Kiln Lane.

Mr. B. H. Waddy, instructed by Frederic Hall and Company, Folkestone, appeared for Mr. J.H. Kent, who made the application in the first case. Mr. B.H. Bonniface opposed on behalf of a number of licensees in the immediate neighbourhood of the Princess Royal; Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and Mr. H.T. Samway, the licensee; and Mr. L. Pocock appeared for H.M. Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The proposal was also opposed by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown on behalf of the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he had before him a letter or two. There were resolutions opposing from the Cheriton Baptist Women's Meeting, and the Ashley Avenue Congregational Church Women's Meeting.

Mrs. Longhurst and the Rev. H.E. Charleston, of St. Andrew's Methodist Church, Morehall, also opposed the application.

Mr. Waddy said it was an application which if granted would have the effect of bringing about a redistribution of the licences in the district and a reduction in their number by one. That was a fact which might well appeal to those who opposed in the temperance interests. If they agreed to the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal they need have no fear that the premises would be used as club premises because part of the policy of the owners of the property, Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, was to insert a clause, when disposing of the premises, barring its use as a registered club.

Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw entirely my opposition; the application now has my support. Continuing, Mr. Waddy said Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp owned both premises. The Magistrates had to be satisfied that the removal of the premises would not hurt the public in any way. Within a quarter mile radius of the Princess Royal there were already 28 full licences, and if they added to that all the other licences in the area, beer licences, “off” licences, etc., there were 45 licensed premises in the quarter of a mile circle. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsop had no other house in the area so it could not be said that they hoped to transfer the trade of the Princess Royal to some other house belonging to them In the same district. The trade would go to other houses. Referring to the Excise opposition, Mr. Waddy said on an application for a removal monopoly value did not have to be paid; Parliament made provision for such applications He realised that there had been abuse in some cases in the past, for instance where a little country “pub” had been shifted on to an arterial road perhaps several miles away and had blossomed out as a roadhouse, but no suggestion of that kind could be made in regard to that application. Nor could it be suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade out of a congested area. The beer consumption at the Princess Royal for the year ending 1936 was 108 barrels, said Mr. Waddy. For 1937 the figure was 132 and for 1939, 150 barrels, which showed an Increase over 1936 of very nearly 50 percent. In regard to the wines and spirits trade, the figure for 1936 was 89 and in 1938 it had risen to 92.They were seeking to remove to “off ” licence premises known as Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in business under a Justices’ Licence since 1912. Before that the business had been carried on there under an Excise Licence. If they granted the removal then that licence would go because an “on” licence included an “off”. In that way the number of licences would be reduced by one. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was the White Lion Hotel to the west, and south of the railway there was the Railway Hotel, which did not oppose. In his submission the opposition of the White Lion Hotel was very much of "a dog in the manger” character because in 1904 the owners of the White Lion applied for a full “on” licence actually within 100 yards of his client's premises. Since 1912 there had been a very considerable increase in the district, and many of the houses there today had been erected since 1927. A count had been made and the number of houses in a quarter-mile circle of the premises was 900, and in a half-mile radius was 1,975. In the district they had some 8,000 to 10,000 people. Since 1927 the number of houses erected was 727. Mr. Waddy said alterations would be carried out to the Morehall premises, but no-one would be able to suggest that what they were going to do there would be an eyesore.

The Chairman: Is the present building coming down?

Mr. Waddy: No.

Continuing, counsel said if the application were granted arrangements would be made for Mr. Robbins, who was temporary manager of the Princess Royal, to help at these premises at Morehall under Mr. Kent. He submitted it was just the right sort of house for the district. It dealt with the situation with the minimum amount of trouble or alteration and it would provide all the accommodation required.

The Chairman: We don't see any room available for women and children.

Mr. Waddy: There is not one at the Princess Royal. If we propose to put in accommodation like that, we at once met the Customs people saying “You are building bigger premises”.

Referring to the church opposition, Mr. Waddy said it was always a difficult type of opposition to deal with from an advocate’s point of view, but they were quite mistaken in thinking that the granting of that facility would do any harm to anyone. He did not know whether any petition was going to be laid before them, but if so he would ask them to scrutinise it with the greatest possible care. Petitions might be some evidence of local feeling, but sometimes they were not evidence at all.

The Rev W.J.T. Brown then put in a petition signed by about 220 persons, 21 of whom, it was stated, lived in the immediate area.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petitioners asked the Magistrates to refuse the application on the grounds that in their opinion a licence was not necessary and would be detrimental to the well-being of the locality.

Mr. Waddy then called evidence in support of his application.

Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen Street, Folkestone, and Frank Haisell, employed by Messrs. Frederic Hall and Company, gave formal evidence of serving notices in connection with the application.

Edward Carr, General Manager of Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, stated that his firm were the owners of the premises known as the Morehall Wine Stores. His company were prepared to give an undertaking that the site of the Princess Royal would not be used as a registered club as that was against the policy of the company. The Princess Royal lost its tenant during the latter half of 1938 and Mr. Robbins was installed as temporary manager, but he would be found a position under Mr. Kent in the new premises.

Mr. Mowll: It was stated by your counsel that the Railway Hotel did not oppose the application?

Witness: That is so.

Isn't it a fact that the Railway Hotel is owned by your company? - Yes.

I suggest to you that you would not be making this application unless you knew you were going to do a much greater trade at Morehall? - I understand from Mr. Kent that there need for a full “on” licence there.

Mr. Pocock: Do you seriously mean to tell me that the reason for your application for a removal order is purely to benefit the public?

Witness: Naturally we expect to get something out of it.

Enough to justify these alterations? -That remains to be seen.

Mr. Pocock: The phrase "re-distribution of licences’’ means getting away from fierce competition to an area where there is little or none, so your order is to enable you to remove from a place where there are 45 other licensed premises to another district where there are only two in a half- mile radius? - I think it is sound.

James Henry Kent said he was the licence holder of the Morehall Wine Stores. He had held a Justices’ Licence there since 1912 and he had also held “on” licences at three other houses in other parts of the country. He was definitely of the opinion that “on” licence facilities were required in that district. He was to be the tenant of the new premises.

William Bertram Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas, Folkestone, stated that he had lived there for 34 years. He supported the application although he happened to be a total abstainer. Witness said it was expected that there would be a large increase in the population Of Morehall shortly. A large block of flats was being built and he considered that when they were completed there would be only two bigger buildings in Folkestone, the Grand and the Metropole hotels. He was of the opinion that full licence facilities were required. Many people had complained to him that there was not an “on” licence in Morehall.

William Wood. 285, Cheriton Road, a retired builder, said that his house was opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. He also supported the application. If anyone wanted a drink they had to go either to the White Lion Hotel, or to the Bouverie, Cheriton Road.

Mr. Mowll: I understand YOU do drink?

Witness: Yes, sir, anything I can get hold of. (Laughter)

Do you have beer in your house? - Yes, but I have to put it on the mantlepiece otherwise I can’t get the atmosphere. (Laughter)

George Arthur Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, Morehall, a retired civil servant, also gave evidence in favour of the application.

Mr. Mowll said if those making the application expected a large custom, then he suggested it was case in which they should pay monopoly value. If that were not suggested, then there was no need for a licence. He represented Mr. Samway, who was the tenant of a very expensive house. If this trade was going to be re-distributed, then it was obvious that Mr. Samway's prosperity was not going to be enhanced. His submission to the Bench was that having regard to all the circumstances there might not be any need for further accommodation. People who had come to reside in the district knew that there was no public house at Morehall and they also knew probably that the Magistrates had persistently refused to grant an application for one there in the past.

Mr. Pocock asked the Magistrates to consider whether that was a proper case in which they could exercise the discretion which was theirs. Was it not unfair competition when all over the country other licensees were made to pay, made to pay dearly, when opening up in a district like this one? He did not think it would be fair to allow this new licence in this rapidly growing area without monopoly value being paid.

The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had been in the district for over nine years. He had seen nearly all the new houses built and he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing that an application was refused some years ago on the grounds that there was no demand for it by the older people, an application was now being made on the grounds that people who had since come into the district required such facilities. He submitted that the people who occupied the type of houses in the district were not the kind of people who frequented public houses. Legal arguments were not the only arguments in those cases; there were also moral arguments against the granting of such applications. The effects of strong drink were only too well known to some of them. As Magistrates they had to consider the welfare of the community, and he respectfully asked them not to grant the application.

The Clerk said a count showed that 223 people had signed the petition. In some cases there was more than one surname to the same house.

The Rev. H.E. Charleston said he associated himself very definitely with Mr. Brown’s remarks.

Mrs. Longhurst said they did not want a public house there because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She had collected a number of the signatures to the petition and only three persons out of the large number of people on whom she called wanted a public house there.

The Magistrates retired and after being absent some time the Chairman announced that the application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1939.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions the justices granted the application of Mr. J H. Kent for a full licence for the Morehall Wine Stores in Cheriton Road, in respect of which there has been an off-licence in existence since 1912. At the licensing sessions in February the justices refused an application by Mr. Kent for the removal of the full licence of the Princess Royal to South Street to the same premises, among the opposition being that of the Customs and Excise on the ground that a monopoly value should be paid if a full licence was granted to the premises.

The application came before the Licensing Committee, which consisted of Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore and Alderman W. Hollands.

The application was opposed by Mr. Christmas Humphreys (instructed by Mr. Rutley Mowll), on behalf of Mr. Samways, the licensee of the White Lion Hotel, the Rev. W.H. Brown, on behalf of the Cheriton Baptist Church, and Residents in the area, and Mr. H.G. Wood, who resides next door to the premises, on his own behalf.

Mr. Waddy said he was applying for the grant of a full licence at the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road, where there was at present a full off-licence, and where there had been a full off justices’ licence since 1912. If the justices granted the application it would not increase the number of licences in the borough, though, of course, it would alter the character of one, from off to a full licence.

On the last occasion, as they would remember, he told them that Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsop Co., Ltd., were the owners of the premises, and they put before the Bench a removal scheme - to remove the Princess Royal out of the Harbour district and take it up to the Morehall Wine Stores. They would remember also how it was almost bitterly opposed by the Customs and Excise on the ground that monopoly value should be paid for a licence there. But that day they were on new ground, and their view that there was going to be a very good trade if the licence was granted. He thought he ought to tell the Court that it had been agreed between the Customs and Excise and the applicants that the value which should be submitted to them, if the licence was granted, for their approval was no less a sum than 3,500. He rather stressed that figure, because, in his submission, it was very impressive evidence of a demand. As the Bench were aware, those figures were fixed by the Revenue authorities through their expert surveyors, who were dealing with that type of thing all over the country, and who had a remarkable knowledge of a district and what was likely to happen.

The Chairman: I question whether you should stress that.

Mr. Waddy: It would seem evidence with regard to the view of experts concerning demand. I can bring you evidence of a substantial demand for full on-licensed facilities.

The Chairman: That is better ground.

Mr. Waddy said in that district they had a very substantial population un-catered for by way of full on-licence facilities. They would remember on the last occasion a petition was put before them by the opposition of people who were opposed to the granting of a full on-licence for that house. His clients did not put any petition forward. As no doubt they were aware some benches did not consider petitions fruitful, but it might be that his clients would have been better off if they had tested the requirements of the neighbourhood. The opposition put before them on the last occasion a petition containing 223 signatures. He did not have any opportunity of analysing them, but as far as he recollected it came from a very wide area, covering pretty well the whole half-mile radius shown on the map. As the Clerk pointed out there were more than one name from a house in several instances.

As a result of that, within the short month they had had since the last hearing they had attempted to test the neighbourhood. Two residents in the immediate neighbourhood of the Morehall Wine Stores came forward and offered their services to make a test of the neighbourhood. They had canvassed the area within a quarter mile circle of the premises, and only the houses that were on the north of the railway line. Within that area there were 748 houses, and they had not taken more than one name per house. They had got 442 signatures in favour and they had found that 116 were neutral, neither for nor against. There were 57 houses at which they could not get any answer. That was overwhelming evidence of those who lived in the neighbourhood that they required a full on licence. Then there could be no objection that the applicants were wanting to get something for nothing, for they had agreed on the monopoly value. With regard to the plans, they were depositing two sets. One of them was before the Justices on the last occasion. The new plans showed the provision of a children’s room. That was in consequence of a remark by the Chairman on the last occasion that the magistrates thought a room for children should be provided. His clients were of the opinion that really a children’s room was not wanted, but if the Magistrates thought it was required his clients would be pleased to provide one, and they would leave the Magistrates to choose between the two sets of plans. Dealing with the opposition Mr. Waddy said they had the opposition of the White Lion, which was half-a-mile away, with its own district surrounding it. It was on a wide stretch of the road along which there was no full on-licensed house from it until they got to the Bouverie Arms in Folkestone. The Magistrates would remember that on the last occasion he told them that in the year 1904 the owners of the White Lion thought that another house was required, and they made an application for a full on-licence within 100 yards of the present Morehall Wine Stores. With regard to the opposition coming from the Rev. W. Brown, they would remember on the last occasion Mr. Brown addressed them on the moral arguments as opposed to legal arguments. The moral arguments were really that no one ought to be allowed to have a drink on the premises. Frankly, he (Mr. Waddy) thought Mr. Brown’s opposition was the opposition of the total abstainer, and it was not really a responsible opposition. Mr. Brown then presented a petition of 223 signatures, and he thought they could take it that they were the signatures of people who did not want to go into a public house and would not go in. They could not suggest that they would be any annoyance or trouble in the public house. Mr. Wood’s opposition was entirely of a different type. He lived in the house which was next door to his client’s house. It was separated by the open space that was the garden of the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Wood feared that when he left the premises, which he intended to do fairly soon, he might find that his house had depreciated in value. His (Mr. Waddy’s) submission was that was most unlikely. Mr. Wood was living upon a main road and in what was substantially a business area.

Mr. T.W. Allen gave evidence of the serving and publishing of the necessary notices concerning the application.

Mr. J. H. Kent, of 284, Cheriton Road, said he was the tenant of the premises. He had known the district since 1907, and it had grown largely. A full on-licence was necessary for the neighbourhood. Since the previous hearing two volunteers had offered their services to him to take round a petition, and they were not being rewarded in any way whatever for what they did. The area canvassed was within a quarter of a mile radius, and only one name was to be taken from one house. He had made an analysis of the petition. There were 748 houses, and there were 442 signatures in favour of the application for a full on-licence.

Mr. Waddy: Can you tell me whether there were any neutral?

Mr. Kent: Yes, 116, and from 57 houses no answers were obtained. Proceeding, he said the petition showed the list of the particular roads and showed the number of houses canvassed, and the number of people in favour. Two of the nearest roads were Morehall Avenue and Chart Road. In Morehall Avenue there were 103 houses, and the signatures in favour numbered 65. In Chart Road there were 87 houses, and the signatures numbered 63.

Cross-examined, Mr. Kent said no pressure was placed upon anyone to sign.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys: Would it not have been better to have had a postcard referendum?

Mr. Kent: I do not know about that.

The people in favour would then have posted them back to you? - Possibly. On the other hand, however, people came voluntarily to the premises to sign the petition.

Mr. W.B. Macgowan, of Beachborough Villas, again supported the application. He said there was a block of 36 fiats quite close to the Wine Stores. With regard to Mr. Wood’s apprehension if there was a full on-licence next door to his house that it would lose in value, he had not had any opportunity to give that any consideration, but speaking, apart from being a valuer and house agent, he thought it was a matter of imagination on Mr. Wood’s part. It might even be that the licence desired might enhance the value of the house.

Mr. R.J.T. Stamford, 97, Morehall Avenue, said he had lived there for the past 19 years. His house was about 150 yards from the Morehall Wine Stores. After the failure of the last application for the full on-licence he saw Mr. Kent and offered his services freely to canvass the district. He did so without receiving any reward. The canvass was limited to a quarter mile radius of the Wine Stores north of the railway. He visited roughly about 500 houses, and went at various times to the houses, morning, afternoon and evening. He found only between 20 and 30 against the licence. In his experience during the last ten years there had been a big demand for a licence. He had to get his drink in a bottle. A large number of visitors came into the neighbourhood in the summer, and they complained that there was no place where they could go for a drink in the evening.

Mr. Humphreys: Nearly all these signatures are of men only. Did you get men mostly to sign?

Mr. Stamford: I did not take particular notice of that. I only obtained one signature per house.

Mr. H. Chapple, of 1, Station Road, Folkestone, said he had lived for some years at his present house, which was 50 yards away from the Morehall Wine Stores. He volunteered his services to Mr. Kent and assisted in the canvass without fee or reward. In the houses he visited there were quite a few neutral, but only two or three were definitely against the licence. He thought there was a need for such a house in that district. If he wanted to go to a place to have a drink he got on a bus and came into Folkestone.

Mr. Humphreys: I suggest out of the first three pages of the petition there are only the signatures of three or four women? You got the men’s signatures, and if you had seen the women they would have been against?

Mr. Chapple: There are possibly more men.

Mr. Humphreys: A woman usually gives her full name when signing, or writes Mrs. I am going to suggest to you this licence is what the men want and what the women do not want.

Mr. Chapple: I do not know about that.

Mr. Humphreys: Just go through those first three pages and I do not think you will see the signatures of more than four or five women.

Mr. Chapple then pointed out several signatures of women on the first page, and Mr. Humphreys said he was satisfied.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) read the petition, which was as follows: We, the undersigned, believe that a full on and off licence house at the above address (Morehall Wine Stores) is necessary to meet local requirements and that there is a large demand in the neighbourhood for such a house from residents and visitors, and we support the application at the adjourned general annual licensing sessions on the 8th March, 1939, by Mr. J.H. Kent for such a licence.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys said in 1912 an off licence was granted and put into a building which had always had the appearance of a public house and had appeared to be successful as an off licence. Then there was an application to remove the Rose Hotel and put it where the Morehall Wine Stores were. That was refused 12 years ago. Then they came to 1939 and there was an application to remove the Princess Royal, a house doing a substantial trade, without paying a monopoly value. That application was refused.

Precisely one month after they had that application. There was only one possible assumption upon which the brewers one month later should take up their time, and that was on the assumption, which got no support from the Bench, that the only reason for that application being refused was because the original application was made by way of removal. Nothing, however, was said by the Bench, and Mr. Waddy had no reason to suppose that that was the reason. The application stood exactly as it was save now they were not reluctant to pay that sum of monopoly value, not to the justices, not to Folkestone, but to the Government for the privilege of that licence, which he suggested was not wanted. What the applicants were asking was to complete their grasp of that area. They had got the whole of the area south of the railway line, and now they wanted to come and take about three-quarters of Mr. Samways’ trade by putting this licence down where the houses are. They could not make any application in respect of south of the line. The centre of the housing estate they were considering was exactly half-way between Mr. Samways’ house and the Wine Stores. In that application the justices were not considering the desires of the brewers, but considering the demands oi the neighbourhood. There was a big distinction. The distinction was assessed ever 30 years ago, in 1904. It showed that the brewers had the desire to get another licence in that area. He would just like to give them a few facts regarding the White Lion hotel, which had been described as in its own district. That should not carry any weight with the magistrates. The house had been and was doing the trade that was necessary in the neighbourhood. Mr. Samways had five bars, catering for every type of trade, including a saloon bar, which was never full. At present the women, who might use the saloon liar, went to the off licence department, and the men went into Folkestone to their clubs. Mr. Samways was doing a substantial off trade and deliveries, and there were plenty of off licence facilities. Though his trade was substantial, Mr. Samways had got to pay a rent of 210, rates 170, and wages 16 a week. Therefore he had to take 27 10s. a week before he got a penny profit. Unfortunately his trade was declining, and that was partly due to the fact of the opening of the Red Car Company’s club nearby. So serious was that trade taken away from his bars that he had sacked two employees. His trade was declining, though at present he was serving the whole of the area. Could they imagine what tbe effect to his trade would be if another house was put down within a half-a-mile of his premises? If they granted that application they did not lose any licence and there was no need for another licence to be surrendered. There would be the monopoly value, but that would not affect Folkestone at all. He contended that it was very unsatisfactory for a petition to be presented as showing the true test of the demands. The honest and proper way of finding what was the demand of the neighbourhood was that laid down and adopted by many London brewers, and that was by the system which none could gainsay. A postcard was sent out, to the number of 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000, to every house on which the questions were asked are you in favour, against, or neutral? People who required a licence in the district would send that postcard back. By that means they would get a referendum of the people in the area. He, therefore, suggested the petition was worthless as finding the true desires of the neighbourhood.

The Rev. W.J. Brown said the signatures on the petition against the application were taken within the quarter of a mile radius. As he mentioned at the previous hearing 21 people, nearby tradesmen and resident, signed that petition. He associated himself with the arguments eloquently put by Mr. Humphreys. He wished to touch upon the moral point of view. It was a recognised fact that the drink trade was a social evil in any community. He thought the Bench Should take that into consideration. On the last occasion he submitted resolutions from two women’s meetings in the locality. If the licence was granted it would mean damaged lives and homes and broken hearts.

Mr. Wood, in submitting his opposition, said he lived next door to the Wine Stores, and at present he had nine windows overlooking the beautiful garden at the rear of the premises. He understood there was to be a car park reaching within three feet of his side windows.

The Chairman asked if that was so.

Mr. Waddy said the matter had been referred to the Ministry of Transport, who had been asked whether a oar park would be permitted. It was not absolutely certain whether they would want it.

Mr. Wood said that instead of looking on a garden they would, if the licence was granted, look upon the rear of a public house and a car park. Anyone who came out of the car park would be able to step over the low wall separating the two premises. A car park was certainly not a nice thing to have under one’s windows, and he took it that there would be entrances and exits in the licensed premises connecting with the car park.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said they had given the application for a new on-licence at the Morehall Wine Stores full consideration, which they granted.

Mr. Waddy then asked the Committee to approve the monopoly value at 3,500.

Mr. E. Wright, surveyor of Customs and Excise, Dover, said that was the amount which had been agreed between the applicants and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Waddy said the 3,500 would be payable on taking out the first excise licence.

The Chairman said the arrangements made between the Commissioners and applicants concerning the monopoly value were agreed to by the magistrates.

Mr. Waddy said he would ask the Bench to approve the plans. He did not know which set they would like, with or without the children’s room.

The Chairman said they did not like the term children’s room. The Bench were in favour of a tea room, such a room where a family could go.

Mr. Waddy said he would accept that suggestion.

The Chairman said the justices had sympathy with Mr. Wood, and they thought a car park should not be forced upon him at once, but that the garden should remain if possible.

Mr. Waddy said his clients would give an undertaking that they would not change the garden into a car park without coming to the Magistrates and asking for their approval.

The Chairman: That shows you are giving him some consideration.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1939.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

An application to the Folkestone Licensing Magistrates for a full “on” licence for the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, succeeded at the adjourned annual licensing sessions, held at the Town hall on Wednesday.

Opposition to the application was entered by the owners and licensee of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, the Rev. Wilfred Brown, on behalf of the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers in the district, and Mr. H.G. Wood, whose house adjoins the wine stores.

The Magistrates also approved of monopoly value amounting to 3,500, a figure which had been agreed between the parties.

The application was heard by Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. A.E. Pepper. Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore and Alderman W. Hollands.

Mr. B.H. Waddy, instructed by Frederick Hall and Company, Folkestone, appeared Tor the applicants, and Mr. Christmas Humphreys, instructed by Mowll and MowII, Dover, represented the owners and licensee of the White Lion Hotel. Mr. E. Wright watched the proceedings for the Commissoners of H.M. Customs. and Excise.

Mr. Waddy said he was asking for the grant of a full “on” licence in respect of the Morehall Wine Stores, 284 Cheriton Road, Folkestone, where there was at the present time a full “off" Justices’ licence. There had been such a licence there since 1912 therefore if they granted the application it would not increase the number of licences in the borough, although it would, of course, alter the Characteristics of one licence from “off” to “on”. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp were the owners of the premises. Last month they put before the Justices a scheme for the removal of the licence ol the "Princess Royal" to the Morehall Wine Stores. That application was opposed by the Customs and Excise on the grounds that monopoly value should be paid because in their view a very good trade would be done there. It had been agreed between his clients and the Customs and Excise that the figure that should be submitted to them for approval was no less than 3,500 as monopoly value. He rather stressed that figure because in his submission it was very impressive evidence of the demand in this district. Those figures were fixed for the Revenue authorities by their expert surveyors who were dealing with that type of thing all over the country. They had a remarkable knowledge of the requirements of districts.

The Chairman: I question whether you ought to stressing that point at this juncture.

Mr. Waddy said he was putting it before them as evidence of the demand, but he could put before them other evidence of the substantial demand in the district for these licensing facilities.

The Chairman: That's better ground.

Mr. Waddy next referred to the number of houses in the district and mentioned that at the last hearing t petition was put before them on behalf of the opposition. His clients did not put in a petition: as they were no doubt aware some Benches did not consider petitions were very helpful; some did. The petition put before them by the opposition the last time contained 223 signatures, and as far as he recollected it had been obtained from a very wide area covering pretty well the whole of the half-mile circling the stores. In some cases more than one name from one house had been obtained. During the last month they had attempted to test the feeling of the neighbourhood, and it had been done this way. Two gentlemen, residents in the immediate neighbourhood, came forward and offered their services quite voluntarily for the purpose of making a canvass of the neighbourhood. They had canvassed houses lying only within a quarter-mile circle and only houses north of the railway line. There were 748 houses which lay within that quarter-mile circle north of the railway. The canvassers had not taken more than one name per house, and they had obtained 442 signatures in favour; another 116 were neutral and there were 57 houses from which they could not get an answer. In his submission that was overwhelming evidence that the people who lived in the immediate neighbourhood did desire full “on” licence facilities and there could now be no objection to the application on the grounds, as suggested by the Customs at the last hearing, that they were getting something for nothing. Mr. Waddy next dealt with the plans for alterations to the premises, and mentioned that a children's room, as suggested by the Chairman, had been provided. The view of his clients was that in a house of this kind a children's room was not really wanted, but they were quite agreeable to provide such a room. Counsel, referring to the opposition of the White Lion Hotel, contended that there was further evidence that such a house was required by the fact that they had instructed Mr. Christmas Humphreys, a learned counsel, to come there to oppose the application. He (Mr. Waddy) contended, however, that the White Lion had no right to ask for an area stretching right down to the Bouverie Arms, in Folkestone, because that was what in fact their opposition amounted to. As he had told them on the last occasion, in 1904 the owners of the White Lion Hotel made an application to place a full “on” licensed house not 100 yards from the premises in which he was making an application. Their opposition was purely trade opposition and, in his submission, purely “dog in the manger" opposition. The opposition of the Rev. W.J.T. Brown was based on the argument that no one should be allowed to have a drink on these premises. It was the opposition of the total abstainer and was not really a resident's opposition at all. The opposition of Mr. Wood was of an entirely different type. He lived in a house which was next door to their clients' premises. His home was separated by an open space which at the present time was the garden of the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Wood feared that when he wanted to sell his house he might find it had depreciated in value. In his submission that was most unlikely. Mr. Wood was living on a main road in what was a substantial business area, and he (Mr. Waddy) hoped to satisfy them, even if he could not satisfy Mr. Wood, that it was highly unlikely that his premises would be affected because the character of the licence of the Morehall Wine Stores was changed.

Evidence of serving the necessary notices was then given by Thomas W. Allen.

James H. Kent, 284, Cheriton Road, the tenant of the Morehall Wine Stores, said he known the district since 1907. Since then it had grown very largely, and in his view full “on” licence facilities were required in the district. Two residents had volunteered their services in regard to the petition mentioned by Mr. Waddy. The area of canvass was a quarter of a mile, and no canvass was made south of the railway. Mr. Kent then gave the figures referred to by Counsel, and said that of the 103 houses in Morehall Avenue 65 of the residents were in favour, while of the 87 in Chart Road 63 supported the application.

Replying to Mr. Christmas Humphreys, Mr. Kent said he preferred a petition to taking a referendum of a district by postcard.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys: Do you know that the saloon bar at Mr. Samway's house is very seldom full?

Mr. Kent: No, I don't know.

William B. Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas, an auctioneer and house agent, who supported the application last time, said lie did not know in what way the Morehall Wine Stores would depreciate the value of Mr. Wood's house. Some people thought they were too far away from licensed premises. The closer proximity of the premises might enhance the value.

Richard J.T. Stamford, 99, Morehall Avernue, said he had lived there for the past 19 years. He was about 150 yards away from the Morehall Wine Stores. After the last application he offered to canvass the district, limiting it to a quarter-mile circle north of the railway. Only one signature was taken from each house. He visited some 500 houses, and during his canvass he found 20 to 30 against. From his experience, during the last 10 years there had been a big demand for licensed facilities in the district. During the summer there was a great number of visitors in the district and he had heard them complain of having so far to go to get a drink.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petition which was put in was worded as follows: “We the undersigned believe that a full “on” and “off” licensed house at the above address is necessary to meet the local requirements and that there is a large demand in the neighbourhood for such a house from residents and visitors and we support the application”.

Harry Chapple, 1, Station Road, Folkestone, said he lived 50 yards from Mr. Kent's premises. After the failure of the previous application he also offered to make a canvass. He found that there were quite a few neutral, but the number against was three or tour. He considered there was a need for “on” licence facilities in the district.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys commented that it was most unusual tor a woman to sign her name using only the initials of her Christian names, and he suggested that in the petition put in nearly all the signatures were those of men. He submitted the petition showed what the men wanted but the women's viewpoint had been ignored.

Mr. Chapple pointed out several signatures bearing only initials which were those of women.

Addressing the Magistrates for the opposition, Mr. Christmas Humphreys said they were not opposed to these premises, but the application in regard to these premises. In 1912, he said, an "off” licence was granted for a building which had all the appearances of a public house. Then, in 1927, an attempt was made to remove the licence of the Rose Hotel to these premises, but the application failed. Twelve years went by in silence and then they had the application for the removal of the licence of the ‘'Princess Royal”, a house doing a substantial trade, but so loath were these brewers to pay monopoly value, that they tried to remove the licence of this house. That Application, however, also failed. There was only one possible ground, continued counsel, on which these brewers were entitled to take up the Justices’ time in order to hear that application again, and that was on the assumption that the only reason for refusing the application last time was because it was made by way of removal and not by way of a new licence. Occasionally a Bench would drop a broad hint to that effect and a new application would be made, but nothing like that had been hinted in this case. There was nothing else new. There were no new houses in the district; the application stood as it did before except that the brewers were prepared reluctantly to pay this monopoly value. Counsel said they had not to consider the desires of the brewers; they were considering the demand of the neighbourhood. It was not because this firm was asking for a new licence that thereby there was shown any demand; they were only shown their desire. The White Lion Hotel had been described as big in its own district. The house had been there a long time, and he suggested that it did all the trade that was necessary in the neighbourhood. In that house Mr. Samway had five bars, catering for several types of trade. There was also a saloon bar, but that bar was never full, showing that there was not a demand for that type of trade in the district. The other bars were often quite full. He was also doing a substantial "off" trade. Mr. Samway s trade was substantial, but he had got to find a rent of 210 a year, rates amounting to 170 a year, and wages coming fo 16 odd a week. That meant that he Had got to take 27 10s. a week before he got a penny profit for himself. His trade was declining. He had recently suffered a heavy blow to his trade by the opening of the East Kent Car Company's Club nearby. So serious was that that he had been forced to "sack" two employees. That had nothing to do with the winter trade. His trade was declining although at the present time he was doing the whole of the area. Couldn’t they imagine the effect on his house if another were opened about half a mile away? When it came to deciding the demand of the locality they got this unsatisfactory, and ho would suggest, absolutely useless petition, continued Mr. Christmas Humphreys. Counsel suggested that the much more satisfactory way would hive been a postcard referendum, every householder in the area being asked to say whether he was in favour, against, or neutral.

The Rev. Wilfred J.T. Brown said he had put in a petition at the previous hearing. Signatures were obtained within a quarter-mile radius and 21 of the signatories were nearby residents and tradespeople. From a moral point of view it was a recognised fact that the drink trade was a social evil throughout the country. On the previous occasion they put in two resolutions, carried at women's meetings, opposing the application. If this licence were granted it would mean damaged lives, broken homes and broken hearts. That was an acknowledged fact.

Mr. Wood told the Magistrates that nine windows at the side of his house overlooked the garden of the Morehall Wine Stores. One of those windows was that of his boy’s study. There was a proposal to make the garden a car park and that would bring it within three feet of his side windows.

Mr. Waddy said in regard to the proposed car park, the matter had been put before the Ministry of Transport to ascertain whether a pull-in for cars would be permitted. They did not know whether they would get permission or not, and it was not absolutely certain that they would want it. It would depend on whether people came there with cars.

Mr. Wood said it would be difficult to say where their premises finished and his began. Anyone could step over a low wall and go out by way of his gate.

The Magistrates then retired. On their return the Chairman said they had given the application full consideration and had decided to grant it. They also approved the monopoly value, to be paid on talking out the first excise licence.

Mr. Waddy asked for approval of the plans with or without a children's room.

The Chairman said they did not like the term ‘'Children’s room”. The Bench, however, were in favour of a tea room to which a family could go.

Mr. Waddy said they would change the name then to "Tea room”.

The Chairman said with regard to the garden, the Magistrates would prefer that Mr. Wood should have a sympathetic consideration and for the moment, the matter should not be forced on him.

Mr. Waddy said his clients were prepared to give an undertaking that a car park would not be provided without first coming before the Bench and asking for their approval.

The Magistrates approved the plans, and it was agreed that the confirmation of the licence should come before the Magistrates on Friday, March 31st.

 

Folkestone Express 18 March 1939.

Letter.

To the Editor.

Dear Sir, As I am responsible for the erection of the thirty-six flats, Cherry Court, now nearing completion, mentioned by Mr. W.B. Macgowan and reported in your current issue, I should like to make it quite clear that I do not associate myself with the application and, in fact, knew nothing about it. Personally, I do not consider that the licence was necessary and I think it was quite irrelevant of Mr. Macgowan to mention the new flats. They are not yet inhabited and I feel quite sure the type of tenants these modern flats will attract will not require the “facilities” which apparently are going to be provided in future. Furthermore, it is an exaggeration to say that these flats are “quite close” to the licensed premises in question, which, I consider would not be an advantage.

Yours faithfully,

R.R. Gordon-Barrett

71, Sandgate Road.,

Folkestone.

13th March, 1939.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 April 1939.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, Mr. B.H. Waddy applied for the confirmation of the licence which was granted to the Morehall Wine Stores at the Adjourned Annual Licensing Sessions. He asked for the confirmation subject to a monopoly value of 3,500 being paid on taking out the first Excise Licence, the changing of the name of the “children's room” to “tea room”, and an undertaking that the brewers should not convert the garden space into a car park before first coming to the Magistrates for permission. Mr. Waddy said there was no opposition and he therefore formally applied for the confirmation of the licence.

Replying to the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) Mr. Waddy said there would be no “on” sales until the premises were quite in order.

The Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) announced that the Magistrates confirmed the licence on the understanding that the points mentioned by Mr. Waddy were adhered to, especially in regard to the garden.

Mr. Waddy said ff they wanted to turn the space into a car park they would come before them with alterations to plans. They might never want it.

 

Folkestone Express 8 April 1939.

Local News.

Mr. B.H. Waddy applied at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday for the confirmation of the licence which was granted to the Morehall Wine Stores at the adjourned annual licensing sessions.

Mr. Waddy asked for the confirmation subject to a monopoly value of 3,500 being paid on taking out the first Excise licence, the changing of the name of children’s room to tea room, and an undertaking that the garden space should not be converted into a car park without first coming to the Magistrates for permission.

The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) said the Magistrates confirmed the licence subject to the understanding that the conditions mentioned were adhered to.

Mr. Waddy said if they wanted to turn the space into a car park they would come before them, but they might never want it.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1940.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The record of sobriety in Folkestone was once again the subject of general congratulation at the annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions held at the Police Court on Wednesday. Councillor R.G. Wood was in the chair and sitting with him were Dr. F Wolverson, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. P. Fuller and Alderman W. Hollands.

The question of the renewal of the licence granted to Mr. James Kent, in respect of his premises at Morehall then came before the justices.

Mr. W.J. Mason said he appeared to apply for the renewal of the licence which the magistrates granted last year. The alterations would have been proceeded with, but for the war coming along and the Government's intimation that only work of national importance should be proceeded with and also it was not possible to get timber. He did not know what view they would take, but other Benches had taken the view that only work of national importance would go on. On the other hand, if they thought that the licence being granted the work should be proceeded with, provided the timber could be obtained, he would be willing to proceed. His application was they should renew the licence.

The Chairman said he thought he might say at once that the justices would not do anything to tie their hands at the present time.

Mr. Mason said at the present time, of course, the business of off-licence was being proceeded with.

The Chairman said the licence would be renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1940.

Local News.

An off licence granted in respect of the Morehall Wine Stores was renewed on the same terms as last year by the Magistrates at Folkestone Licensing Sessions on Wednesday.

The application was made by Mr. W.J. Mason on behalf of Mr. J.H. Kent. Mr. Mason said he applied for the renewal of the licence granted to Mr. Kent last March and duly confirmed. In this case there were alterations to be made, he said. Plans were prepared and approved and estimates were obtained. The work would have been proceeded with but for the war and the fact that the Government had intimated that only work of national importance should be proceeded with, and further there was trouble about getting the necessary supplies of timber. Many of the licensing Benches were also taking the view that at the present time, in view of the national emergency, only work of national importance should be proceeded with. Mr. Kent took the view that probably the Folkestone Justices would desire that that should be done in this case, but if they considered the work should be proceeded with subject to the timber being obtained, Mr. Kent was willing to proceed with it at once according to the plans which had been drawn up.

Councillor R.G. Wood, in the chair, said the Justices would not do anything to force the spending of money at the present time.

The Magistrates would renew the licence on the same terms as last year.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 January 1945.

Obituary.

The death of Mr. James Henry Kent, of “The Retreat”, Trimworth Road, Folkestone, which occurred on Tuesday, has caused widespread feeling of deep regret in Folkestone and the neighbourhood. Mr. Kent, who was 69, had suffered from a cold for about two months, but last weekend it was expected that a few days' rest would result in a complete recovery. He was admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital on Thursday, but he failed to respond to treatment and died from pneumonia and heart failure.

Mr. Kent, a native of Liverpool, had had business and municipal interests in this district for a period of well over 30 years. When a young man he joined the Merchant Navy, which he left at the age of 29 to marry Miss Annie Elizabeth Lord, whose home was near Abingdon, Berkshire. He afterwards entered the licensed trade, and for short periods held the licences of the Prince Albert, at Sydenham, and the Queen's Hotel, Abingdon.

He came to Folkestone several years before the outbreak of the last war and, apart from his other business activities, he quickly took a prominent interest in cinema undertakings. He was managing director of the first cinema built in Hythe, the old Hythe Picture Palace, which was opened in 1911, and was the forerunner of the much more up-to-date Grove Cinema, in Portland Road. He made similar interests in Maidstone, Reading and Banbury.

His career on Folkestone Town Council started more than 30 years ago when, in the summer of 1912, he was elected a member for the East Ward. His association, however, was quickly broken, and it was not until November, 1927, that he returned to the Corporation as a member for the Morehall Ward, in which he had important business interests. He was unopposed, filling the seat vacated by the late Councillor S. Kingsnorth. He was re-elected in 1930 and 1933, and then when the whole of the Council retired in 1934, prior to the Revision of the Boundaries Election, he went back again, serving until 1938, when he decided to retire from Municipal life. In July, 1941, however, he was persuaded again to offer his services and he was co-opted to the East Ward. Last summer he resigned his seat, a decision which in many quarters met with much regret. For a long period he was Chairman of the Parks Committee, and he was associated with a number of improvements carried out by the department in the pre-war years. The late Councillor Kent was one of the most progressive members of the Corporation and, coupled with his sound business judgement, this made him one of the most valuable members of the municipal body.

In 1927 he sold to the Corporation for 1,500 the licence of the old Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, which he had purchased, and despite strong opposition the licence was transferred in March of that year to the Leas Cliff Hall. Later on he played a big part in obtaining the transfer of a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

At the election of Mayor last year he made an outspoken protest against the re-election year after year of one man to the Mayoralty.

For many years he was proprietor of the Morehall Wine Stores, an off licence business, and in March, 1939, after several previous unsuccessful applications he was granted an on licence for the premises, the conversion of which was held up by the outbreak of war.

Mr. Kent was a man of varied activities, of which sporting pastimes formed a considerable part. In Berkshire he was well-known as a keen huntsman and shot. He was a skilful bowls player, and for many years had been a member of the Folkestone Bowls Club and other clubs. As an angler he took part in many of the Folkestone Sea Angling festivals, and also, on a number of occasions, visited Ireland for fishing holidays. He was greatly interested in cricket and had been associated with the Folkestone Cricket Festival in pre-war days, as well as with the County fixtures played on the Sports Ground.

At one time he was a member of the Folkestone Rotary Club. He was a Freemason, being a member of the Temple Lodge of Freemasons, No. 558, Folkestone.

Mr. Kent suffered a severe and tragic loss in the summer of 1934, when his wife died during the annual outing of the staff of the Grove Cinema. Mrs. Kent collapsed during the homeward journey and died at New. Romney. There are no children.

The funeral will take place today. The interment will be preceded by a service at Folkestone Parish Church at 11 a.m.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 July 1951.

Local News.

After 42 years as off-licence premises, The Morehall, at the corner of Cheriton Road and Coombe Road, has become a fully licensed house. Considerable reconstruction and alteration work has been carried out, and the house is now most comfortable and well equipped. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, the well-known brewers, entertained a number of guests at the opening ceremony on Thursday last week. Ald. E.P. Bridgland declared the premises open. The guests included: Aldermen W. Hollands, J.P., and W. Davis, Mr. P V. Gurr, J.P., Group Captain B.G. Carfoot, O.B.E. (Director of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp), Mr. A.H. Hopper (Stroud District Manager.) and Mr. J.L. Le Fanu (Commercial Manager).

Group Captain Carfoot said the site of the new house had been laid out by the Morehall Estate, and in 1909 it became an off-licence.

As a company, he continued, they were seeking to provide an ideal house for the public. The public wanted a place which they could use as a social centre, or where they could take their friends for drinks. “The trade are always anxious to have good houses”, he said. “Licences and economic factors hold back the hopes of the trade, and we are compelled to go slowly".

Ald. Bridgland said the people of Folkestone believed that only the best was good enough, and the Morehall attained that object. “This is a red letter day for Morehall”, he remarked. “This is something that has been wanted for a long time”.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 September 1951.

Local News.

Accommodation for children is provided at the "Morehall”, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, where the manager (Mr. H.H. Ridgers) has arranged a room with games and other pastimes, and toys. The room, which adjoins the lounge of the hotel, is furnished in bright and gay colours.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 February 1952.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The licence of the Morehall was at Folkestone Annual Licensing meeting on Wednesday transferred from Mr. A.H. Hopper, former district manager of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, to the new district manager, Mr. Peter B. Balean.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 November 1953.

Local News.

Transfer of the licence of the Morehall to Mr. Charles Dunwell was confirmed at Folkestone transfer sessions on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 October 1955.

Inquest.

A verdict of “Death by misadventure” was returned at the inquest on Mrs. Margaret Coleman (45), of Daenfair, Mill Lane, Hawkinge, which was held at St. Mary's Hospital, Etchinghill, on Wednesday.

Mr. William Richard Coleman, of Daenfair, Mill Lane, Hawkinge, gave evidence of identification. He said deceased had not been well for some time past and two different kinds of sleeping pills had been prescribed for her. Sometimes she took more than the prescribed dose of the tablets and he often remonstrated with her for doing so. She was inclined to worry, especially about their financial situation, and he had heard her make such remarks as “I wish I were dead”, but she had not meant it seriously. He stated that last Saturday morning she went to work in Folkestone as usual and returned in the afternoon. That evening she again went to work, but later, when he was playing darts in the White Horse, he was surprised to hear that she was in the bar. He went to see what the trouble was and she told him she had “just walked out”. She gave no explanation. She had drunk quite a bit but was quite sober. “When we reached the house she went straight to her bedroom, while I stayed in the lounge”, he continued. “I filled the hot water bottles and then went down to the bathroom. When I returned she told me she had taken six tablets and was going to get a good night's sleep. She had a very comfortable night and slept until 11 a.m. the next day. At about 12 noon she told him she was going out to see about another job; when she returned she had been drinking, but was fairly sober. She went straight to bed. When I saw her about three o'clock she was sitting up in bed smoking a cigarette. I said “You haven't taken any more of those tablets, have you?” and she said “I haven't because the box was empty”. I told her to let me know truthfully if she had taken any more, but she insisted she had not. I told her I did not believe her and would send for the doctor, but she said I would only make a fool of myself. I then wanted her to drink some salt water and she said I was just being silly”. When he next saw her, she was sleeping peacefully, said witness. He looked in on her again at about four o’clock and she was still sleeping. Just before five he made some tea and took her in a cup. Witness added “I discovered something was radically wrong – she was hardly breathing and I could not wake her”. He tried artificial respiration for a time and then rushed out and dialled 999.

Dr. Patrick Frank Osborne, Thorndean, Swingfield, said he prescribed two types of barbiturate tablets for Mrs. Coleman. He did not remember warning her about the effect of alcohol on these tablets.

Dr. Ian Benson Morris, Canterbury Hospital, who performed the post mortem, said death was due to combined alcohol and barbiturate poisoning. He could not say whether the amount of barbiturate would have been enough to kill her without the alcohol.

Mr. Frank Shaw, manager of the Morehall, Cheriton, said Mrs. Coleman was his head barmaid. The first he knew about her going was when his wife told him on Saturday evening she had sent for a taxi as she was leaving. She had seemed quiet and “under the weather”.

Returning a verdict of “Death by misadventure”, the foreman of the jury said they were of the opinion that doctors should inform their patients that it was dangerous to mix alcohol with such drugs.

 

Folkestone Gazette 17 April 1963.

Local News.

The following application for transfer of licence was granted by the Folkestone Licensing Magistrates on Wednesday: Morehall Hotel, Cheriton, from Mr. M.J. Robinson to Mr. A.H. Bundy.

 

South Kent Gazette 22 November 1978.

Local News.

Empty tankards brought few cheers at four Folkestone pubs when beer kegs and bottles ran dry. Regulars had to make do with fruit juice and spirits as a result of a brewery workers' strike at Ind Coope. The brewery supplies local pubs including the Black Bull, Nailbox, Morehall and Railway Bell from its Aylesham depot. After missing three deliveries, pub supplies dwindled last week to nothing.

One landlord said his trade had been cut by 50 per cent, and another claimed his darts league and pool players had turned to lemonade and Coke.

Now customers will be finding what their right arms are for again. The 14 workers at Aylesham agreed to return to work yesterday. A spokesman for the brewery said the strike by a total of 1,750 production and distribution employees was over a pay claim. Most of the other workers agreed to return to work on Monday.

 

South Kent Gazette 28 March 1979.

Local News.

Police are hunting several men who attacked a barman in Cheriton on Saturday night. But fears that workmen from the M20 motorway construction site could be responsible have been scotched by both police and local landlords. The incident happened at 11.10 p.m. in the Victoria public house, Risborough Lane, when barman Brian Brown told customers it was time to leave.

A police spokesman said that Mr. Brown, who lives in Christchurch Road, Folkestone, received a bleeding nose, cut gums and facial bruising. “Navvies” from the Danton Lane, Cheriton, motorway site were blamed for the assault because the assailants had not been identified and one spoke with an Irish accent.

However, Police Inspector Peter Ford told the Gazette “We’ve had no trouble at all from the site. If the situation with site workers continues as it is then we shall be perfectly happy”.

Mr. Brown was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press but the Victoria’s landlord said “This is the first time we’ve had trouble in the pub since I came here three years ago”.

Speculation that motorway workers could be a possible source of violence was scotched by landlords at: The White Lion in Cheriton High Street - “So far they’ve been perfectly well behaved in here”.; The Morehall, Cheriton Road “Nice lads ... no trouble whatsoever”.; The Nailbox, Shorncliffe Road – “A bit noisy, that's all”.; The Cherry Pickers, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton – “We've had a few in, but they've been perfectly O.K.”.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 March 1986.

Canterbury Crown Court.

A father trying to protect his 15-year-old son in a pub scuffle was acquitted by a jury on Wednesday of wounding charges.

Michael Trainor was alleged to have stuck a glass in another man’s face, cutting him so that he needed 20 stitches. But Mr. Trainor, who claimed his son was being attacked, told a jury at Canterbury Crown Court that he knew nothing about a glass and had not had one in his hand. Mr. Trainor, aged 37, of Risborough Lane, Cheriton, who denied the charges, was found Not Guilty of wounding Mr Thomas Andrews, and of unlawful wounding.

Mr. Andrews, of Alexandra Street, Folkestone, said he and a friend had been in the Morehall pub, messing about, when a youth trickled beer on them. He swore at the boy and after some pushing Trainor pushed a pint glass into his face, cutting him on the chin and neck, he alleged.

But Mr. Trainor said a group of youths had his 15-year-old son across a table, holding him by the legs and throat. He said he had nothing to do with the alleged incident, as he did not have a glass in his hand at the time.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 April 1986.

Local News.

Regulars at pubs in the Folkestone area could hardly believe their luck. There they were, sipping a quiet pint, when suddenly seven Bunny girls walked into the bar and offered to kiss them. But those that thought they had had one over the eight were soon proved blissfully wrong when they realised the offer was for real. The Bunnies were made up of staff and customers from the Morehall pub, in Cheriton Road, who were out and about selling their favours to raise money for the Brook Hospital in South East London, which specialises in head injuries. Visiting eight pubs in Folkestone and Cheriton, the girls, led by landlord Ray Maclaren, dressed somewhat appropriately as a wolf, raised 139. The pub has now raised nearly 1,000 for the hospital, which is under threat of closure, and is also where Heather Kelwell, a barmaid at the Morehall, was treated after receiving fatal head injuries in a road accident.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 March 1987.

Local News.

Bleary-eyed regulars at a Cheriton pub landed a place in the record books at the weekend when they staged a 48 hour darts marathon. The team of eight at the Morehall marked up 39,265 points in just one hour - beating a previous record of 32,000, And it was all in a good cause. Darts team members Robert Francis, Ron Gregory, Robert Corbett, Carl Gregory, Robert Gregory, Mark Richardson, Alistair Kelly and Tom Wallis raised 700 for blood transfusion equipment for the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, and for St. George’s Youth Club in Cheriton.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 April 1987.

Local News.

Ian Waddilove, 19, from Earls Avenue, is to hold a non-stop D.J. marathon of 107 hours at the Morehall Pub in Cheriton from midday today (April 3). All the money raised from sponsorship will be donated to the Kent and Canterbury Special Baby Care Unit. Unemployed Ian decided to carry out this mammoth effort after his year-old son Shane was born. Fortunately, Shane was born perfectly healthy, but it got him thinking of all the babies whose lives are dependent on the special hospital unit. Over the four days, families and friends will keep Ian company to encourage and keep his spirits high. If you would like to help him in this worthwhile cause, sponsorship forms are available from Ian by ringing Folkestone 56950 at any time.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 May 1987.

Local News.

A youth who has been in a coma for 11 weeks after being beaten up outside a disco has captured the hearts of a Cheriton landlord and his customers. Mr. Ray McClaren, of the Morehall pub in Cheriton High Street, has vowed to raise more than 5,000 for 21-year-old Steven Boulding, of Aldington.

Steven, an arts student at the Canterbury College of Art was attacked in February and has been unconscious ever since, with his family keeping a constant bedside vigil. Money is needed to finance Steven's treatment in the United States, and to provide equipment for use in his home when he returns.

Ray, who has raised 17,000 for charities since becoming landlord at the Morehall four years ago, said “I am hoping to raise 5,000 or more. Knowing our customers the way I do, and knowing what we have done for charities in the past I feel that this is a very easy sum to reach in a very short period of time. Every second Thursday at the Morehall we will hold events, fancy dress nights and sponsored events to raise money. Customers will be “charged” to go to the loo, if they don’t wear fancy dress they will be “fined”, and swear box will all add to fundraising”, he said. Also in the pipeline is a charity football match between the Walker Brothers and soldiers at the St John Moore Barracks (IJLB) - which will be open to the public. Ray has a mystery way of fund raising planned for himself, but will give more details later: “It will be totally spectacular and crazy”, he promised. Ray is appealing for others to join him in his crazy antics, sponsored walks and swims. If you’ve any suggestions of your own he will be pleased to hear them. If you would like more details contact Ray McClaren at Folkestone 75347.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 July 1987.

Canterbury Crown Court.

A Folkestone man who claimed he had been trying to break up a fight when another man was injured with a beer glass has been acquitted of wounding by Canterbury Crown Court.

Robert Bruce Veitch, 31, of Royal Military Avenue, Cheriton, had denied wounding Simon Linklater and an alternative charge of causing actual bodily harm. He was cleared of both charges and discharged.

Mr. Linklater, of Risborough Lane, Cheriton, said he was drinking in the Morehall pub with friends in February when he was approached by a man called Ian Curry and an argument started. “He threatened me and asked me to go outside, when Veitch intervened and suggested I should apologise to Curry. I asked why, because I had nothing to apologise for”, said Mr. Linklater. He said Curry tried to head butt him and he pushed him away, and when Curry came at him again he threw him to the floor. “The next thing I knew, my head was bleeding and I saw blood over my hands”. Mr. Linklater had been hit on the head with a glass which caused cuts that had to be stitched.

Veitch, a self-employed painter and decorator, said the pub was crowded but he saw Curry talking to Mr. Linklater. “I could see there was an argument going on and intervened, suggesting that if Mr. Linklater apologised things would calm down”, he told the jury. He said he saw Curry being pushed away and tried to get between them. “I forgot my glass was still in my hand and my hand went up as his head came down. I did not intend to strike him”, he said. Veitch added that it happened very quickly and he left the pub, but later went to Folkestone Police Station because he was worried.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1988.

Local News.

A publican and two customers hope to raise over 1,000 for charity, and they're willing to lose their hair for it. The trio are raising money for Telethon 88 and they each had their heads shaved in a sponsored cut last week. It took place in the Morehall pub, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, and landlord Ray McLaren was first to come under the shears. The money will come from lounge bar regulars, who have clubbed together to raise it. With partners Terry Harman and Barry Ward, the total sponsorship amount came to 600.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 September 1988.

Local News.

Shepway's pubs are changing opening times and changing with the times.

Latest local to get the treatment is the Morehall in Cheriton Road, a sizeable establishment that has never really fulfilled its potential. Hoping to put that to rights are new tenants Jenny and Gerry Hodson who looked on with pride as Folkestone’s deputy mayoress, Councillor Sheila Simpson, pulled the first pint on Friday last week.

The 175,000 facelift has seen three bars knocked into one; though by clever design the lounge and public bar areas keep their own identities. Pool and darts are still very much on the menu for the locals, but sights are set firmly on lunch time business trade with a full range of hot and cold dishes supplemented by daily specials.

Jenny and Gerry come to Cheriton after 20 months at another Friary Meux pub, the busy Dover Tavern. For Jenny, a Cheriton girl, it’s something of a home-coming, and she’ll have the support of long-serving barmaid Carol Sylvester, who has been appointed assistant manageress.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1995.

Local News.

Most landlords have welcomed the new Sunday opening hours. Many pubs were packed with families celebrating the freedom to drink all afternoon while others were deserted because customers were confused by the new law. Drinkers who didn't know about the new tippling time were in for a surprise at the Harbour Inn, Folkestone. Barman Ian Waddilove explained “A lot of them wondered why we didn't ring last orders at ten to three. The later closing time seemed to have gone down pretty well”.

However, Maureen Coles, landlady of the Morehall, Cheriton, blamed confusion about the new law for locals staying away. “It was absolutely dead”, she said. “Most people did not realise the new law had started even though we put posters up”.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 July 1996.

Local News.

One of Folkestone's biggest and busiest pubs, the Morehall, is likely to get a million facelift. But customers at the Cheriton road hostelry will have to find somewhere else to drink while the work is done. Licensee Maureen Coles has been told to close on August 19, with the alterations unlikely to be finished until October. The pub only underwent a major change five years ago, and Maureen said “The quantity surveyor came down last week, and he said he loves the pub just how it is. But as the plans stand they involve some structural work, so it looks like we will have to close down for the refit”.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 September 1996.

Local News.

A pub has closed its doors to regulars – but only for six weeks while it undergoes a complete refit. The last pints have been served at the Morehall, in Cheriton Road, Folkestone, until the 220,000 refurbishments are complete. When it re-opens the pub will have a new lounge, with hi-tech sound systems and video screens, pool tables and the latest video games.

Graham Bennett, retail manager for owners Ind Coope, said “The refurbishment will offer a lively, fun atmosphere, with plenty going on for young people. However, the pub will continue to offer a separate traditional bar so local pubgoers can eat and drink alongside younger regulars”.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 January 1998.

Local News.

A landlord has been awarded a six month licence to hold karaoke nights in his pub. Last week members of Shepway's entertainments licensing committee approved the application for the Morehall pub, in Cheriton Road, Folkestone, after they heard its live-in landlord stress he was as keen for disturbance-free nights as his neighbours, because he has a young son who needs his sleep. But councillors only approved the licence for a probationary six months – instead of the normal year – because of the landlord's youth and the fact this was his first application. However, they stressed this was not a precedent for other applications, and that the licence would probably be renewed if there were no complaints from neighbours.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had KENT James 1912-17 Bastions

KENT Annie 1917-19 Bastions

KENT James 1919-42 Bastions (Also "Rose Hotel.")

KENWARD Leonard 1942-49 Bastions (Also "Princess Royal")

HOPPER Archibald 1949-52 Bastions

BALEAN Peter 1952-53 Bastions]

HENEAGE Peter 1953 Bastions

DUNWELL Frederick 1953-54 Bastions

MUDD Leslie 1954-56 Bastions

CASH Peter 1956-58 Bastions]

WILSON Thomas 1958-59 Bastions

ROBINSON Michael 1959-63 Bastions

Last pub licensee had BUNDY Albert 1963-75 Bastions

GRAINGER William 1975-77 Bastions

JENKINS David 1977-81 Bastions

MOSSAHEBI Ahmed and GRIFFITHS David 1981-83 Bastions

BROWN Derek and GRIFFITHS David 1983-84 Bastions

McLAREN Raymond and GRIFFITHS David 1984-86 Bastions

GRIFFITHS David 1986-88 Bastions

CLARK Edward and HODGSON Gerald 1988-90 Bastions

HODGSON Gerald and BLYTH Simon 1990-91 Bastions

BERRY Malcolm and BLYTH Simon 1991 Bastions

ALDRED Ellen and BLYTH Simon 1991-94 Bastions

COLES Maureen and GRIFFITHS Geoffrey 1994-98 Bastions

PARKER Shane and COOKE Dennis 1998 Bastions

PARKER Shane, COOKE Dennis and BOLSTER Sarah 1998-99 Bastions

COOKE Gordon, RUSSELL Clive and VINCENT Rosemary 1999- 2000 Bastions

COOKE Gordon, RUSSELL Clive, VINCENT Rosemary and  KEAN Richard 2000-01 Bastions

Last pub licensee had COLES Maureen and GRIFFITHS Geoffrey 2001-04+ Bastions

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

 

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room