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 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 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 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 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 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 4½ 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 92½.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 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 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 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 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 £¼ 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.