DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 10 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1847

(Name from)

Oddfellows' Arms

Latest 2001

(Name to)

30 Radnor Street & 26 The Stade

Folkestone

Original Oddfellows Inn

Above picture showing the original "Oddfellows Inn". This building remained here till about 1932. Notice the RAOB letters standing for Royal Antedeluvian Order of Buffaloes.

Original Oddfellows

Above postcard date unknown, with kind permission from Eric Hartland. Also showing the old "Ship" titled Flint's Ales.

Oddfellows Arms 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Oddfellows Arms card

Above Whitbread card, series 28 May 1973.

Oddfellows Arms

Above showing the Oddfellows Arms, date unknown.

 

During the reign of Peter Philpott 1972-84 he changed the sign on the front of the building to read "Sir Peter Philpott Oddfellows' Arms" and was promptly instructed by then owners, Whitbread, to remove the additional lettering. (The original Sir Peter Philpott being a Knight, born in London in 1488 and died in 1540.)

In 2001 the name changed to the "Front," this lasted under that name till 2004 when it became the "Nostalgia 50s Bar," this stayed with that name for two years till in 2006 was renamed the "Three Mackerel." From 2006 to 2008 it again changed name to "Euphioria." Now unfortunately closed.

 

Canterbury Journal 20 February 1847.

On Tuesday last the brig Susan put in here, one of her crew having fallen from the mast and broken his leg during the snow storm of Monday last, at sea. He was taken to the "Oddfellows Arms," Radnor Street, where he now remains.

 

Dover Telegraph, 24th May 1851.

Petty Sessions.

Dawson Neal, of the "Oddfellows Arms," was summoned for keeping a disorderly house.

Mr. Sladden, appeared for defendant, and objected to the form of summons, which was dismissed.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 January 1852.

Wednesday, January 7th: Before W. Major and T. Golder Esqs.

Dawson Neal, of the Oddfellows Arms, appeared to answer an information charging him with keeping his house open during divine service on Christmas Day. After hearing the evidence of Superintendent Steers, who visited the house between 10 and half past and found the back door open, he was convicted in the sum of 1s. and costs.

 

Southeastern Gazette 19 September 1854.

Annual Licensing Day.

Monday: Before the Mayor, S. Mackie, W. Major, T. Golder, G. Kennicott, and T.Kingsriorth, Esqs.

Before renewing the licenses, the Mayor addressed the publicans, informing them that anew law was passed, explaining to them the particular features of the Act, and hoped they would adhere to it. The whole of the licenses were renewed, with the exception of the Radnor Inn, Oddfellow's Arms, and the Engine Inn. Applications for new licenses were made for the George, Gun, and Belle Vue Tavern; the first only was granted, on the ground that it was a new house in the room of one pulled down. The sign of the Fleur-de-lis was changed to the MartelloTavern.

 

Southeastern Gazette 17 October 1854.

Monday, October 9th: Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and G. Kennicott, Esqs.

The adjourned meeting for the granting of licenses was held, when the licenses of the Engine Inn, Oddfellows Arms, and Radnor Inn, were renewed, Superintendent Steer being desired to pay particular attention to these houses.

 

Southeastern Gazette 12 August 1856.

Wednesday: Before The Mayor, J. Kingsnorth, W. Major, and W. Bateman, Esqs., and Capt. Kennicott.

Richard Charlton, a mariner, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

The defendant had gone into the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, about half-past six in the evening of the previous day in a state of intoxication. He then commenced a disturbance, and seized hold of a Swiss soldier who was sitting down, and dragged him into the street, where he commenced a regular pugilistic encounter, which soon attracted a crowd of soldiers and civilians, the prisoner striking at every soldier of the Swiss Legion with whom he came in contact, and for whom he appeared to entertain a peculiar antipathy. The police then interfered and defendant was taken into custody.

Fined 2, or in default, two months’ hard labour.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 22 November, 1862.

STEALING FROM CLOTHES LINE

Friday November 21st:- Before W. Bateman esq., Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith, Esqs.

John Rossiter, collector of rags and bones, lodging at the "Oddfellows Inn," Radnor Street, was brought before the bench, charged with stealing from off a clothes line in Mummery's Yard, a white gabardine, the property of Emily Tomsett, a laundress, residing in the yard. From information received by the police the prisoner was found by police constable Reynolds wearing the gabardine in Radnor Street. He was taken into custody, and the gabardine being identified by the prosecutrix, the prisoner was remanded till this day, to be brought up and tried under the Criminal Justice Act.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 6 February, 1864.

CAUSING AN OBSTRUCTION

Monday February 1st:- Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer, Esqs.

James Dawson Neal, landlord of the "Oddfellows Arms," Radnor Street, appeared on a summons by Supt. Martin, at the instance of Mr. Bamford, the surveyor of the town, for causing an obstruction near his premises in Back Street, by allowing a cart to stand there.

Leonard Kingsford, P.C., sworn, deposed on Monday, the 25th, was ordered to see that no obstruction was allowed in the street, in the way of carts standing about. He observed a cart standing opposite defendant's house, alongside the pathway. It was 5 minutes past 11, and stood there till 12 o'clock and past. The name on the cart was James Neal of Folkestone; the cart was empty. Defendant keeps the "Oddfellows Arms." Did not say anything to the defendant about it then, but has seen it standing there several times since. When it was standing is a public street. The cart belongs to defendant.

Mr. John Bamford, sworn, deposed he was surveyor of the borough of Folkestone; knew the "Oddfellows Arms." The road at the back, Back Street, is a public road, kept up and repaired by the Corporation.

Defendant had no question to ask.

Defendant said that he had put his cart there to load herrings from his stores; his cart stood by the kerb, and the roadway was wide enough for ten carts; he was not aware he was doing wrong in any way; he urged as an objection that it could not be called a street, having only one side to it; it might be a terrace.

This, however, was over-ruled by the Bench.

Mr. Boarer said there was a difference of opinion between himself and his colleague about this matter. It is at the request of the Nuisance Committee that this course was carried out; it was a question with him to have inflicted a fine of 40s. and costs; his colleague will tell you presently what he intends to do; if a smaller fine is in accordance with his view he should agree to it.

Mr. Kelcey said that he thought a smaller fine would meet the justice of the case; he should fine defendant 1s. and costs 10s. The fine and costs were paid.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 6 February, 1864.

CART IN STREET

Monday February 1st:- Before James Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Dawson Neal was fined 1s., with 10s. costs, for having his empty cart in the street.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 December 1864.

Tuesday December 6th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.

William George was brought up in custody charged with stealing, on the 8th November last, a blue Guernsey shirt, a pocket knife, a pair of trousers, and a neck tie, of the value of 14s, and 2 3/4d in money, the property of John Benfield. The prisoner offered no defence to the charge, and the evidence being conclusive, he was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 10 December, 1864.

STEALING A GUERNSEY

Tuesday December 6th:- Before R.W. Boarer, Esq.

William George, a French mariner, speaking English, was charged with stealing a blue Guernsey shirt, a pair of black trousers &c.

John Benfield, mariner, living at the "Oddfellows Arms" said that on Monday the 7th of November, prisoner was at the "Oddfellows," and occupied the same bedroom with him. Witness rose at 6 o'clock on the morning of Tuesday 8th November, and prisoner and witness's clothes were gone. The whole of the property was worth 14s. or 15s. The Guernsey and the knife produced were his.

Richard Seith, Deal P.C., received information of a Frenchman stealing the last witness's clothes and went with the last witness in search of him, but could not find him. About three weeks back prisoner came to Deal again in company with another man and witness apprehended him, he having prosecutor's Guernsey and knife then upon him. He then went in search of the other man who was with him, and both were committed to Sandwich jail for three weeks on a charge of stealing sacks. Prisoner told witness that he bought the Guernsey in London, and the knife was his own.

P.C. Woodland received the prisoner yesterday at Sandwich jail, and on the way to Folkestone prisoner admitted that he took the things.

Prisoner now said he came from Dover to Folkestone to look for a job. He was very cold and hungry, and took the poor fellow's clothes. He was very sorry for it, and did not intend to do anything wrong. That at Deal was not his fault. The other man did it himself.

Committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 December 1864.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Tuesday, William George, a French mariner, speaking English, was charged with stealing a blue guernsey shirt, a pair of black cloth trousers, &c.

William Benefield, mariner, living at the Oddfellows’ Arms, said that on Monday, the 7th November, the prisoner was at the Oddfellows, and occupied the same bedroom with him. On witness getting up on Tuesday morning, prisoner and witness’s clothes were gone. The whole of the property was worth 14s. or 15s.

The prisoner was apprehended at Deal, with another man, by P.C. Smith, on a charge of stealing sacks, for which they were sentenced to three weeks’ hard labour, and prisoner, who was wearing prosecutor’s guernsey when apprehended, was now brought up on the above charge and committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 January 1865.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday January 3rd:- Before J.J. Lonsdale.

William George, who stated he was a Canadian, was placed in the dock, and indicted with having stolen on the 8th November, 1864, a blue Guernsey shirt and other articles, the property of John Benfield, to which he pleaded guilty.

The learned recorder said it was a heartless case, and committed him for three calendar months hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 7 January 1865.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday January 3rd:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

William George, 40, mariner, was charged with stealing one blue Guernsey shirt and other articles, the property of John Benfield, at Folkestone, on November 8th, 1864.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty and said he was a Canadian.

The Recorder sentenced him to six calendar months hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 10 January 1865.

Quarter Sessions.

These sessions were held at the Town-hall, on Tuesday, before the Recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

William George, 40, mariner, was. charged with stealing one blue Guernsey shirt and other articles, the property of John Benfield, at Folkestone, on November 8th, 1864.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he was a Canadian.

Three months hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 22 July 1865.

Saturday July 15th:- Before Silvester Eastes Esq.

Alfred Noel was charged with feloniously receiving three pieces of lead line, the property of James Dawson Neal.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

James Dawson Neal said – I am a publican, and reside at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Folkestone. I am also the owner of some fishing boats. They generally lie in the harbour. Last Monday morning my men missed some lead line from the boat Nightingale, No. 19. Some days ago some lead line was shown to me, which I identified as my property. The piece of lead line now produced is that which was shown to me. I knew it by it's make. The rope has been cut.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I only know of the loss from my men. I cannot say how long it is since I last saw the rope. There are four pieces of rope now here. There are only two lines, but they have been cut into four pieces. I may not have seen them since they were made. The large piece belongs to the Nightingale. The piece belonging to the Nightingale may have been made a month. The other pieces I missed from my back door. I cannot say whether it is a week, a month, a year, or five years. I identify the rope in the Nightingale by the net and spun yarn.

Zachariah Petman said – I am a mariner, in the employ of the prosecutor, on all his boats. I look after them all. Last Monday week I missed a lead line from the beach in the harbour on which the Nightingale lies. I missed another piece some time before Folkestone fair, belonging to the Jane, No. 20. Folkestone fair was held on 28th June. This piece was lying in front of the prosecutor's house. In the beginning of July I saw the piece now produced at the defendant's house. The other piece now produced, belonging to the Nightingale, I saw at the prisoner's house this day week. I identify both pieces as the prosecutor's property. I know them by the cackling. The pieces now produced were originally two lines, and one piece has been cut since I lost it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The broken piece has been condemned for fishing purposes. I know the rope by the cackling, which is done in the usual way.

P.C. Reynolds said that on Saturday morning, the 8th instant, between three and four o'clock in the morning, he picked up from the porch of the prisoner's doorway the piece of lead line produced. Superintendent Martin afterwards showed him another piece, which matched at the place where they had been divided.

Superintendent Martin, last Saturday morning went with the witness Pettman to Noel's house, in a room of which they found the two pieces of line or rope now produced, and which Pettman said had been stolen from his master. Noel was present at the time. Witness then sent for the prosecutor, who came, and in Noel's presence claimed the rope as his property, and said it had been stolen a short time previously. Noel told witness he had bought the rope of a man whom he should know again, for eighteen pence. After a short time he mentioned the name of Pettill as the person he had bought the rope from. Witness asked him if he was in the habit of buying rope in that way, and he said he bought a large quantity which he sent to France. Witness then said “There has been a piece of the same description of rope found in the porchway of your door this morning”. Prisoner replied “Yes, the man that I bought the other piece of called me up in the night and left the piece for me on the step of the door”. Witness then took possession of the two pieces of rope which he found in Noel's room. On comparing one of the two pieces with the piece brought by Reynolds they matched, and the end of each fitted where the rope had been cut. Noel is a fruitere, and witness was not aware that he is anything else. Was not aware that he was a dealer in marine stores.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Witness when he first went in said “You have got some rope here”. He said “Yes”. Witness could not say Noel said he told the man who called him up in the night he would not have the rope. He might have said so.

Mr. Minter addressed the bench, contending that Noel had bought the rope, except the piece found in his doorway, which he had refused to buy at the unreasonable hour at which it was brought.

He called William Solley, potato merchant in Tontine Street, who was at Noel's house a week ago last Wednesday, about eight o'clock in the evening. A fisherman came to the house with a piece of rope, something like the piece produced in court, but he did not take any notice of it. Noel gave 1s 9d for it. He knew that Noel exported old nets to France. He did not know the man's name who brought the rope. Noel did not take his name or address.

Thomas George Ledger, agent to the South Eastern Railway in Folkestone, knew Noel, and that he was an exporter of old nets to France in a large way. He was considered a trustworthy man.

The bench then dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Observer 15 June 1867.

Monday, June 10th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esqs.

James Hammond, 8th Brigade Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a musical box.

P.C. Smith said: I was sent for by the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, last evening about half past seven. I went there, and saw the landlord, Mr. James Dawson Neal, and he told me he had lost a musical box. In company with another man, who had seen the prisoner in the Oddfellows, I went to look after him, and found him near the fish market. I stopped him and asked if he had anything on him, and seeing the shape of the box through his tunic I said “What have you got here?”. He made no reply. I then put my hand under his tunic, and took out the musical box that I produce, and I conveyed him to the station, where I charged him with stealing the box from the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. He said he knew nothing about it. On searching him I found 2s. 3d. on him.

Dawson Neal, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, said: Prisoner came into my house with another man about half past six last evening, and went into the sea parlour. They had a pot of beer. The prisoner went out, and left his friend sitting. The last time I saw him he was using very offensive language, and I told him if he could not cease using such language he had better leave the house. The musical box was on the table when he was there. The box is a child's toy. After he had left my attention was drawn to the absence of the box, and I sent for a policeman. The man was sober when I saw him. The value of the box is 5s.

Prisoner said he took the box, but did not intend to keep it.

The Bench sentenced him to six weeks' hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 June 1867.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Monday, a gunner of the 8th Brigade, named James Hammond, was committed for six weeks for stealing a musical box from the Oddfellows’ Arms, in Radnor Street.

 

Folkestone Observer 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

This was a special session for granting alehouse licenses, and the various licensed victuallers attended for the renewal of their licenses, the whole of which were granted, with one exception which was suspended for a fortnight, until the adjourned licensing day.

The license of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, was granted to James Barker, in consequence of the death of James Dawson Neal, the late landlord.

Notes: This date is in contrast with info in More Bastions, and there is no mention of Barker. Actually refers to Oddfellows Arms. It also means that the licensee listed for the Albion Tavern can't be this Neal.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

The licensing day was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

Transfer: The license of J.D. Neal (deceased) for the Oddfellows Tavern (sic), Radnor Street, was transferred to James Barker.

Note: This transfer is not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Observer 2 June 1870.

Transfer.

Saturday, May 28th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Clarke, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

John Carter was granted temporary authority to sell excisable liquors under the license of James Carter granted at the last general annual licensing meeting for the Oddfellows Arms.

Note: More Bastions lists previous licensee as James Barker.

 

Folkestone Express 4 June 1870.

Saturday, May 28th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Clark, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

John Carter applied for a temporary license to sell excisable liquors at the Oddfellows Arms under a license granted to James Carter at the annual licensing meeting.

The application was granted.

Note: Licensee before Carter is listed as James Barker in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Observer 7 July 1870.

Wednesday, July 6th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses.

The Oddfellows Inn (sic) was transferred from James Barker to John Carter.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 July 1870.

Wednesday July 6th: Before the Mayor, Capt. Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses. The Oddfellows Inn (sic) was transferred from James Barker to John Carter.

 

Folkestone Express 9 July 1870.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, July 6th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Oddfellows Arms: The licence was transferred from James Barker to John Carter.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 July 1870.

Notice.

Hannah Clarke (Known as Hannah Neale), widow, deceased.

Pursuant to an Act of Parliament, made and passed in the twenty second and twenty third years in the reign of Her present Majesty, Chapter 35, intituled “An Act to further amend the law of property, and to relieve Trustees”.

Notice is hereby given that all Creditors and persons having any Claims or Demands upon or against the estates of Hannah Clark (known as Hannah Neale), widow, late of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, deceased, (who died on the twenty third day of May, One thousand eight hundred and seventy, and whose will was proved by George Barker, of Buxton, in the County of Norfolk, Labourer, and John Carter, of Radnor Street, Folkestone, aforesaid, Mariner, the Executors therein named, on the tenth day of June inst., in the District Registry attached to Her Majesty's Court of Probate, at Canterbury) are hereby required to send in the particulars of their claims or demands to the said George Barker and John Carter, or to the undersigned, their solicitor, on or before the first day of August next. And notice is hereby also given that after that day the said Executors will proceed to distribute the Assets of the deceased among the parties entitled thereto, having regard only to the claims of which the said Executors shall then have notice,, and that they will not be liable for the assets or any part thereof so distributed to any person of whose debt or claim they shall not then have had notice.

Dated this twentieth day of June, 1870.

Richd. Hart, Church Street, Folkestone,

Solicitor for the Executors.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 December 1870.

Local News.

At the Petty Sessions, a, few days since, before the Mayor (T. Caister, Esq.), J. Tolputt and R. W. Boarer, Esqs., John Brann was summoned by Hannah Carter to find sureties to keep the peace towards her.

Complainant deposed: I am the wife of John Carter, and we keep the Oddfellows Inn, in Radnor Street. The defendant lives close by.

He came to our house on Wednesday afternoon. I was standing at the door, and, when I saw him coming, I went into the bar, and he came into the bar too, and threatened to kill me if he could get near me. He tried to get at me, and strike me. His wife and wife's mother and some men prevented him, and got him out of the house with my husband’s help. He was drunk. The same thing happened since this week. I do not know why the defendant annoys me. I did not call his wife anything.

Mary Brann, the previous defendant s wife, was also summoned to find sureties.

Hannah Carter further stated that, after Mrs. Brann got her husband away, she came back to complainant at the bar, and used most foul language, threatening to murder her. She also made an attempt to get near her, but was prevented by the people in the house, and put outside, one thought defendant was drunk, but was not certain. She had come to the house the night before, when she threatened.

In cross-examination, complainant said she did not use bad language.

Each of the defendants was bound over in 10 to keep the peace.




 

Folkestone Express 28 September 1872.

Monday, September 23rd: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Catherine Hall, wife of a hawker, was brought up on a charge of being drunk and riotous in Radnor Street on Sunday. Defendant was further charged with using obscene language.

Defendant, a powerful muscular woman, appeared in Court with an infant in her arms, who seemed to enjoy the process of lactation, the surroundings notwithstanding. She stated that she had three more children. On being called to plead, she admitted being drunk, but denied being riotous and using obscene language.

P.C. Keeler said he was sent for to the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, about half past ten on Sunday night, when Mr. Carter, the landlord, asked him to put defendant out. Witness told him he must eject her himself, but he would assist him in doing so. Defendant was then put out of the house. Witness told defendant she had better get home to her lodgings, when she used very abusive language and asked him what he had to do with it. Defendant was drunk and laid down in the street, and caused a crowd of from fifty to sixty persons to collect around her. Witness went away a short distance in order to see if defendant would go home, but she commenced again to make a disturbance and use bad language, and having obtained the assistance of P.C. Sharpe he apprehended prisoner and locked her up.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated the evidence of his brother officer.

Mr. Caister asked how it was the house was not shut up before half past ten.

Supt. Martin explained that prisoner and her husband were lodging at the house, and that it was cleared at the proper time, but prisoner became so violent it was necessary to send for the police.

Prisoner said the landlord said her husband could go to bed but he would not allow her to do so. They had been lodging there a week, and had been drinking all day on Sunday. She was very sorry she had got drunk.

The Clerk to prisoner: Are you prepared to pay a fine?

Prisoner's husband: I hope you will let us off as easily as you can, and it will never happen again.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk and riotous, or seven days hard labour, and 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. costs for using obscene language, or seven days hard labour, to commence at the expiration of the first term.

Prisoner was removed to the cells.

George Hall, husband of the last prisoner, was summoned on a charge of assaulting P.C. Keeler whilst in the execution of his duty on Sunday night.

P.C. Keeler deposed: I was employed in the execution of my duty in Radnor Street about half past ten o'clock on Sunday night, when defendant's wife came out of the Oddfellows Arms, and I was taking her into custody when defendant came up and asked me what I was going to do with his wife. I told him I was about my business and he had better not interfere with me in the execution of my duty. He said I should not interfere with his wife. I told him if he interfered I should take him into custody. He replied with an oath that it would take three or four like me to do that. His wife was lying on the ground at the time, and I was trying to get her up. Defendant then kicked me on my leg, and nearly threw me into the crowd. He followed me and P.C. Sharpe down Radnor Street when we took his wife away, who was using obscene language as we went along.

By defendant: I have no marks on my leg. You kicked me on my ankle.

Defendant: All the people said “Don't let him take your wife away”. If I kicked the policeman it was a mistake.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

Defendant: I tried to persuade my wife to come away.

The Clerk: Your wife is summoned to appear on Wednesday to answer two more charges of assault.

The Mayor said the police must be protected in the execution of their duty, and defendant must pay a fine of 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or go to gaol for seven days' hard labour.

Defendant was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 October 1872.

Saturday, October 5th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

John Carter, of the Oddfellows Arms, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, and fined 20s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 12 October 1872.

Saturday, October 5th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

John Carter, Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, pleaded Guilty to a similar offence.

P.C. Hogben said he saw some soldiers in the house at twenty minutes to six on Sunday evening with pots and glasses before them. Defendant came downstairs and the soldiers went out. Defendant said he was not aware that he had to close until six.

Defendant said he was showing the men a catalogue of some things. He was certain that there were other houses open at the time.

Fined 1 and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 January 1873.

Wednesday, January 1st: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs, and Col. De Crespigny.

Richard Spicer was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises upon being requested by the landlord to do so, he being drunk.

Mr. Minter appeared for complainant.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

John Carter, sworn, said he was landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, and on the night of the 26th December defendant came to his house the worse for drink, in company with a man named Robt. Wetherhead, and demanded drink, but he refused to serve them. They wanted to go in the inside room where a party was collected, and his wife said they should not, and ordered them out of the house. They created a disturbance, which drew together a crowd.

Mrs. Carter confirmed her husband's evidence.

Robt. Wetherhead was charged with the same offence.

Mrs. Carter stated defendant kicked at her, and caused a great disturbance.

Defendant was sworn, and denied the evidence against him.

The Bench considered the offence proved, and fined each defendant 10s. and 11s. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 4 January 1873.

Wednesday, January 1st: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

Richard Spicer and Robert Weatherhead, fishermen, were summoned under the new Licensing Act for refusing to leave the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, when requested to do so on the 26th December.

Mr. Minter for complainant.

John Carter, landlord of the above-named inn, said Spicer came into his house between 7 and 8 o'clock on the evening of the 26th December, apparently having had a little drink. He went away and returned again about 11 o'clock very much the worse for drink; in fact he was tipsy. Weatherhead was with him. He called for a glass of beer, which he refused to serve him. Weatherhead was also the worse for drink. There was a party of men in the room who were enjoying themselves very quietly. Spicer and Weatherhead caused a disturbance in the house and caused a crowd to collect outside. His wife was kicked at and struck by someone. He ordered Spicer to leave the house and he refused to do so. There were 40 or 50 people collected outside the house.

By Spicer: You did not leave the house when you were requested to do so.

Mrs. Hannah Carter corroborated her husband's evidence, and said Spicer wanted to go into the room where there was a party of men, and she got in front of him for the purpose of stopping him, and he and Weatherhead tried to force their way into the room. She and her husband ordered them to leave the house, which they refused to do. She was struck on the breast and bruised by someone, but she could not say whom, and had to be attended by Mr. Eastes. A crowd collected inside and outside the house and broke up the party in the room. Spicer had come to the house at intervals for two years and had stood upon the doorstep for the purpose of annoying her.

By Spicer: I have shut the door in your face because the lodgers have been annoyed.

Spicer was told by the Clerk that under the new Act he could be sworn and give evidence on his own behalf if he chose. This Spicer declined to do.

In the case against Weatherhead Mrs. Carter said he went into the house with Spicer about 11 o'clock and called for a glass of beer, but as he was tipsy she refused to serve him. He kicked at her and began to use bad language, and offered to fight any three men in the house, and tried to get into the room to the customers. She stood in front of him to stop him. A crowd collected, and she was struck several times in the passage. She had not seen him in the house before that time.

By Weatherhead: You did not put your knee up to prevent your falling. You said before long you would have my nose off my face. There were not 14 or 15 men came out of the room drunk.

Mr. Carter confirmed what his wife had said and added that he had been compelled to apply to the police several times on account of defendant's conduct.

By defendant: You came in about 11 o'clock. My wife did not push you out of the door. You said you would not go out.

The defendant Weatherhead was sworn and he said he went to sea on the 26th December and came back at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and afterwards went to the Pantomime at Sandgate, where he stayed until 10 o'clock, and he and another man had a quart of beer between them. He got home about half past 10, when Spicer asked him to go and have a glass of beer. They went into Carter's bar and Mrs. Carter put up her hands and pushed him out of the door, and if he had fallen he would have broken his neck. He did not kick at her and was quite sober, having only had one pint of beer in 24 hours. Carter refused to draw him a glass of beer. About 15 men came out of the tap room so drunk they could not speak. Someone knocked him down and kicked him under the chin. The landlord and landlady were drunk. P.C. Hills came and requested him to leave the house.

Mr. Minter contended that it was pretty evident from Weatherhead's own statement that defendants went to the house to make a row, and they had admitted that they had been requested to leave the house.

The Mayor said The Bench were of opinion that the case was proved against both defendants. Under the recent Act they had incurred a penalty of 5, but as it was the first case they would only be fined 10s. and 11s. costs each, or seven days in default.

The defendants paid the money. Weatherhead remarking that it was for keeping sober, which was no use doing.

 

Folkestone Express 18 January 1873.

Friday, January 17th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Matilda Batchelor, single woman, employed at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, was charged with stealing a print dress, the property of Thomas Standing.

It appears that Mrs. Standing had hung a dress on a line in her back garden at Cheriton Road and missed it on Wednesday evening. Prisoner offered it in pledge at Mr. Joseph's and was handed over to the police.

Prisoner said the dress was given her by two men to pawn and she, having proved by two witnesses and alibi, was discharged with the caution not to be so accommodating in future or she might be charged with receiving stolen goods.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 January 1873.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Friday, Matilda Batchelor, a young unmarried woman, employed at the Oddfellows’ Arms, Radnor Street, was charged with stealing a print dress, the property of Thomas Standing.

It appears that Mrs. Standing had hung a dress on a line in her back garden at Cheriton Road, and missed it on Wednesday evening. Prisoner offered it in pledge at Mr. Joseph’s, and was handed over to the police.

Prisoner said the dress was given her by two men to pawn, and she having by two witnesses proved an alibi, was discharged with the caution not to be so accommodating in future, or she might be charged with receiving stolen goods.

 

Folkestone Express 14 February 1874.

Monday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Hoad and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Catherine Wood, alias Kate Murray (23), whose career appears to be one of delinquency, having been three years in a reformatory, and against whom was registered some half-score convictions, was brought up on remand from Saturday, charged with stealing sundry books of the value of 1s. 6d., from the shop of Mr. Edward Dale, bookseller, Dover Street.

Annie Dale, prosecutor's daughter, deposed: I was in my father's shop on Wednesday afternoon, when prisoner came in and asked for a ticket for the Servants' Home. I told her to go to Mr. Birch's. She then left the shop and came back in a quarter of an hour and said she had been to Mr. Birch's and found she was too old to go into a Servants' Home. I then told her to go to Mr. Pope's and she went away. She had a bonnet or shawl on.

Prisoner to witness: I told you I could not find Mr. Birch's.

Elizabeth Dale, prosecutor's wife, deposed: Prisoner came to our shop on Wednesday evening between seven and eight o'clock, and said she wanted to get into the Servants' Home. I told her my husband had no means of getting her into such an institution and that it was of no use her calling again. She left the shop, and after she was gone I looked round and missed about a dozen “Churchman's Almanack” and “Dover and Deal Guide”s. The books now produced correspond with those I missed.

Hannah Carter, wife of John Carter, Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, said: Prisoner has lodged at my house. She came on Wednesday and called for a glass of beer and porter and paid a penny for it. She had a yellow covered book in her hand and asked if I liked reading, and I replied that I could not read and she then gave the book to my little girl. Prisoner went out after she had drank her beer. I gave the book to P.C. Keeler.

Harriett Hall, wife of William Hall, fishmonger, said: I saw prisoner come out of the fishmarket about half past three on Wednesday afternoon. She went through the arch in front of the Royal George, and was tossing up a number of books. She said “I am going to put these up for a pint of beer”. I said “You may as well give me one for my little girl”, and she gave me one and then went away.

Charlotte, wife of William Bourne, Hope, Fancy Street said prisoner came into her house in company with a tall man on Wednesday, and he paid for a pint of beer. Prisoner had several books in her hand and offered to give witness them, and as she said she did not want them, she gave her a “Churchman's Almanack”, and said if she kept the books she would only make away with them. Witness threw the book prisoner gave her on the tap room fire.

P.C. Keeler said: On Thursday morning, from information received, I went to the Oddfellows Arms and received the book I now produce from Mrs. Carter. I then went in search of prisoner and apprehended her in Tontine Street about noon. After being cautioned she said she was drunk and went into a shop, but she would not have done it if it had not been for a young man who was standing outside, and she gave him a portion of the books. She said she did not know his name, but they called him “Charlie”. Prisoner was searched by the female searcher, but nothing was found upon her. I have been to Dover and Hythe in search of the man, but could not find him.

Prisoner, after being duly cautioned, said: I came to Folkestone on Monday with a young man named Mackson, whose father keeps a farm. We went to the Dew Drop and got a bed there; we went into the tap room and had a pot of beer. I had just come out of prison and got a little beer, which upset me. If you will be so kind as to forgive me I will go into a Home: I could go in one today. I have lost my mother. I will go down on my hands and knees if you will forgive me. I don't want to go to prison again.

The Mayor said the Bench had no alternative but to commit prisoner for trial, and she was accordingly committed to the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1874.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, April 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Catherine Wood (22) was charged with stealing fourteen books, value of 1s. 4d., the property of Mr. Edward Dale, stationer, 1, Dover Street, on the 4th February. Mr. Minter for the prosecution.

Prisoner, on being called upon to plead, said she could not remember taking the books.

Mrs. Elizabeth Dale deposed: I am the wife of Edward Dale, carrying on business of stationer, 1, Dover Street. Prisoner came into the shop between seven and eight o'clock on the evening of Wednesday, 4th February last. She said she wanted to get into a servants' home. I told her Mr. Dale had no means of getting her into one, and it was no use her calling again. I missed some books after she was gone. I had a bundle of the “Dover and Deal Guide” on the counter between two and three o'clock. After she had gone I missed them. One contained “The Dover and Deal Guide”, and the other the “Churchman's Almanack”. The books now produced by P.C. Keeler correspond with those I lost.

By Prisoner: I did not see you take the books.

Annie Dale, ten years of age, deposed: On the 4th February I was in my father's shop in the afternoon between three and four o'clock . Prisoner came in and said she wanted to get into a home, and inquired if my father could get her in. I told her to go to Mr. Birch, the Relieving Officer. She then left and came back in about quarter of an hour, and said Mr. Birch could not get her into a home. I then told her to go to Mr. Pope's, Registry Office. She went away again. I was in the shop at half past seven, and heard mother tell her father had no means of getting her into a home.

By the Recorder: The books were on the counter, and prisoner stood near to them. I found her in the shop when I came downstairs. She was standing near the books.

Hannah Carter, Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, deposed: I have known prisoner some time. She came to my house on the 4th February between six and seven in the evening and asked for a glass of half-and-half. She had a book in her hand and asked if I would have the book. I said I could not read, and she gave me the book for my little girl. It had a yellow cover, and I believe it was a “Dover and Deal Guide”. I gave the book to P.C. Keeler on the following morning.

Harriett Hall deposed: I saw the prisoner on the 4th February between three and four o'clock. She came from the fish market, and had some books in her hand, which she was throwing up, and said “I am going to put them up for a pot of beer”. I said “You might as well give me one for my little boy”, and she did so. The book was put on the table by the side of my bed. P.C. Keeler came the next day and I gave the book to him, and at his request I put a mark upon it. The book now produced is the same.

Charlotte Bourne deposed: I live at the Hope, Fancy Street. I remember prisoner coming to my house on the 4th February about five o'clock, with a man. She had several books in her hand, and offered to give them to me, and she gave me a “Churchman's Almanack”, which I afterwards put in the fire.

P.C. Keeler deposed: On the 5th February I went to Mrs. Carter's house and received a “Dover and Deal Guide”. I also went to Mrs. Hall's and received a “Churchman's Almanack”, and requested Mrs. Hall to make a mark upon it, which she did. I then went in search of prisoner and found her in Tontine Street, and took her into custody on the charge of stealing a number of books from Mr. Dale's shop. She said she would not have “tooken” them if it had not been for a man who was standing outside. I asked her who he was, and she said “Charlie”, which was all the name she knew, and she had given a portion of the books to him. She said she had been in Mr. Dale's shop.

This was the case for the prosecution.

The statement made by prisoner when before the Magistrates was read, to which she now added: I had done a long sentence in prison, and I took a glass of beer or two, which one and another gave me, and it upset me. I came to Folkestone with the intention of seeing a Sister of Mercy, and have not the slightest memory of taking the books. A Sister of Mercy was going to put me in a home. My mother was killed, and my father ran away, and I have not a friend in the world. I had not broken my fast after coming out of gaol till I got to Folkestone.

In answer to the Recorder, Mrs. Dale said she did not think prisoner was tipsy when she was in the shop, but she smelt strongly of what she thought was rum; she seemed to know what she was about.

Prisoner: If you will be merciful to me I will never take another drop of beer as long as I live. It has been the ruin of me.

The learned Recorder summed up the case as favourably as he could for the prisoner and remarked that if she did not know what she was about when she took the books there was no offence, but there was great inconsistency in her statements. A second count charged her with having been convicted at the Dover Quarter Sessions of felony on the 27th December.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to the former conviction.

Mr. Minter remarked that His Honour ought to know that there were no less than thirteen previous convictions against prisoner.

The Recorder said that from a document before him he saw that prisoner began her evil course when she was only fourteen years of age by stealing a silver spoon; after that there were convictions for being in workhouses for an unlawful purpose, assaulting a child, absconding from a reformatory, four times drunk and disorderly, stealing boots,, and breaking fourteen panes of glass in Dover gaol. She was really a habitual criminal.

Mr. Minter remarked that the Visiting Justices offered to get her into a Home, but she refused to go, and the chaplain of the prison offered to get her into a workhouse in order to see if that would do her any good.

Prisoner: Since the death of my mother my father ran away, and I have seven little brothers in the workhouse, and I did not want to go to see them there. Mrs. Smith wanted to get me in a Home, but Mrs. Quilter, the Matron of the gaol, told her an untruth that I used bad language when I was coming out of chapel. Mr. Simmons put me in a dark cell three days on bread and water. If you will be merciful I will leave England.

The Recorder: I really don't know what to do with such a habitual criminal. I have power to send you to penal servitude, but I will not go to that length. I cannot pass a less sentence than twelve months' hard labour.

Prisoner destroyed all faith of her professions of contrition and amendment by threatening Mr. Simmons as she was removed from the dock.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 August 1875.

Monday, August 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, T. Caister and J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Peter Dorr, a member of the Bavarian Band, was charged with stealing a gold watch and chain, twp pocket books, and 65 in Bank Of England notes on the 14th Inst.

Mr. Minter defended, and in answer to a question, Supt. Wilshere said he prosecuted, as the leader of the band declined to do so.

From the evidence of Jacob Meisenheimer, the leader of the band, it appears that they all lodged at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. The articles stolen, with some music, were kept in a box in his bedroom. On Saturday morning he missed the pocket books, one of which contained the money. He had seen the books on the previous day, and the box was unfastened, as he went to it very often. At five o'clock on the same day he had missed some articles of attire, which were afterwards found by the landlord in the street. Some time afterwards, when all the party were in the sitting room, the pocket books were put on the table, but the money was gone.

In cross-examination witness said that he did not suspect the prisoner, or believe him guilty, neither did he give him into custody.

Joseph Bates, costermonger, was at work at noon on Sunday in his back yard, Radnor Street, when he saw the prisoner, who was standing on a wall at the back of the Oddfellows Arms, put his hand in a hole in the wall. The hole was what would be made by taking a brick out. Some while afterwards some man put his hand over the wall and exclaimed “Oh, I've found the money”.

The Mayor said the case was a very mysterious one, and the Bench could not get at the bottom of it. It was patent that the money had been stolen, and afterwards recovered. The prisoner would be discharged for want of evidence.

Mr. Minter stated that members of the band had good suspicions as to who stole the money, but believed prisoner had no connection with it, and indeed the leader of the band was so sure of this that he would take him back again into the band.

The Mayor said he thought that if he knew who the thief was, he should, in justice to the prisoner, issue a summons.

 

Folkestone Express 21 August 1875.

Monday, August 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, T. Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Peter Dorr, a member of the Royal Bavarian Band troupe, who has played a bass instrument in that band, was charged with stealing a gold watch and chain, pocket books, and 65 in Bank of England notes on the 14th inst.

The leader of the band, Moisenheimer, was put into the box by Superintendent Wilshere, when Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defence, said he had a right on behalf of the prisoner to ask who was the prosecutor in this case. He had looked on the charge sheet, but no name was mentioned as that of the prosecutor, and he was instructed that Herr Meisenheimer did not believe the prisoner took the property, and did not prosecute.

The witness said this was so. Superintendent Wilshere had asked him to prosecute, and he had declined.

Superintendent Wilshere said that the witness at first refused to prosecute, but eventually said he should not say any more against prisoner's apprehension, and he was accordingly apprehended.

After some further conversation the case proceeded.

Jacob Meisenheimer, who spoke English so imperfectly as to render it difficult for the Magistrates to comprehend the import of his evidence at all times, was then sworn, and said he was a musician and the manager of what was called the Bavarian Band. Prisoner was a musician in his employ and, with the other members of the Band, lodged with witness at the Oddfellows' Arms, in Radnor Street. Witness had a box in his bedroom there, containing some music, a watch, and two pocket books. One of the books contained some letters and Bank of England 5 and 10 notes, valued at 65. On Saturday morning witness missed the pocket books, which had been taken out of the box. Had seen the books on the previous day, as between eleven and twelve witness had put a letter for his wife in one of the books. Had kept the box unfastened, as he had gone to the box many times during the day. At five o'clock on Saturday morning he missed his coat and pocket handkerchief, and afterwards found his coat and waistcoat had disappeared. He made a communication to the landlord and the clothes were subsequently brought to him, having been found in the streets. After this the pocket books and other articles disappeared. A search was made, and 5 reward offered to anyone who should recover the property. Some time afterwards when all the party were in the sitting room the pocket books were put on the table by some person or other. The notes had been removed. The books produced were the same and were those he had lost. On Sunday at noon, Peter Moore, a boy in the band, brought the notes to witness in an envelope. Witness counted them and found they agreed in value with those he lost.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Had known the prisoner six years and had trusted him with everything, and would do so again. Had not charged the prisoner with the theft, and did not believe that he stole the money. Did not give prisoner into custody. Ten or eleven men slept in the same room with prisoner, and had the same opportunity of getting to the box as he had.

The Mayor: I fear, Mr. Minter, there is a case of overcrowding there.

Cross-examination continued: I had offered a reward of 5 for the recovery of the notes, and prisoner looked for it as well as the others, and, I believe, searched the premises, as we thought someone might have hidden the property on them.

Harry Betts, costermonger, Radnor Street, said he was at work on Sunday at noon in his back yard, when he saw the prisoner standing on a wall in the yard of the Oddfellows Arms. He watched the prisoner and saw him put his hand in a hole in the wall, next the sailmakers' storehouse. The hole was such a one as would be made by taking out a brick. He stopped on the wall about five minutes, while witness spoke to him. About five minutes afterwards some man put his hand over the wall into the hole and directly afterwards the man sung out “Oh, I've found the money”. Witness could not say who this was, as only the arm of the man showed over the wall.

Cross-examined: I did not tell the police that the prisoner put the money into the hole. I did not at first point to another man in the band now in Court as the man that got on the wall, and I would not say so if I'm going to be hung for it next minute. (Laughter) I think it was my duty to watch the prisoner and speak about it afterwards when the money was hid on my premises. The hole was about six feet above the wall and nearly ten feet from the ground, but you could reach it easily by standing on some rubbish lying against.

The Mayor said the case appeared to be a very mysterious one, and the Bench felt they had not been able to get at the bottom of it. It was evident that the money had been stolen and that it was afterwards recovered. The prisoner must be discharged from custody as there was not sufficient evidence to convict him with the robbery.

Mr. Minter asked permission to say a few words to clear his client's character, as he had his living to get in the town and it was material that certain explanations should be made. The money had been stolen, and members of the band had pretty good suspicions of the manner in which it was taken, and by whom, but were convinced that the man recently a prisoner had no connection with the robbery. The facts were that they suspected some person of hiding the property in the neighbourhood in which it was eventually found. Had the Bench thought it necessary to hear witnesses for the defence, he should have called before them two persons who looked, just as the prisoner did, in this hole in the wall, but found nothing as they did not put their hands into it. He did so, and was at once accused of the robbery. So far was the first witness, the bandmaster, from thinking the prisoner guilty of the theft of the notes that he had authorised him (Mr. Minter) to say that he would receive him back again into his employment at once.

As the stolen property was being handed to Meisenheimer by the Magistrates' Clerk, the Mayor suggested to him that the Magistrates thought he ought, in justice to the late prisoner, if he knew who the thief was, to issue a summons against him.

Meisenheimer smiled, but declined to do so, and the Court, which had been crowded during the hearing of the case, was rapidly cleared.

 

Folkestone Express 30 October 1875.

Inquest.

About 3.30 a.m. on Saturday morning last the people dwelling in the neighbourhood of Radnor Street were awakened from their slumber by hearing loud cries for help. It afterwards turned out that a man named Alfred Harper, who was lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, was taken with a fit of delirium tremens, and after striking and threatening to kill a friend who was sitting up with him, jumped out of a window about twelve feet from the ground, and ran and threw himself over the quay close to the border of the South Eastern Railway Company's workshop, into the harbour. The man, who was a good swimmer, appears to have lost all power, and was drowned.

The inquest was held at the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, the same evening at six o'clock, before the Coroner, J. Minter Esq. and a jury.

The first witness called was John Malin, who described himself as a labourer, living with the deceased at the Oddfellows Arms: I have known the deceased, whose name is Alfred Harper, about six years. I identify the body as that of Alfred Harper. He is about forty years of age, and by trade a tin and wire worker, late of 1, Portland Court, King Street, Ramsgate. He has been in Folkestone about fourteen days, and lodged at the Oddfellows Arms, where he continued to reside until this morning.

The deceased has not tasted a drop of intoxicating liquor since last Monday (the 18th), but previous to that he had been drinking very heavily. He has not been out of bed since last Monday night (the 18th) except to have it made by me.

I was sitting up with deceased last night (Friday 22nd). I sleep in the same room and in an adjoining bed to the deceased. After I had been in bed a short time I asked the deceased (who was very restless) if I should light a candle, and he replied “Yes, Jack, light a candle and come and sit by me”. I did as he requested me, and about half an hour after he jumped out of bed and began grasping at something he imagined he saw on the wall, and said “I have got 'em. They have tried to kill me ever so many times”. I at last persuaded him to go to bed again. He was not in his senses. About 3.30 a.m. he got up and said “You still watch me”, and struck me in the face with his fist. After that he asked me to go out of the room. There was no-one else with him. After I left the room I stood and held the door, and then I suppose he jumped out of the window into Radnor Street. The room was on the first floor about twelve feet from the ground. I left the house after I had been holding the door about three minutes to go and seek assistance. I think he must have jumped out of the window while I was going downstairs.

Robert Smith, landlord of the Packet Boat, said: About half past three on Saturday morning I heard someone calling for help. I jumped out of bed and looked out of the window and saw a man lying face down and stark naked under my window. While I was dressing I saw him get up and run and then jump over the quay into the harbour. The tide was not quite high at the time. I finished dressing as quickly as possible and ran to the quay and saw the deceased floating head down in the water near the landing steps. I ran down and got him part of the way out of the water and called for assistance. My wife called my lodgers and all four came. We then got him to the top of the steps and rolled him. We afterwards brought him into the room and rolled him for one hour but without any success. There was about seven feet of water when he jumped in.

J. Malin, re-called, said: Soon after deceased struck me he pulled off his shirt and said “It is no use spoiling good things”, and told me to keep it in remembrance of him. I then said “You are worth twenty dead men yet”. Deceased had said he thought he was dying.

Dr. Mercer, a surgeon practicing at Folkestone, said: Last Thursday I was sent for to see the deceased. He was suffering from a slight attack of Elrysepsias in the face. I could see by the symptoms he had been drinking. I prescribed for him and sent some medicine.

On Saturday morning about three or four o'clock I was called and told the man at the Oddfellows was suffering from delirium. I gave them an ascetic for him.

About five I was again called and saw the deceased. I recognised him as the man I had been attending. He was suffering from delirium tremens, and in my opinion his death was caused by drowning. I examined the body and found bruises on the skull, face, and chest, but there was no fracture of the skull.

After a short consultation the jury gave a verdict of “drowned while in a state of temporary insanity”.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 November 1875.

Local News.

Early on the morning of the 23rd ult., a man named Harper, of Ramsgate, in a fit of delirium tremens, jumped from a window of the Oddfellows’ Arms, Radnor Street, a distance of 12ft., and afterwards ran on to the quay, and threw himself into the harbour, and was drowned.

An inquest on the body was held in the evening, at the Packet-Boat Inn, Radnor Street, when the jury returned a verdict of “Temporary insanity.”

 

Folkestone Express 25 November 1876.

Wednesday, November 22nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister and General Cannon.

Mrs. Hannah Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, was summoned for assaulting Thomas Cattermole, of Southend.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

Thomas Cattermole deposed: I am a bathing machine proprietor and fisherman of Southend. On Friday last I walked from Deal to Folkestone, a distance of seventeen miles, to deliver some bills. I went into a public house near the fishmarket and called for a glass of ale. It was brought to me, and I paid for it. I then took out of my pocket a small loaf and cheese and commenced eating it. A girl came and told me I must not eat my bread and cheese there. That woman (defendant) then came in and called me some very abusive names. I went to the door, and she pushed me down some steps and then she slapped my face.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I ordered a glass of beer. I think it was the servant who brought it to me. There were three other women cleaning the room at the time. Then I ate my bread and cheese. Mrs. Carter told me I had gone into the wrong room, and I refused to leave. I did not call her the most filthy names or strike her.

Mr. Minter then said the room was one which had been occupied by the German Band. They had hired it for the season. When Cattermole was asked to leave, he persisted in staying, and the defendant was therefore justified in putting her hands upon him and pushing him out. The language he used was most abominable.

He then called Martha Carter, who said: I was at the Oddfellows Arms, in the room that was occupied by the German Band, which they had hired for the season. They left on Tuesday. Four of us were in the room cleaning it. Mrs. Carter went to the prosecutor and said “Excuse me, sir, would you mind walking into one of the public rooms as we are busy cleaning this, and it is private?” He replied that he would sit there as long as he liked, and my sister said she would not allow him to. My sister was in the bar parlour. He then got up and went towards the door. He said “I am going now” and my sister replied “Very well, thank you”. He then said he should not go and tried to aggravate her. He then pushed her and she put her hand up and knocked his hat off.

The Bench, after deliberating a few minutes, dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 4 May 1878.

Wednesday, May 1st: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Captain Crowe.

George Godden was summoned for assaulting Hannah Carter on the 27th inst. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Hannah Carter said that she lived at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. The defendant went to her house on Saturday afternoon about six o'clock. He put his hand on her head, and afterwards put the dog on the table, and when remonstrated with used foul language. She told him if he could not use better language he would have to leave the house. He said that she could not put him out, and as she was going to the door to get someone to do so, the defendant took hold of her and threw her down in the street and kicked her.

Eliza Emery, a soldier's wife lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, corroborated, and the Bench fined the defendant 1 and 10s. costs, or in default one month's hard labour. The defendant had been convicted five times previously for assaults.

Gilderoy Scamp was summoned for damaging a clothes line, the property of Mrs. Carter, on the 29th April. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Mrs. Carter said that she had been in the habit of drying clothes on the East Cliff bank, and on Monday morning she found that her line had been cut. She did not see the defendant do it, and had no witnesses to prove that he had done it.

The Bench therefore dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 10 May 1879.

Monday, May 5th: Before Alderman Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esq.

Mary Jane Philpot, wife of David Philpot, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Stade Street on the 3rd inst.

John Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, said the prisoner went to his house about nine o'clock in the evening with her sister in law. They went away and returned a little before eleven. Prisoner was not sober then, and as he saw a window had been broken he ordered her out.

P.C. Bashford said the prisoner and her husband were quarrelling and fighting in the street. Twice he persuaded her to go indoors, but she came out a third time. Her husband wished him to take her into custody, and swore at him for not doing so. As she was extremely boisterous he took her into custody, but she resisted, and he had to obtain the assistance of two men to take her to the station.

P.C. Willis said he saw the prisoner and her husband fighting in front of the bar at the Oddfellows. The landlord and his wife pushed her out.

Prisoner said she was irritated by the conduct of her husband, and that the public houses ought to be more closely watched. She had a black eye, which she accused the constable of causing, and also charged him with tearing her clothes.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 10s., and 6s. 6d. costs, which she paid.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 July 1879.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Saturday, Anthony Hall was summoned for assaulting Hannah Carter.

The defendant went into the Oddfellows’ Arms, of which the complainant is the landlady, and with another man created a disturbance, and on the landlady endeavouring to quell it, defendant struck her.

He denied the charge and accused the complainant of striking him, but the Bench, considering the case proved, fined him 10s., costs 12s.

William Cornish was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises, the Oddfellows’ Arms, when requested by the landlord, and was fined 5s., costs 10s.

 

Folkestone Express 26 July 1879.

Saturday, July 19th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, J. Fitness and M. Bell Esqs.

Anthony Wold, a fisherman, was summoned for assaulting Mrs. Hannah Carter, wife of John Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, on the 14th July. Mr. Minter appeared in support of the complaint.

John Carter stated that the defendant had been in the habit of frequenting his house for four or five years. On the day in question he went in and made use of the expression that he “meant for a row”. Witness and his wife tried to quiet him, when defendant struck his wife. In consequence of the disturbance he sent for a policeman, and Sergeant Ovenden came and turned him out. Defendant and a man named William Cornish had been in his house every night since trying to make a row. His wife's shoulder was still discoloured by the blow.

Hannah Carter, the complainant, said defendant was very violent and tried to strike her husband. He struck her on the right shoulder while she was standing in the bar. Defendant had no right to enter the bar. Her husband ordered the men out of the house, and they immediately jumped up to strike him. Defendant had been in the house twice since the occurrence but she refused to draw him anything.

Defendant denied the assault and called Elizabeth Johnson, who said she saw the two men go into the house. Defendant called for a pint of beer, and Mrs. Carter brought it. He complained that it was thick. Upon that Mrs. Carter at once walked into the public room and struck defendant in the face twice, and repeatedly taunted him to strike her in return, but he replied that he was not such a coward as to strike a woman.

In reply to Mr. Minter, this witness said she went to get her supper beer. She went to the bar, but hearing a disturbance she went into the room where the men were. Mrs. Carter broke the window with her elbow in trying to put defendant out. Neither of the men were violent, and Mr. and Mrs. Carter caused all the noise by shouting. She knew the defendant by sight, and he had asked her to give evidence.

William Cornish gave similar testimony.

Mrs. Carter was then re-called, and said that the young woman Johnson had kept company with the defendant for three years. She positively denied going into the room or serving the men with beer. Her husband drew it for them.

The Bench considered the assault proved, and inflicted a fine of 10s. and 12s. costs, or fourteen days' imprisonment.

William Cornish, another fisherman, was then charged with refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms on the same day.

John Carter said the defendant was in his house on Monday. He had for some time been to sea in complainant's boat. Complainant mentioned that a line had been lost out of the boat, and defendant immediately jumped up and said he didn't steal it. Then he complained about the beer, and he and the last defendant used violent and threatening language. Witness requested him to leave the house. During the disturbance a window was broken.

Sergeant Ovenden said he was in Radnor Street and saw a crowd outside complainant's house and heard shouting. He went inside, and complainant asked him to eject defendant. He told him to leave and he did so. Witness saw no disorderly conduct. It was eleven o'clock, and witness cleared the house.

Defendant was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, or a week's hard labour. The fines were immediately paid in both cases.

 

Folkestone Express 13 December 1879.

Monday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, M. Bell and J. Banks Esqs, Captain Fletcher and Alderman Hoad.

Hannah Hurst, a street Hawker, pleaded Guilty to being drunk in Radnor Street, and also to refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms.

Hannah Carter, wife of the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, said prisoner had lodged at their house for three nights. On Sunday evening she went in drunk and wanted some more beer, which was refused her, and she became very violent. P.C. Gardner took the prisoner into custody.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 2s, 6d. costs in each case, or 14 days' in default.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 March 1880.

Saturday, March 6th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., Capt. Fletcher, and Aldermen Hoad and Banks.
Hannah Carter, wife of the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, was summoned for assaulting Sarah Baker on the 3rd inst., and was fined 5s., and 12s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 13 March 1880.

Saturday, March 6th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, Captain Fletcher, and Aldermen Banks and Hoad.

Hannah Carter, wife of the landlord of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, was summoned for having assaulted Sarah Baker on the 3rd March.

Complainant, who is sister to defendant's husband, said her brother sent for her on Wednesday afternoon between one and two, in order to settle a dispute between him and his wife as to whether he was in complainant's house on the previous night. When she said her brother had not been in her house for weeks, the defendant boxed her ears and knocked her head against the bar. She gave defendant no provocation.

Martha Carter, sister-in-law to both parties, said she was going past the defendant's house and saw her take complainant by the hair and throw her against the partition. Witness went in and assisted complainant to get away, and defendant used abusive language towards her.

Jane May, who lives opposite to the defendant's house, said she saw Mrs. Baker go in on Wednesday, and saw defendant strike her and push her out of the house.

Dora Zuschlag gave corroborative evidence, and the Bench fined the defendant 5s. with 12s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment in default.

 

Folkestone Express 8 May 1880.

Thursday, May 6th: Before Colonel De Crespigny. General Cannon, W.J. Jeffreason Esq., and Alderman Sherwood.

John Knight was charged with obtaining two pairs of boots by false pretences from Mary Saunders, of Dover Road, on the 4th May.

Mary Saunders said she was the wife of Stephen Saunders, a boot and shoe maker, of 150, Dover Road. The prisoner went to their shop on the 4th May at ten o'clock in the morning, and asked for a pair of boots for his landlady. He said he had seen witness's husband and spoken to him about it the day before. He brought an old shoe to show the size he wanted. He said he wanted to get 3d. out of them. She showed him a pair which were 3s. 3d., and she marked them 3s. 6d., and also another pair, which she marked 5s. 9d. Prisoner took them away and promised to return with them in half an hour.

Stephen Saunders said the prisoner had worked for him for about a month. He saw him on the 3rd of May, but he said nothing about any boots.

Hannah Carter, wife of the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, said the prisoner offered her two pairs of women's boots which he said he had for sale. She refused to buy them. He mentioned a price, but she could not remember what it was. The boots he showed her were similar to those produced, and she told him she did not wear “pegged bottoms”.

Jane Hughes said she kept a second hand bootshop in South Street. On Tuesday between eleven and twelve o'clock the prisoner went to her shop and took the two pairs of boots produced, which he asked her to buy. He said he was sent by another person to sell them. He said, in reply to a question, they were “all right”. He asked 5s. for the two pairs, and she gave him 4s. 6d. She knew the prisoner: he had worked for her some years ago and had frequently applied to her for work lately.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 2 October 1880.

Wednesday, September 29th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister, M.J. Bell and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Emma Barnes and John Newman were charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 21s., the property of Thomas Huntley.

John Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, said the prisoners went to his house on Tuesday evening about half past seven. They went into the bar, and Newman asked witness if he would buy the boots which he had on his feet. He saw that they were quite a new pair, and had only been worn a few minutes. He refused to buy them, and Newman put on the boot he had taken off. P.C. Gardner visited the house a little after eight and made some enquiries. Witness pointed out the prisoners to the constable, who took them into custody.

P.C. Gardner said from information he received he went to the Oddfellows Arms about a quarter past eight on Tuesday evening. The prisoners were pointed out to him by Carter. He asked the man if he had offered a pair of boots for sale, and he said “No”. Witness took him into custody and handed him over to P.C. Smith. Subsequently he found the woman in the kitchen at the Oddfellows Arms with a pair of boots in her lap. He charged her with stealing the boots and took her into custody. She said an officer from the Camp gave them to her husband.

George Huntley, assistant to his father, William Huntley, bootseller, of South Street, said he missed a pair of boots from the counter about a quarter past six on Tuesday evening and gave information to the police.

Both prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates and Newman pleaded Guilty. The woman said she knew nothing of the matter.

Newman was sentenced to one month's hard labour, and Emma Barnes was discharged.

 

Folkestone Express 16 October 1880.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Hoad, R.W. Boarer and M.J. Bell Esqs.

John Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, was summoned for assaulting Ellen Oram on the 8th October.

Complainant, who said she was a laundress, stated that she lodged on the 8th October at the house of defendant. She went to bed at a quarter to twelve o'clock. The room in which she slept was at the end of a passage, and there was no door to it. There was a bed in the passage, in which two men were sleeping, and she had to pass them to get to her room. Before she got into bed, and while she was undressed, defendant went to her room with nothing on but his shirt, and swore at her because she had not put out the light. He pulled the bed clothes down and fell upon her. She screamed, and to quiet her defendant put his hand over her mouth. In self defence she bit his finger. He had put the candle out by kicking it with his naked foot. He then went downstairs and returned with his wife, and another light, and again tried to drag her out of bed. Defendant sent for a policeman and gave her in charge for biting his finger. On the way to the Station they met the Superintendent, who enquired what was the matter, and on being told he ordered Carter to be fetched. When he arrived the Superintendent told him he had delirium tremens and told witness to go about her business. She requested the police to protect her for the night, and she was lodged in the tramp wards.

In cross-examination by Mr. Minter, who defended, prosecutrix said Carter attempted to outrage her, and she told the policeman so on the way to the station. She also said that the two men could have seen her undressing if they had been awake.

She called as a witness Henry Newman, an engine fitter, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, who was one of the men sleeping in a bed on the landing. He said he saw all that took place. The defendant's son went and told complainant to put her light out. She said she would when she got into bed. The boy waited in the passage nearly five minutes for her to put the light out, and then told her a second time. She then used filthy language, and the boy fetched his father, who came up with his drawers and shirt on. Carter called to her to put the candle out and she would not. He then ordered her to get up and leave the house, which she refused to do, and he then took hold of her to make her get up, and in the scuffle the light went out. Carter went downstairs and returned with another light, and his wife also came. He had then got his trousers on. He again told her to get up, and she still refused, and used foul language. A policeman was sent for, and complainant was taken into custody.

The Bench refused to hear any more evidence and dismissed the case, as they discredited the complainant's statements. Superintendent Rutter also added that her account of what took place at the Police Station was false.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 December 1880.

Monday, December 13th: Before The Mayor, Alds. Sherwood and Caister, J. Holden and C.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

William Joyce was charged with stealing 1s. 10d., the property of John Morgan.

Prisoner was a fellow lodger with prosecutor at the Oddfellows Arms, and the robbery took place when prosecutor was in bed, both sleeping in the same room. When accused of the theft, Joyce struck the prosecutor with violence.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 18 December 1880.

County Court:

Saturday, December 11th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Falkner v Carter: This was an action to recover a chestnut baking tin. Plaintiff had left it in charge of the landlady of the Bricklayers' Arms Inn, of whom the defendant obtained it. The chattel was produced in Court, and appeared to be of the very smallest value. Defendant is landlord of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and he contended that the tin belonged to plaintiff's father, who had stayed at his house for years, and died recently, and that plaintiff took it away surreptitiously. Defendant, however, failed to show that he had the slightest claim to it, and His Honour ordered him to pay 1s. damages, and the costs, and directed plaintiff to take the tin away with him.

Monday, December 13th: Before The Mayor, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Holden Esqs., and Aldermen Sherwood and Caister.

William Joyce was charged with stealing 2s. 5d., the money of John Morgan, and also with an assault on the prosecutor.

John Morgan, who described himself as a cleaner of gold lace for the officers at Shorncliffe Camp, and sharpener of razors &c. for the soldiers, stated that he lodged at the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street. On Saturday nigh he slept with his wife in a bedroom on the third floor. There was another bed in the room, which was occupied by the prisoner and his wife. They went to bed about closing time. Witness had placed his clothes on a chair standing between the two beds. When he had been in bed about an hour he thought he heard his clothes slip off the chair. He got out of bed and felt in his trousers pocket for his money (10d.) which he knew was there when he went to bed. He got a light, and asked his wife if she had taken his money. She said she had not, and then got out of bed and looked in her pocket. She found her money gone also. She had 1s. 7d. Prosecutor then accused the prisoner of taking it. Prisoner's wife said to him “Get out and give it to him”. He immediately got up, and seizing hold of a chamber pot, struck him on the back of his head with it, cutting his head open. Prosecutor called out for the landlord, who told him to wait while he fetched a policeman, who came, and prisoner was given in charge.

Caroline Morgan, wife of prosecutor, corroborated her husband's statements.

P.C. Scott said he was called to the Oddfellows Arms about half past three on Sunday morning. He saw the prosecutor on the stairs. He was covered with blood. He told witness he had been robbed and violently assaulted by the prisoner, whom witness found lying in bed. Prosecutor gave him into custody. Prisoner made no reply, and they went together to the police station. On searching the prisoner, he found on him a shilling, four sixpences and a threepenny piece in silver, and 18 d. in bronze.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and made a long statement in his defence. He denied having stolen the money, and the version he gave of the affair was that the prosecutor, after accusing him of the theft, made a furious attack upon him. He therefore got out of bed, and bending down, ran head foremost against the prosecutor, knocking him down, and he must have struck his head against a chair or something else, and so received the wound. He produced several documents, including his indentures as an apprentice on a ship of a thousand tons, and also his discharge with a certificate of good conduct as a second officer in 1874.

The Bench considered the prisoner to be Guilty, and sentenced him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour for each offence.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1881.

Wednesday, July 27th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister and J. Fitness Esq.

William Davis was charged with stealing a concertina, value 7s. 6d., on the previous day.

George Heatcote, a boiler maker, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said he was in the Royal George on the previous afternoon playing a concertina, and left about seven o'clock, leaving the concertina there. When he returned a few minutes afterwards the instrument was gone. He gave information to the police, and subsequently saw the prisoner at the Radnor lodging house, with the concertina in his possession.

P.C. Hogben said he received information from prosecutor that he had lost a concertina. He went to the common lodging house, and there found prisoner in the kitchen playing a concertina. He asked prisoner to let him look at it, and prisoner said it belonged to one of his mates. Witness took the concertina and showed it to prosecutor, who identified it as his property. Prosecutor went with witness to the kitchen and gave prisoner into custody. Prisoner was very violent and used beastly language all the way up the street.

Prosecutor, in reply to the clerk, said he had not known prisoner previous to Monday. They had been in company together on that day.

Prisoner said he took the concertina to his lodging, thinking prosecutor would go there for it. He had no intention of stealing it.

The Bench did not consider there was any felonious intention and dismissed the prisoner.

 

Folkestone Express 14 January 1882.

Local News.

An alarm of a fire was given at the Oddfellows Arms on Wednesday. Some members of the fire brigade with a hose were quickly in attendance, and the fire, which originated in a chimney, was extinguished without much difficulty. Very little damage was done.

 

Folkestone Express 7 April 1883.

Thursday, May 5th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Fitness Esq.

Henry Elliott was charged with stealing a clarionet, value 25s., the property of Jacob Redenbach.

Prosecutor said he left the instrument on the table at the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, and subsequently missed it.

Henry Seaton, a painter, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said he was in the kitchen on Wednesday about four o'clock, and saw the prosecutor place his clarionet on the table. He saw the prisoner take it in his hand. A man told him not to meddle with other people's property. Prisoner took it up, and putting it under his coat left the house. He was absent about half an hour and then returned to the kitchen, but did not bring the clarionet with him.

William Revell gave similar evidence.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Superintendent Taylor said it was a very hard case for the prosecutor, who was a member of a band, and had lost his means of livelihood. The prisoner had refused to give information where the instrument was to be found.

The Bench adjourned the case for half an hour in order that the prisoner might, if he would, go with a policeman to the spot where he had disposed of it. It was found secreted in a hedge in the Tram Road.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1885.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Tuesday evening before J. Minter Esq., the Borough Coroner, on the body of a newly born child, which was found under the circumstances detailed in the following evidence.

Edward Jordan, a labourer, living at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, said on Sunday, shortly after noon, he was walking along the Lower Sandgate Road, and saw a brown paper parcel lying in a little shrubbery close to the footpath. He tore the paper with his stick, and saw that it contained the body of a child. He returned to Folkestone and gave information to Police constable Swift, who went back with him to the spot where the body was lying, and removed it in a towel.

Police constable Swift said he went with the last witness to the Lower Sandgate Road and saw the parcel lying in a shrubbery. He took possession of it, and carried it to the police station. On examining it, he found that it contained the body of a female child. It was quite naked, with the exception of the covering of paper, and there were no marks on it to lead to the identification of the person who placed it there. It had been raining, and the brown paper was saturated with water.

Mr. E.C. Maynard, M.R.C.S., said he saw the body which the jury had viewed on Sunday, and made an external examination. There were no marks of violence, and no discolouration. The child had not been properly attended to at it's birth. On Monday he made a post mortem examination, and from that examination he had no doubt that the child had never breathed, but was still-born.

The jury therefore returned a verdict that the child was Found Dead.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 June 1885.

Inquest.

On Sunday morning, whilst walking along the Lower Sandgate Road, in company with a friend, a man named Edward Jordan, a labourer, living at the Oddfellows Arms Inn, saw a brown paper parcel lying in a shrubbery near the bottom of the steps leading to the Leas, near Langhorne Gardens, and, upon opening the parcel, saw that it contained the body of a child. He gave information to P.C. Swift, who took the parcel to the police station.

An inquest on the body was held on Tuesday afternoon, before Mr. Minter, the borough Coroner. It was stated by Mr. E.C. Maynard, surgeon, that there were no marks or discolouration of any kind, and from a post-mortem examination made on Monday, he had not the slightest doubt but that the child had been stillborn. A verdict of “Found dead ” was returned.

 

Folkestone Express 29 May 1886.

Tuesday, May 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

James Leon and Thomas Leon were charged with stealing one bowl, containing 15s., the property of William Hearnden, landlord of the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. The prisoners lodged there, and on the previous morning they both kept asking him to trust them with beer. They were in the taproom which was close to the bar. He watched the prisoners and saw them go to the closet and come out, and afterwards he noticed the bowl in the closet. The money was all in silver.

Susannah Hearnden, wife of the prosecutor, said she went to the bowl on the morning in question between 9 and 10, and there was between 9s. and 15s. in silver in it. She went out a few minutes and when she returned she went to the drawer again and missed the bowl and the money.

Elizabet Macpherson, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, recognised both the prisoners, who went to their bar between 10 and 11 o'clock that morning. She served them with beer and rum, for which the prisoner Leon paid each time with a sixpence.

Sergeant Butcher proved apprehending the prisoners. He found them lying on the embankment near the Junction Station at 12.45. He awoke them and found they were both very drunk. With assistance he took them to the police station. He searched the prisoners and found 4d. on Leon and 1s. 2d. on the other prisoner.

The prisoners were sentenced each to six weeks' hard labour.

 

Folkestone News 29 May 1886.

Tuesday, May 26th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

James Leon and Thomas Freeney were charged with stealing a bowl containing 9s. in silver, the property of William Hearnden.

William Hearnded, landlord of the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, said: About a week ago, prisoners came to lodge in my house. Yesterday they kept asking me for beer in the taproom. They wanted trust because they had no money. My wife was in and out of the bar, and left there about nine o'clock for a few minutes. I kept seeing them peep into the bar, and afterwards I found the bowl in which the money was kept in the closet. It was usually kept in the bar. He had seen it there about eight o'clock, when there was about 15s. in it.

Cross-examined: I did not see you sell your coat and shirt for 8d. I gave you two pints for a “livener”, but that was at eight o'clock.

Susannah Hearnden, landlady of the Oddfellows, said she was absent from the bar only a few minutes, and on coming back she missed the bowl and the silver that was in it. She left prisoners standing in front of the bar when she went out.

Elizabeth MacPherson, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, recognised prisoners, who came to the bar, and she served them with three quarts of beer and twopennyworth of rum. The prisoner Leon paid each time with sixpences.

Police sergeant Butcher said he went in search of the prisoners and found them lying fast asleep on the embankment near the Junction Station at 12.45. He woke them. They were very drunk, and with assistance he brought them to the station. They were charged by the Superintendent, when Leon asked if anyone saw them take it. On Leon he found 4d., and on Freeney he found 1s 2d.

Prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. Sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1887.

Saturday, August 20th: Before J. Banks and J. Holden Esqs.

William Hearnden, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), was charged with having on the 14th inst. opened his licensed house at a prohibited hour.

P.C. Osborne said on the morning in question he went to the house about 5.20, and found the back door was open about two inches. He went inside and found three persons there drinking. Saw them drink and start to go out the same door as witness had entered, but when they saw witness they turned round and went another way. Heard the sound of money as he entered the house. Told the landlord he should report the case, but he made no reply.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the defendant. It was not a very serious case. It was the old story that this man had opened his door for something else and these three persons walked in. He expected the Bench would not believe it, but it was true. The defendant had not committed such a very great offence as he had only opened half an hour before time.

Supt. Taylor said it was on Sunday morning and therefore he opened seven or eight hours before time.

Mr. Minter said he had made a mistake. He did not know it was Sunday morning.

Mr. Banks said the Bench found the defendant Guilty, but as he bore such an excellent character, and that was his first offence, he would only be fined 2 and 8s. costs, or, in default of payment, 14 days' imprisonment.

George Waterman, George Watson, and a man named Stanley, the latter not appearing, were then summoned for being found at defendant Hearnden's house on the morning in question. Prisoners pleaded Guilty, and were fined 1s. and 8s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment. Stanley was fined 10s. and 8s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1887.

Saturday, August 20th: Before Alderman Banks and J. Holden Esq.

William Harnett (sic) pleaded Guilty to a charge of having his house open during prohibited hours.

P.C. Lilley said on Sunday morning at 5.20 h saw the door of the house (the Oddfellows in Radnor Street) open and three men in the bar drinking.

Albert Watts, George Waterman and ---- Standing were charged with being on licensed premises on Sunday morning. The defendants were the three men who were seen in the Oddfellows by the police in the previous case.

The Bench fined the two first defendants 1s. and 8s. costs, and Standing, who did not appear, 10s. and 8s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 17 December 1887.

Wednesday, December 14th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, was transferred to Mr. George Hoare.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 December 1888.

Saturday, December 1st: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden, E.T. Ward, J. Hoad, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Geo. Williams, a young fellow, was charged with begging in High Street on Friday.

Thomas Dickson stated that the prisoner came into his shop about half past four yesterday afternoon and asked whether witness could give him an old pair of boots, and afterwards asked witness to assist him, as he could not get work. Told him he had nothing to give him and requested him to leave the premises. He refused to do so for some time. He afterwards went outside and stood on the pavement. Witness asked him to move away from his shop door. He replied that he could stand there for a week if he liked.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and said he was forced to beg. He had a wife to keep, and had come to Folkestone in hopes of finding employment. He had obtained a couple of days work at a new building near the Bouverie Arms.

The prisoner was further charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, on Friday evening.

Robert Carter, landlord of the house, said the prisoner came to his house yesterday morning at 11 o'clock for lodging, which witness gave him. Prisoner went out and came back about six o'clock in the evening. His wife was there and the prisoner picked up a tumbler off the table and threw it at her. Witness did not see it. Witness had to get him out of the house, and when he got the prisoner outside he wanted to fight him. He afterwards broke the window of the door. Witness was inside the door when the glass was broken, and the prisoner was outside. It could not have been broken by anyone else as prisoner was the only one out there. The value of the window was 5s. After that he went round to the other side of the house and tried to get in that way.

By the prisoner: Did not struggle with prisoner in the passage. There were some boys outside the door when the window was broken.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, stating that the prosecutor broke the window himself when he was struggling in the passage to get him out. He would have gone out quietly if he had allowed him to pack up his things.

The Mayor said prisoner would be sent to prison for seven days' hard labour for begging, and for the wilful damage he would be fined 1s., damage to the window 5s., and costs, 4s. 6d., or seven days'. Removed below.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 May 1889.

Saturday, April 27th: Before W. Wightwick and J. Fitness Esqs.

Jane May was summoned for assaulting Mary Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows.

Prosecutrix said she lived at the Oddfellows, and on the morning of the 18th of April she was about to hang some clothes out to dry, but upon going to the line discovered that the staple was out of the wall. Witness asked the defendant whether she knew who took the staple out. The defendant rushed into the passage after her and struck her under the left eye with her fist. Witness's servant was behind the bar washing up glasses and saw the blow struck. Between four and five she struck witness again.

Mr. Bradley: Where?

Witness: On the back door, sir (Laughter)

Mr. Wightwick: Struck you on the back door? – Yes, sir. (Loud laughter)

Mr. Bradley: But was the blow on your face? – Yes, sir, on my face. Mr. Punnett was there when she struck me, and I shall call him as a witness.

Defendant began to get into an excited conversation with the witness.

Mr. Bradley (to defendant): Don't exert yourself here. Just behave yourself. You will have your turn presently.

George Punnett, a boatman, was then called. He said he lived at 23, Radnor Street. On the 18th of April he saw Mrs. Carter between five and six o'clock in the evening. Did not see her in the morning. Mrs. May came out of her backway and hit Mrs. Carter with her fist. The prosecutrix did not hit the defendant.

Defendant: You're a false speaking man.

Alice Bowden, a domestic servant in the employ of the prosecutrix, said on the evening in question she was in the bar. Between four and five she saw Mrs. May come up the backway and strike Mrs. Carter in the face whilst she was standing in the doorway. Witness did not hear any conversation.

This was the case for the prosecutrix, and a cross-summons was then dealt with, summoning Mrs. Carter for assaulting Jane May at the same time and place.

Mrs. May stated that on Thursday evening, the 18th April, she went into the yard to attend to her clothes, when she saw the defendant there. She accused witness of having pulled out the staples from her wall. Witness said she had not done so, but took very little notice of her until about half past four. At that time she was again out in the yard and ran at witness and struck her in the face with a handful of pegs, cutting a piece out of her cheek. Witness admitted that she did strike the defendant back then and they had a “set to”. Whilst they were fighting the defendant's husband came out and struck witness in the mouth with his fist, and also drew a knife across all her fingers, and cut them. The defendant had lived in the house for eight or nine months and was a constant nuisance to the neighbourhood. Witness struck her two or three times – she was obliged to do so to defend herself.

Inspector Kennett said he was in Radnor Street about half past two on the day in question, and saw the two women. They were quarrelling about a clothes line. Did not know who commenced it first, but heard Carter use very bad language. Did not see any blows struck. Witness was in the fishmarket about five o'clock washing down and saw the two women again. Carter had a handful of pegs in her hand and struck at Mrs. May, but could not say for certain whether it struck her or not. He did not see Mrs. May strike the defendant.

Mrs. May said the defendant's language at all times was something dreadful, and it made her shudder to let her little children go near her.

Mr. Wightwick said it appeared to him that there were six of one and half a dozen of the other, and the Bench did not think that sort of thing should continue. The defendant in both cases were equally guilty. They would each have to pay their own costs, and the cases would be dismissed. Each of the defendants would be bound over to keep the peace for three months in sureties of 10 each.

Mr. Bradley (to Carter): I should be afraid to say how many times I have seen you up here for quarrels of this nature during the last twenty five years.

 

Folkestone Express 4 May 1889.

Saturday, April 27th: Before W. Wightwick and J. Fitness Esqs.

Jane May was summoned for assaulting Lucy Carter on the 18th April. In answer to the charge she said “I struck her, but she gave me provocation for doing it”.

Complainant said she lived at the Oddfellows. On the 18th April she saw Mrs. May at her door, and asked her if she knew anybody who had drawn the staples out of the wall, which her husband had “druv” in, after he had asked Mr. Franks, the landlord, if he could do it. Without anything further the defendant rushed at her and struck her.

Mr. Bradley: Where did she strike you? – In my own house.

But where – in what part of your body? – Oh, here. I saw her again between five and six, and she struck me again.

Mr. Fitness: You are muddling things up. Where did she strike you the second tome? – In my bar, sir. (Laughter)

But on what part did she strike you? – Oh, here (Pointing)

Who was there when she struck you? – My servant, and likewise Mr. Punnett. At five o'clock in the afternoon she struck me again.

Where did she strike you? – She struck me just leading up to the passage. (Laughter)

Yes, but what part of your body? – Oh, in my face.

Mr. Wightwick: What did she strike you with? – Her double fists.

Defendant: Have I ever been in your house? – Yes. Once you struck me in my house.

Defendant: You are a false speaking woman. I never keep such company as you.

George Punnett, of 23, Radnor Street, said he saw Mrs. May strike Mrs. Carter, who fell on her hands.

Defendant: You are a false speaking man.

Witness said the defendant dragged the complainant up a passage, punching her all the way.

Alice Bowden, servant to Mrs. Carter, said she saw Mrs. May strike her mistress “in her doorway”.

Mr. Bradley: On what part of her body? – On her back.

The parties then changed places, there being a cross-summons.

Mrs. May deposed that on Thursday afternoon she went out to see if her clothes were dry, and Mrs. Carter assaulted her out in the backway. She accused her of pulling the nail out of the wall, which she had “druv” in. She told Mrs. Carter she had never seen the nail. She did not use and abuse to Mrs. Carter, but Mrs. Carter abused her “with all the beastly conversations in the world”. She called her a “lying ----“ and a “b---- horse marine”. They were not a quarter of the beastly words she used. She flew at Mrs. Carter because she made up to her with a handful of pegs. While she was hitting Mrs. Carter, her husband came out. Mrs. Carter drew a knife across her fingers. Witness's husband parted them. She had lived next door to Mrs. Carter for five years. Before Mrs. Carter came they were all very comfortable.

Mr. Bradley: Did you strike Mrs. Carter? – Yes.

Where? – On the backway. (Laughter)

But where on her body? – On her face. She never fell or went backwards, or anything of that. I struck her two or three times.

Why did you strike her? – Because she abused me, and made at me with the pegs.

Mrs. Carter: You tucked up your sleeves. – They were already tucked up. I was washing.

Richard Kennett, market inspector, said he saw the two women quarrelling about half past two in the afternoon. They appeared to be quarrelling about a clothes line, but he did not know who commenced it. He heard Mrs. Carter call Mrs. May “a b---- horse marine”; what was the meaning of that he couldn't say. (A voice, sotto voce: Of course not). About five o'clock he was in the market washing down, and saw Mrs. Carter strike at Mrs. May. She had pegs in her hand, but whether she hit Mrs. May or not he could not say. Mrs. May took her clothes down and went indoors.

Mrs. May said the conduct of Mrs. Carter, and her language, was disgraceful – not fit for little children to hear.

The Bench said it appeared to be “six of one and half a dozen of the other”. They did not think that sort of thing should go on. So far as the actual assault was concerned, the parties seemed both to blame, and they would dismiss both summonses, and each would have to pay her own costs (7s). They would also be bound over to keep the peace for three months.

Mr. Bradley, addressing Mrs. Carter, said he was afraid to say how many times he had seen her either as complainant or defendant during the last 25 years.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 August 1889.

Wednesday, August 14th: Before Capt. Crowe, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole, and J. Brooke Esqs.

A lad named Edwards, who gave his age as 17, and a man named William were charged with stealing two watches and ten gold rings from the premises of Mr. E. Moat, jeweller, Dover Road. The total value of the goods was 27 18s. 6d.

Mr. Moat identified the property as his, including a gold keeper, which had been offered for sale by Williams. On the day in question, about 9.30 a.m., Edwards came into the shop and offered some bill files for sale. About ten minutes after, witness was in his room at the back of the shop, when he heard the bell ring, and on going into the shop found Edwards there, who again asked him to buy three files. He again refused, and Edwards left the shop. Shortly after he missed from the window a gold watch, a silver watch, nine keepers and the gem ring. Anyone standing in front of the counter would be able to reach the trays in the window by opening the doors, which were only secured by fastenings, and not locked.

P.S. Harman said that he went to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and there saw the prisoner Edwards. After cautioning him that he need not reply to any question unless he chose, witness asked him if he had been out selling files that morning. He replied “Only in the Market”. Witness saw some files (produced) in a corner of the kitchen. Edwards was then charged on suspicion of stealing the jewellery, and witness made a search, but did not find anything. On the way to the station Edwards met Williams in High Street, and Edwards spoke to him in a low tone, but witness could not catch what was said. He at once prevented any further conversation. From what he heard at the station, he took Edwards back to the Oddfellows Arms, and a young woman named Braden showed him the bag produced, hanging on a shelf in the kitchen. He asked the prisoner if it belonged to him, and he said “Yes”. Witness found in it two watches and eight rings wrapped up in a handkerchief. He then charged Edwards with stealing, and the latter made no reply. At two o'clock witness returned to the Oddfellows Arms and saw Williams. Having cautioned him, he asked whether he knew anything of the lad Edwards, and had he given William any rings that morning. Williams replied “No, nor had he seen him with any”. He then told Williams that he would have to come to the police station for further enquiries. In Seagate Street Williams said “I may as well tell you all about it. I didn't like to do so before my wife. The lad gave me a ring to sell, and I let a bandsman in Sanger's Circus have it on approval. If he likes it he is to pay me at five o'clock tonight”. He offered to point the man out if I allowed him, but I refused. When charged at the police station he said it was very hard that he and his wife and family should have to suffer for Edwards. Witness went in search of the bandsman and found him; he was wearing the ring produced on his finger, and gave it to witness. Subsequently the two prisoners were charged together, when Edwards made no reply, and Williams repeated his former statement that it was very hard. Witness had ascertained the prisoners had lodged together on the previous night. The gem ring had not been discovered.

Elizabeth Braden, servant at the Oddfellows arms, said that Williams, with his wife, and another man and his wife, came to the house on Monday afternoon. Edwards came later in the day. She had only seen Williams asking Edwards to have a cup of tea in the kitchen, which was used by all the lodgers. After that she saw them talking together at the end of the yard. She recognised the bag produced, which was hanging up in the kitchen, but she had not seen Edwards with it. She took the bag down, and took it to Mr. Carter, the landlord, after the Sergeant had been to the house. She did not see Mr. Carter open the bag, but afterwards saw the things laid out on the table. She was told to put them back, and she did so, hanging the bag up where she found it.

George Murray, a member of Sanger's Circus band, recognised the two prisoners, whom he saw at the Oddfellows Arms on the previous morning. He had engaged a bed there, that was the reason he was in the house. Williams asked him if he would buy a ring, and offered him one for six shillings. About fifteen minutes afterwards Edwards came in and went into the kitchen, and Williams then showed him the ring. He told him it was “a find” and witness agreed to have it for the day on approval, and to pay for it at night if he liked it. At the same time he thought it was too cheap. He had no conversation with Edwards.

In reply to the prisoner Williams, witness said that the former did bring Edwards out into the wash-house and say that he was the finder of the ring. Witness had forgotten that.

Robert Carter proved opening the bag and finding the watches and rings produced.

Williams pleaded Not Guilty, and Edwards Guilty.

In answer to the Bench, the latter said he came from Birkenhead, and was a wire worker. His age was 17. His father was dead and his mother had been living with another man for the last five years. He did not know where she was.

Edwards was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

Addressing Williams, Captain Crowe said there was not sufficient evidence to commit him, but if he had any knowledge of the theft, he had certainly had a narrow escape. In any case he had acted most imprudently, but there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of stealing, and he would be discharged.

 

Folkestone Express 17 August 1889

Wednesday, August 14th: Before Captain Crowe, Alderman Banks, J. Brooke and H.W. Poole Esqs.
John Edwards and Charles Williams were charged with stealing two watches and several rings, value 27, the property of Edward Moat.

Prosecutor, a watchmaker, carrying on business at 146, Dover Road, said the younger prisoner, Edwards, went to his shop on Tuesday morning, about half past nine, and offered some wire bill files for sale. He told prisoner he did not want them, and he left the shop. Shortly afterwards he called again. Witness was in the room at the back of the shop. In the window of the shop, which was enclosed, there was a tray. The glass doors were fastened, but not locked. The tray contained watches and jewellery. At half past eight the trays and contents were all right. Among other articles there was a gold hunter watch, No. 704, and a gold Geneva watch 460052. On another tray there were 22 rings, all gold. About five minutes past ten he noticed that the trays had been interfered with. He missed first 10 rings, and afterwards the two watches. There were nine keeper rings and one gem ring. He gave information to the police. Anyone standing on the public side of the counter could open the glass doors of the window. The prisoner Edwards went into the shop twice on the previous day. One watch was worth 17 17s., and the other 2. The rings were worth 8 1s. 6d. The gem ring had not been recovered.

Sergt. Harman said he received information about eleven o'clock on Tuesday of the robbery, and went in pursuit of the prisoner Edwards, and found him at half past twelve, sitting in the kitchen of the Oddfellows lodging house, Radnor Street. He said “There has been a robbery of jewellery this morning in Dover Road”. He cautioned him that what he said would be used in evidence against him, and asked him if he had been out selling any wires that morning. He said “No, only out in the market a little way”. He asked if he had any wire bill files for sale, and he said “No”. He saw a number of wires in a corner of the kitchen, and prisoner admitted that they were his. He then charged him on suspicion of stealing jewellery and took him to the station. When searched in the kitchen nothing relating to the charge was found on him, nor was there anything in his bedding. On the way to the station they met the prisoner Williams. They poke to one another, but witness stopped them. He could not catch what Edwards said, but from information afterwards received he took Edwards back to the lodging house, and was shown by a woman a bag hanging in the kitchen. He asked Edwards if it was his bag, and he said it was. On opening it he found eight gold keepers and two watches rolled up in a handkerchief. He charged Edwards with stealing the property. He made no reply. At two o'clock he went again to the Oddfellows and saw the prisoner Williams, cautioned him, and asked him if the boy Edwards had given him any rings to sell that morning. Williams said “No”, nor had he seen any in his possession. He then took Williams into custody while further enquiries were made. On the way to the station he said “I may as well tell you, Sergeant, all about it. I didn't like to do it before my wife. That lad this morning gave me a ring to sell. I have let a bandsman of Mr. Sanger's circus have it on approbation. If it suits him he is going to pay me for it at five o'clock this evening. I'll point the man out to you if you like to let me”. Witness declined to do so, and charged him with being concerned with Edwards in stealing the jewellery that morning. He replied “It is very hard that I and my wife and family should suffer for him. I'll show you the man I gave the ring to”. Witness went in search of the bandsman, and found him, and received from him the ring produced. Prisoners were afterwards charged together by Supt. Taylor. Edwards made no reply. Williams repeated his statement. Witness understood Williams to say they were lodging together at Dover the previous night. The gem ring had not been recovered.

Elizabeth Braden, servant at the Oddfellows, said Williams went there to lodge with his wife and children on Monday. Edwards went in afterwards. She had not seen them in company. Williams asked the boy to have a cup of tea. After breakfast she saw them talking together in the yard, in a low tone. The bag produced she found hanging in the kitchen. She understood it belonged to the younger prisoner, and she took it to Mr. Carter, the landlord.

Witness said, in reply to Williams, that she knew him in Brighton, when he lived in a furnished room at his aunt's.

George Murray, a member of Mr. Sanger's band, said he recognised the prisoners. He saw them on Tuesday morning, between ten and eleven, at the Oddfellows Arms. Williams asked him if he would buy a ring for 6s. About a quarter of an hour after the lad Edwards went in, and Williams went to him, and then returned with the ring produced. Williams said it was all right – it was “a find”. Witness took the ring and wore it during the day, until the police sergeant went for it. At the kitchen door Williams said the ring belonged to Edwards, who was the finder.

Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, said the bag produced was taken to him by his servant, and he found in it the watches and rings produced tied up in a silk handkerchief.

Edwards pleaded Guilty, and Williams Not Guilty. Edwards said he was 17 years of age, was a wireworker, and came from Birkenhead. His father was dead, and his mother had been living with another man for five years. He was sentenced to three calendar months' hard labour.

The Bench considered there was not sufficient evidence to warrant them in committing Williams for trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 January 1891.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday Thomas Markwick was summoned for being drunk and incapable. Police Constable Stannage found him outside the Oddfellows Inn (sic) on Christmas Eve, helplessly drunk. He had to obtain the assistance of Inspector Brice to get him to the police station. Markwick, who did not appear, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Express 3 January 1891.

Wednesday, December 31st: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Thomas Marwick, summoned for being drunk, did not appear. Sergeant Harman said the defendant was a fisherman, and was probably at sea. He belonged to Brighton.

P.C. Stannage said on Wednesday he saw the defendant lying outside the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, helplessly drunk. He and Boat Inspector Brice tried to stand him up, but he was too drunk to stand. They therefore took him to the police station and detained him.

The Magistrates desired to be informed where the man got the drink, and Brice said he saw him nearly drunk the first thing in the morning. He had probably been drinking all the day.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 7 January 1891.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before The Mayor, J. Holden Esq., Major Penfold, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

William Samuel Frodsham was charged with assaulting a man named Carter – I'm sorry, I don't know his front name. Defendant said he was Guilty of striking him “and he had cause to”.

Complainant said he was a fish hawker, living at 9, Dover Street. About 3.30 on the previous Saturday several of them were in the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, talking, laughing and chaffing. He was not talking to defendant at all, but all at once the latter said “I'll give the gentleman something” – it wasn't “gentleman”, but the List is a family paper – and at once knocked him down. He remembered no more. He had never had a misword with defendant; would be very sorry to have a misword with anybody.

By the Clerk: I had had a glass, but was not drunk. I was neither drunk nor sober, just as you would be at Christmas time (!!)

Defendant's version was that complainant had asked his “missis” to drink, and that when the lady declined, Carter turned round and laughed in his face. Defendant then lost his temper and struck complainant, who got up and said “What's that for?”, to which he replied “You know very well what it's for”. “That's all I've got to say, gentlemen, and if you like to hear my missis she'll tell you the same”.

1s. and 9s. costs. Defendant paid 5s. down, and was allowed a week in which to pay the remainder.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 January 1891.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before The Mayor, Major Penfold, Ald. Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Samuel Frodsham was summoned for assaulting a labourer named Carter at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), on the 27th December.

Carter stated that he lived at 9, Dover Street. On the 27th he was in the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, between three and four o'clock. He was talking and joking with the prisoner and one or two others. They were not talking about the prisoner, but he went up to witness, without any provocation, and struck him in the face with his fist. The blow knocked him down, and the mark on his face was the result. Witness did not know what his grievance was; he had never had a misword with him in his life. Witness was not drunk. He was a little merry – like people were at Christmas time. (Laughter)

Prisoner said his “Missus” went to the Oddfellows Arms for him on the day in question. They were talking together, and a man picked up a quart jug off the counter and asked her to drink. She said “No, I drink with no man, as I have told you before”. The prosecutor then turned round and laughed in his face. He lost his temper and struck him.

Fined 1s. and 10s, costs.

 

Folkestone Express 10 January 1891.

Saturday, January 3rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden, J. Fitness and S. Penfold Esqs.

William S. Frodsham was summoned for assaulting George Carter on the 27th December. He pleaded Guilty, but said he had cause for doing it.

Complainant, a fisherman, of 9, Dover Street, said on Saturday he was in the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, about half past three, talking with four other men. Defendant was there, but they were not talking to him, but he “up fist” and said “I'll give the ---- something”, and struck witness in the eye. He was not drunk, but he was “a little merry, as he would be Christmas time”. (Laughter)

Defendant said they were in the Oddfellows Arms. His missus went for him, and said “Bill, I want to speak to you”. While they were talking, Carter went in front of him, and taking a quart pot and a glass off the counter, asked his missus to drink. She replied that she drank with no man. Carter laughed at her, and he (defendant) lost his temper and struck him.

Defendant was fined 1s. and 9s. costs. He paid 5s. and was allowed a week to pay the balance.

 

Folkestone Express 17 January 1891.

County Court.

Tuesday, January 13th: Before Judge Selfe.

Lewis, Hyland and Goble v Robert Carter: Claim 1 0s. 9d. Defendant is a publican and a boatowner. His Honour asked if the Oddfellows was a house of entertainment of a high class. (Laughter) Committed for 14 days. Order suspended for 14 days.

John Francis v Robert Carter: Claim 1 10s. 6d. Fresh order 10s. a month.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 April 1891.

Monday, March 30th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, valued at 15s. 6d., and the property of William Bull.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn shortly before nine o'clock on Saturday evening, when the prisoner went into the bar and offered a pair of boots for sale. He asked witness if he knew where he could sell them, and he took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He went back to the Royal George and found Murray waiting.

Joseph Whiting stated that Harford lodged at his house, the Bricklayer's Arms, and on Saturday evening both prisoners called at his bar for some beer, but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting identified Murray as the man who called at her uncle's house on Saturday afternoon with a pair of elastic side boots. He waited until Harford came in and they both went out together.

P.C. Keeler deposed that he found Harford at 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Mr. Whiting as a lodging house. Witness asked him if he had a pair of new boots, and he gave him the pair produced. He said he bought them at the Bricklayer's Arms for 3s. 6d. from a man whom he did not know. Witness took him to the police station, and later on he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, where he found Murray in the bar. He had been drinking.

Both prisoners denied the charge. Murray stated that he bought the boots from a strange man and sold them to Harford.

Each prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 4 April 1891.

Monday, March 30th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, value 15s. 10d., the property of William Bull, of High Street.

Prosecutor said on Saturday night, about a quarter to nine, he missed a pair of boots from outside his shop. P.C. Swain called upon him and about five minutes after he was gone he missed a second pair.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when the prisoner Murray went in with a pair of boots and offered them for sale. Murray asked him if he knew where he could sell them. He took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He returned to the George with the boots. Murray was still there. He thought one of the loops of the boots was broken.

Joseph A. Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, said Harford lodged in his house. Both prisoners went to his bar between seven and half past seven on Saturday evening. They called for beer but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting said she recognised Murray as having gone to her uncle's house about half past four on Saturday afternoon with a pair of new elastic side boots. He asked for Dan, meaning Harford, and she told him he was not at home. He waited until he came and they then went out into the back yard together.

P.C. Keeler said he went to No. 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Whiting as a lodging house, and found Harford there. He asked i he had a pair of new boots, and he showed him those produced, saying he bought them from a man he did not know, whom he met at the Bricklayers Arms, and gave 3s. 6d. for them. Witness took him into custody, and when charged by Sergt. Ovenden he made no reply. About half past eleven he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, in Radnor Street, and found Murray in the taproom asleep. He had been drinking. When charged at the police station with stealing two pairs of boots he made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. Harford pleaded Not Guilty, and Murray Not Guilty. Murray said he bought the boots of a man and sold them to Harford.

The Bench convicted both prisoners and sentenced them to a month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 23 May 1891.

Thursday, May 21st: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

Wm. Marshall and Alfred Madden were charged with breaking a square of glass at the Oddfellows Inn (sic) on Wednesday, and further with being absentees from the Royal Marines, at Deal.

Mrs. Carter said on Wednesday night, about 20 minutes to 12, the inmates were having their supper. The house was closed. They heard a knocking at the side door, and asked who it was. A voice replied “We want a bed”. She told him she had no bed to let, and then the voice said “Let's have a drink”. She told him the house was closed. The man then made use of a bad expression, and directly after she heard a window broken. She was looking through the window, and saw Marshall put a stick under his arm. The value of the window which was broken was 15s. She sent the servant for a policeman. She did not see or hear the other man, but knew there were others in uniform. P.C. Lawrence brought the man back to the house.

Josephine Driscoll, servant to Mrs. Carter, said she saw four men outside, and heard Madden say “If I was you, I'd bash the ---- window”. Madden had his belt in his hand, and a stick. Marshall struck the window three times with his stick before it broke. They both used bad language, and ran away. Madden threatened to smash the larger window with his belt. The other two men took no part.

P.C. Lawrence said he saw the two defendants and two others in the Fishmarket. They were all Marines. They ran up The Durlocks by St. Peter's Church, and into Mr. Hyham's meadow. The four then made a stand, and took off their belts. He called to some fishermen who were following to help him, and the soldiers ran away. Marshall fell as he was getting over a fence, and he secured him. The servant identified him as the man who broke the window. He was searched and had no pass.

P.C. Dawson said he stopped three soldiers on East Cliff, and asked or their passes. They said the had none – they were militiamen. He took Madden into custody.

The defendants were each fined 5s., damages 7s. 6d., costs 6s. 6d., or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 July 1891.

Local News.

At the Folkestone police court on Tuesday, James McCarthy was charged with stealing a large quantity of house linen, valued at 5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell.

From the evidence of Henry Robus it appears that he was in charge of Miss Campbell's house – 67, Brockman Road. The stolen goods were safely locked in the house on Sunday night, but he missed them on Wednesday. Upon examination he found the storm sash at the back of the house had been broken, and also the glass in the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

The prisoner lodged at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and it was stated by the landlady that he was absent all Tuesday night and came home on Wednesday morning. He opened a bundle and showed her the articles produced, and as she had suspicions she sent for the police. When questioned by Supt. Taylor he said he had obtained them in the ordinary way of dealing, but declined to say where.

Mrs. Edith Ralph, of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner offered some towels for sale at her bar, and she and a woman named Davison bought a number, but took them to the police station afterwards.

Statements were also made by Stephen Bailey and Jane Davis, who were at the Oddfellows when McCarthy returned. He asked them what they thought of his night's work.

The Magistrates committed him for trial.

 

Folkestone Express 18 July 1891.

Thursday, July 16th: Before Alderman Dunk and J. Fitness Esq.

James McCarthy was charged with stealing a quantity of house linen, value 5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell, from a house in Brockman Road.

P.C. Walter Down said he went on Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, and there saw a bundle containing the property now produced. Prisoner afterwards came in, and he asked if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said it did, and he bought the goods in Folkestone, but declined to say where he got them.

Prisoner: I object to leading questions. It is against all order. It don't give me a chance. I haven't got much as it is.

Witness: He said he came by them honestly, but declined to say where he bought them, or who he bought them of. At the police station Superintendent Taylor asked prisoner where he got the clothes. Prisoner replied “In the ordinary way of dealing, but I decline to tell you where”. The bundle contained ten sheets, two tablecloths, a towel, a toilet cover, 16 pillow cases, two pairs of curtains, four valances. They were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets upon them.

Henry Robus said on the 17th July, 1889, he attended a sale of the effects of Mr. D. Owen, at 67, Brockman Road, and purchased through Smith, a broker, lots 215 to 225, and afterwards made them up into a bundle, and took them to a house in Brockman Road belonging to Miss Mary Campbell. There was no other furniture in the house at the time. The house was in his charge – securely locked and the windows were fastened. He was in the house on Sunday at 11.30, and the articles were then safe, just as he put them there two years ago. He went to the house on Wednesday, and the goods were then missing. He examined the house, and found the glass of the storm sash at the back of the drawing room broken, and also the glass of the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

Prisoner: Where did you get your information?

Witness declined to answer.

Prisoner: Could a man of my size get in the window? – Yes. I could get in.

Jane Davis, wife of a labourer, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said she saw the prisoner there on Wednesday morning. He asked her to go down into the scullery and see his night's work. She went down, and he untied the bundle of linen. He gave her 18 towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell to get a drink. She was to ask 2s. for them. She returned and told him Mrs. Carter refused to buy them, saying they were stolen property.

Stephen Bailey said on Wednesday he saw the prisoner in the scullery at the Oddfellows. He showed him a bundle, and asked “What do you think of my night's work?”, and asked him to feel the weight of it. He opened it and showed him the sheets and pillowcases, and offered to sell him a pair of sheets for a shilling, and also asked him to stand a drink. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent him for a constable.

Lucy Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows Inn, said the prisoner was staying at her house three weeks ago, and remained 10 days. He went away and returned on Saturday evening, and slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. He was absent all night on Tuesday, and came in about seven o'clock on Wednesday. She went into the scullery and saw prisoner there with a large bundle of linen. She asked him to show her the things he had to sell. He opened the bundle and showed her tablecloths and shirts. She told him he had not come by them honestly, and that he was to take them away. She then sent for a policeman. Prisoner left the house with some of the articles in a handbasket.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her private bar on Wednesday with some towels, which he asked her to buy. She bought ten for 1s. 10d.. She saw they were marked “Owen”, and took them to the police station.

Jemima Davison, of 6, South Street, produced two towels which she purchased of prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner said he wished to be remanded or committed for trial, and then he would make a statement to the police which would very likely clear him, which it would not do if he spoke it in open court. He believed he was quite justified in selling the things, and came by them in a perfectly honest manner. He expected someone would have been present when they knew he was in trouble, to say how he came by them.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Sessions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1891.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions. The Oddfellows.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Carter applied for a renewal of the licence of this house, it having been held over from the last Court.

Superintendent Taylor said a complaint was received with reference to the conduct of the house six weeks before the licensing day. A similar complaint was also sent to the brewers, who promised to find a fresh tenant. He had since found that the complaint was sent from a person who had quarrelled with Carter's wife.

Mr. Minter said no other complaint had ever been made.

Superintendent Taylor said on two occasions Carter had rendered the police very valuable assistance. The arrests could not have been made had it not been for him.

The renewal was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 26 September 1891.

Adjourned Licensing Day. The Oddfellows.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Robert Carter applied for a renewal of the licence to this house.

Superintendent Taylor said complaints were made to the Mayor as to the conduct of the house, and also to Messrs. Rigden, the owners. The complaint was made by a woman who had been quarrelling with Carter's wife. Carter had on two occasions rendered valuable assistance to the police, and they had no complaint against him. Granted.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 14 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

The Quarter Sessions on Monday occupied seven hours – an unusual time for Folkestone.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, pleaded Not Guilty to stealing, in a house in Brockman Road, a quantity of linen &c., the goods of Miss Campbell, on the 16th July. Mr. Glyn prosecuted.

Prisoner defended himself with considerable ability, and his defence was that he received the goods from a soldier of the 17th Lancers, and was disposing of them for him when he was apprehended. The case occupied over two hours, and a verdict was returned of Guilty on the second charge, that of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen.

The Recorder sentenced prisoner to three months' hard labour, taking into consideration the fact that he had already been nearly three months in prison awaiting his trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, 12th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

A true bill was returned against James McCarthy, who was charged with having, on the 15th of last July, stolen from the dwelling house of Mary Campbell, Brockman Road, two dimity curtains, four valances, three pairs of linen sheets, and a number of towels, of the value of 5 12s.

Mr. L. Glyn prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty, was not defended.

P.C. Walter Down was called and stated that on Wednesday, the 15th of July, about half past nine in the morning, he went to the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street. He there saw the bundle produced. It contained the articles which were the subject of the present charge. Shortly after his arrival at the Oddfellows, the prisoner entered. He asked him if the bundle belonged to him. He said “Yes”. Witness asked him where he got them from, and he replied “I came by them honestly. I bought them at Folkestone”. He then asked the prisoner to take him to the place where he bought them, but he refused to. He told the prisoner he should take him to the police station on suspicion of having stolen the goods.

By the prisoner: Witness was called to the Oddfellows about half past nine, and about twenty minutes elapsed after he first saw the prisoner. He went to the station quietly and seemed to take it in good humour. He did not consider it necessary to handcuff prisoner. When he (prisoner) went into the Rendezvous, witness waited outside for him. He suggested that witness should go back to the Oddfellows and wait for the man who sold them.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go and have a drink after you arrested him?

Witness: Yes, sir; he was determined to go.

The Recorder: A very obliging policeman, but it is fortunate for you there wasn't a back door.

Supt. Taylor said he remembered prisoner being brought to the station. Witness told him he had been brought there on suspicion of having stolen the goods. He said he was a dealer and had bought them. Witness asked him of whom, and he answered that he bought them at Folkestone, and had come by them honestly.

At the request of the prisoner Supt. Taylor produced a statement which the prisoner made after he had been committed for trial and also a letter which he wrote in prison. Nothing was known against him by the London Police and he could not have obtained information easily without the prisoner's help. There were no scratches on his face to indicate scratches by broken glass. He found that he was in company with a man in uniform on the Monday and Tuesday nights. Prisoner said the man belonged to the 17th Lancers. He had seen the Sergeant Major and had had the regiment paraded.

Henry Robus proved having purchased the articles at the sale of Mr. Owen, for Miss Campbell, on the 17th July. 1889. They were all marked “Owen”. He took them to 21, Brockman Road. He visited the house on the Sunday before the robbery. The goods were all right then.

Jane Davis said she was employed at the Oddfellows Inn. On the morning in question prisoner showed her the articles and asked her what she thought of his night's work. He gave her 13 towels to take to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. Mrs. Carter said she would see about it when she came down. Mrs. Carter was ill and could not attend that day.

Prisoner: What's the matter with her?

Witness: She's ill.

Prisoner: Yes, with the perjury! She committed gross perjury before the Magistrates. I shall prove it presently.

Mr. Glyn put in a certificate, and the witness Davis said she was suffering from dropsy and diseased kidneys.

Stephen Bailey, labourer, said he lodged at the Oddfellows. The prisoner also asked him what he thought of his night's work. He asked him to lend him twopence for a drink, and to buy a pair of sheets for 1s. He did not buy them.

Mr. Glyn then read the depositions of Mrs. Carter, which were given before the Magistrates. She stated that the prisoner slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights. He was absent on the Tuesday night and came home at seven o'clock on the morning of the 15th. At quarter to eight prisoner was in the scullery, and when he asked her to buy some towels she said “You didn't come by these things honestly and take them out of my house. Where did you get them from?” He said “Mind your own business”.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner brought some towels into the bar and she gave him 1s. 10d. for ten. When she found the name “Owen” on them she took them up to Supt. Taylor.

Jemima Davidson, of 6, South Street, stated that she bought two towels from prisoner for 3d.

This was the case for the prosecution, and prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse. He stated that prisoner was admitted to the Workhouse Infirmary on the 24th of June and was discharged on the 13th of July (Monday). He was in bed the whole time, and was discharged at his own request.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury on the part of the witness Carter, who stated that he slept at the Oddfellows on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday, whereas he was not discharged from the Workhouse until the Monday.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, was called on the prisoner's behalf, but did not put in an appearance.

Harry Stone, alias Lucas, stated that he saw prisoner in the Perseverance at half past twelve on Monday. He remained in his company until eleven at night. The next day he went into the Perseverance about the same time and saw the prisoner. In the afternoon they went to Cheriton to get a job for the prisoner. They went back to the Perseverance, and in the evening a man came in dressed in soldier's clothes. It was the uniform of the 17th Lancers. They all went out at eleven o'clock. He went with Supt. Taylor, but was unable to identify the soldier.

Prisoner then read a long statement. He said he had work to go to at Cheriton at five o'clock on the Wednesday morning, and as he was the worse for drink on Tuesday night, and fearing that he might overlay of he went to the Oddfellows, he slept under a bathing machine on the beach. He got to the White Lion, Cheriton, at five in the morning. His employer did not turn up and whilst he was waiting a soldier came up with the bundle of goods. They talked for some time. He said he was Captain Owen's servant, and that he was going abroad and had given him everything he did not want. He asked him (prisoner) if he knew where to sell them, and he said very likely Mrs. Carter would buy them. The soldier said he had another lot and if prisoner liked to take them to the Oddfellows he could have the middle man's profits and he would follow with the other bundle. He (prisoner) did not know they had been stolen and carried the bundle through the open streets, passing a large number of people on the way. Since he was arrested he had given every assistance to the police.

The jury found prisoner Not Guilty of stealing the goods, but Guilty on the second count of receiving them knowing them to have been stolen, and he was sentenced to three calendar months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 11th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, was indicted for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, and which articles were left in an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

Mr. Glyn, instructed by Mr. Minter, prosecuted.

P.C. Down said on the 15th July he went to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and was there shown the bundle of things produced. He saw the prisoner come in and asked him if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said “Yes”, and added that he came by them honestly - he bought them in Folkestone. Witness asked him to go with him to the place where he bought them, and he said “No”. He then told prisoner he should take him to the station on a charge of stealing them.

By the prisoner: You took the matter lightly and good-humouredly, as though there was nothing in it. You went into the Rendezvous and had a drink while I stood outside.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go into a public house and have a drink while you had him in charge? – He was determined to go, sir.

Supt. Taylor said he had a conversation with the prisoner at the police station. He asked him to account for the possession of the goods. He said “I bought them. I am a dealer”. He asked who he bought them of, and he did not say – he said he came by them honestly.

Prisoner asked for the statement he made before the Magistrates, and a letter he wrote from Canterbury to the Superintendent to be produced and read to the jury.

Supt. Taylor put in a long statement made by the prisoner after his committal, and the Recorder read it. It's purport was that he received the articles of a soldier belonging to the 17th Lancers, who, he said, was an officer's servant, and wanted to find a purchaser for them, and on his (prisoner's) suggestion he was allowed to carry the bundle to the Oddfellows. Next morning he sold some of the towels quite openly to get a drink. The Recorder also read a long letter written by the prisoner from Canterbury, in which he said he had been the landlord of a public house at Devonport. He married the landlady and they separated by mutual consent. His wife had allowed him upwards of a guinea a week. He had also received two small legacies, and had written stories for weekly journals, and had won money in newspaper prize competitions, so that he had no necessity to work.

In reply to the prisoner, Supt. Taylor said all the information he gave as to his antecedents was correct. The London police knew nothing. He found by enquiry that the prisoner was in company with a man in uniform two days previous to his arrest. There was no man in the 17th Lancers of the description given by the prisoner. There was no Capt. Owen in the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said a man named Stone or Lucas could identify the man, and he took Stone to the Hounslow Barracks, where the 17th Lancers had just arrived, but he could not identify anyone. The statement made by the prisoner about his wife was not true. She had not made him an allowance.

Henry Rebus proved purchasing the articles at a sale of Mr. Owen's goods in 1889, for Miss Mary Campbell. The articles were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets on them. He took them to a house belonging to Miss Campbell, 29, Brockman Road, and locked them up in a room. He saw the things safe as late at the 14th or 15th July of this year. He missed the things on the 19th. The storm sash of the window had been broken open, and the things were gone.

Jane Davis, wife of John Davis, a lodger at the Oddfellows Arms, said on Wednesday morning, the 15th July, she saw the prisoner, who asked her to go into the kitchen to see his night's work. She went, and untied the bundle. He gave her thirteen towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. to get him a drink. She took them to Mrs. Carter, and brought them back. Mrs. Carter said she would see about them when she got up. She had seen Mrs. Carter that morning. She had been ill for a week and was unable to attend.

Prisoner: What is the matter with Mrs. Carter? – I don't know.

Prisoner: Perhaps she has got perjury the matter with her. I can prove she committed perjury before the Magistrates.

Witness said she had a doctor's certificate.

In answer to prisoner, witness said she lent him an open basket to take the towels out in. There were about 20 people in the house.

Prisoner caused some amusement by reading a list of the people who were in the house.

Stephen Bailey, another lodger at the Oddfellows, said the prisoner asked him to feel the weight of a bundle of linen. He then asked him to lend him 2d., or to give him 1s. for a pair of sheets. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent for a policeman.

Mr. Glyn put in the deposition of Lucy Carter, and told prisoner the doctor had been sent for, and when he arrived he would be allowed to put questions to him. The deposition stated that the prisoner lodged in her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but was absent on Tuesday night. He returned early on Wednesday.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh Inn, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her house with some towels in an open basket. He asked her to buy some, and she bought 10 for 1s. 10d. In the afternoon she examined them, and finding a name on them, she took them to the police station. Prisoner told her he got the towels honestly.

In answer to the Recorder, witness said she had not heard of the robbery before she took the towels to the Superintendent.

Jemima Davidson said she bought two towels of the prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse, who stated that the prisoner was admitted to the infirmary on the 24th June and discharged on the 13th July.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury of the witness Carter, who was so ill she could not come.

Henry Stone, who said “Lucas” was his nickname, said he was a plasterer, residing at Folkestone. He saw the prisoner in the Perseverance on Monday from twelve o'clock until five or ten minutes to eleven, and on Tuesday from 12.30 until eleven. There was a man there in soldier's clothes on Tuesday night. His uniform was like that of the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said he should like to get work in the town, and they went together about eight o'clock onto the Pavilion Fields to see if they could get work. When they returned the soldier was still there, and they left about eleven.

In reply to Mr. Glyn, witness said he went to Hounslow, and saw the regiment paraded, but did not recognise the soldier among them.

Prisoner made a long statement, in which he attempted to show that he was innocent in “thought, word, or deed”. Had he been guilty, it was not likely he would have stayed in the town to be arrested.

Mr. Glyn, in his closing remarks to the jury, said that on his own statement the prisoner was a thief, because he said he received goods from a soldier and agreed to find a customer for them, instead of which he sold a portion of them and spent the money on drink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said they must all regret to see a man possessing the ability the prisoner had displayed standing in such a position. He commented on the statements of the prisoner, and compared them with the evidence, pointing out that there was proof that the prisoner was dealing with the goods very shortly after they were stolen.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner Guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to be stolen.

Superintendent Taylor produced a copy of the prisoner's discharge from the army and a letter he had received relating to that part of the prisoner's statement as to his keeping a public house. Nothing was known about him by the London police. The address he gave was that of a court which had been pulled down for improvements.

The Recorder said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case. Prisoner had been in prison three months, and he would be sentenced therefore to only three months' hard labour.

County Court.

Tuesday, October 12th: Before Judge Selfe.

Thomas Watson v Robert Carter: There were two other judgement summonses against the defendant, by Mr. Brooks and Mr. P.C. Upton. Mr. Fearon, for Mr. Brooks, said the defendant was doing a large trade. Mr. Watts said the defendant had been frequently committed, and always paid. Committed for 14 days in the first case; order suspended for 28 days, and in the others, fresh order of 1 a month.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th:

James McCarthy, 29, engine fitter, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, from an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

 

Folkestone Express 6 February 1892.

Before Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Wilson was charged with stealing two coats, value 3 15s. 0d., the property of John Bristow.

Prosecutor, a fly driver, in the employ of Mr. Jackson, Osborne Mews, said on the previous evening he placed two coats in the office on the inner door. At half past seven he missed them, and subsequently saw them at the police station.

Mrs. Lucy Carter, of the Oddfellows Arms, said the prisoner lodged with her on Monday and Tuesday. He went in on Wednesday about twenty minutes to nine and she saw him in his bedroom doubling up the coats produced. He was wearing them when he came in. She sent for the police.

P.C. Dawson said he apprehended the prisoner. On the way to the police station he said the coats were on his bed, and he knew nothing about them. Nothing was found on him but a pedlar's certificate, stating his address to be 6, Fair Road, Chatham.

He was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 May 1892.

Saturday, April 30th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, was summoned for having the house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on the 12th April, and also for permitting drunkenness on his premises.

Sergeant Swift said on the 12th inst., at midnight, he went to the Oddfellows Inn with P.C. Knowles. He saw a light burning in a room between the two bars, and several persons drinking. There was loud talking, and two men apparently quarrelling and using threatening language to one another. Defendant's wife was there. A man named Rolfe came out of the door and, seeing witness, tried to escape. In the house there were eight persons; four of them were lodgers, and three were Folkestone residents, Fagg, Rolfe, and Aldridge. He asked defendant's wife what they were doing and she said that they were lodging there that night. Aldridge had, she said, come to call her husband up to go to sea. There were two pint glasses half-full of beer on the table, and one half-full of beer and ginger beer, and three other glasses which had recently contained beer. Aldridge was very drunk, and also a lodger named Friend. He called defendant's wife's attention to them, and she said they were not drunk. He told her he should report her, and she replied “You can do what you like”.

P.C. Knowles gave corroborative evidence.

Stephen Bailey said he was in the house from 10 till 12. He saw Aldridge go in at 10 minutes to 11 – the worse for drink. He did not hear him call for any beer. He did not see Mr. or Mrs. Carter draw any beer all the time he was there. Mrs. Carter told Aldridge she hadn't anything to serve him with. Witness was reading the paper, and the other men were listening to him.

Mr. Mercer said Messrs. Rigden had got the defendant out of the house.

Fined 10s. and 9s. costs in each case.

 

Folkestone Express 7 May 1892.

Saturday, April 30th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, (sic) Radnor Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquors during prohibited hours on the 12th April, and also for permitting drunkenness on his premises at the same time.

Sergeant Swift said on the 12th inst., at midnight, he went to the Oddfellows Inn with P.C. Knowles. He saw a light burning in a room between the two bars, and saw several persons there drinking. There was loud talking, and two men apparently quarrelling and using threatening language to one another. Defendant's wife was there. A man named Rolfe came out of the door and went towards the urinal. Upon seeing witness he tried to escape. In the house there were eight persons; four of them were lodgers, and three were Folkestone residents, Fagg, Rolfe, and Aldridge. He asked defendant's wife what they were doing , and she said they were lodging there that night. Aldridge had, she said, come to call her husband up to go to sea. There were two pint glasses half full of beer on the table, and one half full of beer and ginger beer, and three other glasses which had recently contained beer. Aldridge was very drunk, and also a lodger named Friend. He called defendant's wife's attention to them, and she said they were not drunk. He told her he should report her, and she said “You can do what you like”. He subsequently saw Fagg leave the house and go towards his home.

P.C. Knowles gave corroborative evidence. Aldridge, he said, was talking very thick, and could scarcely sit in his chair. He saw Aldridge, Rolfe and Fagg leave the house. Aldridge rolled against the wall as he walked.

Defendant said he was in bed and knew nothing about the matter. There wasn't any beer in the house.

Mr. Mallam, who appeared for the owners of the house, said he could understand that probably his clients were “cutting short”.

Stephen Bailey was called by the defendant, and said he was in the house from ten till twelve. He saw Aldridge go in at ten minutes to eleven – the worse for drink. He did not hear him call for any beer. He did not see Mr. or Mrs, Carter draw any beer all the time he was there. Mrs. Carter told Aldridge she hadn't anything to serve him with. Witness was reading the paper and the other men were listening to him.

Supt. Taylor said it was the first charge which had been made against the house. Defendant and his wife had on several occasions rendered valuable assistance to the police in cases of robberies. It was a low class house.

Mr. Mallam said Messrs. Rigden had got defendant out of the house by giving him three months' notice at Christmas. When their agent went to the Magistrates' Clerk's office about the transfer, they then heard that there was a summons against the defendant.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs in each case.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 7 May 1892.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was fined 1 and 18s. costs for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and also for permitting drunkenness on the premises.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 May 1892.

Wednesday, May 11th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Wards Esqs.

William Fagg and Harry Aldridge, fishermen, were summoned for being found at the Oddfellows Arms during prohibited hours on the 12th ult., and pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Swift deposed that he found the defendants on the premises about midnight, and that the landlord, Mr. Carter, had since been fined for the offence.

The Bench fined defendants 1s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 14 May 1892.

Wednesday, May 11th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.

William Fagg and Henry Aldridge were summoned for being found on licensed premises at midnight on the 18th April. The defendants were the two men who were found in the Oddfellows Arms at midnight.

They were fined 1s. and 9s. costs, which they paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 July 1892.

Local Bankruptcy.

Re. Robert Harold Carter, of 4, East Cliff, Folkestone, lately residing and carryong on business at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Folkestone, fisherman. The statement of affairs shows unsecured creditors to the extent of 176 17s. 5d., and creditors for rates, etc., amounting to 6 8s. 2d. The causes o failure are alleged to be – loss of a set of heaving nets at sea, loss of 78 by a collision with a Dover smack, and loss of fishing lugger by sinking in Folkestone, estimated value 100.

The Official Receiver observes: The Receiving Order was made on the debtor's petition, and he has been adjudicated bankrupt on his own application. The bankrupt commenced business about 14 years ago as a fisherman at Folkestone with the boat “R.H.C”. About eight years ago he was put into the Star public house, Radnor Street, Folkestone, to manage the same for the brewers, and after managing it for four years he took the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, the valuation amounting to 17. This house was carried on until 26th April last, when it was given up upon notice from the landlord. The valuation on leaving amounted to 97, which has to be deducted from the amount owing to the brewers, which is stated to be 164 6s.7d. The bankrupt continued to carry on the fisherman's business with the boat “R.H.C” until September last, when she became waterlogged and sank in Folkestone Harbour. Although the boat was insured for 100, the bankrupt has been unable to recover the insurance, which only extended to losses at sea. The furniture is claimed by the bankrupt's wife as having been purchased by her out of her own monies both before and after her marriage. This claim has not yet been admitted. The bankrupt states he first became aware that his property was insufficient to pay his debts in full about 14 years ago. The bankrupt has not kept any books of account.

 

Folkestone Express 9 July 1892.

Bankruptcy.

At the sitting of the Bankruptcy Court on Friday, a local debtor presented himself for examination.

Robert Harold Carter.

The debtor is a fisherman, and formerly kept the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. The total liabilities were 176 17s. 5d. Creditors for rates &c., 6 8s. 2d., and there were no assets.

In reply to the Official Receiver, the debtor said he now resided at 4, East Cliff; he formerly kept the Oddfellows Arms, and previous to that the Star Inn. He took the Star about eight years ago. About four years ago he was put into the Oddfellows. He was paid no salary, but had the profits on the beer – really he carried the business on in his own name, and the licence was in his name. He paid no valuation when he went in, but had paid it by instalments. He carried on business until April the 26th, when he left, the landlord giving him notice to quit. The valuation then came to 97. He had considerably increased the valuation. He owed the brewers 165 6s. 7d., and the 97 was deducted. He continued to carry on the fishing business, but his lugger, the “R.H.C.”, got waterlogged and sank in Folkestone Harbour. She got waterlogged through the men leaving the plug out whilst he was engaged one day in connection with his licence. The next day she foundered. He did not get her up again.

The Registrar: Then she couldn't have been much good before she foundered? – No. She was an old vessel.

The Registrar: I can't quite see how a vessel sunk in Folkestone Harbour could not be got up again if she was worth anything.

The Official Receiver: Was she insured for 100? – Yes.

How was it you did not apply for the amount to be paid? – Because our insurance is only for total loss.

It would not be the case, then, if the vessel was sunk in Folkestone Harbour? – No.

She was on her last legs, wasn't she? – Yes.

The Registrar: Did you ever try to get the insurance? – No. It was no use unless she was a total loss.

Haven't you had a meeting with the committee to try to get the money? – Yes.

Did you argue the matter with them? – No. It was no use.

Didn't you assert that you were entitled to it? - No. There was a rule under which I was not entitled.

The Official Receiver: Your wife claims the furniture. When were you married? – Fourteen years ago on the 30th of last May.

Why does she claim the furniture? – She bought it.

What with? – Her own money.

Where did she get it from? – I don't know. It was her own earnings.

How did she earn the money? What did she do? – She kept a lodging house.

Where? – She used to take lodgers at the Oddfellows.

But that was your business, wasn't it? – She took in lodgers before.

The Official Receiver said he could not allow the wife to have the furniture.

The Registrar: What did you do with the boat? Did you sell it? – No. I made off with it.

But the wood was worth something? – Yes. The wood was sold for a sovereign.

Who sold the material? – I was 2 in debt for harbour dues.

Then the harbour people had the sovereign? – Yes.

Would not the stores and sails realise more than 1? – The stores were all washed away when she sunk.

I suppose they were not worth much? – No.

The Official Receiver: Do you occupy 35, Radnor Street at 5s. 8d. a week? – I have taken it for my daughter and my nephew. The furniture in it is my daughter's. She has lived there about three or four years. She was my daughter by my first marriage. She is married, and the husband earns the living by fishing. None of my furniture is there. I have no property there belonging to my creditors.

Be careful. Mr. Banks informs me that there is. – No.

No sails, or ropes, or spars, or anything? – No.

Nothing from the public house? – No.

No sails, or wines, or spirits? – No.

Now, be very careful! If I find it out you know you will get into trouble? – There is nothing whatever.

You have nothing except this furniture, which is claimed by your wife? – I have nothing, only what I stand upright in.

During the 14 years you have been in business you have always been in trouble? – Always.

The examination was then adjourned till the 29th.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 July 1892.

Local News.

The Bankruptcy of Mr. R. Carter: The following is a list of creditors under the bankruptcy of Mr. Robert Carter: Robert Hounsell, Bridport, about 20; W.E. and J. Rigden, Faversham, 69; W.G. & S.P. Brett, Folkestone, 12; T.H. Franks, Folkestone, about 23; Priestley and DeButts, Folkestone, about 10; R. Saunders, Folkestone, about 20; and creditors under 10.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 October 1892.

Saturday, October 1st: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, and Councillor Holden.

William Frodsham, a fisherman, was charged with assaulting Henry Punnett on the 27th September.

He pleaded that what he did was in self defence.

The complainant alleged that the defendant assaulted him in the Oddfellows Inn, and knocked him down. When complainant got up he ran away.

The Bench considered the assault proved, and fined the defendant 5s. and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 7 June 1893.

Police Court Jottings.

A brutal and unprovoked assault was partly proved against a man of colour on Thursday.

Prisoner, who gave the somewhat favourite name among darkies of Alec Johnson, 58, labourer, on the previous Wednesday evening, about quarter to eleven, went into the Oddfellows Arms, kept by Mr. Whiddett, and asked Mrs. Whiddett for a bed. She told him she had not got one to let, and, when eleven o'clock struck, requested him to leave, upon which he up with his fist and knocked her down, she, in falling, striking her head at the back against the mantelpiece.

Mrs. Whiddett went to the station and gave information, and she was seen by Dr. Yunge Bateman, who dressed her head, and, seeing it was a serious case, wished her to go to the hospital, which, however, she declined.

The black ruffian was afterwards apprehended by P.C.s Osborne and Gardner.

As the injured woman was too ill to attend and give evidence, prisoner was remanded until the 7th.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 June 1893.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, Alec Johnson, a man of colour, was charged on remand with assaulting Mrs. Widdett, landlady of the Oddfellows Arms.

The latter appeared to be in a very weak condition, and wore a white shawl over her head.

From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner went to the house about 11 o'clock on the previous Thursday, and asked for lodgings, and was told they had no room. Prisoner would not leave the house, and when requested to do so by the prosecutrix he struck her a violent blow in the chest. She fell down upon the stove, and according to the evidence of Dr. Yunge Bateman, received a contused wound, three inches in length, on her head.

Sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 10 June 1893.

Wednesday, June 7th: Before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Major Poole.

Alec Johnson, a black man, was placed in the dock, charged with assaulting Catherine Whiddett with intent to do her bodily harm.

Mr. Haines watched the case on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Catherine Whiddett said her husband was the landlord of the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. It was a licensed house and they took in lodgers. On Thursday the 1st of June at ten minutes past eleven in the evening, prisoner went into the house and asked for lodgings. She told him they were full up. He was a stranger to her entirely, and had never been in the house before. She said it was past eleven and told him he had better go or he would not get a bed anywhere. He appeared to be perfectly sober, and stood and talked for some time. She put her hand upon his shoulder and asked him to leave. She did not put it on roughly. When she got to the bar, prisoner struck her on the chest with his clenched fist. He then took hold of her by the front of the dress and pushed her back. She fell against the stove and caught the back of her head. A man named Watts picked her up. Prisoner ran away immediately. She went to the police station, had the injury to her head dressed, and charged the prisoner with the offence, the prisoner being in custody when she arrived there. She had been ill since from the effect of the blow. Witness felt it now very much, and was still weak. She was now under medical treatment.

In answer to the prisoner, she said she did not push him out of the door and tell him to go away.

George Watts said he lodged at the Oddfellows and was a whitesmith. He was not in the bar of the house at five minutes to eleven, nor was he there when the prisoner came in. Prisoner was there when he came into the bar, and he heard him ask Mrs. Whiddett for a bed. She said she had got no room – she was full up. The prisoner was in her private bar. She put her hand on his shoulder and asked him to leave – she did not push him at all. It was close on eleven when this occurred. Prisoner turned round and hit her on the chest, but did not say anything. He saw the blow struck, and noticed defendant's fists were clenched. She fell against the stove, and her head struck against the corner. The prisoner went out directly and left her on the floor. Witness helped complainant up, and noticed that she was bleeding from a cut on her head. In his opinion prisoner was sober.

Prisoner: You say I was sober. I was not – I was drunk. I remembered nothing until the next morning, when I awoke and found myself in the police station.

Albert Edward Philpott corroborated.

Dr. Marcus Yunge Bateman said he was called to the police station at half past eleven on Thursday night. He made an examination of complainant and found she was bleeding profusely from a wound at the back of her head. He sent her home, and told her to send for her medical attendant. The wound was such as might have been caused by a fall against a stove as described.

The prisoner pleaded that he was drunk and knew nothing of the occurrence. He had met a friend whom he knew very well, somewhere out Cheriton way, and they had both had a lot to drink.

The Magistrates fined prisoner 20s. and 10s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.

Prisoner was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 June 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Wednesday: Before Messrs. Fitness, Wightwick, and H.W. Poole.

Alec Johnson, a man of colour, was charged on remand from Friday last, with having assaulted Mrs. Catherine Whiddett, landlady of the Oddfellows lodging house, Radnor Street, on June 1st.

Mr. Haines, solicitor, attended to watch the case on behalf of the local Licensed Victuallers' Society.

Mrs. Catherine Whiddett, whose head was enveloped in a bandage, and who appeared weak, was accommodated with a seat. She said on Thursday last, about ten minutes to eleven, the prisoner, who was a stranger to her, came to the house and asked for a night's lodging. She told him that they were full up. He stood there some time, and she said to him that as it was past eleven he had better go, or he would not get a bed anywhere. Prisoner, who appeared to be sober, remained talking, and said he had plenty of money. Prisoner at that time was in the private part of the bar. Prosecutrix put her hand on his shoulder gently to persuade him to go, when he struck her on the chest with his clenched fist, and as she was falling he caught hold of her by the front of her dress and threw her to the ground. She fell on the grate in the bar and cut her head. She did not become insensible, but bled a great deal. Prisoner immediately ran away. Mr. Watson picked prosecutrix up and placed her on a chair. She was afterwards taken to the police station, where she identified the prisoner, who was in custody. She had been very ill and weak from the effects of the treatment, and was under the care of Dr. Barrett.

By the prisoner: She denied pushing him roughly to the door.

George Watson, a whitesmith, lodging at the Oddfellows lodging house, and Albert Edward Philpott gave corroborative evidence.

Dr. Bateman said he was called into the police station about 11.30 last Thursday night to attend to the prosecutrix. He found her bleeding profusely from a contused wound at the back of the head, about three inches long. He stopped the bleeding and dressed the wound. Prosecutrix was also suffering from shock. She seemed very excited, and did not realise the extent of her injury. He sent her home and told her to call in her regular medical attendant. The wound was such a one as would be caused by falling against a grate.

Prisoner said he was on the road, and came into the town on Friday night last. He had a few shillings in his pocket and went in search of lodgings. At an hotel out Cheriton way he got drunk, falling in with some friends he knew. When he came into town there were “thousands” round him and he did not know what to do, for he thought they would murder him. 4 15s. and a watch was taken out of his pocket. He was a “rank” stranger to the place, and should not have come had he not been “boozed”.

The Chairman: That makes the case rather worse.

After consideration the Bench resolved to fine the prisoner 20s., and costs 19s., or in default 14 days' hard labour. He was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 14 June 1893.

Police Court Notes.

A small sized but sturdy nigger, who gave the name of Alec Johnston, was charged on Thursday, before Messrs. Fitness, Wightwick, and Poole, with assaulting Mrs. Whiddett, the landlady of the Oddfellows Arms.

The prosecutrix appeared in court with her head enveloped in wraps, and seemed in a very weak state. According to her story, the prisoner, who had been under remand for a week, came into her house a few minutes before eleven on the night of Wednesday, the last day of May, and asked for a bed. She told him she was full up, and as it was closing time, placing her hand upon his shoulder, requested him to leave. Upon that he struck her in the chest, not a violent blow, she admitted, but rather a push. The result, however, was that she fell backwards, and in falling struck her head against a stove, cutting it so severely that she had had to be under the medical treatment of DR. Barrett ever since.

Prisoner said the woman chucked him out with both hands, and he then pushed her. What happened afterwards he did not know, as he was drunk at the time.

That excuse made it rather the worse, said Mr. Fitness, and in accordance with that opinion the Bench fined him 20s. and 10s. costs, in default fourteen days.

Prisoner made the somewhat extraordinary statement that on coming into Folkestone he was followed by a mob of rowdies who robbed him of over 4 in money, a gold watch, and a couple of shirts.

As he had not a “fardin lef” he was obliged to go to Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

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

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Oddfellows.

Mr. Glyn said this house had been licensed since 1810, and belonged to Messrs. Rigden. It was doing an increasing trade of from four to five barrels a week. The only ground of objection was that it was not required.

There are seven licensed houses within 100 paces of the house.

Mr. C.E. Godden, travelling agent for Messrs. Rigden and Co., said the house was purchased for 1,100, and they had spent a considerable sum on it last year. The present tenant, George Whiddett, had considerably increased the trade.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

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

The Decision.

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Oddfellows.

Mr. Glyn said this house had a licence in 1810, and belonged to Messrs. Rigden. It was let at 25 a year and doing four or five barrels a week. The only ground of objection was that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were seven other licensed houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were 63 houses, and eight licensed.

Mr. Minter: Perhaps the book is wrong. I think there are 200.

Superintendent Taylor: It was my mistake with regard to South Street.

Charles Edward Goddard, agent for Messrs. Rigden, said the house was purchased by them for 1,100 in 1810. During the last ten years they had spent 600 in improvements. The present tenant took possession in 1891. He had increased the business considerably. The business was done with seafaring men, and he let lodgings.

George Widdett, tenant of the house, said he was previously County Court Bailiff at Canterbury. He had experience in six other houses. He was doing about five barrels a week. About eight or nine lodgers used the house – working men and seafaring men. His trade had increased lately.

By Superintendent Taylor: The sale of beer has increased. He averaged five barrels a week for the first year. There were several houses near.

By Mr. Minter: I do not take any females in.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The Oddfellows.

Mr. Glyn pointed out that this licence had existed since 1810, and was probably the oldest one in the borough. It belonged to Messrs. Rigden, and was let at 20 per annum. The ground of objection was not misconduct, but that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift and Superintendent Taylor gave evidence in support of the objection, while in support of the licence Mr. C.E. Godden, travelling agent for Messrs. Rigden, said that the house was purchased by his firm in 1810 at 1,100, and 600 had been spent on it during the last ten years in improvements and repairs, the owners relying upon the renewal of the licence.

Geo. Whiddett, tenant, said he drew five barrel weekly, and the house was used by lodgers.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Victoria, the Oddfellows, the Welcome, British Colours, and Granville were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and the Tramway for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place, this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

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

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 November 1894.

Local News.

Yesterday morning Frederick Coleman, late of Canterbury, applied for the transfer of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, from George Whiddett to himself. He furnished the necessary references as to his good character, saying that he was a bona fide tenant, and had not merely been put in by the brewers. The police had no objection to the transfer, which was accordingly acceded.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1896.

Local News.

On Monday Ernest Greaves, who described himself as a law clerk, was charged with doing wilful damage to a window at the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, to the amount of 7s. 2d.

The defence was that he pushed at the window accidentally and broke it. The defendant is a young man of considerable artistic ability, and gave the police proof of his talent, a little composition in which an erring youth undergoing chastisement being very cleverly done. He said his fondness for whisky was his great weakness – on Saturday he swallowed seven shillings worth.

He was fined 5s., 7s. 2d. damages, and 5s. 6d. costs, and in default 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 May 1896.

Police Court Jottings.

Frank Graves was charged with breaking a square of glass, valued 7s. 2d., the property of the landlord of the Oddfellows public house on The Stade. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant stated that the defendant lodged at his house on Thursday and Friday nights. He would not pay the money for the lodgings on Saturday night, but said he had paid it. Witness ejected him. A policeman called witness up at about half past 1 a.m. on Sunday morning. Witness then saw that a glass panel in the door was broken.

P.C. Prebble deposed to being on duty on The Stade at 1.30 on the 24th inst. He saw defendant knocking at the door of the Oddfellows. Defendant said he had paid for his lodgings and wanted to get in. He then began to use bad language, and threatened to break a window. Afterwards witness saw him break the glass panel of the door.

Defendant said, in defence, that it was dark, and he did not see the glass panel. He pushed at the door with his open hand.

The Bench ordered defendant to pay 7s. 2d. damage, and fined him 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 30 May 1896.

Hall Of Justice.

Monday: Before Messrs. Pursey, Banks and Wightwick.

A man was charged with breaking a square of glass at the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. He seemed a man of superior education, and defended himself very skilfully, but the Bench decided on 14s. 6d. damages and costs, or 14 days'. He elected to do the latter.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 December 1897.

Inquest.

An inquest was opened at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Tuesday afternoon, by Mr. J. Minter, Borough Coroner, touching the death of a female infant, the child of Alice Bail, single woman, aged 17, general servant at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street.

Addressing the jury, the Coroner said that possibly the case before them might prove to be a serious one. He would not pre-judge it in any way, but possibly it might be found one for the Assizes. It appeared that the mother, Alice Bail, was employed as a servant at the Oddfellows Arms, and was confined there on Monday morning of a full born female child; and he understood that the medical evidence would be conclusive that it was born alive. The child was found dead, some half hour after its birth, in a box in the mother's bedroom, the door of which had been locked. The skull of the child was fractured, and the doctor had no doubt that death was caused by the fracture. The fracture might be an accidental one, or it might have been caused by violence purposely administered. If the latter was found to be the case, the jury would see the serious consequence to the mother, as the verdict might possibly be one of wilful murder. It might, on the other hand, have been an accident, as evidently the birth took place unexpectedly, and the fracture might have been caused by a fall. It was a question whether they should take the evidence as far as they were able that day and then adjourn for the attendance of the mother, and it was only right that she should have an opportunity of coming before them and making any statement she might think fit. In any case he should feel bound to adjourn the enquiry, and he suggested it would be better to take the whole evidence at one time, in the presence of the mother; then it would all be fresh in the minds of the jury and allow them to come to a just decision. The father of Alice Bail had called in Doctor Wainwright, who, he understood, had examined the body, and also the mother. However, as he was called in on behalf of Bail, he (the Coroner) had deemed it necessary to obtain independent testimony, although in no way reflecting on Dr. Wainwright. He had, therefore, instructed Dr. Barrett to make an examination and a post mortem. It was for the jury to say what they would do.

After consultation, the jury decided to take only evidence of identification, and then adjourn.

Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, stated that Alice Bail had been a general servant in his house since December 6th. On Sunday she retired to bed at 10 o'clock. He called her at a quarter past six o'clock on Monday morning, and she answered. She came downstairs and lighted the fires and swept up the bar and the passage. Shortly afterwards witness had occasion to go upstairs, and fancied he heard a squeaking noise in Bail's bedroom, the door of which was apparently locked. He spoke to her about it, and she went upstairs. When she came down she said “There is nothing in my bedroom, guv'nor”. Witness was not satisfied, and when his wife came down he asked her to obtain the key from the girl. She did so, and then Bail made a statement. Subsequently she took them upstairs, and, opening a cupboard door, took the dead body of a baby out of her box. He did not touch it.

After the jury had viewed the body at the Cemetery Mortuary, the inquiry was adjourned until January 4th.

We understand the girl is in a nervous, depressed condition, and necessarily very ill. In view of the two theories spoken of by the Coroner, it is but just that the public should wait before expressing any opinion until the adjourned inquiry, when both Dr. Wainwright and Dr. Barrett will give evidence. The parents of the girl are well known and respected, and are quite broken down. The girl, too, is also well known, having assisted her father for a long time in his shop.

 

Folkestone Express 18 December 1897.

Local News.

On Tuesday the Borough Coroner opened an inquest on the body of the newly-born infant of a young woman named Alice Bail, of 22, East Cliff, who was in service at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, where the infant was born. The inquiry was adjourned for three weeks.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 December 1897.

Inquest.

An inquest was opened at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon by the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter), touching the death of the female infant child of Alice Bail, a single woman, aged 17, general servant, Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street.

Addressing the jury, the Coroner said that possibly the case before them might prove to be a serious one. He would not prejudge it in any way, but possibly it might be one for the Assizes.

It appeared that the mother, Alice Bail, was employed as a servant at the Oddfellows Arms, and was confined there on Monday of a female child, and he understood that the medical evidence would be conclusive that it was born alive. The child was found dead some half-hour after its birth, in a box in the mother's bedroom, the door of which had been locked. He might tell them that the skull of the child had been found fractured and that the doctor had no doubt that death was caused by the fracture. The fracture might be an accidental one, or it might have been caused by violence purposely administered. If the latter was found to be the case the jury would see the serious consequence to the mother, as the verdict might possibly be one of wilful murder. It might have been an accident, as evidently the birth took place unexpectedly, and the fracture might have been caused by a fall. It was a question of whether they should take evidence of identification and then adjourn for the attendance of the mother, as it was only just that she should have the opportunity of coming before them and making any statement she might think fit. In any case he should feel bound to adjourn the inquiry, and he suggested that it would be better to take the whole evidence at one time, in the presence of the mother, and then it would all be fresh in the minds of the jury and allow them to come to a just decision. The father of Alice Bail had called in Dr. Wainwright, who, he understood, had examined the body, and also the mother. However, as he had been called in on behalf of Bail, the Coroner had deemed it necessary to obtain independent testimony, although in no way reflecting on Dr. Wainwright, and had therefore instructed Dr. Gilbert to make an examination and a post mortem. It was for the jury to say what they would do.

After consultation the jury decided to take only the evidence of identification and then adjourn.

Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, stated that Alice Bail had been a general servant in his house since December 6th. On Sunday she retired to bed at 10 o'clock. He called her at a quarter past six on Monday morning, and she answered. She came downstairs and lighted the fires and swept up the bar and the passage. Shortly after witness had occasion to go upstairs, and fancied he heard a squeaking noise in Bail's bedroom, the door of which was apparently locked. He spoke to her about it, and she went upstairs. When she came down she said “There is nothing in my bedroom, guv'nor”. Witness was not satisfied, and when his wife came down he asked her to obtain the key from the girl. She did so, and Bail said she had had a miscarriage. Witness asked where it was, and she took them upstairs, and opening a cupboard door, took the dead body out of her box. He did not touch it.

Dr. Wainwright said it would be three weeks before the girl was able to attend, and the jury having viewed the body, the inquest was adjourned till January 4th.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 22 December 1897.

Kaleidoscope.

On Tuesday the Borough Coroner opened an inquest on the body of the newly-born infant of a young woman named Alice Bell, of 22, East Cliff, who was in service at the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, where the infant was born. The inquiry was adjourned for three weeks.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 January 1898.

Notes.

That the verdict in the inquest on the child of Alice Bail was a just one there can be no doubt. It was a very sad case, and the sympathy of all went out both to the father and mother of the poor girl. If any punishment were needed by her from a moral point of view, she evidently has received it, for her appearance at the inquest was most pitiable. It only remains now for someone to hold out a helping hand and to try to enable her to forget the unhappy past.

Inquest.

The inquest touching the death of the infant child of Alice Bail was resumed at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday by Mr. J. Minter (Borough Coroner).

Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, heard his previous evidence read. He said that Alice Bail was a general servant in his employ. On Sunday she went out shortly after 6 p.m., came in at 9, and went to bed at 10. He noticed nothing peculiar in her appearance. She arose on Monday at seven, and came into the kitchen. Shortly afterwards, on going upstairs to an apartment about 16ft. from the girl's bedroom, he fancied he heard a squeaking, like that of a rat or mouse, though there were neither rats nor mice in the house. He went downstairs and said to Bail “Alice, I think there is something amiss in your room; I heard a noise”. She went upstairs, and on coming down said “Everything's all right in my room, guv'nor”. Not feeling satisfied, he went to his wife, who was in bed.

The Coroner: Are you telling us all about it, for you would hardly take so much notice if the noise was so slight as you say?

Witness: I am telling you all.

Continuing, he said his wife did not get up until she had had her breakfast in bed, which was taken up to her by Alice Bail. She came down about 8.30. Bail always kept her door locked by his instructions. His wife, having obtained the key, went upstairs. Then Bail came to witness and made a certain statement to him. He asked her to accompany him to the bedroom. She did so. He asked “Where is the child?” She made no reply, but went to the clothes box in a cupboard, and took out the body of a naked child, which appeared to be dead. He told her to put the body back again in the box. They all came out of the room and witness locked it. The girl's mother was sent for but did not come. Witness then went to the mother himself, but she declined to come. Her father was fetched, and asked the girl “What is this all about?” She made no reply. The matter was reported to the police, and the father fetched Dr. Wainwright. The doctor and the father saw the child.

The Coroner told witness he did very wrong to allow Dr. Wainwright and the father to enter the room. The body should have been left until the police or the Coroner's officer arrived.

Witness continued: There was carpet in the room, and the blood was all over it, especially up close to the bed. The girl was conveyed in a fly to her mother's house.

Mr. H.W. Watts, who appeared for Alice Bail, asked if the box was full of clothes. Coleman said there were only a few pieces of clothes in the box.

Margaret Bail, mother of Alice Bail, said she lived at 22, East Cliff, Folkestone. Her daughter was 18 and unmarried. Since September the girl had been at home until she went to Coleman's. For three years previous to this she had assisted her father in the tobacconist's shop in Sandgate Road. She slept at home. Witness had noticed nothing particular about her. On Sunday, Dec. 12th, the girl went home, and left about a quarter past eight to return to service. She made no communication to witness.

A juryman expressed surprise that the mother had not noticed the girl's condition.

The Coroner said that was not the question they had to consider. They had only to find the cause of death.

Alice Bail, by the advice of her solicitor, entered the Court, and was cautioned by the Coroner. She was then about to be sworn, but the Coroner did not think her fit to make a statement. She was therefore taken away. She appeared to be in a very feeble condition.

Mr. William Peard Barrett, a surgeon practicing in Folkestone, said that by the request of the Coroner he made a post mortem examination of the child on December 14th. Dr. Wainwright was present. He found it was a fully developed child and weighed 9lbs. The average weight was 6 to 8lbs. There were no bruises about the body, except slight marks about the neck, but he did not think death was caused by suffocation. He made experiments which convinced him that the child had had a separate existence. The heart and other organs were normal. There was a fracture of the skull about two inches in length to which death was due. He could not say the cause of the fracture, but it was possible for it to be produced in difficult cases accidentally.

By the Foreman: He believed the birth took place on the floor.

Mr. Lennox Wainwright, surgeon, agreed with Dr. Barrett's evidence. He attended the girl, and was still doing so. She had stated that the child cried once, and that it was born when she was standing up. She picked it up, but she did not know what she did, she felt so bad. He thought the fracture occurred during labour.

The Coroner summed up the case clearly, and concluded by saying that he thought it almost impossible for them to arrive at a verdict adverse to the girl.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1898.

Local News.

On Wednesday afternoon at the Town hall, the Borough Coroner (Mr. Minter) and a jury resumed the inquest touching the death of the child of Alice Bail. Mr. Watts appeared for Alice Bail. Mr. Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Mrs. Margaret Bail, the mother of Alice Bail, Dr. Barrett, and Dr. Wainwright gave evidence. A fracture was discovered on the head of the child, but the jury considered the fracture was caused by an accident, and returned a verdict to that effect, exonerating the mother.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 January 1898.

Local News.

The poor girl Alice Bail was committed to the Assizes for the concealment of the birth of her female child. We think upon the evidence adduced the Magistrates might well have used the discretion vested in them and dismissed the case, for no-one could think for one moment that a Judge would inflict anything more than a nominal sentence. Therefore the town was put to an expense without need.

Monday, January 17th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad and T.J. Vaughan.

Alice Bail, aged 18, single, domestic servant, was charged with concealing the birth of her female infant, born at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, on December 13th, 1897. The defendant looked very weak, and in pain. Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defence.

It will be remembered that the jury at the inquest returned a verdict of Accidental Death. The facts of the case will be well remembered by our readers.

Frederick Coleman repeated his evidence given at the inquest.

Dr. Lennox Wainwright, who attended the girl at the request of her father, said she admitted the birth, and freely answered all questions. When he saw the body of the child, it was in a box with the lid open. It was dead.

Mr. Watt contended that there had been no concealment. Mr. Bradley, the Magistrates' Clerk, said it appeared to him that the case rested on whether the child was alive or not when placed in the box.

Mr. Watts said that the witness Coleman's evidence showed that the child was alive when placed in the box, therefore there was no concealment. In his opinion no jury would convict, and he asked the Bench to say that the girl had already suffered sufficiently, if any offence had been committed, and dismiss the case.

The Chairman said the Magistrates considered the case an important one, which should be decided by a jury.

Prisoner was then committed to the Kent Assizes, bail being allowed.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 January 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Monday – Mr. Hoad presiding – Alice Bail was charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child. Mr. Watts appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Fredk. Coleman gave evidence similar to that given before the Coroner. Dr. Wainwright also attended.

The defendant reserved her defence, and was committed for trial at the next Assizes. Bail was allowed, 20 herself, and 20 her father.

Local News.

At the Maidstone Assizes on Thursday, before Mr. Justice Darling, Alice Bail, domestic servant, Folkestone, was convicted of concealment of the birth of her child on the 13th December last. She was recommended to mercy, and bound over in 5 to come up for judgement if called upon.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 22 January 1898.

Monday, January 17th: Before J. Hoad and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Alice Bail, a servant girl, charged with attempting to conceal the dead body of her child on December 13th last at the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was committed for trial at the next Maidstone Assizes. Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 December 1898.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Messrs. Holden, Ward, Hoad, Pledge, and Vaughan.

The Licensed Victuallers' Association (Folkestone Branch), through Mr. Minter, instituted a prosecution against Joseph Edward Warman for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested, for being drunk and disorderly, and for committing a violent assault upon Agnes Lea, barmaid of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, on Saturday evening, 26th November.

Warman, Mr. Minter said, was an old offender. On previous occasions he had been forgiven, but every time he went to the Oddfellows Arms there was a disturbance, and the landlord had at last felt compelled to apply to the Licensed Victuallers' Association for protection. On Saturday night last Warman went to the house about 7.30 with another man. On entering the bar he tried to get a light for his pipe at a swinging petroleum lamp. It was impossible to get a light by that means, and the landlady, who, with Agnes Lea, was behind the bar, told him so. Seeing he was drunk she declined to serve him, and ordered him to leave the house. Warman thereupon pushed his way through the small door to behind the bar, and lifting up his hand to strike the landlady, told her he would have her out of the house. The servant, Agnes Lea, stepped between them, saying “You are not going to strike my mistress; strike me if you strike anyone”. He at once struck her. There was a struggle, in the course of which the girl got him to the door, and eventually, after he had torn her clothes, they got outside, and were struggling on the pavement when Warman fell with his eye against a brick wall, and sustained injuries still observable. Meanwhile the landlord had brought a policeman to the assistance of the girl. After his fall Warman again pushed his way into the bar, and eventually the policeman put him into the street. Since then, said Mr. Minter, the ruffian had had the impudence to take out a summons against the girl Lea, charging her with assaulting him.

Fred Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Mrs. Coleman, his wife, and the young woman, Agnes Lea, gave evidence bearing out the details given above.

Warman elected to go into the witness box, and gave evidence in the deliberate manner of the man who has frequented the Courts. His story was that Agnes Lea was being “courted by a fisher chap”, and that this fisher chap had insulted his wife. He went round to demand an apology, when the “fisher chap” and half a dozen of his mates “set about him” and “half killed” him. This happened some time previously, and ever since, every time he went near the Oddfellows he was insulted.

The summons against the young woman was dismissed. Warman was found guilty of both the assault and of refusing to quit licensed premises. He was fined 1 and costs on each charge, with the alternative of 28 days' hard labour, the Magistrates declaring the case a most serious one, and expressing their determination to put a stop to such ruffianism.

Warman was being taken below when a number of his “mates” in Court began to turn out their pockets, and his wife, a thin little woman, who was evidently the greater sufferer, ran forward to drag him back, crying out that she had the money. The fine was paid by the tearstained woman, who seemed grateful to be able to save her undeserving husband from a month in gaol.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 December 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday Joseph Edmund Warman was charged with assaulting Agnes Lee on the 26th November, and further with refusing to quit licensed premises. There was a cross-summons with regard to the assault.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of Agnes Lee. He said the first charge was preferred by the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, who was a member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association in the town. Mr. Minter read the section applicable to the case, and remarked that on two previous occasions the man had been forgiven. Having described the circumstances he remarked, as to the charge against the girl, that if she had given the man a good hiding she was within her rights. The previous night she had been served with a cross-summons. Defendant had had the impudence to charge her with an assault on himself.

Mr. Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, a licensed house in Radnor Street, deposed that on Saturday evening, between 7 and 7.30, he was upstairs. Coming downstairs he heard some bad language. Defendant was swearing and acting in a disorderly manner. Witness requested him to leave the premises. He said he would when he liked, swearing at witness. He told defendant he should go for a policeman, and he did so, leaving the house. Defendant had been in his house on two other occasions creating a disturbance. Witness had requested him never to come into the house again. On the occasion in question defendant had had drink. On coming back to the house he found Warman and the girl outside. The door was opened from inside as he and the policeman got up. The girl was coming in, and he pushed her on one side. The girl followed him in. The policeman came in his house, and said to the man “Get out of this, Warman!”. He got up and went out.

Mrs. Elizabeth Coleman, wife of the last witness, deposed that at the time in question she and the girl Lee were in the bar. Defendant came in with another man and ordered some rum. He tried to light his pipe from a swinging petroleum lamp. Witness told him not to do so. He then used bad language. Witness refused to serve him. He came up in the bar and tried to strike her. He told her to go out of the house. Agnes Lee stepped in between, and got the blow in the face. She said “Not while I am about”.

Agnes Lee, servant at the Oddfellows Arms, corroborated. After she had stepped in between defendant and her mistress, defendant struck her in the eye. He used bad language, and witness pushed him to the door. There he made for her face again, and she warded him off. He tore her apron and threw it over the rail. He caught his head against something, and it bled. The door was shut, and she was on the pavement with defendant. The policeman and her master came up. When she was about to go in, the defendant pushed her back. He sat in a chair, and she heard the policeman speak to him.

The defendant, who elected to be sworn, deposed that on the night in question he went with another man to the Oddfellows. He did not call for liquor. Mr. Coleman and his wife were in the front bar. They would not serve him, but did the other man. He was ordered to leave the premises. In trying to do so, the defendant, Agnes Lee, deliberately smacked his face and hustled him out the door, knocking him insensible. As soon as he recovered, he went and knocked at his mother's house, and all the blood was washed off his face. There was no provocation whatever. This case arose out of another, when his wife was insulted by a fishing chap, and he got sat on and grossly insulted.

Florence Mockridge deposed that on Saturday night she got in there and heard a charwoman say she would have this man locked up. She saw the woman slap his face in the bar and push the man out of the door. She did not know what took place previously.

On being asked if he had further evidence, defendant said he thought that was enough.

The Bench fined Warman 1 and 10s. costs in one case, and 1 and 11s. costs in the other; in default, 28 days' hard labour. The Chairman said they considered it a very serious matter.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 3 December 1898.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Joseph Edward Warman, a young man, was summoned for assaulting Agnes Lee, a barmaid at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, and refusing to quit licensed premises when requested, on the 26th November.

A counter-charged was brought against Agnes Lee for assaulting Warman.

The case against Warman was heard first, Mr. Minter for the prosecution.

Mr. Minter: The first charges are preferred by the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms against the defendant Warman for disorderly conduct, and refusing to quit licensed premises. The landlord is a member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association in the town, formed for the protection of licensed victuallers and to prevent disturbances in licensed houses. It is a very worthy association, with good objects. I should like first to read a section of the Act in order that the defendant Warman, who is an old offender, and others of his class, should know what the liabilities are for those who act as we allege he has on licensed premises. Licence holders must refuse to admit any person who is violent and disorderly, and that person is subject to a penalty under this Act. For any such person, who (on being requested in pursuance by any such licensed person, or agent, or servants, or such constable to quit such licensed premises) refuses to do so, the penalty is not exceeding 5, and all constables are required on demand to expel, or assist in expelling, any such persons, and in using any such force as is required for the purpose. The Court committing any person to prison for non-payment may order him to be imprisoned with hard labour. The defendant has been forgiven on two previous occasions, but whenever he comes to the Oddfellows Arms there is a nuisance and disturbance occasioned, and the landlord considers that he has had no alternative but to bring this case before the Bench. On the occasion in question, the landlord was upstairs, and the landlady and a young woman, Miss Agnes Lee, were in the bar. Warman came in with another man. I do not say these men were drunk, but they had had sufficient drink, and the landlady, knowing Warman's quarrelsome character, and observing the manner in which he came in, and knocked a lamp about, and swore because he was interfered with, declined to serve him, and requested him to leave the premises. Warman immediately used most foul and filthy language. The landlady was standing behind the bar. He came round, and using an expression which I need not repeat, threatened her and put his hand up for the purpose of giving her a blow on the face. Miss Lee, though only a woman, very courageously stepped in between the fellow and the landlady, and said “You are not going to strike her. Strike me if you are going to strike anybody”. Warman immediately responded by striking Miss Lee on the eye. She then pushed him to the door, where he seized her, tore her apron, and prevented her from getting him out of the door. She seized him in return, and both went out. I should say that before this happened the landlord came downstairs, hearing the swearing going on, and seeing Warman there, said “Go out of my house”.Warman refused to quit, and the landlord said “If you don't go I will fetch a policeman to put you out”. The former refused to go, and the landlord then went for a policeman, and came back with him, and found the girl (Miss Lee) and her opponent outside. The door was shut. Directly the policeman came the door was opened. The policeman said “Now you go”. Warman pushed past the girl, went into the house again, and sat himself down in defiance of everybody. The girl went into the house. The policeman came in and said “Now, Warman, out you go”. The landlord afterwards thought it was only right for his own protection that a summons should be taken out, and the girl herself has proceeded for the assault committed by Warman striking her on the eye when she stood between him and her mistress to prevent her from being assaulted. Warman has had the impudence to take out a cross-summons charging her with assault. The girl only did what she was bound to do, and if she had given him a good hiding, he having struck her on the face, she would have been within her rights.

The following evidence was then called:-

Frederick Coleman said: I am the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms. On Saturday, the 26th inst., I was upstairs when I heard Warman swearing. I requested him to leave. He said he would do as he liked, and I told him I should go for a policeman. I had previously asked Warman never to come to my house again. When I came back I saw the door open from the inside, and Warman and the girl were together. The policeman came in and said “Get out of this, Warman”, and he got up and went away.

Sarah Elizabeth Coleman said: I am the wife of the last witness, and was in the bar of the Oddfellows Arms between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The defendant came in with another man, and tried to light his pipe at a swinging lamp with petroleum in it. When I told him not to light his pipe he used bad language. He tried to strike me, saying “Go out of this b---- house”. The girl, Agnes Lee, tried to save me, observing “Not while I'm about”. He then struck her on the face. She, in return, pushed him to the door. I did not hear the door bang, or any more than I have said.

Agnes Lee said: I am a servant to the landlord and landlady of the Oddfellows Arms. I have been there 13 months before and several months this year. I was inside the bar when Warman came up. He swung the lamp to and fro in an attempt to get a light. The landlady told him not to do it. He said he should do it, and she ordered him to leave the house. He again refused, with bad language, to go. I told him he should not hit her while I was in the house, whereupon he struck me on the eye and used language unfit to hear in this Court. I pushed him to the door, and he made for my face again, tore my apron, and tried to throw it over a wall. He cut his eye against a brick wall. I found myself outside on the pavement in consequence of the scuffle with him. Then the policeman came. Warman pushed me back by the chest, and sat down on a chair, but was ordered off by the policeman. I have forgiven him before.

Warman said: On the Saturday night in question I and Charlie M---- went into the Oddfellows Arms. I called for no liquor whatever. Coleman refused to serve me, though he served another man. Lee, who was in the side bar, deliberately struck me in the face and knocked me insensible, and as soon as I recovered my senses I had to have the blood washed off my face. There was no provocation whatever. My wife was insulted by a fisherman who visits her at the house. I went to the house with P.C. Prebble and got regularly set upon. Here is my handkerchief, which is covered with blood.

The next witness, a young woman, said: I went to the Oddfellows Arms just when one row was on, and I heard Lee say she had had Warman locked up. I saw her smack him on the face and push him out of the door.

The Chairman observed, after due consideration, that the charge against Miss Lee was dismissed. The case against Warman the Bench considered very serious, and they would endeavour to put a stop to the course he was pursuing. He was fined for the assault 1 and 10s. costs, in default 14 days' hard labour, and for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms when ordered, 1 and 11s, costs, in default 14 days' hard labour.

 

Hythe Reporter 10 December 1898.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday one solitary case excited a certain amount of interest among East-enders. A certain individual, known to humanity by the name of Joseph Edward Warman, whose nature is evidently a pugilistic and pugnacious one, was prosecuted by the Folkestone Branch of the Licensed Victuallers' Association for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms for being drunk and disorderly when requested by the landlord, and also for violently assaulting Agnes Lee, the barmaid of that hostelry. A cross-summons against the barmaid for assault was also heard.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the prosecution, spoke at some length on the quarrelsome nature of the defendant, who had been frequently warned off the premises for being the cause of disturbances. On the previous Saturday evening he had entered the inn, and the landlady, who saw he was drunk, refused to serve him. Warman thereupon became violent, and threatened to have the landlady out of the house. He lifted his hand to strike her, but the barmaid, Agnes Lee, stepped between them and said that if he wished to strike anyone he must strike her. Warman struck her, and in the ensuing struggle the barmaid got him to the door. When they were outside the fight continued, it being ended by Warman striking his eye against a brick wall. A policeman had by this time arrived, and this official put Warman, who had re-entered the bar, out into the street. Evidence substantiating these remarks was given by Fred Coleman, the landlord, Mrs. Coleman, and Agnes Lee.

Warman then entered the box, and in the calm, deliberate manner usually peculiar to a policeman, gave his version of the matter, which was to the effect that that “fisher chap” who was “courting” Agnes Lee had insulted his wife. He had gone round to the Oddfellows Arms to make enquiries, and to demand an apology, when the “fisher chap” and “half a dozen mates” had “half-killed” him. This occurred some time ago, and ever since, when he had gone near the public house he was insulted.

Warman, whose offence was characterised by the Bench as a most serious one, was fined 1 and costs for the assault, and a similar amount for refusing to quit, the summons against Lee being dismissed. The fine was paid by defendant's wife, who, in a shower of tears, ran forward with the money.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 June 1899.

Police Court.

Daniel Collins, labourer, was fined 5s. 6d. damages and 5s. 6d. costs, with alternative of 14 days' hard labour for smashing a decanter and other articles in the bar of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street.

 

Folkestone Express 24 June 1899.

Monday, June 19th: Before The Mayor, J. Banks, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and others.

Daniel Collins, labourer, was charged with wilfully breaking a jug, a decanter, and a lamp, value 6s., the property of Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street.

Prosecutor's wife said on Saturday night the prisoner entered with another man and called for two pints of beer. He was not quite sober, and disputed about paying for the beer, using very bad language. He took up the water jug and threw it on to the counter. It struck the lamp and a decanter and broke them. The decanter contained brandy, which was spilt. Witness was standing near the brandy decanter, but she could not say whether he threw at her. The amount of damage was 6s.

Prisoner said his mate called for the drink and paid for it. His mate also threw the jug.

George Marsh, a labourer, said he was in the house and saw what occurred. No money was put down. The lamp which was broken was hanging from the ceiling. Prisoner was the man who threw the jug.

Prisoner said it was his companion who threw the jug. His companion had had “a tidy drink”, and at several public houses they would not serve him.

Prisoner, who is a stranger, was fined 5s., 6s. the damage, and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 June 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday, Daniel Collins was charged with wilfully a glass, a decanter, and a lamp glass, value 6s. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mrs. Sarah Elizabeth Coleman deposed: My husband's name is Frederick Coleman, of the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street. On Saturday evening, between nine and ten, I was in the bar. Two men came in. The defendant was one. He had not had much to drink, but was not quite sober. I served him with two pints. He disagreed about paying; he did not want to pay. He said he had paid me. He did not pay for them, but used bad language to me. He took up the water jug and threw it over the counter, breaking a lamp glass, also a decanter. I don't know what he aimed at. There was brandy in the decanter, and it was spilt. I was standing in the bar near where the brandy was. The value altogether is 5s., I think.

Defendant said it was a mistake in identity.

Witness said the defendant did it.

George Marsh corroborated.

Defendant said he never handled the jug. He knew nothing about it. His companion picked up the jug. They would not serve his companion in other public houses.

Fined 5s., 6s. damages, and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

Defendant said he had 9s. 7d.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 June 1900.

Saturday, June 2nd: Before Messrs. Fitness, Banks, and Wightwick, and Colonel Hamilton.

Frank Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty, and was represented by Mr. G. Haines.

P.C. Thomas Sales said: At 8.45 p.m. on May 22nd I was on duty in Radnor Street. I saw three women on the footpath, just opposite the Star public house. There was also a man named Warman, who was drunk and using filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife, who was standing there, and fell down on the footpath. He was “top heavy”. I got him up from the ground and advised him to go home. About 20 minutes later I was in Radnor Street, and from what Warman's wife told me, I went to the Oddfellows Inn, in company with P.C. Earl. I there saw Warman on a chair in the bar asleep. There were two glasses containing liquor on the counter beside him. The landlord's wife came into the bar, and I requested her to call the landlord, which she did, and I said to him “Landlord, you see the condition this man is in”. At the same time I awoke Warman, who reached for a pint glass of beer. Another customer who was present said “That is not your glass”. Warman then took up a half pint glass and drank its contents. The landlord said “That is all the beer he has had – the one half pint you have just seen him drink”. I told the landlord that I should report him for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, and he replied “You will not be too hard on me for the sake of one half pint”. I then told Warman I should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Warman was drunk when I saw him in the house, but not incapable. When he first went home it was through my threatening to take him to the station. If he went home quietly it was not necessary to lock him up. My duty was to report him, which I immediately did. I am not responsible for the issuing of summonses.

Mr. Haines further cross-examined the witness as to the state of Warman, but Sales refused to budge. He had taken up a strong position, and kept it most creditably under a powerful fire from defendant's legal representative.

P.C. Earl corroborated the last witness, and said that in trying to rouse Warman he found he was drunk.

By Mr. Haines: Warman did not make use of bad language in the house. When we woke him he went off quietly.

Mr. Haines briefly addressed the Magistrates. He referred them to the section of the Act under which the summons was issued, and pointed out that the Act was rather hard upon a landlord, inasmuch as the prosecution had only to prove drunkenness on the premises, and the fact of a landlord being unaware of an inebriated customer's condition did not avail him. His client had not shown wanton carelessness. He was not in the bar when Warman was served, and the latter's demeanour did not lead the attendant to believe he was anything else but sober. There had been a previous altercation with some women, and they afterwards sent for the police to the Oddfellows Inn. He did not wish to imply that the police were unfair, but they, like others, could make a mistake, and he would suggest from what the women had said the officers went along prepared to find Warman drunk.

James Titty, called for the defence, said: I reside at 17, East Street, and am a carpenter. I was in the Oddfellows on the 22nd of May, and saw Warman come in. He called for and was served with half a pint of beer. I know him well, and have seen him drunk many times. He walks with a lurch, and sometimes you would take him to be drunk when he was not. At the time in question, in my opinion, he was fit to be served with a quart of whisky instead of half a pint of beer. He was, in fact, sober. He sat in the chair and went to sleep. He made no noise, and left the house quietly when desired.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: I had not seen anything of the disturbance in the street. I do not know if Warman had been to sea that day. I could not swear he was perfectly sober.

Re-examined: I had no reason to believe that he was not perfectly sober.

Edward Dalby deposed: I am a fisherman, and live at 3, Dunn's Cottages. I was in the Oddfellows Inn on the evening of the 22nd, and also saw Warman come in. I should say he was not drunk; he behaved himself quietly.

The Chief Constable: You say he was not drunk. How much ought he to have to make him drunk in your opinion? - I should say that four or five pints of beer would not hurt any man after he had been to work. I would not swear that Warman was perfectly sober.

Mr. Haines re-examined the witness, but his ideas of liquid measure and its results proved very hazy.

The Bench decided that the case was proved, and warned the defendant that they could inflict a penalty of 10, but there being no previous conviction against him, they were disposed to be lenient, hoping that the present fine would be a caution. He would be fined 50s. and 12s. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Express 9 June 1900.

Saturday, June 2nd: Before J. Banks, W. Wightwick, and J. Fitness Esqs., and Liuet. Col. Hamilton.

Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, in Radnor Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant.

P.C. T.D. Sales said at 8.25 p.m. on the 22nd ult. he was on duty in Radnor Street, where he saw a man named Warman drunk and using obscene language. He was standing on the footpath opposite the Star Inn. He was irritable, and struck a blow at his wife during an altercation, and over-reaching himself he fell on the pavement. He got up and was advised by witness to go indoors, which he did after about 20 minutes. Later on witness saw Warman's wife, who informed him that her husband had entered the Oddfellows Inn. He obtained the assistance of P.C. Earl, and both proceeded to the defendant's house. It was 8.55 p.m. when they entered the bar, and there saw the man Warman sitting in a chair asleep. There were two glasses on the counter containing liquor. Witness asked the landlady, who was behind the counter, to call the landlord, and he came forward. Witness said to him “You see the condition this man is in?”, and at the same time he woke him. Warman reached for the pint glass and took hold of it, when a customer intervened and told him that he had the wrong glass. Warman then drank the contents of the half pint glass. Witness told the landlord he would report him. He replied “You won't be too hard on me for the sake of a half pint”. Witness also told Warman he would report him for being drunk, and persuaded him to go, which he did.

Witness, in answer to Mr. Haines, said Warman was drunk, and prior to his entrance to the Oddfellows Inn he was disorderly. There were four or five other customers in the bar. He did not follow Warman after he left defendant's house.

P.C. Charles Earl corroborated the last witness's evidence, and added that when Warman left the house he staggered as if intoxicated.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench, saying that the defendant was Not Guilty unless he knew that Warman was drunk. The evidence which he would submit to them would show that neither the landlord nor his wife, who was serving at the time, had any knowledge that Warman was intoxicated. With regard to the staggering, he thought the police constable must have mistook it for the peculiar walk the “old salts” or fishermen had. If the Bench were satisfied that the defendant had no knowledge of Warman's drunkenness, he asked them to dismiss the case.

James Tiddy was then called, and said he resided at 17, East Street, and was a carpenter. At the time in question he was in the Oddfellows Inn, and there saw a man named Warman, who called for half a pint of beer. He was served by the landlord's wife. He knew Warman sometimes had the appearance of a drunken man, and he had a peculiar gait, but when he was served with the liquor his appearance was that of a sober man. It would take more than a half pint to intoxicate him. Four times that amount of whisky was nearer the mark.

Mr. Fitness: How much?

Witness: A quart of whisky. (Laughter)

In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said that Warman came in very quietly, and after ordering his beer he sat in a chair and dosed off. It was usual of him to do so. His opinion of Warman's condition was that he was sober.

Edward Dalby stated he was a fisherman and was in the bar before Warman came in. When Warman called for his liquor there was noting in his appearance to indicate he was drunk. He was there about 15 minutes, and during that time Warman was perfectly quiet, and did not enter into the conversation that was going on.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 50s. and 12s. costs, and informed him he was liable to a penalty of 10. As it was his first offence they would not endorse his licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 June 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last at the Folkestone Petty Sessions – Mr. Fitness presiding on the Bench – Mr. Frederick Coleman, the landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for supplying intoxicating liquor to a person when drunk, on the 22nd May. Cheif Constable Reeve conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales deposed that about 8.25 on the night in question he was in Radnor Street, and saw three women standing on the footpath opposite the Star public house. A man named Warman was there, who was drunk, using very filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife, and tipped over, being under the influence of drink. He was top-heavy. He got up, and witness advised him to go indoors. His house was nearby. After some time he went indoors. About twenty minutes later witness was patrolling Radnor Street again, and, from information from Warman's wife, with P.C. Earl, about 8.55, he visited the Oddfellows Arms. He there saw Warman sitting in the bar, asleep. There were two glasses containing liquor beside him, one a pint, the other half a pint. The landlord's wife was in the bar, and on his request she called the landlord. Witness said to him “You see the condition this man is in”. At the same time he awoke Warman, who reached for the pint glass, and took hold of it. He was about to drink, when another customer in the bar said “That is not your beer”. Warman then took up the half pint glass and drank its contents. The landlord said “That is all the beer he has had here, that one half pint you have just seen him drink”. Witness told the landlord that he would report him for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He replied “You won't be hard on me for the sake of one half pint”. He also told Warman that he would report him for being drunk on licensed premises. Warman was drunk when witness found him in the house. From the time witness first saw him in Radnor Street, and found him in the house, thirty minutes had elapsed.

Cross-examined: The women at 8.25 were talking in an excitable manner, and Warman was drunk and disorderly. In that case witness considered it his duty to get the man home, and report him for a summons, which he did. Warman was not incapably drunk. He was a fisherman. There were four or five persons in the bar. Witness advised the landlord to get Warman off the premises, and he did so. Warman walked out and left the premises. He went in the direction of his home. As far as witness was concerned, it did not matter about a man being drunk if he conducted himself well in the street. Warman went away quietly. Witness reported him.

P.C. Earle, who went with P.C. Sales about 8.55, gave corroborative evidence. He said that when the landlord advised Warman to go out, he went, in a staggering condition.

Cross-examined: He knew what he was called for by P.C. Sales. Warman was a fisherman, and had a big lurch, especially when he got too muc beer. (Laughter)

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the case resolved itself into a question whether the man was drunk or not. It appeared that “knowledge” on the part of the landlord was not necessary. He was entitled to put forward in mitigation, supposing the Bench found the man to be drunk, that on the landlord's part there was no wanton carelessness, or willingly blinding himself to the fact. He did not say that the police were wrong. They were apt sometimes to make a mistake. He suggested that to all intents and purposes the man was sober. After the altercation and excitement, they might have to a certain extent been biased with the feeling, or only have expected to find a drunken man. Some of these “old salts” had a very peculiar way of walking. He submitted that the police might have been mistaken, and he might mention that the liquor was served not by the landlord, but by his wife.

James Tiddy, 17 East Street, a carpenter, deposed that he was in the Oddfellows on the 22nd, and saw Warman come in. He bought half a pint of beer, and was served by the landlady. He knew the man, and noticed him particularly. He had seen him drunk many times, and sometimes he would be taken for drunk when he was not. He was sober. In witness's opinion, on this occasion Warman was fit to be served if he asked for a quart of whisky. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines: You would not answer for his sobriety afterwards? (Renewed laughter)

Witness added that Warman sat in the chair and called for his beer. He did nothing until the police came.

By the Chief Constable: He could not say that the man was perfectly sober. He was fit to be served by a publican.

Re-examined: He had no reason to believe that Warman was not perfectly sober.

Edward Dalby deposed that he was in the Oddfellows and saw Warman enter. Witness would say he was not drunk. He had been in his company many a time.

By the Chief Constable: He would think that four or five pints of beer would not hurt any man after he had been to work. Warman was subject to sit down and go to sleep. He knew he had had some drink. He could not swear that he was perfectly sober.

The Chairman said that the Bench considered the case proved. The penalty might be 10, but they would reduce it to a fine of 50s. and 12s. costs, or one month's hard labour. It being the first offence as far as they knew, his licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 June 1900.

Saturday, June 9th: Before Alderman Banks, Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. Wightwick, Salter, and Fitness.

Thomas Warman was charged with being drunk on licensed premises, etc., on May 22nd.

P.C. Thomas Sales repeated the evidence given in the case (reported at the time) against the landlord of the Oddfellows last week for permitting drunkenness.

Warman, on his part, wished it to be understood, in regard to the allegation of striking at his wife, that she struck him first.

Fined 5s., and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Express 16 June 1900.

Saturday, June 9th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and W. Salter Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Thomas Warman was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on the 22nd ult.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 8.25 in the evening of the 22nd May he was on duty in Radnor Street and saw defendant there drunk and having an altercation with three women. He struck a blow at his wife, who was amongst them, but over-reached himself and fell on to the pavement. Subsequently he went to the Oddfellows Inn, and was there served with beer by the landlord's wife.

The landlord, it will be remembered, was fined for permitting drunkenness on his premises.

The defendant was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 June 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday, Thomas Warman, a fisherman, pleaded Not Guilty to being drunk on licensed premises on the 22nd May.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 8.25 p.m. he saw the defendant in Radnor Street, drunk, having an altercation with three women, using filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife and fell on the pavement. After several minutes he went indoors. Later witness went to the Oddfellows Arms and saw the defendant asleep in the bar. He called the landlord's attention to the defendant being drunk.

The defendant said that his missus struck at him first. He went indoors, through the back door, and walked along to the Oddfellows. He called for a glass of beer, and had not been there two minutes when in came the constable. He walked out and made straight home.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 January 1903.

Saturday, January 17th: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lieut Colonel Hamilton.

Edward Mockeridge, an individual of the hawker type, was summoned for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, and for assaulting the landlord (Frederick Coleman) on the 10th of January.

Mr. Rook, who appeared for the prosecutor, said his client would be content if defendant were bound over. Under the new Act a publican's duties became very onerous; therefore he must be protected, otherwise the proper conduct of his house would be impossible.

Complainant proved making several requests to the defendant to leave his house. Defendant refused, and before being ejected struck witness over the head with a basket.

Defendant pleaded Guilty, but said he had had 16 or 17 half pints previously that day at complainant's house.

This complainant indignantly denied.

Defendant was fined 1 and 9s. costs for refusing to quit, and for the assault bound over in the sum of 5, with 8s. 6d. costs.

The amount was paid by a fisherman.

 

Folkestone Express 24 January 1903.

Saturday, January 17th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Edward Mockeridge was summoned for assault, and further with refusing to quit licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty to both charges.

Mr. Rook appeared for the complainant, and asked that the defendant might be bound over, as with the duties now required of publicans, unless they took strong measures they would soon get into trouble.

Fredk. Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, said the previous Saturday defendant came to the bar and called for a half pint of beer. As he was drunk, witness refused to serve him. Defendant then came round the counter and threatened him. Defendant went out, but came back later with two other men. Witness served the two men, but on refusing to serve defendant he struck witness over the head with a basket. Witness then went for a policeman.

In reply to Mr. Rook, complainant said defendant had caused him a great deal of trouble.

Defendant was bound over for three months in the sum of 5 and 8s. 6d. costs for the assault, and on the other account 1 and 9s. costs; in default one month's hard labour. The money was paid by a friend.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 January 1903.

Saturday, January 17th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Edward Mockeridge was summoned for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, and also for assaulting the landlord of the house, Frederick Coleman on January 10th. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Rook, who appeared for the prosecution, said defendant went into the complainant's house and became disorderly because Mr. Coleman refused to serve him. He was ejected by the police, but returned and struck complainant over the head with a fish basket. With regard to the assault, he would ask that defendant be bound over to keep the peace.

The complainant bore out on oath Mr. Rook's statement, and said that defendant had been a considerable trouble to him.

The Bench bound over defendant in 5 to keep the peace for three months, and ordered him to pay 8s. 6d. for the assault. He was also fined 1 and 9s. costs for refusing to quit. The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 October 1903.

Tuesday, September 30th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. J.Stainer.

Andrew Anderson, a powerfully-built Swede, and his friend Sven Ehrnholm, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening. The former appeared in the dock minus his coat, and with the right sleeve and side of his shirt torn out, exposing a well-developed arm and chest.

Anderson said he was so drunk he did not remember what had happened, while his companion said he was “not much drunk”.

P.C. Weller said that at 10.40 on Monday evening he was called to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, where he found prisoners drunk, disorderly, and challenging people to fight. With difficulty he got them to their boat in the harbour, but they returned to the road and created a great disturbance, again challenging those around to fight. With the assistance of the military picket, witness took them into custody. Had it not been for that assistance, the crowd, which was much incensed at prisoners' conduct, would have mobbed them.

The Chairman fined each of the prisoners 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, in default seven days'.

The Chief Constable: Have you any goods?

Anderson: If you send to our Captain ....

The Chief Constable: Your Captain says he will have nothing to do with you. He is very pleased to get rid of you.

 

Folkestone Express 3 October 1903.

Tuesday, September 29th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and J. Stainer Esq.

Andrew Anderson and Ivan Ernholm, two foreign seamen, were charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Weller deposed that at 10.40 the previous night he was called to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoners challenging people to fight. Witness advised them to go away, and they returned to their ship, which was lying in the Harbour. They used obscene language, and called out to passers-by, and eventually came ashore and started hitting at everyone who went by. Witness took prisoners into custody, and with assistance brought them to the police station. Their conduct had caused a considerable crowd to collect, and it was with difficulty that witness prevented prisoners from being mobbed.

The Bench imposed a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days' hard labour. The prisoners were removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 March 1906.

Local News.

On Friday afternoon, shortly after four, Mr. Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was serving in his bar when, without a word of warning, he suddenly fell down behind the bar. Medical assistance was quickly summoned, but apparently deceased had succumbed instantly to heart failure. The deceased was advanced in years, but generally considered to have a long lease of life. Today the Borough Coroner will hold an inquest on the body.

 

Folkestone Daily News 10 March 1906.

Local News.

It is our sad duty to record the death of an esteemed resident of Folkestone – Mr. Frederick Coleman, the landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street and The Stade. Mr. Coleman was engaged in his usual duties in the bar on Friday afternoon. Shortly before 4 o'clock Mr. Henry Bailey entered the house to obtain refreshment, and was astonished to find the landlord lying on the floor of the bar. He went to his assistance, and help was soon forthcoming, but on Dr. Barrett arriving he could but announce that life was extinct.

The sudden death of one so well known to the frequenters of the Harbour and the Fishmarket has cast a deep gloom over the neighbourhood.

Mr. G. Warden Haines, the borough coroner, held an inquiry this (Saturday) afternoon at five o'clock at the Town Hall to ascertain legally the cause of death.

Frederick William Coleman, carman, 11, Orange Street, Canterbury, identified the body.

Mr. Bailey spoke of finding the body.

Dr. William Peard Barrett said he was called to the deceased, but found he was dead before his arrival. He had made a post mortem examination that morning, and the cause of death in his opinion was heart failure.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 March 1906.

Inquest.

On Saturday afternoon at five o'clock the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) and a jury held an inquest upon the body of Fredk. Coleman, a licensed victualler, the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. The facts related were identical with the particulars which we gave in our last issue.

Fredk. Wm. Coleman, a carman, living at 11, Orange Street, Canterbury, identified the body as that of his father, Fredk. Coleman. Witness said deceased was 63 years of age. He last saw his father in October of last year. Deceased then appeared to be in very good health.

Mrs. Sarah Elizabeth Coleman, widow of deceased, said that her husband had often been short of breath since Dr. Barrett attended him in his last illness. She did not know what her husband was suffering from exactly, but Dr. Barrett gave a certificate, and it was something with three names. It was about last Easter when deceased saw Dr. Barrett. On Friday witness went out about 2.45, and returned about 4.30. When she went out her husband was sitting in a chair. He had made no complaint of feeling ill during the day, and as she went out deceased said “If you want anything for tea, you had better bring it in”. When she returned home, Dr. Barrett was there and her husband was dead.

Mrs. Jane Featherbee, the wife of a mariner, residing at 43, Radnor Street, said at 3.30 on Friday afternoon she went into the bar of the Oddfellows Arms. She saw deceased, who served her with a glass of beer. Witness laid down 6d., and received 5d. change. Deceased then sat down in his chair behind the bar, and she drank her beer and left the house.

Henry Bailey, a labourer, of 28, Radnor Street, said he went into the Oddfellows at four o'clock on Friday afternoon, and called for a pint of beer. He could not see anyone in the bar, so he tapped his money on the counter. Getting no reply, he looked over the bar, and saw Mr. Coleman lying on the floor with his head under the counter. Witness left the house, and called Mrs. Featherbee, who came in and examined deceased, and at once sent for Dr. Barrett.

Mrs. Featherbee, re-called, said that when the last witness fetched her she went into the Oddfellows Arms again, and found deceased under the bar, as described; his eyes and mouth were wide open, and he was dead. Witness at once telephoned for Dr. Barrett.

Dr. W.P. Barrett said about 4.30 on Friday afternoon, in response to a telephone message, he visited the Oddfellows Arms, where he found deceased lying on the floor behind the bar. The man had been dead probably about 20 minutes. Last Easter witness had attended deceased, who was then suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; at that time there was no heart trouble. Heart trouble would not supervene upon pneumonia, unless it were of a rheumatic character. A post mortem had been made, and witness found no valvular disease of the heart, but the aorta was weak, and there was evidence of old disease of the lungs, and kidney disease. There was also a lot of fat round the heart. The result of the post mortem was that witness formed the opinion that death resulted from dilated atheroma – in other words, syncope.

The jury returned a verdict in accord with the medical evidence.

 

Folkestone Express 17 March 1906.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Saturday evening at the Town Hall on the body of Frederick Coleman, the licensee of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, who died suddenly the previous day. The inquest was conducted by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines).

Frederick William Coleman, a carman, residing at 11, Orange Street, Canterbury, said that the body viewed by the jury was that of his father, who was the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Folkestone. His age was 63. Witness last saw him in October, when he appeared to be in very good health. He had, however, been ill, but nothing out of the way.

Mrs. Coleman, the widow of the deceased, said her husband had since last Easter been short of breath. The previous day the deceased was all right when she went out at a quarter to three, and on her return at half past four he was dead. He had not complained to her at all during the day. Deceased had had a hearty dinner.

Jane Featherby, residing at 43, Radnor Street, said she was the wife of Frederick Featherby, a fisherman. The previous afternoon she went into the Oddfellows Arms at half past three, and the deceased served her with a glass of beer. When she came out with a Mrs. Dawkins she was alone. Deceased then appeared to her to be all right.

Henry Bailey, a labourer, of 48, Radnor Street, said the previous afternoon at four o'clock he went into the Oddfellows Arms. He called for a pint of beer, but could get no answer. After a time he looked over the bar and saw the landlord lying on the floor with his head under the counter. Witness called Mrs. Featherby, who came over and said he was dead.

Mrs. Featherby, re-called, said when she saw the deceased his eyes were open and his face was black. He was dead.

Dr. Barrett said at about 4.30 he was called to the Oddfellows Arms. He went down, and found Coleman in the bar dead. He had apparently been dead twenty minutes. Last Easter he attended the deceased for pleurisy and pneumonia and he got perfectly well. As far as he could make out, he had not any heart trouble then. He made a post mortem examination, and found the aorta was enlarged and diseased. There was also a disease in the lungs and a quantity of fat round the heart. Deceased died of syncope caused by atheroma.

A verdict on accordance with the medical evidence was returned.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 March 1906.

Inquest.

An enquiry was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines), at the Town hall, on Saturday morning, regarding the death of Frederick Coleman, who was found dead in the bar of the Oddfellows Arms public house, Radnor Street, on the afternoon of the previous day.

Frederick William Coleman, a carman, of 11, Orange Street, Canterbury, stated that he identified the body as that of his father, Frederick Coleman, the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms. Deceased was 63 years of age. He last saw him alive in October, when he was in very good health, and did not complain at all. He had since heard that he had been poorly.

Sarah Elizabeth Coleman, the wife of the deceased, stated that since her husband's illness last Easter, he had complained of shortness of breath. On the previous day she went out at 2.45, when her husband was sitting on a chair in the bar. There was only one man (Geo. Harris) in the bar. Deceased was all right when she left him. At 4.30 she returned, and found him in the little room, dead. Dr. Barrett was present. Deceased had had a fairly good dinner.

Jane Featherbe, of 43, Radnor Street, the wife of Frederick Featherbe, a fisherman, stated that the previous day, at 3.30, she went into the Oddfellows Arms for some beer. The deceased was sitting in a chair at the time, and having served her he returned there. Another young woman came out with her.

Henery Bailey, a labourer, of Radnor Street, stated that he went into the Oddfellows Arms about 4 o'clock, but did not see anyone in the bar. He called for a pint of beer, and getting no answer, he looked over the bar and saw Mr. Coleman lying with his head underneath the counter. He called for Mrs. Featherbe, and she came over, and a doctor was sent for. He did not notice whether Mr. Coleman was dead, but Mrs. Featherbe said he was. Witness had never been in the house before.

Mrs. Featherbe (re-called) stated that when the last witness came to her she went over, and found that deceased was dead. His face was black, and his mouth open.

Dr. Barrett stated that on the previous afternoon, at about 4.38, he was called to the Oddfellows Arms, and went down and found Coleman in the bar, dead. He had been dead probably about twenty minutes. Last Easter witness attended him for pleura-pneumonia. He made a post mortem, and found that the deceased had no organic disease of the heart, but that the aorta was diseased. He would say the cause of death was syncope.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, R.J. Linton, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Mr. Prior, one of the executors of the late Mr. F. Coleman, was granted temporary authority for the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, pending the sale of the business, on the application of Mr. G.W. Haines.

Note: No mention of Prior in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 April 1906.

On Wednesday morning, at the Borough Police Court, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding, the ordinary business was preceded by a special licensing sessions.

Mr. Prior, the executor to the will of the late landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was granted a temporary authority to sell, etc., pending the arrangement for another tenant.

Note: No mention of Prior in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.J. Linton Esq.

Temporary authority was granted to Percy Mockett to sell at the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions. All other reports give a Mr. Prior.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. E.T. Ward and Mr. R.J. Linton.

A special session for the transfer of alehouse licences was held. Application was made and granted as follows: The licence of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street to Mr. Prior.

Note: No mention of Prior in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 30 May 1906.

Wednesday, May 30th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Stainer, Leggett, Hamilton, Swoffer, and Linton.

The licence of the Oddfellows Inn (sic) was transferred to Mr. C.R. Shaw.

 

Folkestone Express 2 June 1906.

Wednesday, May 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Oddfellows alehouse, Radnor Street, from Mr. J. Pryor to Mr. E.R. Shaw. Granted.

Note: No mention of Pryor in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 June 1906.

Wednesday, May 30th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, and C.J. Pursey.

The licence of the Oddfellows beerhouse, Radnor Street, was temporarily transferred from John Prior to Edwin Robt. Shaw, late of Edinburgh.

Note: No mention of Prior in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 December 1906.

The Oddfellows.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Messrs. W.J. Herbert, Fymore, Hamilton, Linton, Leggett, Ames, Stainer, and Pursey.

The Bench approved of plans for alterations, subject to certain conditions laid down.

 

Folkestone Express 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Fynmore, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, T. Ames, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Major Leggett.

An application was made for permission to carry out some alterations at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street. The application was granted, subject to the stipulations made by the Bench.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.

Plans for certain structural alterations to the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, were passed, with one or two provisions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 20 June 1907.

Thursday, June 20th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, and Swoffer.

Rose Watson was charged with being drunk and disorderly on The Stade yesterday. She pleaded Guilty to being drunk, but not disorderly.

A constable said he was called to the Oddfellows Inn (sic) to eject the prisoner. When outside she commenced shouting and refused to go away. He then took her into custody and brought her to the police station.

Prisoner said she had never been in Folkestone before, and was very sorry for what had happened.

She was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1907.

Thursday, June 20th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer.

Rose Watson was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous evening on The Stade.

P.C. Waters said he was called at 7.45 to eject prisoner, who was drunk, from the Oddfellows Arms public house. When outside she commenced shouting, and refused to go away.

Inspector Swift said there were no previous convictions against accused, who, in default of paying a fine of 5s. and costs 4s. 6d., went to prison for seven days with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 January 1911.

Wednesday, January 11th: Before Messrs. Ward, Vaughan, Linton, and Fynmore.

The licence of the Oddfellows Inn in Radnor Street was transferred from Mr. Shaw to Mr. G.C. Skinner, formerly of the Noah's Ark, Deal, a beerhouse and lodging house which he had occupied 3 years.

Mr. Shaw, in reply to the Chairman's question as to why he was leaving, said he had been at the Oddfellows 5 years and wanted a change, saying a change was good for everyone.

The Chairman rejoined that he thought if he had a good thing he would have liked to keep it.

The Chairman warned Skinner he was running a risk in taking the house, as he did not know what might be done at the annual licensing meeting. They had recommended closing houses on former occasions, and if he took the transfer he must take the risk.

Mr. Skinner said he would do so.

 

Folkestone Express 14 January 1911.

Wednesday, February 11th: Before E.T. Ward abd R.J. Linton Esqs., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

An application was made by Mr. George Skinner, of Deal, for the transfer of the licence of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, from Mr. Shaw.

The Chairman asked the outgoing tenant why he was leaving the house.

Mr. Shaw: I want a change, sir. I have been there just on five years.

The Chairman: If you have a good thing, I wonder you leave it.

Mr. Shaw: A change is good for everyone sometimes.

The Chairman told the applicant that the licensing sessions were coming on in about a month's time, and the Magistrates did not know what they were going to do yet. However, there were such things as houses being referred to the Quarter Sessions and being closed in consequence. He did not say anything about that house at present, but he warned Mr. Skinner that he was taking a risk in taking the house before the licensing sessions.

Mr. Skinner said he would take the risk.

The Magistrates thereupon granted the transfer.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 January 1911.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Major E.T. Leggett, Aldermen T.J. Vaughan and C. Jenner, Councillors R.G. Wood and W.C. Young, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton.

The Magistrates confirmed the transfer of the licence of the Oddfellows, Roadnor Street, from Mr. Robt. Shaw to Mr. James Skinner.

 

Folkestone Express 29 July 1911.

Friday, July 21st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

John King was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night.

P.S. Sharpe said at about 10.30 the previous night he was on duty on the Stade, when he saw the prisoner, who was carrying a bundle of bulrushes, go into the Oddfellows public house. He was drunk, and was ejected by the landlord. When outside he used most filthy language, so he (witness), with the assistance of Inspector Lawrence, took him into custody.

Prisoner said he never spoke to anybody when he came out of the house.

The Chief Constable said the man was there two years ago for begging.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour. He went to prison.

 

Folkestone Daily News 24 June 1912.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before Messrs. Herbert, Hamilton, Stace, Swoffer, Stainer, Boyd, and Linton.

Albert Phillips, a rough-looking man, was charged with stealing a Mackintosh the property of a grocer carrying on business in Alexandra Gardens.

The Mackintosh was placed in a garden at the back of prosecutor's premises to dry. Subsequently the Mackintosh was missed and information was given to the police. The Mackintosh was missing on the 11th June, and next day it was returned to witness by P.C. Butcher. It was valued at 30s.

Det. Sergt. Leonard Johnson said he saw prisoner in Fenchurch Street and charged him with stealing the Mackintosh, and prisoner replied “A man gave it to me to sell for him; I did not steal it”. Witness had known the accused for two years as a rag and bone man.

The Chief Constable (in the absence of an important witness) asked for a remand of seven days, which was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 June 1912.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Councillor Stace.

Albert Phillips was charged with stealing a Mackintosh, the property of Thomas Stalley.

Mr. Stalley, grocer, carrying on business at 14, Alexandra Gardens, stated that at about 2.30 p.m. on the 6th inst., he placed a Mackintosh in the back yard of the premises to dry. There was an entrance to the back yard from Oxford Terrace. On the following morning, between 10 and 11 o'clock he missed the Mackintosh. He informed the police, and on the 12th inst. the Mackintosh was brought to him by P.C. Butcher. Its value was 30s. Witness had never seen prisoner near the premises.

Det. Officer Leonard Johnson said he saw prisoner in Fenchurch Street the previous evening at about 11 p.m. He told prisoner that he was a police officer, and prisoner replied “I know that”. He cautioned him, and told him he would charge him with stealing a gentleman's Mackintosh from the rear of 14, Alexandra Gardens, between the 6th and 7th of this month. Prisoner replied “A man gave it to me to sell; I didn't steal it”. Witness then showed him the Mackintosh produced, and said “This is the Mackintosh you are charged with stealing”. Prisoner replied “I am innocent of this dealing”.

The Chief Constable then applied for a remand as he had not completed his evidence.

Prisoner was accordingly remanded for a week.

 

Folkestone Daily News 29 June 1912.

Saturday, June 29th: Before Messrs. Hamilton, Ward, Vaughan, Stainer and Boyd.

Albert Phillips was brought up on remand and charged with stealing a Mackintosh, the property of a grocer residing in Alexandra Gardens. Additional evidence was now called.

Mr. William Harris (a mariner), 8, St. Michael's Square, deposed to the accused selling him the Mackintosh for one shilling and sixpence. Witness understood the accused to say that a gentleman had given him the Mackintosh. The Mackintosh was practically a new one.

John Baker, fisherman, of 21, Rossendale Road, said on the 6th inst. he was in company with the last witness in the bar of the Oddfellows Arms, when the accused entered the bar and offered the Mackintosh for sale at 2s. Harris said he did not want a Mackintosh, but eventually bought it for 1s. 6d. Witness heard the accused say “A gentleman gave me the Mackintosh”.

Prisoner was here cautioned, and said “I do not wish to say anything now”.

The Chief Constable (in answer to the Chairman) said prisoner had a terrible black record.

The man was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 6 July 1912.

Saturday, June 29th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, J. Stainer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Albert Phillips was brought up on remand charged with stealing a Mackintosh, the property of Mr. T.F. Stalley, 14, Alexandra Gardens.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was remanded a week ago on the charge so that he could bring further evidence. He had two further witnesses to call, and if the Magistrates considered a prima facie case had been made out he should ask h them to commit him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

William Harris, a fisherman, of 8, St. Michael's Square, said on Thursday, June 6th, he was in the public bar of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, at half past eight in the evening. The prisoner came into the bar wearing the Mackintosh coat produced. He asked him to buy it for 2s. He (witness) told him he did not want it, and he then offered it to him for 1s. 6d. He gave that money for the Mackintosh, which he took away with him. He did not ask the prisoner any questions about the coat, but he understood him to say that a gentleman gave it to him. He had seen the prisoner about the fishmarket for the last eighteen months when they came in from sea. He knew nothing more about it.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Phillips did not say anything to him about having the coat to sell for another man.

John Baker, a fisherman, 21, Rossendale Road, said about half past eight on the evening of June 6th he was in the bar of the Oddfellows with the last witness, when the prisoner came in wearing the Mackintosh. He offered to sell the coat for 2s. to the company in the bar. He said a gentleman had given it to him. Harris eventually bought it for 1s. 6d.

The Magistrates then committed Phillips for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The Chairman, addressing the witness Harris, told him that he ought not to have bought the coat, as it was practically a new one, from a man of prisoner's description. His expenses would be disallowed.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 July 1912.

Saturday, June 29th: Before Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

Albert Phillips was charged on remand with stealing a Mackintosh, the property of Thomas Stalley. The previous evidence was read over.

William Harris, 8, St. Michael's Square, said he was in the bar of the Oddfellows Arms at about 8.30 on June 8th, when prisoner came in wearing the Mackintosh produced. He offered it for sale for 2s. Witness said he did not want it, but eventually bought it for 1s. 6d., and took it home. He understood prisoner to say that a gentleman gave it to him to sell. He did not know prisoner, but had seen him about the Fishmarket for the last 18 months.

John Baker, of 21, Rossendale Road, deposed to seeing prisoner sell the Mackintosh to the last witness for 1s. 6d.

Prisoner, who said he had nothing to say, was committed for trial at the Summer Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Harris was reprimanded for purchasing the Mackintosh at such a price from a stranger.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Albert Phillips, 62, labourer, who was committed for trial on the 6th of June for stealing a Mackintosh coat, value 1 10s. 0d., the property of Thomas Stalley, pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted for the Crown.

After hearing the evidence of Thomas Harris, who purchased the Mackintosh from the prisoner for 1s. 6d. (prisoner having previously asked 2s. for it),

The Recorder (to Harris): Hold the Mackintosh up. It is a good one for 1s. 6d., is it not?

Witness: It was no good to me. I bought it because I thought it had been given to him.

John Baker, of 21, Rossendale Road, a Folkestone fisherman, deposed to seeing the prisoner wearing the Mackintosh (produced) in the Oddfellows Arms. Prisoner offered the Mackintosh for 2s., and Harris subsequently bought it for 1s. 6d.

Prisoner said at the beginning of June he had been out all day, and bought some old clothes which he sold to fishermen's wives while in the market. A man came to him and offered him the coat to sell. He refused at first, but later the man offered him a drink of beer for selling it. Prisoner made a lengthy statement in which he did not neglect to point out his honesty, and in stating that after selling the coat for 1/6 he gave it to the gentleman, who offered him twopence, but as that was all the money the man had he would not take his twopence. Later prisoner went strike-breaking and earned a few pounds. If he had stolen the Mackintosh – why, it stood to reason that he would not have returned to Folkestone to be locked up.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing the coat.

The Chief Constable proved previous convictions, including 20 convictions all for stealing. At Maidstone prisoner had been sentenced to twelve months for unlawfully wounding a warder. So far as the Chief Constable knew prisoner had been trying to get an honest living while here.

Prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

 

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Albert Phillips, 62, labourer, was charged with stealing a Mackintosh coat, valued at 1 10s., the property of Mr. T. Stalley, Alexandra Gardens, on June 6th. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted.

Thomas Stally, a grocer, said the Mackintosh coat was his property, and he valued it at 1 10s. On June 6th he hung it outside on a nail in the backyard to dry. There was a passage from Oxford Terrace to the gates of the backyards in Alexandra Gardens. He locked his gate at a quarter past five, but he did not notice that the coat was missing until the following day. He next saw it on the 12th.

Prisoner: Can you swear on oath that you saw me steal the coat?

Witness: No.

Detective Johnson said at 11 p.m. on June 21st he saw the prisoner in Fenchurch Street. When he charged him with stealing the coat, he replied “I had it given to me to sell by a man”. At the police station, when charged, he said “I am innocent of the stealing”.

William Harris, a fisherman, of 8, St. Michael's Square, said on June 6th, at about half past eight in the evening, he was in the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, when the prisoner came in wearing the Mackintosh coat, which he understood him to say was given to him by a gentleman. He asked him to buy the coat for 2s., but he told him he did not want it, as it was no good to him. Prisoner then said “Give me 1s. 6d. for it”, so he bought it for that.

In reply to the Recorder, the witness said he had seen the prisoner about the Fish Market, but had never seen him doing any work.

John Baker, a fisherman, of 21, Rossendale Road, corroborated Harris's evidence, and cross-examined by the prisoner, he said he did not see him steal the coat, nor did he know it was stolen.

Prisoner made a statement from the dock, refusing to give evidence on oath. He said he was out selling old clothes on the Fish Market, when a man came up to him and asked him to sell the coat, which he was wearing. He asked him where he got it from, and he said it was his own. He further said he was a stranger and could not sell the coat, for no-one would buy it from him, and he had no money for his lodgings or food. He promised to try and sell it for him, and he went into the public house wearing the coat. He sold it for 1s. 6d., which he gave to the man, and refused to take a pint of beer out of it. Later he was called to go to Southampton Docks to fill the place of the strikers. He earned 3 6s. 6d. there in ten days, in addition to his railway fare, and that would have been sufficient to take him to any part of the country. If he had stolen the coat, was it likely he would have come back to Folkestone? It was not reasonable to think he would have done so. He was Guilty of selling the coat, but not of stealing it.

The Recorder, in summing up, pointed out that the prisoner had not told the police who the man was from whom he bought the coat, so that they could have tried to find the man; neither had he told them who the man was that day.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.

The Chief Constable said there were 20 convictions altogether against the prisoner, dating from March 9th, 1891. On February 18th, 1895, he received twelve months' hard labour at Surrey Sessions; twelve months' the following year at the Surrey Sessions for stealing; on April 14th, 1899, six months' hard labour and two years' police supervision at Surrey Sessions; on September 8th, 1903, at the Central Criminal Court, three years' penal servitude for warehouse-breaking; on July 4th, 1904, he was charged unlawfully wounding a warder in prison at Maidstone, whilst undergoing the previous sentence, and was sentenced to a further twelve months' hard labour. There were nine of the convictions for summary offences. For the past fifteen or eighteen months he had been selling flowers, gathering rags and bones about the town, and he had no idea the prisoner had such a record behind him as that.

Prisoner said he had been trying to get an honest living during the time he had been there.

The Recorder ordered the prisoner three years' penal servitude.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Albert Phillips, 62, labourer, was indicted for stealing, on June 6th, a Mackintosh coat, value 1 10s., the property of Thomas Stalley. Mr. Weigall prosecuted.

Prisoner admitted selling the coat for 1s. 6d., but said he did not steal it.

Thomas Stalley, a grocer, of Alexandra Gardens, stated that on the 5th June he hung the Mackintosh, which he valued at 30s., in his back yard to dry. There was an entrance from Oxford Terrace, and the gate was open, probably, from 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. He missed the coat at about 11 o'clock. He gave information to the police at once, and saw it on the following Wednesday, the 12th.

Prisoner: Did you see me near the premises? – No.

Prisoner: Could you swear that you saw me steal the coat? – No.

Detective Officer Johnson deposed to seeing prisoner at about 11 o'clock on the 12th June in Fenchurch Street, and, after cautioning him, charged him with stealing the Mackintosh from Alexandra Gardens, between 6 and 7 o'clock on the 6th June. Accused said “I had it given to me to sell”.

Prisoner (to witness): How long have you known me in Folkestone, sit? – About eighteen months.

Have you ever seen me sell anything in the Market during the time I have been in Folkestone? – I have seen you sell flowers, and rags and bones.

I have sold a good many thing in the market place? – All manner of things.

William Harris stated that he lived at 8, St. Michael's Street, and was a fisherman. On the 6th June, at 8.30 p.m., he was in the Oddfellows Arms, when the prisoner came in wearing a mackintosh. He understood accused to say that a gentleman gave it to him, and he asked witness to buy it. Accused did not mention a sum, but afterwards asked witness to give him 2s. for it. Witness did not want the coat. It was not the sort of coat he wore, but he eventually gave accused 1s. 6d. for it. He recognised the coat produced as the one he bought. He had seen the accused in the Fishmarket. He had never seen him do any work.

John Baker, a fisherman, of 21, Rossendale Road, said he was in the Oddfellows Arms, and saw the coat sold to the last witness for 1s. 6d.

Prisoner: did you see me steal the coat? – No, I never saw you steal the coat.

Prisoner: Did you know it was stolen? – If we had known it was stolen, it would not have been bought.

Prisoner gave a rambling statement, in which he asserted that he had always tried to get an honest living. He sold a few rags and things. He sold things to the fishermen's wives, and during the time he was there on this day a man came up to him and said “Can you sell this?”, (meaning the coat). Witness said “I do not want it. I have no money. I have some things here to sell”. The man said to him “If you like, you can sell it and have a drink of beer out of it”. He (prisoner) said “I do not want a drink of beer out of it”. The man said “Very well, sell it”. He (prisoner) said “Where did you get it from?”, and the man replied “It is my own”. He then said “Why can't you sell it?”, and the man replied “I am a stranger here. I could not sell it”. Accused then said “Very well; I will sell it for you. You have no lodgings and no food. I will try to sell it if it is honest”. He had no sooner got it than he (prisoner) went and sold things to the fishermen's wives. He sold the coat afterwards for 1s. 6d. The man said “Take 2d. out of it”. He said “If that is all the money you have got, I do not want your pint of beer. I have one of my own”. The man said “All right”, and went away. Two days after that accused was called away to Southampton docks during the strike. He went there for ten days, and earned a few pounds. He then returned to Folkestone. He asked if it was feasible that if he was a guilty man he would deliberately have come back to Folkestone to be taken by the police. Was it not reasonable to think that he would have gone as many miles away as possible from the town? He never stole the Mackintosh. He had evidence to prove that when he got back to Folkestone he received a cheque for 3 3s. for his work at Southampton. Why did he want to steal a Mackintosh when he had money of his own?

The learned Recorder said when before the Magistrates the accused said he had nothing to say. Now he said for the first time that a man had given him the coat. Prisoner had made no attempt to find the man.

The jury found the accused Guilty, and he admitted that he was convicted for felony at Lewes Assizes in 1910 in the name of Alfred Phillips.

The Chief Constable said the accused's record was a very bad one indeed. The convictions dated from the 9th March, 1891, and included convictions for theft, sentences of penal servitude in 1903 at the Central Criminal Court for housebreaking, twelve months' imprisonment in 1904 at Maidstone for unlawfully wounding a warder, whilst he was yet under sentence, and for assault.

Prisoner: Have I not been trying to get an honest living since I have been here? – For all I know you have.

The Recorder sentenced accused to three years penal servitude.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 November 1912.

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

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

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

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

A remand was granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 November 1912.

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

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

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

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

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

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

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

Prisoner was sentenced to two months' hard labour.

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

 

Folkestone Herald 16 November 1912.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

Mr. Jennings, of Canterbury, presented plans for alterations at the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and they were approved of.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

Plans were submitted for alterations to the Oddfellows Arms, and these were passed.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1914.

Saturday, October 24th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Col. Owen.

Edward Albert King, a soldier, was charged with wilfully breaking a window at the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.

George Skinner, the landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, said the previous evening, about 7.20, the prisoner came into his house and asked to be served. He, however, refused him and told him he had had sufficient to drink. Prisoner commenced to use bad language, and he told him to get outside. King came back two or three minutes after, and his (witness's) wife, who was in the front of the bar, asked him why he did not go away. The prisoner it the plate glass windows with his hand, but did no damage to them. He then went into the passage and smashed a glass window, five feet five inches from the ground. Prisoner's hand was cut, and he immediately ran away. Later he (witness) saw him in the Ship public house, and gave him into custody. He asked him why he had broken the window, and the prisoner replied that he slipped and fell through the window.

Prisoner said he really did not know what did occur as he was under the influence of drink.

An officer from the battery to which prisoner belonged said King's conduct as a soldier had been satisfactory.

The Chairman said they were also sorry to see one of His Majesty's soldiers before them. They hoped the prisoner would take that as a lesson. He would have to pay the damage, 7/6, and 3/- costs.

 

Folkestone Express 16 October 1920.

Local News.

On Sunday a quaint harvest festival took place in the Oddfellows Arms public house on The Stade, and as a result the Royal Victoria Hospital has benefitted to the extent of 15 cwt. of garden produce and 4 which was collected on the day.

There have been other services in the house on a Sunday evening, but nothing has approached the harvest festival service on Sunday. The public room presented a sight never to be forgotten, for it was lined from floor to ceiling with gifts of produce from fishermen and others. A giant marrow, weighing 34lbs., was a noteworthy exhibit. Fishing nets and cod lines were used in the arrangement of the gifts, which was undertaken by Mr. and Mrs. G. Skinner (host and hostess), Mr. W. Boorn, and Reg Spicer. Several hyumns were sung with Congo Milton at the organ. Dick Milton gave the address, in the course of which he said they should thank God for the bounteous harvest.

Among the congregation were Darkie Fagg, Mitteeman Walker, Hoggamy Hall, Tom Page, Brum Wheeler, Tich Banks, Alf Baker, Steve Starling, Harry Hall, Tiny Barton, Hoppy Hall, Tich Weatherhead, Red'un Fagg, Pout Fagg, and P. Hoile.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 October 1920.

Felix.

Strolling down the Old Quarter of Folkestone, and passing through the arch leading to the Fish Market on Sunday night, my attention was attracted by the noise of boisterous singing. As the churches were for the most part closed at that time, I was curious as to the meaning of it. Proceeding on my way, and listening again, I at first thought a “sing-song” was being held at a public house known as the Oddfellows, the front of which faces the Fish Market. But the strange part of it was that (as I subsequently found), instead of songs, hymns were being sung in chorus with full-throated vigour. When I heard “We plough the fields and scatter”, followed by “Come, ye thankful people, come”, being sung within the walls of this old-time hostelry I made enquiries, with the result stated.

Entering the house, I was cordially invited to “come right in”. I was glad I did so. I found a harvest festival in progress. There were ancient and modern mariners sitting round the tables; some in Sunday best, others in tan frocks. Ladies graced the proceeding with their presence. Each man had his quantum of foaming ale before him; the gentler sex favouring a little drop of “short”, or what are known as soft drinks (lemonade, etc.). In one corner of the room was a young mountain of vegetable produce grown by the fishermen on their allotments. There were giant marrows, cabbages of the full hearted order, weighing from 10 to 14lbs, apiece; there were also wonderful onions and superb potatoes. And then, with all these “good things around us”, the company each provided with a hymn book, proceeded to sing songs of thanksgiving – yes, women and all joined in together. It did not matter about the “incense” arising from a score or two of pipes. Some of these were of the “churchwarden” order; some were briars. At intervals there was a rest, but not for long. “Congo”, a sturdy son of the sea, presided at the piano. All, or mostly all, of the fishermen boast of nicknames. Thus one heard “Coconut Bill” call out “let the painter go”. This, being interpreted, meant another hymn.

I have been present at scores of harvest festivals in stately cathedral and tiny village churches, but I can truly say that I had never listened to heartier singing than that which I heard on Sunday night. And there was no levity about the proceedings at any time. Strange it was to hear amid these surroundings such well-known hymns as “Holy, holy, holy”, “God, be with us till we meet again”, “Nearer, My God, to Thee”, and “Abide with me”. True, the company “wet their whistles” occasionally, and filled up their pipes, but when they sang they did so with a heartiness and relish that no-one could deny.

Standing at the top of a flight of stairs leading to another room, Mariner R. Milton briefly addressed his “mates” and the ladies present. In the course of a neat little speech he said they not only toiled on the mighty deep, but in their spare hours cultivated the land. They were there that night to thank God for the harvest of land and sea. He believed their hearts were in the right place and full of thankfulness and gratitude, and in proof of this all the produce would be sent to the Royal Victoria Hospital – an institution which sorely needed help. They would take an offertory also for the same institution. Then the boxes were handed round and coins were readily dropped into them. They weighed quite heavy when the festival was over.

I might say that no songs were allowed; only hymns were rendered. The room was decorated with nets, fishing lines and hooks, and other fishing gear. Throughout the day a number of visitors looked in, including Skipper Nicks, of the Fishermen's Bethel. On Monday, Capt. R.W. Reed, the energetic Secretary of the Hospital, visited the scene, and expressed himself delighted with the magnificent produce. Host George Skinner and his wife worked hard to make the whole affair the success it proved to be. It is interesting to learn in connection with this hostelry that hymns are sung here by the fishermen every Sunday night. We hear a great deal nowadays of public house reform, Is Mr. Skinner a pioneer? I am giving no opinion as to the propriety of holding such services on licensed premises, but I do say there was a real note of genuineness about this festival. The result of the collection amounted to 4, which included many silver coins.

 

Folkestone Express 18 February 1928.

Obituary.

We regret to report the death of Mr. George Skinner, the licensee of the Oddfellows Inn, The Stade. The deceased, who was 54 years of age, had been the licensee of the inn for seventeen years. He was well-known in Folkestone, and was held in high esteem by the local fishing fraternity and their families. He assisted in carrying out the Blessing of the Fisheries on an inspiring scale, and inaugurated the harvest festival at his house, which was an annual event that created considerable interest, especially amongst the fishermen. Deceased had not been well for some time, and passed away suddenly, leaving a widow and three sons to mourn his loss, and with whom great sympathy will be felt. He was Treasurer of the Sick and Dividend Club, which has a large membership.

The funeral takes place today (Friday), at noon, at the Folkestone Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 February 1928.

Obituary.

The death took place on Monday at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), The Stade, Folkestone, of Mr. George Skinner, the proprietor. Widely known and greatly respected amongst the fishing folk, Mr. Skinner was regarded almost as a brother, for he was in the habit of associating himself in a large measure with their calling.

He it was who took part in improving the organisation of the Blessing of the Fisheries and other movements. The Oddfellows Inn was a regular meeting place of the R.A.O.B.

The late Mr. Skinner himself conceived the idea of holding a harvest festival at his establishment on a Sunday one every year, and these were made famous throughout England.

The funeral will take place at Folkestone Cemetery on Friday at 12 o'clock.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. G. I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. Broome-Giles.

The licence of the Oddfellows public house, The Stade, was transferred from the late Mr. George Skinner to Mrs. Florence E. Skinner, the widow.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

The Magistrates sanctioned the transfer of the following licence: Oddfellows Inn, from George Skinner (deceased) to Florence E. Skinner.

 

Folkestone Express 7 April 1928.

Wednesday, April 4th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Mrs. F.E. Skinner applied for the transfer and renewal of the licence of the Oddfellows Arms, The Stade, and also for the transfer of the music licence held on the business.

The Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 April 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, Mr. G.I. Swoffer presiding.

The Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, to Mrs. Skinner, widow of Mr. George Skinner, who previously held the licence. At the adjourned licensing session the widow was granted a protection order in respect of this house. The Bench also agreed to the transfer of the music licence.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman T.S. Franks, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. S.B. Corser, and Councillor the Hon. Mrs. N.E. Howard.

The Chief Constable presented his report as follows:- I have the honour to present my ninth annual report relating to the administration of the licensing laws within the Borough for the year ending 31st December, 1931.

Licensed Premises: There are in the Borough 114 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, the number being made up as follows: Full licences 69; beer on 7; beer off 10; beer and spirit dealers 9; grocers, etc., off 6; confectioners wine on 4; cider and sweets off 7; chemists wine off 2; Total 114. No licensed premises were referred back on the ground of redundancy by the Annual Licensing Committee.

Alehouse Licences: Of the alehouse licences, one is a six days' licence.

Licences Transferred: The following licences were transferred during the year: Earl Grey, from William Charles Dixon to Clara P. Dixon; Alexandra Hotel, Stanley A. Bishop to Frank Allwood; Bouverie Arms, Frank E. Hedges to Frederick Hedges; Guildhall Hotel, Ellen Cozens to Richard Rivers; Black Bull Hotel, Frederick A. Bray to Eric Anderson; Harvey Hotel, Charles Waghorn to Harold Sherrin; Foresters Arms, Charles Ovenden to Kate L. Ellers; Richmond Tavern, Adam Ingleton to Edward Jordan; Clarendon Hotel, Harry Whittaker to Wm. A.J. Taylor. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting held on the 11th March, 1931, application was made for the transfer of the beer off licence of the Gun Brewery, Cheriton Road. The licensee of these premises having died in 1900, and the licence not having been transferred, the Justices declared this licence null and void.

Alterations to Licensed Premises: No applications have been made to the Bench during the year for sanction for alterations to licensed premises.

Occasional Licences: One hundred and eleven occasional licences were granted to licence holders to sell intoxicating liquor other than on their own premises.

Extension of Licensing Hours: Three hundred and six extensions have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises, and in no case has any abuse of the privilege been recorded.

Proceedings against Licence Holders: During the year no licence holders have been proceeded against for committing any breach of the Intoxicating Liquor Laws.

Visits by Police to Licensed Premises: All licensed premises have been periodically visited at irregular intervals by my officers to see that they are being conducted in a satisfactory manner, and no adverse reports have been submitted to me. The total number of visits was 1,868.

Drunkenness: During the year 26 persons (22 males and four females) were proceeded against in the Borough Court for drunkenness. These were dealt with as follows: Convicted 13 males, three females; discharged nine males, one female. The persons proceeded against were: Residents of Folkestone, four males, two females; non-residents, five males, one female; no fixed abode, six males, one female; and seven soldiers. The total proceedings for drunkenness are the same as the preceding year, when eight persons were convicted and 18 discharged.

Comparative Return of Drunkenness: The following table shows a comparative return for drunkenness with towns similarly situated to Folkestone: Folkestone, population 35,890, number proceeded against per 1,000 population .723; Chester 41,438 and 1.134; Hastings 65,199 and 1.02; Canterbury 24,450 and .61; Margate 41,312 and 1.02; Cambridge 66,803 and ,439; Gravesend 35,490 and 1.4; Scarborough 41,791 and .31; Ramsgate 33,597 and .35; Bedford 40,573 and .69. It will be seen that Folkestone's record for sobriety still stands very high.

Permitted Hours: The permitted hours as allowed by the Licensing Act of 1921 have been fixed by the Licensing Justices for this Borough as under: Weekdays, from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sundays, from 12 noon to 2 p.m., and from 7 p.m. to 2 p.m. During the months of June, July, August and September, 1931, an extension of half an hour on weekdays, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. was again allowed by the Bench, and I am pleased to state that no ill-effects have been observed.

New Licences: No licences have been granted for new premises during the year.

Clubs: Seventeen clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act, this being the same number as was in existence in the preceding year.

Hotels: Six hotels and two restaurants have authority under Section III of the Licensing Act, 1921, to supply intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on weekdays, namely: Metropole Hotel, Grand Hotel, Majestic Hotel, Regina Hotel, Esplanade Hotel, Royal Pavilion Hotel, Central Cafe and Savoy Cafe. During the year under review, the Regina Hotel closed down, but the licence in respect of the premises is still in existence.

Music and Dancing: Forty eight licences for music and dancing have been granted or renewed under the provisions of Part IV of the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1890. This is an increase of four as compared with the previous year. Of this number 15 are for the use of wireless for public entertainment in licensed premises.

Billiard Licenses: There are three premises licensed for billiards in the Borough, namely: The Queen's Hall, Tontine Street; 24, Rendezvous Street; and the Fishermen's Institute, The Stade. The licence in respect of the last named premises is a new one, having been granted by the Justices on the 11th February, 1931. Supervision of these premises has been kept, and no adverse reports have been received.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I should like to draw the particular attention of the Bench to the high standard of conduct of the licensees within the Borough. Despite the large number of official visits made, and the casual observation which is kept from time to time, no single instance has come to light which would justify police interference. To this may be attributed in no small measure the high place that Folkestone occupies in the comparative table. I have again to tender my thanks to the Bench and to Mr. Charles Rootes for their unfailing consideration and assistance freely given whenever occasion demands it.

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable's report, and he was instructed to say they regarded it as of a very satisfactory nature. If he might begin where the Chief Constable left off, with reference to the high standard of the licensee in the Borough, he thought that it was very conclusive, because no-one had been in any difficulty, and there were no proceedings against any licensee in the year. He thought that went to the credit of the licensee, and showed they exercised great care in carrying out the law touching those matters, which was somewhat difficult and complicated at times. With reference to the drunkenness, he would like it to be less, of course, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort and thousands of visitors came there, they thought it was very creditable indeed. Of those 26 persons, only six of them were residents of the Borough, and they thought that went to the credit of the residential population anyhow, considering that was one whole year. The Justices were glad to think that they gave way to the point with reference to the summer season, giving the half hour's extension. They were glad to know that no ill-effects had been accrued in consequence of that, but that the convenience in reference to the visitors had been appreciated.

The Chairman then announced that the public house licences and beer licences would all be renewed, with two exceptions, and they were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those would not be renewed that morning, but would be referred to the adjourned meeting for further consideration on the ground of redundancy.

The date of the Adjourned Licensing Sessions was fixed for March 9th next.

The Chairman stated that music and dancing licences which had been in existence were also renewed that day, and the billiards licences were also renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Licensing Magistrates at the Annual Licensing Sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, referred two licensed houses, the Granville and the Oddfellows, to the adjourned sessions for further consideration on the grounds of redundancy.

The report submitted by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) showed that during the past year only six residents had been charged with drunkenness, whilst no proceedings had been taken against any licensees. These two points were favourably commented upon by the Magistrates.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman T.S. Franks, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, the Hon. Mrs. N. Howard, Mr. F. Seager and Mr. S.B. Corser.

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

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable's report, and he was asked to say that they regarded it as very satisfactory. If he might begin where the Chief Constable had left off, with reference to the high standard obtained by the licensees during the year, he thought that was very conclusive because there had not been any proceedings against any one of them during the year. They endorsed what the Chief constable had said. It showed that the licensees had exercised great care in the carrying out of the law, which was somewhat critical and complicated at times. With reference to drunkenness, they would like the figures to still be less, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort they thought the record was a very creditable one. They noted that only six residents were proceeded against, and that must be placed to the credit of the residential population. The Justices were also glad to know that after they granted the extra half hour's extension during the summer months there had been no ill-effects. The public house and beer licences would be renewed with two exceptions. Those were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those two licences would not be renewed that morning, but referred to the adjourned meeting for further consultation on the grounds of redundancy.

The Magistrates fixed Wednesday, March 9th, for the adjourned sessions.

The Magistrates also renewed all the music and dancing licences.

 

Folkestone Express 12 March 1932.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The question of the renewal of the licences of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and the Oddfellows Arms on the Fish Market was considered at the adjourned general licensing meeting at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday. The objection to both licences was on the ground of redundancy.

The case of the Oddfellows Arms, The Stade, was then considered, the Chief Constable having objected to the renewal of the licence on the grounds of redundancy.

The Chief Constable again gave formal evidence of the particulars of the congested area as in the previous case. There was, he said, nothing against the character of the tenant.

Chief Inspector Pittock said the rateable value of the house was 52. There was entrance from Radnor Street and The Stade, both frontages. There had been four transfers since 1894, and the present tenant had been there since 1928, and her husband was there before that from 1911. There were six public houses within 100 yards of the premises, five additional ones within 150 yards, and another five within 200 yards, making 16 within 200 yards. He made twelve visits between 8.05 and 9.35 p.m. in January and February to see the number of people in the house. For the Jubilee the number of people was 253, in the Oddfellows 91, in the Ship 249, and in the Packet Boat 157. The percentage was for the Jubilee 21, the Oddfellows 7.6, the Ship 20.7, and the Packet Boat 13. He suggested that the house was redundant from the observations he had kept. He was of the opinion that any two of those houses were redundant, having regard to the requirements of the neighbourhood.

In reply to Mr. L.S. Fletcher, who appeared for the applicants of the licence, witness said he considered there were too many houses in that neighbourhood. It was to form an opinion as to the trade that he paid visits to the licensed houses. He would say that the Oddfellows did more than double the trade of the Granville. He did not know it did 7 barrels a week.

Mr. Fletcher: You know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a tax on beer?

Witness: Yes.

Is it correct to say that that has discouraged trade? – It is obvious.

Mr. Fletcher: I won't say whether I express any regret about that. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Fletcher said would it alter witness's opinion if he told him that the Oddfellows had increased its trade in 1931?

Witness: No. I am still of the opinion that the whole of the trade in that district could be done by two houses.

Continuing cross-examination, witness said the house was mainly visited by fishermen. There was a club room there and a slate club. He did not know of a conviction with the house during the past three years.

Mr. William Joseph Jennings, managing director of Messrs. George Beer and Rigden Ltd., said the trade in barrels was 294 for 1929 at the Oddfellows. In 1930 it was 391 5/8, and in 1931 it was 416 3/8. It gave an average of seven barrels per week. The spirits had decreased as the beer had gone up. In 1929 it was 133 4/5 gallons, in 1930 it was 93, and in 1931 it was 99 2/3.

Mr. George Skinner, the elder son of Mrs. Skinner, the licensee, said he acted as the manager of the house, and his younger brother acted as barman. They made a good living out of the house, and they had no other sort of income. They had very much extra trade in the summer.

Mr. Fletcher said there was a gentleman, the Rev. W.H. Pickburn, who would like to say a word about the house.

The Chief Constable said they were not entitled to give that.

The Chairman said they were only dealing with the redundancy of the house.

The Chairman said the Justices had decided to renew the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1932.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates at the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday considered two licences which had been referred on the ground of redundancy.

After hearing considerable evidence the Magistrates refused to renew the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, the house being referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority, but in the other case, that of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, the licence was renewed.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, Colonel G.P. Owen, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The renewal of the licence of the Oddfellows Inn was next considered. Mr. L. Fletcher, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, appeared for the appellants.

The Chief Constable gave similar figures to those he offered in the first case. He added that there was nothing against the character of the tenant.

Chief Inspector Pittock said the house was situated at 30, Radnor Street, ad the licensee was Elizabeth Skinner. The rateable value was 52. The owners of the premises were Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, Faversham. There had only been four transfers since 1894, and Mrs. Skinner had been the licensee since 1928, her husband having been there before since 1911. There were six public houses within 100 yards of the premises, five within 150 yards, and another five within 200 yards, making 16 in all. He made 12 personal visits between January and February, between 8.05 and 9.35 p.m. The total customers were: The Jubilee 253; the Oddfellows 91; the Ship 249; and the Packet Boat 157. The average for the Jubilee was 21; the Oddfellows 7.6; the Ship 20.7; and the Packet Boat 13. He was personally of the opinion that any two of the houses in Radnor Street were redundant, having regard to the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Fletcher: Do I understand you to say that the Oddfellows is redundant because on the occasion of your visits you only found a total of 91 customers? – Not generally. It is the knowledge of the houses in the neighbourhood.

Replying to further questions, witness said he did not know that the trade of the house was seven barrels a week. He belived it was the first time that it had been suggested that the Oddfellows was a redundant house.

Mr. Fletcher: I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put an extra tax on beer. Is it correct to say that that has disarranged trade? – It is obvious.

Mr. Fletcher: I won't say I express any regret about that, but is it obvious for every town and licensing district? – It is obvious in Folkestone.

Replying to further questions, witness said the house was in the fishmarket and it was largely used by fishermen. There was a good size club room on the first floor, and a lodge of Buffaloes met there. In addition there was a slate club and a registered club. The house was in easy reach of the East Cliff sands.

Mr. Fletcher: Am I right in saying that there has not been a single conviction in respect of this house for the past 21 years? – I don't remember a conviction for 23 years.

William Joseph Jennings, managing director of George Beer and Rigden's, who were owners of the house, said the trade for the last three years including bulk and bottle, for this house was: 1929 294 barrels; 1930 391 5/8; 1931 416 3/8. That was an average for the three years of 367 barrels, which was an average of seven barrels a week over three years. The spirits, however, had decreased as the beer had increased. In 1929 the trade was 133 4/5 gallons; 1930 93 gallons; and 1931 99 2/3 gallons. The year 1931 was a year of diminished beer consumption.

George John Skinner, eldest son of Mrs. Florence Elizabeth Skinner, who had been licensee of the house since her husband's death in 1928, said he managed the house. His younger brother acted as barman, and his mother made a good living out of the house. They had no other sort of income.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said the trade of the house greatly increased in the summer months.

The Magistrates decided to renew the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 September 1933.

Local News.

A pointless practical joke which took the form of a telephone call to the Folkestone Fire Brigade to the effect that the Oddfellows Arms Inn, The Stade, was on fire, brought the Chief Officer and six men to unnecessary trouble on Sunday evening. The men went to the house with the motor pump, but failed to find any trace of a fire. The matter was left in the hands of the police.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1933.

Monday, September 4th: Before The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen and Alderman R.G. Wood.

Sidney Allen Crockitt, a soap salesman, was charged on remand with obtaining food to the value of 2s. 8d. by other than false pretences.

The prisoner was before the Court last week, when evidence was given that he went into the Corner Restaurant after ten o'clock at night, had a good supper, and then told the proprietress that he had no money, and she had better call the police. She called the police and he was arrested. Prisoner now pleaded Guilty and asked the Magistrates to deal with the case.

A second charge was then preferred against him, that of giving a false alarm to the Fire Brigade on August 27th. He pleaded Not Guilty to this charge.

Alexander Louis McLaren, of the Folkestone Fire Brigade, said at 11 p.m. on Sunday, August 27th, he received a telephone message, and in consequence of what he was told he turned out the Fire Brigade. They went to the Oddfellows public house, Radnor Street, but there was no fire at those premises or any place on the Fish Market. The cost of the turn-out was 2 9s.

Arthur John Grant, a night telephone operator at the G.P.O. telephone exchange, of 37, Clarence Street, said he received a call from the street telephone box at the Fish Market. In consequence he connected with the Fire Brigade Station.

James Albert Fagg, a fisherman, of 7, Clout's Alley, Radnor Street, said at 11 p.m. on August 27th he was sitting on the chains in the Fish Market when he saw the prisoner standing inside the telephone box. He struck a match and put his ear to the telephone. He saw him come out two minutes later and walk away.

Witness, in reply to the prisoner, said the prisoner was wearing the same clothes as that day. He was of the opinion that the prisoner was perfectly sober.

Defendant: What makes you so sure it was me?

Witness: I recognised you.

In what manner? – The way you were dressed and the way you walked.

Were you of the opinion that I was perfectly sober that night? – I did not take any notice.

Defendant asked leave to call P.C. McFazdean and Inspector Hollands as witnesses.

He Deputy Clerk said they had already been called as witnesses, but he could have them in the box again and ask them questions.

P.C. McFazdean, in reply to the defendant, said that when he arrested defendant he was perfectly sober.

Inspector Hollands, cross-examined by defendant, said that when defendant was arrested and he saw him at the police station, he (defendant) was sober and normal.

Defendant, addressing the Bench, said he was a soap salesman, running his own business. While in Dover, being a stranger in a strange place, he went with four sailors who persuaded him to go and have a drink. He was more or less drunk for four days afterwards. With regard to the fire charge, he knew nothing about that. His nerves were so shattered, he did not know what he was doing. With regard to the meal, he was in the same state of mind then.

The Clerk, reading a statement handed by the defendant to the Magistrates, said it stated that during the last month and a half, after being placed on probation at Greenwich, he realised that crime did not pay. He had been going round the coast towns in business with soap and haberdashery. That was the first time he had ever slept in Folkestone, and it would be the last. He asked the Bench not to send him to prison, as his business would be lost.

The prisoner said if the Bench would deal leniently with him, he would pay all expenses in that case. He was very sorry for what had actually happened.

Inspector Hollands said the prisoner was a stranger to the town. At first he refused all information about himself. As far as he knew, the only information they had was his record from London. There were six previous convictions against him. He had been in a reformatory, and had received a sentence of 18 months on a charge of burglary. In 1930 in Winnipeg, Canada, he was charged with vagrancy, and sentenced to six months and deportation from that country. On April 24th last when charged at Greenwich he was bound over on probation in the sum of 25 for two years. On the night of the alleged offence of sending that fire alarm, defendant put up at a lodging house in the town, and the next morning there was an allegation that he stole some money while there, but there was insufficient evidence to charge him.

Defendant: I know nothing about that.

An elderly woman, who stated that she was the defendant's mother, came forward and said that her son had not been short of money, and he must have got into bad company and got drunk. His record was a bad one, but he had been improving. He had been sending money home.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were convinced that the prisoner was Guilty of both offences. For obtaining credit by fraud, they committed him to prison for one month with hard labour. The sentence was governed to some extent by the record of his past behaviour, because they heard he was already on parole to be of good behaviour for two years.

Defendant's mother: He will never be able to get a living after this, and he has worked up a decent connection.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 September 1933.

Local News.

When Sidney Alan Crockett was brought before the Folkestone Magistrates on Monday on a charge of incurring a debt of 2s. 8d. by means of fraud other than false pretences, a further charge of giving a false alarm of fire was preferred against him. Crockett had been charged on the previous Thursday with obtaining a meal, valued 2s. 8d., from the Corner Restaurant, Harbour Street. He pleaded Guilty to this charge, but denied the fire alarm allegation.

The Magistrates were: The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen and Alderman R.G. Wood.

Alexander Louis McLaren, a driver in the employ of the Folkestone Fire Brigade, said on August 27th, at 11 p.m., he received a call by telephone. In consequence of what the person said he hurried out the fire brigade to the Oddfellows public house in Radnor Street. There was no outbreak of fire and the brigade's services were not required.

Arthur John Grant, 37, Clarence Street, a night telegraphist at the Post Office, said he was on duty on the night of August 27th. About 11 p.m. he received a call from the telephone box in the fishmarket. In consequence of the call he received he connected it to the Fire Station.

James Albert Fagg, 7, Clout's Alley, Radnor Street, said about 11 p.m. on August 27th he was sitting on the chains on the fishmarket when he saw prisoner standing outside a telephone box. He then went inside, struck a match and put the earphone to his ear. He was in there two or three minutes.

Cross-examined, witness said he recognised prisoner by his walk and his dress. He did not take enough notice of prisoner to say whether he was perfectly sober.

P.C. MacFazdean, re-called at prisoner's request, said, in reply to Crockett, that he was of the opinion that accused was perfectly sober when he was arrested.

Inspector W. Hollands, who was also called by prisoner, said he was of the opinion that Crockett was normal when he was brought to the police station.

Crockett, addressing the Magistrates, said he was a soap salesman, and whilst in Dover he got in contact with four sailors and they asked him to have some drinks. As a result he was drunk for three days. He could not say anything about the fire charge. If the Magistrates dealt leniently with him he would pay all the expenses incurred. He was very sorry for what had happened.

Inspector Hollands said Crockett was a stranger to the town. There were six previous convictions, the first being on December 26th, 1927, at Old Street Police Court, when he was charged with stealing money. The case was adjourned sine die. At Birmingham in the same year he was sent to a reformatory. There was a sentence of 18 months' hard labour for burglary. At Winnipeg he had been charged with vagrancy and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and ordered to be deported. On April 24th of this year he was charged at Greenwich Police Court with stealing money and clothing and bound over for two years.

The Mayor said the Magistrates found Crockett Guilty on both charges. On the first he would be sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 7 October 1933.

Council Meeting Extract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 24 November 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 26 January 1935.

Editorial.

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

Council Meeting Extract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.

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

Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.

The Mayor: In what respect?

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

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

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

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

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

The Town Clerk: It is not so.

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

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

Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.

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

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

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

Several members: No.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

Radnor Street Licensed Houses.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.

The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?

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

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

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

The Chairman: Why are you here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chairman enquired what the police view was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chairman: That is the position.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clerk: They may.

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

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

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

The Chairman: Why are you here?

The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Carlile: Is it?

The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.

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

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

The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Magistrates then retired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 7 September 1935.

Tuesday, September 3rd: Before Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Dr. F. Wolverson, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

William Richard Page and Henry Waller, two Folkestone young men, were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons on August 24th, by fighting. The defendants admitted the offence.

P.S. Lawrence said at 10.50 p.m. on August 24th he was outside the police box in Beach Street when he saw Page walk towards him. He was rather unsteady and had been drinking, but he was quiet and orderly. When he got about 25 yards past him and opposite the Royal George public house, Page stopped and approached about ten or twenty youths talking under the railway arch. Without any more to do one of the youths stepped out from the crowd. They both took off their coats and struck a fighting attitude. There was only one blow struck, and the next he saw was that both men were on their backs on the ground. He got Waller away from the ground and told him to go home. He did so. Waller had been drinking, but was not drunk. He (witness) went back to the crowd, and Page was still knocked out unconscious. He was bleeding from a cut at the back of his head, and he (witness) summoned the motor ambulance, and Page was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where two stitches were inserted in the wound, and the defendant was detained.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Was there anyone else involved in it?

P.S. Lawrence said apparently the defendant struck the road pretty hard. It was all over in less than a minute.

Page told the Magistrates he knew nothing about it until he woke up in the Hospital on Sunday morning. Waller started the trouble when they were in the Oddfellows, where he was throwing his money about. That caused the bother.

Waller said he was in the same place having a drink. He could not have flashed his money about, as he had only 17/2. Page had the money, not he. Page caused the trouble, and that was the result.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said Waller was fined on May 31st, and had various convictions against him, but he had been going on very well recently. With regard to Page, there was only one minor conviction against him, but during the last two or three weeks he had become a general nuisance, always ready to pick a quarrel and backed it up with a strong right arm.

The Chairman said the defendants would be bound over to be of good behaviour for a period of twelve months, and would have to pay the costs, 4/- each.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 September 1935.

Local News.

A Saturday night altercation near the Fishmarket had a sequel at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, when William Charles Page and Henry Waller were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons by disturbing the public peace by fighting. They pleaded guilty.

Sgt. Lawrence said at 10.15 on August 24th he was on duty outside the police box in Beach Street when he saw Page walking up from the direction of Tram Road. He was walking rather unsteadily; he had been drinking but he was orderly. When Page got about 25 yards away he stopped and approached 10 or 12 youths talking underneath the Fishmarket arch. Without any more ado some remark was passed, one of the youths stepped out of the crowd, and both defendants, taking off their coats, adopted a fighting’ attitude. When witness got over to the scene both men were on their backs. He got Waller away from the crowd and told him to go home. He immediately did so. He had been drinking, but he was not drunk. Page was still knocked out and he was being attended to by P.C. Farrier. Witness found that Page was badly cut on the head and was unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where two stitches were inserted in the head injury, and he was detained. Witness added that it was all over in a minute.

Page told the Magistrates he knew nothing about it until he woke up on Sunday morning in hospital. Page added that he was in the Oddfellows’ Inn drinking and Waller was there “splashing” his money about. That caused the trouble.

Waller said he was in the same place as Page had mentioned, but he could not have been “splashing” his money about because he only had 7s. 2d. It was Page who had the money; he had a week’s wages. Page caused the trouble. He (Waller) was very sorry.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A. S. Beesley) said Waller had been in trouble, but he had not been before them recently and as far as he could say he had latterly been going on very well. With regard to Page there was a minor conviction in 1934, but just lately, during the last few weeks, his officers reported he had been ready to pick a quarrel and back it up with a strong arm.

The Chairman (Alderman T. S. Franks) said the defendants would be bound over in the sum of 5 to keep the peace for 12 months, and they would have to pay the costs of the summonses, 4s. each.

 

Folkestone Express 5 October 1935.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1935.

Local News.

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

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

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

Witness: He was not drunk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 12 February 1938.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing sessions for Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) presented his annual report, from which it appeared that although there was an increase in the number of cases of drunkenness, only three of them concerned residents of the whole of the borough. A satisfactory feature was that the licence holders had conducted their premises exceedingly well and no proceedings had been taken against any of them.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mrs. Saunders, Mr. P. Fuller, Miss Grace Broome-Giles, and Alderman G.A. Gurr.

The Oddfellows Inn.

Plans were submitted for building the Oddfellows Inn on The Stade and the Magistrates approved of them on condition one slight interior alteration was effected.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1938.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

During the past year 30 persons were proceeded against for drunkenness at Folkestone, but only three were residents, it was stated at the annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions, held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The Chairman of the Licensing Justices (Councillor R.G. Wood) presided and there were also present Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Engineer Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders, Mr. P. Fuller, Miss G. Broome Giles and Alderman G.A. Gurr.

Plans for the rebuilding of the Oddfellows Inn, The Stade, were approved.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 May 1940.

Local News.

“We don’t like to record a conviction, and we will dismiss the charge on condition you pay the damage", said the Chairman (Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens) to Sapper George Pearson, when he appeared at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday on a charge of smashing a glass panel at a public house. Pearson had pleaded guilty.

James A. Skinner, of 8, James Street, a barman employed at the Oddfellows Arms, said the previous evening he saw defendant in one of the bars. He left at 10.30, but shortly after there was a knock at the door. Going to the door witness saw defendant and a friend. Pearson said that he had left his respirator behind. Witness got the respirator but the soldiers became argumentative. He tried to get them away and closed the doors in their faces. Immediately, he did so the glass panel was smashed. Opening the door he saw the two soldiers running away and he gave chase. A police constable caught defendant.

P.C. Flitter said he was on duty on The Stade when he heard a sound of breaking glass. Immediately after he saw two soldiers running towards him. One of them evaded him, but defendant stumbled and fell and he got hold of him. Defendant at first denied breaking the panel, but at the police station he said “Yes, I smashed the window”. There was a cut on the palm of defendant's right hand. Pearson had been drinking, but he was not drunk.

Defendant told the Court that he was sorry.

An officer stated Pearson had only recently joined the regiment.

As well as paying the damage, the Magistrates also ordered Pearson to pay 4s. Court fees.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 July 1940.

Local News.

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

The licence of the Oddfellows, The Stade, was transferred from the late Mrs. Skinner to Mr. George W.J. Skinner, her son.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 August 1945.

Local News.

At a sitting of the Folkestone Licensing Bench on Wednesday the licence of the Oddfellows Inn, The Stade, was transferred from Mrs. E.K. Skinner to her brother-in-law, Mr. George W.J. Skinner, who formerly held the licence until he joined the N.F.S., from which he has now been released.

Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens presided, with Alderman J.W. Stainer, Miss G. Broome-Giles, Mr. P.V. Gurr and Mr. C.A. Wilde.

 

Folkestone Gazette 7 August 1957.

Local News.

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1957.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Gazette 24 March 1965.

Local News.

Mr. Charlie Evans, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, Folkestone, has declared himself monarch of the Isle of Evans. The Isle of Evans is situated seven miles off Whitstable in the Thames Estuary, and comprises a ring of tower fortresses. Formerly the Nore Forts, these structures were renamed yesterday by Mr. Evans. They are used as a pirate radio station by K.I.N.G., London, a new pirate radio station operating on 256 metres. Mr. Evans is pirate chief, and has proclaimed the forts an independent territory in answer to recent hints that they might be seized because of interference.

“Our broadcasts do not clash with any Trinity House wavelengths”, he said. “There have been protests to the Government from Holland, but I find this rather amusing, because the Dutch have their own pirate radio station, Radio Veronica, which they can do nothing about”.

The station raised its flag yesterday. It was accompanied by a 21-gun-salute. “Regrettably this was a tape recording”, said Mr. Evans, “because we are now a neutral state, and have no artillery of our own”. The flag is royal blue velvet enclosing a white V background, which contains a thistle and crown. There is a red square in the bottom right-hand corner. The new “state” entitles the 17 King pirates to dual citizenship. “We are going to issue passports which look like the old war-time identity cards”, said Mr. Evans. “This is in keeping with the tenor of the forts”.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1971.

Local News.

About 1,400 Germans successfully invaded Folkestone on Thursday to enjoy themselves. The visitors - members of the BMW enthusiasts’ club - strolled about the town shooting local scenes with their cine cameras and went shopping. Many bought driving gear, ranging from tyres to goggles and crash helmets - but fewer than expected went to the pubs. They were visiting Folkestone during an international convention of their club, held this week at Bruges, in Belgium. Local licensees had gained extensions of opening hours to cater for them. But it was the locals who patronised some of the 17 town centre and harbour area pubs that stayed open.

At the Shakespeare, in Guildhall Street, Mr. Ron Balsom, said “It was a complete waste of time staying open. I only had 13 Germans in all day”.

Mr. John Tobin, landlord of the East Kent Arms, in Sandgate Road, said most of his customers had been regulars.

The Oddfellows Arms, in The Stade, was closed by 3.15 p.m. A spokesman there said “It was a complete and utter waste of time”.

At the True Briton a spokesman said “We did very well - thanks largely to our regulars”.

The London and Paris, at the harbour, was busy, but a spokesman said the pub had not taken a great deal of money.

However, one very pleased landlady was Mrs. M.M. Lewis, at The Guildhall. “It has been absolutely fantastic”, she said, "We have teen completely packed out with both German visitors and regulars".

Folkestone's publicity officer, Mr. Charles McDougal, said “The original letter we received from Belgium about this visit gave the departure time as 6 p.m. It was not until two days before the visit that we learned otherwise".

Mr. Alan Stephenson, chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, said “These people wanted to come to Folkestone, and their visit gave them an opportunity to sample the pleasures of the town as a holiday resort rather than just a shopping centre”.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1978.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

JORDAN James 1847-49 Bagshaw's Directory 1847Bastions

BROOKS William 1849-51 Bastions

NEAL Hannah 1851 Bastions (wife of licensee age 40 in 1851Census)

NEAL James Dawson 1851-68 Next pub licensee had (age 52 in 1861Census) Melville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862Folkestone Chronicle

NEAL Ann 1869-70 Bastions

BARKER James 1868-70 Bastions

CARTER John 1870-81 Post Office Directory 1874Bastions

Last pub licensee had HORNDEN/HARNDEN William 1881-87 Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

HOARE George 1887-88 Next pub licensee had Bastions

Last pub licensee had CARTER Robert 1888-92 Post Office Directory 1891Bastions

WHIDDETT George 1892-94 Bastions

COLEMAN Frederick 1894-1906 Kelly's 1899Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Bastions

PRIOR Mr 1906

SHAW Edwin 1906-11 Bastions

SKINNER George 1911-28 Post Office Directory 1913Post Office Directory 1922Bastions

SKINNER Florence E 1928-41 Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938Bastions

SKINNER George 1940-41 Bastions

SKINNER Ellen 1941-45 Bastions

SKINNER George 1945-61 Bastions

ROGERS Thomas 1961 Bastions

EVANS Charles 1961-65 Bastions

PRICE Charles 1965-67 Bastions

CONWAY John 1967-72 Bastions

PHILPOTT Peter 1972-84 Next pub licensee had Bastions

CARPENTER Leslie 1984-91 Bastions Also Jubilee Inn/Carpenters

JEGGO Larry 1991-95 Bastions

DARLING Walter & Andrew 1995 Bastions Also Ship Inn 1994-96

GILHAM Roy 1995-96 Bastions

GILHAM Roy and BRANDY Louise 1996-99 Bastions

GILHAM Roy and MCLAREN Nicholas 1999 Bastions

ROY Gilham, MCLAREN, Nicholas, METSON Dennis and O'TOOLE Catherine 1999-2001 Bastions

Renamed "The Front."

http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/oddfellowsarms.html

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room