From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 2 March, 1877. Price 1d.

SHORT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

James Newing, beer-house keeper, Littlebourne, William Philpott, publican, East Langdon were fined 10s. and 8s. costs for having deficient measures.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 May, 1876. 1d

TRANSFER OF LICENSES

The following applications were made, all of which were granted:-

..... "Balmoral Hotel," Broadstairs, to Richard Morley, "Bell and Lion," Broadstairs, to John Clark.

APPOINTMENT OF A LICENSING MAGISTRATE

Mr. Rowland Rees was appointed to fill the vacancy in the Licensing Committee left open by Mr. J. G. Churchward's disenrolment.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 3 August, 1877. Price 1d.

ROBBERY RETURN

The robbery return for the month was the following:- June 23rd, a silver Geneva watch, from a public-house in new Street; a diamond-ring, value £4, the property recovered. 13th, a meerschaum pipe, case, and cigar holder, the property of Mr. Pratt, Snargate Street. 24th, a silver-mounted briar pipe, the property of a Mr. Everett, a volunteer, stolen from a sentry-box at the "Shoulder of Mutton Battery."

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 17 August, 1877. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSES

To the editor of the "Dover Express."

Sir, Monday next is fixed as a Special Sessions for the transfer of licenses. There are 17 applications, among which are the following:-

"Turnham Green Tavern," which has been closed for some time, and for which Mr. William Harding (brewer) seeks a license.

The "Wheatsheaf," empty house, in which Mr. Cottenham Kingsford (brewer) wishes to retail beer, &c.

The "Spotted Cow," empty house; application from Mr. Onion, a brewer's servant.

"Duke of Connaught," another empty house; a gentleman residing at 32, Marine Parade (a brewer's clerk) desires to have a license to re-open this place.

The "Oxford Music Hall," now empty; Mr. Herbert Wright, of the Maxton Brewery, seeks a transfer to re-open this establishment.

The "Masons' Arms" has been empty a short time, but Mr. Poulter, the brewer, wishes to re-open this house in his name.

Six brewers' houses empty! Will any of the six gentlemen who are applying for these licenses live on the premises to conduct the houses themselves? and, if not, should the magistrate grant the transfers?

Yours &c.,

COMMON SENSE.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 24 August, 1877. Price 1d.

LICENSING BUSINESS

The license of the "Turnham Green Tavern" was transferred to Mr. Harding, brewer, and the "Wheatsheaf," to Mr. Kingsford, brewer.

The Bench said these licenses would be held by the Clerk until a responsible tenant could be found, and if granted at the Annual Licensing Day, they would be held until a responsible tenant be found.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll said these licenses were usually held by the brewers, but if the Magistrates had not the same confidence in them as they had hitherto had, of course it did not matter.

The Bench said they had just the same confidence, but they thought it would be best as a rule that the licenses should be held by the Clerk.

The license of the "King Alfred," Portland Place, Hougham, was transferred to Mr. Pascall.

An application was made for the transfer of the license of the "Spotted Cow" to Mr. Henry Onion.

The Superintendent Sanders said there had been two or three convictions for Sunday trading, and on the last conviction the license was endorsed.

The Bench retired to consider the matter, and on their return refused the application.

Mr. Herbert Wright applied for the transfer of the "Oxford Music Hall" licence.

It was remarked that his house had been closed about a month, but there was now a man ready to go in. There had been no complaints against the house.

The Transfer was granted on the same condition as before.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll supported the application for the transfer of the "Shah" to Mr. Henry Watson.

It appeared that the applicant applied shortly before the last transfer day, when he was asked to produce testimonials as to character. This he did, but in too short a time to get the transfer, and as the term for permission to draw came to a climax last week, the house was closed, and permission to sell was refused on the representation of the Superintendent of Police.

Mr. Saunders said he objected to it on the ground that the applicant had not conducted that house in a proper manner since he had had it. In consequence of the complaint that had been made, he watched the house and found that there were prostitutes continually frequenting the house. On the last occasion, he saw six come out just before closing time.

Mr. Mowll asked why he had not summoned the man before the Magistrates.

Mr. Sanders said considering the short time the woman were in the house he thought it would not carry a conviction. he also stated that there had been complaints from the neighbours of a nuisance from the music of a harp, cornet, and triangle, the windows of the house being thrown open when this music was in full swing.

Police-sergeant Bowles said he had been in the house nearly every night and had seen these unfortunate woman at the bar, but he had not seen any in the back-room.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, the Police-sergeant said most of the other houses were frequented by these women.

Mr. Mowll having addressed the Bench at considerable length, submitted that there was not sufficient grounds to warrant them in taking away the transfer, and said that similar evidence could be given of nearly every house in the garrison.

The Bench said they had decided to decline to make the transfer.

There were several other transfers upon which no comment was made.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 31 August, 1877. Price 1d.

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW LICENSES

Thomas Anthony applied for a license  to sell wine, spirits, and beer off the premises, at 59 Snargate Street. This application was granted.

PROPOSED LICENSED HOUSE AT THE CLARENDON ROAD

Mr. Worsfold Mowll applied that the license of the "Carpenter's Arms," Peter Street, held by Samuel Winter might be transferred to a house in the Clarendon Road. After quoting from the Licensing Act 35 and 36 Vic., section 50, he urged that it would be desirable to close the house in peter Street and to transfer it to transfer it to Clarendon Road, where there was no accommodation. besides the houses already erected 150 more were to be built.

Mr. Stilwell said it appeared that the usual notice had not been sent to the owner as provided.

Mr. Mowll said Mr. Kingsford, who instructed him, was virtually the applicant.

Mr. Lewis: I shall say nothing on that point. I think the merits had better come before the Bench.

Mr. Stilwell: If Mr. Lewis does not object there is an end to it.

Mr. Lewis: I am neutral in the matter.

Mr. Edwin Coleman proved the service of the notices.

By Mr. Lewis: The notice was put on 26, in Clarendon Road, not Clarendon Place.

Mr. Mowll said the description in the deed was Clarendon Road.

Mr. Stillwell said he should confirm this statement, whatever the Council might have done.

Mr. Lewis said the road was known as Clarendon Place; it was the road running parallel to the Folkestone Road.

Mr. Stilwell handed to Mr. Mowll a memorial, which had been sent to the magistrates.

Mr. Mowll said he should like for a moment to call the attention to the Bench to the wording of the memorial, "We, the undersigned householders of the Clarendon Road, hearing the application  will be made on Licensing Day for the opening of new premises for the sale of excisable liquor, we beg to call your attention to the absolute unnecessity for such - (laughter)  - also to the probability of such business becoming an unmitigated nuisance as well as a great depreciation of the adjoining property, and that all reasonable needs of the district are more than met by the "Alma" and "Engineer" and the "Priory Hotel." The first two signatures were those of the Rev. G. A. Rogers, incumbent of Christ Church, and Major Farrell, both of whom lived a long distance from the place, and could not possibly be effected by the opening of the premises. These names had been obtained to give weight to the memorial, but he would submit that evidence of this character ought to be given on oath, so as to give the application an opportunity of cross-examination. He could not see how Mr. Rogers and Major Farrell could have considered what they were signing, as the new house would not interfere with them in any way.

Mr. Cottenham Kingsford said that he and his brother, Mr. Flavius Kingsford, were the joint owners of the "Carpenter's Arms." There were four licensed houses in Peter Street, and none in the Clarendon Road. The nearest house to the latter place was the "Engineer."

Samuel Winter said if the application were granted he proposed to close the house in Peter Street, and to open the house at the Folkestone Road.

Mr. Lewis said he was instructed  to oppose the application, and he should first submit that there was no evidence as to the value as required by the Act.

After some discussion Mr. Mowll said he saw it was useless to proceed with the application.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 31 August, 1877. Price 1d.

THE LICENSING QUESTION

[From the Manchester City News]

Since the magistrates have been entrusted with the administration of the licensing laws they have occasionally shown a spark of originality in their mode of interpreting this or that perfectly plain and intelligible clause in the act, but, generally speaking, their policy has been a singularly dull and profitless policy, and like men who have already taken a wrong turning, they prefer to pursue the blinder they know of then to strike out boldly into an entirely new path. For several years each Brewster Sessions have been a faithful repetition of its predecessor; the same speech is delivered from the chair, the same applicants come to have their petitions refused, and seem to think that that acquire some sort of vested interest in repeated failure, and in spite of the utter and proven inefficiency of it, the only reform bill which the magistrates attempt to introduce is based upon the principle of an indiscriminate refusal to grant new licences …. The last edition of the Licensing Act, the one edited by Mr. Cross, is a lengthy and complicated document, containing over one hundred clauses, and framed in language which is sometimes ambiguous and sometimes obscure. Brevity, which is the soul of wit, is apt to be the confusion of acts of Parliament. The consequence is that there are many phrases in this act which are capable of more than one interpretation, and which by Magistrates' Clerks and stipendiaries have been interpreted differently. We cannot do better than give an instance. The Act says that if a house is wanted for town improvements that the holder of the licence can claim to have the licence transferred to other premises, provided that, in the opinion of the visiting justices, they are, “fit and convenient.” Now in Manchester we have over and over again seen licences transferred under this cause from the back of slums of the city to some quite suburban neighbourhood, against the strongly expressed wishes of the residents, but no such act of injustice has ever been known in Liverpool. What is the reason? Because Mr. Headlem has ruled that the words “fit and convenient” are to be construed literally as applying to the structure only, while Mr. Raffles, the Liverpool stipendiary, had given the words a wider and a truer application, and has ruled that the word “convenient” as applied to a public-house, may refer to its locality and its needfulness. This is a matter in which nobody is to blame but the Minister who drafted that bill and left a phrase open to two constructions. But if the Magistrates exhibit a fine ingenuity in making casuistical distinctions in the case of one clause, they systematically ignore the plain and unmistakable language of another and a more important one, indeed it is THE most important clause in the act. The act declares that no man shall hold more than one licence, and that he shall reside on the licensed premises. We repeat that a public-house is either a curse or a benefit, and we have no hesitation in saying that all the worst public-houses, the ones that do most harmful sell the worst drink, and openly and unblushingly care only for the customer who drinks quickly, the very houses that do all the harm and none of the good are almost invariably licensed in defiance of one of the wisest and most unmistakeably provisions of the act. They are the innumerable houses belonging to one man or one firm, and conducted by managers, whose fitness is only measured by the amount they take. They are the large central houses in densely populated districts, which the brewer can afford to buy at thousands of pounds over their true value, because occupation means monopoly, and once in he can recoup himself by selling the vilest, cheapest drink he chooses. Mr. Ferguson tells us that he has recently been reading the blue book containing the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the subject of intemperance. To a man with his eyes open, nearly every street in Manchester has a blue book of a much more appalling kind. Walk down Deansgate and Chester Road, we will not say at ten or eleven o'clock at night, but at eight or nine o'clock in the morning, enter one of its stale, foul vaults, with last night's beer stains on the counter, and last night's drunkards for the guests, and last night's oaths and blasphemy and woman's cries or mercy ladening the thick vapourish air. You may call for a glass of beer, or wine, or spirits, but you cannot drink, it is so badly adulterated. Yet the Magistrates have the power to punish adulteration, even though it be gin adulterated with pure water. But the Magistrates have a power which, if exercised, would not only enable them to greatly diminish the present number of public-houses, seeing that restriction is their creed, but would unquestionably do away with the most objectionable kind of houses. The large number of licensed houses owned by brewers, and managed by their servants, are constantly being brought under the notice of the Magistrates. As we have already said, if a manager's receipts are below a given sum, he is summarily dismissed, and the magistrates are asked to transfer the license to his successor. In every application of this kind, let the Magistrates act upon the instruction laid down in the act, let them find out whether he is simply a dummy, the tool of a man who, in contravention to the act, holds fifty to one hundred licenses. Unless the applicant is able to declare himself an independent and responsible man, the transfer is declined, and the business of the house is suspended. If there is any doubt about the meaning of the clause in which plurality in licenses is directly forbidden, then let a rejected applicant prove his case by proceeding against the Magistrates for refusing to transfer. With all their apparent zeal and anxiety, unless the Magistrates adopt this oblivions means of weeding out the worst kind of spirit vaults, the public may well conclude that there is one interest which is dearer to them than the physical and moral well-being of the community over which they preside, and that is the great vested interest of the malt trade.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 7 September, 1877. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

This was the Annual Licensing Day for the Wingham division, and the whole of the licenses was renewed. The Chairman said the bench was glad to be able to renew all the licenses, and to have such a good report from the Superintendent of the general conduct of the houses in the district. There had only been three convictions during the past year, and not one of them was of such a nature as to prevent the Magistrates from renewing the license. He hoped the Bench would have another good report placed before them next year.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 October, 1877. Price 1d.

A BATCH OF INEBRIATES

John Gilispey, labourer was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Round Tower Street.

Police-constable Pilcher said he saw the prisoner about 11 o'clock the previous night in Round Tower Street, drunk and making use of bad language. The prisoner told him four soldiers had been knocking him about and wanted him to go and see about it. He got the man indoors once and he came out again. He was not so very drunk.

The Bench said that when such men as the prisoner got drunk and gave the public a great deal of trouble they must put up with the consequences. A fine of 5s. and 6s. costs would be inflicted in this case.

The prisoner said he would send for the money.

John Baynton, blacksmith, was charged with being drunk in Snargate Street.

Police-sergeant Barton said he saw prisoner in Snargate Street between four and five on Saturday afternoon in a state of drunkenness. Mr. earn told him that prisoner had broken a window, value 8s.

Mr. Sanders said the prisoner had not been charged with any offence before. He believed he was a very respectable man.

The prisoner said he had had a glass of beer but he was not so very drunk. He slipped up on the pavement and went into the window, which Mr. Earn told him was broken before.

In reply to the Bench, Barton said he considered him in such a condition as not to take care of himself, so he took him into custody.

The Bench said he must pay the penalty, 5s. and 6s. costs.

The money was paid.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 14 December, 1877. Price 1d.

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE

Emma Gatehouse, 18, was charged on an indictment, and also by the Coroner's inquisition, with the manslaughter of William Bottle, at Dover.

Mr. Forbes Moss and Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended by counsel.

The circumstances of this case were somewhat remarkable, the offence imputed to the prisoner being that she had, either designedly or in the course of a quarrel and struggle which took place between them, pushed the deceased off a quay at Dover into the sea, and caused his death.

The deceased, it appeared, was a cooper, residing at Faversham, and on the 12th November he went to Dover for the purpose of seeing a brewer with whom he had been in communication upon the subject of deceased's taking a public-house. The facts appeared to be as follows:- After transacting his business, the deceased remained in town until the evening, and soon after eight o'clock he went to a Police-constable and told him that he had missed his train to Faversham and wished to know where he could obtain accommodation for the night, and the Constable mentioned the name of a public-house where he could go, and the deceased went away. He was seen after this in the company of the prisoner, who is a prostitute, and another woman of the same class, and about ten o'clock at night they were all in the neighbourhood of Northampton Street, Dover, which adjoined the inner harbour, and the prisoner and the deceased went amongst some timber, it being at this time quite dark. Very soon after this cries were heard proceeding from the timber, and the prisoner returned to the girl Nash alone, and an alarm was raised that the deceased was in the sea. A foreign seaman gallantly jumped into the water and swam about, but all he could find was a coat and hat, and the dead body was not discovered until the following morning. The prisoner, in the first instance, appeared to have stated that she did not know what had become of the deceased, and asserted that she had left him in the timber. She subsequently, however, made another statement to the girl nash, who was the principal witness for the prosecution, to the effect that she had gone into the timber with the deceased and that a disagreement took place between them upon the subject of money, and that she pushed the deceased into the water. On the following day the prisoner Nash went to the dead-house to see the body, and on the way Nash represented that the prisoner told her to say that the deceased was not the man who had gone into the timber with her, and that he was a taller man, but she declined to do that, and said she had no doubt he was the same man. This witness now stated that the deceased had had a little to drink, but when she was examined before the Magistrates she stated that the deceased was tipsy, and walked like a tipsy man.

The prisoner cross-examined the witness Nash, and asserted that all she had stated was false with regard to her having said that she had pushed the deceased into the water.

Mr. Justice Mansity, after some further evidence had been adduced, inquired if there was any direct evidence that would show how the deceased got into the water.

Mr. Poland said that there was no direct evidence whatever, the case rested entirely upon the evidence of the witness Nash.

The learned Judge said he thought this would not be sufficient to justify the Jury in convicting the prisoner. The deceased was tipsy, and he might have fallen into the water by accident.

The Jury, therefore, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”