From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 27 August, 1897.

DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS

The Annual Licensing meeting for the Borough of Dover was held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Licensing Committee appointed to consider the applications for new licenses were the Mayor (H. M. Baker, Esq.), Alderman Adcock, Alderman Pepper, Alderman Peake, Dr. Astley, J. L. Bradley, and A. Bottle, Esqs. The other Magistrates present, who took part in the renewal of the existing licenses were Messrs. H. F. Edwin, F. W. Prescott, W. C. Bagshawe, G. E. Toomer, W. J. Barnes, and J. A. Terson. The Jury box, as usual, was occupied by spectators, mostly members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, but the Rev. A. L. Palmer, Vicar of St. Mary's, and his curate, Mr. Oliver, who is Secretary of the Dover Temperance Council, were also there.

RENEWALS

The list of existing licensed houses was read over by Mr. Stilwell, and on the holders of the licenses or their representatives answering, the licenses were granted.

There were but few incidents to break the monotony of reading.

MUSIC AND DANCING

Mr. Knocker took the renewal of the “Hotel Burlington” license, and stated that he was going to give the necessary 14 days' notice to apply at Broadstairs for a music and dancing license.

BINFIELD AND CO

On the application being made for the renewal of the wine merchant's license for Messrs. Binfield and Co., in the Market Place, it was asked that the name of Mr. Binfield's partner, Mr. A. E. Lee, should be added, which was allowed.

CATERING FOR A NEW INDUSTRY

A house in the Pier had dropped its previous cognomen, and had adopted the title “Miners' Arms,” without any change in nomenclature. George Jarvis, the licensee of the “Exeter Arms,” Limekiln Street, who works at the coal pits asked, through Mr. Edward Spain, for an early (5 a.m.) license for his house, so that the men might get a stimulus on their way to work, and that was allowed.

THE PALACE OF VARIETIES

Notice was given that the Music Hall in the Market Place, hitherto called “The Phoenix” had abandoned that name, and would henceforth be called “The Palace of Varieties.”

EVERYBODY VERY GOOD

It is usual on going through the list of licensed houses, for there to be several pauses for licensees to be called up and admonished for breaches of the licensing laws during the year, but on this occasion there was no need for the bogie man, for the publicans have “all been very good,” and it may be hoped “they always mean to be.”

ENTERTAINMENT PLACES

Music and dancing licenses were taken out for the “Apollonian Hall,” “Dover College,” “Granville Hall,” “Town Hall,” “Promenade Pier,” “Palace of Varieties,” “Granville Gardens,” and for several other ordinary licensed houses.

A NICE DISTINCTION

The holder of the “Milestone Inn” license asked for a singing and music license. A solicitor from London, interposing as amicus curiae (someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it), remarked that that was a very nice distinction, he himself having observed that there was singing that was not music. The applicant, however, had not given the necessary fourteen days' notice, and he was advised to put himself in order fro Broadstairs.

For the “Metropole Hotel” a new music and dancing license was granted.

CHARLTON GREEN ROSE

Mr. Bradley, in accordance with notice, was instructed to oppose the renewal of the license of the “Rose Inn,” Charlton, on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council, the reason on which the opposition is based being that the house is not required by the needs of the neighbourhood, and the ground of opposition alone he contended was sufficient. He did not think that Mr. Mowll, who would support the application, could contest that ground, as he could not prove that one member of the public would be inconvenienced by that license being taken away. The house was situated amongst a group of others, without any special circumstances to warrant it being there. There was another licensed house, “The Grapes,” adjoining, “The Sportsman” a few doors higher up, and a little further up there is the “Red Lion.” If they approached the Bridge Street they passed two other licensed houses, the nearest being the “Wheelwright's Arms,” and if they approached by Peter Street there were “The Globe,” and “The Friend in Need.” The house being situated among so many in an ordinary residential neighbourhood, was not wanted. This was admitted by the brewers themselves, who had given notice of their willingness to give up this house if a license were granted to them in another part of the town. As to his main and only ground of objection, that the license was not required for the neighbourhood, he did not propose to call any witnesses, it having been laid down in the House of Lords, in the “Duke of Cambridge” case, that the Magistrates might act on their own knowledge of the facts, and as the Magistrates were fully aware of all the facts to which he had called attention, it would be a waste of time to call witnesses at all, especially as Mr. Mowll had consented to take the service of the notice as proved, to save his clerk, who was in London, from coming down especially to prove it.

Mr. Mowll said he had consented to the notice being accepted so as not to bring the clerk there to prove it, but he did expect that Mr. Bradley would have called the gentleman who signed the notice of objection to come there and support it. He further contended that it was accordance with the express wording of the Act of 1872, that the Magistrates must act in a case of this sort on evidence given before them on oath. The magistrates had no evidence at all before them in support of this objection, and he submitted to the Magistrates that as they had no evidence the objection must fail.

The Magistrates, after a brief consultation, stated that the license would be renewed.

SERVING CHILDREN

A memorial, signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of all the Bands of Hope in Dover, was presented by the Rev. Prebendary Palmes, Vicar of St, Mary's, asking that the Watch Committee should call upon the public house keepers in the town not to serve children with beer under 13 years of age.

The memorial was as follows:-

“The undersigned, representing all the Bands of Hope of the Town, beg respectfully to call the attention of the Licensing Justices to the injurious effects upon children resulting from the sale to them of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.

“It is inevitable that in many public houses children cannot help hearing and seeing a great deal that is demoralising and degrading; and it is unfortunately also true that very young children, buy sipping the drink which they are carrying from the public house to their home, have imbibed a taste for alcohol which, at their tender age, cannot but be most injurious to their physical, mental and moral development.

“Your petitioners therefore venture to ask that the Watch Committee be requested to instruct the Superintendent of Police to report at the next Licensing Meeting any case in which, after written warning, a Licensee persists in serving children apparently under thirteen years of age.

“This course has been adopted with most beneficial effects by the Magistrates of Liverpool, Bootle and Birkenhead places; and your petition would further point out that, in reply to a question asked in the House of Commons on the action of the Liverpool Magistrates, the Home Secretary remarked that the matter was one entirely in the discretion of the local authorities and further expressed the opinion that the action of the Justices of Liverpool was well worthy of being followed.

“Your petitioners therefore venture to hope that your Worships will be able to make a similar recommendation to the Watch Committee of Dover, and they are confident that – should such an action be taken – a very real source of grave moral corruption will be removed from our town.”

[Signed by every incumbent in the Borough of Dover, by every dissenting minister, and by a lay representative of ever Band of Hope in the town.]

Mr. Stilwell stated the law on the point. The Licensing Act of 1872 provided that no person under 16 years of age should be served with spirits, and no child under 13 years of age should be served with beer for consumption upon the premises.

The Bench having expressed their willingness to hear the Vicar of St. Mary's in support of the memorial.

Mr. Prebandary Palmes said he did not know that he could add to the memorial which had been read. He thought they would all feel that this is a most important matter, and he thought that every publican present in the Court would be quite willing to comply with the petition.

The Mayor said that they had the memorial before them, and they would consider it later.

Mr. Appleton, the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, said that the Rev. Mr. Palmes had no authority to speak on behalf of the Trade.

Mr. Palmes said he did not speak on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers. He only said that he believed they would agree to the petition.

NEW LICENSING APPLICATIONS

The Magistrates who were not on the Licensing Committee retired, and the hearing of applications for new licenses was proceeded with.

AN OFF LICENSE SOLICITED

Mr. George Constable applied for an off license for the house No. 1 Longfield Road.

Mr. Wollaston Knocker appeared for the applicant, and it was opposed by Mr. Glenister on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Society, and by Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Society.

The publication of the notices having been proved.

Mr. Knocker stated that the case for the applicant. The application was made on the ground that the neighbourhood required the additional accommodation. The house was situated at the corner of the estate, running from Belgrave Road to the west, and it was the only house on that estate at which it was allowed such a license should be granted, therefore they were not likely to be troubled in future years with applications in respect of other houses on that estate. If this license was granted, Mr. Dawes, the owner of the premises, 1, Longfield Road, would give up the license of the “Wellesley Inn,” Commercial Quay.

Mr. Fitzgibbon, a clerk in the employ of Mr. Dawes, produced a memorial, signed by 64 residents of Clarendon Street, in favour of the license.

In reply to Mr. Glenister, Mr. Fitzgibbon said Mr. Dawes asked him to get up the memorial. He (Mr. Firzgibbon) composed and wrote it. He got all the signatures – not all at one time; he copped them when he could.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, he said he did not get more than one signature from a house unless it was from a lodger. He had told the ladies that it would be better to have an off license than a public house, and then the men would not go from home and drop into a public house.

George Constable, the applicant, said people had complained to him that they had a long way to go for their beer, and asked him to apply for a license.

By Mr. Glenister: Mr. Dawes had purchased the house from Mr. Delahaye about the 9th of August. Witness was to pay £19 10s. per year rent. Witness produced a memorial signed by 88 people living in Longfield Road, Underdown, North, and Belgrave Roads.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, the witness said he did not get more than one signature at a house, unless they were those of lodgers. Three was the most from one house.

Mr. Thos. Wickens Fry, surveyor, produced a plan of the locality. He said it was about 500 yards from the centre of Clarendon Street to the nearest beer-house, and 320 yards from Longfield Road. The site of the beer-house was 70 yards from the National Schools.

Mr. Thomas Kent, a resident in the Folkestone Road, gave it as his opinion that the house was needed, as he found that men working for him had a long way to go to get beer. He did not need the house.

Mr. Caspell, builder, and Mr. George Newing, builder, gave evidence in favour of the license being granted.

Mr Edwin Dawer, brewer, of Maxton, said the house in Longfield Road was his. If the license was granted he would be prepared to give up the license of the “Wellesley Inn,” Commercial Quay, where 143 barrels of beer were sold by the tenant during the past 12 months.

After Mr. Glenister and Mr. Bradley had addressed the Bench in opposition the Mayor said they would reserve their decision.

THE CLARENDON STREET APPLICATION

Mr. William Hart, of Clarendon Place, applied for a provisional order to remove the license of the “Rose Inn,” Maison Dieu Road, to 177 and 179 Clarendon Street. The notices having been proved.
Mr. Martyn Mowll, in supporting the application, reminded the bench of the history of the case. When this estate was laid out about twenty years ago, two plots were set apart, and no others could be used for licensing purposes. The one was the site on which the “Malvern Hotel,” now stands, and the other was the plot at the top of Clarendon Street, opposite the new school. Application for a license for that site had been applied for on several occasions. Messrs. Beer and Co. applied in 1885, and the application was renewed in 1892. the application was then refused, the majority of the Bench being of opinion that the license was not then needed in the locality. Since then a large number of additional houses had been erected on the adjoining estate of Mr. Coleman, and the application was renewed last year, but the school having been built in the meantime, the Magistrates were disinclined to allow a public house to be established immediately opposite the schools, butt he Mayor, Mr. Pepper, in giving the decision on behalf of the bench said that if another year a new site was obtained further removed from the schools, and the Licensing Committee consisted of the same individuals, the Magistrates would take a different view of the matter. The applicant had obtained a site further removed from the schools, and had obtained the permission of Sir William Crundall, who represents the ground landlords, for the license of the “Rose” to be removed to the site of 177 and 179 Clarendon Street. The speaker further indicated the number of houses that would be conveniently near to the proposed premises, and contrasted it with the premises which Mr. Dawes had applied for an off-license, remarking that this was removed from the schools, whereas the site for the proposed off-license abutted onto the schools. It was true it was the back, and there was no direct way on that side, but there was no security that there would not be a way on that side in the future.

Mr. Glenister opposed on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers', and Mr. Brady on behalf of the Temperance Council.

Mr. W. Hart, the applicant having given formal evidence of his application, was cross-examined by Mr. Glenister. He said he had no interest in the “Rose” public-house. He did not know who were the owners of the house for which the license was applied. He should have nothing to do with the premises unless this license was granted. He had never been in the houses, but had passed them many times.

Mr. Glinster having looked at the agreement raised a legal objection. He said that Section 22 of the Licensing Act 1872 provided that it must be a person interested in the premises who made the application for the provisional license, whereas the applicant William Hart had stated that he had absolutely no interest in the premises.

Mr. Mowll contended that Mr. Hart having signed an agreement to take the premises had a real interest in the premises. Further it was provided by Section 50 of the Act of 1872, that the person who applied for the license to be removed from one part of the district to another, must be the person who was going to be the holder of the license when removed; that being so, Mr. Hart was the only person who could make the application. Messrs. George Beer and Co., who were the owners of these premises, would not have been the proper persons, because Mr. Hart was going to occupy the house.

The Bench retired to consider the objection, and after an absence of five minutes returned, and the Mayor stated that the Bench held the objection to be valid.

APPLICATION FOR AN HOTEL AT CRABBLE

The application of Messrs. Leney and Co., for an hotel opposite the Crabble Athletic Grounds, to be known as the “Cricketer” Hotel were then taken, the notices being formally proved.

Mr. M. Mowll appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Glinester opposed on behalf of the Dover Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society, and Mr. A. M. Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council.

Mr. M. Mowll in supporting the application said that the site of the proposed hotel was opposite the Athletic Ground, and abutted the new road laid out. It was proposed to thoroughly reconstruct the house formerly occupied by Mr. W. Wood, and to make considerable additions to it. Their Worships would be aware of the great boon which had been conferred on the town by the construction of the Athletic Grounds, due to the public spirit of three or four gentlemen, who had provided the money. Therer was no convenience in the locality, the nearest houses being the “Gate” on Crabble Hill, the “Royal Oak,” near River Church and the “Bull” at Buckland. These were not suitable to provide the wants of the people using the ground. As an instance of the numbers of people who would from time to time visit the ground he mentioned that on the opening day 7,000 were present, and 5,000 on Bank Holiday, and during the football season very large numbers would visit it. With regard to the opposition, he thought that of the Licensed Victuallers a mistaken opportunity, and that of the temperance Party was consistent. They said that the people would be better off if all public houses were closed, but the public had not come to that yet. Beer he supposed too far and away the lead as the drink of the vast majority of people, and those people required to be provided for.

Mr. F. G. Hayward produced the plans. The house would be known as the “Cricketers' Hotel” and the cost of the work would be about £1,200.

In reply to Mr. Bradley witness stated that in addition to three parlours and the bar, there were five bedrooms.

Mr. A. Leney, the applicant, expressed his willingness to carry out the plans if the license was granted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Glenister: He had acquired the property six or seven months ago. It would be a small hotel, but the drinking bars would be the principle features. He did not propose to give up another license. At the present time on ordinary occasions the ground was supplied by means of an occasional license.

By Mr. Bradley: if the application were granted it would not take away the need for an occasional license.

Re-examined by Mr. Mowll: The “Bull” was his property, but he did not consider it sufficient for the requirements of the ground.

Mr. Glenister, in speaking in opposition to the application, remarked that it was simply putting money into Mr. Leney's pocket as a license was not even offered to be given up for it.

Mr. Bradley pointed out the Athletic Grounds was the sole reason advanced for the application, and he asked if that was a sufficient reason to grant another license to increase the number already in the town. If the granting of the application would do away with the occasional license there would be some grounds for it. But it would not, and the house would be only used in going to or leaving the ground, and he thought would do more harm than good to it, and would probably induce a rough and noisy element to linger about the ground, who would be better away.

The Bench reserved their decision until the close of the proceedings.

APPLICATION FOR BOTTLED BEER LICENSE

Mr. H. Mackeson, of the firm of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., of Hythe, applied for a beer license for the premises 15, King Street.
Mr. E. Wollaston Knocker appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Glenister and Mr. M. Bradley objected as in previous cases, and they were joined by Mr. E. Carder, who objected on behalf of the wine trade.

Mr. Knocker said that he would abandon the portion of the license relating to wine and spirits, and ask the Bench for a conditional beer license only. The excise license granted all his client required in regard to those, as he did not wish to break bottles of spirits, but to sell full bottles. The application was made by Messrs. Mackeson was for the premises 15, King Street, which had been rented by them at £150 a year. They proposed to open the premises as wine and spirit merchants, and asked to be allowed to sell beer in less quantities than three dozen pints, which the excise license allowed. His client was prepared to give an undertaking not to sell less than six pint bottles at a time. Messrs. Mackeson were interested in Dover owning several licensed houses, and keeping the malt house at Buckland, and they suggested that the rapidly increasing population in the Borough required the additional accommodation. In Dover there were only six wine merchants' and three grocers' licenses against ten and nine respectively in Folkestone, which had only two-thirds of the population, and so a very small proportion of accommodation in that respect was given at Dover.

Mr. Henry Mackeson, the applicant, was called, and gave formal evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Carder: He was not aware that there were already seven or eight licensed premises in the Market Square, although he was aware that there were three in a block opposite the premises. To approach the premises anyone would have to pass Mr. Binfield's which was close by one way, or Messrs. Court and Co., and Messrs. Lukey and Co., the other way.

Mr. Bradley asked the applicant if he thought that anyone had any difficulty in getting beer in Dover, and Mr. Mackeson amidst laughter replied that he did.

Mr. carder asked that the application should be refused as there was not any reasonable want for such a license.

Mr. Glinester said the only reason apparent in asking for the license was the statement that there were not so many of these licenses as in Folkestone. He thought that the Bench were fully competent to decide what was required in Dover without going round the Court for examples. In regard to the conditions proposed he pointed out that such an undertaking could not be attached to a license.

Mr. Bradley also addressed the Bench, pointing out that no necessity existed for the application, and a locality could hardly be chosen in Dover where the facilities to obtain any drink required were greater.

THE DIRECTIONS

The Bench then retired to consider their decisions on the various applications, and were absent a quarter of an hour. On returning to Court, the Mayor said: We have carefully considered the different applications for new licenses and have come to the conclusion to refuse the license applied for by G. Constable. With regard to the application by Mr. A. Leney, that is adjourned until the next sitting at Broadstairs, and we refuse the application of Mr. Mackeson.