Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.



Notes of 1936


From the Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser, Friday 7 February, 1936.


"The very satisfactory reports we have received reflect great credit upon the licence holders. It means that licensed houses are conducted rather more as clubs and meeting places than they used to be."

This comment was passed by the Chairman of the Cranbrook Licensing Bench (Mr. E. E. Selmes) on hearing the reports presented at the Brewster Sessions on Monday.

Supt. Polington (Tonbridge), for the villages in his area said he was very pleased to report that the license holders had conducted their houses in an excellent manner. No proceedings had been taken against any of the licensees, who totalled 57. There had been three convictions for drunkenness during the year, one resident and two non-residents.

Supt. Robertson (Ashford) said the houses in his area had been satisfactorily conducted during the year, and there had been no proceedings against licensees and no complaints. There were no cases of drunkenness.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 14 February, 1936.


Brewster Sessions

At the Annual Licensing Sessions the following reports were submitted:-

Supt. Webb stated that in the area submitted within the jurisdiction of that Court there were 49 ale houses, 25 beer on, 5 beer off, and 3 grocers, giving an average of 282 persons per licence. There was one case of drunkenness and one licence fined for breach of hours.

Supt. Wheatley reported that in the Wingham portion of the St. Augustine's Division, there were 16 ale, 5 beer on, and 2 beer off licenses, an average of 205.69 persons per house. There were two convictions for drunkenness.

The Chairman announced that all licences would be renewed with the exception of that of the "Ship" Inn, Ash, which would be deferred to the next Licensing Sessions, on the question of redundancy. Until then it could carry on.


Dover Express, Friday 14 February 1936.


The County Police Petty sessions were held at Wingham on Thursday, before Viscount Hawarden, Messrs.

W. G. Chandler, A. J. Lilliott and Stainton, and Mrs. Plumptre.

Brewster Sessions.

At the Annual Licensing Sessions the following reports were submitted:—

Supt. Webb stated that in the area situated within the jurisdiction of that Court there were 49 ale houses, 25 beer on, 5 beer off, and 3 grocers, giving an average of 282 persons per licence. There was one case of drunkeness and one licensee fined for breach of hours.

Supt. Wheatley reported that in the Wingham portion of the St. Augustine’s Division there were 16 ale, 5 beer on, and 2 beer off licences, an average of 205.69 persons per house. There were two convictions for drunkenness.

The Chairman announced that all the licences would be renewed with the exception of that of the "Ship Inn," Ash, which would be deferred to the next Licensing Sessions, on the question of redundancy. Until then it could carry on.


Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 15 February 1936.


The annual licensing meeting of the St Augustine's Division was held at Canterbury on Wednesday.

The magistrates were Mr. G. K. Anderson (Chairman), the Hon. Mrs. Hardcastle, Colonel D. Carnegie. Major H. S. Hardy, Captain F. J. Watts, Messrs. G. Blaiklock, W. Colthup, A. Pragnell, D. Reynolds, A. Collard. and H. Luckett


Superintendent Wheatley, in his report, stated that he was pleased to say that the houses had all, with one exception, been well conducted during the year. One licensee was proceeded against for serving during prohibited hours, but no conviction was recorded. The number and descriptions of licensed houses were 100 ale-houses. 24 beer-on. and eight beer-off. The population was 40,570, which gave a ratio of 307.34 per house. During the past year four persons were proceeded against for drunkenness, one being a resident and three non-residents. Three of the four were convicted. In 1931 there were 4; 1932, 2; 1933, 4; and 1934, 2.

The Chairman said they would have liked, of course, to have found they were making progress towards fewer cases of drunkenness, but on the whole the average seemed to be maintained. He supposed that as a matter of fact the business done during the year had been on a larger scale than in previous years. There were more people rushing—he hardly liked to use the word—about the roads than there used to be, and they must stop here and there for the accommodation they wanted. He supposed they would be right in thinking that the houses were as a whole better looked after by licensees. Having regard to the fact that more people were using the houses if they found that the average of drunkenness did not increase they could only come to the conclusion that the houses were well managed and that people were not giving way to drunkenness as much as they used to do. He congratulated the tenants of the houses on the way they had carried on their businesses and the police for the supervision they had exercised.


An application for a billiards licence in respect of the Assembly Hall, Whitstable, was made toy Mr. Thomas H. R. Emerson, and this was granted.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 21 February, 1936.


Brewster Sessions

At the adjourned Annual Licensing Sessions, Supt. Isaacs (Elham Division) reported that there were twelve fully licensed and four beer-on licenses in the district, and one club, that of Messrs. Martin Walters, Capel-le-Ferne. The population of the district, according to the 1931 census, was 3496, which gave ratio of one licensed house to 218.5 persons. Two licences had been transferred during the year. No licenses had been proceeded against. The drunkenness table for the past six years was:- 1930, 1; 1931-35 nil. All the licensed houses had been well conducted throughout the year, and he had no objection to the renewal of any of the licences.

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report, which reflected credit on the public, publicans and police. All the licenses would be renewed.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 March, 1936.



The adjourned general annual licensing meeting for Dover and the Liberties was held at the Town Hall on Monday, before the Mayor (Alderman G. M. Norman), Messrs. W. J. Barnes, T. Francis, W. B. Brett, S. Lewis, W. L. Law, J. W. Bussey, W. Bradley, W. J. Palmer, H. E. Russell, Dr. C. Wood, Lt-Col. J. A. Purefoy-Robinson, Miss Elnor and Mrs. Binge.

Townsend Ferry Application.

Thomas Charles Webb, 37, Kenley Road, Kingston Hill, Surry, Secretary of Townsend Bros., Ferries Ltd., 78 Leadenhall St., E.C.3 applied for an order sanctioning the provisional ordinary removal of the justices' licence held by James William Hover in respect of the "Empire," Market Square, Dover, to a building to be erected as an addition to existing premises situated in the Eastern Dockyard, used by Townsend Ferries Ltd., in connection with their cross-Channel motor car ferry service.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the applicants. There were objections by Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, owners of the "Prince Alfred," East Cliff, who were represented by Mr. C. J. Doughty, and by Messrs. Gardner and Co., owners of the "Albion," East Cliff, who were represented by Mr. C. Gardiner. Mr. Wright, of the Inland Revenue, said he had been instructed not to take any action.

Mr. Mowll said the application was for the same facility that had been granted all the other passenger berths in Dover, at the Marine Station, at the Admiralty Pier and at the Prince of Wales' Pier and the case for Townsend was really stronger, because in that case there was no Pullman car train that the passengers could enter upon leaving the boat. It was a service that was conducted irrespective of the railway. With regard to the objections he would like to assure those who opposing the application that the applicants did not want anything to do with any one of their customers, and they wanted the Bench to impose a condition in the licence that would prevent the persons who now use either the "Albion" or the "Prince Alfred" from coming to Messrs. Townsend's refreshment room. It would be necessary for him to apply for the same hours as they had got at the Marine Station, because the hours of the boat did not fit in with the licensing hours. For instance, the "Forde" left at 11 o'clock; there was no difficulty about that because the hours begun at 10.30, and when the boat went it was proposed to close the refreshment room down. But in the afternoon the boat arrived any time between 3.30 and 5, and in respect of that it would be necessary to have altered hours. That was what happened at the Marine Station; passengers producing their vouchers were entitled to the concession the Bench allowed them. He wished to say that they did not wish the place to be open at any other time. They desired to close it when the boat left at 11 o'clock in the morning, until the arrival of the boat at 3.30 in the afternoon, and then from 5 o'clock to close for the rest of the day. Moreover as the Townsend service only operated from April to October, they wanted to be enabled to close the restaurant for the rest of the year. Captain Townsend was empathic on the point that he did not want to be under any obligation to keep the place open, except in connection with his boats. If the Bench thought fit, it would be a convenience in the working of the licence that they should be able to supply not only the passengers but also the persons who were down there in connection with the service, such as A.A. and R.A.C. men, Customs, etc.

Stewart Morse Townsend said he was the Chairman of Townsend Bros. Ferries Ltd., which had been running motor car services from Dover to Calais since 1928. Last year they carried 6688 cars and 16,965 passengers. They had received many complaints in regard to the absence at their berth of the facilities possessed by all the other passenger berths in Dover. He agreed with all that Mr. Mowll had said in his opening. An hour before the departure of the ship, and an hour after its arrival was all they really wanted.

Mr. Doughty referred to the plan, and asked the witness what it was proposed to do with the room. 8ft. by 8ft. shown on it.

Witness: I understand the room is provided to conform with the regulations that provide that you must have two rooms.

I put it to you that it is simply a subterfuge to evade the Act? It is not a room at all? - I do not agree at all. It is conforming with the Act.

Is it going to be used at all? - Certainly.

What for? - That will remain to be seen. I have not got this worked out yet.

If it is not worked out yet you can hardly ask the Magistrates to licence it? - If it were necessary in order to conform with the letter and spirit of the Act in every way we can make this room larger. It is not built yet.

Mr. Doughty: You are asking for the removal of the licence to premises not built yet?

Mr. Mowll: It is by way of a provisional grant.

Mr. Doughty: This is not a new application. You are applying to remove from the Empire Music Hall. That has not been open for ten years? - That I do not know.

To say the licence was of no value on closed premises is obvious? - Well, I don't much about licensing. This is the first experience I have had in connection with licensing.

Where it is going to be moved it will be of some value? - As an amenity, but so far as money is concerned I do not know that it will be of much value.

You know that if it was a new application you would have to pay a monopoly value? - I have heard that.

Is that why you brought up a derelict licence? - I was advised that.

To avoid the monopoly value? - I naturally do what my advisers tell me.

All those passengers of yours who want any refreshment, it is perfectly easy for them to go to the "Albion."

At this remark by Mr. Doughty, Mr. Brett, one of the Magistrates laughed loudly.

Mr. Doughty: I do treat the Bench with respect. I hope and ask that the same facilities be granted to me.

Mr. Brett: It is a ridiculous question to ask.

Mr. Doughty: Those passengers who desire refreshment on landing have the facilities of an enormous number of licensed premises in Dover?

Witness: That is in licensed hours, not the time we come in.

They have not got to wait very long, or else they can go across to the other side of the harbour? - Three miles.

And they have all got cars? - And a considerable walk when they get to the other side.

What is the rateable value of these licensed premises? - I am afraid I cannot answer that. I simply don't know.

Mr. Gardiner: Are you running in connection with the Railway Company at all?

Witness: No.

A private show?: Yes.

Is there any reason why the Railway Company has not made this application? - I cannot speak for the Railway Company.

There is nothing to prevent your failing and the licence failing with it? - We hope that will not happen.

But supposing it did. The Railway Company, if they had a licence of that sort, would have some financial backing? - I do not really follow you.

What I am getting at is that you are not paying for the monopoly value? - I understand not.

I suggest the reason is that you have not the financial backing which other people might have? - I think we could find the necessary money.

Thank you, that is what I am getting at. Now we have something we do know. Do you know where the "Empire" is? - I don't know. I understand it is in the Market Square.

And you have got the sauce to come here and ask for the removal of a place when you don't actually know what it is like? - I am not interested in where it is coming from; I am interested in where it is going to.

Henry Arthur James Ryeland, a member of the firm of George Hammond and Co., agents for Dover for Messrs. Townsend, said that according to the last demand note he had received, the rates on the premises were 68 gross and 54 nett. The premises included a shed, R.A.C. office, A.A. office etc.

Mr. Mowll: You are not able to say how much the rates will be increased by the addition? - No, I'm afraid not.

Mr. Doughty: We are only concerned with the licensed premises, not what the whole building will be.

Mr. Mowll: It is the whole premises that are to be licensed.

In reply to further questions, witness said he thought Messrs. Townsend in the summer time carried one car for every one carried by the Railway Company, probably a little more than that.

Mr. Doughty said he had three objections to the proposed transfer. The justices have to be satisfied that the premises were structurally adapted to the class of licence required, and where a spirits licence was asked for, there had to be two rooms for the accommodation of the public. They had seen the plans before them. The second point was that the premises had to be of the annual value set out in the schedule, which was 30 a year. In his submission the premises did not comply with either of those sections in the Act, and in law, the Bench could not grant the licence, because to say that a cubby-hole, 8ft. by 8 ft., was a room within the meaning of the Act, particularly when it was marked "private" on the plan, was not two rooms within the meaning of the Act. It was simply a subterfuge to get round the Act without complying with its provisions. The Bench could not grant the licence when there was no evidence at all of the annual value of the premises was 30 a year. Such evidence as they had related to all the premises. He said that the "cubby-hole" was a dodge to evade the Act and the transfer was a dodge to evade payment of monopoly value. The "Empire," which everyone seemed to have forgotten about, was a licence of no value, because the premises were closed. It was proposed to transfer that to a place where thee was a demand, so that it would become of pecuniary value, and by the transfer the revenue was done out of the monopoly value. The Court of appeal had upheld the decision of a Bench in refusing a removal from a house which was doing a certain trade, when the brewers built better premises, which it was held increased the value of the licence. The present application was an even weaker one, because the house from which the licence was to be removed had no trade at all. It clearly should have been an application for a new licence. There was no relation whatever between a licence in a music hall and a licence to provide convenience for passengers on boats. It was simply a dodge to get out of paying a monopoly value which the Act said should be paid, and it was hard on those who already held licenses in the neighbourhood and had to pay monopoly value. Finally, the number of passengers on one boat, with an occasional relief boat, hardly constituted a demand for such a rather out-of-the-way application. He submitted that the Bench could not grant the application, and even if they could, it should come in the form of an application for a new licence, and then they would be granting something in the Marine Station had not got, and something there was no serious demand for, and penalising other licensees in Dover, many of whom had had to pay monopoly value.

Mr. Gardiner associated himself with Mr. Doughty's arguments and asked that they should be settled.

Mr. Mowll said that in answer to the legal points Mr. Doughty had put forward, first of al, nothing whatever was said as to the size of the second room had got to be where spirits were sold. Second, with regard to the annual value, the building was not yet complete and could only give them the annual value which had been given to the addition would make it more. The third point, the monopoly value, he could answer in a sentence. They had heard the revenue representative, whose duty it was to protect the Government on that point, say they had no objection to the application.

After the Bench had retired the Magistrates' Clerk said they had decided to adjourn the application until the 20th. The Bench wanted further information. The plan wanted elaborating a bit more.

Mr. Doughty said surely the application had been made closed. He must formally object to that. The plans had been deposited, and you could not alter plans once they were deposited.

The Magistrates' Clerk: They can ask for more information.

Mr. Doughty said that when he said they could not have it he did not mean anything disrespectful. If it were adjourned he asked that a note should be taken of his objection.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The bench say the licensed premises are those coloured pink on the plan.

Mr. Doughty said that was his submission. He said that there was no power in law to adjourn it when the case of the applicant was closed.

Mr. Gardiner asked for his objection to be noted too. They could not make any further alteration to the plans until next year.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Doughty: I ask you to take a note of my objection. Could I have an undertaking that the plan will not be altered, because it has been put in.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the plan would not be altered. The applicants could put in an amended one.

Mr. Doughty said they had closed their case. One could not alter plans once deposited. That was an elementary rule rule of licensing law. He hoped his objection was perfectly clear, because if that procedure were to go on he would at once try to quash it in the High Court. He wanted a note made of his objection, which was that the case for the applicant had been closed and no further evidence could be called for or more documentary evidence put in. That the plans having been deposited, they were the only plans that could be considered. No amended plans could be put in and those plans could not be altered or amended in any way.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Till the adjournment?

Mr. Doughty: Or any time till the next annual general licensing meeting.


Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 14 March 1936.


The adjourned annual licensing meeting of the St. Augustine's Division was held at Canterbury on Wednesday morning. Mr. G. K. Anderson (Chairman) presiding.


An application was made on behalf of Mrs. Cox for a billiards licence in respect of “The Little Brown Teapot,” Beltinge.

Mr. J. W. Girling opposed on behalf of the adjoining occupier who, it was stated, already had a billiards licence.

Mr. S. F. Oliver, architect, Herne Bay, stated that the Herne Bay Urban District Council approved the plans for the billiards hall and tea rooms.

Mr. Girling said that his client had held a billiards licence for some years. He had two tables and these were sufficient to meet the demands of the neighbourhood.

Mr. G. Blaiklock (a magistrate):- How far are your client's premises from the applicant’s?

Mr. Girling:- Four feet. (Laughter.)

The application was granted.



Mr. Monier Williams applied on behalf of Cecil George Henry Willing for a licence in respect of “The Squires,” Upstreet.

Mr. A. K. Mowll opposed on behalf of Messrs. Fremlins. and Mr. H. Spratt, of the "Royal Oak," Upstreet; Mr. J. Thorn Drury opposed on behalf of Mr. Barton, of the "Ship," Upstreet. and Mr. George, “King's Head,” Sarre; Mr. J. W. Girling opposed on behalf of the licensee of the "Crown," Sarre; and Superintendent Wheatley opposed on behalf of the police.

Mr. Monier Williams said that his application was a reasonable one and there might be some misapprehension in the minds of the opposition. The application was not for a licence which was to be entirely unrestricted. All that it was desired to do was to sell alcoholic refreshment with meals. That was what was commonly known as a restaurant licence, and he submitted that was a reasonable facility. The premises were situated not far from Upstreet and applicant and his wife were eminently suitable for running this kind of business. Applicant had been one of the head waiters at the Holborn Restaurant; for four years was manager at the West End Hotel, Margate, from 1928 to 1932 he ran a boarding house at Ramsgate, and from 1932 to 1934 he was head waiter at the "Grand Hotel," Cliftonville. Mrs. Willing was chief cashier for Messrs. Lyons at Wembley and in 1926 became a manager at Dreamland. Margate. The premises occupied a piece of ground about two acres in extent, and were run as a roadside house. There was ample space for cars and behind the house was a site for a marquee which was erected during the busy summer season. Catering was done for large parties. The premises were the headquarters of a small Club known as "The Squires Country Club," and that was registered. This was quite separate from the restaurant and the members' room was cut off from the rest of the house. Alcoholic refreshment could be served to the members but the greatest care had been taken that no drinks should be served to those other than members of the Club. A lease had been taken for five years from 1935 at a rental of 70 a year plus rates. Last season over 2,000 meals, excluding teas, were served. Six waitresses were employed during the season. Every day there had been demands by people, who were attracted by the surroundings and wished to stay there, for alcoholic refreshment with their meals. In some cases bookings had been cancelled when it was mentioned that drinks could not be supplied with meals. The opposition, except that of the police, was all trade opposition. There were no licensed premises within a quarter of a mile. Within half a mile there was the "Grove Ferry Hotel," and outside the half mile radius they had the "Ship" and the "Royal Oak," and the "Crown" was about a mile and a half away. He suggested that opposition of this sort should not weigh at all with the Bench because it was common knowledge that in this part of the world there was room for everybody in the busiest season of the year. There was a real demand and it was not to be suggested because "The Squires" were empowered to serve a glass of beer, or a whiskey and soda with lunch or dinner that they would in any way injure the public houses which already existed and had Licences. Applicant had got the people without having had the licence. When they came they wanted alcoholic refreshment and that, in his submission, was the deciding factor which the Bench had to consider. If the people had not been to the premises and the object of getting a restricted licence was to attract customers there might be something in the opposition.

Cecil G. H. Willing gave evidence in support of Mr. Monier Williams’ statement. and in reply to Mr. Mowll agreed that the premises were originally a farm house. He had not brought any books with him so they had to take his word that 2,000 meals were supplied. He first opened the premises about Easter. The membership of the Club was 27. He was not aware that the "Georgian House" Hotel had no licence. He, actually, was sub-tenant of the premises.

Mr. Mowll:- Are you suggesting you have not gone to any of these licensed premises for refreshments for people?

Witness:- No.

You have a motor vehicle which you could fetch this in if anyone wanted it?


All these thousands of people were satisfied with the food without the drink?

They could not have it.

In reply to Mr. Thorn Drury, witness said that members of the Club came from Ramsgate and Margate.

Mr. Thorn Drury:- I suppose if this licence is granted the value of your lease will be increased?

Witness:- I should think it would be.

So if you wished to dispose of your lease you could, if this licence is granted, naturally ask a bigger price?

If I had the licence.

To further questions, witness said that the largest party he had catered for was 120, but he could accommodate upwards of 200 in the marquee.

Witness told the Chairman that he started the business and also the Club.

In answer to Mr. Girling, witness said that if the licence were granted he would cut out the Club because it did not pay.

Mr. Girling suggested that witness had mentioned that this would be done because he knew the Justices might not be in favour of granting a licence if there was a Club on the premises.

Witness admitted, in reply to Mr. Girling, that he was aware that facilities for catering at the "Crown," Sarre, had been recently increased.

Superintendent Wheatley cross-examined to show that despite the fact that alcoholic refreshment could not be supplied with meals people still went to "The Squires."

Witness agreed that although he had said that morning that one room was used by the members of the Club, when the Superintendent visited the premises he told him that they used three of the four rooms.

The Chairman asked the reason for the Club, and witness said that the members went there for a motor run and a meal and a drink and to lounge about.

The Chairman:- There are no games of any sort?

Witness:- No.

There is nothing to prevent people, who know they cannot get alcohol at your premises, bringing it with them?


Mr. Monier Williams:- Do you like the idea of people bringing their own?

Witness:- No.

Mrs. Edith G. V. Willing, wife of the applicant, gave similar evidence, and in cross-examination said that the premises were too far from licensed houses for them to send out for alcoholic refreshment. A big trade was done in catering for motorists apart from parties which made arrangements for accommodation.

Mrs. May Waite, a waitress at "The Squires," said that quite a number of people asked for alcoholic drinks with their meals, but these could not be supplied.

Mr. Mowll said that not a penny had been spent on alterations at what was a farmhouse. No independent evidence had been called in support of the application. It was obvious there was no demand in the district, and it was apparent that charabanc parties on the way to Margate would not now go anywhere near the premises because they would use the Coastal Road. The Bench had to be satisfied that the district required the facilities. If the licence were granted the legitimate business of licensees would be affected.

Mr. Thorn Drury described it as a weak application and one almost amounting to nothing as it had nothing of substance at all. The house was somewhat isolated and was erected in the middle of the marshes. That was Mr. Monier Williams' opinion of the beauty of the countryside. (Laughter.) It would be open to Mr. Willing, having obtained the licence, to sell his lease at a considerable profit. Whether he was going to do that he (Mr. Thorn Drury) could not say, and perhaps he ought not to suggest it, but it was a possibility which had to be taken into account.

Mr. Girling said the question of the "Crown" appeared to have been entirely overlooked by the applicant. He submitted that no real demand had been shown. All demands could be supplied in the immediate district. The opposition had not had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness who had been to the applicant's premises and wanted alcoholic refreshment.

Superintendent Wheatley said that his opinion was that the licence was entirely unnecessary. He did not consider the premises were at all suitable. It seemed that the application was being made in order to catch the motor trade in the summer months for the marquee.

The application was refused.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 27 March, 1936.



The adjourned general annual licensing meeting for the Borough of Dover, was held at the Town Hall on Friday, before h Mayor (Alderman G. M. Norman), Messrs. W. Bradley, J. W. Bussey, W. J. Palmer, and W. B. Brett.

The chief business was the consideration by the Licensing Committee of the adjourned application by Messrs. Townsend Ferries, Ltd., for the removal of the licence of the old "Empire," in the Market Square, to premises to be erected by them in the Eastern Dockyard, in connection with their Cross-channel car ferry service.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the applicants, and Mr. C. J. Doughty and Mr. C. Gardiner for the objectors, Messrs. G. Beer and Rigden, Ltd., and Messrs. Gardner and Co., owners of the "Albion," and the "Prince Alfred," public houses at East Cliff.

Mr. Doughty submitted that the justices had no power to deal with the application for the removal because, according to the Act, the annual licensing meeting had to be held in the first 14 days in February, and the adjourned meeting within one month after, which was not later than the first 14 days of March. Having made that point he, proposed to take no further part in the proceedings.

Mr. Gardiner associated himself with Mr. Doughty's remarks.

Mr. Mowll said that the adjournment was at the request of the Bench themselves, as they wanted some further information on a certain point, therefore it was quite an order.

Mr. Doughty said the section was perfectly clear that the adjourned meeting must be held within the dates mentioned.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Court had power to take any steps they desired to obtain annual values or elaboration of plans.

Mr. Doughty said that was only within the statutory period.

The Bench decided to hear the application.

Col. F. G. Howard, who drew up the plans said the annual value of the premises would be 47 10s. That was arrived at by the rental based on the cost of the building, which was 950. The whole building would be licensed.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That does not include the Customs Waterguard Office.

Witness: Yes, it is all in the building.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Bench thought the licence aught to be limited to the portion coloured pink.

Mr. Mowll said in that case there would be difficulty with an annual value. In a public house it was not the annual value of the bar only that counted, it was the whole premises.

After the Magistrates had retired to consider their decision, the Mayor said that after considering all points they had decided to refuse the transfer.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 10 April, 1936.



At the Dover Police Court on Friday, before the Mayor (Alderman G. M. Norman), Messrs. W. J. Barnes, J. W. Bussey, W. Bradley, W. L. Law, S. Lewis, W. B. Brett, C. W. Chitty, G. D. Clark, and E. H. Russell, Dr. C. Wood, Miss Elnor and Mrs. Binge.

Mr. A. K. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Knight, of the "Angel" Inn, High Street, to apply for one hour's extension on Easter eve and Easter Monday. If the Bench took the view that the application aught to be granted, then he would make an application on behalf of 85 other licensed victuallers in the district. The real crux of the whole case was, "Is this a special occasion or not?" It had been decided in the High Court that the question of what was a special occasion, was a matter entirely for the justices to decide. The justices had decided in various places, and had granted the application, that it was a special occasion. For instance, at Margate they had granted the application until 11.30 for Thursday, Saturday an Monday, and at Ramsgate, Deal and Seabrook until 11 on those days. The application, of course, was not necessary last year; this year, summer time started after Easter. It was entirely in the justices' discretion whether they held it was a special occasion or not. There were various things that were happening at Easter, football, dances, etc., and of course there would be a lot of extra trains and people coming to Dover. During his lifetime there had been a tremendous difference in the way people had conducted themselves as far as drink was concerned. In the last few years there had been practically no drunkenness, certainly in this county. They had only got to listen to the police reports at the annual licensing meeting to realise that thee was practically no drunkenness at all. They had to ask themselves if the privilege had ever been abused. The Chief Constable was opposing because, he said, in law it was not a special occasion. It was not a question of law at all; it was a question for the justices. It had not been abused at Christmas; why should it not be granted? Those licensed victuallers had a very hard time, and some had difficulty making ends meet, because the sale of drink had gone down. All the houses, he understood were properly conducted and had been on other occasions when the facilities been granted.

The Chief Constable said he objected on the ground that the two days were not special occasions on which an extension should be granted. If those extensions were granted, there were many other occasions, practically any other week-end throughout the whole of the year, which could be termed special occasions within the meaning of the Act, and extensions granted as a consequence.

The application was granted.

Mr. Mowll then made a similar application on behalf of 85 other members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, which was granted, and a number of other licensees, who are not members of the Association, were granted the same extension on the application of Mr. Wood, of the "Walmer Castle."


Thanet Advertiser, Friday 22 May 1936.

Whitsun drinks. 11:00 closing at Ramsgate.

Extensions in respect of 90 licensed premises until 11 p.m., on Whit-Sunday and Whit-Monday were granted at Ramsgate police Court on Monday.

The magistrates refuse the application of Mr. Walter Daniel for an extension until 11:30 p.m. On the Bank Holiday.

Application was made by Mr. Daniel I'll be half of 80 licences for an hour's extension of the permitted hours on each of the two days. Mr. Daniel pointed out that whereas on Saturday and hours extension means an extension from 10 to 11 p.m., on Monday it will take them up to 11:30 as the summer period of hours of opening came into operation on that day.

He understood, said Mr. Daniel, that the Chief Constable (Mr. S. F. Butler) was opposing the extension on Monday from 11 to 11:30 p.m., and he asked the bench if they would permit him to address them after the Chief Constable had stated his objections.

Mr. Butler said that last year in connection with the Whitsun holiday, which were in June, application was made for extension until 11:30 p.m., but the bench refused this and granted an extension until 11 p.m. That was why he suggested that it was a reasonable hour for this year.

The Chief Constable added that his reason for opposing the 11.30 opening was that the number of people in the town did not warrant it. He will go as far as to say that with a large number of licences the extension until 11 p.m. was not warranted.

Addressing the bench, Mr. Daniel pointed out that in the neighbouring towns the extension was granted until 11:30. At Margate apparently there was enough trade being done, and he believed he was right in saying that the extension was granted at Broadstairs last year.

With regard to demands, surely, he asked, the best people to know the requirements were the licensees themselves. At the quarterly meeting of the Isle of Thanet Licensed Retailers' Protection Society it was unanimously resolved that the application he was making that morning should be made. It was felt by the members that it was invidious to make a distinction between Ramsgate and the neighbouring towns.

Mr. Daniel said that if the bench refused the application it would make Ramsgate peculiar in relation to the other towns. There was no objection to the way in which the houses were conducted. It was just a mild objection alleging that the extensions until that hour were not wanted.

The Chairman (Mr. C. J. Fells) said the bench had decided to grant the extension in respect of Saturday and Monday until 11 p.m.

The granting of similar applications made by Mr. J. H. Robinson and Mr. T. Hoppit brought the total number to 90.


Extensions until 11 p.m. on Whit-Saturday and 11:30 p.m. on Whit-Monday at the "Bell Inn," the "Freehold Inn," the "New Inn" and the "White Horse," Minster, and the "New Inn," Monkton, were granted by Ramsgate County magistrates on Tuesday.

Mr. M. C. C. Daniel, who applied on behalf of the licences, said they wanted the extensions to bring them more or less into line with Acol, where extensions and until 11.30 on both Saturday and Monday have been granted.

The Chairman Capt. J. I. H. Friend) said that in view of the decision of Margate Cinque Ports magistrates in respect of a Acol, the Minster and Monkton applications would be granted.


The Cinque Ports magistrates, at Margate, on Monday, granted the application made by Mr. A. J. Pepin, licensee of the "Rose Inn," Broadstairs, on behalf of 22 licences at Broadstairs and St. Peters for an hour's extension of the permitted hours on Whit-Saturday and Monday, 30th May and 1st June respectively.

A similar privilege was granted to the licensee of the "Royal Albion Hotel," Broadstairs.

No objection was offered by the police, Inspector Northam saying that the same facilities are afforded the Broadstairs and St. Peters licences last year.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1936.


Reports from the Kent hop district this week show that crop prospects have much improved. As the result of two brilliant week-ends in succession with conditions generally favourable on the intervening days, hops have jumped ahead.

No definite date for picking, which will be later than usual, is yet given, but there is an expectation at Faversham that a start will be made there at the beginning of next week. Last year a good deal of picking had already been done by the end of the last week in August.

Fuggles now promises a heavy crop, having developed very quickly, and the show by Golding variety is also good, though there is complaint that Golding gardens have too much bine.

The return of more normal summer conditions has considerably benefited the hops in the Canterbury area, and a continuation of warm sunshine will help them to recover from the set-back of the previous spell of rainy weather. Cultivation is naturally considerable in arrears, and too much downy mildew is to be seen in the more susceptible varieties, although the bine appears to be free from mould. Aphis is to be found in places. Predictions in the Canterbury district as to picking vary, but the start will be later than usual.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 September, 1936.


Hop-picking is now in full swing in the Kentish hop gardens. Dover pickers, who left for the fields between Canterbury and Sandwich last week, have now settled down to a moderately good season's work. The crop, which was seriously threatened by the damp weather, is a fairly good one.

Hop-pickers, near Ash, 1936

Above photo shows a group of hop-pickers, taken on Tuesday 8th September, near Ash.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 25 September, 1936.


Four generations of hop pickers 1936

Above photo taken at Selling, near Faversham.

Reading from left to right:- Mrs. Carswell (mother), Mrs. Whiles (great-grandmother), Joyce Carswell (great-grandchild) and Mrs. Voller (grandmother). Mrs. Carswell lives at 9, Prospect Cottages, Maison Dieu Road, Dover.


Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser 18 December 1936.


At Bromley Petty Sessions on Monday application was made to the licensing Justices for an extension of time until midnight on Christmas Eve, Boxing Day and New Year's Eve by the following licensees: Mrs. Ethel Hazel, "Fox and Hounds," Westerham Hill; Ernest Russell, "Bull’s Head," Chelsfleld; George Cook, "Black Horse," Biggin Hill; Henry John Parkes, the "Five Bells," Chelsfleld; Herbert Ashby, "Royal Oak," Knockholt; Thomas Fisher, the "Harrow," Knockholt; and Leon Dupree, the "Old Jail," Biggin Hill.

Mr. Belshar, who made the application, said that seven other licensees were concerned in the same district. These houses were outside the Metropolitan Police area; if they had been under the Commissioners' supervision no application would be necessary. Last year the applicants were granted an extension till 11 p.m. on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve. There was, however, a desire among people to celebrate the incoming of the New Year. With regard to Boxing Day, the Commissioner of Police took the view that it was a special occasion just as Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve was.

Inspector Kirby, of Sevenoaks, said he was instructed by the Superintendent of the Kent County Constabulary to oppose the applications as an extension of facilities was not needed in rural areas.

The Chairman (Mr. C. A. Elgood) said that applications would be granted, but the licensees would have to see that customers were out of the houses by midnight.

Mr. Beisher suggested that the Justices should make the extension up to 12.15 a.m. for the New Year's Eve occasion. The extra quarter of an hour would, he submitted, help the licensees.

The Chairman agreed.

The application in respect of Boxing Day was not granted.