DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, June, 2022.

Page Updated:- Sunday, 19 June, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1846

(Name from)

Packet Boat

Latest July 1935

59 Radnor Street

Folkestone

Radnor Street 2022

Above Google image December 2022. Showing what is left of Radnor Street.

 

Originally called the "Fishing Boat" or "Fisher Boat," or indeed "Fishing Smack." The licence from this was surrendered in 1935 and transferred to the "East Cliff Pavilion."

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 December 1857.

Wednesday December 16th:- Before R. W. Boarer esq., and G. Kennicott esq.

Special Sessions for transferring licences.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn, to John Boorn.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 December 1857.

Wednesday: Before R.W. Boarer and G. Kennicott Esqs.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn to John Boorn.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 March 1859.

Wednesday: Before the Mayor, W. Major and J. Tolputt, Esqs.

Jacob Morrick, a German, and servant to Capt. Clark, of 100 Regt., at Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing 5 12s. 6d. from his master’s desk in one of the huts.

Prisoner was taken in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, by P.C. Ovenden, and the whole of the money was found on him.

Three months’ hard labour.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 23 March, 1861.

COUNTY COURT INSOLVENT

Richard Boorn, an insolvent, appeared to pass his first examination, supported by Mr. Bedford. He was opposed by Mr. John Minter, on behalf of Mr. George Conley, for a debt of 16 11s. 9d. Insolvent was examined by Mr. Minter, who failed to elicit that he had any effects. Debts 225. He passed his first examination.

 

Note: Boorn had been landlord of the "Packet Boat," Radnor Street 1851-57. Strangely, it seems that he carries on with the "Alma," Cheriton Road (1855-64) and returns to the "Packet Boat" (1861-69) despite this insolvency! Jan Pedersen.

 

Folkestone Observer 23 March 1861.

County Court. Insolvent Case.

Friday March 22nd:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Richard Boorn came up for his first examination. Mr. Bedford appeared in support, and Mr. Minter for Mr. George Conley, who was entered for 16 11s. 9d. Insolvent had keot an inn in Radnor Street, but his uncle dying and leaving him a legacy of 1,500, he had paid 991 19s. 8d. to old creditors, and bought the schooner Mary for 500, afterwards selling her for 110. The present total amount of debts was 255 17s. 0 1/2d; no assets. He had been for the last four years out of business. The insolvent passed.

Note: Boorn had been landlord of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street. Also listed at Alma, Cheriton Road.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 27 April, 1861.

COUNTY COURT INSOLVENT

Richard Boorn. This insolvent came up for his final examination. Mr. Minter withdrew his opposition upon His Honour allowing the insolvent to amend his schedule, by inserting a reversionary interest he was entitled to; which having been done, he passed.

Note: Boorn had interests in both the "Packet Boat," Radnor Street, and the "Alma," Cheriton Road. Jan Pedersen.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 April 1861.

County Court.

Wednesday April 24th:- Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

Richard Boorn. This insolvent came up for his final examination. Mr. Minter withdrew his opposition upon His Honour allowing the insolvent to amend his schedule, by inserting a reversionary interest he was entitled to; which having been done, he passed.

Note: Boorn had interests in both the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, and the Alma, Cheriton Road.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 November, 1864. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

NEW LUGGER CELEBRATIONS

On Thursday evening Mr. John Boorn of the "Packet Boat Inn" invited a few friends to a quiet little supper to celebrate the launch of a new lugger he has just finished, and the first he has finished since he entered into the business of a boat builder. The vessel was launched in the afternoon of the same day, and was named the Blair Athol. It is to be hoped that she will be as successful in her trips as her namesake, the celebrated racehorse. The lugger is a very nice one and from her lines appears to combine speed with strength.

 

Folkestone Observer 22 July 1865.

Tuesday July 18th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N.

George Mercer, charged with being drunk and riotous in Beach Street, pleaded Guilty.

To a second charge of assaulting P.C. Swain, he pleaded Not Guilty.

P,C, Swain was on duty last evening in the lower part of the town about half past nine o'clock, when his attention was drawn to a number of people making a disturbance at the farther end of Radnor Street. He went there, and found the prisoner and another man fighting. Prisoner had all his clothes off, except his trousers. His shirt was off. He was drunk. Witness took the prisoner into custody. On the way to the Station he tried to escape. Witness kept his hold, and brought him to the station. Witness could not see the other man. It was dark and he was hustled away by the people.

Prisoner said he went into the Royal George last evening to have some beer, and a man wanted to fight him. He left there, and went along to the Packet Boat, where the man followed him and wanted him again to fight, but he refused. The man then wanted him to fight for a sovereign. He (prisoner) came out to go away, but the man came to him and began to fight, when, of course, he was almost compelled to fight. He did not resist the police, but in coming up the street his foot slipped, and he fell down.

The bench fined him 1s. for each of the two offences, with costs, 10s. in all, or imprisonment for seven days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 July 1865.

County Court.

Friday July 28th:- Before C. Harwood.

Alfred Rayment v John Boorn – Claim for 20 10s for liquor supplied to defendant, a publican in Radnor Street. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant and stated that his client had a perfect answer to the claim. The case was adjourned to prove delivery and sale of goods by plaintiff's partner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1865.

County Court.

Friday August 25th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Spurrier & Rayment v J. Boorn – This was an action which had been adjourned from the last court, to recover a sum of 20 14s for goods sold.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and said the defendant would admit having received all the goods charged in plaintiff's bill, but defendant said he had paid for some of them, and to save time he asked Mr. Hellensberg to point out what portion of the bill defendant had paid.

Mr. Hellensberg said he could not do so.

Mr. Minter asked this witness whether defendant was not charged in this bill for some bottles which he had returned.

Mr. Hellensberg said not to his knowledge.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to be paid forthwith, with costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1865.

County Court.

Friday October 13th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment – This was a claim for 4 6s 6d for spirits. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff.

The defendant at first said that he did not dispute the claim, but pleaded that it was constructed under a partnership, and said that the plaintiff owed him a good deal larger sum of money than he had sued him for.

Plaintiff, having said he was landlord of the Packet Boat public house, and was in partnership with defendant as a builder and owner of fishing boats, but never with respect to the public house. He sold the goods charged in the account to the defendant, and delivered some of them himself, and sent the others. He did not claim the money before, because he owed defendant money, but after defendant sued him at the last court he made out the bill.

Defendant said the partnership between them commenced in January, 1864. Never took any money for the sale of spirits. Plaintiff kept the house and he kept the books. Had advanced money to plaintiff and others on account of the house. Defendant was examined at length by His Honour as to the partnership, and defendant said it could be proved by an entry in the books.

The cash book, day book, and ledger were put in and examined by His Honour for evidence of the partnership, and two entries for sums entered in the defendant's name for spirits and beer, to the amount of 109, were found.

Defendant, cross-examined by Mr. Minter, said he agreed with the plaintiff as to the partnership about January 1864. He was to have half of the profits arising out of the public house business. Before the partnership agreement was made, the plaintiff was greatly embarrassed, and he offered to find the money to pay off the old debts, on condition that the whole concern – the boat building, fishery, and public house – should be thrown into one partnership. He kept the books, but there had never been any division of profits.

The case came to an end in a rather singular manner. Mr. Minter pressed the defendant closely in cross-examination, and Mr. Harrison, the deputy registrar of the court, appealed to His Honour to protect the defendant, who had no legal adviser, and said that defendant had been advised by him in the course he had taken, and he was sorry that his position compelled him to remain silent in a case which he could explain in a few words.

Plaintiff's attorney said that Mr. Harrison, holding the position he did, had no right to try to influence His Honour in his decision, and withdrew the case.

After this His Honour asked a question, when Mr. Minter contended that as the case, having been withdrawn, was out of court, the plaintiff was not bound to answer.

His Honour then struck the case out, and Mr. Minter, upon this, took a non-suit, stating that it was his intention to carry the case into another court.

 

Folkestone Observer 21 October 1865.

County Court.

Friday October 13th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment.

This was a claim for 4 4s 6d for spirits. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff.

Defendant, in answer to His Honour, admitted to having had the things, but stated that plaintiff owed him a great deal more - 154 odd, borrowed money – and he wanted to claim a set off. His Honour told him he should have entered a cross-action, upon which he immediately disputed his liability.

Mr. Minter remarked that last court the defendant entered an action against the present plaintiff, and he (defendant), it appeared, now claimed the benefit of a partnership.

Plaintiff was then sworn, and said: I am landlord of the Packet Boat Inn. The defendant was in partnership with me as a boatbuilder and as a fishing boat proprietor, but he never had anything to do with the Packet Boat Inn. The goods, with the exception of one gallon of whisky and one bottle of brandy which were delivered at the Camp by defendant's orders, were deliverd at his house, some of them by me, and some by my servant. Defendant offered to keep my books for me as he said I was a bad book-keeper. He took them home with him for that purpose, and put his name opposite the goods entered which he had received. I did not sue him before as I owed him money, but last court day he sued me without previously sending in a bill, and I then sent in my account.

Defendant admitted that he had had the things, but pleaded a partnership in the Inn trade, and produced the day book, which he stated was a general partnership account. He (defendant) had made out bills, but they had never had any bill-heads; he thought the bills were made out as a company. He had advanced money to plaintiff himself and also to others on account of the house, but had never had any settlement of account. The public house was carried on in plaintiff's own name.

His Honour, on turning to the cover of the day book, remarked that it was endorsed as a partnership concern, and asked whose writing it was.

Mr Minter said that of the defendant, who had always kept the books, and tried to wriggle himself into a partnership, but they repudiated it.

His Honour mentioned two entries for spirits and beer he saw in the book, amounting to 109, had on account of the house, and which appeared to have been paid by the defendant. He asked if it was so?

Defendant said it was; he had paid several bills, and had also given plaintiff cheques to pay the rent of the public house.

His Honour then asked the defendant if he would deliberately swear that he was a partner with plaintiff in the Packet Boat Inn?

Defendant answered in the affirmative, and stated they were in partnership about a year and a half.

Mr. Harrison, the Deputy Registrar, remarked that he could explain the whole of the case in a few words, but unfortunately from the position which he held his mouth was sealed.

His Honour said the books appeared to intimate a partnership. At all events it was clear that defendant had advanced money to the brewers and others to the tune of 109.

Mr. Minter then cross-examined the defendant, who said he entered into partnership with plaintiff about January, 1864. He could not say the day, neither could he tax his memory with regard to what was said, but he could remember he was to have half the profits. Plaintiff was in difficulties, and he offered to assist him in paying his debts, for which purpose he advanced 300. Witness paid all debts that were applied for, and it was then agreed that it should be a general partnership concern. He was and he was not at that present time in partnership with plaintiff, for he had given him notice to dissolve partnership. He could not say that he said one word in that notice about the Packet Boat Inn, and he could not say he was a partner as the thing stood. He gave plaintiff no personal notice.

Mr. Harrison here asked His Honour to protect the defendant, who was without a legal advisor, when Mr. Minter said “If you don't know what decency is, Mr. Harrison, I must teach you. It is very improper for a Registrar to attempt to influence the decision of the court”.

His Honour remarked that Mr. Minter was very rude to him, as he was speaking to Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Minter begged His Honour's pardon; he did not intend to be rude to him personally.

His Honour again said it was rude, and he should be inclined to dismiss the case if it was repeated.

Mr. Minter then said he should withdraw the case from the court at once, and ordered his client out of court.

His Honour told plaintiff to stay, and was about to put a question to him when Mr. Minter said plaintiff was not bound to answer as the case was out of court. He had the power to withdraw the case, and he did so, with the intention of taking it to another court.

The case was then struck out.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 October 1865.

Notice. In Chancery.

Between Alfred Rayment, Plaintiff, and John Whittingham Boorn, Defendant.

I, the undersigned, Alfred Rayment, hereby give notice that an injunction was on the 25th day of October inst. awarded by the High Court of Chancery, to restrain the defendant, John Whittingham Boorn, of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, his servants and agents, from further interfering or intermeddling with any of the joint or common partnership property of myself and the said John Whittingham Boorn, without my concurrence. And I further give notice that the said John Whittingham Boorn has no authority or power to sell, deal with, or dispose of such property, or to receive any monies now due, or which may hereafter become due in respect of the said partnership property, but that all such monies may be paid to Mr. George Brickman, of the Sandgate Road, Folkestone, Auctioneer, who is directed to receive such monies, and to hold the same for all parties interested, and not to part with such monies unless under the order of the Court of Chancery.

And I give further notice that the partnership property consists of the Fishing Boats – Harold, No. 55; Alexandra, No. 64; Sea Gull, No. 52; Packet Boat or Margaret Ann, No. 63; Industry, No. 61; Blair Athol, No. 65; Castor, No. 31; Mary Jane, No. 13; Spratter, Grace, No. 43; Elizabeth, No. 10. Hall's Punt, and a Pleasure Skiff, and the Nets, Gear and Tackling belonging thereto. The debts due. A Horse and Cart used in conveying fish. The Public House in Radnor Street, known as the Packet Boat, and the Goodwill and Licences, and Stock in Trade, and the household furniture and effects therein. A Refreshment Booth. Two Freehold Houses in the rear of the Packet Boat Inn, and the rents thereof. The Piece of Land opposite the Packet Boat, and all the Workshops, Fittings, Timber, Tools, and Materials thereon, and certain Timber and other Materials on ground near Dover Street.

And lastly, I again give notice that on the 12th day of July, 1865, the partnership which up to that time subsisted between myself and the said John Whittingham Boorn was dissolved.

Dated this 27th day of October, 1865,

Alfred Rayment.

We confirm this notice, Brockman and Harrison, Solicitors, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Observer 5 October 1866.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat inn on Saturday, by John Minter Esq., coroner, on the body of George Thomas Vye, who had hung himself in the Lord Warden steamboat, lying on the slip under repair. The jury, having inspected the body and place at which it was found, returned to the inn and heard the following evidence.

William L. Earnshaw, superintendent of the Company's workshops, identified the body as that of George Thomas Vye, who was a shipwright apprentice in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He had been in their employment about three years and a half. Saw him yesterday about ten minutes past one in witness's office in the shop. He was there to receive his weekly pay. Mr. Lyall paid him the money, 7s 6d, and witness took his signature. He then left. He had come to work again in the afternoon at two o'clock. If he had wanted a holiday he should have asked witness. He did not ask. About five minutes past two, saw two of the men running from the yard, and enquiring the cause, witness was told that George had hung himself in the forecastle of the Lord Warden. Went there immediately. Thomas Grayland had taken him down from where he was hanging and was passing him on deck. When they got up there Richard Cullen gave witness the paper produced.

“To whoever finds me – I have hung myself. It is my mother's doing. All I have to say is may the Lord pardon me my wicked doing, and take me in Heaven to him this day”.

Had never observed anything the matter with him before. He was a good buy, like the generality of boys. Had occasion to speak to him sometimes, but he never resented it.

Silvester Eastes, surgeon, said yesterday afternoon, at half past two o'clock, a man named Jenkins came to his surgery and told him a lad had hung himself at the Company's workshops. He immediately drove down, and on one of the benches in the Company's shop saw the body of deceased. Some of the men were chafing the limbs. They had loosened the ligature. On examining the body he found it presented the usual appearance of death caused by hanging – face pale, pupil of eye much dilated. There was a mark round the neck where the handkerchief had been tied. The body was warm, the limbs getting very cool. The action of the hear and lungs had entirely ceased, and deceased was dead. He opened the external jugular vein; there were a few drops of blood only escaped.

Thomas Grayland, a shipwright in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company, said that on Friday, a little after two, he was on board the Lord Warden steamship at work. Had occasion to go down to the forecastle to see about some bolts and the timber they were putting in, and saw the body hanging to the beam. Called Mr. Poole to his assistance. Deceased was hanging to a hammock hook. The necktie produced was tied round his neck and round the hammock hook. It was the necktie he usually wore. His feet were hanging clear of the beams about two inches. The flooring in the forecastle was taken up. Lifted deceased up and unhooked the handkerchief. On laying him down on the locker, some water ran out of his mouth. On unhooking the upper part of the necktie it became slack around deceased's neck, and the necktie was not therefore removed. Took the body into the workshop and the men commenced rubbing him. Found the paper produced by Mr. Earnshaw on a temporary locker about four feet from the body, with a wooden wedge to keep it in it's place. Deceased's slop, waistcoat, and cap were laid on a beam close to his feet. Had known him since a lad. Had never seen anything strange in his conduct. He was a very good boy. The soda bottle produced now was near his clothes.

Frederick Gower, riveter, in the employ of the South eastern Railway Company, went to the Company's workshops on Friday afternoon at half past one. Went down into the cabin of the Lord Warden to his work. About twenty minutes to two deceased came down and commenced moving a piece of board. He caught sight of witness, and then took a ginger beer bottle from the bench. Thought deceased was moving the boarding for the purpose of going down below, and when he saw witness he took the bottle as an excuse and went on deck. Did not speak to him. Known deceased two or three months, but had seen nothing strange in his conduct.

John Vye, publican, said deceased was his son. Saw him yesterday. He came home at one and had his dinner. Witness was lying down in the tap room. Deceased came in and sat down on witness's usual seat, and witness said to him – “George” – (the witness was here overcome by his emotion and obliged to pause for some time). The evening before, deceased told his mother he was going to the races. She told him she thought he had better be looking after his business. His mother got up first, and as witness had hurt his back the day before he continued longer than usual in bed and called deceased to him and told him he should not go to the races. After dinner witness said to him “George, I have a word or two to say to you. You are now a lad 18 years of age, and not very forward in your business. It would be much better for you to attend to your work than want to go to all these little spurts that there are. You should not lose half an hour in your business until you get well accomplished in your trade, and then you can do as you please”. He made no reply. His mother then said “George, we have more trouble with you than with all the rest, and if you don't alter it we shall acquaint your grandfather with your goings on”. He got up directly afterwards, and took up his slop from the table and went out of the door saying “It will be some time before you see me again”. Witness and his wife thought no more of it than they had thought of other occasions. If he were playing with other children he would say just the same, but nothing had ever come of it. Deceased would be eighteen the 18th of next month. If the paper produced was in his handwriting it was very badly done.

The Coroner then told the jury that that was all the evidence necessary to be produced. It was for them to say whether deceased killed himself knowing what he was doing or whether deceased killed himself in a fit of temporary insanity not knowing what he was doing. He was eighteen years of age and the law says he was of the age of discretion. The witnesses all said that they had never seen anything strange in his conduct. It would seem from the evidence of the father that it was in consequence of what his mother had said to him that he committed the act. It would be for the jury to draw their own conclusions. Those of them who had seen the place that the body was found would know that there must have been some contrivance to accomplish the act, and the paper produced, Mr. Earnshaw said, was in deceased's handwriting. It was for the jury to take all the circumstances into consideration and to give their verdict, in which twelve of them must be agreed.

Mr. W. Pope, a juryman, said the paper had clearly been written by the deceased with a carpenter's pencil on a bench as he passed through the Company's shop on his way to the Lord Warden. He thought the verdict should be that he killed himself. He did not see how, having regard to the oath that had been taken, any other verdict could be given.

The Coroner said Mr. Pope must give the other jurors credit for being guided by as correct judgement as himself. The law said twelve jurors must agree, and as twelve of the jury agreed to a verdict of temporary insanity he must accept that verdict.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 October 1866.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, on Saturday morning, before J. Minter Esq. and a respectable jury, on the body of George Thomas Vye, aged 18, the son of a publican in the town, who was found hanging in the forecastle of the Lord Warden, one of the steamships belonging to the South Eastern Railway Company. The following evidence was adduced:-

William Lawrence Earnshaw said: I am superintendent of the workshops for the South Eastern Railway Company at Folkestone. I identify the body as being that of Thomas Vye, who was a shipwright apprentice in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He had been in the service about three and a half years. I saw the deceased about ten minutes past one on Friday, the 28th ult., in the office at my workshops. He came to receive his pay. Mr. Lyall paid him 7s 6d, his wages, and I took his signature. If he had wanted a holiday, he ought to have asked. He did not ask. About five minutes past two o'clock the same afternoon I saw two men running from the yard. I enquired the cause, and they said George had hung himself in the forecastle of the Lord Warden. I then proceeded there, and Thomas Grayling had just taken deceased down, and on passing him on deck Richard Cullen gave me the paper produced. I have never seen anything strange in deceased's conduct. A surgeon was sent for immediately. The paper produced is, I believe, in deceased's handwriting.

Silvester Eastes said: I am a surgeon, practicing at Folkestone. Yesterday afternoon, at half past two o'clock, a man named Jenkins came to my surgery, and told me that a lad had hung himself at the Company's shop. I saw the body of deceased. Some of the men were chafing the limbs. They had loosened the ligature. On examining the body I found it presented the usual appearance of death caused by hanging – face pale, pupil of eye much dilated. There was a mark round the neck where the handkerchief had been tied. The body was warm, the limbs getting very cool. The action of the heart and lungs had entirely ceased. I opened the external jugular vein; there were a few drops of blood only escaped.

Thomas Grayling said: I am a shipwright in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. On Friday, the 28th ultimo, a little before two o'clock, I went on board the Lord Warden steamship to work. I went down the forecastle to see about some bolts and saw the deceased hanging to the beam. I called Robert Poole to my assistance. The handkerchief now produced was tied round the deceased's neck and hung on to a hammock hook. The flooring was taken up and his feet were hanging about two inches clear of the beam. We lifted him up and the handkerchief came slack round the deceased's neck as soon as we unhooked him. We then took the body up into the workshop and the men commenced rubbing him. I found the piece of paper now produced on the locker with a wooden wedge to keep it in it's place. (Written in pencil on the paper was: “To whoever finds me. I have hung myself. It is my mother's doings. All I have to say is, may the Lord pardon me my wicked doings, and take me in Heaven with him this day”.) His waistcoat, slop, and cap were laid close to his feet on a beam. I have never seen anything strange in deceased's conduct.

Frederick Gower said: I am a riveter in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. On Wednesday I went to the Company's workshops at half past one o'clock. Went into the after-cabin to my work. Whilst there, about ten minutes after I had gone down, the deceased came down and commenced moving a piece of board, and caught sight of me, and then took a ginger beer bottle as an excuse. He seemed to me as if he intended getting under the flooring. Deceased then went on deck. I have not known the deceased more than three months. I have not seen anything strange in his conduct.

John Vye said: I am a publican. The deceased is my son. He came home to dinner on Friday about one o'clock, and had his dinner. I was in the tap room and deceased came in. The evening before deceased told his mother he was going to the races. She told him he had better be looking after his business, and in the morning I called him to my bedside and told him he should not go to the races. When in the tap room yesterday I said “George, I've a word or two to say to you”. I said “You're a lad now eighteen years of age, and not being forward in your business it would be much better for you to attend to your work than to want to go and see these little sports that are”. I said “You should not lose half an hour in your business until you get well accomplished in your trade”. I then said “You can do as you please”. His mother said “George, we have more trouble with you than all the rest, and if you don't alter, I shall acquaint your grandfather”. He took his slop and jacket off the table, and said as he went out “It will be some time before I come in again”. Deceased was seventeen years and eleven months old.

The Coroner summed up and told the jury it was for them to decide whether it was a case of felo de se, or temporary insanity. After a consultation the jury returned a verdict that deceased hung himself while in a state of temporary insanity.

Mr. Pope, one of the jury, said he did not agree with the verdict, as in his opinion it was a case of felo de se. He asked the Coroner to read over the oath which the jury had taken at the commencement of the inquiry.

The Coroner told Mr. Pope he must give the eleven jurymen credit for honesty and record their verdict as they had given it.

 

Folkestone Observer 12 October 1866.

Court of Bankruptcy, London.

5th October 1866 before Mr. Registrar Murray.

Re. J.W. Boorn.

The bankrupt, John Wittingham Boorn, is described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, in Folkestone aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid. His numerous unsecured creditors reside at Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, and Folkestone, in this county. This was a first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees.

Mr. John Clark (Nicholls & Clark), 9, Cooks Court, Lincolns Inn, filed the bankrupt's petition on the 18th of last month, and obtained for him protection from arrest.

The total amount of the bankrupt's indebtedness is 1,517 12s, of which 857 12s is due to unsecured creditors.

The creditors holding security are thus described viz.: Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, brewer, 180, “holds title deeds of a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of 200”.

Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, solicitor, “holds secured mortgage upon the above land; also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, which property will not realise more than sufficient to pay these creditors”.

Mr. James Pledge, auctioneer, 150, “holds bill of sale on all my household furniture and effects, to secure this amount, which he has seized and taken possession. Estimated value about 180”.

At this sitting no creditors attended to prove, and accept the office of trade assignee, and the court fixed the day of 30th day of November next, at 12 o'clock, for the bankrupt to appear before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, for the purpose of passing his examination and applying for his order of discharge.

Renewed protection from arrest having been granted the bankrupt until the next sitting (which is also for the proof of debts), the proceedings terminated.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 October 1866.

Court Of Bankruptcy, London, Oct. 5th.

(Before Mr. Registrar Murray).

Re. J.W. Boorn.

The bankrupt, John Wittingham Boorn, is described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, Innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, in Folkestone aforesaid, as Boat Owners, Boat Builders, Shipwrights, and General Dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid. His numerous unsecured creditors reside at Ashford, Canterbury, Dover and Folkestone, in this County. This was a first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees.

Mr. John Clark (Nicholls and Clark), 9, Cook's Court, Lincoln's Inn, filed the bankrupt's petition on the 18th of last month, and obtained for him protection from arrest.

The total amount of the bankrupt's indebtedness is 1517 12s., of which 857 12s. is due to unsecured creditors.

The creditors holding security are thus described, viz: Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, Brewer, 180 “holds title deeds to a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of 200”, Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, Solicitor, “holds second mortgage on the above land. Also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, which property will not realise more than sufficient to pay those creditors”, Mr. James Pledge, Leas, Folkestone, Auctioneer, 150, “holds bill of sale on all my household furniture and effects, to secure this amount under which he has seized and taken possession – estimated value about 180”.

At this sitting no creditor attended to prove or accept the office of trade assignee, and the court fixed the 30th of November next, at twelve o'clock, for the bankrupt to appear before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, for the purpose of passing his examination, and applying for his order of discharge.

Renewed protection from arrest having been granted the bankrupt until the next sitting (which is also for the proof of debts) the proceedings terminated.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 November 1866.

Tuesday November 6th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

John Whittingham Boorn was charged with having on the 5th September, 1865, obtained the sum of 60 from James Pledge, with intent to defraud him of the same.

Mr. Fox appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Towne for the defence.

James Pledge, auctioneer and estate agent, deposed that in September, 1865, defendant applied to him to advance some money on a bill of sale of his goods, at the Packet Boat Inn, and for that purpose witness made an inventory of them. Defendant stated that the bar fittings cost him 60. Witness asked if a partition belonged to him. Defendant replied “No, I think not. I think that belongs to the freehold. The mahogany shelving and plate rack belong to me, but I am not so sure about the partition”. On the strength of that witness advanced 60 as a first instalment, and did not discover that the fittings did not belong to defendant till Mr. Beer, the landlord, distrained for rent about a month ago.

Samuel Pilcher, clerk to Mr. Minter, deposed to seeing defendant execute the bill of sale produced, on the 10th September, 1863.

Thomas Thurston, clerk and valuer to Mr. George Beer, of Canterbury, deposed to making an inventory and valuation of the house, trade fittings, fixtures, and stoves in September, 1863, and afterwards paying defendant for them by cheque.

In answer to Mr. Towne: It was understood at the time that Boorn might re-purchase the same for 40.

By Mr. Fox: The defendant has never paid the 40.

George Beer, brewer, of Canterbury, deposed that he purchased the trade fittings and fixtures of defendant in September, 1863, and he had not sold or parted with them since.

For the defence, John Minter, solicitor, who drew up the bill of sale, and George Brickman, auctioneer, who sold the goods were called, but the bench decided that a prima facie case had not been made out and dismissed the charge.

 

Folkestone Observer 10 November 1866.

Monday November 5th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and James Tolputt Esqs.

Charge of obtaining money under false pretences.

John William Boorn was charged with obtaining the sum of 60 of Mr. James Pledge on false pretences.

Mr. Fox, Dover, appeared for the prosecutor, Mr. Towne, Margate for the defendant.

Mr. Fox opened the case by remarking that he appeared on the part of Mr. James Pledge to presecute the defendant on the charge under section 68 of the Larceny Act for having obtained under false pretences, on the 5th of September last year, the sum of 50, with attempt to defraud. The short facts of the case are these: It would appear from his instructions that the defendant, requiring an advance of money, went to the prosecutor and made a representation to him that the fittings of the bar of a public house, which was then tenanted by defendant, were his property, and on the faith of the representation Mr. Pledge consented to advance him this sum of money. An inventory was taken by Mr. Pledge in the presence of defendant, and which, he contended, was sufficient evidence of the representation that the fittings in the bar were his property.

James Pledge, auctioneer, residing in Folkestone, said: In the year 1865 I knew the defendant. He was then living at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, in Folkestone. On September 5th, 1865 defendant made an application to me for an advance of money on a bill of sale. I consented to advance it. I went down to the defendant's house to make an inventory and saw the defendant there. When I went into the house Mr. Boorn was standing in the bar, and in order to induce me to advance the money, Mr. Boorn said to me “Mr. Pledge, this bar alone cost me 60 to fit up”. I was then in the bar of the defendant's house. The defendant then stood at the bar and called the things over to me as I wrote them down in my book. I produce the book in which I made the entries at that time, and there are the entries I then made, commencing “John William Boorn, 6-pull beer engine” and the other items down in the book. I took the whole of the bar first, till we came to the partition, when I said “Boorn, does that partition belong to you?”. He said “No, I think not. I think that belongs to the freehold”. He said then “The mahogany shelving and the glass rack belong to me, but I am not so certain about the partition”. I completed the inventory. I will not say that it was on the same day that I paid the money, but that transaction was all within a day or two. The first instalment was 60. I was induced to make that advance of 60 on the bill of sale on the bar fittings of the public house on the fact that they were the property of the defendant. I first ascertained that the bar fittings were not the property of the defendant about a month ago, when the landlord put in a distress for rent. A bill of sale was given to me after I had advanced the 60. (The bill of sale was here put in).

Cross examined by Mr. Towne: I know nothing about Mr. Boorn being in partnership with Mr. Rayment. I know nothing about it. I saw an advertisement some time ago that the partnership between Mr. Boorn and Mr. Rayment was dissolved. I knew nothing about it at the time of this transaction. In September 1865 Mr. Boorn was a publican. He had a herring shop besides, I believe. He was a general dealer. I knew that at the time. That business was carried on within two or three doors of his public house. I knew nothing of his fishing business. I knew nothing at that time about his being connected in fishing boats, general dealing &c., with Mr. Rayment. I did not go to Mr. Boorn. I knew about the intended sale of Mr. Boorn's effects in the partnership affair. Mr. Boorn told me he was going to sell out by-and-by, and then I should be paid my money. I only advanced my money on those terms. I did not go to Mr. Boorn to solicit the sale by auction. Mr. Boorn did not offer to give me security on all his partnership property. Mr. Minter prepared the bill of sale. I gave Mr. Minter instructions to prepare it. I did not tell Mr. Minter that Mr. Boorn had offered to give over to me his interest in the partnership property. I had no security, only what is contained in that bill of sale. I might not have had other security if I had liked. I would not have had security on the boats and fishing business. It was never offered to me. I know that Mr. Boorn's partnership property has been sold since I had the bill of sale. It did not concern me at all, and I made no note of it. I don't know what the value of Mr. Boorn's property was since I had this bill of sale. I know nothing about it. Well, I won't know, then, if you like; have it your own way. There is other money advanced besides this 60. So far as I can remember I have described all that took place on the occasion of this money being advanced. The first occasion on which I learnt that the bar fittings were not Mr. Boorn's property was about a month ago. I gave instructions to my plumber the same day the sale was to remove the beer engine, and in the evening a man was in possession again. I said “Who has put him in?”. He said “The landlord”. And so he came away again. Since then I have been in no communication with Mr. Boorn for the arrangement of this debt. I have had no conversation with Mr. Boorn since I made this discovery; I was too disgusted with him. I know Mr. Goddard, a barber. I have not said that if Mr. Goddard would be guarantee in this matter I would say nothing about it. When the execution was put in I said if Mr. Goddard would pay out the man, and if he had not any money, I would take his acceptance, so that Mr. Boorn might carry his house on, and the things might not be disturbed. That was about six weeks ago. I had no opportunity to change my mind; his friends would not come forward. Mr. Goddard would not pay the rent, nor give his acceptance. For the things that were left, Mr. Boorn's friends offered me a sovereign, as an insult. I have also a tent, which I had some difficulties in tracing, and at last only got it by threatening to have the parties up. I would take 10 for it, and that is a long way off 50. I would sell it to you for 10, if you like to buy it.

Samuel Pilcher said: I am clerk to Mr. Minter, and was so in September, 1865. I was present when the deed (bill of sale) was executed, on the day it bears date, the 16th September. I saw John William Boorn sign, seal, and deliver the deed. The signature is in his handwriting. The signature of the attestation “Samuel Pilcher” is in my handwriting. The signature to the receipt on the back for 150 is also in the defendant's handwriting and attested by me.

Cross-examined – I have known the defendant some considerable time. I don't remember the value of the herring business and the boat effects. I believe Boorn was in partnership with Rayment, and the stock was sold some little time back, since the bill of sale. To my recollection I have not heard what the stock produced. I don't know whether it was a valuable stock. Mr. Brickman sold it. He is in court, I believe. I know nothing about the stock at the time of the bill of sale being given; I only attested the bill of sale.

Re-examined – I was not present at the sale.

___ Thurston said: I am clerk and valuer to Mr. George Beer, at Canterbury. In the year 1863 I received directions to value the fittings in defendant's house from him to Mr. Beer. The valuation was made on the 17th of September, 1863. I produce my valuation book, which comprises an inventory of the things that were the subject of the valuation. The house and trade fittings and fixtures; the bar fittings, the stove fittings, and, in fact, I believe all the fittings in the house. I supplied Mr. Pledge with a copy of them. (Mr. Pledge: About a month ago.) The defendant was afterwards paid for those fittings by me with a cheque I received from Mr. Beer. The sign of the house was The Packet Boat Inn.

Cross examined:- The house is open now, and is being carried on by Boorn. He has been carrying on the house from the time I speak of down to the present time.

George Beer said: I am a brewer, carrying on business at Canterbury. In September, 1863, I purchased by valuation the trade fittings of the defendant, in a public house in Folkestone, known as “The Packet Boat”. I have not since that purchase sold, or parted with, any of those fittings or fixtures. From September 1863 to the present time they have been my property.

Cross-examined – What I have had to do with these fittings was done through my clerk, Mr. Thurston. I have personally had nothing to do with these fittings.

Thurston re-called – At the time I made the arrangement that I spoke of about these fixtures it was distinctly understood that Boor might have them back at any time by payment of the 40.

Re-examined – The defendant never paid the 40 12s 6d that was advanced.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Towne then said it had fallen upon him to give an answer to the charge brought against Mr. Boorn. He really believed that the charge brought would answer itself. It seemed to him that it was a very great pity that Mr. Pledge had not had more control over himself than to endeavour to bring forward such a charge as he had. He must say that as they travelled through the world they lived and learnt, and saw a great deal of human nature. He thought that it would appear to the bench that it was a very extraordinary proceeding, taking Mr. Pledge's statement, for he says that since he found out what he has found out he has endeavoured to get his money another way. If some Mr. Goddard had stepped forward to give some bill by which the distress could have been paid out he was quite at liberty to let this go on, and they would never have heard that charge. Now he said it was most disgraceful of Mr. Pledge. Having found out this charge a month ago and tried to get his money by other means, he came into this court and tried to get an indictment for false pretences. He did not think Mr. Pledge came with very clean hands, or very modest countenance, to the bench. After that he thought it was quite open to Mr. Boorn, through him (Mr. Towne), to point out the effect of the proceeding. Mr. Pledge's object had been to get a friend to come forward and pay the money at the last moment, and if the case should go further, he would hope to get his money before it came to trial. He (Mr. Towne) did not think the bench would assist him. It was a very shallow case, and he would never get the ship into port. Mr. Pledge gave his evidence, and he (Mr. Towne) had not heard any false pretence in the case, none at all. He must make one observation. The bench saw, when he was endeavouring to elicit a little bit of candid information from Mr. Pledge, Mr. Pledge would not wait for his question – “Oh, no, I know nothing about that”. As the law stood at present, Mr. Pledge had the means of sharping his own statement. The time might come probably when Mr. Boorn's mouth would be opened. Mr. Boorn would give a very different statement. He (Mr. Towne) asked Mr. Pledge if he had gone to Mr. Boorn; Oh, no, he would not condescend to go to Mr. Boorn; Mr. Boorn came to him. Mr. Boorn could not contradict that, but he (Mr. Towne) knew as a fact that a greater untruth was never uttered. Then they had heard Mr. Pledge say that at the time he lent the money he knew nothing about the partnership, but at last he was obliged to admit that there was a partner, Mr. Rayment. That was very uncandid. He was afraid that as far as Mr. Pledge's evidence was concerned it placed him in a difficulty as to answering that part of the case about his not knowing Mr. Boorn had a partner. He understood from Mr. Pledge's own evidence that Mr. Minter was the solicitor who had this business in hand. He saw Mr. Minter before him, and he could not help asking Mr. Minter what he knew about the bill of sale, and so far as he (Mr. Towne) was informed he would have a very different tale. But whether Mr. Boorn went to Mr. Pledge, or Mr. Pledge to him, he described exactly the situation he was in, and informed Mr. Pledge that if he would let him have a sum of money there was a very good sale coming on and he should have it, and with the expectation of having that sale, and with that expectation alone, Mr. Pledge agreed to let him have some money to help him out of his difficulties, to pay his rent. The sale would include the partnership property, and Mr. Pledge was to have the sale of the property. That was, Mr. Pledge was informed distinctly that he had a right to half the partnership property, and that he was willing to give a security upon the partnership property, and upon the house, and that he went away with the full understanding that he might pick and choose whatever security he liked, but under Mr. Minter's advice he would have nothing to do with the partnership property; and he might have had security to 300 if he had chosen to take it, but he chose to take it in the form before them. If he (Mr. Towne) satisfied the bench that he might have security of 300, that was an answer to Mr. Pledge that Mr. Boorn did not intend to defraud, which was the very essence of the complaint. Did Mr. Boorn intend to defraud Pledge at the time that he had the 60 he spoke of? He could not have intended to defraud if he had the 300 – and he might have had the 300 security if he liked. He must call Mr. Minter to prove that, however reluctant Mr. Minter might be to give evidence. Then there could have been no intention to defraud. Mr. Pledge lent his money upon the bill of sale, having his eye to his own business, having an eye to the sale that was coming off. He (Mr. Towne) might have taken a shorter way with the case by saying it was a case that the law would not take. Mr. Fox could not succeed. Mr. Pledge said he lent the money upon the bill of sale, then what does the bill of sale say? It says Mr. Boorn assigns over all the estate of him, the said John Boorn therein. Of course he assigns over all the estate and interest therein. And then Mr. Boorn goes on to covenant that he has a good title. Well then, if Mr. Boorn has not a good title, Pledge must bring his action upon the bill of sale. There is a case where a person sold to the prosecutor his reversionary interest, and the prosecutor took an assignment of it; and it appeared that he had previously had some money of another; and being indicted for obtaining money on false pretences, the judge held that he could not be properly convicted. The judge went on to say that if a man sells the house and has had a title to it, he always says he has a good title to it; and if it turns out that he has no house at all, is he to be indicted for obtaining money on false pretences? Well, in this case Mr. Pledge has bought some bar fittings, and he also takes covenant that if Mr. Boorn has no right to sell then he has to take his action upon it. Then what evidence is there at all that Mr. Boorn had no right to sell these things, which, as Mr. Pledge puts it, is the head and front of the offence? From the evidence it is quite the contrary. It is shown that these fittings were the property of Mr. Boorn, taht he had had them for several years, and they were his property. How is it shown that they were not his property? To transfer these goods it requires a document such as the bill of sale. They are in fact Mr. Pledge's property. There was no delivery. After Mr. Beer had given his money for the goods it required a document such as the bill of sale. Mr. Boorn had no doubt an honest right to tell Mr. Pledge that the bar fittings were his. As the sale was imminent, of course Mr. Boorn would naturally deal with all the property about the house, and consider them as his own, and when Mr. Pledge should be called on to take this large sale then Mr. Boorn would have a settlement with Mr. Beer and nobody would have had a word of complaint whatever. In point of law – and he had referred to a case which shows it – upon an indictment a charge of false pretence will not lie; and in point of fact the property never has been assigned to Mr. Beer at all; and in point of truth Mr. Pledge never lent his money on the pretences he says. He should call evidence to show that Mr. Pledge need never have had security on the fittings of the Packet Boat, but that he might have had 300 worth of property as his security.

John Minter said: I prepared the bill of sale. Before preparing it I saw Mr. Pledge. I know Mr. Boorn. I knew that Mr. Boorn had other property besides what is mentioned in the schedule, partnership property. Mr. Pledge called upon me and said that Boorn had made application to him for advance of money on a bill of sale, and had offered as a security the whole of the fishing boats, boat builder's shop, and the effects of the Packet Boat. He said he was willing to make the advance provided that the anticipated sale of all the effects could be guaranteed to him. I told him that I could not guarantee the sale, inasmuch as Mr. Rayment would have quite as much right to appoint the auctioneer as Mr. Boorn, and I told him that he had better take his security upon the effects in the Packet Boat, because Rayment and Boor were disputing about the partnership accounts. He subsequently called upon me, and said he was satisfied with the Packet Boat effects, and instructed me to prepare the bill of sale, which I did. Undoubtedly I might have had an assignment of Boorn's share in the partnership effects if I had liked. Mr. Pledge distinctly told me that his object in advancing the money was to have the sale. Mr. Pledge informed me at my office since the landlord claimed the fixtures. Boorn and Pledge met at my office for the purpose of seeing how Pledge's claim could be paid. Some very angry words took place between them. Pledge asserted that Boorn had told him that the fixtures belonged to him and Boorn as stoutly denied that he had said so. Pledge then stated that he was willing to wait a month or so for the payment of the amount of his bill of sale, abd would pay out the distress for rent which was then in, provided that Boorn could obtain a guarantee from his brother-in-law Mr. Goddard for the payment of the then-accruing quarter's rent, and the license fees which were then also becoming due for the house, so as to keep it open, and if Boorn failed to produce the money in the course of a month or so Mr. Pledge was then to realise upon his security by valuation, Boorn agreeing to give up possession. They then left, and both parties were to see me the next morning, Boorn to say whether he could get the guarantee, and Pledge to come to close the business. I saw Mr. Pledge the next morning and told him Mr. Goddard was willing to give the required guarantee, the he said he had altered his mind and would let the sale go on under the distress for rent. After the sale was over, Pledge called on me and said that the large booth which was included in his bill of sale had not been sold, and was not on the premises. He wished me to ascertain from Boorn where it was, and to say that he requested to have it delivered to him. I saw Boorn, and he said it had been let to somebody at Cheriton for the races. He would get it back, and Pledge should have it. A day or two afterwards Mr. Pledge told me that he had got it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fox – Some of these conversations took place in September, and some at a later period. I think that the sale took place on the 3rd of October, or the 4th; whichever it was I saw Mr. Pledge in the morning at half past nine and the sale took place in the afternoon. The conversation did not take place before the sale.

Re-examined – The bills came out in the morning at nine o'clock, and the sale took place in the afternoon, and the things were squandered and sacrificed. They had been held over under the distress for rent beyond the five days, while Mr. Pledge and Mr. Boorn were negotiating as to what was to be done with the property.

George Brickman said – I am an auctioneer. I sold the partnership effects of Rayment and Boorn about six weeks ago. The boat property realised about 450. I am not subpoenaed here today, and therefore I am not come prepared. The bar fittings I believe had belonged to the landlord last year. The sale of the furniture was under distress for rent. We held over. There was a bill out one day, and the goods were sold the next. They were sold at a very fair price for an auction sale. Every means were used to give publicity and the sale was very fair.

Cross-examined – After the sale, on the same day, I left this notice (produced by Mr. Fox) that the furniture, bar fittings &c., were the property of Mr. Beer. I always understood that. I put in an execution a year ago and had a notice that the fixtures were the property of the landlord. I left this notice in the house after the sale. I did not sell these things. I left it on behalf of my employer, who was Mr. Beer. I had several conversations with Mr. Pledge. I am not aware that I had any conversation with him about the fixtures. I have always understood that the fixtures belonged to the landlord, and so have all parties.

Re-examined – It is more than twelve months since that I have known that the fixtures belonged to the landlord. Mr. Pledge paid out the execution twelve months ago. I have no doubt the fixtures came up in conversation then. It must have been brought to his attention then, as Mr. Beer claimed those fixtures. I knew it.

Mr. Fox – By permission of the bench I may ask you whether you ever yourself stated to Mr. Pledge, before the sale of the 4th of October, whether the bar fittings and fixtures belonged to Mr. Beer or anyone else?

Mr. Brickman: I knew it must, and before I took a bill of sale I should have enquired who the fittings belonged to.

Mr. Towne – I have no more witnesses. This is the answer I have to give this case.

After a brief pause the court was cleared, and the magistrates remained in consultation more than half an hour.

On the re-opening of the court the Mayor said – The bench came to the conclusion that a prima facie has not been proved to their satisfaction. Therefore the case is dismissed.

*** We are desired by the prosecutor in this case to state that though the amount in question before the court was only 60, advances had been made to the defendant, under the bill of sale, amounting in all to 120 10s.

 

Folkestone Observer 8 December 1866.

Court Of Bankruptcy, London.

Friday 30th November before Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, D.C.L., Commisioner.

Re. J. W. Boorn.

This was an examination sitting and application for order of discharge under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and formerly in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone, aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone, aforesaid”.

Mr. W.E. Sykes, solicitor, 46, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

The bankrupt's separate “statement of accounts” was thus summed up, viz. –

Dr s d

To creditors unsecured 302 10 0

To ditto holding security 400 0 0

Total 702 10 0

 

Cr

By property in the hands of creditors 225 0 0

Deficiency 477 10 0

Total 702 10 0

 

The partnership accounts disclose the following results, viz. –

Dr

To creditors unsecured 735 10 0

 

Cr

By deficiency 735 10 0

The bankrupt stated his expenditure to have been 120 per annum for the two years prior to his bankruptcy. His unsecured creditors chiefly reside at Folkestone and Canterbury, and the creditors holding security are thus described, viz. –

Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, brewer, “holds title deeds and a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of 200”.

Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, 150 “holds second mortgage on land mortgaged to Mr. G. Beer, also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, which will realise more than sufficient to pay these creditors”.

Mr. Sykes said that in this case he should require further accounts, as the bankrupt had made over all his property to a Mr. Pledge and his brother.

Mr. R. Griffiths, who supported the bankrupt, stated that there had been a quarrel between the partners, and the bankrupt's partner had filed a bill in chancery against him, but he (Mr. Griffiths) was afraid he could not resist successfully the application of Mr. Sykes.

The court then ordered the bankrupt to file a cash, goods, and deficiency account for eight months prior to the date of the adjudication, and adjourned the sitting until the 18th of January next, at two o'clock, with renewed protection from arrest to the bankrupt.

 

Folkestone Observer 2 February 1867.

Court Of Bankruptcy, London.

Monday 28th January: Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.

Re. J. W. Boorn.

This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge, under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights and general dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid”.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

The bankrupt petitioned the court on the 18th of September last and obtained protection from arrest. He attributes his failure to the following causes, viz: Insufficiency of my profits to meet my expenses caused by my partner Alfred Rayment having filed a bill in the High Court of Chancery against me. On the 18th of November the bankrupt applied to pass his examination upon accounts showing debts 785 10s., and deficiency 785 10s. He was then ordered to file a cash and goods account for 12 months previous to his bankruptcy, and a deficiency account, and the sitting was adjourned for that purpose, and to enable Mr. Aldridge to make enquiries into a bill of sale executed by the bankrupt shortly before petitioning the court.

Upon the case now being called on, the bankrupt did not appear, whereupon the court ordered an adjournment sine die and of course left him without further protection.

 

Southeastern Gazette 5 February 1867.

Local News.

Court of Bankruptcy, London. Monday: Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.

Re. J.W. Boorn: This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge, under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone aforesaid, boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, of Folkestone aforesaid”.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

On the 30th of November the bankrupt applied to pass his examination upon accounts showing debts of 735 10s., and deficiency of 735 10s. He was then ordered to file a cash and goods account for 12 months previous to his bankruptcy, and a deficiency account, and the sitting was adjourned for that purpose, and to enable Mr. Aldridge to make enquiries into a bill of sale executed by the bankrupt shortly before petitioning the Court. Upon the case now being called on, the bankrupt did not appear, whereupon the Court ordered an adjournment sine die, and of course left him without further protection.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 March 1867.

Court Of Bankruptcy, London. March 8th.

Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.

Re. J.W. Boorn.

The Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone. This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone, aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, 46, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee, and Mr. R. Griffiths appeared as counsel for the bankrupt, whose creditors reside at Ashford, Folkestone, Dover and Maidstone in this county.

The bankrupt had been ordered to file a cash account from the 13th of September, 1865, to the date of his bankruptcy in September, 1866, and was adjourned until the 18th of January last for that purpose. On the latter day he did not attend the court, and, no-one appearing on his behalf, the sitting was adjourned sine die, and he now came up at his own expense.

The cash account for twelve months shows a total of receipts and payments (including 108 2s. for housekeeping expenses) of 457 9s., and after hearing the respective advocates, the learned commissioners passed the bankrupt's examination upon the following statements of accounts, viz.

 

Partnership Statement Of Accounts

s d

Dr. - To creditors unsecured 735 10 0

Cr. - By Deficiency 735 10 0

 

Private Statement Of Accounts

Dr. – To creditors unsecured 302 10 0

To ditto holding security 400 0 0

Total 702 10 0

 

Cr. – By property in the hands of creditors 225 0 0

By Deficiency 477 10 0

Total 702 10 0

 

The bankrupt stated his expenditure to have been 120 per annum for the past two years.

The creditors holding security are as follow, viz.

Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Brewer, 180, holds security valued at 200.

Mr. John Minter, Folkestone, Solicitor, holds lease of the Packet Boat Inn, of no value.

Mr. James Pledge, Leas, Folkestone, Auctioneer, holds bill of sale on bankrupt's furniture for securing 120, - value of security, 25.

The bankrupt, having sworn to the truth of his accounts, was granted an unconditional order of discharge, and the sitting terminated.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 March 1867.

Editorial.

The Fatal Accident At The Harbour.

On reading the evidence given at the Inquest, our readers will doubtless wonder at two circumstances at least, that appear on the face of it. It is usual in cases of accident for the jury to go and view the place where it happened, and when singular facts are elicited, to enquire if the persons connected with the accident were sober. Neither of these usual requirements were even suggested. If the jury had gone to view the place where the deceased fell, they would probably have suggested that some barrier should be placed across the top of the steps to secure other persons from a similar accident.

Then again, when they learned that the first witness had actually walked over the side of the boat into the water on the opposite side to that of the pier, and then that the deceased, who well knew the place, had fallen down instead of going up from the landing (although, as the coroner suggested, she may have been so flurried by the other accident, that she did not know which way she went), the jury ought decidedly to have enquired whether the whole party had been drinking or not. If they had not, there was certainly something remarkable about it. Here are two women on board the Prince Ernest – against the harbour regulations – ostensibly for the purpose of scrubbing out the cabin. At seve o'clock, or a little before, when it is not quite dark, one of the women falls overboard; the other goes ashore without waiting to see if her friend is safe or not, and falling, is killed; while her friend, although hearing the boy call out “Here's mother killed” makes the best of her way home.

As for the husband of the unfortunate woman, Baker, great must be his regret that his disobedience to orders was the cause of the death of his wife, as, doubtless but for that, he would have seen her safe to the pier. At the same time, however, great praise must be given him for his gallant conduct in jumping into the water to rescue Mrs. Grant.

We should hope after this that more care will be exercised by the officials whose duty it is to see that the company's regulations are not infringed.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest on the body of the unfortunate woman, Ann Baker, was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Thursday last, before John Minter Esq., borough coroner.

Capt. Mortleman attended to watch the case on behalf of the South Eastern railway Company.

The Jury having been to view the body, the first witness called was:

Sarah Grant, wife of Henry Grant, fisherman, Radnor Street, who deposed that at about seven o'clock on Wednesday evening she was with the deceased on board the Prince Ernest, then lying alongside the middle berth in the harbour. They had been to scrub the steward's cabin out: the vessel was afloat. The husband of deceased was on board, and after the cabin had been scrubbed out, witness went on deck, leaving deceased and her husband below. As she was going along the deck she fell overboard through the gangway, which was open. She was got out of the water on to the deck again, and heard the deceased on the landing, making a noise, as though hurt. She did not see deceased, but went home.

William Baker, husband of the deceased, seaman on board the South Eastern Railway Company's steamer Prince Ernest said he and the steward were on board on the evening of Wednesday. He was in charge of the ship. He sent for his wife to bring his tea, and when she came with it, she offered to scrub out the steward's cabin. His boy, aged fourteen, was scrubbing the deck. Mrs. Grant went on deck first, after the cabin was scrubbed out, and when he came up he heard something splashing in the water, and Mrs. Grant calling “Baker”. He jumped off the sponson into the harbour, and caught hold of her. Another man named Fleet pulled alongside in a boat, and the got her on to the landing. Witness was leading her up the steps, and heard his son call out “Here's mother killed”, and told Mrs. Grant to go home, as she could do no good. He went down the landing, and saw his wife lying at the bottom of the second flight of stairs, not in the water. She was hardly alive. She was taken home on a chair.

James Brown, steward of the Prince Ernest, was on board the steamer on Wednesday evening, and saw the women cleaning his cabin. After Mrs. Grant fell overboard, on the port side, he held her up with a boat hook, until Baker rescued her. Mrs. Baker was at this time on the foredeck, waiting to go on shore, which was communicated with by means of a plank of 16 in. wide. He saw her safe off the plank on to the landing, and left her, for which she thanked him. About a minute after, as he was going down to the cabin, he heard the boy call out “My mother's killed herself”. He ran ashore and found deceased at the foot of the ladder, doubled up. The distance she fell was about nine feet: the steps were not slippery. She must have made a mistake, turned the wrong way, and fallen down instead of going up on to the pier.

W. Bateman Esq., surgeon, was called about nine o'clock on Wednesday evening to see deceased, whom he found lying on a sofa, with a great deal of blood about her. She was dead, but no-one seemed to be aware of it, as he was called to see her “on account of her having hurt her head”. On examination he found no external wound, but a great deal of bleeding from the left ear and a fracture on the left part of the parietal bone, extending from the vertex down to the ear, and he had no doubt that there was an extensive fracture at the base of the skull, from the quantity of blood exuded from the ear. Death was therefore doubtless cause by fracture of the skull, and would be almost immediate.

Captain Mortleman stated that if Baker had not disobeyed his orders the accident could not have happened, as no woman is allowed aboard at night, and nor person belonging to the crew, or any other, is allowed there without first hailing the ship; and the man in charge has then to bring a light to show the way. Baker was well aware of this and ought to have carried out his instructions.

The coroner summed up, remarking that it was a great pity the regulations of the company had not been carried out, and suggested it was caused by Mrs. Grant falling overboard, that having agitated Mrs. Baker so that she did not know which way she turned.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

 

Folkestone Observer 30 March 1867.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn on Thursday, before J. Minter Esq., on the body of Ann Baker, who met with her death under the circumstances detailed in the following evidence.

Sarah Grant deposed: I am the wife of Henry Grant, a fisherman. I went last night with the deceased on board the Prince Ernest steamer to scrub out the cabin. After we had finished scrubbing I went on board for the purpose of going on shore and I went to what I thought was the gangway, and fell overboard into the harbour. William Baker, the husband of the deceased, jumped overboard into the water and caught hold of me, and he and some other person got me into the landing. Whilst going up the steps I heard Baker's son call out that his mother was dead. Baker sent me home.

William Baker deposed: I am a seaman on board the boat The Prince Ernest, and deceased was my wife. Yesterday evening she came on board with Mrs. Grant. I was about scrubbing out the cabin. My wife and Mrs. Grant offered to do it. They scrubbed out the cabin and after asking whether there was any other scrubbing to be done, Mrs. Grant said Goodnight, and went up the companion to go on deck. I followed, and my wife was following me. Directly I got on deck I heard a splash, and Mrs. Grant calling out “Baker”. The cries came from the water, and I jumped overboard and caught hold of Mrs. Grant. Some other man then brought a punt and I got in and helped Mrs. Grant in, and then onto the landing. Whilst going up the landing, I heard my boy call out “Oh! Here's mother killed”. I told Mrs. Grant to go home, and went down the steps, and at the bottom I found my wife lying dead.

James Brown deposed: I am steward on board the Prince Ernest. Last evening I saw Mrs. Grant come on deck and disappear suddenly. I got a boat hook and, finding her in the water, I hooked hold of her clothes. Baker at the same time jumped overboard and caught hold of her. A man named Fleet pulled a punt to the spot, and she was got onto the landing. I then turned and saw deceased, who was going on shore. I said “Let me hold you across this plank”, and I did so and left her safely on the landing. She thanked me and said goodnight. I then went to my cabin, but I immediately heard Baker's boy call out “Mr. Brown, my mother has killed herself”. I immediately went on to the landing and saw deceased lying at the bottom of the steps, doubled up. I believe she was quite dead. I believe the deceased mistook her way and turned to the right instead of the left: if she had turned to the left she would have gone upstairs, but turning to the left she fell downstairs, a distance of 10 or 11 feet.

William Bateman deposed: I am a surgeon practicing at Folkestone. I was sent for last evening to see a woman who had cut her head. I went to thje deceased's residence. I found her lying in the lower room on a sofa, with a great deal of blood about her. Upon looking at her head, I found that deceased was dead, and I have no doubt that death was instantaneous. There was no external wound, but a great deal of bleeding from the left ear. There was a fracture at the posterior part of the left parietal bone, extending from the vertix down to the ear. I have no doubt there was an extensive fracture at the base of the skull.

The Coroner enquired if Baker's son was in attendance, and upon being sent for he stated that he saw Mr. Brown help his mother on shore, that he did not see his mother fall, but heard her fall, and then called out.

Capt. Mortleman said that he attended on behalf of the South Eastern Company, and wished to explain that if the Company's orders had been obeyed the unfortunate accident would not have occurred. The orders were that no women were to be allowed on board after dark, and that no-one should be allowed to come on board without first hailing the ship, and then a light would be shown to enable a person to come on board in safety, and a light would also be shown on leaving. Baker was perfectly aware of the orders, and he had not ought to have had his wife on board.

The Coroner summed up and the jury immediately returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 2 April 1867.

Inquest.

On Wednesday evening a fatal accident happened on the south side of the S.E.R. Company’s Harbour. It appears that a seaman, named William Baker, was left in charge of the Prince Ernest, cargo boat, and the steward, Mr. Brown, was also on board. Baker’s wife and a woman named Sarah Grant had ben scrubbing out the steward’s cabin, and on leaving a go ashore Mrs. Grant walked off the boat into the water, and while Mr. Brown and Baker were getting her out Mrs. Baker went ashore and fell down one of the flights of steps on the bottom landing, where she was picked up dead.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Thursday, before J. Minter, Esq., when Capt. Mortleman attended on behalf of the Company. The medical evidence showed that deceased died from from fracture of the skull, and a verdict of “Accidental death” was returned.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 July 1868.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Captain Kennicott and James Tolputt Esq.

This being a Special Sessions for granting Alehouse Licenses, &c., the following business was transacted.

The license of the Packet Boat Inn was transferred from Mr. J. Boorn to Mr. J. Fagg.

Note: More Bastions lists Richard Boorn at this time, and has no mention of Fagg.

 

Folkestone Express 11 July 1868.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

A special sessions for the transferring of licenses was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The following business was conducted:

John Fagg, of the Packet Boat, for transfer of license from John Boorn – Granted.

Note: Fagg is not listed in More Bastions, and it also lists Richard Boorn as being there in 1868.

 

Maidstone Telegraph 6 February 1869

BANKRUPTS.

To surrender in the County.

BOORN, John Whittenden, Seagate-street, Folkestone, Kent, wheelwright, February 17th, 1869.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

License of the following house was transferred at a special sessions: The Packet Boat to Robert Smith.

 

Folkestone Observer 27 February 1869.

Tuesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Robert Smith applied for a transfer of the license to sell excisable liquors at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License.

Packet Boat Inn – Robert Smith applied for transfer of license in this house. Granted.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 March 1869.

Transfer of Licence.—The following licence was applied for on Wednesday and granted:—R. Smith, for the Packet Boat Inn.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 March 1869.

County Court.

This Court was held on Monday, at the Town Hall, before W. C. Scott, Esq., Judge.

J. W. Boorn, a bankrupt, came up for his last examination, Mr. Minter supported the application.

Mr. Banks opposed; but his account had not been properly proved before the official assignee.

Mr. Minter said the court levied a distress on the goods of the bankrupt, and they realised 267, and after paying the rent and the broker there remained a balance of 27, which he would pay into court.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 April 1869.

County Court. Equity.

Monday, April 19th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Geo. Beer v John Minter and George John Graham: This was a suit in which Mr. Walter Furley (Callaway and Furley), of Canterbury, appeared on behalf of Mr. Beer. He said that Mr. Graham was the official assignee of John Boorn, who was bankrupt in 1866, and who had just previously executed a mortgage to Mr. Minter on a piece of freehold land in Radnor Street. There was no dispute as to the value of the land – about 150 – and Mr. Graham had written to say that he claimed no interest in the property.

A decretal order referring the matter to the registrar of the court was made, and this concluded the business of the court.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 May 1871.

Auction Advertisement extract.

To be sold by Auction by Mr. Geo. Brickman, at the King's Arms Inn, Folkestone, on Thursday, May 25th, 1871, at seven o'clock in the evening precisely:

Lot 2: All that Freehold cottage or tenement, with the appurtenances thereto belonging, situate in East Street, Folkestone, and having a frontage to the street of 21 feet 8 inches (more or less), in the occupation of George Fagg, as a weekly tenant, at the rent of 2s. 6d., the landlord paying all rates and outgoings.

The basement floor of this cottage is now used as part of the Tap Room of the Packet Boat Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 29 May 1875.

Local News.

We have to record a lamentable accident at sea, resulting in the loss of the lives of two young fishermen, and of the boat in which they were sailing. It appears that on Thursday, William John Smith, son of Mr. William Smith, of the Steam Packet Inn (sic), Radnor Street, a fine young man of seventeen, was engaged in fishing for shellfish in his father's boat, accompanied by his cousin, John Bullen, of Deal, a somewhat younger lad. The lads were about three quarters of a mile from Dymchurch about 3 p.m., when some persons on the shore saw the little craft capsize under a sudden squall, and disappear. Three or four boats put off as quickly as possible from Dymchurch, but could find no trace either of the young fishermen or of their craft.

 

Folkestone Express 5 June 1875.

Inquest.

Last week we noticed the fatal accident which befell two young lads, the son and nephew of Mr. William Smith of the Steam Packet Inn (sic), who were drowned by the capsizing of a fishing boat off Dymchurch. The body of William Smith was recovered on the following day by Thomas Pegler, a fisherman living in East Street, in this town, who in hauling a whelk pot drew up the body, which had a cork fastened to the waist.

An inquest was held on the body at the Steam Packet Inn on Saturday evening before Mr. J. Minter, Coroner for the Borough, when the facts of the accident were stated by Thomas Winderberg, labourer, of Dymchurch. Deceased's father identified the body, and Pegler proved picking it up. The jury returned a verdict of Found Drowned.

The body of George Bullen, the other victim of this fatality, was picked up on Romney Sands on Thursday.

 

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 18 December 1875.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon a man named William Whitnall, a smith, living in Queen Street, attempted to commit suicide by jumping from the East Pier into the harbour. He was observed by a boy, who gave the alarm, and the unfortunate man was rescued by two fishermen named Richard Taylor and William Milton. He was taken to the house of Mr. Robert Smith, Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. Though quite insensible, he rallied through the energetic efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and was able to be removed home. Though much better, he is still in a very feeble state. We understand that the unfortunate man, who has been in a lunatic asylum, has for some time past been in a desponding state.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 September 1876.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before Ald. Caister, Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

John Gurr, a young man, was charged with feloniously removing a cash box containing 61 0s. 8d., a solitaire, and coins &c.

Mary Smith, wife of Robert Smith, landlord of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, stated that the prisoner had lodged in her house about eighteen months. On Monday evening she left her cash box in her bedroom; she last saw it about six o'clock. She had 40 in gold in the box, and one in silver; added to that there was 24 in the box prior to that; of these the sum of 5 or 6 was in silver; she locked the box but not the bedroom door. Prisoner came home about seven o'clock. When he came in he went straight upstairs to his bedroom, and in doing so he had to pass her room. He remained about a quarter of an hour. She looked out and saw him go down, but she did not notice whether he had anything with him. He came in about half past nine o'clock; he went out again, and came in about half past eleven o'clock. She saw him then; he went up into his bedroom, but came down again and asked her to give him a bottle of ginger beer. When she went to bed she did not notice her cash box, but she missed it at seven o'clock on the following morning. The prisoner was in, and she went up to his bedroom door and asked him whether he happened to be there. He replied “Yes”, but she did not speak to him on the subject of the cash box until her suspicions were aroused. Just before eight o'clock she said “Have you taken my cash box?”. He replied “No”. She then told him that she knew he had got the money, because she heard that he had been showing it. She asked him to give it up to her, but he said he had not got it, so she came away and sent for the police.

P.S. Reynolds deposed to going to the Packet Boat and taxing prisoner with the theft, who, in reply, handed him the stolen property.

The prisoner was committed for trial.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 September 1876.

Local News.

At the Petty Sessions, on Wednesday, John Gurr, a labourer, was charged with stealing a cash box on Monday evening, containing about 65 in gold, some rings, and other valuables, from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, kept, by Mr. Robert Smith, where prisoner lodged.

It appears that the box was not missed till early on Tuesday morning, and Mr. Smith, having heard that prisoner had exhibited an unusual amount of, money on the previous evening at once suspected him of the theft. When given into custody he handed over the money which he had secreted about his person. He was committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 November 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 30th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

There was only one prisoner for trial, Matthew Gurr, bricklayer, who was charged with stealing the sum of 61 16s. 8d., a cash box, two rings, two solitaires, and three coins, the property of Robert Smith.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

The prisoner asked for mercy, pleading that bad company and intoxicating liquors had brought him to this sad position.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 4 November 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

The autumn session was held on Monday, before the Recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

The only case for trial was that of John Gurr, for stealing a cash box containing gold and other property of the value of 60, from his lodgings, the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, kept by Mr. Robert Smith. Prisoner pleaded guilty.

The Recorder said he had committed an offence which subjected him to fourteen years’ penal servitude, but, as he appeared to have previously borne a good character, he should only sentence him to twelve months’ hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 July 1877.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Thursday evening at the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, on the body of Patrick Hickey, who met with his death from falling down steps leading from East Street to the back entrance of the Packet Boat Inn. Dr. Mercer stated that he was called to see the deceased, and found him insensible. The cause of the death arose from a fall, producing concussion of the brain. Isabella Wilson deposed that the deceased came out of his house in East Street and went to the top of the steps leading into the Packet Boat yard. She saw him miss the first of the steps and then fall over. She had seen him in the afternoon, and then thought he had been drinking. Corroborative evidence having been given by another witness, the jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

 

Folkestone Express 7 July 1877.

Inquest.

On Thursday evening an inquest was held by the Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) at the Packet Boat public house, Radnor Street, on the body of Patrick Hickey, who came to his death by falling down the steps leading from East Street to Radnor Street.

Mr. Richard Mercer, a surgeon practicing in Folkestone, identified the body as that of Patrick Hickey, who was a pensioner and bath-chairman. On the previous evening about seven o'clock witness was called to the Packet Boat, where he found the deceased sitting in a chair in the parlour supported by Robert Smith, the landlord, and perfectly insensible. On examining the deceased's head he found a scalp wound about two inches in length and extending into the bone on the back towards the upper part. There was also a bruise on the left side of his forehead. The landlord told him that deceased had fallen from the back to the top of the steps leading from East Street into the yard of the Packet Boat. He was “a little fresh” at the time. Witness had the deceased removed to his house in East Street, where he lingered in a state of insensibility till eleven o'clock when he died. The cause of death was concussion of the brain and a fusion of blood on the brain, the effects of a fall.

Isabella Wilson, the wife of James Wilson, a labourer living in East Street, Folkestone, deposed that on the previous evening, between six and seven o'clock, she saw the deceased come out of his house in East Street and go to the top of the steps leading into the Packet Boat yard. He was proceeding to go down the steps when he missed the first step and fell. She saw someone go to his assistance, and as she was afraid, she left the spot and did not see any more of deceased. She saw the deceased in the afternoon and she then thought he had been drinking.

Hannah Harris, the wife of a fisherman living in East Street, nearly opposite the steps leading to the Packet Boat Inn, stated that she was standing at the door of her house about half past six o'clock on the previous evening, when she saw deceased come out of his house and walk towards the steps. He seemed to stagger a little, but she could not say whether it was from drink or from his being tired. She knew that he had had a long walk to Hythe. Just as she was going into her house she heard the deceased fall, and she ran to the steps and went down. She found him lying at the bottom on his back and she lifted him up. He was bleeding very much from the back of the head and was quite insensible. With the assistance of two of Mrs. Smith's lodgers he was carried into the tap room of the Packet Boat, and a doctor was at once sent for.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental Death”.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 18 March 1891.

Wednesday, March 11th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Henry Smith, of the Packet Boat Inn, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs for having his dog unmuzzled in the Tram Road on the 6th March.

P.C. Nash proved the case.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 August 1892.

Saturday, August 6th: Before Messrs. J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, W.G. Boykett, and Alderman Pledge.

Mrs. Ada Jane Smith, of the Packet Inn, was charged with knowingly having in her possession 2 lbs. of goods, the same being uncustomed goods. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Rolt, chief officer of Customs at Folkestone, stated that from information he received he caused the house of the defendant to be searched, and in a chest of drawers in one of the bedrooms the officers found 2 lbs. of cigars, upon which duty had not been paid.

Charles S. Jones, a Customs officer, said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of Exchequer and searched the house. He found seven boxes of cigars, each containing 25, in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2 lb.

Mr. Bradley asked what there was to distinguish uncustomed goods from customed goods.

Witness replied they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof lay with the defendant. He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and then that it was her son's room. Her son was a second engineer on board one of the steamers.

The single value duty was said to be 1 13s. 9d.

Defendant said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over the house, and those cigars were found in her son's room. Her son had his own room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had been putting them by for a long time, to get dry.

Mr. Bradley said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.

The Bench asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.

Mr. Rolt said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar from the ship without paying duty.

Mr. Bradley said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.

The Bench said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and they therefore dismissed it.

Mr. Bradley: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.

Mr. Bradley: What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not allowed to remain, and be summoned? It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.

Mr. Rolt: We knew nothing of her.

Mr. Boykett: Very harsh.

Supt. Taylor said she was only in custody ten minutes.

Mr. Bradley: The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven's sake, was she arrested on the trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town, and well known, taken into custody. She was not going to run away.

The Chairman: It was very harsh.

Supt. Taylor: What is to be done with the cigars?

Mr. Rolt: We keep those on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Fitness: Have the Bench no power over it?

Mr. Rolt: No, sir.

 

Folkestone Express 13 August 1892.

Saturday, August 6th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Mary Ann Smith was charged with having knowingly in her house 2 lbs. of cigars, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt, Customs Officer, said he caused Mrs. Smith's house to be searched, and in a chest of drawers they found 2 lbs. of cigars which had not paid duty.

Charles S. Jones said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of Exchequer, and searched the house, and found seven boxes of cigars in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2 lbs.

Mr. Bradley asked what there was to distinguish the cigars.

Witness said they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof laid with the defendant. He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and then that it was her son's room. The son is a second engineer on board one of the steamers.

The single value and duty was said to be 1 13s. 9d.

Defendant said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over the house, and those cigars were found in her son's room. Her son had his own room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had been keeping them a long time to get dry.

Mr. Bradley said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.

Mr. Bradley asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.

The officer said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar without paying duty.

Mr. Bradley said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.

The Bench said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and dismissed it.

Mr. Bradley asked: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.

What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not allowed to remain and be summoned? It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.

Mr. Boykett: Very harsh.

Supt. Taylor said she was only in custody ten minutes.

Mr. Bradley: The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven's sake, was she arrested on the trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town,, and well known, taken into custody. She was not going to run away.

The Chairman: It was very harsh.

Supt. Taylor: What is to be done with the cigars?

Mr. Rolt: We keep those on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Holden: Have the Bench no power over it?

Mr. Bradley: No, sir.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, Councillor Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Henry Smith, an engineer of one of the Channel steamers, was charged with being concerned in harbouring and concealing uncustomed goods, viz., 2 lb. 4 oz. of cigars on the 5th inst. The defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the prosecutors, the Honourable Board of Customs, and he called Mr. C.L. Jones, who deposed to finding the cigars in a chest of drawers in defendant's bedroom at the Packet Boat Inn as reported in our last issue. He also stated that the single value and duty of the cigars was 1 13s. 9d.

Mr. Minter said he contended that the penalty as prescribed by the law was that the single value and duty should be trebled, but the Magistrates' Clerk held that it was only the value that should be trebled, and not the duty.

Mr. Andrews pointed out that that was immaterial in this case as the Bench had the power of fining a defendant the single value and duty ony in cases where the value was under 20.

Mr. Jones said the value of the cigars was 10s. per lb., and the duty 5s. per lb.

The defendant said he kept the cigars for his own use. He thought he was justified in doing what he had done.

The Bench fined the defendant 1 13s. 9d., the value of the cigars, and 11s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Smith was summoned for being concerned in harbouring uncustomed goods – 2 lb. 4 oz. of foreign cigars. The defendant is the son of Mrs. Smith, who was on the previous Saturday charged with a similar offence and dismissed.

Mr. Minter appeared for the Customs authorities. He said at the outset that attention had been called to the remarks that were made at the hearing of the charge against Mrs. Smith by the Clerk to the Magistrates, when the officers were out of Court searching for a witness in another case which was coming before the Bench. The consequence was they had no opportunity of answering the remark, but he was quite sure the Bench would allow him to make an explanation. He read the report of the proceedings which appeared in this journal, and then said he must take exception to the observations made by the Clerk to the Magistrates that it was a trumpery charge. It was a very serious charge if it had been proved, but the Bench did not feel that it was proved, and the Customs at once submitted to their judgement. At the same time it was a very serious charge, and not a trumpery one. The Customs had two ways of dealing with it, either by bringing the parties at once before the Magistrates, or by issuing a summons. He thought it almost went without saying that the Customs, in the discharge of their duties, never wished to act in a harsh manner, and under the exceptional circumstances which he was going to tell them, they would see there was no pretence for saying there was any hardship, and that what was done was to accommodate the lady herself. He rather wondered she did not state what actually took place. When the officers found those cigars, to which a young fellow, a son of Mrs. Smith, had pleaded guilty to having in his bedroom in his mother's house, it was the imperative duty of the Customs officers to charge someone with the offence with which they, in the first instance, charged Mrs. Smith – that of harbouring those cigars on her premises. They would have been guilty of neglect of duty if they had not directed proceedings to have the matter enquired into. The lady was in a very hysterical condition when the things were found. He did not wish to trouble the Bench with her observations. It was for her to show she did not know they were there. The officer explained to her what must be done. If he had been her own son he could not have acted in a kinder manner. He explained to her what he should have to do. He did what Mr. Bradley said he should have done. He told her he would have to issue a summons against her and she would have to appear before the Magistrates. Her reply was “Can't you get rid of this matter without that? Can't you have it settled at once?” The officer as kindly as possible said the only way in which she could have it settled was by technically submitting to an arrest, by going to the police station, and signing a police bond to appear on the morrow. She said she would rather do that than wait for a summons. The lady walked up to the police station herself – not in custody – technically in custody if they liked, and waited till the officer and the Superintendent of Police came up. She signed the bail bond and walked home, and was much obliged to the officers for having done what they could in order that the charge might be disposed of next day. Then, when it came on the next morning, somehow or other, it got into the mind of Mr. Bradley, that she had been there and then arrested and dragged up through the streets. The officers would have been perfectly justified in doing it. They intended to summon her in the ordinary way. He thought after that explanation they would say nobody had been guilty of harsh or unfeeling conduct. The officers, on the other hand, did everything they could for the lady in order to facilitate the hearing.

Alderman Sherwood: Then there is an end of it.

Alderman Pledge: Just consider for a moment. This lady, in giving evidence, said she had no idea they were there. They were in her son's bedroom, and she knew nothing about them.

Mr. Minter: And you believed her and dismissed the case. We don't complain. E say that the officers searching and seizing these contraband goods, it was their duty to summon everybody in the house in order that the Magistrates should have judicial knowledge of it.

The Magistrates then proceeded to discuss the matter.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed not to press harshly, but there was the Act, under which the Bench must adjudicate, and which decided what the defendant must pay. As he had said before, the game was not worth the candle.

Mr. Rolt, the Customs officer, said the single value and duty was 1 13s. 9d.

Mr. Minter said there was some difference between himself and the Magistrates' Clerk as to what fines were payable. He contended that the single value and duty should be trebled. Their Clerk did not agree with him; he said the value should be trebled, and single duty.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the question would hardly arise in that case. It was the first offence, and they would hardly press for a heavy penalty.

Mr. Minter said he was not pressing, but there was the penalty under the Act.

The Magistrates' Clerk read the Section, from which it appeared that the Magistrates had discretion, where the amount of value was under 20, to inflict not less than single value and duty.

Defendant said he had the cigars entirely for his own use, and he thought he was doing no harm.

Mr. Minter asked for costs, and for his own costs for appearing.

The Magistrates' Clerk said it appeared that his object in appearing was mainly to make an explanation.

The Bench imposed a penalty of 1 13s. 9d. single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 August 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

In some of our London contemporaries there recently appeared a sensational paragraph headed “Harsh Doings In Folkestone”. It related to the case of a Mrs. Smith, who was charged before the Bench with being in possession of, or, in legal phraseology, “harbouring” contraband tobacco, in the shape of 2 lbs. 4 oz. of foreign cigars that had not paid the requisite tribute to the Customs.

The case against her was dismissed, it being shown that she was an innocent party, inasmuch as the cigars were the property of her son, who had left them in his bedroom unknown to her.

During the hearing of the case the Magistrates' Clerk, whose indignation seemed to have been somewhat strongly aroused, took occasion to advert in forcible terms upon the harsh usage to which the defendant was put in, having been, as was alleged, taken into custody, and marched a prisoner to the police station, instead of being summoned in the usual way. Hence the uncomplimentary heading to the report of the case in the London papers.

After all, though, it seems to have been a case of “much ado about nothing”, for when Henry Smith, the son, was, at the following court, charged before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, and Messrs. Fitness and Holden with the offence, the doyen of the legal profession who attend our courts, Mr. Minter, who represented the Customs, put a very different complexion upon the matter.

Mrs. Smith was not taken into custody in the ordinary sense of the term, although perhaps strictly speaking she was; that is, she surrendered herself to expedite matters. When the Custom House officer made the discovery of the unduty-paid goods, Mrs. Smith, as perhaps was only natural, became slightly hysterical, and wanted to have the affair settled at once, and to avoid the delay of waiting for a summons. The officer, who, said Mr. Minter, could not have treated her more kindly if he had been her son, pointed out to her that the only way in which that could be done was by his taking her into custody, and her going to the police station to sign a bond that she would appear on the following morning. To this she was only too glad to consent, and Mrs. Smith walked up, in her own company only, to the station, there entered into the required surety, and returned home. The Magistrates Clerk also alluded to the case as a “trumpery” one. This Mr. Minter protested against, as if it had been proved it would have been a very serious one.

Henry Smith pleaded Guilty, and the Bench imposed a fine of 1 13s. 9d., the single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1899.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

An application was made on behalf of Albert Newman for authority to sell at the Packet Boat Inn. Granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday Mr. Albert Thomas Newman had his authority renewed for the Packet Boat.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 October 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday the Packet Boat was transferred from Mary Smith to Albert Thomas Newman.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 May 1900.

Monday, May 7th: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. Wightwick and Fitness, and Col. Hamilton.

Thomas George Harvey, a disreputable and rough-looking tramp, was charged with being drunk, disorderly, and assaulting the police on the previous evening.

P.C. Sharp was called to eject the prisoner from the Packet Boat public house in Radnor Street. After he had been ejected he went along to East Street and created a disturbance. He was ejected from the public house at the request of the landlord because he was quarrelling with the people in the bar. When requested to go away he became insolent and said he would go when he was ready. He then put himself in a threatening attitude, and squared up to the constable as if to fight. When taken into custody he kicked the constable on the right leg. He was afterwards handcuffed, and with the assistance of other constable, brought to the station.

The prisoner: Were you not watching me like a cat does a mouse, earlier in the day, when I was in the eating house?

The constable: No, I had not seen you before.

Will you show the Magistrates the leg you say I kicked?

The constable bared the leg, which showed sufficient evidence of a ferocious kick.

Albert Thomas Newman, landlord of the Packet Boat, gave evidence of the prisoner's annoyance, and P.C. Earle corroborated as to his language and the assault.

Prisoner, in a whining tone, said if the Bench would inflict a fine he would take the pledge. Their kindness that morning would make a reformed man of him.

The Chairman said that prisoner's conduct on a Sunday night was disgraceful. For being drunk he would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days', and for the assault he would go to Canterbury for 14 days without the option.

Prisoner now became abusive again and was removed to the cells, politely intimating to the Magistrates that he would not forget them.

Mr. Reginald Pope produced plans of proposed alterations at the Wonder public house.

The Chief Constable said he did not propose to oppose the alterations, which were necessary from a sanitary point of view.

The Bench concurred.

 

Folkestone Express 12 May 1900.

Monday, May 7th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Thomas George Harvey was charged with being drunk and disorderly and with assaulting the police. He pleaded Guilty to the former, but to the latter he pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sharp said about 7.50 on Sunday evening he was called to eject the prisoner from the Packet Boat public house. He did so, and prisoner went on to The Stade and shouted out most obscene language. Prisoner answered, when told to go away, “I shall go when I am ready”, and added “I will tear your ---- face to pieces”, and put himself in a fighting attitude. He was taken into custody, when he kicked witness on he right leg, and became most violent, and it was necessary to handcuff him, and with the assistance of two other constables he was taken to the police station.

Henry T. Newman, the landlord of the Packet Boat public house, stated that prisoner went into his house about 7.45 p.m. and used most filthy and disgusting language. He was ordered to leave, and began to swear at the customers. A constable was sent for, and a constable came and ejected him.

In answer to Alderman Banks, witness said he served the prisoner no beer.

P.C. Earl corroborated the first witness's evidence.

Supt. Reeve asked the Bench to take into consideration the fact that he was using most obscene language on a Sunday night.

The prisoner said if they let him off he would become a teetotaller.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, with the alternative of seven days' hard labour for being drunk and disorderly, and for assaulting the police constable he was sentenced to fourteen days' without the option of a fine.

Prisoner said when leaving the Court, “Thank you, I shan't forget it either”.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 May 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday, Thomas George Harvey was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday night, and with assaulting a constable on The Stade. The defendant admitted having beer, but pleaded not guilty to the assault.

P.C. Sharpe deposed that he was called to eject the defendant from the Packet Boat public house, where he caused a disturbance. He shouted and used obscene language. Defendant, when asked to go away, said “I shall go when I'm ready”. He also remarked “I will cut your face to pieces”. Then he squared at the constable in a fighting attitude, and kicked him on the right leg. With the help of P.C. Varrier and P.C. Earl he was taken to the police station.

By the defendant: He was not watching him as a cat watches a mouse.

Mr. A.T. Newman, landlord of the Packet Boat, said that the defendant came to his place about 7.45, using filthy language. Defendant was ordered out, but said he would go when he thought fit. He offered to fight. He was the worse for drink. He sent for the police. Outside he heard the defendant using filthy language to the constable. He did not serve the defendant any drink.

P.C. Earl corroborated that the defendant used filthy language and was very violent.

The Chief Constable said that this was disgraceful conduct in the street on Sunday, and the man continued his violent behaviour in the cell up to midnight.

The defendant complained of being shoved about like a piece of dirt. He had a job at Seabrook, and if the Bench let him off this time he would be a teetotaller. He could go to work that afternoon.

The Bench fined him 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

As he left the Court the defendant expressed his deep obligation to the Bench, and promised that he would not forget it either.

 

Folkestone Express 3 January 1903.

Wednesday, December 31st: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Vaughan, Penfold and Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Thomas Davis and John Banks Pegden were charged with stealing two rabbits.

Percy Potten, a carter, said his stables were in Dover Road, near the railway bridge. In the stables he kept seven rabbits. On Sunday, about 6.30, he fed them, and locked the place up. On Monday he returned about 5.15 a.m. and found two of the hutches open. He gave information to the police, and on the previous evening he went with his employer to the Packet Boat public house, where he saw prisoners. The prisoner Davis had previously been in the lodge. The rabbits were valued at 1.

Detective Burniston said about eight p.m. the previous evening he was with P.C. Bourne in Fenchurch Street, when they saw prisoner carrying a basket containing two rabbits, partly covered with a piece of paper. Witness followed prisoner into Radnor Street, and saw them go into the Packet Boat public house. Witness and P.C. Bourne followed. Witness said to Davis “Are they your rabbits?” He replied “Yes”. Witness asked where he got them, and he said “I bought them off a man last Sunday night in Dover Road”. Witness said he was not satisfied with the statement, and they would be detained. Pegden said “I lodge with Davis. I do not know where he got the rabbits. I helped him carry them down tonight”. The rabbits were identified by their owner. Witness charged the prisoners, and Pegden said “I know nothing about them”.

The Superintendent said if the Bench were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out he would ask them to commit prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The Bench, however, dealt with the case summarily, and sentenced Davis to two months' hard labour.

As there was not sufficient evidence against Pegden, he was discharged with a caution.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o'clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

With respect to the Packet Boat, the Brewery Tap, and the Castle they ordered the back entrances of the licensed premises to be closed within 14 days from this date.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 September 1904.

Local News.

On Tuesday evening a very large company assembled at the Packet Boat for the purpose of giving a hearty send-off to Host and Hostess Mr. and Mrs. Albert Thomas Newman, who are relinquishing their Folkestone house to take over the Walmer Castle at Dover. During the evening a handsomely illuminated address was presented to Mr. and Mrs. Newman. The address bore the signatures of over 100 residents, including the names of many prominent townsmen.

On Wednesday evening Mr. Newman's successor, Captain Thomas Daniel Goldsmith, had a grand opening night, and was surrounded (being a well-known and respected old Folkestonian) by a host of friends from all parts of the town.

Wednesday, September 7th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Messrs. J. Stainer and W.C. Carpenter.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Mr. Albert Thomas Newman to Mr. Thomas Daniel Goldsmith.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 September 1904.

Local News.

There was a large gathering at the Packet Boat on Tuesday evening, when Mr. and Mrs. Albert Newman, the host and hostess, were presented with an illuminated address on their departure from Folkestone to the Walmer Castle Hotel, Dover. The address was signed by over a hundred of Mr. and Mrs. Newman's friends, who wished them every success in their new sphere of labour. Mr. Newman suitably responded.

 

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench approved of plans for alterations at the Packet Boat Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

Mr. J.D. Goldsmith applied for approval of a change of plans in the Packet Boat.

 

Folkestone Daily News 16 October 1905.

Monday, October 16th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer.

Sarah Duke was charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass at the Packet Boat Inn on Saturday night.

Thomas David Goldsmith, the landlord of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, said that at a quarter past eleven on Saturday night, after the house was closed and the door locked, the prisoner came and demanded admittance, alleging that a man named Harry Webb was lodging there. She had evidently mistaken the Packet Boat for the Star, as a man of that name was lodging there. She said if she was not admitted she would smash the window. Witness took little notice of what she said, and she went away, but returned and broke a pane of glass in the door with her shoe. The damage caused was estimated at 2 15s. 0d. Witness gave her into custody.

Prisoner had no questions to ask, and said it was all a mistake.

The Bench ordered prisoner to pay the damage, 2 15s. 0d., a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or one month's hard labour. She had no money, and was conveyed to the cells.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 October 1905.

Local News.

Sarah Dicks, a good looking little woman with a fiery temper, was charged and pleaded Guilty to wilfully breaking a plate glass window at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, valued at 2 15s.

Thomas Daniel Goldsmith, the landlord of the Packet Boat, said that after his house was closed on Saturday night the woman came to his door, and enquired for a man named Frederick Wells. Witness told her that no such man had been to the house. The woman replied that if she was not let into the house she would smash the window. Prisoner went away, but in a few minutes returned, and broke the window with her shoe. Prisoner had evidently taken the Packet Boat for the Star, as the man, Frederick Wells, was lodging there.

Accused, who had nothing to say, was ordered to pay the damage, 2 15s., and fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or one month.

Mr. Goldsmith let the prisoner down very lightly. He did not tell the Magistrates that accused bit him through the hand, marks of the bite being plainly visible.

 

Folkestone Express 21 October 1905.

Monday, October 16th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Sarah Dicks, a young woman, was charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass in the door of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Saturday night. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Thomas Daniel Goldsmith, licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, said on Saturday night, about a quarter past eleven, the prisoner knocked at the door of the bar and enquired for a man named Harry Webb. Witness told her he did not know such a man and she had better go away. She replied if he did not let her into the house she would smash the windows. About two minutes later he saw her come towards the door and smash one of the plate glass panels with her boot. Witness detained her until the arrival of a constable, when he gave her into custody. Prisoner had evidently mistaken his place for the Star Inn. He estimated the damage at 2 15s.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and she was ordered to pay the amount of the damage (2 15s.), and 10s. fine, including costs. In default of payment she went to prison for one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 1 November 1905.

Wednesday, November 1st: Before Alderman Spurgen, Alderman Vaughan, Councillor Carpenter, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

James Robert Featherbe, who appeared with a somewhat damaged face, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police. He pleaded Guilty to the first charge, and Not Guilty to the second.

P.C. Minter stated that he was called to the Packet Boat Inn on the previous evening about 20 minutes past 8 by the landlord to eject the prisoner from the premises. He was drunk, and refused to leave when requested, both by the landlord and witness. The assistance of P.C. Smith was obtained, and he was taken into custody. He used very obscene language in the presence of a number of women. When taken into custody he became very violent, and kicked P.C. Smith and knocked off witness's helmet.

In reply to the prisoner, witness denied that he kicked him first.

P.C. Smith said he was called to the Packet Boat Inn, and found the previous witness in the act of ejecting the prisoner. He assisted to get him into the street, when he became very violent, making use of filthy language in the hearing of a number of children. He was so violent that it was necessary to handcuff him and remove his boots. Before doing so he kicked witness on the knee and shin, which were bruised and painful.

Witness showed an abrasion on his shin to the Bench.

Continuing his evidence, P.C. Minter stated that the prisoner was violent all the way to the station.

Witness denied that the prisoner was kicked.

Prisoner said “When these gentlemen kicked me I thought it was very near time to kick out at them. They knelt on my head”.

Frederick Featherbe, brother of the prisoner, said the police knelt on his brother's chest, and acted brutally in “all manners of ways”; in fact he didn't think they were men at all. Witness offered to assist the constables, but they said they did not want any of his help. It was cruel to see the way they served his brother. He concluded his evidence by remarking “It's a good job I didn't have a drop of drink, or there might have been worse to go”.

The Bench fined prisoner 5s. with 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' hard labour for being drunk and disorderly, and 10s. with 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour, for the assault on the police.

Frederick Featherbe, nephew of the previous prisoner, was charged with attempting to rescue him from lawful custody. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Minter repeated his evidence in the previous case, and said as they were proceeding up High Street, followed by a crowd, prisoner rushed up and seized Robert Featherbe by the scarf, saying “Let 'em have it, Bob, put it up 'em”. Prisoner took his uncle's scarf away, saying “Now they won't be able to choke you with it”. He was quite sober. He was arrested, taken to the police station, and charged.

P.C. Smith corroborated. He said they were followed up High Street by a howling mob, whi incited the prisoner they had in custody to violence. The present prisoner was one of the ringleaders, and got hold of the man in custody, thereby attempting to rescue him. He was therefore arrested.

John Alfred Cook, 37, Fenchurch Street, stated that he saw Robert Featherbe, who was his uncle, drop his scarf. Prisoner told him to go quiet, or they would only make it the worse for him. It was not the prisoner who attempted to rescue.

William Weatherhead, 5, St. Michael's Square, said there was so many people following the police that he thought they did not know who it was rushed forward.

The Chairman said the Bench considered it a serious offence. The police ought to be protected, and it was the duty of the prisoner to assist, not to obstruct. He would be fined 10s., 6s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 4 November 1905.

Wednesday, November 1st: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

James Robert Featherbe, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police the previous night, on The Stade. Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, but not to the assault.

P.C. Minter said the previous night at twenty minutes past eight he was called to the Packet Boat Inn. He there saw the prisoner drunk, who refused to go out when requested by the landlord and himself. Witness therefore had to use force to eject him. When he got outside, prisoner used very bad language, which was not fit for anyone to hear. Witness then took him into custody, but he became so violent that he had to obtain the assistance of P.C. Smith. Prisoner kicked that officer, and also knocked witness's helmet off into the road. All the way to the police station there was a howling mob round them trying to agitate the prisoner and also urging others to go for them.

Prisoner alleged that the officers kicked him, but that witness denied.

P.C. Smith said he saw the prisoner being ejected out of the public house by the last witness, and he also assisted him to take Featherbe to the police station. Prisoner became very violent, and kicked witness on the shin, which was bruised and very painful. They found it necessary to handcuff the prisoner, and remove his boots in order to get him to the police station.

Prisoner said when the constables kicked him, he thought it was pretty near time he kicked them.

The Chairman: If you had gone quietly, there would have been no kicking at all.

Frederick Featherbe said the constables turned the prisoner all manners of ways. They were not men at all to treat him the way they did. Witness asked the officers if he could lend them a hand, but they replied that they did not want any of his help. It was cruel to see how they served him. It was a good job he had not had a “drop” or else he would have been on top of them.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour, and for the assault, 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

A nephew of the prisoner, Frederick Featherbe, was then placed in the dock on a charge of resisting the police while in the execution of their duty the previous night. Prisoner said he was Not Guilty.

P.C. Minter said when they were half way up the High Street with the last prisoner, Featherbe came up and got hold of the prisoner by the back and eventually tore the scarf from round his throat. He shouted to the man in custody “Poke it up them, Bob. Stick to it. I will help you”. When further assistance came, P.C. Smith arrested the prisoner, who was sober.

P.C. Smith corroborated.

Prisoner called two witnesses, named John Alfred Cooke and William Weller, both of whom stated that the prisoner only picked his uncle's scarf up, and he did not catch hold of him in any way.

The Chairman said the prisoner was charged with a very serious offence, and he should have assisted them instead of resisting the police. He would be fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 January 1907.

Felix.

In the days that are past, when entertainments and “socials” were few and far between – at least as far as Folkestone was concerned – occasional “sing-songs” (now dignified by the term smoking concerts) were often given in Radnor Street, North Street, and other fishing quarters of the town. These entertainments generally took place on Saturday nights, and more often than not at some licensed house, every brick of which, if it would speak, could tell tales of “Smuggler Bill” or his colleague “Hellfire Jack”. There were no other places for the audiences (mostly fishermen and sailors) to meet – no “pleasant half hours” or such-like functions to while away a cold winter's night. Things have altered now – and perhaps for the better. The “sin-songs” and “free and easys” are rapidly becoming extinct institutions – the very sort I allude to are gone never to return. The chief actors, for the most part, have left this mortal scene.

Let us picture the scene. Take the large room of the Packet Boat in Radnor Street. It is Saturday night. The fisherman's week's work is done. His face, after a good “siver” (catch) is beaming with satisfaction; his complexion resembling almost the colour of the tan frock he is wearing. The sea air has written health in large letters over his countenance. And thus these hardy man sit around the festive board, puffing, perchance, a “churchwarden”, and enjoying, it may be, a glass of grog, or a pint of “nut brown”, or ginger ale. The chairman, armed with a wooden mallet, bangs this emblem of authority on the table, and calls on one of the company to sing. After the ceremony known as “wetting the whistle” has been duly carried out, our hero probably gives a rendering of some such ditty as “Wapping old Stairs”, “The Jolly Young Waterman”, “Black Eyed Susan”, or “The Winding Sheet”. In regard to the choruses I might adopt the well-known words:

“'Twas a Sat'day night.

The moon was shining bright

The winds had been a'blowing all the day

We were sitting in a ring

And Lor' how we did sing

I reckon they a'heerd us down the bay”.

 

Yes, the choruses were truly of the roof-lifting order. And didn't these lusty sons of the sea enjoy it all? In almost a couple of hours the low-pitched room would be filled with the incense (tobacco smoke), and it was a case of carving one's way to obtain egress from the scene of mirth and harmony.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

An application was made for a slight alteration in respect of the Packet Boat Inn was adjourned until the annual licensing sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, Messrs. W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

Mr. T. Goldsmith applied for sanction to alterations at the Packet Boat Inn. The question was deferred until the next Licensing Sessions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

Mr. James Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, and also for a beer off licence for the Morehall Hotel.

The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.

The following licences were under consideration: Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and Packet Boat.

The licences of the Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Packet Boat, and Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, were adjourned till March 2nd.

 

Folkestone Express 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Superintendent's Report.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen's Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen's Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4 gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates' certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report. (For which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well conducted.

The various licensees then came forward for their renewals.

The granting of the licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane (Mr. George Barker), and of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street (Mr. Tom Goldsmith) was also deferred to the adjourned sessions, but in these two cases no notice of opposition was given. In the case of the Packet Boat Inn, the adjournment was to enable the Committee of Justices to consider certain suggested alterations.

 

Folkestone Daily News 2 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Packet Boat Inn.

Monday, March 2nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Carpenter, Herbert, Leggett, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, and Stainer.

Mr. Mowll said he supported the application of this licence. It was proposed to alter the premises by taking in a cottage, and prevent any communication whatever with East Street.

The Chairman said the only objection they had was that a skylight ought to be placed in the roof.

Mr. Mowll said the windows would be fixed, but if the Bench insisted on the skylight his clients would see that one was put in.

The Chairman, however, said if the windows were fixed and a certain door blocked, he thought that would meet all the requirements.

The plans were then passed.

 

From the Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The "Railway Tavern," the "Eagle Tavern" and the "Bricklayers Arms" on the ground of redundancy, the "Railway Hotel," Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the "Packet Boat," so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

The Packet Boat.

At the annual licensing meeting the licence of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, held by Mr. Goldsmith, was referred to the adjourned sessions on account of plans being prepared for structural alterations. Mr. Martin Mowll, on behalf of the owner, said he appeared to ask the Justices to approve of plans for certain alterations to improve the premises. He believed there was one question in respect to that house, and that was the doorway leading into the yard of an old cottage, the entrance being from the street at the back. The doorway seemed to have been in existence a good many years. His clients undertook to have it blocked up, so that no communication could take place between the occupier of the cottage and the public house.

The Chairman said the Justices did not agree to the plans because they did not like the two windows in East Street. Mr. Herbert and himself had been down there, and the tenant told them he would be satisfied with skylights.

Mr. Mowll said the windows could be fixed so that they would never be opened. The Chief Constable had told him that he would have no objection to that.

The Chairman, after consulting with the other Magistrates, said they would agree to the plans providing the two things referred to were done.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Councillor G. Boyd, Col. Fynmore, Col. Hamilton, Messrs, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Town Hall on Monday morning, when the licences of three houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street (Beer and Co.), the Eagle, High Street (Style and Winch), and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street (Ash and Co.), were referred to the Compensation Authority for East Kent.

The Packet Boat.

Mr. Martin Mowll, on behalf of the owners and licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, submitted plans for alterations to that house. There was, he said, a question as to a doorway which communicated with an adjoining cottage, but if the plans were approved that doorway would be blocked in such a way that communication would be impossible.

The Bench took exception to certain windows facing onto East Street, but Mr. Mowll expressed the readiness of the landlord to make the windows impossible to open, and to make them purely of glazed glass. On the understanding that these suggestions should be carried out, the licence was renewed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 24 August 1909.

Tuesday, August 17th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Penfold, Spurgen, Vaughan, Fynmore, and Stainer.

Henry Johnson, on remand, was charged last week, was charged with stealing three dozen and a half teddy bears, the property of Louis Freeman.

At the last hearing the accused was remanded in order that further enquiries might be made. The Chief Constable now said he had a further charge to prefer against him, and also further evidence in relation to the first charge.

Richard May said he bought a teddy bear off the prisoner for 2d.

The second charge was now taken, viz., that of stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton deposed that he was a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace. He had charge fo the tennis courts on the Plain. There were two pairs of tennis shoes in the pavilion. On the 13th inst. they were secure, but on the 16th they were missing. The door had been forced, the lock laid inside on the floor, and two pairs of tennis shoes were missing. Later he went to the police station and was shown the tennis shoes (produced).

William Featherbee said he lived at 12, Warren Road, and was a ship's carpenter. On the 16th inst. at 8.30 a.m. he was in the Packet Boat Inn when the prisoner came in with the two pairs of tennis shoes, which he offered for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for a pair of them. Witness asked him if they were his property, and prisoner replied “Everything is fair and above board”. Witness bought one pair for 2s. 6d., and the next day witness handed them to the police.

Emily Minter deposed that on the 16th the prisoner came into the Lord Nelson public house, and had with him a pair of shoes, which he asked witness to buy. She declined, as they were too large for her. Later she bought them for 2s. 6d.

P.C. Watson said that at 5 o'clock on the 16th inst. he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by Louis Freeman, who said he wished to give the prisoner into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy bears. Witness took him into custody, whereupon he became very violent. Prisoner had in his possession ten teddy bear toys. On being charged, prisoner replied “All right”. On the 16th last witness received information of two pairs of shoes being stolen from the lawn tennis pavilion on the Plain. At 8.30 a.m. on the 17th inst. he went to the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, and saw the last witness, who handed him a pair of shoes. Later in the day he was in High Street when William Featherbee handed him the other pair of shoes. This morning witness charged him with stealing the two pairs of tennis shoes, valued at 1, and he replied “All right”.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said 12 months ago he had an accident to his head, and as soon as he took anything to drink he did not know what he was doing. He knew he had been a fool to steal such paltry things, and said it was through drink.

The Chief Constable said there was a long list of convictions against the prisoner in different parts of the country.

He was sentenced to six months' hard labour.

The witnesses Featherbee and Minter were severely reprimanded by the Chairman for buying the stolen shoes.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1909.

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer.

Harry Johnson was charged on remand with stealing 3 dozen mechanical toys, the property of Jules Freeman.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had an additional witness to call to complete the case. A further charge would be preferred against Johnson.

The evidence given at the previous hearing of the case was read over.

Richard John May, a fisherman, of 34, Radnor Street, said on August 16th he was in the private bar of the Ship Inn, at half past two, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had a teddy bear top with him. It was in a box. The prisoner asked him if he would buy it for twopence, and witness bought it for that amount. As soon as he got it he tried it, but found it was broken. Later in the day he took the top to the police station and handed it to P.S. Sharpe.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton, a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace, said he had charge of the tennis courts and pavilion of Bayham House School, on the Plain. In the pavilion, which was locked, there were two pairs of tennis shoes. On Friday evening, the 13th, the pavilion was secure, and on August 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion. The door was swinging home, and the lock, which had been forced, was lying inside on the floor. Two pairs of tennis shoes were missing, and he gave information to the police. A day or two afterwards he went to the police station, where he was shown the two pairs of tennis shoes produced, which he identified as those left in the pavilion, and the property of Miss Irene de Tiere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

William Featherbe, a ship's carpenter, of 12, Warren Road, said on August 16th he was in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, at about half past eight, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had the two pairs of shoes with him and offered them for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for one pair, and witness asked him if they were his property. He said that everything was fair and above board, and witness gave him 2s. 6d. for one pair. The next day he handed the shoes to the police.

Emily Minter, the wife of Albert Minter, the landlord of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on August 16th the prisoner came into the bar, and had the pair of shoes produced with him. He asked her if she would buy them, but she said she would not, as they were too large for her. She asked him if they were his property, and he said they were. She eventually bought them for 2s. 6d. The next day she gave the shoes to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said at five o'clock on August 16th, from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by the witness Freeman, who said “I wish to give this man into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy near toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street”. Witness took him into custody, when he became very violent. He had ten teddy bear toys in his possession. He was afterwards charged with stealing the three and a half dozen toys, and he replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the same day he received information about the two pairs of shoes having been stolen. He made enquiries, and at 8.30 a.m. on the 17th he went to the Lord Nelson, where he saw Mrs. Minter, who handed him the shoes produced. Later in the day Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes. That morning witness charged prisoner with stealing the shoes, valued at 1.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and attributed his thefts to drink. If they would give him a chance he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had been convicted in different parts of the country. There were eight convictions altogether against him, ranging from twenty one days to twelve months.

The Magistrates sentenced the prisoner to three months' hard labour in each case, the sentences to run consecutively.

Mrs. Minter and the witness Featherbe were admonished by the Chairman for purchasing the goods, and were told that they ought to be ashamed of encouraging thefts by purchasing the articles.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1909.

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

Henry Johnson was charged, on remand, with stealing 3 dozen mechanical toys.

The Chief Constable explained that the prisoner was before the court a week ago that day, and was remanded until that morning in order that further inquiries might be made.

After the evidence of the previous hearing had been read, Richard John May said that he was a fisherman, living at 34, Radnor Street. On the 16th inst., at 2.30 p.m., he was in the public bar of the Ship Inn. Whilst he was there the prisoner came in. He had the teddy bear (produced) with him. It was in the box. He asked witness to buy it for 2d. Witness bought it for 2d. He took it out of the box when the prisoner left, and found it was broken. Later witness took it to the police station.

Prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

Wm. Hy. Hammerton said that he was a gardener, and lived at 1, Shorncliffe Terrace. He had charge of the tennis courts at Bayham House School, situated on the Plain. In the pavilion were two pairs of tennis shoes. The pavilion was locked. On Friday, the 13th inst., in the evening, he saw that the pavilion was secure. On Monday, the 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion and found the door swinging open. The lock had been forced and lay on the floor inside, and witness found that two pairs of tennis shoes were missing. He gave information to the police. Later in the week he went to the police station and was shown the tennis shoes (produced). He identified them as the property of Mdlle. Irene de Tere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

Wm. Featherbe, living at 12, Warren Road, said that he was a ship's carpenter. On Monday, the 16th inst., at 8.30 a.m.. he was in the Packet Boat Inn. Whilst he was there the prisoner came in. He had the two pairs of tennis shoes (produced) with him. He offered them for sale, and asked 2s. 6d. for one pair. Witness inquired if they were his property, and he said that everything was fair and above board. Witness bought one pair for 2s. 6d. The next day he took them to the police station.

Mrs. Emily Minter said that she was the wife of the landlord of the Lord Nelson public house. On Monday, the 16th inst., the prisoner came into the bar. He had a pair of tennis shoes with him. He asked witness to buy them. She refused because they were too long. On being asked whether they were his property, he said they belonged to his wife. Witness gave 2s. 6d. for them. He left the bar very shortly after. The next day she gave them to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said that at 5 p.m. on the 16th inst., from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner detained by the witness Freeman, who said that he wished to give him into custody for stealing 3 dozen teddy bear toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street. Witness then took him into custody, and he became very violent. He had in his possession ten teddy bear toys (produced). He was afterwards charged by witness Freeman with stealing them. He replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the 16th inst., he received information about two pairs of tennis shoes having been stolen from the lawn tennis pavilion situated on the Plain. At 8.30 a.m. on the 17th inst. he went to the Lord Nelson public house, where he saw the witness Emily Minter, who handed him the shoes (produced). Later in the day he was in High Street, where the witness Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and said that he owed the thefts to drink. He asked for a chance, saying that he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said that prisoner was a stranger to Folkestone, but had many previous convictions against him.

Prisoner was sentenced to three months' hard labour for each offence, the sentences to run consecutively, and the Chairman severely censured those who had received the goods.

 

Folkestone Express 8 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 5th: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred from Mr. Goldsmith to Mr. Deverson.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 5th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Goldsmith to Mr. Deverson.

 

Folkestone Daily News 30 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Fynmore, and Linton.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Mr. T. Goldsmith to Mr. Deneson (sic).

 

Folkestone Express 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: Packet Boat, Radnor Street, from Mr. T. Goldsmith to Mr. Deverson.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. R.J. Linton and J. Stainer.

The licence of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, was transferred from Thomas Goldsmith to Mr. M. Deverson.

 

Folkestone Express 19 August 1911.

Tuesday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick Hawkins and Martha Pharaoh were charged with using obscene language the previous evening in Radnor Street. They pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Watson said at 9.45 p.m., in consequence of complaints he received, he went to Radnor Street. There he saw the prisoners outside the Packet Boat Inn in a fighting attitude. They were making use of disgusting language and caused a crowd to assemble. He then took them into custody, with the assistance of P.C. Fox.

Hawkins said they had had an extra drop of drink, and they commenced to argue over nothing. They were going to leave the town if the Magistrates gave them a chance. They promised it should not occur again. That was the first time they had been in trouble of that kind.

The Chief Constable said the prisoners were two “visitors” staying at the Radnor lodging house.

The Mayor said Hawkins would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' in default. They understood that Pharaoh had a little girl aged three years, and on that account she would be discharged.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 August 1911.

Tuesday, August 15th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

Frederick Hawkins and Martha Pharoah were charged with using obscene language, and both pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Watson stated that at about 9.45 the previous evening, in Radnor Street, he saw the two prisoners outside the Packet Boat Inn in a fighting attitude. They were both using filthy language. A crowd had assembled, consisting chiefly of women and children. As neither would desist, witness, with the assistance of P.C. Fox, brought them to the police station.

Hawkins said he was sorry. He and the other prisoner had had a little too much to drink, and had started quarrelling.

The Chief Constable said nothing was know about prisoners. They were two visitors staying at the Radnor lodging house.

The Chairman said that Hawkins would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days', but as he understood the prisoner Pharoah had a child three years old at home, the case against her would be dismissed this time.

 

Folkestone Daily News 10 October 1911.

Tuesday, October 10th: Before Justices Herbert, Stainer, Linton and Boyd.

Maurice Francis Deverson was summoned for selling beer at the Packet Boat on the 4th Oct at 11.25, to wit, prohibited hours.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to seeing men enter the house at 11.23 on the night in question. The lights were full on and he saw defendant serve three fishermen with a pint of beer for which one paid 1s. and received the change. Witness saw through the window. He the tried the door, which was locked. He knocked and the landlord opened the door and he told him that what he was doing was wrong. Defendant replied that it was not so, and that he was allowed to serve fishermen who came in from the sea. The men gave their names and said they belonged to a Brighton boat that was lying in the harbour. Defendant told the men not to be frightened as the prosecution had not got a leg to stand on. The inspector knew all about it. The house had always been permitted to serve fishermen who came in from sea. The men said they had just returned from sea. The three men had not been summoned.

P.C. Kettle corroborated the evidence given by Inspector Lawrence.

Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and argued that there was no offence as the men were fishermen and in law bona fide travellers.

Mr. Deverson, the landlord, deposed that many fishermen used the house, and the men were Brighton fishermen who have always used the house. He gave them the facilities of washing, shaving, and having letters addressed. The men came in from sea on the night in question. He knew they had been at sea since the previous morning.

William Taylor, of the “Bonnie Kate” of Brighton, deposed he lived at Brighton, and was on the mackerel season, coming into Folkestone to sell the fish. They left the Varne at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday night and arrived at Folkestone on Wednesday morning at 1.30 a.m. He sent their fish on shore in a ferry boat to sell, and also to get some grub. They returned at 9 a.m. He went out again on Wednesday night, shot and hauled their nets. It was a fine wind and they got back to Folkestone at 11 p.m. They made fast to the jetty and went to the Packet Boat and had a drink. They had not been on shore since the Tuesday morning.

The case was dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 14 October 1911.

Local News.

A case of interest to publicans came before the Magistrates at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday morning when Maurice Francis Deverson, landlord of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling beer during prohibited hours. The Magistrates were W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, solicitor, appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

At the request of the Magistrates, the witnesses on both sides left the court.

Inspector Lawrence said at twenty three minutes past eleven on Wednesday night, the 4th October, he was in Radnor Street in company with P.C. Kettle, when he saw two men enter the front door of the Packet Boat Inn, which was kept by the defendant. Witness and Kettle at once went to the house, and they saw that the lights were full on in the front bar. On looking through the window, witness saw defendant behind the bar, while three fishermen were standing in the bar. Defendant served each of the men with a pint, evidently of beer. One of the men, who afterwards gave the name of William Taylor, laid a coin on the counter, and defendant took it and handed back Taylor some change. Witness then tried the front door, and found it was locked. Defendant opened it, and witness and Kettle walked in. Witness pointed to the three men and the three glasses on the counter, which he observed contained beer, and asked what was the meaning of it. Defendant said the men had just come in from sea. Witness replied “You know they have no right here”. Defendant said witness had made a mistake. They were allowed to come in after they had been to sea. Witness went to the men and asked them their names, which they gave as follows:- William Tayloy, 25, Claremont Road, Brighton; Charles Barnard, 26, George Street, Brighton; and John Taylor, 33, Grosvenor Street, Brighton. They said they were fishermen on the Bonny Kate, 60SM, a Brighton boat. While taking their names the defendant said “Don't be afraid; they have not got a leg to stand on. The super knows all about it”. Witness told defendant that he should report him for keeping his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. Defendant said he knew what witness was going to do directly he came into the bar. The fishermen had always been allowed to come in there when they had come back from sea. The sea was no-man's land. Witness told the three men that they would be reported for being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours. William Taylor, in defendant's presence, said they had been to sea since ten o'clock the previous morning and had always come there when they used the harbour. Witness said they had been trading in the harbour for some time now. Taylor replied “Yes, two or three weeks”. The men then drank up their beer and left. Kettle and witness followed them and they then went into the Fish Market.

Mr. Mowll: When you went into the house on Wednesday evening had you any reason to doubt that the three fishermen had then just returned from sea? – I believe they had.

By the Clerk: He saw two men enter by the front door of the house. When he got to the window he saw three men.

P.C. Kettle corroborated. He added that the boat had been at Folkestone a fortnight previous to the night of the 4th.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Magistrates. He said the Magistrates had already got the evidence of the prosecution to show that those three men were Brighton fishermen, who had, in fact, as the Inspector himself believed, just returned from sea. And those three men said at the time, and there had been no evidence to contradict it, that they went to sea at ten o'clock on the Tuesday morning, and did not return until eleven o'clock on Wednesday evening. On returning from sea, they went straight to the Packet Boat, a public house which they always used when they were in Folkestone. On those facts there was quite sufficient evidence before them to justify them in dismissing the case, and they could pretty well see from the evidence of the prosecution what was the line of the defence. It was that those men were what the law called bona-fide travellers. The mere fact of their being at sea would not make them bona fide travellers, because they might have been at sea within three miles of the Packet Boat Inn. That they were travellers in fact, there could not be the slightest doubt. They went out on the Tuesday morning to the Varne, and they did not return until eleven o'clock on the Wednesday night. And if the facts were as he was going to submit them to the Magistrates, he thought they would have very little doubt in coming to the conclusion that those men were bona fide travellers.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he was the licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. A good many fishermen used the house. When he went into the house twelve months ago the two men, Taylor and Williams, were in there, and he knew them as Brighton fishermen. He had not seen anything of them since until the present mackerel season. About ten o'clock on the Tuesday morning he saw the Bonny Kate go out to sea, and he knew the crew were going out to the Varne. He did not see anything of the three men until Wednesday evening after eleven o'clock. He closed his house at eleven o'clock. When the men came to the door he asked them whether they had just come back from sea, and they said “Yes”. They wore their oilskins. He believed they had just returned from the Varne, and he served them with beer. He would not have done so if he had not believed they were bona fide travellers.

By the Chief Constable: The men had their meals on the boat. They said they had been to sea since ten o'clock the previous morning, and he believed it.

William Taylor, 25, Claremont Road, Brighton, said he was the skipper of the fishing lugger Bonny Kate. On Tuesday, 3rd October, he left Folkestone harbour at ten o'clock in the morning and went to the Varne lightship to catch mackerel. He and the crew left the Varne at 9.30 in the evening. The wind was W.N.W. – a contrary wind – and they got off Folkestone at 1.30 on Wednesday morning. They then anchored in the roads, about a mile or a mile and a half from shore. They put the fish into a ferry punt and sent them ashore. The men and two boys left at a quarter to seven and they brought back some food. They then went towards the Varne again, and left about a quarter to ten in the evening. The wind was more favourable and they got back to Folkestone at eleven o'clock. They came into the harbour, made fast to a jetty, and then went into the Packet Boat for a drink. From the time witness went out to sea on Tuesday morning until he went into the public house after eleven o'clock on Wednesday evening he had not been ashore.

The Chairman: I suppose the remaining witnesses will only prove exactly the same as this man.

Mr. Mowll: On the same lines.

No further evidence was given, and the Chairman said the Magistrates were unanimously of the opinion that those men were not in the strict sense of the term bona fide travellers. At the same time, they were satisfied that the defendant used his best endeavours to find out whether they were or not, and that he fully believed they were. The police were perfectly justified in bringing the case, which would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 October 1911.

Tuesday, October 10th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Maurice Francis Deverson, the licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defendant.

Inspector Lawrence stated that at twenty three minutes past eleven the previous Wednesday night, the 14th instant, he was in Radnor Street in company with P.C. Kettle, when he saw two men enter the front door of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. Witness at once went to the house, and saw that the lights were full on in the front bar. On looking through the window he saw the defendant behind the counter, and that three fishermen were standing in the bar. Defendant served each of the men with a pint of what apparently was beer, and one of the men, who afterwards gave the name of William Taylor, put a coind on the counter, which defendant took. Witness then tried the front door, and found that it was locked. Defendant opened the door, and witness walked into the bar with P.C. Kettle. He asked the defendant for an explanation, and he replied that the men had just come in from sea. Witness said that they had no right there, and defendant replied “You have made a mistake. They are allowed to come in after they have been to sea”. Witness asked the men their names, and they gave them as follows: William Taylor, 25, Claremont Road, Brighton; Charles Bernard, 26, George Street, Brighton; John Taylor, 33, Grosvenor Street, Brighton, fishermen on the Bonnie Kate, 60 S.M. S.M. meant that the boat was registered at Shoreham. Whilst witness was taking their names, defendant said to him “Do not be afraid; they have not got a leg to stand on. The Super knows all about it”. Witness then told the defendant that he would report him, and he replied “I knew what you were going to do directly you came in at the door. They had always been allowed to come here when they came back from sea. The sea is no-man's-land”. Witness told the three men that they would be reported, and Wm. Taylor replied “We have been at sea since ten o'clock yesterday morning, and I have always come here when we use this harbour”. Witness said “You have been trading in this harbour for some time now”, and the defendant replied “Yes, for three weeks”. They then left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: The three fishermen had not been summoned. Witness believed that the men had just returned from sea when he saw them in the inn.

P.C. Kettle corroborated.

Addressing the Magistrates for the defence, Mr. Mowll said that they had already got evidence for the prosecution that these three men were fishermen, and the Inspector himself told them that he believed the men had just returned from sea, and there was no evidence to prove that they did not start out at ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, and did not return until eleven o'clock on Wednesday. On returning they went straight to the Packet Boat Inn. On those facts there was not sufficient evidence before them in dismissing the case, but they could pretty well see from the evidence of the prosecution what was going to be the line of the defence. It was this: that the men were what the law called bona fide travellers. The mere fact of their being at sea would not make them bona fide travellers, because they might have been at sea within three miles of the Packet Boat Inn, and if they had been lodging the previous night within three miles, that in itself would not justify them in holding that they were within the meaning of the law bona fide travellers. That they were travellers in fact there could not be the slightest doubt. On Tuesday morning they went to the Varne, and did not, in fact, come ashore until eleven o'clock on the Wednesday, and if the facts were as he was going to submit them to the Bench, he thought they would have very little doubt in coming to the conclusion that they were bona fide travellers. Of course, the important time was, not Wednesday, but Tuesday. The important point in the eye of the law was as to where the men were on Tuesday evening. On Tuesday morning they went to the Varne, and got back off Folkestone between one and two on Wednesday morning. Therefore on Tuesday evening those men were at the Varne, and if they were satisfied that that was so, the mere fact that they came off Folkestone some time after midnight would not affect the Magistrates' judgement that they were bona fide travellers. But he wanted also to put the case before them on a broad principle. These men were at sea for a matter of 36 hours, and if they were not to be considered bona fide travellers, who was? Broadly speaking, these men were travellers.

Maurice Deverson (the defendant) stated that he was the licensee of the Packet Boat Inn. He knew that the men were Brighton fishermen. They came about a fortnight ago, when the mackerel season commenced. When they were in Folkestone they always made a practice of using witness's house. On Tuesday morning he saw the Bonnie Kate go out at about ten o'clock, and he knew that they were going to the Varne. He did not see anything of them from the Tuesday to the Wednesday, shortly after 11 p.m. He was going upstairs, when one of the men came and knocked at the door. Witness asked him whether he had just come back from sea, and he replied in the affirmative. They were all dressed in their oilskins and sou'westers. He believed that they had just returned from the Varne. He would not have served them had he not believed that they were bona fide travellers.

Questioned by the Chief Constable, witness said the men had their meals on board the vessel.

William Taylor said that he lived at 25, Claremont Road, Brighton, and was skipper of the Bonnie Kate. On Tuesday, the 3rd instant, he left Folkestone in the vessel at 10 a.m., and went to the Varne. They remained there till 9.30 p.m. The wind was contrary at N.N.W. They made for Folkestone, and anchored in the roads at about 1.30 on Wednesday morning. Later in the morning they put one of the crew in the ferry punt with their catch, and sent him ashore to get food. Later they again left for the Varne, and let in their nets there about four. About a quarter to ten on Wednesday night they again left the Varne for Folkestone harbour, and arrived in the harbour at about eleven. They made fast to the jetty, and went direct to the Packet Boat Inn. From the time they went out at ten o'clock on the Tuesday morning until they went into the public house after eleven on Wednesday evening witness and his mates had not been ashore once.

The Chairman asked whether the evidence of the rest of the witnesses for the defence would be the same.

Mr. Mowll: On the same lines.

The Chairman said that the Bench were unanimously of opinion that these men were not, in the strict term of the law, bona fide travellers, but they fully believed that the defendant used his best endeavours to find out whether they were or not, and also felt that the police were fully justified in bringing the case before them. The summons would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 23 December 1911.

Tuesday, December 19th: Before Alderman Vaughan and R.G. Wood Esq.

The licence of the Packet Boat Inn was temporarily transferred from Mr. Deverson to Mr. A. Goodall.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 December 1911.

Tuesday, December 19th: Before Alderman Jenner and Councillor R.G. Wood.

A temporary transfer of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, from Mr. Deverson to Mr. Goodall was authorised.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 20 January 1912.

Local News.

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Mr. Deverson to Mr. Goodall. Temporary authority was granted on December 19th.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 January 1912.

Wednesday, January 17th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

The transfer of the Packet Boat Inn from Mr. Deverson to Mr. Goodall, for which temporary authority had been granted on December 19th, was granted.

The Chief Constable intimated that it was quite satisfactory.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 16 March 1912.

Friday, March 8th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Ellen Smart, a licensed pedlar, was charged with being drunk in Radnor Street the previous evening. She admitted the offence.

P.C. Waters said at 9.40 the previous evening he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, ejected from the Packet Boat public house. She became very excited, and commenced shouting at the top of her voice. He advised her to go away, but she refused to do so. As she did not do as requested, and continued to make herself a nuisance, he took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry, but she had not been used to take strong drink.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was a stranger to them.

Prisoner's husband said they had only been in the town two days.

The Magistrates discharged the woman on promising to leave the town.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 June 1912.

Monday, June 10th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Boyd, Swoffer, Harrison, Young and Stace.

Francis John Maidment was charged with stealing a new sunblind, the property of someone unknown. He was first charged with being drunk and disorderly, but this charge was afterwards dismissed.

Charles Petley deposed to being in the Packet Boat on Saturday evening last, and saw prisoner there. The sunblind produced was close to his feet. Defendant said he wanted 2/6 for it. Witness asked him if he had stolen it, and defendant replied “No”. Witness then bought it for 2/6 and took it down to the boat. He threw it open and saw that it was new cloth, which at once aroused his suspicions.

Inspector Lawrence said that at 10 p.m. on Saturday he was in Harbour Street, when the last witness came to him, and accompanied by P.C. Butcher they went to a boat (DR No. 8) in the harbour, where he was shown the sunblind produced. They then went to Radnor Street, where they saw the defendant, who was helplessly drunk. Witness brought him to the police station and charged him with being drunk and incapable, and also charged him with stealing the sunblind from some person at present unknown. Defendant replied that he had no recollection about it at all.

A sailmaker valued the blind at from 44s. to 50s.

Prisoner was remanded until Tuesday week.

 

Folkestone Express 15 June 1912.

Monday, June 10th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W. Harrison, W.C. Young, and A. Stace Esqs.

Francis John Maidment was charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday night.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was arrested on Saturday night on a charge of being drunk and incapable, but as a result of enquiries subsequently maden he was charged with stealing a new canvas sunblind, the property of some person unknown. He, therefore, should like to withdraw the charge of drunkenness and proceed with the charge against the prisoner of stealing the sunblind.

The Magistrates gave permission for the charge of drunkenness to be withdrawn, and the charge of stealing to be preferred against Maidment.

Charles Petley, a labourer, living on board a boat in the harbour, said on Saturday night, about nine o'clock, he was in the Packet Boat public house, when he saw the prisoner. The sunblind (produced) was close to his feet, and he asked witness if he would give him half a crown for it. He said to prisoner “Have you stole it?”, and prisoner replied “No”. He asked him if he was sure about it, and he said “Yes”. He eventually gave him 2s. 6d. for it, and he took the bundle down on board the boat to see what it was. He found it was a new cloth. That made him suspicious, and he came on shore again and saw Inspector Lawrence, who came and looked at the canvas. He later accompanied the Inspector to Radnor Street, where they saw the prisoner sitting on the pavement. The police eventually took possession of the canvas.

Inspector Lawrence said at ten o'clock on Saturday night he was in Harbour Street, when the last witness went to him, and from what he said P.C. Butcher and he accompanied Petley to the boat where he lived. Petley showed him the canvas produced, and he found it was a sunblind. He accompanied him (witness) into Radnor Street, where he pointed out the prisoner sitting on the pavement. He found Maidment was helplessly drunk, so he brought him to the police station. P.C. Butcher took possession of the blind and brought it to the police station. After making enquiries on Sunday morning he showed prisoner the sunblind, and said to him “This blind was sold by you to a man named Petley for 2s. 6d. in the Packet Boat yesterday, and I shall now charge you with stealing it from some person or persons unknown”. He then cautioned him, and he replied “I have no recollection about it at all”. The sunblind was valued at from 45s. to 50s.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that day, and he asked for a remand so that further enquiries could be made.

The prisoner was remanded until next Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 June 1912.

Monday, June 10th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Councillor A. Stace, and Councillor W.C. Young.

Francis John Maidment was charged with being drunk and incapable.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was arrested on Saturday night on a charge of being drunk and incapable in Radnor Street, but as a result of various inquiries which had been made, accused was now charged with stealing a new canvas sunblind, the property of some person or persons unknown, and with the permission of the Bench he would like to withdraw the charge of drunkenness.

Charles George Petling, a labourer in the employ of the Corporation, said that he was in the Packet Boat Inn on Saturday night at about 9. Prisoner was also there, and the cloth produced was lying near his feet. He offered it to witness for sale, saying that he wanted 2s. 6d. for it. Witness said “Have you stolen it?” Prisoner replied “No”, and witness eventually gave him 2s. 6d. for it. He took it out and down the street, and opened it to see what it was. When he found out that it was a new cloth his suspicions were aroused, and he went and told Inspector Lawrence, who came and looked at the canvas.

Insp. Lawrence said when the accused was charged he replied that he had no recollection about it at all. The blind had been valued at between 45s. and 50s.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand, and prisoner was thereupon remanded until next Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Express 22 June 1912.

Tuesday, June 18th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, A. Stace and W.C. Young Esqs.

Francis John Maidment was brought up on remand charged with stealing a sunblind.

The Chief Constable said a week ago the prisoner was before the Magistrates charged with stealing a sunblind, the property of some person unknown. They had since ascertained that it belonged to Messrs. Upton. There was one additional witness to be called, and after his evidence he should ask them, if they were satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, to commit him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Charles Rowe, of 37, Warwick Road, said he was in the employ of Messrs. Upton Bros., in Sandgate Road. The sunblind produced was the property of his employers, it having been specially made. On Friday, June 7th, he removed the blind, together with another one, at about 11 a.m. from off a case in a lodge in the backyard, and placed them on a dinner wagon. Both blinds were new, only having been used six times. The value of the blind was 45s. He missed the blind on Monday, the 10th, at nine o'clock. He made enquiries and reported the loss to the manager. Afterwards a constable came to the shop, and he (witness) later went to the police station and identified it. The yard opened into Alexandra Gardens, and the doors were opened at half past eight in the morning and remained so until eight o'clock in the evening.

Prisoner said he knew nothing about it.

The Magistrates thereupon committed him for trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail being offered him in 10 and one surety of 10.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1912.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Tuesday, Francis John Maidment was committed for trial on a charge of stealing a sunblind, the property of Mr. Upton, of Sandgate Road.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, 69, labourer, who was committed for trial on the 8th of June for feloniously stealing one canvas sunblind, value 2 5s. 0d., the property of Phillip Charles Upton, Frederick Sidney Upton, and Rowland Clark Upton, pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Weigall prosecuted for the Crown, and briefly addressed the jury upon the two charges against the prisoner – that of stealing the sunblind, and secondly of its being in his possession and well-knowing it to have been stolen.

Charles Rowe identified the blind as the property of Messrs. Upton Bros.

A man named Petley proved purchasing the blind from prisoner for 2s. 6d. He (Petley) understood it was a roll of old canvas, but on discovering it to be a new and valuable blind at once gave information to the police.

Inspector Lawrence corroborated, and proved the arrest of the prisoner. Prisoner when charged said he had no recollections about it at all. He was drunk when arrested.

Prisoner did not ask the witness any questions, and said he did not steal the canvas. He knew nothing about it.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing the blind.

A previous conviction was proved by P.C. Clay, of the Metropolitan Police, who said he was present at the West Kent Sessions on April 8th, 1904, when prisoner was sentenced in the name of John Davis. There were seven previous convictions for stealing, dating back to 1888. He had served 3 years penal servitude at Maidstone.

Chief Constable Reeve proved an additional conviction – 3 months hard labour at Aldershot for failing to report himself while a convict on licence.

Prisoner said for six years he had been trying to get an honest living, and when he got the three months he had lost his papers and went to the police station himself.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to hard labour for twelve calendar months.

 

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, 69, a labourer, was charged with stealing a canvas sunblind, of the value of 2 5s., the property of Messrs. Upton Bros., Sandgate Road, on June 8th. He was also charged with receiving it, well-knowing it to have been stolen. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Charles Rowe, 31, Foord Road, said he was employed by the prosecutors as porter. On the 7th June he moved the sunblind produced from one side of the shed at the rear of the premises to the other, putting it on a dinner wagon. On the 10th he missed it, and he was later shown it at the police station. It had been used six times.

Charles Tyrell Petley, a labourer, said he lived on a boat in the harbour. On June 8th he was in the Packet Boat public house, when the prisoner came in with what he thought was a piece of canvas. He bought it from him for 2s. 6d., but when he got on board he found it was a sunblind. He therefore brought it ashore, handed it over to the police, and gave information to them. Later he pointed out the prisoner to Inspector Lawrence.

Inspector Lawrence said Petley pointed out the prisoner to him in Radnor Street. He helped the prisoner to his feet, as he was sitting on the pavement, and he found he was helplessly drunk. He took him to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and incapable. On the following morning he charged prisoner with stealing the sunblind, and he replied “I have no recollection about it at all”.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

P.C. Clay, of the Metropolitan Police, stated that he was present at the West Kent Sessions at Maidstone, on April 8th, 1904, when the prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for stealing a garden hose and other articles, in the name of John Davis. There were seven other previous convictions against him at that time, including 18 monts' hard labour at Surrey Sessions for housebreaking. All the convictions were for theft.

The Chief Constable said on November 29th, 1906, the prisoner was sentenced to three months' at Aldershot for failing to report himself as a convict on licence.

Prisoner said he had been trying to get an honest living during the last six years, selling matches, laces, oranges, or anything. When he got the sentence for failing to report himself he told the police he had lost his papers and he gave himself up.

The Recorder said he had been considering whether he should send him to penal servitude. His first inclination was to do so. It seemed to him it was no use them allowing such a wastrel to wander about seeking what he could get hold of. His fellow justices seemed to have a more lenient view of the matter. Having regard to the fact that he had not been in trouble for six years, and that he was 69 years of age, he did not propose to send him to penal servitude. The sentence he passed upon him was that he be imprisoned for twelve calendar months with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 July 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 13th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Francis John Maidment, 69, labourer, was indicted for stealing one canvas sunblind, value 2 5s., the goods and chattels of Philip Charles Upton, Fredk. Sidney Upton, and Rowland Clark Upton, on June 8th. Mr. Weigall prosecuted, and briefly explained the case.

Charles Rowe stated that he lived at 37, Foord Road, and was employed by Messrs. Upton Bros., Sandgate Road, as a porter. He identified the canvas sunblind produced as belonging to his employers. On the 6th June he removed it at 11 a.m. to the dinner wagon in the lodge in Alexandra Road, at the rear of their premises. On Monday, 10th June, he missed the blind at 9 a.m., and communicated with the police. It was valued at 45s. There were two big gates opening into the yard, which were open all day till 8 o'clock at night.

Chas. Petley, labourer, stated that he lived on a boat in the Folkestone Harbour. On Sunday, 8th June, he saw prisoner in the Packet Boat Inn, in Radnor Street. He had a piece of canvas (produced), and asked if witness would buy it. He asked him where he got it from, and accused replied that it was made a present to him. Witness bought it for 2s. 6d. and took it down to his boat. On stretching it out he saw what it was, and went back to the Packet Boat, and then to the police station. Inspector Lawrence went with him to the bottom of High Street, and they proceeded to the boat. Prisoner had just gone out from the Packet Boat. He was found lying across the footpath, and witness pointed him out to the police. Witness had suspicions of him.

Inspector Lawrence deposed that on Saturday, 8th June, he was in Harbour Street, when Petley came to him. From what he said, witness accompanied him to his boat, and saw the sunblind produced. Next he accompanied Petley to Radnor Street, and, after giving the blind into the possession of P.C. Butcher to bring to the police station, he saw the prisoner lying on the pavement drunk. He helped accused to his feet and brought him to the police station, charging him with being drunk and incapable. Enquiries were afterwards made, and prisoner was later charged with stealing the sunblind. Accused said “I have no recollection about it at all”.

Prisoner said he had nothing to say. He knew nothing at all about it. He left it to the Recorder to decide. He worked hard selling matches. He sold laces. He did whatever he could to get an honest living. He did not steal the blind at all.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he admitted a previous conviction for felony on the 7th April, 1904, in the name of John Davis.

P.C. Thos. Clay, of the Marylebone Police, stated that the accused was sentenced at the West Kent Quarter Sessions on 8th April, 1904, to three years' penal servitude. There were several other convictions, dating back to 1888, for stealing clothing, stealing from the person, housebreaking, stealing a bag, etc., stealing a skirt, etc.

In answer to the Recorder, witness stated that he did not know anything good of the accused. He went about the country selling rags and bones, and getting hold of whatever he could.

The Chief Constable said there was another conviction recorded against the accused. In 1906 he was sentenced to three months' at Aldershot for failing to report himself as a convict on licence. Since then nothing had been recorded against him.

The Recorder: Why was he not proceeded against as an habitual criminal?

Mr. Wardley said they could not prove a life of dishonesty for the last two years.

Prisoner stated that he had been trying to get an honest living selling matches and other things for the last six years.

The Recorder said the only thing he had been considering was whether he should send prisoner to penal servitude. His first inclination was to do so. It seemed to him to be no good letting a wastrel go about seeking to get hold of what he could. However, his brother Justices seemed to think that a little more lenient view might be taken. He did not know that it would be the better thing, but, having regard to the fact that he had not been in trouble for four years, and to the fact that he was 69 years of age, he did not propose to send him to penal servitude, although if accused came there again he would go to it. The sentence would be twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour.

An order was made for the 2s. 6d. to be refunded to the witness Petley.

 

Folkestone Express 24 July 1915.

Local News.

Amy Partridge Marsh, of Tulse Hill, London, who was charged at the Police Court before Mr. J. Stainer and other Magistrates on Saturday morning with attempting to commit suicide, said strange things to Mr. Harry Edward Stokes, who took her from the sea, into which she had cast herself.

Mr. Stokes, who is a plumber in the employ of the South Eastern and Chatham, was at work in the Company's shops when two lads came and said that a woman had thrown herself into the water. He went to the door and saw someone in the sea. Then he made his way to the rocks, a matter of 100 yards away, and, on getting nearer to the woman (the accused), she struggled to get on to the dry rocks. Taking her by the arm he asked what she was doing, and she said she was trying to commit suicide, and that she had killed her father. Mr. Stikes said “Don't talk like that, Madam”, and began to take her towards the Company's shops. On the way she remarked “I have left my father on his death-bed”. Subsequently he took her to the Packet Boat Inn, and, as she asked for a policeman to be sent for, he went to the police station and gave information of the occurrence.

To the Packet Boat Inn then came Inspector Lawrence, who found the accused sitting before a fire in the kitchen. He cautioned her, and she said “I am not fit to live. I left my father, who is dying, in London. I had nourishment in the house to give him, and I have not done so”. At the police station she said “This is all through neglecting my father”.

The Bench bound the woman over, and handed her over to the care of her friends. They highly commended Mr. Stokes for his action in the matter.

 

Folkestone Express 7 September 1918.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday the licence of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Goodhall to Mr. F. Kennett, a dairyman, of Coolinge Lane.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 September 1918.

Local News.

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, from Mr. Goodall to Mr. F. Keeler (sic), Coolinge Lane, was granted by the Folkestone Justices on Monday.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 September 1918.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday (Mr. E.T. Ward in the chair) the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred to Mr. Frederick Kennett, of the Metropole Dairy.

 

Folkestone Express 5 February 1921.

Local News.

On Tuesday morning at the Police Court the following temporary transfer was granted: the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, to Mr. J.W. Twigg, Ramsgate.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1921.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Sir Stephen Penfold, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Councillor A. Stace, Alderman A.E. Pepper, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Councillor W.H. Boughton, Councillor W. Hollands, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Councillor Miss E.I. Weston.

The report of the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) was read. (See Folkestone Express for details).

The Mayor said it was a great source of satisfaction to the Bench that the Chief Constable had been able to make a report so favourable, especially the last paragraph, where it was stated that all licensed houses had been conducted in a satisfactory manner. It was also a great source of satisfaction to the Bench that charges of drunkenness were less in 1920 than in the preceding year. Forty six persons were proceeded against in 1919, and thirty seven in 1920, showing a decrease of nine. That was satisfactory. They had reason to believe, from the report, that all licensed houses had been well conducted. The licensees had a difficult task, because there were so many Acts of Parliament and Orders to which they had to adhere and carry out. Speaking personally, he would prefer to see the Continental cafe system, as it would be much easier to carry out than the public house system. He did not know why it could not be tried in this country, and he hoped somebody would try to introduce it some day. On the Continent they saw any amount of people having a pleasant time, having wine or coffee or whatever they wanted, and going home afterwards none the worse for it. Anyhow they had got their own system in this country, and they had got to take it as they found it. He hoped the licensees would exercise the same vigilance this year as they had exercised in the past, and that drunkenness would show a decrease. The Licensing Committee had had the report before them, and with the exception of the Alexandra Hotel and the Prince Albert Hotel, the whole of the licences would be renewed. The Alexandra Hotel had passed into fresh hands since the conviction, and the licence would be renewed that morning. The Prince Albert Hotel licence would be referred back to the adjourned meeting next month.

The licence of the Alexandra Hotel, Bridge Street (sic) was permanently transferred to Mr. C.H. Tapsell, whilst the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred to Mr. J. Twigg.

The date of the Adjourned Licensing Sessions was fixed for Wednesday, March 9th.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, the licence of the East Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, now licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions in both cases.

 

Folkestone Express 18 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Friday the licence of the East Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, licensee of the Packet Boat in Radnor Street, of which he has held the licence for six years.

The Clerk said steps were being taken immediately to find a tenant of the Packet Boat.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions in both cases.

 

Folkestone Express 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr .G. I. Swoffer and other magistrates, the following licence was transferred: East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. Martin Grey Price to Mr. John W. Twigg.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

The Magistrates granted the application for the full transfer of the licence of the East Cliff Tavern from Martin Grey Price to John W. Twigg.

After the application had been granted the outgoing licence holder said that he simply refused to have it done.

The Chairman: It is no good your objecting. The transfer is granted. The Magistrates cannot help themselves. I am sure they would like you to understand what the position is. You signed the notice for a transfer. Mr. Twigg got a protection order and you were present. You must fight it out with the brewers. The Magistrates cannot help you. They can do nothing at all.

Mr. Price: It was done so quick on me. I have a word to say, though. It was a dirty bit of business.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 January 1927.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, before The Mayor in the chair, a protection certificate was granted to Mr. E.W. Allen, late of Dover, in respect of the Packet Boat public house.

 

Folkestone Express 2 July 1927.

Local News.

Tuesday, June 28th: Before Alderman C. E. Mumford, Miss A. M. Hunt and Dr. W. W. Nuttall.

George Slenderman Weatherhead was summoned for having, on the 10th June, stolen two notes of the Bank of England, of the value of 5 each, the property of Frederick John Wilkinson.

Frederick John Wilkinson, The Avenue, Littlestone-on-Sea, fruiterer and greengrocer, said on the 10th June he came to Folkestone for produce, to the early morning market, arriving about 6.30 to 7 a.m. At the time he had two Bank of England 5 notes, three 1 Treasury notes, and a cheque for 5. He had the money in an envelope. About ten minutes after he arrived at the market he took the envelope from his breast pocket, when he was standing near Mr. Bean's lorry, to take a 1 note to give to the defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant was on the spot, and had previously helped him to load his lorry. He returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned him the change of 8s. He completed his business, jumped on Mr. Bean's lorry to pay him for his purchases, and again withdrew the envelope from his pocket and took the contents, and found only two 1 Treasury notes and the cheque. The two 5 notes were not there. He told Mr. Bean he had lost the notes, and Weatherhead was in the immediate vicinity of the lorry, about ten or twelve yards away. When he found he had lost the notes he told Bean he had lost them, and it would be audible to anyone standing round. They both made a search, but could not find them. He said nothing to defendant about his loss. On returning home he found he had not left the notes there, and he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn’t he tell me that he had lost the notes?

Mr. Wilkinson: Because I was not sure that I had lost them then.

Defendant: I wouldn’t rob any man.

William John McEwitt, barman at the Jubilee public house, said defendant went into the bar, and tendered him a 5 note for drinks. He called for a round of drinks for customers in the bar, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a 5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in crossword puzzles. “Crossword puzzles? If you don't think it is a good 'un, take it to the boss”, which he did. He handed the 5 note to his employer, who gave him the change.

Mr. W.C.T. Tingey, landlord of the Jubilee public house, said that on the 10th June defendant gave him a 5 note to change. Ultimately he gave his barman the change for the note. Later the same day he saw defendant in the bar, in the evening, and he received case from defendant several times. Defendant tendered him a second 5 note about 10.25 p.m. Defendant had been standing drinks to other people. The drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. when defendant gave him the second note. He did not give defendant the change that night, and he told him to call the following day. He did so, and he paid him the money. The first note he changed with Mr. Skinner, and the second he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Co. He had known defendant for three years, and he knew he had been an old sailor. He did not know what defendant was now. He was not surprised at defendant being in possession of two notes. He did not ask defendant for an explanation as to where he got the notes.

P.C. Williams said he received information about the loss of the two 5 notes, and made certain inquiries, and as a result of his inquiries he interviewed defendant on the 22nd June on the East Cliff. He told him he was a police officer, and that he was making inquiries regarding two 5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told defendant he should report the matter, and that it was possible proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned him, and he said “I don't wish to say anything”. On the 25th, at 6.30 p.m., he served the defendant with a copy of the summons, and he told defendant he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. He asked defendant if he understood it, and he replied “Yes”. He then cautioned defendant, and he replied “Finding is not stealing; I found the notes”

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said defendant went to his bar on the 10th June about 12.30. He called for three pints of beer, and tendered a 5 note in payment. He told defendant he was sorry he had no change, as he had not been to the bank, and defendant said “It is quite in order; my sister sent it to me." He had a reason for saying he could not change it, but he could have changed it. He knew defendant was a casual worker in the Fish Market. He still declined to change it, and he left owing for the beer. Defendant said he would be back later, and four days later he called and paid for the beer.

Defendant: I am guilty of finding but not of stealing. I wouldn’t rob a man of a penny. I have got nothing to say.

The Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes, just the same as I have said it.

The Clerk: The law says it is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make that out.

Inspector Pittock said defendant was a local man. He had no regular employment, and did odd jobs in the market. There were twelve convictions against him, chiefly for drunkenness, the last one in 1914.

Defendant: If you like to give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf, and won’t come up any more.

The Chairman said the magistrates had very carefully considered the case, and they might have sent defendant for six months. On account of his evident attempt to go straight in recent years, he was an old sailor, who served in the Royal Navy, and because they thought he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him to prison for one month. They hoped it would be a lesson to him. They found defendant was undoubtedly guilty by finding, but finding things was stealing them, just as much the same as if they robbed in the ordinary way of stealing. It was no excuse for defendant or anyone else that because they found something they might presume it was theirs. Their duty was to take it to the Police Station or the nearest authority they could hand it over to. With regard to the evidence to which they had listened they had first the evidence of the barman. Now the barman at the Jubilee seemed to have risen to the full height of his responsibilities as a servant, and when the note was offered to him he very properly refused to take it, in view of the fact he knew from whom he was taking it. With regard to the real licensee of the place, the licensee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibilities. There was the second time in his own house that a 5 note was changed. The barman seemed to have acted with great discretion, and the Magistrates regretted the fact that the man who held the licence did not act in the same way, and the more so because it was the second time during the day that that change of a 5 note was made. The Magistrates wished to say they granted licences to men to hold the responsibilities and the licensee was in a responsible position towards the public and the police, and the magistrates expected every help and judgment to be used in dealing with a case such as this. The Magistrates were very pleased to think that Mr. Ellen, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in this matter, and they hoped the police and Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences, and held the position they did.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1927.

Local News.

George Slenderman Weatherhead was sentenced to one month's imprisonment at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, on a charge of stealing by finding two 5 Bank of England notes.

Fredk. John Wilkinson, of Littlestone-on-Sea, a fruiterer and greengrocer, said that on Friday, June 10th, he came to Folkestone for produce at the early morning market. He arrived about seven o'clock. He had two 5 Bank of England notes, three 1 Treasury notes, and a 5 cheque. He carried the money in an envelope. He had occasion to take the envelope out about ten minutes after he arrived at the market. At the time he took the envelope from his pocket he was standing by Mr. Bean's lorry. He gave a 1 note to defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant usually helped him to load his lorry. He handed the 1 note to defendant and returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned 8s. change. He completed his business with Mr. Bean and jumped on Mr. Bean's lorry to pay for his purchases. He again withdrew the envelope from his pocket; he took the contents out and found that they only consisted of the two Treasury notes and the 5 cheque. The two Bank of England notes were not there. He immediately commented upon having lost them to Mr. Bean. Weatherhead was employed in his work in the immediate vicinity at the time. Mr. Bean's lorry was ten or twelve yards from his own lorry and defendant was going between the two lorries. He told Mr. Bean that he had lost the two notes; His remarks would be audible to anyone standing around. They both made a search but could not find the notes. He said nothing directly to Weatherhead about his loss. On returning home he found that he had not left the notes there and then he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn't he tell me he had lost the notes?

Witness: You will see by my evidence that I was not sure I had lost them.

Defendant: I would not rob any man.

William John McEwitt stated that he was employed as a barman at the Jubilee public house. On Friday, June 10th, prisoner came in and called for a round of drinks, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a 5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in for crossword puzzles, and he said “Crossword puzzles be ----; if you don't think it's a good one take it to the boss”. He handed the note to his employer, who gave him the change.

William George Tingey, the landlord of the Jubilee Inn, said that on Friday, June 10th, the last witness brought him a 5 Bank of England note for him to change. Ultimately he gave him the change for the note. He saw defendant in the evening in the bar; Weatherhead was there up to closing time. Defendant tendered him a second 5 Bank of England note for drinks.

The Clerk: Had he been standing drinks to other people or not?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Tingey added that the drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. He told defendant to come for the change the following day. Defendant came the following day and he gave him the change. The first note he received he changed with Mr. Skinner. The second note he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Company. Witness further stated that he was not surprised at defendant tendering the notes.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Did you ask him any questions as to where he had obtained the notes from?

Witness: No, sir.

P.C. Williams said that he received information of the loss of two Bank of England notes and interviewed defendant at 8.30 on June 22nd on the East Cliff. He told defendant that he was a police officer and had been making enquiries regarding two 5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told Weatherhead that he would report the matter and that it was possible that proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned prisoner, who replied “I don't wish to say anything”. On June 25th he served defendant with a summons. He told prisoner that he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. Defendant said that he understood it. He then cautioned Weatherhead, who replied “Finding is not stealing. I did not steal the notes”.

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said on June 10th, at about 12.30, defendant ordered three pints of beer and tendered a 5 note. He said “I am sorry; I have no change until I have been to the bank”. He had a reason for saying that; he could have changed the note. He knew defendant to be a casual worker at the Fish Market. Defendant said “It is quite all right; my sister sent it to me”. He still declined to change the note and defendant left owing for the beer. Four days later defendant called and paid him for the beer.

Defendant pleaded “Guilty by finding, but not by stealing”. He added that he had nothing to say.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The law says that is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make it out.

Inspector Pittock stated that defendant was a local man, and at present he had no fixed abode. There were ten previous convictions, chiefly fort drunkenness, the last one being in 1914. Defendant was bound over in 1911 for six months for false pretences.

Defendant: If you will give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf and will not come up any more.

The Chairman of the Bench (Alderman C. Ed. Mumford) said on account of defendant's evident attempt to go straight in recent years, and because he was an old sailor who had served in the Royal Navy, and because they believed that he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him for one month's imprisonment; they might have sent him for a much longer period. They hoped that that would be a lesson to defendant. People who found things and kept them were stealing just the same as if they robbed in what was called the ordinary way of stealing.

With regard to the evidence to which they had listened, the barman of the Jubilee seemed to rise to the full height of his responsibility as a servant of his employer. When a note was offered to him the barman very properly refused to take it and to give change, in view of the fact that he knew from whom he was taking it. The lessee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibility, and it was the second time in his own house that day that a 5 note was changed.

Calling Mr. Tingey before the Magistrates, the Chairman said: “Your barman seems to have acted with great discretion and the Magistrates regret that you, who hold a licence, did not act in the same way, and more so because it was the second time during the day that change was made of a 5 note. The Magistrates wish to say this: We grant licences to men to hold responsible positions; the lessee of a public house or hotel is in a very responsible position towards the Bench, and towards the public and the police, and the Magistrates expect that help and judgement shall be used in dealing with such cases as this”.

Alderman Mumford then addressed Mr. Ellen. The Magistrates, he said, were very pleased to think that he, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in the matter. They hoped that in the future the police and the Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences.

 

Folkestone Express 3 September 1927.

Tuesday, August 30th: Before Col. Owen and other Magistrates.

L. Cpl. Robert Penman, of the South Staffordshire Regiment was summoned for assaulting Leonard Cecil Laws, and he pleaded not guilty.

Leonard Cecil Laws, a barman at the Victoria Pier, said that on Sunday evening, a fortnight ago, he went to the public bar of the Packet Boat Inn with some other men. They were all sober. He entered the taproom, and remained there until eight minutes to ten, when “Time” was called, and he went out. He did not see defendant there. There was no disturbance in the house while he was there. He was walking out of the door, and as he brought his face into full view of the street he was hit. He did not know where it came from, or who hit him. He only felt one blow. The blow knocked him down, and he became unconscious. He could not say he saw the defendant there. He was taken to the hospital, attended by the House surgeon, and then taken home. Since then he had been attending daily. His jaw was broken as a result of the blow.

Cross-examined by defendant: He did not hear the “King” played; he was outside. There were some soldiers there in civilian clothes. He was sober. He never had a drink in the house. He did not see the defendant at all.

Alexander John Dodd, lnvicta Road, butcher, said that on the 11th August he entered the Packet Boat Inn in company with three other men. They were all together in a room at the back, where there was music. He saw the defendant there. He heard no conversation, but there was some singing. He heard the landlord call “Time”, and he walked out. When he got out a civilian rushed at him and struck him three times. Two soldiers parted them. The defendant struck him in the mouth, and his pal stopped them and said “Keep out of this”. While he was speaking to his pal he saw the defendant rush at Laws. The next he saw was Laws lying on the ground. He was unconscious. There was no-one near Laws at the time he fell. Defendant never said anything, but walked away, and then returned.

Cross-examined by defendant: He did not hear the “King” played. There were three soldiers together, and defendant was in civilian clothes.

By the Clerk: Defendant apologised to him for striking him., and that was before Laws came out. He did not know what caused all the trouble.

Ernest Ellen, the landlord of the Packet Boat, said that at ten minutes to ten the “King” was played. He saw Laws and the previous witness in the back room, and they were there at ten minutes to ten. Nothing took place inside. Laws wanted his friend to play, and said there was plenty of time. He said to Laws “Who's the governor here, you or me?” Laws said he did not know who the governor was, and he (witness) replied “What am I, then?” He thought it was too late to play the piano. He saw defendant there in civilian clothes.

George Featherbe, Invicta Road, a driver's mate, said he was in the Packet Boat with Laws and Dodd. He was at the oher side of the room, and when “Time” was called he went outside, and Laws was then lying on the step. He did not see the Corporal.

The Clerk: You don't know much about it, do you? (Laughter)

Defendant, giving evidence on oath, said he was in the Packet Boat about 9.45 p.m. on the Sunday, and he and he had a drink. After the sing-song the pianist played “God Save the King”. They all stood up, but Laws was bending down, and he asked him if he would mind getting up. Laws made use of two vile expressions. When they went out Laws rushed down the steps, and went for him with his fists up. Laws missed him, and he hit Laws twice. He then walked away. Laws was lying down with a crowd round him. He asked his friend to see him, and he said he was all right. He came out before Laws. Laws wanted to fight him inside, and said “What's the matter with you?” He had a few words with Laws, and waited outside to have a few words with him. The other man came down, and two soldiers hit him. He did not hit the other man, but stopped them.

Laws said that he came out with his two hands in his pockets, and that was the way he dropped.

Cpl. Hauswell, the South Staffordshire Regiment, said that at the close of the sing-song, everyone stood up for the “King”, except Laws. He asked him if he would stand up, and he made use of disparaging remarks. Someone said “Get outside”. They went outside, and when Laws came out he went straight across to meet defendant, who hit him.

Laws said he had his hands in his overcoat pockets.

Cpl. Price, South Staffordshire Regiment, said defendant stepped aside when Laws flew towards him, and defendant hit him twice, a left and a right.

Laws said he had never seen defendant before in his life.

L. Cpl. James Marshall, of the South Staffordshire Regiment, said defendant hit Laws in self defence.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had carefully considered the case, and they had decided to dismiss it.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 September 1927.

Tuesday, August 30th: Before Colonel G.P. Owen and other Magistrates.

Corporal Robert Penman, of the South Staffordshire Regt., Shorncliffe, was summoned by Leonard Cecil Laws for assault on August 14th.

Defendant first pleaded Guilty, but shortly afterwards entered a plea of Not Guilty.

Complainant, who appeared in the witness box with a bandaged jaw, said that on Sunday, August 14th, he went into the Packet Boat Inn with several others. He entered a back room and remained there until eight minutes to ten, and when “time” was called he went out. There was no disturbance in the room while he was there, and he left the house alone, his friends coming behind him. As he got to the door and brought his face into the view of the street, he was struck on the left side of the jaw. He did not know where the blow came from, nor who hit him. He was knocked down and rendered unconscious. He could not say that he had seen defendant there. He was taken to the hospital, and since then had received attention for a broken jaw, which was the result of the blow.

Cross-examined: He was not drunk and he did not have a drink in the house.

Alexander John Dodd said he entered the Packet Boat Inn at about twenty minutes to ten, accompanied by Laws, and men named Featherbee and Hart. They were in a room at the back of the “pub” and he saw defendant there. He had no conversation but there was “a trifle singing”. He walked out alone when the landlord called “time” and left Laws in the room. When he walked out of the house a civilian rushed at him and struck him three times. After that, two soldiers closed round them and separated them. Witness was on the pavement. Defendant struck him in the mouth and then after he had struck him, his (defendant's) pal stopped them and told witness to keep out of it. While witness was speaking, defendant made a rush and the next thing he saw was Laws lying on the ground. Laws had been stepping out of the doorway. He was unconscious. Defendant did not say anything and walked away, but returned. He was in civilian clothes and when he struck witness he came to him and apologised. Defendant was sober.

Ernest Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said he saw Laws in the house and the others. They were in the back room. Nothing took place inside. He believed that the National Anthem was being played. Laws had a friend who wanted to play the piano, but witness thought that it was too late. Defendant was there in civilian dress.

George Featherbee said he went into the Packet Boat Inn with Laws, Dodd, and Hart. When “time” was called he went out and when he was getting off the step he saw Laws lying at the bottom of it. He did not see defendant.

Defendant said he went to the Packet Boat between 9.30 and 10 o'clock. He had a drink, and after a sing-song the pianist played “God Save The King”. They stood up, but Laws was bending down, so defendant said “Look here, old chap. Stand up”. Laws replied “---- the King”. Defendant went outside, and Laws “came” for him. He came to hit defendant but missed, and defendant hit him twice. Defendant then walked away. He saw Laws on the ground with a crowd round him. Defendant got a friend to see Laws and was told that he was quite all right. Defendant went out of the Packet Boat as Laws wanted to fight him inside.

Corpl. R. Hauswell said that at the close of the sing-song the pianist played “The King”. Everyone stood up, except complainant. Penman asked him if he would stand up, but he made a “disparaging” reply. Someone then said “Get outside”. Witness went out, and complainant went across to meet Penman, who hit him.

Corpl. James Price said that at about two minutes to ten the National Anthem was played and everyone stood up except complainant. Defendant turned round and said “Stand up, old chap, they are playing “The King””. Complainant made a very bad remark about the King and also one that concerned defendant. Someone said “If they want to “argue the toss”, let them get outside”. Complainant went down the steps and made some remark, and “flew” towards defendant. Defendant stepped on one side and knocked complainant down. He hit him twice.

L/Corpl. James Marshall also gave evidence.

The Bench decided to dismiss the case.

 

Folkestone Express 14 January 1928.

Tuesday, January 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Col. P. Broome-Giles, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Pte. David Black and Pte. Charles Jameson Webb, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, Shorncliffe, were summoned for wilfully damaging a window at the Packet Boat Inn, and both pleaded Not Guilty.

Ernest William Ellen, licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, said that between 9.30 and 9.40 p.m. on the 31st December, the defendants went into the bar. They called for two drinks, and he noticed they were the worse for drink. He refused to supply them, and asked them to leave the premises. He took hold of one of them by the arm, and escorted him to the door, as he refused to leave. He went, as he thought, along Radnor Street to Tontine Street, and he (witness) immediately went to the bar and took the other one out. He closed the door, and heard a crash. He turned round and saw a soldier near the window, and he saw Black hurrying along Radnor Street. Both soldiers were in uniform. It was impossible for him to go after them, as his bar was filled with customers. He reported the matter to the police after he had closed. He had an estimate for repairing the damage from Messrs. Dunk, and the amount was 5. He proceeded with Det. Constable Budgen to Shorncliffe Camp, and men were paraded, and he identified Black as the man who broke the window. He also identified Webb as the man who was with Black in his house. He had no doubt that defendants were the men who were in his house.

By the Clerk: He could not see Black's face, but he could identify him by his clothes.

Det. Constable Budgen said in consequence of inquiries made, he proceeded to Shorncliffe at 11 a.m. on January 2nd, and fifty six rank and file were paraded by the Officer Commanding for the purpose of an identification parade. Mr. Ellen went down the ranks, and without hesitation picked out the two defendants. They were called from the ranks, and he interviewed both of them, and told them he would charge them with wilfully damaging the window. They made no reply.

Mr. Ellen (Re-called) said that from the time Black went out, the breaking of the window followed almost immediately – less than half a minute after. Webb had been gone some few minutes. There were other soldiers of the same regiment in his house. He could not say whether any other soldiers had left at the same time – they might have done.

Black said that on the 31st December he was out of the Packet Boat at 9.20 p.m., and Webb left him there about nine o'clock. When he went out he went to the Harbour and caught a bus at 9.30. He met Lce. Cpl. Ford of the South Staffordshire Regiment, and he was in the Victoria Hotel at Cheriton at 9.45. He left the Camp with Webb, and was in his company that night. He saw Webb at 10.30 when he went to barracks. He did not know anything about the window. He was not the worse for drink, and he remembered the landlord asking him to leave. He told the landlord he did not want any drink, but wanted to see his mates in the back room. He first heard a window had been broken two days later. He did not say anything to the Detective Constable, because he thought it would be best to reserve his evidence for the Court.

Webb said he went into Folkestone with Black, and they entered the Packet Boat together. It must have been shortly after nine o'clock when he left. They were refused drink. They had had drink, but they were nothing like being the worse for it. He left the Packet Boat when he was asked to go, and caught a bus at the Harbour. He last saw Black when he went out of the Packet Boat, and he was then talking to the landlord. He got to barracks about 9.40. He knew nothing about breaking the window. When he was charged he did not think there was any need to speak about it.

Lce. Cpl. Ford, South Staffordshire Regiment, Shorncliffe, said that on the 31st December, at 9.30 p.m., he went to the Harbour to catch a bus, and met Black and took him to the Camp. When they got to the Victoria Hotel he asked Black to have a drink, and they went and had a drink. It was 9.45 by the clock in the bar. He had left his wife's house in North Street at 9.25. He did not know Black. He looked as if he had had a drink, but he was quite respectable, and was not kicking up a row.

A Corporal of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders said he was orderly sergeant during the week, and on the 31st December called the roll at 9.30. Webb and Black were entitled to be out on permanent pass. He was going to the guard room about 9.40, and met Pte. Webb. He was then sober and properly dressed, and Webb told him to take his name off the late pass roll. Private Black reported at 10.20.

The Magistrates retired, and said the case against Webb would be dismissed. They had very grave doubts about Black, but he was going to have the benefit of the doubt, and he would be dismissed. The landlord of the Packet Boat had done quite right in bringing these men forward. Licence holders deserved every protection from the police and public. They had a very hard duty to perform in their houses, and they complimented the landlord for not serving the men.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 January 1928.

Local News.

Two members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regt., stationed at Shorncliffe, Privates Charles Jameson Webb and David Black, were summoned at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday for alleged wilful damage by smashing a window at the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone.

The case against Webb was dismissed, but in the case of Black the Chairman of the Bench said “We have very grave doubts about you. You will be dismissed, but the landlord of the Packet Boat has done quite right in bringing the case forward”. Licensees had a very hard duty to perform in their houses, he said, and the Bench complimented them in bringing such cases as these before the Court. In this case the evidence against the men was not quite clear, and they must be dismissed.

Ernest William Allen, licensee of the Packet Boat Inn, said between 9.30 and 9.40 p.m. on December 31st the men entered the public bar of his premises and called for drinks. From the position in which witness was standing behind the bar he could see that they were the worse for drink and he thereupon refused to serve them. He asked them to leave the premises. He took the nearer one (Webb) by the arm, led him to the door and outside into Radnor Street. After putting the other man out, witness was closing the door, when he suddenly heard a crash. Turning round, he saw a soldier's cane at the window, which was cracked. Witness immediately went out and saw a soldier, whome he thought was Black, hurrying away. Witness estimated the cost of the replacement at 3.

By the Clerk: He could not see the defendant's face when he looked out. He could identify him by his clothes.

Detective Constable Butcher said at Shorncliffe Camp, at 11 a.m. on January 2nd, fifty men were paraded for identification. The last witness picked out the two prisoners without any hesitation.

Re-called by the Clerk, the witness Allen said there were other soldiers of the same regiment in the house that night, but none in the front bar; they were in the back room.

Black, in the witness box, said Webb left the Packet Boat at 9 p.m., and witness left later. He saw a friend, Lance Corporal Ford of the Staffordshire Regt., and they caught a bus at the Harbour. He was with Lance Corporal Ford at 9.45 p.m. When witness next saw Webb it was at the barracks at 10.20. He was not drunk and did not know anything about the window being broken until he was called up on parade.

Private Webb said he went into the Packet Boat with his friend on the night in question, and left the place shortly after 9. He knew nothing about the breaking of the window.

Lance Corporal Harry Ford, of the South Staffs. Regt., said he met Black at the Harbour on the night in question, and they caught a bus and were in Cheriton at 9.45. Black might have had a drink, but he was quite respectable and was not kicking up a row at all.

A guard room orderly at the Camp said he met Private Webb there at 9.40. He was sober and properly dressed in uniform. Private Black reported at 10.20.

 

Folkestone Express 1 April 1933.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday the Magistrates granted a protection order to sell at the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, to Mr. J. Sirrett, ex Sergeant Major in the Royal Marine Artillery, Mr. Ellen being the outgoing tenant.

 

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 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 9 February 1935.

Editorial.

The Town Council are to purchase the Packet Boat Inn in connection with the Radnor Street scheme, and therefore the Corporation will become the possessors of a licence. How they are to dispose of that licence will prove a very knotty problem for them to solve. A discussion on the question at Wednesday's Council meeting clearly indicated that there was a good deal of feeling over the matter, and when it comes before the General Purposes Committee on Tuesday it is not improbable that there will be a lively debate on the subject. Mr. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, certainly did not deserve the rebuke concerning the action he had taken in the matter so far by one prominent member of the Council, and it is hoped that no heat will be evinced by any of the members when they meet on Tuesday to decide what looks like being a very difficult matter. It is hardly possible to imagine that the East Cliff Pavilion will be suitable for a fully licensed establishment, and it mus be borne in mind that the Licensing Justices would only grant a restricted licence to the Leas Cliff Hall.

Council Meeting Extract.

The monthly meeting of the Town Council was held on Wednesday.

The Radnor Street Scheme.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said she would like to know if Nos. 5, 7, and 9, Radnor Street had been offered for the re-building of the Ship Inn.

Councillor Lillie said Councillor Mrs. Thiselton had learned there was a wish by the owners of one of the licensed houses in the area to build a new public house on the site of the three houses. The offer was still open and they could negotiate with the Council. He thought he could hold out no hope that they were likely to do so.

East Cliff Pavilion; Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The Town Clerk read an extract from the proceedings of the Catering Sub-Committee of the 21st January, 1935, recommending the removal of the intoxicating liquor licence from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Resolved that the recommendation of the Catering Sub-Committee be not approved.

Land at The Stade; Catering: (a) Proceedings of Sub-Committee; Read the following provisions of the Catering Sub-Committee: East Cliff Pavilion Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The Town clerk reported for the information of the Sub-Committee that the licensed house known as the Packet Boat Inn, 59, Radnor Street, is included in the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The Corporation will acquire this licensed house, including the intoxicating liquor licence. The Sub-Committee considered the question of the removal of such licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Resolved that this Sub-Committee recommend that at the appropriate time the necessary application should be made for the removal of the licence from the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Alderman Hollands said he wished to move that the Committee's recommendation with regard to the purchase of the Packet Boat Inn be not approved, but that it be referred to the General Purposes Committee for further consideration. There was no doubt that it would be a contentious matter. Councillor Bridgland seconded.

Councillor Saunders: This is a question of the transfer of a licence which the Corporation would purchase through its slum clearance scheme and would become the property of the Corporation. The suggestion was that it should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Town Clerk introduced this matter to the Parks Committee. It was part of the Town Clerk's duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the licence. I want to say right away now that I oppose the transfer of the licence to our pavilion, and I want to stop it. The matter was brought before the Parks Committee. The Sub-Committee voted in favour of it, and when it came before the Committee it was defeated by a majority. I suggest there is no public demand for a full seven days' licence, and I suggest there is no necessity for it. It would be detrimental to the neighbourhood. It could not be said that it is in the interests of the golf course, because it is a success. Some of my golf friends will not agree with me. I suggest that the pavilion is better off without a licence, and I hope the Council will give a decisive vote this morning. The licence was put into the Leas Cliff Hall purely for the use of the patrons of that hall. It was safeguarded by the Licensing Justices putting a condition in the licence. I do not think it is any business of the Corporation to enter into the business of a licensed victualler on the East Cliff. I think the trade is able to supply all the public needs in that vicinity. We have to use our discretion in this matter. I deplore the action of the Town Clerk in bringing this to the Parks Committee at all.

The Mayor: I object to that statement.

Councillor Saunders: I have a right to say what I think. I think it was his duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the licensed premises, but it is no part of the own Clerk's duty to initiate any process. (Several members: He has not done that.) As far as I am concerned, though I am the Chairman of the Committee who hold a licence for the Corporation, I am distinctly against any furtherance of the activities of the Corporation in that manner. I was against the Leas Cliff Hall licence. The Council will do a grave wrong if they do not support the majority of the Committee.

Councillor Kent: In a case like this where we have to pay a large sum of money for a licence, and then have to surrender the licence, surely it is the duty of the Town Clerk to bring it before the appropriate Committee to see whether it was the wish of the Council to retain that licence by taking it to a building erected by the Council. The Town Clerk has acted properly in the minds of many of the members.

The Mayor: He would have been neglecting his duty if he had not done so. It was his bounden duty to bring that matter forward, and he has done so.

Councillor Saunders: I respectfully suggest it is a matter of opinion. I have a right to put my opinion to the public.

The Town clerk: I should have had no authority to go and surrender that asset of yours without consulting you, and asking what you should have done with it, either using it or surrendering it in the hope that you may get compensation. You are not bound to get compensation for it. There is an asset, and it is not for an official to say what should be done about it without consulting the authority.

Alderman Stainer: Has the Council ever approved of the East Cliff Pavilion being used for the sale of intoxicating drink? (Cries of “Yes”.)

Alderman Franks said he was going to support Alderman Hollands' amendment. He did so because when a local authority was going to discuss the question of a licence, did they not think the more light they had on the question the more information the public got so that they could frame up for and against? Let them have the full limelight on it. He did not see why an opportunity should be turned down without the public knowing anything about the chance or whether a licence should be granted or not.

Councillor Hart said he was supporting Alderman Hollands' amendment. When they arrived at the decision in regard to Radnor Street the Town Clerk very rightly told them there was one house to go, and it remained for the Council whether they wanted the licence moved to another place or not. How did Councillor Saunders know the need did not exist? He (the speaker) was in favour of that, and he would be affected by it if there was a licence, for he had customers within a stone's throw of the East Cliff Pavilion. He could assure Councillor Saunders that people did want that place. He saw that some multiple firm had engaged the Pavilion for a staff gathering, and a licence would be used on that occasion under the management of Councillor Saunders.

Councillor Saunders: I object to that.

Councillor Hart: Who has applied for the licence?

Councillor Saunders: I wish to make a personal explanation, for a reflection has been made upon me by Councillor Hart. I am the Chairman of the Entertainments Committee, not the holder of the licence. The Parks Superintendent rang me up one day last week and said they had an application for an occasional licence for the Pavilion, and would the Entertainments Manager apply for it? I said “Yes”, but I considered it, and afterwards I rang him up, and said that I considered he should get that occasional licence. The Parks Superintendent said “Very well”, and rang up the Chairman of the Committee, who did not agree with that point of view. I rang up Councillor Kent, whose point of view was that the licence was the property of the Corporation, and that it was the duty of the Entertainments Manager, rightly or wrongly, to apply for it. I took the view that it was usually the duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for licences, and that probably it might be part of his job.

The Mayor: There is no personal reflection upon you.

Councillor Kent said he had no objection to the amendment. He felt the licence was too valuable to surrender. He quite agreed something must be done quickly, because the application would have to be made to move the licence from one building to another at the annual licensing sessions or the adjourned licensing sessions.

The General Purposes Committee would have to be called together quickly.

The amendment was carried by 26 votes to five.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1935.

Editorial.

A proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion was considered by the Folkestone Town Council at its meeting last Wednesday, and it was then decided to call a special meeting of the General Purposes Committee (which consists of the whole of the Council) to consider the matter. We hope that there will be a unanimous decision at this meeting of the General Purposes Committee not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The Packet Boat Inn is included in the clearance area of the Radnor Street scheme, and the Corporation, in accordance with the terms of the scheme, will acquire this licence. An intoxicating liquor licence today is a very valuable thing, and the Town Clerk would have been remiss in his duties had he not called attention to the fact that this licence would become the property of the Corporation. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable. The East Cliff Pavilion is primarily a place at which refreshments, including teas, can be obtained. It was built for the convenience of residents and visitors in the East Cliff area, and we nave little doubt that the majority of members who voted in favour of the construction of this Pavilion never intended that it should be licensed. In our opinion it is entirely unnecessary for a licence to be obtained for this building. The area in which it is situated is largely residential, and during at least nine months of the year the number of visitors in that district is very small indeed. The provision of a licence could not therefore be said to meet the requirements of visitors during these winter months. In the summer months large numbers of visitors of course visit the East Cliff, but surely it is not suggested that they would become so thirsty that the convenience of a licence at this Pavilion would be necessary. After all, visitors do not necessarily come to the town to drink intoxicating liquor, and we believe that the provision of a licensed bar at this Pavilion would defeat the whole object of providing refreshments of a light nature for those who desire them. The plain question which arises is whether, in the event of the Packet Boat licence not having become the property of the Corporation, an application would have been made to the Licensing Magistrates for a new licence for the East Cliff Pavilion, and if so was there a likelihood of such application being successful? The accident of the purchase of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn does not in our opinion justify the Council in licensing the East Cliff Pavilion, even if the Licensing Magistrates were prepared to accede to such an application. We suggest that no hardship of any kind will be suffered either by the residents or visitors if the East Cliff Pavilion remains as it is at present, providing light refreshments, teas and such like for those who desire them.

 

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.

Editorial.

The members of the Town Council on Tuesday had a big debate on the question of the proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which is to be purchased under the Compulsory Purchase Order in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance area, to the East Cliff Pavilion. The discussion was conducted in a particularly calm and well-reasoned manner, and one feature of it was the manner in which the proceedings were handled by Alderman Franks, who was voted to the chair in the regretted absence of the Mayor through illness, and the Deputy Mayor. Alderman Franks certainly showed his great capability to occupy the position, and his able conduct of the business undoubtedly convinced every member present that he should in the near future undertake the highest honours which a town can bestow on one of its citizens. The Committee decided that the Council should be recommended to make application for the transference of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion, and so paved the way for what will be unquestionably a stern fight over the matter before it is ultimately decided. It was made quite clear by those who supported the proposal that there is no thought of turning the Pavilion into what is regarded generally as a public house, and this fact should allay the qualms of quite a number of people concerning the matter. It was stated by one of the chief supporters of the proposal that he would endeavour to see that there should be a condition imposed that no drinks should be served for consumption off the premises, and other speakers hinted that there would be no bars in the usual acceptation of the term. One of the objects of the erection of the Pavilion was to supply refreshments to meet the needs of the many thousands of people who flock to what is becoming one of Folkestone's principal attractive spots, and if the licence is to be mainly for the purpose of supplying alcoholic drink to people using the building for obtaining refreshments, then doubtless some of the opposition, which would have been launched against what is regarded as a public house licence only, will evaporate. One argument used was that if the licence was not transferred to the Pavilion it might not be long before another application is made for a real public house to be built in the district by a brewer's firm offering to transfer a licence from another portion of the town to that area. This has been done frequently up and down the country. Some of those who objected to the proposal did so on the ground that a municipal authority should not become licence holders, but Folkestone would not be the first local authority to become possessed of such a licence. Some seaside resorts which are often quoted as examples for Folkestone to follow in some directions hold licences in similar circumstances as proposed by the Committee's resolution. I suppose there will be petitions and counter-petitions, and whoever has the ultimate task of deciding the question will have a difficult task placed on their shoulders. It will be remembered that when the Leas Cliff Hall obtained the licence the decision was not upon the local Magistrates, but Justices from the Elham Division sat at Folkestone Court, and agreed to the transfer of the Rose Hotel licence to Folkestone's attractive hall. I suppose a similar procedure would have to be adopted in this instance if the resolution passed on Tuesday meets with the approval of the Council, as it seems likely, provided there is not a swing of the pendulum so far as the opinion of the members is concerned.

Council Meeting.

The General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council on Tuesday discussed the question of whether application should be made for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which is to be purchased under the Radnor Street slum clearance area scheme, to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Sub-Committee of the Parks Committee recommended that that course should be adopted, but the Parks Committee recommended that the Council should not approve of the application being made. At the Council meeting last week it was decided that the matter should be referred to the General Purposes Committee for consideration.

The Mayor was unable to be present owing to illness on Tuesday when the General Purposes Committee met, and the Deputy Mayor was also absent. Alderman T.S. Franks was elected to the chair in the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

The Chairman said the Town Clerk informed him that he had received several letters addressed to him on the subject, and the Committee would probably like the letters read before discussing the matter.

The Town Clerk then read the letters, the first being from Dr. H. Dodgson, Sea View, Dover Street. It stated “I notice by the Folkestone Herald that a special meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Town Council is to be held on February 12th for the express purpose of discussing the question of transferring the licence from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion. I wish to register my emphatic protest against any such action being taken. My reasons for doing so are: (1) In my opinion it is absolutely unnecessary. (2) I am very much afraid it will lead to all kinds of immorality, as the excessive use of alcohol almost invariably does. (3) The neighbourhood of the East Cliff has in recent years developed considerably, and is now a credit to the Borough. I consider it should be the desire of the Council to keep it free from any influence that could possibly injure our young people. (4) A licence at the East Cliff Pavilion would deteriorate the value of all property in the vicinity. (5) As a ratepayer, I strongly object to virtually becoming a shareholder in the liquor traffic activities of the Borough Council. I shall be obliged to you if you will bring this letter to the notice of your Committee tomorrow”.

The Folkestone Branch of the National British Women's Total Abstinence League wrote “The members of the above-mentioned Union understand that the General purposes Committee are meeting tomorrow to consider specially the question of granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the East Cliff Pavilion. In view of the fact that the Pavilion is one of the places in the town where our young men and women will congregate in large numbers, we deplore the possibility that such a licence may be granted, and in their interests urge upon the Committee the undesirability of such a course”.

A letter on behalf of the Folkestone Girl Crusaders, the Boys' Brigade, and the Gordon Club was as follows “Will you kindly place this letter before the General Purposes Committee at their meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) to discuss the granting of a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. Being deeply interested in the moral welfare of young men and women, we strongly desire the authorities to consider carefully the temptations with which our young people will be faced if a licence is granted to the East Cliff Pavilion. These temptations, almost invariably present wherever intoxicating drinks are sold, will be made still more difficult in view of the situation of the hall rendering it difficult for efficient supervision, and also owing to its being on the borders of the Warren; lonely, unprotected country. We wish to register our protest against the granting of this licence as it may easily make this part of the town undesirable, if not dangerous, to the moral welfare of our young people. As our work brings us into contact with many young people, we do know in the majority of cases that drink has been the first step towards moral ruin”.

Miss A. Wilson, of Lennard Lodge, Lennard Road, wrote “May I voice a protest against the proposal to allow intoxicating drinks to be sold at the East Cliff Pavilion to the deterioration of the property owners and the usual discomfort of residents – which generally does take place when closing time comes along – disturbing the rest of so many invalids and visitors who live in what should be a rapidly rising residential area. Also it will encourage the most noisy type of trippers to spoil the East Leas, which during the summer months is so appreciated by an ever increasing number of people. Truly hoping it will never come to pass”.

Dr. T.W. Crawford sent the following letter from Lennard Lodge. “As a ratepayer living near the East Cliff, I beg to protest against the proposal of transferring a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. I venture to assert that the great majority of citizens living over here would, if consulted, not consider it advisable to have licensed premises in this residential area. We do not consider it advisable to have intoxicants sold near to our sports ground and golf course, which is frequented by so many of our young people. We consider that our town has enough licensed premises already, and strongly protest against any more being established in residential districts of our town”.

A letter from the Gordon Club was as follows “As representatives of this club whose aim is to help the unprivileged youth of this town to attain the highest development of manhood in body, mind and spirit, we are greatly concerned at the proposal to transfer a licence to the new pavilion on East Cliff. We feel that facilities to obtain intoxicating liquor there cannot but be detrimental to the young people of both sexes who use the East Cliff golf course and the municipal tennis courts, and others who congregate in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the position of the building, in a public park on the outskirts of town, renders proper police supervision difficult, thus it will not be easy to check any tendency to misconduct of any sort which may arise. We earnestly hope that the Council will register a decision more in accord with the aims of this and similar bodies who are striving for the moral uplift of the town”.

Mr. Arthur T. Cook, of Carshalton, Surrey, wrote “I see by your local paper that the question of a licence for the new pavilion on the East Cliff has arisen, and as an old and very frequent visitor to your health-giving resort I trust you will not take exception to my writing to you on the subject, as in my own humble opinion the east end of the town is becoming the most popular owing to the fact that you now have a very nice stretch of sand and safe and delightful bathing, but I must admit that there is not a licensed house in the vicinity of the East Cliff (with the exception of the Royal Pavilion Hotel) where one feels disposed to take a lady, and I consider that a licence at the new pavilion is the very thing that is needed. If I may be so bold, might I also suggest that another boon for the East Enders would be a band performance on the East Cliff, say two or three evenings a week? I think you will agree with me that the popular taste has to be catered for, and as proof of this assertion, might I point to the great success of your Popular Wednesday evenings at the Leas Cliff Hall, and on my next visit I hope to see similar gatherings in the new Pavilion. I trust you will not consider these suggestions out of place from one who is not a ratepayer, but only as from one who wishes to see your town cater for the public and so bring more prosperity. Might I sign myself as a well-wisher?”

A letter from the Folkestone Equitable Golf Club was as follows: “I would be pleased if you would kindly cause the following to be placed before the General Purposes Committee at their next meeting, which, I understand, is being held on Tuesday, the 12th inst. At a meeting of the above club I was instructed to communicate with the appropriate Committee regarding the proposed transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. The following is not purely the opinion of our members as a Golf Club, but as ratepayers, of whom our members are about 90 percent. It is felt that having regard to: (a) The tens of thousands of people visiting during the year; (b) the residential growth of the East Cliff; (c) the fact of the Town Council sinking some thousands of pounds in the erection of the East Cliff Pavilion; (d) that the East Cliff definitely warrants this licence. The Town Council having acquired this licence, which, we assume, has cost the town no small amount, have now an opportunity of opening up, without any cost, another source of revenue by transferring this licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It would appear to be deplorable to throw away such a valuable asset, and we are of the opinion that there will be, and is, a public demand for this licence, and having regard to the revenue point of view a real necessity for it. We do not think that the granting of this licence will be in any way detrimental to the neighbourhood, for many of our residents are members of this particular part of the town, and their opinion is at least worth some consideration. It is therefore hoped that the General Purposes Committee, when discussing the question of this licence, will have due regard to the opinion of a few ratepayers who would not relish the knowledge that such an asset and source of income had been cast aside. Yours faithfully, W. Smith, Hon. Secretary”.

Mr. J. Tucker, of Purley, wrote “I have read with interest in the Folkestone Express and Hythe Advertiser the debate which took place in Council regarding the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. May I, as a frequent visitor over a number of years, and an ardent admirer of Folkestone, be permitted to express the hope that the licence will be applied to the East Cliff Pavilion, which is unquestionably a very fine hall. I think it is only a matter of time before it is found that the attractions of Folkestone have moved eastwards on account of the bathing facilities at that end, and in view of the structural alterations about to take place. This being so, it should, in fairness to visitors staying at that end, be possible for them to attend dances, etc., in the Pavilion without being “forced” to the Leas Cliff Hall. Furthermore, I know of no suitable place where one can take a lady for some mid-day refreshment after a round on the golf course. May I be pardoned for taking what, as a non-ratepayer, may be considered a libert in writing to you”.

Mr. R.R. Tatt, East Cliff, Folkestone, wrote: “With reference to the purchase of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. I have read that the residents in the East Cliff district say this licence is not required. As the proprietor of a large of a large boarding house I would like to say that it was a general remark among visitors who saw the Pavilion being built and afterwards saw it opened, that it was a great improvement, and when a band – (we understand a bandstand has been suggested) - and a licence were provided, it would fill a long-felt want on the Cliff and help considerably to popularise this end of town. From a visitor's point of view, more particularly a day visitor, picnicking with his family on the Cliff, is it not very desirable that all members of the party should be able to obtain refreshments of any description from the same refreshment house, and at the same time a profitable business worked up by the Council? Is this not desirable? Why is it that those who complain most about losses on Corporation entertainments, etc., are the first to say “We don't want the place for the profit”? What are we ratepayers to understand? The pavilion is far enough away from any licensed premises to cause no loss to anyone else, and it would give a great amount of satisfaction to visitors who already know our beautiful cliff, and at the same time popularise the golf and tennis court and East Cliff sands. The Corporation has an opportunity to make money by drawing to the places where chairs, etc., are all Corporation owned. Can you tell me why there is any opposition?”

The Town Clerk, after reading the letters, said: I am pleased to say that is all. (Laughter)

The Chairman said he wished to make a personal explanation. During the discussion in the previous week he stated that he remembered that provision had been made in that building by the Parks Committee, of which he was Chairman at the time, for the facilities for selling intoxicating drink. He wanted to make it plain that there was never any question of there being a public house licence there. Some years ago, when they started golf on the East Cliff, they had an application from the different clubs to erect a hut in order that members might have facilities for a club licence if they thought fit. The Council wanted to retain entire control of the golf course, and they did not want to have the place disfigured by a variety of huts. He then said when the time arrived the Committee would probably put forward proposals for erecting a utility building in keeping with the neighbourhood. He never heard, nor did he understand, that he conveyed that the facilities would be for a public house licence. The Committee wanted to make the Pavilion a complete building, and so prevent alterations afterwards, therefore provision was made for certain facilities.

Alderman Hollands said he would like to move a resolution on the lines that the Council take the necessary steps when the time arose to transfer the licence from the Packet Boat to the East Cliff Pavilion. He did so as one of the oldest representatives of the East Ward. He appreciated the fact that they were there to do the best for those whom they represented. In his opinion they would be doing the right thing in getting a licence. There was an advantage placed at their disposal to obtain a licence. They had to purchase the Packet Boat Inn, and therefore the licence was at their disposal. They could, if they thought fit, surrender the licence, but he was afraid they would not get very much for it. There was no decent public house within half a mile of that Pavilion. There was no more desirable building for such a licence. They would be providing lunches at the Pavilion in the summer, and people would be requiring drink with their lunches, and they could not send round the corner for it. Was it not high time we woke up to the fact that British people were a responsible, clean-minded set of people? He had had no-one approach him against the licence, but he had had letters from many people pushing him to secure that licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. They need not keep the Pavilion open all the year. They might open it in the winter in the daytime, but it could be closed in the winter. He thought in the summer months the licence would be a great benefit, and not a detriment. The Hotel Metropole was only open for about three months of the year. The liquor trade was tied up with all sorts of restrictions. He lived in that district, and he did not think the value of property would go down if the licence was obtained; in fact, he thought it would help to make the property more valuable. There were people who were definite Prohibitionists and who wished to prevent anyone from drinking. They had an illustration of that in America, where there was more cursedness and wickedness going on when they found substitutes. They had better have moderate drinking as they had in that country, and trusting people, instead of something like the conditions they had in America. He hoped the Council would be broad-minded and act in the interests of the town by agreeing to that transfer of the licence.

Alderman King-Turner said he rose to second the resolution. He had been fighting for 24 years against conditions to the detriment of people in the ward, and had given the best part of his life for the uplifting of that portion of the town. He did not think they could take the letters seriously. It seemed to him that some people thought they would be committing a crime if they permitted a licence there. He had been appealed to get a licence many times for that building. The licence was necessary for that part of the town, and they should give people the advantages they desired. He was not going to take it that it was a crime to have a licence there. He wanted to give facilities for the people up there to help themselves. He was broad-minded, and asked the members to support the resolution. The licence would be one of the most perfect things to provide on the East Cliff.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said apparently the only attractions for Folkestone in the future would be the facilities visitors could get for drink. Their children, it had been stated, were not allowed in a public house, so did that mean that children would not be able to go into the Pavilion? That Pavilion was the resort of young people and a place where entertainment and refreshments could be obtained. That question was inadvertently mentioned at one of the Health Committee meetings several weeks ago, and the Town Clerk immediately stifled the discussion in that Committee. She did not think he could deny that. She could not see why that matter should be rushed and for that Committee to meet before the Brewster Sessions. There was, therefore, no time to do anything after the decision of this Committee was known. “It is extraordinary”, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said, “that Alderman Hollands should take that action, for he has a son employed by the Parks Committee. Mr. Kent is, or was, a licensed victualler, and Mr. Bridgland is, I believe, related to the family who has been interested in the catering previously”.

The Chairman: I hope you will not enter into personalities, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton. One is not a keeper of their relations. I suggest you keep within bounds. I ought to mention this matter is not rushed. The Brewster Sessions has nothing to do with this licence.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: It must be settled today.

The Chairman: I ask you to be more careful in your statements.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: Last year we started with the advertising of whisk distillers on the East Cliff. For the sake of the youth of Folkestone I appeal to the Council to reject the recommendations before us. I do not think anyone in this Council has had longer experience than I have had of work amongst young people, starting when I was 18. I have worked and lived in the East End of London and in the provinces. I have worked in France and other foreign countries, and it is ridiculous to compare our habits with those of the French. Our whole outlook is different. I hope that those who are responsible for deciding this matter will think twice before they support this resolution.

The Town Clerk said if that resolution was carried it was only a resolution of the Committee and had to be confirmed by the Council. This will not come before the Brewster Sessions or the adjourned Sessions. If it is decided that the application be made and it is approved by the Town Council the application will not be made before the Brewster Sessions or the adjourned Sessions.

Councillor Davis said he thought it would be helpful to him if the Town Clerk would answer the question: “What happens to the licence if the Council decide not to apply for its transfer to the East Cliff Pavilion?” He would also like to know what would be the position if in the near future it was thought that a licence was necessary in that district.

The Town clerk said they were purchasing a licensed house in the Radnor Street area, known as the Packet Boat. The price they would pay for that would be just the market value. As a matter of fact he had received that morning a claim from the owners of the house in response to the notice to treat, and the amount of the claim is 4,693.

Councillor Saunders: How much of that is for the licence? Are you not including the value of the building as well?

The Town Clerk: That is for the whole of the building.

Councillor Saunders: The licence is only part of the cost?

The Town clerk said looking at the provisions of the Housing Act, 1930, there was a special clause which dealt with the provisions of licensed houses purchased by the local authority. There were several methods in which they might deal with it. Councillor Davis asked what would happen to that licence in the event of it not being transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. According to sub-section 2 of section 14, if they purchased or contracted to purchase the premises, the Authority intimated to the Licensing Justices that they were willing to surrender the licence, the Justices might refer that matter to the Compensation Authority, and that Authority, on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence, should contribute out of the compensation fund to the local authority the sum not exceeding the compensation which would have been payable under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, on the refusal of the renewal of the licence. They would, therefore, be at liberty to go to the Licensing Justices, and if they agreed that the licence is not surrendered might properly be dealt with as a redundant licence they might award their compensation for its surrender. The compensation for surrender was the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and the value of the premises without a licence. The amount of the valuation is that specified by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. That was one method. Another method of dealing with it was, of course, that which they were considering. There was still another method, and that was to endeavour to dispose of the licence by finding someone to purchase it.

Councillor Davis: What would be the position if the Council did not have the licence and later found they wanted a licence?

The Town Clerk said if that licence was not transferred to the Pavilion and either surrendered or sold, and at some future time they found they wanted a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion, they would have to apply for a new licence, which, he thought would be admitted by everyone, would be difficult to obtain. They would have to pay a monopoly value on the granting of a new licence, which would add to the cost. The monopoly value was the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and unlicensed, so it might be a very considerable sum.

Councillor Younghusband: Approximately what would be the actual cost of the licence?

The Town Clerk: The licence duty in respect of the licence if transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion would be half the net annual value of the premises.

Councillor Saunders: Can you tell us that now?

The Town Clerk said the Borough Treasurer stated it would be in the region of about 200.

Councillor Saunders: It would be about half that?

The Town Clerk said as the premises were not rated the figure would have to be agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Councillor Hart asked if the Town Clerk would make it clear that under certain circumstances they would be entitled to get a reduction from the Excise Commissioners.

The Town clerk: The net annual value will be agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Councillor Fletcher asked if the Council were bound to purchase.

The Town Clerk: You have given notice that it is to be bought under the compulsory purchase order. The Licensing Justices decide what houses are redundant. It is not for the local authority to say what houses are redundant. You have to buy the Packet Boat Inn, and you have to pay the market value for it.

Councillor Saunders said it was utterly obvious that some alterations were necessary in that building to adapt it for the use of a full public house licence, which is entirely different to a club-house licence they had in mind first.

Councillor Kent: I think the Borough Surveyor can give the approximate cost.

The Borough Surveyor said details had been got out, and they provided for the alteration of cloak room. Including everything the figure was 160.

The Chairman: Do I understand that the Parks Committee have thought fit to decide as to the alterations?

Councillor Kent: A meeting of the Catering Sub-Committee was held, and the Surveyor was asked to prepare a figure.

Councillor Saunders said Alderman Hollands had suggested that no attention should be paid to the people engaged in looking after the young life of the town. His position was a peculiar one, because, he said unhesitatingly, he had seen some of the effects of a licence under municipal control on the young life of the town. The Corporation, in holding a licence and being the local authority, put the police force in an extremely delicate position. That building was in a public park, and the Home Office did not pay their quota for controlling public parks. They would not only have to pay for the cost of the licence, but for patrolling the area.

The Chairman: The building is on a police beat.

Councillor Saunders said it was a question of principle with him. Was it advisable for a local authority to enter into a trade the difficulties of which it had been admitted of the danger it carried. He suggested they wanted to look at that matter from the broader aspects. They wanted to get away from the point of view of the cost, and to consider whether they were doing their duty, particularly to the young people of Folkestone, in putting licensed premises in that particular neighbourhood or in any building owned by the Corporation. He was going to say that they would get better control, better everything, if they got a really good licensee than they would under Corporation management. He thought that was the point of view of everyone. Personally he deplored the fact that the Council were seriously considering that, for it was a business they should keep out of. They had a licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, but they had got it under safeguards, fortunately. He was never in favour of it when it was installed. There they were going to set up an ordinary public house in the ordinary accepted term. The Corporation were going to enter into the business, if they agreed with that resolution, of a licensed victualler, with all its ramifications and with all its potential dangers to the people. He was convinced it was not going to be an asset. The proper thing was to treat the licence as part of the clearance scheme. That was a business best left to private enterprise. They would be entering into serious competition with other people. Referring to the cost, looking at it from all points of view, he did not believe their profit was going to be anything much, and not enough for the Council to worry about. If they talked of it as an amenity, it was an amenity the Council should leave alone. Anything that would increase the attractions of Folkestone he was prepared to vote for, but for anything that was prejudicial to the best interests of the people it was not part of the Corporation's business to assist in facilitating something which every decent man and woman knew was not either physically or intellectually going to do any good. To his mind that was a perfectly true statement, and he was not speaking as a teetotaller. All he could say was that if they passed that resolution they must realise they were doing something which might have a detrimental effect on the young people.

Councillor Hart said Councillor Saunders had stated that he had been a holder of a licence. He wanted to ask him whether he had ever held an on-licence.

Councillor Saunders: I have made a statement that I have held a licence. That is perfectly true.

Councillor Hollands: He will not answer the question.

Councillor Chittenden said he agreed with all that Councillor Saunders had said. He was one of the Committee who got the Pavilion through the Council. He thought they were all proud of the fact that they had got it, but his enthusiasm would have been considerably less if he had thought that the Corporation would run it as a public house. If a man wanted a pint of beer it was up to him to decide for himself, but the Corporation should not be the one to tempt him to do so. He should oppose the transfer of the licence to the Pavilion.

Councillor Hughes said he was delighted with the way in which Councillor Hollands had brought that resolution, for they wanted to approach that question not in the personal spirit. They had to look at that matter from the point of view of Folkestone and the neighbourhood. He was convinced it would be a very grave step on the part of the Corporation if they decided to transfer that licence, and he thought eventually time would prove that to be true. He believed it would lower considerably the tone of the whole neighbourhood in which the Pavilion was placed if the licence was transferred there. He thought it would put the brake on and considerably retard the building of the sort of residences they desired, they needed, and wished to develop. They had got Dr. Barnardo's Home and St. Andrew's Home near, and licensed premises would not be pleasant for the inmates of those homes. He did not believe it was in the interests of any town that the municipality should run licensed premises, and he definitely disagreed with them doing so. He had had a considerable number of letters on the subject, and all those who had approached him were definitely against the suggestion. He thought the consensus of opinion was very much against than for the proposal. He felt that the Corporation had no mandate or any right to put temptation in the way of the young people in that neighbourhood, nor did he think it would be in the best interests to make it a rendezvous for the young fellows on the Camp. He had had 35 years in temperance work, and he wanted to appeal to those who had no strong feeling on the matter, and who had children of their own, to ask them whether they would like their own boy or girl frequenting that place at eleven o'clock at night when the lights were low. The Corporation should not put temptation into the lives of young people.

Councillor Bridgland, reading from a document regarding the letting of the Pavilion, said it stated that in the event of an application being made for the sale of intoxicating liquor the licence should be obtained by the Entertainments Manager. He would like to ask the Chairman of the Parks Committee if Councillor Saunders was not present when that was passed at the Parks Committee meeting, and if he was not present at the Council when it went through and he did not oppose it in any shape or form.

Councillor Saunders: That is a personal reflection on me.

The Chairman: Councillor Bridgland has asked a question, and that question has not been answered.

Councillor Saunders said he claimed the Committee's indulgence. He had a copy of that form before him, but it was the first time he had seen the form. He thought if they would look at the minutes of the meeting there was no question of any detailed statement as to what should be on the form.

The Town Clerk said if he remembered rightly it was that the own Clerk submitted draft conditions for the letting of the East Cliff Pavilion.

Councillor Saunders said he had no knowledge that it was part of the duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for a licence until his attention was drawn to the fact by Mr. Roden.

Councillor Bridgland said Councillor Saunders was at the meetings, and he had the opportunity to oppose it. Councillor Hughes had talked about the young people, and if he went to the Leas Cliff Hall he would see the young people there when it was nearly dark. Dancing went on when beer was being drunk there, and that was the first time Councillor Hughes had protested against it. He (the speaker) was strongly in favour of transferring the licence, so that any man with his wife could go into the Pavilion and have the refreshment they desired. They would be able to have that, not in a four-ale bar, but in congenial surroundings. They wanted to be consistent over that. People who were opposing that transfer would go to a dinner and order their bottle of wine, therefore showing they wished to say “I can have my bottle of wine, but you shall not have your glass of beer”.

Councillor Gadd said when he saw the minutes of the Parks Committee on that matter he rather automatically decided that he should turn the proposal down. Within an hour he was in conversation with a very close friend, and to his surprise he knew more about the matter than he. They discussed it, and he told him in all probability he should support the Parks Committee, but he was in a bit of doubt about it because he did feel he might not be doing what was right. He thought about it considerably afterwards, and he had to face up to the facts. That was what they had to do that morning. After he had faced up to the facts he came to the conclusion that given the opportunity he would have to support the Catering Sub-Committee. He realised what had made him unhappy about it. He had looked at the matter in this way. The question of the sale of alcoholic liquors was not for their decision. That was already decided by the powers who had it in their hands. The question of granting the transfer was not before them that morning. The whole question they had to decide was whether in view of the duty which they undertook to perform when they became members of that Council was they would without fear or favour consider all matters that came before them. They had built a Pavilion and the cost of any loss would have to be met from the General Rate fund. The sale of alcoholic liquors was only required for refreshment purposes.. They had not to look upon that from any biased point of view. Could they say they were dealing with all sections of the community if they called upon a section to pay for the cost or any possible loss when they denied a section of the refreshments to which they were entitled? If they decided against making the application, the effect of that was that they would say to a certain section of the community that they were people who were dissolute and not reliable – (Cries of “No”) – and not to be trusted to conduct themselves as a citizen should do inside the law. (Hear, hear) He could not get away from that fact. They had to deal impartially with all classes. The question was whether there should be a licence in that building or not was, he contended, a matter they had to leave to the Licensing Justices. He knew what he had said might cost a friendship of some years he valued very greatly, but as a representative of the public he had to support the making of the application.

Councillor Johnson said he had come to the conclusion that the licence was not necessary for the whole of the year. With their catering since September they had lost 45. The licence was to cost another 100 a year, and administration would cost them another 160. The licence might be necessary for four or six months, but it was not necessary in the winter months. He believed if they approached the golf players there would be not more than 40 percent in favour of the licence. If the residents in that neighbourhood were asked, two thirds would be against that licence, and the other third would not care whether they had it or not.

Councillor Kent said the Sub-Committee knew they were committed to buy the licence. In view of that it was their bounden duty to make the best use of it. It had been stated that morning that in all probability at some time they would have to apply for a new licence for that building, and that would be a very difficult thing to get. The Pavilion was a general utility building to supply all kinds of refreshments. He submitted intoxicating drinks in moderation was a reasonable kind of refreshment. Much had been said about the abuse of licences. Licences were not abused. Evidence from all over the country showed that the percentage of drunkenness throughout the whole of the country was brought down to the lowest possible degree. The reason for that was that the licences were not abused. Probably 20 years ago he would have been opposed to that licence, although he had been in the licensed trade for a number of years. The cost of intoxicating liquor was one reason why it was not abused. The other reason was that intoxicating liquor was of very much reduced strength to what it was 20 years ago. Brewers today were brewing light beers and very light beers (laughter) which were reasonable and quite good refreshment. Education had certainly played a wonderful part and the hours of opening had been reduced considerably. Cinemas had also taken people away from the public houses. To say that licences were abused was absolutely wrong. As Councillor Gadd had already said, it was a direct insult to the community at large to say they could not be trusted with a licence. They were not creating a new licence, but they were taking away a licence in a redundant neighbourhood and placing it where it would provide facilities for the public. He was not going to say they were going to make a huge profit, but it was really only for accommodation. No less than 150,000 games of golf had been played up to last summer on East Cliff, and that was evidence that a very large section of the public used that particular part of the cliffs, and they were entitled to refreshments of that description if they so desired it. The Pavilion was on a police beat, and no extra cost would be entailed in policing it. There was no reason why the Pavilion should not be properly controlled. It was understood that they would have one nice bar and proper service in the main building, the restaurant, so that it could be conducted on first class lines. If the Council refused to make that application they were not doing their duty to the community.

Alderman Stainer said it was only on Friday in the previous week, when an application was made to the Magistrates for an occasional licence, that he realised there was any suggestion on the part of anyone in the Corporation that the Pavilion should become a licensed house. He was so astonished when the Entertainments Manager appeared before the Magistrates and asked for a licence that he went off to the Town Clerk to enquire whether the Council had ever authorised the use of the East Cliff Pavilion as a licensed house. In doing so the Corporation minutes came into his hands, and he found what had been taking place in the Parks Committee. He saw the Committee turned down the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee. He was very sorry to find that in October last that thing was authorised by the Corporation. He maintained that that authority was obtained without the members of the Corporation realising what was involved. He looked up the minutes, and on October 3rd he found the only reference that was put before the Corporation was as follows: “Conditions of letting. The Town Clerk submitted draft conditions of letting of the East Cliff Pavilion. Resolved that the same be approved”. He might be told there was his opportunity of finding out the conditions, but he maintained it was done in such a quiet and unobtrusive way that it got through the Corporation without the matter being given due consideration. He deplored the action. The licence of the Leas Cliff Hall was obtained in a similar manner. His opinion was that it was better for everyone to abstain from taking any drink at all. Other members did not agree with him. He was very sorry indeed to think that that matter, all in the space of a week, had been brought to the public; it had hardly yet got to the public. He thought if the Committee was wise, it would not take the step of passing the resolution.

Councillor Pope said he was going to support the resolution because they were going to transfer the licence to another place, where they were not going to create drunkenness.

The Chairman said with regard to the restrictions on the Leas Cliff Hall, he would like to say it was a full public hotel licence which belonged to the Rose Hotel. The Corporation desired a stipulation put upon that by the Magistrates. He did not suggest the two buildings were not comparable.

Councillor Hart said a great many things had been said for and against the resolution. A great many arguments had been used and facts given, which were not true, against the trade in which he was engaged. Had the Council considered the vested interests that were likely to come forward? No-one had said anything about that. If a brewer's firm, as had happened in a town in close proximity, liked they could get a full licence in that neighbourhood by the removal of a full licence from an obscure neighbourhood. They might say it could not happen on the East Cliff. Well, there was nothing to prevent it. Licensing Justices encouraged the improvement of premises. “I am only an off licence holder”, he added, “but if you hear some of the remarks made to me when people on East Cliff come in and ask for a drink, you would be surprised. I will tell some of them if you like. (Cries of “Don't”) Well they complain most bitterly.

The Town Clerk, asked for the resolution, said it was to the effect that when the Packet Boat Inn had been purchased by the Corporation they should take the necessary steps to apply to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

Councillor Saunders: A full public house licence?

Councillor Hart: Yes, unless you put some restrictions on it.

Alderman Hollands said he would suggest, and hoped, that there would be a proviso preventing drink being served for consumption off the premises.

The resolution was then put, and the voting was as follows: For, 17; Against, 10.

The Chairman said the resolution was carried.

 

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.

Editorial.

Few questions of public policy in recent years have caused such keen divergence of opinion amongst the whole of the townspeople as has the proposal of the Folkestone Town Council to apply to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Packet Boat Inn is within the Radnor Street Clearance Area, and the Council will acquire the licence of this house. The licence, of course, is a very valuable thing m these days, and the Town Clerk quite rightly reported the fact that this licence would eventually become the property of the Corporation.

The proposal to transfer the licence to the Cast Cliff Pavilion was approved by 17 votes to 10 at a meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Town Council on Tuesday. Their opinion will certainly not meet with the approval of a large number of ratepayers, but on the other hand there are a considerable number of people living in the vicinity of the East Cliff who regard the licence as a necessity, particularly during the summer months. With the object of obtaining the views of our readers upon the matter, there appears on page 20 of this issue a form which readers are asked to fill up. The reply is asked to two simple questions, as follows: "I am in favour of the Corporation applying for the transfer of the licence”, and “I am not in favour of the Corporation applying for the transfer of the licence”.

It is hoped that our readers will show their interest in this most difficult problem by responding to our request for the forms to be forwarded to us, at the latest, by February 27th. By this means we hope to give the members of the Town Council, through our columns, some indication of the weight of opinion for or against the proposal.

In view of this request to our readers, we do not propose to make any further comment at present upon the proposed transfer of the licence. We desire, if possible, that the opinions expressed by our readers shall be unbiased, and we do not wish to be open to the charge that we have in any way persuaded them in their decision. It should be borne in mind that this matter not only affects the East Cliff, but it is a public question in which the whole of the town is concerned, for the East Cliff Pavilion does not belong only to the residents in that area. The question of the transfer of the licence is a matter for the whole of the town, since the Pavilion was built by money supplied by the whole of the ratepayers, and it is they who, in the eventuality of a deficit occurring upon the running of this Pavilion, will foot the bill. Once again, therefore, we appeal most earnestly to our readers to take an interest in this matter, and especially to fill in the form which appears at the top left-hand comer of page 20. The form has been placed in this position so that its removal from the paper will cause the least inconvenience to our readers.

 

Folkestone Express 23 February 1935.

Editorial.

The recommendation of the members of the Town Council to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which the Corporation has to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to the East Cliff Pavilion, has been a topic of much discussion during the past week, and a good deal of resentment has been aroused against the action of a contemporary in trying to get people to vote “Yea” or “Nay” concerning the matter. In announcing their suggestion, our contemporary stated last Saturday “We desire, if possible, that the opinions expressed by our readers shall be unbiased, and we do not wish to be open to the charge that we have in any way persuaded them as to their decision”. Just see how our contemporary wishes that its readers shall be unbiased. On February 9th, in writing on this matter, the leader was headed “An Unnecessary Licence”. In the course of this, apparently the same writer who wishes his readers shall be unbiased, wrote “We hope that there will be a unanimous decision at this meeting of the General Purposes Committee not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable. In our opinion it is entirely unnecessary for a licence to be obtained for this building”. In view of such statements, of which the majority of the members of the General Purposes Committee took but little notice, can our contemporary say that it has not endeavoured in any way to persuade people in making a decision on the matter? It has already shown that it is biased on the matter, and it is endeavouring to bolster up the opinions expressed in its columns by a method of voting which could and will not, I venture to suggest, have the slightest weight with those in authority, whether the figures be in favour of the transfer or not. No fair indication could be obtained of the people's opinions in such a manner. But there is a touch of comedy in connection with this matter, for even with those who have the controlling interests in our contemporary there seems to be a diversity of opinion. A member of the firm, speaking at the annual dinner of the Master Bakers' Association, in proposing the toast of the Association in the absence of the Mayor, said “Deputising for the Mayor, it is only proper that I should outline the policy I should adopt as Mayor. It would include the purchase of the foreshore, licensed premises on the East Leas”. There is, I think, no need to pursue the matter much further, except to say that our contemporary opposed the building of the East Cliff Pavilion as it now stands, and had the Council followed the advice it offered when the scheme was first submitted to the Council, the building which now adorns the East Leas would not have been erected. The members of the Council paid but little regard to the criticisms of our contemporary on that occasion. They had what our contemporary then lacked, a true vision of what was needed on the East Cliff.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 February 1935.

Editorial.

The small fry of the Folkestone Press are squealing their hardest and loudest over the action of the “Folkestone Herald” in taking a vote of its readers upon the question of the East Cliff Pavilion. The squeal, alas, is but a dismal wail for, of course, the opinions of these smaller fry are almost negligible. They could be completely ignored but for the fact that they contain some foolish statements. It is said that there is some resentment in the town because the “Folkestone Herald” is taking a vote of its readers upon the question of the East Cliff Pavilion licence. We have not met it, and we think it exists only in the imaginations of those who themselves resent a little enterprise of which they are not capable. The “Folkestone Herald” has every possible right to take a vote from its readers if it desires to do so, and the response which we have had to the request for opinions of our readers upon the Corporation’s proposal to transfer the licence of the “Packet Boat” Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion is sufficient indication to us that far from there being any resentment, except perhaps on the part of the interested parties, there is general approval of our action. Very rarely do we make it a custom to refer to anything which these small fry of the local Press see fit to state. We are far more concerned in making our own business our own. We suggest that if some of those who spend their time in endeavouring to criticise the “Folkestone Herald” gave more attention to their own businesses, they would possibly be more successful than they are at present. We do not regret for one moment any action we have taken upon the question of the East Cliff Pavilion licence, and the last thing we should dream of doing would oe to take more than passing notice of some of the nonsense we have seen published this week. We stand entirely by our action, and whatever may be the result of the vote we have taken, will be made public property in a manner which we hope will meet with the approval of the whole of the townspeople. Fortunately the “Folkestone Herald” has more than 12,000 readers to which to appeal. We venture to think that some of those who so freely criticise us would be glad to be In a similar position. Maybe they lack that enterprise which alone will bring a newspaper to the forefront in any town, and if their opinions do not receive the seriousness or the consideration which they may deem they merit, it is possibly due to the fact that they are over anxious about other papers and not perhaps sufficiently anxious about their own.

 

Folkestone Express 2 March 1935.

Editorial.

Last week we referred to the proposal of the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council to apply for the licence associated with the Packet Boat Inn, which the town has to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. In doing so, we commented on the fact that our contemporary was endeavouring to take a vote upon the subject in order to bolster up its opposition, strongly expressed in its columns on February 9th, a date previous to the meeting of the members of the Council. Our contemporary stated “We hope that there will be a unanimous decision not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable”. The members of the Council, however, decided to proceed with the proposal, therefore they clearly indicated that they did not have any regard of our contemporary's opinion. Following our comments on Friday last week, our contemporary devotes a leader to our attitude. This leader was headed “A Dismal Wail”, and surely never did a heading more aptly describe what followed, for it was the dismal wail of a writer who could not answer the plain statement of fact contained in our note on the subject: In fact no effort was made to deal with the subject, but it was a tirade against the Express, and showed that we had, to use a vulgarism, completely rattled our contemporary. There is a saying in certain legal quarters, not those associated with the highest traditions of the Bar – that when counsel knows he has a poor case and is losing, then his only hope is to abuse and try to sling mud at his opponent. Our contemporary, by its article, shows that it is well versed in such tactics. We are classed as small fry and it was suggested that we had no right to express an opinion on a subject, which is quite an important one in municipal affairs. We do not want advice, nor do we seek it, from our contemporary, but we would point out to it that it is asking even the smallest ratepayer to vote, therefore it is hoping to get support for its views from “small fry”. We do not doubt that they will even accept votes from Boy Scouts and Girl Guides if they wish to record them, but the voting will not have the slightest effect, we are sure, on the members of the Council. Our contemporary tries to make a point that our opinions do not receive consideration. We can quote many instances of where the opinions of our contemporary were disregarded by those in authority, as was the case when the matter of the licence came before the members of the Council. Two might be mentioned. Our contemporary opposed the building of the Leas Cliff Hall, and also the building of the present East Cliff Pavilion. The Express advocated both buildings being erected. These two halls are now amongst the chief amenities of Folkestone. Our contemporary described us as small fry, so we might well suppose that it considers itself “the big fish”, and, in that event, it's last week's leader should have been headed “A Dismal Whale”.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 March 1935.

Editorial.

The result of the ballot made by the “Folkestone Herald” on the proposal of the Corporation to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, in the Radnor Street area, to the East Cliff Pavilion, shows a majority of 48 against the Corporation’s proposed application. A total of 408 papers were sent in, of which four were disqualified.

The voting was: For: 226 votes. Against: 178 votes.

The response to the invitation to vote would suggest that the majority of the townspeople have little interest in the matter, but the reason for the small poll can probably be attributed to large numbers of ratepayers not taking the trouble to cast a vote one way or the other.

Amongst the “Noes” there were three papers from Hythe, whilst Cheriton sent in 10 and Sandgate three. Four clergymen were amongst the opponents. An analysis of the papers of those against the proposal shows that at least 75 per cent were from parts of the town other than the East and Harbour Wards. On the other hand quite a good number of those in favour of a licence reside in the East Cliff district. One of the papers received in favour of the licence came from a seaman serving on a British battleship at Malta. Four papers were sent in signed but without the cross and they were disqualified.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday confirmed the decision of the General Purposes Committee to make application to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, when it is taken over by the Corporation. Not only was the majority obtained in Committee maintained, but it was more decisive than on the previous occasion. In the discussion on the matter it was made quite clear by those in support of the application for the transfer that it was not intended the Pavilion should have what is generally known as a public house licence. A member of the deputation of the clergy in his speech referred to cafes on the Continent, and it on that principle that the Committee entrusted with the East Cliff Pavilion should consider the matter. No-one in Folkestone wants to turn the Pavilion into a public house, and there would be considerable opposition to that being done, and the Committee should be as strong as anyone on that point. There is very little doubt that they will ask for restrictions to be imposed, and the Folkestone Corporation should be able to show that they can manage licensed premises equally as well as other Corporations who have similar places under their charge.

Council Meeting.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Town Council confirmed the resolution passed by the General Purposes Committee two weeks ago that they should make application that the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which they have to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion, by a great majority than in the Committee, 22 members voting for it, against 11.

A deputation of clergy and ministers placed their views before the Council, the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, the Rev. J.A. Middleton, and the Rev. C.H. Scott being the speakers.

Councillor Saunders asked for permission to introduce the deputation and to present a memorial in connection with the matter.

Alderman Gurr moved, and Councillor Bridgland seconded, that such permission should be granted, and the resolution was carried unanimously.

Councillor Saunders, in introducing the deputation, read the memorial which they had come to support, and which was as follows:- “Memorial presented to the Town Council of Folkestone by representatives of the Christian Churches in Folkestone with reference to the proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. 1: The deputation, which the Council are asked to receive represents practically the whole of the Christian Churches in Folkestone. We respectfully urge you, before you come to any final decision, to bear in mind that the question of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion has not been submitted to the ratepayers, and the Council has no authority from the ratepayers to apply for the transfer of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. 2: The Corporation golf course, tea house, etc., is a distinct attraction to the neighbourhood. We are convinced, however, that the sale of liquors is not likely to be a desirable attraction. 3: We are convinced that the business of a licensed victualler is one that the Corporation, with all its many activities, can well leave to the responsibility of the individual. 4: We suggest that the Corporation should surrender the licence on the ground of redundancy in the Radnor Street area – as in the rebuilt area the resident population will have seriously decreased through curtailment of housing accommodation. In the area there are still three public houses, so it cannot be argued that this one is necessary”.

The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden said he first wished to express his thanks to the Mayor and the members of the Council for their willingness to receive that deputation. They were all pleased to see the Mayor in the chair and glad to know he was restored to health and fully recovered from his illness. The deputation represented a large section of the community of Folkestone. They did not consider themselves as being the only religious denominations, but they represented many denominations – he thought all the denominations, he hoped. First of all, he wished to say they objected to the transference of a licence to a place where it was not really required or desired by the neighbourhood. He had some justification for saying that. He knew there had been a canvass, as far as he could gather, of the immediate neighbourhood of the Pavilion, but he thought that the people would not be in favour of having a licensed house there as they would consider it somewhat detrimental to the neighbourhood. Secondly, there weighed with them that it was proposed to transfer a licence to a place which might lose very much of its attractiveness if it was done. The Pavilion was an extraordinary place. He was speaking of his own personal delight. They could go up to the headland there and have before them the sea, the sky, and that grand headland. It would be a thousand pities if anything were done to detract from that glorious spot. He thought if he were to take a visitor to any part of Folkestone where they would have an appreciation of what Folkestone stood for, and for seeing something they could enjoy, he would as soon take him to that place as any. Might he say one word of compliment to those who had designed that most attractive building which had been placed there. It seemed to him it was just the kind of building to attract everyone there and enhance its amenities. In a growing residential district, they knew how extraordinarily fast building had been going on there, and it was essential that they should not have any influence that might become detrimental to its character, or in any sort of a way might prove an annoyance such, as he might say, a fully licensed house might become. Having said that, might he go a step further and say it seemed to them no sufficient reason had yet been given to the public to justify the transference of the licence. So they would ask the Council to consider that matter seriously. They knew the Council had a licence on its hands. That was no ground for the transference of that licence to an unsuitable site. They did ask the Council to allow that to weight with them and that they should lose whatever it might be if it might be detrimental to Folkestone. He would go a point further. Supposing they said they had decided on that matter having thought it well over, he would ask them to say that what they stated would have some weight with them. If the Council felt that that licensed house was really needed they should see that the management would be under other management than that of the Corporation itself, and then they would have some guarantee that the public authority was on the side of the public, and the public would have a guarantee that whoever was the licensee would have an inspector or an authority over them that would ensure right and sound management of the licensed house. His brethren might not agree with what he was now going to say. He had lived a good deal abroad – in Italy, Germany, and France – and it had always seemed to him one of the great attractions was the fact that they had ordinary cafes. They might say their climate was against such cafes, but what had struck him most about them was that people could go to those places, and inside or outside have their lager beer or whatever it was. Supposing the Council were determined in proceeding, he would ask that it would be a beer licence for that place. That was his own opinion and not an outside opinion. He trusted they would allow those circumstances he had mentioned to weigh with them before a final decision was reached.

The Rev. J.A. Middleton said he would like to associate himself with the remarks made by the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, and to apologise, in particular, for the absence of Dr. Carlile, who would have been there but for an engagement in town. He had been asked to speak on behalf of the Free Churches in particular, and to say that they agreed almost entirely with the remarks made by Canon Holden. There were just one or two pints he would like to stress. The occasion for seeking a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion seemed to have arisen from that licence in the Radnor Street area being surrendered or being bought. He supposed they would not have considered a new licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. It seemed as though the fact that they had had to buy that licence had led them to ask that it should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion, and the hope at the back of it was that they should gain revenue. It seemed to him a rather poor motive for urging that that licence was required. The other point he would stress was that it was an unfortunate thing in his judgement, and also in that of his friends, that a licence should be in the name of the Corporation, because there could not be just the same oversight as there would be in the case of a private licensee, because their officials were somewhat hampered in giving that attention and perhaps in making complaints in a way that they would not obtain if the licence was in private hands. The other point he would urge was that they were representing a large body of churchgoing people in Folkestone who participated unwillingly in the management of licensed premises and very strongly did they object to a licence being taken out by that Corporation.

The Rev. C.H. Scott said he was not in any way opposing the legitimate drinking facilities to any class of the community. Not only representing the people as he did, but as a resident in the East Ward, he protested against the transfer of the licence to the Pavilion. They did not want an ordinary public house at that spot. He asked the Council to consider their neighbours and to ask themselves conscientiously, if they lived up there, would they welcome that licence?

Councillor Pope said reference had been made to having a licensed house there. He would like to know if the deputation thought it would be an advantage to have a public house up there if they did not have that licence transferred.

The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden: Personally I should prefer that.

Councillor Bridgland said he would like to know if the deputation had heard or seen anything recently at the Leas Cliff Hall to which they could object.

The Vicar: I cannot answer that. It is the general security to which we refer. The public would be more satisfied if the licence holder were under the observation and the care and control of the Council rather than the Council taking the licence.

Alderman King-Turner was proceeding to speak when members interrupted.

The Mayor suggested to him that it was not the time to voice his views; he should only ask questions.

Councillor Mackie asked whether the clergymen present were expressing their own views or had they taken any vote in their congregations on the matter at all?

The Vicar said he had taken a considerable measure of views in the Parish Church, and he found a large number were opposed to that particular transfer. He could only speak for them.

Councillor Kent: Are the people residents of the East Cliff or other parts of the town?

The Vicar: Some are residents of the district. One was a newcomer and he said he did not know that he should have come had he known there was to be a licence there.

Alderman Franks said there was one point which should be made perfectly clear to the deputation. It arose from the remarks of one speaker. It should be made clear once and for all the Folkestone Town Council was not the Police Authority. The Watch Committee were the statutory authority. The other point was that they were not transferring a licence that morning. They made the application, if the Council so decided, to the proper statutory independent authority, quite independent of Folkestone. An outside Bench will have to consider it.

Alderman Hollands: I should like to ask whether he would not think it would be a better place to have a nice glass of beer in the Pavilion than in the old Packet Boat? Surely it would not be better in the Packet Boat?

The Vicar: I say so.

The Mayor said he wished to thank the deputation for the very moderate and reasoned way they had stated their case. They might rely on the Council that what they had said would receive the utmost consideration from the members.

The Town Clerk said there were four communications. One was from the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club, and was as follows:- “Dear Sirs, At the annual general meeting of the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club held on the 21st February, I was instructed to convey to your Council this expression of our members' appreciation of the facilities afforded us by the East Cliff Pavilion. At our last home match of 1934 we availed ourselves of the first possible opportunity of using the Pavilion and were completely satisfied by the quality of the refreshments and by the courtesy and excellent service given to us. I have also to express our gratification that the General Purposes Committee have recommended by 17 votes to ten the granting of a licence to the Pavilion. If this recommendation is approved we shall be eager to avail ourselves of the opportunity or returning to our visiting clubs in an establishment under the control of the Council the hospitality shown to us when we are “away”. Yours faithfully, V.W. Hillier, Hon. Secretary”.

The next communication was from Mr. R.G. Hook, of East Lea, Wear Bay Crescent. It was as follows:- “Dear Sir, As a resident and owner of property on the East Cliff, I strongly object to the proposed transfer of a licence to sell intoxicating liquor at the East Cliff Pavilion. I consider the facilities for drinking are quite sufficient in Folkestone generally and it would be wise to leave this part free to those who can appreciate beauty without needing stimulants”.

The next letter was from Mr. Hugh H. Chapman, who wrote from Croydon: “51, Windmill Road, W. Croydon, Surrey. Dear Sir, As a great lover of Folkestone, and a regular holiday-keeper in your neighbourhood, I have been following with great interest the report in the local press of the discussions over the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. I cannot understand anyone opposing this suggestion who looks squarely at the position. Most of the summer holidaymakers use the sands beyond the Fishmarket, and are at once isolated from the amenities which should be theirs. There is absolutely nowhere where one can take a lady for alcoholic refreshment without going back into the town. To close one of those horrible little beer houses should be in itself an asset and to open a modern refreshment bar should prove a great step forward and a definite boon to users of the East Cliff. Surely it is not a retrograde step to follow the present enlightened national movement to brighten public houses. The fact that the licence would be controlled by the Council should be an added safeguard against any possible abuse of alcohol. Personally I do not think we have any need to worry about our young folks as they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. I certainly hope that Folkestone will allow this wonderful opportunity to add to the amenities of what is, in my opinion, the finest South Coast resort. I am, faithfully yours, Hugh S. Chapman”.

Then there was the following petition: “We, the undersigned ratepayers and owners of property in the immediate vicinity of the East Cliff Pavilion, cordially support the action of the majority of the members of the Council at their General Purposes Committee meeting, in recommending the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the above Pavilion. A considerable number of your petitioners cater for visitors, and we know from their remarks how desirable they think it is that some arrangement should be made for the sale of intoxicating drink there, seeing that the nearest public house is practically half a mile away. Under all the circumstances we wish the proposal every success”.

The Town Clerk said the petition was signed by 127 tenants and 88 owners of property in the vicinity of the new Pavilion. A large number came from East Cliff, Dudley Road, Wear Bay Road, Wear Bay Crescent, Stanley Road, and Segrave Road.

Alderman Hollands: All immediately adjacent.

The Mayor said he recognised the signatures of well-known people on East Cliff on the petition.

Councillor Kent: two signatures have not been taken from one house.

Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment “That paragraph 21 in the minutes be not approved, and upon the acquisition of the Packet Boat Inn the licence in respect thereof be dealt with in accordance with Section 14 (2) of the Housing Act, 1930”. He said that meant, in plain language, that they should make an application to the Compensation Authority to assess the compensation value, if any, of that licence. It seemed to him that that was not a question so much as whether people in Warren Road, Thanet Gardens, or Hasborough Road – (Councillor Hart: Or Sandgate Road) – are in favour of a licence, but it was a question of whether they, as a public body, were engaging in an undertaking of such a nature was of public benefit. Councillor Bridgland put a question to the deputation when it was in the Council Chamber a few minutes ago. He (Councillor Saunders) was going to say quite unhesitatingly and with the knowledge and responsibility that in his opinion the licence was a matter that was best left to the control of the individual owner. (Cries of “Hear, hear”) He said that because he had had something to do with trying to direct the control. (Alderman Hollands: You made a mess of it)

Councillor Saunders: If Alderman Hollands had taken as much interest in the Leas Cliff Hall as he has done in this matter, and if we had had the benefit of his knowledge and the wisdom he had imbibed in licensed premises, he would have added to our wisdom in the Leas Cliff Hall. Because of that lack of service to the community, some of us have been left to do what we thought best for the town. Proceeding, he said he was convinced they were putting something forward that could be best left alone, which would give the opportunity to the young people, and he spoke with some knowledge of young people, having been the happy father of six, that they could best leave alone and best keep out of their way the consumption of alcoholic beverages. He was not a teetotaller, but he did hold that opinion very strongly because of what he saw and what he knew, if they, as a local authority, should do something of which in after years they would not be very proud. He suggested if that licence was to be there and was a huge success financially it would be something they would not be proud of because it would lead to a good deal of drinking and conduct which they would not be proud of as a local authority. If it was not a financial success and became something of which they would not be proud, it was going to be a considerable financial loss to the Corporation. He suggested they should weigh the matter up very carefully and each of them give a vote as their conscience guided them, not as they may have certain friends expecting them to vote, but in the real and best interests of the borough.

Alderman Stainer seconded the resolution.

Alderman Gurr asked what was the proposal made under the Housing Act for surrendering the licence and what they got for it.

Councillor Saunders said the Town Clerk, at the meeting of the General Purposes Committee, said they had the option of offering that licence for a valuation. When they referred it to the Compensation Authority they might put a value on it and they might not. It would mean another thousand or two to the Radnor Street scheme. A thousand or two on the Radnor Street scheme in comparison with the harm they were going to do on the East Cliff did not matter.

Alderman Gurr wanted to know what it meant.

The Mayor: It means referring it to the Compensation Authority for compensation.

Alderman Stainer said he would like the Corporation to look at that question not from the point of view of finance only. They must take a more grave line than that of possible return on their money. The Council were the custodians of the good government of the borough in which they lived. The way they treated the public, the facilities they gave them for good life or otherwise, were the governing factors that ought to influence them in what they did. It was quite a secondary matter whather they got any return for their money or not, but it was much more important to him that the borough authority should be engaged in the liquor trade. He was sure the views of the deputation, as put forward by Mr. Middleton, were quite in keeping with the sentiments of a vast number of people in the borough that they did not wish to be associated with the sale of intoxicating drink. The question of the loss on the licence had been discussed, but the value of the conduct of the public was vastly more important than the value of the licence. He would be quite willing for the value of that public house to be reckoned in the cost of the clearance of Radnor Street rather than it be transferred to any other part of the borough. Some people said that the enjoyment of the East Cliff and the enjoyment of sports up there would be enhanced by the sale of intoxicating liquor to the people who went up there. His life was beginning to be a long one, and he would like to say emphatically that his experience was that the enjoyments of life were enhanced more by restraint and complete abstinence from intoxicating drink. He thought they could not give better pleasure to the public by being retailers of intoxicating liquor, which, in his opinion, and that of many other people, curtailed the enjoyment of life rather than enhanced it. He was sure the Corporation would do well if they looked at that thing from an idealistic point of view rather than a point of view of finance. He had great pleasure in seconding the amendment, not from the point of view whether they were going to lose any money, but for the good of the public. He had been Chairman of the After-School Welfare, and it would be a lamentable thing if he was the first one to introduce to the young life of the borough the habit of taking intoxicating drink. If the Corporation undertook that, the Corporation could not have clean hands in the matter of such an important thing as the lives of the young people.

Councillor Chittenden said he should like to support Councillor Saunders. He was in much the same position as he was, and had six children of his own, and he should have more confidence in them if there was not a licence than if there was a licence. He was there to represent his opinion and his conviction of what was best for the young people of Folkestone and the coming generation of Folkestone. He also thought he would not be doing his duty if he did not vote against those arrangements for the transfer of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It differed from the Leas Cliff Hall in that they did not have control of the licence up there as they did at the Leas Cliff Hall. Councillor Saunders said it was not to the advantage of the young people up there that they should have that licence. The licence at the East Cliff was going to be exactly like an ordinary public house, and the facilities for drinking would be greater. If anyone asked to put up an ordinary public house on the East Cliff it would not be granted, and it was only now the Corporation had thought anything about it.

Councillor Lillie said it was imperative he should say something from the point of view of the Health Committee. It was their money, and he was rather against the point of view that he had heard, and was rather aghast at some of the expressions to which he had listened. The money to which he referred was that which they would have to pay for the purchase of the licence. Canon Hyla Holden said they should let that go. Councillor Saunders said he would sooner see another 2,000 put on the Radnor Street clearance scheme. The re-housing scheme was a philanthropic movement and as worthy a one as the fight against intemperance. He thought that they were being pushed out in the cold and forgotten in that matter. If they increased the cost of the Radnor Street clearance scheme it was obvious that housing scheme would be curtailed. They disliked very much to see the cost of the clearance scheme being increased in that way. The re-housing was a necessary thing, and it was as essential from the moral, health, and spiritual point of view as was temperance. The Council was in danger of losing its balance and its perspective. It was unfortunate that two philanthropic movements like that should be in competition with each other, but he was sure he must say those temperance people, however reasonably temperate they might be in their actions, were quite definitely stepping over the mark. They were getting up a petition trying to get people to sign a paper and authorising a London solicitor to appear on their behalf before the Justices of the Peace when they were considering the removals of the Jubilee Inn, Oddfellows Arms, and Ship Inn. What had that to do with that question? If they succeeded in that it would simply wreck the Radnor Street scheme. It was a wrecking movement. Why should they do that sort of thing? There was not the slightest chance of them succeeding. They were hostile to the Committee and they were unreasonable people. As long as they worked for the suppression of drunkenness he took his hat off to them, but they seemed to be unable to keep within the lines. They were becoming prohibitionists and it was filling him with horror. There were many licensed victuallers who were doing a great deal more to prevent drunkenness than many people in the temperance movement. They had seen some of the greatest disasters in the history of the world due to those meritorious virtue movements running to extremes. They would not get within the lines.

Alderman King-Turner said he hoped the Council would give a good majority on favour of the licence. He had lived in that neighbourhood for many years and it seemed to him that anything for the East Ward always seemed to have such a hard struggle to get through. The boarding and lodging house people were having a very hard time and why should not they have the same facilities there as they had in the west end? They were entitled to them. He wanted everyone to be open and broadminded. In those days they had got to be. A good many statements which he had in his pocket had been sent to him in letters, that he had been sanctioning couples sitting out there on the East Cliff. They would not be allowed to drink out there. They had thousands of visitors up there, and the cry was “We wish we had a place for a quiet drink”. They were entitled to some of the privileges they had in the west end.

Th Mayor said the matter would come before the Licensing Justices, who would place restrictions on the licence.

Councillor Saunders: You have to ask for restrictions.

Councillor Barfoot: Is this a full public house licence with facilities both inside and outside the building?

The Town Clerk: I have not seen the licence, but I understand it is a full licence, on and off.

Councillor Fletcher: They could go there and take drink away?

Councillor Kent: It is for us to decide whether it should be an off licence.

Councillor Barfoot: If this licence is granted you will, when applying, as for restrictions? That is my point.

Councillor Hart: Yes.

Councillor Barfoot said: “I have read the newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Council when I was absent, and when I saw the names of those who voted for Alderman Hollands' resolution I was amazed. For many years it has been one of the principles of the Socialist Party to municipalise public houses. It is surprising to see other members of the Council dancing to the tune of the Socialists and voting for extending municipal trading in drink. Reading the speeches of our Socialist colleagues, it is seen that they are not very consistent. My friend, Mr. Gadd, for apart from his politics I esteem him highly, is anxious to put the onus of transferring the licence on the Magistrates. He must know he cannot shirk his responsibility in this way. He, like the rest of the Council, is responsible for the effect of his vote today. Alderman Hollands is even more inconsistent. In his speech he stressed the point that the people should be trusted not to abuse the facilities for drinking. At the end of the proceedings he pointed out that there is a safeguard, as the licence is not an off licence, and he said “People would not be able to go to the Pavilion, buy a bottle of beer, and then take it out with them on to the cliff. He would strongly oppose anything of that sort”. How can he reconcile this with his previous plea that you can trust the people, none but himself knows. According to the worthy Alderman, people can be trusted to drink a bottle of beer inside a building, but they cannot be trusted to drink a bottle of beer under the vault of Heaven. The late Councillor Dallas Brett and I opposed the erection of the Pavilion because in our opinion it was too large and too expensive. It was never mentioned in the minutes of the Parks Committee or in the debates in the Council that the building was intended for the sale of intoxicating drinks. Alderman Franks told the Council the other day that it was always intended to sell intoxicating drinks in the Pavilion. The present and past Chairmen of the Parks Committee may think they were justified in not mentioning this interesting fact at the time, but it was not fair to the members of the Council. I remember distinctly the present Chairman of the Parks Committee telling the Council that the erection of a Pavilion was a business proposition, as it would pay. Evidently municipal finance is not one of his strong points, as last year the loss was 958; and with a drink licence this year the estimated loss is over 1,600. Have the supporters of this proposal have any idea what the licence will cost the Corporation? I think not. The Town Clerk told the Council that it was a full public house licence and the price asked for the building and the licence was 4,693. The licence is therefore worth 4,000. It would be better for the Council to surrender the licence and get the compensation money than to transfer it to the Pavilion, for the following reasons:- Alderman Hollands said he was opposed to drink being consumed off the premises. If this is the half-hearted way you are going to transact municipal trading in drink it can never pay. Last year, Johniie Walker gave an exhibition of the Test matches. Thousands of people went to that show, but according to Alderman Hollands you could not supply these people with drinks while they were watching the play. Do the municipal traders intend to abstain from doing a large trade of that sort in the future? Without you intend to do all the business that comes in your way during the summer, the Pavilion can never pay its way. Thousands of people come by motor buses during the summer. A large proportion go for a drink directly they arrive. Are you going to attract these customers? If you do attract them, respectable middle-class people will not use the Pavilion, or want to live in the neighbourhood. I am opposed to municipal trading, but specially municipal trading in drink. I am not a teetotaller, and I think it would be a mistake if people thought that this proposal was only opposed by teetotallers. One of my objections to the transfer of this licence is that it will depreciate the value of property in the neighbourhood. I believe I am the only member of the Council who has served on a local authority in another part of England, and also I am the only member of the Council who has seen, from close quarters, the growth of a town of 75,000 inhabitants into a great city containing a quarter of a million people. I know that no local authority, no syndicate, or private person, who were developing a residential district for the middle classes would allow a public house to be built. It is axiomatical that a licensed house in a middle class district depreciates the value of property. I oppose the resolution also because in the long run it will adversely affect the rateable value of property in the vicinity of the Pavilion. At the present time houses are being built and in a short time the revenue in the form of rates will be considerable. Why retard this increase in revenue or stop it altogether? Even if you make money out of the sale of drink you will lose ten times as much in the loss of rateable value in that district”.

Alderman Hollands described an interview he had had with a lady who called upon him asking him to sign a petition against the licence and who made allegations concerning the Leas Cliff Hall. Proceeding, he said he believed Councillor Saunders was speaking his own mind that morning.

Councillor Saunders: Are you making insinuations against me?

Alderman Hollands: My insinuations are as correct as yours.

Councillor Saunders: Mine were based on facts.

Alderman Hollands: It is my opinion you are not a free man this morning. When I go away I cannot afford to pay for a big lunch. If I drop into a place for a lunch I have a bit of bread and cheese, a pennyworth of pickles on a plate, and a pint of beer. That is a beautiful lunch. (Laughter) Alderman Stainer has spoken about intoxicating drink affecting the enjoyment, but as he says he has not tasted it how can he speak about it?

Councillor Kent said he had listened very carefully to everything that had been said that morning, but there had been nothing to cause him to alter his opinion. He welcomed the deputation because he thought they were entitled to express their views on behalf of the people they represented. He wanted to answer one or two points raised by the deputation and other speakers. One was that the question of the transfer had not been submitted to the ratepayers. Was the licence of the Leas Cliff Hall submitted to the ratepayers? It was dealt with by the Council in the same way. One point he took exception to, and that was that they were practically told that the Corporation could not be trusted with a licence, and that they were not in a position to control a licence. That was entirely wrong. It was a direct insult to the Council to say that they could not be trusted to control a licence. There were members who had been interested in licences for quite a number of years, and there was not one black spot against the conduct of those licences. It was said it would be far better in the hands of the Corporation. It was further stated that it would be an ordinary public house, but that was entirely in the hands of the Corporation to say, and also to say how they should conduct their business. A private individual was in a licensed house to get his living out of it, but they, as a Corporation, should not endeavour to transfer that licence for the purpose of making huge profits, but it should be purely a matter of providing facilities for both residents and visitors who used the Pavilion. The nearest licensed house was half a mile away. Then there was the question of vested interests to consider. It was possible, and highly probable, that something else would be done on East Cliff. There were certainly people who were waiting their opportunity, and their intention would be to build a large residential club, and it would be one of the best pubs in the district. If the Corporation had that licence up there they would probably prevent anything like that happening. They would agree that it would be far more dangerous than having a licence like that in the hands of the Corporation. He suggested that if they made the application for the transfer they could ask for one condition, and that was that it should be a licence to serve liquor to be consumed on the premises only, so that would prevent any danger of liquor being taken out. With regard to the petition in favour of the application being made, he could say it was really bona fide and one of the strongest that had ever been presented there. Every signature on it could be verified. He hoped the members would again vote for making the application.

The Mayor said there was not the slightest reason why the Council should not conduct equally as well as any individual a fully licensed house. They were looked upon as model employers, so surely they could see nothing should occur if the Licensing Magistrates granted a licence that could in the slightest degree be detrimental to the very best interests of the town. They were all concerned in the welfare of the town and he yielded to no-one with regard to the safeguards for young people. To suggest that such a licence was going to be the means of causing intemperance was a most intemperate statement to make. He had not the slightest doubt that if the application was made the Committee would ask for safeguards to be imposed.

The voting on the amendment resulted as follows: For, 11; Against, 22.

The recommendation of the General Purposes Committee was then approved.

Alderman Stainer said in the event of the Packet Boat licence being transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion he would like to know whether the Committee would take the necessary steps to curtail the licence to a degree that it should not be exercised as a full public house.

The Mayor: That is a matter for the Parks Committee to consider.

Councillor Kent: On behalf of the Committee, I can promise it will be taken into consideration.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Town Council, by a majority of 11, has decided to seek the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion, thereby taking an advantage of the slum clearance scheme which surely its originators had never intended. As we have said before, the mere accident of this clearance scheme, by which a licence has become available to the Corporation, has been used for the purpose of obtaining authority to seek the transfer of an intoxicating liquor licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

We maintain as definitely as we have held hitherto, and nothing we have heard or read in the past few weeks has altered our opinion, that a drink licence is wholly contrary to the very character of this building. It is turning a very beautiful pavilion into nothing more nor less than a public house, for whatever may be done in regard to restrictions, which the supporters of the licence seem uncommonly anxious to have imposed, this licence is simply an ordinary public house licence.

The beer which will be sold in this pavilion will be similar to that obtained in any public house. The conditions will be the same and no doubt the prices will also be the same. It is in fact nothing more nor less, as we have said, than turning a very beautiful pavilion into a public house, and we are absolutely convinced that there will be a great number of people who for the very reason that drink is being sold on these premises, will be very careful to keep away from them.


The obscurity of some of the arguments advanced for this licence is surely sufficient condemnation of it. If an ordinary public house licence is not sought for this pavilion, what is the use of it during the winter months? Residents can go to any public house and obtain drink as they will be able to do at the East Cliff Pavilion if the licence is transferred, even if restrictions are made which prevent the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises. We maintain that the Corporation has done a definite disservice to the community by seeking to make available in a building of very beautiful design and attractive appearance intoxicating liquor for those who normally would not require it. The East Cliff is used very largely by young people, and they do not normally require intoxicating liquor.

The Corporation is placing facilities into the hands of those young people to obtain drink, and we have little doubt that, certainly in the summer months, liquor will be supplied to many people because it is made available at the East Cliff Pavilion, and not because they necessarily require it. Those 22 members who have voted for this licence for the East Cliff Pavilion may take satisfaction to themselves that they will, in our opinion, spoil a building worthy of the town, and one which the “Folkestone Herald” strongly supported when the project for the erection, of the building was first mooted. As our readers know, we are not supporters of the teetotal element. We believe that a man who wants a glass of beer should have it - if he can afford to pay for it. We do not believe it is the duty of the Corporation to provide drinking facilities in a summer pavilion of this type, neither is it within their province to compete with the legitimate licensed victualler whose livelihood in the winter as well as the summer months depends upon the custom of residents.

 

Folkestone Express 29 June 1935.

Tuesday, June 25th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Mr. F. Seager.

Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks Superintendent of the Folkestone Corporation, was granted a protection order in respect of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, which it was stated had been purchased by the Corporation in connection with the slum clearance area in the district. The outgoing tenant was Mr. J. Sirrett.

Mr. Rutley Mowll made the application. He said he asked the Magistrates to grant a protection order to Mr. Roden, who was probably well known to the Magistrates. Mr. Sirrett was giving up possession that day. He made a formal application that the Magistrates would waive the condition with regard to the seven days' notice being given. The notice was given to the Police on Friday concerning the application and they offered no objection.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said there should be a seven days' notice, but a shorter notice might be taken by the Magistrates.

Inspector Pittock said the notice was served on the police on Friday.

The Chairman: There has been nothing sprung on the authorities?

The Clerk: No.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: It was the earliest possible moment after the purchase was completed.

The Chairman: Then the property has been bought by the Corporation. The purchase is completed and this is an application now in respect of the change of tenancy?

Mr. Rutley Mowll: That is so.

The Chairman said he did not think the Magistrates required any testimonials in respect of Mr. Roden. That was a protection order for which Mr. Mowll asked in order that an application could be made at the next transfer sessions.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: We shall ask for the full transfer to be completed on July 10th.

The Chairman said the Magistrates granted the protection order in the name of Mr. Roden.

The Magistrates also excused the attendance of Mr. Sirrett at the transfer sessions when the application for the transfer would be made.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 June 1935.

Local News.

A protection order in respect of the Packet Boat Inn, 59, Radnor Street was granted by Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday.

The property has been acquired by the Folkestone Corporation in connection with the Radnor Street Clearance scheme, and the protection order was applied for in the name of Mr. G.E Roden (Parks Superintendent).

Mr. R. G. Wood was in the chair, and the other Magistrates were Mr. F Seager and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said Mr. John Sirett was the outgoing tenant and Mr. G.E. Roden, the new tenant. The latter was probably well known to the Bench as the Parks Superintendent. Mr. Sirett was giving up possession, and it was now necessary for the licence to be in the name of Mr. Roden, on behalf of the Corporation. He therefore made formal application and also asked them to excuse the seven days’ notice. He believed notice was given last Friday to the Police and he understood they offered no objection.

Mr. R. G. Wood: I take it this property has been bought by the Corporation? - Yes.

The purchase is complete, and now it is a case of the Bench attending to the licence? - Yes.

This is a protection order you are asking for this morning in order to meet the next transfer sessions, and I take it then you will want a full transfer? - Yes.

The order was granted.

Mr. Mowll asked if the outgoing tenant would be excused attending on the full transfer as he was taking a licensed house elsewhere.

The Magistrates granted the request.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 13 July 1935.

Local News.

Seven Kent Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional Division on Wednesday sat at the Folkestone Police Court and heard the application of the Folkestone Town Council for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, held for the last fortnight by Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks Superintendent, to the East Cliff Pavilion, and to be in the name of Mr. Roden. There was considerable opposition, and the Magistrates, after considering their decision in private for close upon half an hour, announced that they granted the removal of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion on the understanding that all intoxicating liquors sold should be consumed on the premises as shown on the plan.

The Magistrates were Col. E.R. Wayland, Major J.G. Welch, Mr. J.J. Clayson, Col. D'Esterre, Mr. J. Cross, The Mayor of Hythe. And Judge Terrell, K.C.

Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared in support of the Corporation's application.

Opposition to the application came from Mr. B.H. Bonniface for the licensee in the immediate vicinity and the Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. P. Philcox, who represented the Folkestone Temperance Council, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile, representing the clergy and ministers and a number of ratepayers.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Roden, who had been granted protection to sell at the Packet Boat Inn by the Bench of Licensing Justices. The application was for a special removal of that licence as a fully licensed house to the East Cliff Pavilion, which was about 800 yards from the site of the Packet Boat Inn. The Corporation purchased the Packet Boat Inn and two adjoining cottages for 4,300, one of the properties included in the Folkestone Radnor Street No 1 Confirmation Order, 1934. As a matter of fact those premises actually formed part of a new road, so that it would absolutely necessary for them to be pulled down. The East Cliff Pavilion was built recently by the Corporation, and cost between 7,000 and 8,000 to erect. It was situate, as the Bench probably knew, on the East Cliff, and was a most beautiful building. The present construction was to be very little altered. There was a large refreshment hall, the centre of which was used also for dancing, and on the sea side of it were the premises that were going to be altered. That portion was at present used as a hat room and would be the bar. They would see the counter in it from the plan. A portion of the lavatory was going to be converted into a store. The public would have access there to the entrances shown on the side of the premises and as shown on the interior of the premises. The premises he was asking to be licensed were shown on the plan coloured pink.

The Corporation, having purchased the Packet Boat Inn for such a large sum of money, thought they ought to use it for the best advantage of the ratepayers, and therefore they were asking for that special removal under section 24 of the Licensing Act, 1910. The Magistrates had to consider two points. One was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person. They had already heard that the licence had been granted to Mr. Roden. He was the Parks Superintendent for the Borough, and one could hardly imagine a more suitable person to hold a licence. The second point was whether the premises were fit and convenient for the purpose under sub-section 4 of section 24, which dealt with the special removal of a licence.

He was going to ask them to insert a clause in regard to the licence, and that was that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises. The present licence was a full licence, and the licensee could sell on or off the premises. It was thought, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be better for that condition to be inserted, and he at once said the Corporation was only too willing for that to be done.

There were no licensed premises anywhere near those premises. The Packet Boat Inn was roughly 800 yards from the East Cliff Pavilion. The East Cliff Tavern was 700 yards away, the Lifeboat, North Street, 820 yards, the Jubilee, Radnor Street, 820 yards, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, 830 yards, the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, 870 yards, Royal Oak, North Street, 780 yards, the Raglan, Dover Road, 920 yards, the Martello, Dover Road, 930 yards, the Railway Tavern, Dover Road, 1,020 yards, and the Swan, Dover Road, 1,080 yards. The nearest licensed premises to those premises was thus the East Cliff Tavern, which was 700 yards away. He did not know whether the Bench were acquainted with the premises. They were in a part of the town that had recently been developed. People in the season went there in thousands; there was a large stretch of sand nearby. Very great inconvenience had been suffered in the past by people not being able to get any reasonable refreshment. He asked that they would grant the application subject to that condition.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, said the Packet Boat was one of the properties in the Order, and there were three other licensed premises in the area, and the Corporation acquired the Packet Boat compulsorily. They gave for the Packet Boat Inn and two adjoining cottages 4,300 as the compensation. A very considerable part of that figure represented the value of the licence. The premises known as the Packet Boat Inn were to be pulled down under the Housing Act for public purposes. It was in the view of the Corporation that they would be lacking in their public duty if they did not make the fullest use of the licence, and they came to the conclusion that it should be removed to the East Cliff Pavilion. They had a licence in regard to the Leas Cliff Hall subject to special conditions. The East Cliff Pavilion was situated on the East Cliff and was erected at a cost of between seven and eight thousand pounds. It was replete with every comfort for persons requiring alcoholic refreshment. It had been found that there was a considerable drawback, particularly in regard to luncheons, when people found they could not have intoxicating liquors. There had been many complaints and enquiries. In a place like Folkestone it was rather an anomaly that a hall like that should not have the opportunity to provide the public with alcoholic refreshments. Mr. Roden, who was the Parks Superintendent, would be the actual licensee, therefore the whole licence would be under the eye of the Corporation. In his view there was a real need for such a licence.

Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining: I think in the first place the pavilion was built with no idea of having a licence?

Mr. Nicholson: I should not agree to that. It was known when the hall was being built that these licences were likely to be acquired. At that time it was thought there would be four licences.

When it was built there was no idea of applying for a licence for it? – No, sir.

Was it not said so by members of the Council? – They might have said so.

Was it ever taken into consideration by the Council when the hall was being built that it would be necessary to apply for a new licence? – I do not think the Corporation would have ever considered applying for a new licence.

Because of the impossibility of getting one? – No, because of the monopoly value.

Did you advise the Council in your opinion it would be impossible to obtain a new licence? – I probably did, and I still hold that opinion.

And, of course, by getting this licence removed it means that the Council will save monopoly value? –Certainly.

You would have had to pay for the licence of these premises in any event? – Yes.

It is simply a matter, because they had got to pay for that, the Corporation thought they would take advantage of it? – Yes.

There was another course which might have been taken? It might have been surrendered? – Yes.

Or it might have been sold to another person? – Yes.

And that person could have come and applied for the transfer? – Yes.

In answer to further questions from Mr. Bonniface, the Town Clerk said the Catering Sub-Committee first recommended the transfer. Then the Parks Committee decided to refer the matter to the General Purposes Committee. That Committee by 17 votes in favour and 10 against decided that they would refer a recommendation for the application for the transfer to the Council. That resolution was confirmed by the Council by 22 votes to 11. There was a considerable amount of opposition from ratepayers before the Council, and there was a number of letters in both directions before the members. They had had complaints that intoxicating liquors could not be obtained and served with lunches at the Pavilion, but those complaints had not been made to him.

Mr. Bonniface: Would you be prepared to have endorsed on this licence that intoxicating liquors should only be served with meals?

Mr. Nicholson: No.

When asked by Mr. Bonniface how bottles would be prevented from being taken out, Mr. Nicholson said “I hesitate to answer that question. I am not experienced in such matters, but I understand people like to see their beer poured out”. (Laughter)

Mr. Bonniface pointed out that a number of people used the Warren and the sports ground round about, and Mr. Nicholson replied “We definitely do not wish, and shall not allow, people to take bottles of beer from the Pavilion into the Warren”.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There will be a staff in the Pavilion?

Mr. Nicholson: Yes, an adequate staff.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Bonniface, the Town Clerk said there had been no difficulty with regard to getting a licence at those premises in the winter months for dances. They had used the Leas Cliff Hall licence for that purpose. The licence for the Leas Cliff Hall prohibited the Corporation selling off the premises.

The Chairman (to Mr. Nicholson): Have you had any trouble at that Hall by bottles being served over the counter?

Mr. Bonniface: I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Philcox, cross-examining Mr. Nicholson: You have had a little trouble with regard to the Leas Cliff Hall?

Mr. Nicholson: In what way?

You have had to change the licensee at one time? – Ever since we have been doing the catering the licence has been in the Entertainment Manager's name.

Before the Council the Chairman of the Committee responsible said from his experience at the Leas Cliff Hall he did not think it was desirable for the Corporation to have another licence? – That was his opinion.

There has been some little trouble there? – Yes. It was usually from people not those who had spent the evening at the Hall, but those who came there at the closing of the other licensed houses, and when they got there they were refused admission, or had gained admission and had to be turned out.

Some weeks ago there was someone arrested for making a nuisance of themselves at the Hall with a horn?

The Town Clerk pointed out that they were not charged with being drunk. They were undergraduates who had been blowing a horn on the Leas. He added that the Corporation had thought it best that buildings under their control should have proper supervision, and therefore a plain clothes officer had been in the Hall. Continuing, he said Mr. Roden would not be there all the time, but there would be other people there supervising the intoxicating liquor trade. He was not suggesting that Mr. Roden would spend a lot of time there.

Mr. Philcox: I think the rent of the Packet Boat is 35?

The Town Clerk: I believe so.

What do you think would be the rateable value of the Pavilion? – I have no idea; it is not rated at the moment.

You will admit it will be more than 35? – I do not know.

I believe 200 was the amount mentioned in Council? – I believe that was it.

Is that a likely figure? – I do not know. I am not a valuer.

The Pavilion was really intended to be a restaurant? – Yes, it was, I suppose. All sorts of refreshment can be obtained there, lunches and teas.

Was it not really only desired to sell intoxicating liquor with food? – No, certainly not.

You would object to that condition? – The Council anticipated that if the licence was removed that they would supply intoxicating liquor.

Is it intended to bar children from the Pavilion altogether? – No, certainly not. Children will not be allowed into the bar.

Liquor will be consumed in the main hall where children will be admitted? – Certainly.

Will there be any part of the hall only for those who do not desire intoxicating drink? – It is not proposed to divide between intoxicating and non-intoxicating refreshments.

Is it proposed to sell liquor on all seven days of the week? – Yes.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, the Town Clerk said there were a very large number of houses springing up in the district since East Cliff had been developed. There had been no serious trouble with regard to the catering since the Corporation had taken over the Leas Cliff Hall. The Corporation had had representation from two sports clubs on East Cliff stating that they would like to have refreshments, including intoxicants, supplied in the Pavilion.

Councillor James H. Kent, 284, Cheriton Road, said he was an off-licence holder. He was Chairman of the Parks Committee, which was dealing with that matter. He was well acquainted with the licensing laws and thought that licence at the East Cliff Pavilion was very necessary, particularly in view of the complaints they had had and the applications they had during the time they had been supplying luncheons and suppers. There was the golf and tennis people who used the golf course and the tennis courts who desired such refreshment, and the Corporation would be willing to accept the condition that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises. There would be no difficulty in providing fresh and sufficient cloakroom accommodation, although it was proposed to take one room for the bar. They had, in fact, provided alternative accommodation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bonniface, witness said golf had been played on East Cliff for several years. Two years before they built the East Cliff Pavilion one of the golf clubs made an application to the Committee to be allowed to erect a small club-room so that they might use it, and that undoubtedly so they could obtain intoxicating liquor. That was held over.

Mr. Bonniface: You had probably in mind a new licence?

Councillor Kent: We had in mind there might be four licences, and that we might make use of one of them.

What has happened in the course of the last two years to create the extraordinary demand for this licence? - East Cliff has developed, as you know, and then again the building was erected as a general utility building. At present we can supply everything with the exception of alcoholic liquor. My Committee and the General Purposes Committee looked at it from every angle and felt we should have a licence.

You think the development of the East Cliff in the last two years has created the demand? – Yes, because the development has caused a larger number of visitors to go up there than in previous years.

It does not come to anything like 50 houses? – I do not know about that.

With the extension in building on East Cliff, do you think there would be any hope of your succeeding in getting a new licence for the Pavilion if you had applied for one? Would you agree with me that it would be impossible to get one? – I should say of the Corporation were prepared to pay the monopoly value it would be worth it, and I should say a licence would be granted.

Dr. Carlile said he should like to ask the Town Clerk and Councillor Kent questions.

Mr. Nicholson was thereupon re-called.

Dr. Carlile asked the Town Clerk if complaints had been received from people living quite close to the Leas Cliff Hall as to persons coming out late in an undesirable condition.

Mr. Nicholson said he was aware that there had been complaints.

In your judgement, and having that experience concerning the Leas Cliff Hall, do you think it at all desirable that the Committee responsible for the Pavilion should be granted a licence for it? – I think you would have similar complaints anywhere. When they come away from a dance they would not come away quietly/ It is not due to drink.

Unlicensed halls do not give us anything like the occasion for protests and extra care that licensed halls do? – I do not know anything about that.

I would like to ask whether last night the Leas Cliff Hall had an extension for a dance? – I am afraid I do not know what was going on.

Can you tell the Bench whether you have had any complaints about it? – I have not heard any complaints this morning. I should be surprised if there was a dance on Tuesday night.

It may have been on Monday? – I do not think so.

The Clerk said Friday evening was the last occasion on which there was an extension of licence.

Councillor Kent was also questioned by Dr. Carlile. He said he held an off licence at Morehall.

Dr. Carlile: Those premises are the only licensed premises between Cheriton and the Central Station?

Councillor Kent: Yes.

Do you think the number of people going along that road would be any the less than those who went along the East Cliff? – No.

Therefore the licence was not required more than the one at Morehall? – I do not know, but the answer to that is that one lot of people pass and the others stay on the East Cliff.

Mr. Bonniface, in addressing the Bench, said he had wondered whether the application to them was really an application for the genuine supply to persons who might be their visitors and attending at that hall, or whether it was an application to allow the removal to that beautiful building of a licence which was to be used as an ordinary public house subject only to the endorsement that intoxicating drink should not be consumed off the premises. In other words, were the local authority setting up as publicans with the endorsement on the licence that intoxicating drink should not be consumed off the premises, and that part of that case was that the district had so increased that another licence was required in that district. That would be certainly a matter he would have to bring before them if the Corporation were applying for a new licence. If that was what the Corporation proposed to do, surely there was a principle involved there, and that was; Were the Corporation going to set up in opposition to some of their largest ratepayers, people who had a difficulty in carrying on their businesses and paying their rates? They were told there were thousands of visitors on the East Cliff, and if that licence was granted they were going to take away from the licensees in that district what they ultimately had in the past. There was no evidence before them that those visitors would increase because there was a beautiful pavilion. There was nothing before them at all to show that the visitors had had some inconvenience in obtaining their intoxicating liquor. Had the applicants been prepared to agree to the condition that intoxicating drink should only be supplied with lunches his opposition would have gone. All they said was that they wanted a public house licence with the exception that they would not allow intoxicating liquor to be taken outside. There was another point which they should take into consideration, and that was a note of Patterson on Section 27, which dealt with that particular application. Mr. Bonniface then read the note which had reference to whether the Pavilion could be described as being substantially the same premises as those for which the licence was held at present.

The Clerk: That does not help you much.

Mr. Bonniface said it was for the Magistrates to say whether the Pavilion was substantially the same premises. If they were not substantially the same then the application should be for a new licence, and the Exchequer would be entitled to a monopoly value if those premises were not the same.

Mr. Bonniface was continuing his argument, quoting from Patterson, when Judge Terrell asked him “Do you find it in the Act?”

Mr. Bonniface: These are the notes in Patterson.

Judge Terrell: The notes are nothing but the editor's notes.

Mr. Bonniface: That is so.

Judge Terrell: They are not in the Act.

Mr. Mowll: There is not a single word in Section 24 of the Act concerning what Mr. Bonniface has said.

Mr. Bonniface concluded by saying that that application should be treated on its merits and that it should be as a new licence and dealt with in that way.

Dr. Carlile said he represented the ministers and clergy, including the Vicar of Folkestone, and in addition the Chaplain of St. Andrew's Convalescent Home. From the proceedings that morning the Bench would have seen that that really was an application for a public house with a restriction concerning the sale of drink off the premises. There were certain special objections to it. They had heard a great deal about the need. When some of them were in Court before, and the application was made for the renewal of the four licences in the area which was to be re-built, they were told there was no question of redundancy, and that was not a matter to be considered. Had some of them had the opportunity they would have said there was a question of redundancy. Within five minutes' walk there were 18 licensed houses. The Magistrates had heard from where the old Packet Boat Inn stood to the East Cliff Pavilion it was only 800 yards. If the Bench went through the Harbour to the East Cliff Pavilion, they would pass five licensed houses on the way, four of them with back entrances in another street. If they went along Radnor Street in the best conditions they would pass three licensed houses in that street alone, and one of them, according to the generosity of the Corporation, would be a corner site. If the Bench went another way they would pass one licensed house at the bottom of the Tram Road, and four other houses within five minutes. Within ten minutes' walk they would have four or five opportunities of getting a drink. It could hardly be said there was a growing need for people who went along that way. The opposition knew the need and they knew the neighbourhood, and they wished to emphasise the fact that if the need exists, the Corporation, through the Parks Superintendent, was not the body to supply that need. They wished to emphasise that very strongly for a variety of reasons. They did not want, and they represented a large body of ratepayers, the Town Council competing with the publicans on ordinary lines. It was one thing at the West Cliff Hall, where intoxicants were served to people who attended the concerts, dances, and so on. There was nothing of that kind on the East Cliff, but dances, which sometimes went on until early in the morning, had been held there, and the little experience was not to the good when licences had been grated there. It was really a surprising thing to some of them when it was stated very definitely in connection with the Leas Cliff Hall licence that intoxicants should not be served for consumption off the premises, that by some means intoxicants could be sold at the East Cliff Pavilion through that licence held by the Corporation. There was nothing to prevent the Committee, in view of past experience, and what they knew of that Committee they would do so, of supplying intoxicating drink at the Chalet in the Warren through the licence at the Pavilion.

The Clerk: Every time they wanted such a licence they would have to apply for it.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: There is nothing to prevent them carrying on in that way.

Proceeding, Dr. Carlile said they agreed that Mr. Roden was an admirable man, and anyone who knew his splendid work as a gardener could have the least idea that he could not give supervision to a trade about which he knew nothing, and they also suggested that a Committee of the Corporation was not the most desirable body to carry on a public house. They said from their experience if an ordinary publican had conducted his premises as the Hall on the Leas had been he would probably have lost his licence. Anyway, there would have been serious complaints about the conduct of the premises. He suggested it was unfair to expect a police constable, who was partly responsible for the conduct of the Hall, to make complaints about people who were his employers. If there had to be a licence for that Pavilion, it would be, he suggested, a straightforward thing if there had been an application for a new licence, but they knew there would not be the ghost of a chance of getting that, but that application was an afterthought. The Corporation had a certain licence, and the question was what they could do with it. They might have sold it. The Chairman of the Parks Committee, being in the trade, thought it was a good thing, and the Corporation ought to stick to it. It might be a large number of ratepayers very much objected to being mixed up with the ordinary business of a public house. He represented no temperance organisation, but the clergy and ministers, and they had behind them a large number of ratepayers. Their view was that if the need could be substantiated – the did not think it could – of allowing the Pavilion to be a public house according to the application of Mr. Mowll, supported by the Town Clerk, then they should let it be provided by the brewer and a proper publican. At the present time the East Cliff Hall was for the provision of teas and light refreshments, and one of the needs for which it was built was the provision of toilet accommodation for women and children. They had heard there was no proposal to exclude children from those premises. They submitted that it was not at all desirable that the premises should be utilised as was suggested. A number of women would not take their children to a place that was an ordinary public house. They believed the Council had made a mistake over the matter. The Magistrates had heard the different figures regarding the voting, and the members were not at all unanimous. Some members of the Council had spoken very strongly in opposition. The Committee responsible for the Pavilion did not seem to do very well, for according to the published figures they made a loss for which they were responsible. If they could not make a profit on those premises without a licence, then they as ratepayers did not want to make a profit in that way.

He had to do with Dr. Barnardo's Home, which was probably the largest building nearest to those premises. They knew the character of that Home, a lovely institution for little children from the homes of the poorest of the poor, and when people came down to see those children they did not want to see a public house nearby. Then St. Andrew's Convalescent Home, which was for patients all over the place, was also comparatively close. Those premises would be an easy walk from the Home, and those connected with the Home did not want that licence granted.

The Rev. C.H. Scott, Vicar of St. Michael's, said his opposition represented the views of residents in the district. It was not based on the temperance or teetotal question. He had no objection to public houses in ordinary streets in the town with all the legitimate and moderate trade. In fact, he encouraged the idea so long as the men were moderate. The one salient fact that emerged was that that property was being pulled down in Radnor Street for town development, and a public house was going begging, consequently the majority of the Town Council decided to have a new type of public house in a new place. He suggested that an application for a new licence should have been made for such a place, but why had that not been done? Because they knew it would never have had a chance of being successful.. That stood out as the salient point. The ministers were united on the matter. “That is a most remarkable thing”, the speaker said, “Dr. Carlile and I have never been together in our lives, and never will be again”. (Laughter) Proceeding, he said he lived on the East Cliff. That licence was being obviously sought for the serving of drinks. He would have agreed to drinks being allowed with meals, but that suggestion was quite bluntly turned down. Drinking freely in the Pavilion on Sunday and weekdays, with no restrictions, was not a pretty picture, and not many residents of the East Cliff would desire it.

Mr. Philcox said he represented an entirely different view – the view of the Temperance Council – who had canvassed the neighbourhood to see what support they could get. As a result he had been instructed to write to a large number of people near the East Cliff Pavilion, and he had got a large number of retainers there. In addition, there was a petition signed by 476 residents.

Judge Terrell: Have you seen your clients? You have not seen all these?

Mr. Philcox: I do not think any solicitor sees all his clients. His clerk does that.

Judge Terrell: Have you seen any of them?

Mr. Philcox: No.

Judge Terrell: Then you cannot prove the signatures, and they cannot be produced.

Mr. Philcox was questioned about the petition, and the Chairman asked him if he took it round himself. He replied that he did not, and the Magistrates then decided that the petition could not be put in.

Mr. Philcox said all who had signed were local residents. They were persons resident in the area of the East Cliff. He submitted it was quite obvious that the residents would not like a public house there, because it was a residential district. If the Pavilion was going to take people away from their meals it was not going to be of benefit to boarding houses. He submitted that if the removal was granted, then intoxicants should only be served with food at tables on the premises. He did not think that would be any hardship to the Corporation, but it would meet the views of a large number of ratepayers.

Mr. Mowll said he had been able to get the figures regarding the population in the area in reply to an enquiry by the Magistrates. The population was 1,650, and the number of houses was 330. Those figures did not include Radnor Street and The Durlocks.

The Chairman: I understand the police have no objection.

Chief Inspector Pittock: No, sir.

The Bench were absent for close upon half an hour considering their decision, and when they returned the Chairman said “The Bench have agreed that the licence should be removed and granted on the understanding that all liquors sold should be consumed on the premises.

Note: Dr. Carlile asks us to say that in his question to the Town Clerk in reference to a dance on Tuesday night, it was obviously the East Cliff Pavilion to which he referred, and not the Leas Cliff Hall, as the replies by Mr. Nicholson and the Magistrates' Clerk would indicate.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 July 1935.

Local News.

An application by the Folkestone Corporation for the removal of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion, East Cliff, was granted on Wednesday.

The Corporation presented its application to a special Bench of County Magistrates at the Folkestone Police Court. Colonel E.R. Wayland sat with the Mayor of Hythe (Councillor E.C. Smith), Mr. J.J. Clayson, Mr. James Cross, Major J.G. Welch, Colonel J.C E. D’Esterre, and Judge H. Terrell, K.C.

Before the application was made by Mr. A.K. Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, on behalf of the Corporation, the Magistrates granted the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to Mr. Geoffrey Ernest Roden, the Parks Superintendent, who had been granted a Protection Order last week. Mr. B.H. Bonniface opposed the Corporation's application on behalf of licensed victuallers in the immediate district and also the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers" Association, and Mr. E.H. Philcox, of London, represented the Folkestone Temperance Council.

Many clergy and ministers were present in court, including the Vicar of Folkestone (Canon Hyla Holden) and Dr. J.C. Carlile. Dr. Carlile stated that he was representing the clergy and also a number of ratepayers.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of Geoffrey Ernest Roden, who had had granted to him by the Bench the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, and the application now before the Court was for a special removal of that licence as a fully licensed house to the East Cliff Pavilion, which was situated about 800 yards from the site of the Packet Boat Inn. The Corporation had purchased the Packet Boat Inn and the two adjoining cottages for 4,300 as part of the properties included in the Folkestone Radnor Street No. 1 Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. As a matter of fact those premises actually formed part of a new road so it would be absolutely necessary for them to be pulled down.

The East Cliff Pavilion was built recently by the Corporation at a cost of between 7,000 and 8,000 to erect. It was situated on the East Cliff and was a very beautiful building. The present construction had to be very little altered if the building was licensed. There was a large refreshment hall in the centre of it, and it was also used for dancing, and on the sea side of it were the premises which were going to be altered - at present they were used as a hat room - for the bar. A portion of the lavatory was going to be converted into a store and the public would have access to the bar through the entrance at the side of the premises.

The Corporation, having purchased the Packet Boat Inn for a large sum of money, they thought that they ought to use it to the best advantage of the ratepayers, Mr. Mowll continued, and were therefore asking for that special removal under Section 24 of the Licensing Act, 1910.
There were two points which he thought the Justices would have to consider and one was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person, although they had just granted the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to Mr. Roden, who was the Parks Superintendent for the Borough, and they could hardly imagine a more suitable person to hold a licence. Secondly, they had to consider whether the premises were fit and convenient for the purpose, for sub-section 4 of Section 24 of the Act said, “A special removal of a Justices’ licence may be authorised to any premises within the same licensing district as the premises which it is desired to move the licence, if, in the opinion of the Licensing Justices, they are fit and convenient premises for the purposes”. He was going to ask them to insert a condition with regard to the licence and that was that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises. The present licence was a full licence, and the licensee could sell on or off the premises, but it was thought that having regard to all the facts it would be better for that condition to be inserted, and they were only too willing that that should be done.

There were no licensed premises anywhere near the East Cliff Pavilion. As they had heard the Packet Boat Inn was roughly 800 yards from the East Cliff Pavilion and there were a number of other houses, and he proposed to give them the distances they were situated from the East Cliff Pavilion. The East Cliff Tavern was 700 yards away: the Lifeboat Inn, North Street, 820 yards; the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, 820 yards; the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, 830 yards; the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, 870 yards; the Royal Oak, North Street, 870 yards; the Raglan, Dover Road, 920 yards; the Martello Inn, Dover Road, 930 yards; the Railway Tavern, 1,020 yards; the Swan Inn, Dover Road, 1,080 yards. So they would see that the nearest licensed premises to those premises was the East Cliff Tavern, which was 700 yards away. He did not know whether the Bench were acquainted with the East Cliff Pavilion, but that part of the town had recently been developed. People in the season came down in their thousands to the large stretch of sand close by, and they would have evidence brought before them of the great inconvenience which had been suffered in the past by people not being able to get any reasonable alcoholic refreshments. He asked them to grant the application subject to the condition he had already mentioned.

The Town Clerk, Mr. C. F. Nicholson, was then called by Mr. Mowll. He said that the Packet Boat Inn had been purchased with two cottages adjoining for 4,300. A considerable part of that figure represented the value of the licensed premises. The Packet Boat Inn was to be pulled down, and the Corporation had decided to make the full use, if possible, of the licence which they had had to purchase. Mr. Nicholson stated that the Corporation had a licence in respect of the Leas Cliff Hall, subject to certain conditions. The East Cliff Pavilion was built at a cost of between 7,000 and 8,000, and it was complete with every comfort. A number of complaints and enquiries, however, had been received because they were unable to serve intoxicating liquor with lunches at the Pavilion. Mr. Roden, who would be the licensee, was Parks Superintendent to the Corporation, and therefore the holding of the licence would be more or less under the eye of the Corporation.

Mr. Mowll: In your view there is a real need for such a licence? - I believe that there is.

Mr. Bonniface: I think in the first | place the Pavilion was built with no idea at all of having a licence? - I should not care to say that. It was known when the place was built that these licences were likely to be acquired in the Radnor Street area.

Mr. Bonniface: But the hall was built with no idea of having a licence there? - That is not so.

Did not various members of the Council say so at a meeting? - They may have said so.

Responsible members, Chairmen of Committees? - Not the Chairman of the Committee concerned.

Was it ever taken into consideration when the hall was built that it might be necessary to apply for a new licence for this building? - I don’t think the Corporation ever considered applying for a new licence.

Did you yourself advise the Council that in your opinion it would be almost impossible to obtain a new licence? - I probably did and I still adhere to that view.

In getting this licence transferred the Council will save paying monopoly value? - Yes, but we shall have to pay for the licence.

You would have to pay for the licence of the Packet Boat in any event, wouldn’t you? – Yes.

Another course might have been taken - it might have been surrendered or sold to another person? – Yes.

I think the Catering Sub-Committee first of all recommended this transfer? - Yes.

And then the whole of the Parks Committee decided that they should not go on with it? - They did.

The Parks Committee, in fact, will be the people who more or less will have control of Mr. Roden and the licence? - Yes.

And then on February 6th the Council decided to refer the matter to the General Purposes Committee? - Yes.

And the General Purposes Committee, by 17 votes to 10 against? - Those are the correct figures deciding to refer it to the Council.

It was confirmed by the Council by 22 votes to 11? - That is correct.

There was considerable opposition from the ratepayers of the borough before the Council made that decision? - Yes.

And there was a considerable amount of evidence heard against the proposal? - Yes, letters in both directions came in.

We have heard from Mr. Mowll that you have had complaints that intoxicating liquor cannot be obtained and served with lunches? – Yes, but of course they have not been made to me personally.

Would you be prepared to have an endorsement on this licence to the effect that intoxicating liquor should only be sold at meals? - No.

Taking the plan which is before the Bench, there is provision for a bar to be made and there will be an entrance from one side, where one of the existing lavatories is? - I believe that it is so.

And the bar is placed rather at the rear? - It is more at the side.

Was it suggested in the Council that it would only require one man to conduct the business from there? - I don’t remember that.

If it only required one, it would be extremely difficult to supervise a licence on which there was an endorsement that intoxicants were only to be consumed on the premises, for people could get out easily on to the cliffs? - Surely you need not let people take bottles away with them; you need not supply the bottle.

Would you agree to an endorsement that they should not be supplied with any bottles? – I hesitate to answer that question. I am not very experienced in these things, but I understand people like to see their beer poured out. (Laughter)

Replying to a further question, the Town clerk said the Corporation did not intend to let people take bottles away with them into the Warren.

Mr. Bonniface said so far as these thousands of people they had heard about from Mr. Mowll, they were only there during the summer, and it was practically a fixed population on East Cliff in the winter.

The Town Clerk replied that that was so.

Mr. Bonniface: There has been no difficulty in getting a temporary licence during the winter months for dances at the pavilion? - There has been no difficulty.

You have used the Leas Cliff Hall licence? - We have, but I cannot say how many times.

Do you put a condition in the contract that if anybody hires the hall for a dance they shall use your licence at the Leas Cliff Hall? - Yes.

Mr. Bonniface: Although your Leas Cliff Hall licence prohibits you serving off the Leas Cliff Hall, doesn't it? - Yes.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): An undertaking was given that nothing should be served off the premises.

The Chairman asked if there had been any trouble, such as bottles being taken out of the Leas Cliff Hall.

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Bonniface added that he was not suggesting that that had happened.

Concluding his cross-examination, Mr. Bonniface said to the Town Clerk: “You are not suggesting the premises from which you are proposing to remove this licence are in any way comparable with the premises to which the licence is being removed?”

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Philcox: You have mentioned that this is not the only way by which you can get your money back? - That’s right.

You have had a little trouble with regard to the Leas Cliff Hall, haven’t you? - In what way?

You have had to change the licensee at one time, haven’t you? - Ever since the Corporation has been, doing the catering there the licence has been in the name of the Entertainments Manager.

At the Council meeting the chairman of the committee responsible for the Leas Cliff Hall said that from his experience of the Leas Cliff Hall he did not think it was desirable for the Corporation to have another, licence, didn’t he? - That was his opinion.

The Chairman of the Entertainments Committee opposed this removal, and he gave as his reason his experience at the Leas Cliff Hall? - He may have done, I cannot remember what they all said.

Mr. Philcox again asked the Town Clerk if there had not been trouble at the Leas Cliff Hall, and the Town Clerk explained that the trouble had been caused by people who had not been spending the evening at the hall but people who had come there after closing time from other licensed premises and had either been refused admission or, having gained admission, had been turned out.

Mr. Philcox then asked the Town Clerk if it was not a fact that a few weeks ago two young men who had been to the hall were not arrested outside.

Mr. Nicholson said the two men had been making a nuisance of themselves in the hall with a hunting horn, but there was no suggestion that they were under the influence of drink.

Mr. Philcox: Don’t you have to have detectives or police officers in plain clothes up there? - There is someone there to keep an eye on the building. The Corporation consider that as it is a building under their control there should be proper supervision.

No one would suggest that Mr. Roden is not a thoroughly desirable person, but will he be on the premises all the time? - Not all the time.

Will he be about on the premises? - He will be there frequently.

Is it not a question of using his name as Parks Superintendent? - There will be other people there supervising the intoxicating liquor trade. I am not suggesting that Mr. Roden is going to spend a lot of time there. He is in charge of the department running the building.

I think the rent of the Packet Boat Inn was about 35 a year. What is the rateable value of the Pavilion? - I have no idea; it is not rated at the moment.

Would it be considerably more than 35, 200, I believe, was suggested in the Council? Is that a likely figure? - I really don't know, I am not a valuer.

Is it not only desired to serve intoxicating liquor with food? - No, certainly not.

Would you object to such a condition? - I am quite sure the Council anticipate if the licence is removed that they will be able to sell intoxicating liquor at other times than meals.

How are you going to deal with the question of the bars? Are you going to bar children altogether from the building? - Children will not be allowed into the bar.

Mr. Philcox: But liquor will be consumed anywhere?

Mr. Nicholson said it was not proposed to divide the building up into “non-intoxicating liquor” and “intoxicating liquor” sections.

Is it proposed to sell intoxicating liquor on all seven days of the week? - Yes.

Would you object to a condition that there should be no Sunday trading? - I should, and I think the Council would.

Mr. Philcox questioned the Town Clerk as to the accommodation when dances were held and suggested there had not been enough room in the cloak room.

The Town Clerk said there had been some trouble when the number of people present was greater than the hall would properly accommodate.

Mr. Mowll (re-examining): Am I right in saying a very large number of houses have gone up in the district since the East Cliff has been developed? - Yes.

And I suggest this road improvement of yours will still further increase the number of houses? - There is certainly development going on there.

There has been no trouble in regard to the catering at the Leas Cliff Hall since you have taken it over yourself? - No serious trouble.

Are there several golf and tennis clubs using the pavilion? - Yes, and we have had representations from two of the clubs that they would like to have refreshments there.

Councillor J. H. Kent, of 284, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, Chairman of the Parks Committee, said he was the holder of a licence in Cheriton Road, and was thus well acquainted with licensing matters.

Mr. Mowll: What do you say about the licence at the East Cliff Pavilion? - I think myself it is very necessary, specially in view of the complaints we have had, and the applications we have had during the time we have been serving lunches and suppers. Then again there are the golf and tennis people who use the golf course and the tennis courts, because quite large numbers of them have also asked for a licence.

Mr. Mowll: A question was asked the Town Clerk about the cloak room accommodation? - We have already provided alternative accommodation larger than the existing room.

Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining, said: You have told us that golf and tennis clubs have mentioned this matter. Golf has been played on the East Cliff for several years. There has been no difficulty for those people getting a drink. They did not ask you to apply for this licence? - Two years before we built this Pavilion one of the golf clubs made application to the Committee to allow them to erect a small hut or club room for their private use, and that was undoubtedly for them to obtain intoxicating liquor under a Club Licence.

You had in mind of course that you might put one of those rooms aside for these clubs, for a club licence? - Not necessarily, we have a club room already.

You did not consider the demand at that time sufficient for you to apply for a new licence on the East Cliff? - No, not for a new licence.

Then what has happened in the course of the last two years to create the extraordinary demand we have got now? - In the first place the East Cliff has developed and the Pavilion was erected as a general utility building, and at present we cannot supply intoxicating liquor. My Committee and the General Purposes Committee looked at it from every point of view and they decided we needed it.

The Parks Committee turned it down, didn’t they? - By a very small majority.

But they did turn it down, didn’t they? - Yes.

Then you think the development of the East Cliff during the last two years has created a demand for it? - Yes, because the development has caused a larger number of visitors to use the East Cliff within the last two or three years.

Would you say the development was as many as 50 houses? - I don’t know.

I would put it to you that there has been nothing like 50 new houses? - I don’t know about that.

As a licensee yourself would you agree it would be practically impossible for anybody successfully to ask for a new licence? - I think you know as well as I do that new applications are very warily granted to-day.

With the amount of building on the East Cliff do you think there would be any hope of your succeeding in an application for a new licence? - I would not like to say.

Would you agree with me and say it would be impossible? - No, I should say if the Corporation were prepared to pay the monopoly value it would be worth it, and I should say in all probability the licence would be granted.

At this point the Town Clerk returned to the box in order that Dr. Carlile might have an opportunity of putting certain questions to him.

Dr. Carlile said he expected the Town Clerk and the Justices were quite aware that a number of people who like him-1 self lived upon the Leas, comparatively close to the Leas Cliff Hall, had made complaints upon various occasions to the Committee as to persons coming out late at night in an undesirable condition. Continuing, he said: I would like to know whether the Town Clerk is aware of that?

The Town Clerk: Yes, I am aware of of that.

Then I would like to ask further, in the judgment of the Town Clerk if with the experience that he shares with me, only much more so concerning this hall, he thinks it at all desirable that the Committee now responsible for this pavilion should be granted a licence for other premises in the neighbourhood? - I think you would have the same complaints if no intoxicating liquor was sold at the Leas Cliff Hall at all. When they come away from dances they don’t come away very quietly, I am afraid.

That is a matter of opinion, but the Town Clerk will agree with me that unlicensed halls have not given us anything like the occasion for supervision and extra care that the licensed halls give us? - I don't know about that.

Dr. Carlile asked whether it happened that last night there was a dance at the Leas Cliff Hall (Dr. Carlile meant to say East Cliff Pavilion).

The Town Clerk replied that he did not know what was going on there last night.

Dr. Carlile: Then the Town Clerk is not able to tell the Bench whether there was any complaint as to what happened early this morning after that dance.

The Clerk (to the Magistrates): No extension was granted for a dance at the Hall last night.

The Town Clerk: I should be very surprised if there was a dance there last night.

Dr. Carlile: It might have been Monday. In the event of the licence being granted our chief gardener, a gentleman of character and very great ability as a gardener, I would like to ask the Town clerk whether he knows that Mr. Roden has any knowledge at all of the conduct of licensed premises? – No.

Cross-examining Councillor Kent, Dr Carlile said: I would like to ask him if he noted the figures given by Mr. Mowll of the distances of the licensed premises at the bottom of the town from the East Cliff Pavilion? - Yes.

Do these figures include the off- licence held by another member of the Town Council in Warren Road? – I could not say. The premises in Warren Road are an off-licence only.

The Clerk said that the figures did not include those premises.

Dr. Carlile said Councillor Kent lived in the Cheriton Road, at Morehall, and had off-licence premises. He asked Councillor Kent whether between the Central Station and those premises there was any other licensed house.

Councillor Kent: No.

Do you think the number of people who pass along the road would be any less than the average number who pass along the road from the lower end of the town to the East Cliff? - No less.

Mr. Mowll : The answer is that one passes along and the other stays.

Councillor Kent: Quite.

Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Magistrates, said towards the end of the application he had been wondering whether the application was really application for the genuine supply to persons who might be their visitors and who were attending the Hall, or whether it was an application to allow the removal to this beautiful building of a licence which was to be used as an ordinary public house, subject only to an endorsement that intoxicating liquor should not be consumed off the premises, because the district had so increased. That would be a matter which he or anyone else would have to bring before them when applying for a new licence. If that be the case, surely there was a principle involved there and that principle was: Were the Corporation going to set up in the business of some of their largest ratepayers, people who had difficulty in carrying on their business and also had to pay heavy rates, and during a portion of the year going to take away from those licensees what they had legitimately had in the past? There was no evidence before Magistrates to show that people in the past had experienced inconvenience in not being able to obtain intoxicating liquors. Had the Corporation been prepared to accept an endorsement to the licence that drinks should only be supplied at lunches the majority of his opposition would have gone. There was another point which they had to take into consideration, and Mr. Bonniface then referred the Magistrates to a note in Paterson’s Licensing Acts dealing with removals and the powers of the licensing justices relative togranting and refusing special removals, which, he said, had been subject to considerable controversy. Provided they were empowered to grant a licence at all there were three points which the Justices should consider. The first was: Is the licence holder a fit and proper person? To that there could be no objection, commented Mr. Bonniface. The next point was: Were the premises to which it was proposed to transfer the licence fit and convenient? That was for the Magistrates to consider. Thirdly, were the new premises substantially similar in construction to those from which the licence was being removed? Mr. Bonniface submitted that if the premises were not substantially the same they should say that the application could not be dealt with as a special removal but an application should be made for a new licence on which monopoly value would have to be paid.

The Corporation had to purchase the licence whether they would or not; the licence was there. They had to purchase it under their scheme; it was one of the premises they had to purchase and for which they had to pay full compensation. They had other methods of recovering that compensation. Turning to the question of the similarity of the premises, Mr. Bonnifece said the Magistrates should ask themselves if these were substantially the same premises, premises which were rated at 35 In one case and rising to 200 approximately. They were removing the licence from premises which, with two cottages, cost 4,300 to a building which cost 7,000 to 8,000 to build. Were they substantially the same?

Judge Terrell: Do you find it stated in any Act that they should be substantially the same premises?

Mr. Bonniface: No.

Judge Terrell commented that Mr. Bonniface had based his submission on notes made by the editor of the book.

The Chairman said he understood it had a very wide application.

Mr. Bonniface: I agree, but it is supported not only by the notes of the editor but by a number of decisions.Continuing, Mr. Bonniface said the evidence they had in front of them, the evidence of the Town Clerk, was that there was a certain drawback in regard to not being able to supply intoxicating liquor with lunches. He suggested that the Magistrates knew the position probably as well as he did: these were premises situated on East Cliff, away from most of the houses. They were asked to transfer a licence, a licence which was going to oe used during ordinary public house hours subject to one restriction. In conclusion he submitted that the matter should be treated on its merits and an application made for a new licence.

Dr. Carlile said he represented the ministers and clergy who were there, including the Vicar of Folkestone, the Vicar of Christ Church, and a number of other Vicars, and the whole of the Free Church ministers of the area in addition to Father Maconechie, who was Chaplain at St. Andrew’s Convalescent Home, near to the Pavilion, and the Vicar of St. Michael’s, who was a resident nearby and who would like to say a word or two after he had spoken. From the proceedings that morning the Bench would have seen that that was really an application for a public house licence with a restriction of the off-licence which the Corporation had agreed to. As a public house licence there were certain special objections to it there. They had heard a great deal about the need. When some of them were in court before and an application was made for the renewal of the four licences in the area which was to be rebuilt, they were told there was no question of redundancy, and that that was not a matter to be considered. Had they had the opportunity they would have said that there was a question of redundancy in that area. Within five or six minutes’ walk there were 18 licensed houses and they had heard that from the place where the old Packet Boat Inn stood to the East Cliff Pavilion was some 800 yards. If the Bench walked from Harbour Street to the East Cliff Pavilion they would pass five licensed houses on the way, four of those with back entrances into another street. If they went along Radnor Street, under the best conditions, the new conditions, they would pass three licensed houses in that street alone, and one of them, according to the generosity of the Corporation, very close to the Sands which they had which they had heard ought to be supplied. One of those new houses would be on a corner site much closer to the Sands than the East Cliff Pavilion. If the Bench went along Beach Street and North Street they would pass one house at the bottom of Tram Road and four others within five minutes’ walk. Allowing that it was 10 minutes’ walk from one end to the other, they would have four of five opportunities of getting a drink within only five minutes of reaching the East Cliff Pavilion. It could hardly be said that there was that great need for people who went along that way. They knew the neighbourhood pretty well and they questioned the need; they wished to emphasise that if the need existed, the Corporation, through their Parks Committee, was not the body to supply that need, for a variety of reasons, one of which had been brought forward by his friend Mr. Bonniface. They did not want to see the Town Council competing with the publican on ordinary lines. It was one thing at the Leas Cliff Hall where intoxicants, according to the licence, could be supplied to people who came in to concerts, dances and for refreshment. There was nothing of that kind at the East Cliff Pavilion. Dances held there were known, and some of them apparently unknown to the people responsible, and they sometimes went on until early in the morning.

Dr. Carlile said some of them were surprised to know that the Leas Cliff Hall licence was being used for the East Cliff Pavilion, although an undertaking was given when that licence was granted that it should be for supply only on those premises.

Agreeing that that was so, there was nothing to prevent the Committee in view of past experience, agreeing to supply the Chalet in the Warren with intoxicants with the licence which they would have at the East Cliff Pavilion.

The Clerk to the Magistrates: They would have to apply for it.

Dr. Carlile said he knew that, but there was nothing to prevent them carrying on that business and adding to the number of licensed premises in the neighbourhood. They felt that with an absentee landlord, Mr. Roden, admirable man that he was, anyone would realise that he could not give sufficient time to the supervision of a trade which he knew nothing about. They suggested that a Committee of the Corporation was not the most desirable body to carry on a public house. They said from their experience that if an ordinary publican had conducted his premises as the Hall on the Leas had been conducted, he would probably have lost his licence. In any event there would have been serious complaint about the conduct of his premises. He also suggested it was unfair to expect a police constable, who was partly responsible to a Committee of the Corporation, to make complaints about people on Corporation premises. If there was to be a licence there at all they suggested that application should be made for a new licence, and they knew there would not be a ghost of a chance of any such licence being granted. That application was an afterthought. The Corporation had certain licences. The question was: What could they do with that one? They might have sold it. They thought they could do better with it. The Chairman of the Parks Committee, being in the trade, knew the value of it, and he thought it was a good thing and the Corporation ought to stick to it. It might be that a large number of ratepayers very much objected to being mixed up with the business of a public house. He did not represent any temperance organisations. The view that he represented was that if the need could be substantiated - they did not think it could - but if it could, then let the brewers and distillers build their own premises and not have Corporation premises used for such purpose. At the present time the East Cliff Pavilion was for the provision of teas and light refreshments for people with their families and their children, and one of the things that weighed considerably was the provision of toilet accommodation for women and children. They had heard from the Town Clerk there was no proposal to exclude children from those premises. How they were going to manage it, he suggested, Councillor Kent would put them wise, but they submitted it was not at all desirable that the premises should be used for those two purposes or that children should be excluded. A number of women would not take their children to a place that was an ordinary public house.

They wanted to be in harmony with the Town Council. They did not want to arouse any criticism, but they believed the Town Council had made a mistake. The Committee responsible did not seem to do very well with the premises under their control, and according to the published figures last week they made a loss on each one of the premises for which they were responsible, but they did not want them to make a profit this way. Concluding, Dr. Carlile referred to the presence in the neighbourhood of the Bruce Porter Home (Dr. Barnardo’s) and the St. Andrew’s Convalescent Home. He mentioned that people came down to see the children there, and they did not want a public house nearby. The St. Andrew’s Convalescent Home was within easy walk of the pavilion, and they did not want something put into that pavilion so that patients from the Home could go in and out of the pavilion for quite a different purpose to the one intended.

The Vicar of St. Michael’s (the Rev. C.H. Scott) said his opposition was not based on the temperance or teetotal question; in fact he had no objection to the public house. He contended that from every standpoint an application for a new licence should have been made. Why had not such an application been made? Because, as their opponents had told them, such an application would not stand the slightest chance of being granted. The Rev. C. H. Scott referred to the unity of opinion of the ministers and added that it was a remarkable thing, for Dr. Carlile and he had never agreed on any question before and probably they would never agree again. (Laughter) It had been suggested that the serving of drinks should be confined to meals and he, for one, would agree to that, but that suggestion had been rejected on the part of the Corporation.

Drinking in a building like that weekday and Sunday alike would not make a pretty picture, and he was sure many residents on East Cliff did not desire it.

Mr. Philcox said he represented the view of the Temperance Council. They had canvassed the neighbourhood to see what support could be got and the result was the list of retainers which he had there. A petition had also been signed by 476 residents. He was instructed by all those people who had signed the retainers. They were local residents, residents living in the East Cliff area. It was quite obvious the residents in the area did not wish to have a public house up there, for it was a residential district. The only condition offered by the Corporation was that the licence should be endorsed so that drinks should not be served for consumption off the premises. He asked the Magistrates not to grant the application unless further conditions were agreed. He further submitted that there should be no bar at all. It was a condition of many restaurants where drinks were served that there should be no bar.

Mr. Mowll stated that he had ascertained that there were 1,650 people living in the district and 330 houses.

The Chairman: I understand the police have no objection whatever?

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock: No, sir.

The Magistrates retired and were absent some time. On their return the Chairman said: The Bench have agreed to the removal of this licence on the understanding that liquor shall only be consumed on the premises.

The Clerk said a condition to that effect would be inserted in the licence register.

Editorial.

A Bench of Magistrates from the Elham Petty Sessional Division and one Magistrate of the Folkestone Bench heard arguments on Wednesday for and against the application of the Folkestone Corporation for the special removal of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion. Opposition of a vigorous nature was forthcoming from the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers, from clergy, and from the Temperance party. Having heard the case for the Corporation and the submissions of the opposition, the Magistrates granted the removal, subject to a restriction that intoxicating liquor may not be sold for consumption off the premises. We do not intend to make further comment upon the question of whether a licence for this pavilion is or is not necessary. We are satisfied that, the licence having teen granted, it will be very carefully used and there will be strict supervision of the pavilion by the Parks Committee and the license holder, Mr.G. E. Roden. We understand that confirmation of the special removal of the licence is not required, as would be the case with the granting of a new licence. The pavilion undoubtedly meets the needs of a large holiday-making public assembling at this period of the year daily on the East Cliff, and we have little doubt that the amenities provided there will be greatly appreciated. Whether the licence will induce still more people to use the pavilion or not remains to be seen.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

COCK James 1846-51 Bagshaw's Directory 1847

BOORN Richard 1851-Dec/57 (age 48 in 1851Census) Folkestone Chronicle (Also "Alma Tavern.")

BOORN John Wittingham Dec/1857-62+ Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1862 (Boat builder age 27 in 1861Census) Folkestone Chronicle

BOORN Richard 1861-68+

FAGG John 1868?

SMITH Robert 1869-78+

BEERS George 1874 Post Office Directory 1874

SMITH Mrs Jane Mary 1878-99+ (widow age 48 in 1881Census) Post Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891Kelly's 1899

NEWMAN Albert Thos 1899-1904 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Dover Express

GOLDSMITH Thomas Goldsmith 1904-10

DEVERSON Maurice 1910-11

GOODALL Andrew 1911-18+ Post Office Directory 1913

KENNETT Frederick 1918-21

TWIGG John W 1921-26 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1922

SIRETT John 1934+ Kelly's 1934

ELLEN Ernest 1927-33

SIRRET John 1933-35

RODEN Geoffrey Ernest 1935

 

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

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

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room