Folkestone Express, 13 May 1871.

Friday, March 12th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Ellen Smith, wife of John Smith, of Ashford, was charged with being drunk and using obscene language.

P.C. Hills deposed to taking the prisoner into custody for causing a disturbance outside the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. costs for each offence.

Eveline Horan, wife of James horan was charged with being drunk and resisting P.C. Hills in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Hills said about half past ten the previous day, when apprehending Mrs. Smith, the prisoner tried to pull her away. I told her to let the prisoner alone; she would not. By my instructions P.C. Swain took her in charge.

The Bench fined her 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days imprisonment.

Folkestone Express, 23 December 1871.

Advertisement:

MRS. ELIZABETH PEEL.

DEALER IN RUSHES AND CANES FOR CHAIRS.

PERSEVERANCE INN, DOVER STREET, FOLKESTONE.

Begs to thank her friends and the public for the support received by her late husband, and trusts by strict attention to business to merit a continuance of the same.

N.B. ALL ORDERS FOR CHIMNEY SWEEPING WILL BE EXECUTED AS BEFORE.

Folkestone Express, 1 February 1873.

Wednesday, January 29th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Temporary authority was granted to J. T. Russell as landlord of the Perseverance, he having married the landlady.

Folkestone Express, 30 August 1873.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

The licensing committee met at ten o'clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o'clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

The applications for beerhouses were then considered, all of which were granted. In the case of the Perseverance on The Stade it was stated by the landlord that he had expended £70 or £80 in enlarging the house, and Mr. Gambrill said the attention of the overseers should be called to the fact in order that the assessment might be raised.

Folkestone Express, 20 November 1875.

Saturday, November 13th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, T. Caister, R.W. Boarer and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

John Thomas Russell, landlord of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for selling beer during prohibited hours on Sunday the 7th inst., and John Marsh, butcher, Henry White, butcher, James Pope, flyman, ---- Shrubsole, carter, ---- Herring, general dealer, John Holmes, flyman, Wm. Spearpoint jun., fisherman, Wm. Spearpoint sen., fisherman, Richard Bourne, fisherman, and William Wanston, blacksmith, were charged with being in the said house at unlawful hours.

Each of the defendants pleaded Guilty. Some amusement was created by the elder Spearpoint, when called upon to plead, saying “Thank you”.

The defendant Russell, in extenuation, said that the boats came in very late at night, and a boat's crew came in for refreshment and the door was left open.

P.C. Keeler said he went to defendant's house at twenty minutes to eight on Sunday morning, the 7th inst., and found the door open. He went in and saw the landlord behind the bar and the other defendants in front. He asked the landlord how it was, when he said he was very sorry, and hoped that witness would look over it.

In answer to the Bench, Superintendent Wilshere said he had received intimation of the trade carried on by the defendant Russell on Sunday morning, but as a rule the house was well conducted.

The Mayor, addressing Russell, said the Bench had it in their power to fine him £10, but taking into consideration the fact that it was his first conviction, they would fine him in the mitigated penalty of £5 and the costs. At the same time they wished to remind him that leaving his door open was a great temptation for men to go in. Addressing the other defendants, his Worship said that they were each liable to a heavy penalty, but considering the circumstances of the case the Bench would only fine them 2s. and 8s. costs each.

The money was paid in each instance.

Folkestone Express, 25 March 1876.

Tuesday, March 21st: Before The Mayor and Col. De Crespigny.

William Mellow, a seaman on board the Annie White collier, was charged with being drunk and using obscene language at the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, on the previous evening.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

John Russell, landlord of the Perseverance said that at about ten minutes to eleven o'clock the prisoner came into the house, but witness refused to draw him any beer. Upon that prisoner became very violent and he had to be given into custody.

P.C. Ovenden said he took the prisoner into custody, and he was so violent that the assistance of three other men had to be obtained to take him to the station.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk, and 5s. for using obscene language, together with 3s. 6d. costs in each case. The money was paid by the mate of the ship to which prisoner belonged.

Folkestone Express, 19 July 1879.

Monday, July 14th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, M.J. Bell and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mary Ann Scamp, an old woman, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and refusing to quit licensed premises, the Perseverance Inn, on the 12th inst.

P.C. Bashford proved the charge, and the Bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d., costs 3s.6d., or in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express, 22 December 1888.

Friday, December 13th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Alderman Banks.

John Davidson was charged with stealing a woollen shawl, and a silver mounted walking stick, the property of some person unknown.

Sergeant Harman said he was in Dover Street about half past seven on Thursday evening, in plain clothes, and from a communication he received from Boat Inspector Brice, he watched the prisoner, who he saw come out of the Perseverance beerhouse with the shawl over his shoulders and the stick in his hand. He saw prisoner go into several shops and public houses, and at half past eight followed him into the Raglan at the top of Dover Street. He cautioned him and asked him where he got the shawl and stick from. He replied “The shawl belongs to me. It was my mother's. I didn't steal the stick. It belongs to some gentleman”. He took him to the police station and charged him on suspicion of stealing the articles, and detained him for enquiries to be made. Prisoner said he did not steal the stick; he only took it. There was a lot of flymen in the house at the time. He asked prisoner what house, and he said he would go back and show him, but witness declined to go. Prisoner was under the influence of drink, and made no reply at the station to the charge.

Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand in order that he might trace the owner of the stick, which had on the silver knob the initials “F.C.S.”

On Saturday the accused was again brought up, and there being no further evidence adduced, he was discharged.

Folkestone Express, 11 October 1890.

Monday, October 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness, S. Penfold, and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Thomas Clayton, a young man of decent appearance, was charged with stealing 18s. in silver and bronze, the property of Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms.

Joseph Whiting said: I am landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms, in Fenchurch Street. Prisoner came to my house and slept there on Friday last. He was also there on Saturday about the house, sometimes in the kitchen and sometimes in the bar. He was there on Saturday evening. Just before, he said he was not going to stay as he had no money to pay for his bed. About seven o'clock he went out of the front door which leads to the bar. I left the bar about the same time as prisoner was leaving the bar and went to the back part of the house and left the bar unattended. When prisoner told me he had no money to pay for his bed he was in front of the bar. I was absent about a minute, and I went to the till to pay a girl for some fish, when I found I had been robbed. I had just before been to the till, and whatever had been taken was done between the time I was absent from the bar and my return. Prisoner could easily have got at the till by leaning over the counter. Prisoner came back and said he would pay for a bed, and for that of a friend. He went upstairs and I followed him, and saw him come back, and he paid me 1s. 6d. for his and another man's bed and for some beer. I missed from my till about 15s. in bronze and about four or five shillings in silver. I never mentioned my loss until I gave him in charge about nine o'clock. I told prisoner then that it looked very suspicious on his part, and gave him in custody. Prisoner said nothing. P.C. Swift said “You will have to come along with me” and he replied “All right”.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: You had money on Friday night and changed money on Saturday morning. The time you paid for the bed was about nine o'clock. On Saturday morning you might have spent about 6d. or 8d. You told me when you left to take charge of the parcel until you returned.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, said prisoner went to his house on Saturday evening. He was alone. He called for a small soda. There were other people in the bar. He treated people in the bar to the amount of 2s., which he paid for in coppers. He saw he had 2s. 6d. in silver with the coppers.

Jane Tritton said prisoner came to the bar of the Royal George on Saturday evening. Two men went with him. He called for drinks for himself and companions, which he paid for in coppers, to the amount of one shilling. He asked her if she would mind coppers. She said she was short of them, and gave him 2s. 6d. in silver for that amount of coppers.

Stephen Hall deposed to prisoner treating him, and his having a large quantity of coppers in his possession.

P.C. Swift, who apprehended the prisoner, said he asked him “How long have you been in the bar?” He replied “Oh, I don't know. Anything wrong or anybody robbed?” He replied “Yes”. Prisoner said “What's the charge?” and he told him and prisoner answered “All right”. On searching him he found on him 5s. and a halfpenny in bronze, and 2s. 6d. and two sixpenny pieces in silver. He was charged before the Superintendent in his presence and he replied “All right. It is true”.

Prisoner said he did not remember saying that.

In reply to a question, the constable said he was sober.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench, and said that he had been hopping, and the money he had about him was what he had been paid. He denied that he told prosecutor that he had no money.

The Chairman told prisoner that the Bench considered him Guilty. Tradesmen must be protected in their business. It was a gross theft. He would be sent to gaol for six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express, 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness said she had a doctor's certificate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express, 29 May 1897.

Saturday, May 22nd: Before The Mayor, J. Pledge, J. Fitness, J. Hoad, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Thomas Smith was summoned for refusing to quit a public house and with assaulting the landlord. He did not appear. Mr. Minter represented the prosecutor.

The landlord of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, said defendant entered his house on Tuesday evening at ten minutes to six. He had been in in the morning, and was ordered out. In the evening he was in such a state that he was refused anything to drink. He then became abusive, and was ordered out, but declined to go. Witness went round to put him out, and defendant seized him by the throat and said no-one could turn him out. He tore witness's clothing, and Mr. Russell, upholsterer, came over and helped to get the defendant out. The door was locked. He then “bashed the door” and broke a window, and did damage to the amount of 12s. There were two or three others in the bar at the time, but they did not interfere.

Fined 20s. and 10s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express, 2 October 1897.

Wednesday, September 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen J. Pledge, W.W. Salter and G. Spurgen, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Holden Esqs.

Eliza Harvey was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 21st inst. in Dover Street.

P.C. Burniston said that he saw defendant, who was very drunk, going in to the Perseverance Inn. He went in and told the landlord not to serve her. She came out and began using obscene language. He took her name and address.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that she was an old offender, but had not been charged for years.

The defendant, who did not appear, was fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Express, 11 February 1899.

Inquest.

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon, on Charles Murphy, whose body was picked up in the outer harbour between twelve and one on Monday.

Patrick Dennis Newman, ordinary seaman on the brig Cambois, of Folkestone (Captain Harrison), identified deceased as Charles Murphy, who was an able bodied seaman on the same vessel. The ship arrived from Shields with coal about a week or fortnight ago. They were discharging outside the Bridge now. Deceased sailed in the ship from Shields. On Sunday evening, between six and seven, he saw the deceased on the ship in his bunk in the forecastle house on deck asleep. He afterwards turned out and went ashore. He was not exactly sober, but could not be described as drunk. He was about 48 or 50 years of age. He was a single man, and his home was at Dover. He saw no more of deceased until he was picked up between twelve and one on Monday in the outer harbour. He was practically underneath the ship. Witness heard nothing during Sunday night.

Charles Joseph Venner, of 35, Dover Street, a fisherman, said he knew deceased well. He saw him in the Perseverance in Dover Street on Saturday evening between nine and half past. He was as sober as a judge then, “as sober as I am now”, added witness.

Albert Hart, a lad living at 35a, North Street, said on Monday morning between twelve and one he was walking in the harbour. The tide was going out. He saw a man's leg sticking out from beneath the ship Cambois The water was just covering deceased. It was high tide at six a.m. that morning. He told a man who was just going down the plank. He called the others, and they dragged deceased out.

Captain Harrison said he began to discharge a week ago. They were bow on to the tramway, and discharging into wagons, which carried the coal into trucks. If the ship laid alongside they would have to pay so much dues because the coal did not belong to the S.E.R. Company. He was on board on Sunday afternoon at five o'clock. He turned the men to at six o'clock, and deceased was not there, but that was a usual occurrence. They often had someone missing the first thing in the morning, and he did not think anything about it. The plank by which the crew went on board was by the port side. Witness's idea was that deceased fell and was killed by the fall.

Dr. J.W. Thornton Gilbert said on Monday about ten minutes past twelve he was called by the police and went to the Fish Market, and in a stable he saw the body of deceased, which he examined. He was dead, and in his (Witness's) opinion had been so for a matter of six or seven hours. There were no outward marks of violence on the body, but on the forehead and the right side of the nose there was an abrasion which might have been produced by a fall. Looking at the extent of the abrasion it was, in his opinion, caused by a fall. He could not make out any fracture of the skull, and in his judgement death was due to the fall, which had caused a concussion, followed by suffocation either by water or mud. He was covered with mud, and his pockets were full of mud. It was possible that he might have fallen face downwards into the mud, and so have been smothered.

Captain Harrison, re-called, said it was a very dangerous spot, and it took the most perfectly sober man in the world to go across to the ship in safety, because there was no light, and there were railway metals and trucks all about the place. A person had to be very careful indeed to cross safely.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental Death”, but there was no evidence to show how caused, and added a rider that representations should be made to the South Eastern Railway Company to mitigate the danger which existed at the spot where the accident occurred by placing a lamp there.

Folkestone Express, 11 May 1901.

Tuesday, May 7th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, W. Salter, and G.I Swoffer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Edwin Morgan was granted a transfer of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

Folkestone Express, 15 June 1901.

Wednesday, June 12th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

Henry Wm. Morgan was granted a transfer of the licence of the Railway Tap (sic) from Mr. Riddall, and some alterations to the interior were approved by the Bench. Mr. F. Hall represented the applicant.

Folkestone Express, 30 January 1904.

Wednesday, January 27th: Before Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp.

William Spearpoint, a fisherman, was summoned for being found drunk on licensed premises. Defendant denied the charge.

P.C. Johnson said: At 7.15 p.m. on January 19th I was on duty in Dover Street, and saw the defendant staggering up the road. He was in a drunken condition, and entered the Perseverance Inn. I followed him and heard the landlady ask him to leave the premises. He remained inside several minutes, and then I entered and told him I should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. Defendant replied “Don't lock me up this time”. I saw the defendant ejected from several public houses previously.

Defendant said he was very sorry for what had happened. He was a teetotaller for four months previous to this, and had since signed the pledge.

Supt. Reeve proved 14 previous convictions.

A fine of 10s. and 9s. costs was inflicted.

Folkestone Express 14 May 1904.

Monday, May 9th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieutenant Colonel Westropp, Lieutenant Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Edward Parker and John Byrne, both belonging to the Royal Garrison Artillery, stationed at Dover, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street the previous night.

P.C. Minter said about nine o'clock the previous night he was on duty in Dover Street, outside the Perseverance Inn. He heard Byrne demanding drink, but the landlord refused to serve him, and ordered him to leave. He, however, refused. Witness went inside and requested him to leave. He had to obtain assistance to get him outside, where he became so violent that he had to be taken to the police station. On the way Parker came up in a drunken condition and tried to release the other prisoner. With the assistance of P.C.s Kettle and Johnson Parker was taken to the police station.

Prisoners had nothing to say, both stating that they did not remember anything about it.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour in default.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable's report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6th.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The objection against the renewal of the licence of the Perseverance Inn to Mr. Robert Henry Tracey was next considered.

The Chief Constable said the house was an ante 1869 beer-house situate in Dover Street. The present tenant obtained a transfer of the licence on December 7th of last year. Messrs. Flint and Co. were the registered owners, and the rateable value was £27. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 29, and within 200 yards there were 39. The accommodation for the public consisted of two compartments, or small bars, and a tap room. In 1902 plans were called for by the licensing justices, but no order for structural alterations was made. In his opinion the house was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said the Welcome, a fully licensed house, was only a very short distance away. Since February 8th, when the licence of the Welcome was renewed, there was a conviction for permitting drunkenness against that house. There were altogether four convictions against it.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said he considered the house unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. On February 15th the landlord told him he wished he had not speculated his money in the house, and on March 4th he also told him that he barely took enough money to pay expenses.

Mr. Tracey said he paid £179 altogether to go into the house. In the summer the house let to a good class of visitors. The amount of beer consumed depended on the fishing trade; sometimes it was four barrels a week, and sometimes only two. Since he had taken the house he had found that a public house was a nuisance and that a publican's life was intolerable. When he got out he would take no more public houses. He had been a mounted policeman, a soldier, and a gold prospector.

Mr. Alec Ward, a director of Messrs. Flint and Co., said during the year ending October, 1902, 341 barrels of beer were sold in the house. In 1903 there were 300, and in 1904, 266, or an average of five barrels a week.

Mr. Avory contended that the area marked on the map produced an unfair result. If they extended the boundary a mile further away from the cluster of houses they would find the houses were serving a large population of people. He submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates' consideration whether any practical result could follow from a reference of those cases to the Quarter Sessions. He thought that the funda available for compensation would not be sufficient to meet the cases which had already been referred to the Quarter Sessions. The result would be there would be a deadlock when the question came to be considered. The Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to say they must hold their hands or they would be obliged to do what would be a gross injustice – reduce the compensation below what the proper amount should be.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought they were bound to refer the case to the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1905.

East Kent Licensing.

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King's Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King's Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin's contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Perseverance.

Robert Henry Tracey next gave evidence with regard to the Perseverance. He said he had been a tenant of the house since November last. He paid £28 a year rent. He had been a prospector and a gold miner. He had been in the Mashonaland Mounted Police and the Cape Police during the war. He paid £179 to go into the house. That sum included fixtures and some furniture and stock. The trade was greatly improving every week, and it had gone up from two barrels to rather more than four barrels a week. He was now satisfied with the trade. He had made a living in the worst time of the year, and he was certain he would in the best time.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said his savings of ten years in South Africa had been put in the house.

Mr. Alexander Ward, a director of Messrs. Flint and Co., said the house was the freehold property of his company. The trade had been thoroughly good ever since he had known the house. It averaged eight barrels a week including bottled ales for the last four years.

The Chairman said he thought the witness had made a mistake with regard to barrelage, and witness, after working the figures out again, said he made the barrelage about six every week.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Folkestone Express 3 March 1906.

Wednesday, February 28th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and T. Ames, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The following licence was temporarily transferred: the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, from Mr. Tracey to Mr. F. Ralph (late of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street).

Folkestone Express 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.J. Linton Esq.

The following licence was transferred: The Perseverance, from Robert Henry Tracey to Frederick Ralph.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 6th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty extensions of the ordinary 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, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. 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 offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coollinge.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The Chief Constable said the next business was to consider the opposition to five licences.

The Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was next dealt with.

Mr. Battiscombe, the manager for the brewers, said they did not intend to fight the opposition that morning, but they would do so at the East Kent Licensing Sessions.

The Chief Constable said the licensee was Frederick Ralph, who obtained the transfer on April 12th, 1906. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value of the house was £27. There were three entrances to the house in Dover Street. The accommodation consisted on one bar divided into two compartments – a tap room and public bar. The accommodation for the licensee was on the first floor. The urinal provided for the use of the public was up a flight of steps by the side of the house. Within a radius of 200 yards of this house there were thirty one other on licensed houses. The nearest licensed house was the Bricklayers Arms, in Fenchurch Street. The rateable value of that was £36, while that of the Perseverance Inn was only £27. It was an ante-1869 beerhouse. He frequently passed the house, and it appeared to him that only a small trade was done and it was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said he knew the Perseverance Inn very well, and in his opinion it did a small trade, and was not required for the immediate neighbourhood.

The Justices decided to refer this house, and then adjourned for lunch.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1907.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to the houses being closed and compensation given.

The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the others will be compensated.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1908.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick Ralph, of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on March 25th. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at about twenty past one on 25th March he was passing defendant's premises, when he saw a man whom he knew leave the public bar. His name was Daniel Cox. He was very drunk, and witness watched him. He walked down the street to the entrance which led to the urinal. He was so drunk that he had to support himself by the side of the building. He afterwards returned to the bar of the Perseverance beerhouse. Witness waited some six or seven minutes, and, seeing he was not ejected, walked into Beach Street, where he met P.C. Simpson, and they went back to the public house and entered the bar, where the man Cox was seated. Defendant was behind the bar counter. Cox was supporting himself by the table at which he was seated. In front of him stood an empty pint glass, which appeared to have been drunk from, containing a considerable quantity of froth. Witness asked defendant if he had served Cox with drink, and he replied “Yes, I served him with a pint, which was paid for by the deputy of the Radnor lodging house. Cox has been here half an hour, and I have been here all the morning”. Witness then told Cox to stand up, which he did with difficulty, and witness found he was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. Witness pointed out to defendant Cox's condition, and said he should arrest him on his licensed premises and report defendant for permitting drunkenness. He replied “I agree with you. He is drunk”. Cox was the brought to the police station by P.C. Simpson and witness, and the charge was taken by Inspector Swift.

Cross-examined: Witness said defendant had previously been the licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh, and during the fourteen years he had been there, there had been no conviction against him to his knowledge. Defendant had been at the Perseverance about two years.

P.C. Simpson corroborated Detective Sergeant Burniston's statement. Cox was drunk.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he was formerly the tenant of the Duke of Edinburgh for 14 years. He had been at the Perseverance for two years, which had been referred for consideration. During the time Cox was in the bar three men came in, one of them being the deputy of the Radnor lodging house. He called for three glasses of beer, and gave Cox one. Prior to serving Cox with drink, in witness's opinion, Cox was sober. He was not assisted out of the bar by the police. He walked out. There had been no conviction against him (witness), and if he thought Cox was drunk he should have ordered him out.

Cross-examined: Cox was on the premises about half an hour. The other men remained there about five minutes. Witness did not protest against the police charging Cox on his premises. He did not say to Burniston that he agreed with him that Cox was drunk.

Mr. Haines having addressed the Bench, the Chairman said they were unanimously of the opinion that the case was proved. Defendant was liable to a fine of £10, but in consideration of the way in which he had conducted the house, and having held a licence for so long, he would be fined 40s. and 11s. costs.

Folkestone Express 18 April 1908.

Saturday, April 11th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and R.G. Wood Esq.

A pitiable sight was presented when a young man named Leslie Ralph was brought into Court on a charge of attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat. He looked terribly ill, and was wearing a bandage round his throat. He made that peculiar noise in breathing which is common after tracheotomy has been performed. To make his condition even more pitiable was the fact that he had a wooden leg.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the doctor had informed him that the lad would never be able to speak again.

Henry Morgan, of 15a, Dover Street, said he was a fishmonger. The prisoner lived at home with his parents at the Perseverance Inn, opposite to his house. On Monday, February 17th, about half past five in the morning, Mrs. Ralph came to his house, and in consequence he accompanied her to the Perseverance. She went upstairs, and in the middle of the narrow staircase he found the prisoner lying on the stairs. His father was trying to get him up. He assisted his father to carry him up the stairs, and they placed him on the floor of the bedroom. He noticed that he had a long cut in his throat, which was bleeding very much. The defendant was dressed in his trousers and undervest, which were saturated with blood. He believed the prisoner was sensible, but he did not speak. He remained there for about a quarter of an hour, when P.C. Ashby came. Dr. Gilbert came ten minutes later and bandaged the throat. He was then removed to the Hospital. The prisoner did not speak during the whole time he was there.

P.C. Ashby said about 5.30 on the morning of February 17th he was called to the Perseverance public house, where he saw the prisoner. He was lying on the floor of the bedroom, and on examining him he found an extensive wound on the throat. Shortly afterwards Dr. Gilbert arrived. The prisoner had remained at the Victoria Hospital until that day. He traced the bloodstains from where he found the prisoner to a back room on the ground floor. On the floor there was a large quantity of blood, and by the side of it there was the razor produced. The handle of the razor was tied to the blade, and it was covered with blood. On the table close by he found the note produced. That morning he charged the prisoner with attempting suicide by cutting his throat. He made no reply.

Frederick Ralph, the landlord of the Perseverance, said the prisoner was his son, who lived at home with him. He was 19 years old last Christmas day. The razor belonged to another one of his sons. The prisoner was a tailor by trade. He had not noticed his son being depressed of late; in fact he had been most cheerful. The note produced was in his handwriting. It was addressed to his (prisoner's) mother, and in it prisoner stated that he could not speak, and all he was longing to do was to get to Ned. In conclusion he wrote “Goodbye to all. Leslie”.

DR. J.R. Kemp, house surgeon at the Hospital, said the prisoner was brought to that institution by the police. On examining him he found he was suffering from a deep wound in the throat. It extended right across and had gone through the larynx. He was in a collapsed condition owing to loss of blood and was unable to speak. The wound was sewn up, and Ralph remained under his treatment until that morning. The wound was a very dangerous one, and might have been inflicted with the razor produced. A considerable amount of force was necessary to inflict such a wound. As a result the prisoner would always have to wear a tracheotomy tube in his throat. He might be able to whisper, but he did not think he would ever be able to articulate properly again.

When asked if he understood the charge, Ralph nodded his head, and, in reply to the Clerk, whether he wished to call any witnesses or say anything, he shook his head in the negative.

The prisoner was eventually committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions, on April 22nd, bail being allowed, his father acting as surety for him.

Folkestone Express 25 April 1908.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, April 22nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Leslie Ralph, a tailor, was charged with unlawfully attempting to commit suicide by cutting himself with a razor, on 17th February. Prisoner, who looked much better than he did when he appeared before the Magistrates, pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthew, on behalf of the prosecution, said apparently, on the depositions at any rate, there was no explanation for the act of the prisoner. Prisoner had cut his throat with a razor, which had apparently robbed himself of the power of speech, as it was thought that he was not likely to speak again.

The Recorder: It seems to have been a very desperate attempt.

Mrs. Ralph, the mother of the prisoner, was called and asked why her son had made the attempt. She replied that she was too heartbroken to speak and that her son had two written statements for the Recorder.

Two statements were then handed to the Recorder, who read them. The first was written by the prisoner, in the course of which he said his sufferings at the time were beyond describing. He could get very little sleep, as he suffered greatly from constipation. He earnestly asked for forgiveness, as his father and mother were in great trouble. He had lost his leg, and he asked God to give him strength in his affliction, to gain prosperity. He publicly returned thanks to the Superintendent of the Police and the policemen who had been by his bed of suffering for so long, the doctor and nurses at the hospital, who had been so kind to him, and to the clergymen who had visited him. He also thanked his master, Mr. Denne, for his past kindness, and also Mr. Morgan, of 15, Dover Street, who kindly came to the assistance of his father and mother. He earnestly asked God forgiveness, and he again pleaded to him (the Recorder) for the greatest mercy. The second statement was from the father and mother, who appealed to the Recorder to be merciful to their afflicted son. They could not give the slightest idea why he had done it, because he was always so cheerful. In their heavy trials he tried to make home as happy as possible. His chief study was to try and prosper by his own industry. He never touched drink or smoked, never had an idle moment after his daily labour. He made his own clothes and those of his father and brother. He had suffered greatly from constipation. For the second time in two years their licensed house which they had occupied had been closed under the new Act. They had had fifteen children and had held a licence for sixteen years, as well as being ratepayers for twenty eight years.

Mr. Denne, a tailor, said the prisoner was an apprentice with him and had served five years. During that time he had had no cause to find fault with his behaviour. He had found him very cheerful, willing, and honest.

Mrs. Ralph informed the Recorder that her son lost his leg when he was nine years of age.

Mr. Denne said he did not know of any cause why Ralph should have done such a thing. He had never any cause to suspect he would do anything of the kind. The prisoner was not fit to work at the present, but when he was he would be pleased to have him back again.

The mother said, in reply to the Recorder, that one of the nurses told her her son would be able to do without the tube in his throat. His voice was also coming back.

Dr. Kemp said the wound was a very dangerous one, and it must have required great force. The razor cut clean through the larynx. The prisoner might recover his speech, but he thought he might always have to have the tube in his throat. He had heard from the burses that when in the hospital the prisoner expressed contrition for his act.

Mr. Denne, recalled, said at the time prisoner was earning 8/6 a week from him. He had advised him to look out for something better, where he might earn more money.

The lad's father expressed his willingness to be bound over as surety for his son's good behaviour. He further said he did not believe his son would do such a thing again.

The Recorder said the prisoner had pleaded Guilty to one of the worst attempts of suicide that had come before that Court. He did not believe he was in his right mind when he did it. It was a cruel and wicked thing to do. Had it not been for the appeals for mercy and his past good conduct he should have felt it his duty to send him to prison. He would take a merciful view of his conduct and he would be bound over to be of good behaviour for one year. His father would also be bound over on his behalf.

Folkestone Express 5 February 1910.

Wednesday, February 2nd: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton, and Major Leggett.

Edith Ralph, a married woman, was charged with attempting to commit suicide.

Wm. Metcalf, managers to Messrs. Timothy White and Co., carrying on business as chemists at 71, Tontine Street, said prisoner came into the shop at about twenty minutes past three the previous afternoon. She asked for twopennyworth of salts of lemon, saying she wanted it for cleaning closets. Witness told her that salts of lemon was not the thing to clean closets with. Prisoner said it was a liquid, and she wanted either salts of lemon or spirits of salts. She satisfied him that it was for a legitimate use, and he served her with twopennyworth of spirits of salts in the eight ounce bottle produced. The bottle was filled, and after paying threepence she left the shop, after he had ascertained that she knew it was a poisonous substance. Within ten minutes prisoner returned. She handed the bottle back, and said it was not the stuff she wanted. She said it must be salts of lemon. Witness took the bottle away, the contents of which were not appreciably diminished. He put the contents into the bottle which he had previously taken it from, and he went back to call the woman to him. Prisoner walked the length of the shop, and then said “To tell you the truth, I have taken some of that”. Just as she said those words, witness caught her in the act of falling. He obtained the assistance of a customer, and they sat her down on a chair, and witness administered an antidote as quickly as possible. She did not vomit, and subsequently she recovered. A teaspoonful might have been taken out of the bottle. Assuming she had taken that amount it would make her ill. It would not prove fatal. An ounce would prove fatal. The prisoner had taken about half a drachm.

The Chairman, after a consultation with the Clerk, said they did not know whether prisoner really intended to take her life, but they hoped she did not. They knew she had had a great deal of trouble. He advised her to go home and be a sensible woman and not do such a foolish thing again. She was discharged.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1933.

Obituary.

We record, with deep regret, the death of Mr. Frederick Ralph, of Beaulieu, Bouverie Road West, Folkestone, who passed away suddenly at Manor Court Nursing Home on Saturday last, in his 80th year.

Mr. Ralph had been in bad health for a long time; indeed, he had not been able to leave his house for more than eight months, yet maintained his accustomed keen interest in affairs.

Mr. Ralph was born in 1854 opposite old Newgate Prison (now demolished), and he could remember the tolling of the Great Bell of St. Paul's when the Prince Consort died in 1861, and, as a boy, witnessed the last public execution which took place at Newgate in 1868 or 1869. After occupying various posts in London (he was for a few months in the Temple), he migrated to Hastings, where he met and married his wife, who predeceased him by exactly five years. At Hastings he became a member of the Royal Naval Volunteers, and in carrying out his duties as manager to Messrs. Norton and Townsend he personally supervised, when a heavy sea was running, the loading of the wines on board Lord Brassey's yacht “The Sunbeam”. From Hastings Mr. Ralph went to Maidstone, where he became proprietor of the Queen's Head Hotel. Here he organised the first regatta to be held on the Medway.

Leaving Maidstone, Mr. Ralph came to Folkestone over 50 years ago, and bought the Rose Hotel (now no more) in Rendezvous Street. The hotel was, in those days, the recognised rendezvous of the principal citizens; the large hotels further west were not built. As time went on his business interests in Folkestone developed steadily. He was closely associated with the formation of the Pleasure Gardens Theatre Company, and, at his death, he was the senior member of the Board. He was always happy to remember that the late Lord Radnor personally invited him to join the Directorate. He took the greatest interest in theatrical affairs and knew many stage celebrities. For a short time Mr. Ralph was connected with the Victoria Pier. For many years he was Chairman of the Queen's Hotel, resigning this position only recently owing to failing health. He formed the Folkestone Billposting Company, which developed branches at Dover and Hastings, this business being afterwards amalgamated with Messrs. Partington, Kent, Limited, of which company he was Chairman at the time of his death. He was also Chairman of the Burlington, and for some years was Chairman of the Grand, afterwards remaining as Director.

About 30 years ago, Mr. Ralph formed the Leas Pavilion Company and took a continuously active interest in this business to the last. He was for some years on the Board of the Folkestone Gas Company, and likewise held Directorships in Messrs. D. Baker and Co Ltd., and the Silver Spring Mineral Water Company.

Mr. Ralph was always keenly interested in sport, and in his younger days was a natural athlete, being, in particular, a lightweight boxer of considerable merit, while many will also recall his great skill as a billiards player.

As a businessman Mr. Ralph had foresight and courage. He took endless pains to make anything he was connected with a success, and was outstanding for his high standard of commercial probity. It would not be too much to say that he was far more concerned with other people's interests, if he felt responsible for them, than he was even for his own. However, his judgement was rarely at fault, and his business ventures were almost uniformly successful.

He was a man of very considerable personality, one with a finely developed sense of humour, and he had an amazing collection of anecdotes, with great powers as a mimic.

His greatest virtues were his sense of justice and his generosity. Throughout his long life he performed kindnesses both small and great, and it is no more than his due to say his passing will be widely regretted. He felt the death of his wife very keenly, and during the last few years he was sorely tried by his inability to lead as active a life as formerly. Nevertheless, his interest in affairs remained unimpaired to the last.

He leaves a son and daughter, Mr. F.H.M. Ralph and Miss Violet Ralph, to mourn their loss.

The funeral took place on Wednesday at the Cheriton Road Cemetery.