Folkestone Express 9 January 1869.

Thursday, January 7th: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Mary Wilson was charged with stealing a bundle of clothes from the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street.

Mrs. Mary Jane Stay deposed that she was the wife of William Stay, of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. On Friday, the 1st inst. she missed a bundle of clothes. At ten p.m. it was on a chair in the bar. It contained eight Holland and two diaper pinafores, two chemises, six pair of drawers, one glass cloth, four bedroom towels, a pocket handkerchief, tablecloth and a calico jacket; she valued them at 30s. The things were put on a chair in the bar at six in the evening. She missed them on the following morning about twelve o'clock. They were not seen in the bar that morning. She did not know the prisoner. Her husband served in the bar that evening, but did not recollect anything about the prisoner. After witness missed the things she gave information to P.C. Woodlands, on Saturday afternoon, between four and five o'clock. The policeman afterwards fetched her to go to Mr. Hart's pawn shop. She saw a bundle of the clothes there; it only contained a portion of the missing clothes. Saw the rest of the things last night at the police station. The things produced are the things lost. She could recognise them by the marks and workmanship.

William Hart was then sworn. He said he was an assistant at the pawn shop of Mr. Philip Hart, High Street. The prisoner pledged a bundle of clothes on Saturday last, about five o'clock. He examined the bundle, but could not tell exactly the articles it contained. The bundle produced, he thought, was the one. He lent the prisoner 2s. on them; he asked her if it was her property; she answered “Yes”. She came again on Wednesday evening at seven o'clock and offered the other bundle in pledge. Witness examined them, and then got one of the other assistants to remain in the shop while he fetched a constable. Police Constable Woodlands came and asked her where she got the bundle of clothes that she pledged on Saturday. (Prisoner: He didn't ask me that.) She said she picked them up in the street. He then took her into custody. He gave all the things to P.C. Woodland.

P.C. Woodland said that on Saturday, between four and five in the afternoon, from information he received from Mr. Stay, who had lost a bundle of clothes from the bar, he went to Mr. Hart's in High Street, and between six and seven he found a bundle there answering the description. He communicated with the prosecutor, and Mrs. Stay went with him, and she identified it as her property. He went to the shop again last night and saw the prisoner in the pawn shop, and asked her if her name was Mary Wilson; she said it was. Asked her if she pawned the bundle on Saturday. She said she did. He then asked her if it was her property; she said no, she picked them up in the street in the upper part of the town, and the clothes was of no use to her, so she pledged them for 2s. She produced some of the articles after being taken to the station last night.

The prisoner was then cautioned in the usual way, and asked if she had anything to say in answer to the charge, when she reiterated her statement of finding them in the street.

The Bench committed her for trial at the next Quarter Sessions on Friday, and ordered that she should be confined at Petworth till that day.

Folkestone Express 16 January 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, January 15th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Mary Wilson was charged with stealing a bundle of clothes, the property of Henry Stay, at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. The circumstances attending the case were fully detailed in our impression of last week. The prisoner was given in charge of P.C. Woodland while offering a portion of the property lost at Mr. Hart's pawn shop, High Street. In answer to the charge she said she “found them on the street”.

The Recorder, in summing up, said Mrs. Stay placed the property behind the bar in her house on the 1st inst., and she missed it the next morning. The prisoner was found in possession of the property at Mr. Hart's, dealing with it as her own. Then she said she picked the bundle up – if so she should give a satisfactory account of how it came into her possession. If they believed her statement, someone else must have stolen it, but no evidence was produced to show that, and the prisoner had disposed of the things in a clandestine manner. Then, did she make reasonable inquiries? As to the identity of the articles, there was no doubt about it.

The jury, after a quarter of an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, to the surprise of those present, and the prisoner was discharged.

This finished the business of the session.

Folkestone Express 6 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Timothy Danaher, a private in the 3rd Buffs at Shorncliffe, was brought up charged with committing a burglary.

Miss Annie Ballard, of 25, Cheriton Place, sworn, said: I heard a crashing noise about three o'clock on Tuesday morning and rang the bell violently; after that it became quite quiet. When I came down in the morning I saw that the glass was broken in the glass door, and I suppose that they key not being left in the lock, the thieves could not get in that way. I then saw the window was broken in the door leading to the housekeeper's room, and in going through there the ringing of the bell must have frightened them. I missed a round brass dial and an inkstand from the mantelpiece in the housekeeper's room. The house was properly locked up when we retired to rest about eleven o'clock. I saw some ink spilled and some drops of blood on the pavement and on the blind. I did not miss anything else. The door was at the front of the house.

The prisoner, when asked if he had any questions to ask, said he knew nothing about the affair.

P.C. Smith said: Yesterday morning between ten and eleven my attention was drawn to 25, Cheriton Place. Miss Ballard told me she had missed a time-piece and inkstand. I examined the window and saw it was broken, and blood and ink splashes in several places. From information I received I went to Hythe in search of the prisoner. A man named John Brooks told me the prisoner had offered him a time-piece and inkstand for sale the same morning. I then went to Durham Street, and found the prisoner in a private house, and I charged him with breaking into a house that morning, and having the stolen property in his possession. He said that he knew nothing about it and had not had the things at all. I then took him to the Hythe police station. I made several enquiries for the property, but could not hear anything further. I then brought the prisoner to the police station at Folkestone and searched him, and I found a pair of gloves all smeared with ink, and one of the pockets of his trousers and his hands were all smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

By the prisoner: I was told at a public house I went to with you that in going out of the door you fell and cut your nose.

Mr. H. Stay, of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, said: On Tuesday morning, between twelve and one o'clock, the prisoner came into my house and begged me to draw him a pint of beer, which I denied. He said to me then that he had been absent for two days, and I then said I was in the service for some years and I would give him a glass of beer if he would go home. He had no bruise on his nose then.

The prisoner said he was drunk when he went to the house of the last witness.

Upon the application of Mr. Martin the case was remanded till Friday.

Friday, February 5th: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Timothy Danaher was brought up on remand.

Miss Ballard was re-examined, but the only additional evidence adduced was that the mother was in the house at the time, and the property missing was hers. She valued the property lost at 7s. 6d. They had also missed a window blind.

John Brooks, of Hythe, said: I know the prisoner and saw him on Tuesday morning between seven and eight on the road. He asked me if I would buy a clock. I told him I did not want such a thing. He then pulled an inkstand out of his pocket. I told him I didn't want it. He said I could have it if I gave him a pot of beer. It looked like a pewter one, gilded. He had something like a window blind in his hand.

George Hall, shoemaker, said: I live at Hythe. I know the prisoner by sight, and saw him on Tuesday about half past ten in Theatre Street. I said “Hallo, what's up with you?”, as I saw he was all over mud and his nose cut about. He said he had lost his belt. I took compassion on him and took him into a public house and gave him a pint of beer. Asked him if he knew a person of the name of O'Grady here, and he said “Yes”, and I told him he would clean his tunic for him. He went and came back and we had a pot of beer, Afterwards I went along a lane at Hythe with him, and he asked me if I could “push” anything. I did not understand him, and he repeated the question. He then said “Are you a detective?”. I said “No”. He said “Give me your hand as a friend”. I gave him my hand and I asked him what he had got. He said he had a small clock for sale, and he had broken into a house at Folkestone and broke two windows. I advised him to take it back again. He said he would go back to Mrs. O'Grady's and get the article. While he went back the policeman came and took him. He was going to take it back. He said he had lost his belt. I said “No, my good man. The belt is in your pocket.”, and he said that was a clock. He did not take it out of his pocket.

The prisoner made a statement.

The Bench: We don't think there is anything in the case to prevent it's being sent for trial. We therefore commit you for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 17 April 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, April 14th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Timothy Danaher, 30, private of the 3rd Buffs, was arraigned for burglary. He pleaded Guilty. It will be remembered the prisoner was brought up in February before the magistrates for breaking into a house at 25, Cheriton Place, in the occupation of Mrs. Harriett Ballard, and stealing therefrom a brass dial, inkstand, and a knitted blind. He had been seen in Folkestone the same night as the offence was committed at the Prince Albert Inn. He was found the day afterwards at Hythe, where he had offered some of the property for sale.

The prisoner asked to say a few words to the court. He said a witness appeared against him that proved he was drunk. If he had been sober, he should not have committed the offence, and to prove that, he, the next morning, was sorry for what he had done, and was going to bring the things back. He met a man and asked him to put him out of sight of the provost. He took him into a loft, where he stopped half an hour. He said he would not tell any person, but he told a policeman who came and took him into custody.

The Recorder said: This would be all very well if it had been a first offence, but you have been tried before me twice, and you have been sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in this court on the 9th July, 1867, for felony. You were sentenced for three months' hard labour for stealing a bundle of clothes. This is your offences, as far as civilians are concerned. Then you have been convicted in military courts. On the 27th February, 1861, you were found guilty of habitual drunkenness, and deprived of a portion of your pay for 168 days, and imprisoned for 42 days. On the 11th Dec., 1862, for being absent without leave you were sentenced to 42 days' imprisonment. On the 17th Dec., 1864, for using insubordinate language, you were sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment. On the 3rd of July, 1865, for being absent without leave you were sentenced to 42 days. On the 28th Sept., 1865, you deserted, and were sentenced to 112 days' imprisonment. On the 18th June, 1866, you were absent without leave, and for drawing a knife on Private Bowman, of the 2nd Dragoon Guards, you were sentenced to 168 days. In addition to this you appear 42 times in the Regimental defaulters book for getting drunk &c. Does any worse character exist? You have had every chance to do better, and you must be shown that people are not to have their night's rest disturbed by houses being broken into. And then again you have been convicted for drawing a knife on a fellow soldier, and although you have not been up for so great a crime as murder, yet in this case, if you had been interfered with, and a knife had been within reach, no doubt you would not have hesitated to use it. Such a character ought to be sent out of the country, but it is only in my power to sentence you to penal servitude. The sentence is that you be kept in penal servitude for five years.

Mr. Minter said he had an application to make on behalf of the prosecutor, that the things stolen be returned.

The Recorder: Certainly.

This finished the business of the sessions.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1869.

Spirit License (Renewal).

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

The renewal of the license at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, was refused.

Folkestone Express 25 September 1869.

Inquest.

On Thursday morning information was received at the Police Station that a soldier had been found dead in bed at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. It appeared that a woman met the deceased the previous evening at Sandgate, and yielding to her persuasions he passed the night with her at the above house. The next morning, to the woman's surprise, she found that the soldier was dead. Dr. Tyson was called in, but too late to render any assistance. From enquiries made, it appears that the name of the deceased was Alfred Hooper, and he was a Colour-Sergeant of the Army Hospital Corps.

The inquest was held at the Town Hall on Friday afternoon before the Coroner, J. Minter Esq., and a respectable jury. After proceeding to view the body, the following witnesses were examined;

Superintendent Martin said yesterday morning from information received he proceeded to the Prince Albert Inn and found deceased in bed upstairs, undressed. He was quite dead. His clothes were folded up on a chair. In his trousers pocket was 6s. 3d. and a tobacco pouch. A medal was on his tunic, and he had a ring on his finger. There was no sign of any struggle having taken place.

Ellen Hobden, a single woman, living with her mother in George Lane, Folkestone, said she was an unfortunate. She met the deceased at Sandgate on Wednesday evening. Had never seen him before. She had a glass of brandy at Sandgate, but the deceased had nothing. Left Sandgate in his company and went to the Prince Albert, at her suggestion, to sleep together. They went upstairs directly.He went down to fetch some soda water; this was about half past eleven. Did not speak to him after that; she was intoxicated. Witness woke at 9 o'clock next morning and found deceased dead by her side. She at once gave an alarm to Charles Clements, who she saw on the landing. Deceased appeared sober; he did not drink in her company. He complained of giddiness while walking from Sandgate.

Sergeant Charles Cooper, A.H.C., identified the body. Deceased was about thirty years of age. The last time he saw him was at Netley Hospital. (A soldiers' ticket from London to Folkestone, dated September 22, was produced. It was found on the body.) Did not know what brought him to Folkestone.

Austin Jones Fergusson, assistant surgeon in the army, having made a post-mortem examination of the deceased, had no doubt that death was caused by disease of the heart of long standing. Believed he had been drinking very much lately.

Charles Clements, an itinerant musician, lodging at the Prince Albert, was examined and deposed to being called into the room by the female.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.

Folkestone Express 27 November 1869.

Application for license.

Wednesday, November 24th: Before W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and C. Dashwood Esqs.

The Prince Albert: George Bates applied for a license for this house. Mr. Minter read a petition and memorial in favour of the application.

The Chairman stated they were advised they had no power to grant the application in the case without notices.

Mr. Minter said he was of the same opinion, but as the Magistrates' Clerk had prepared the applicant's petition and memorial, he (Mr. Minter), supposed there must be some power to grant a license, of which he was not acquainted, otherwise it was perfectly useless to prepare the petition and memorial.

Mr. Bradley: It is one thing to prepare the petition and memorial; it is another to prepare the notices.

Folkestone Express 26 February 1870.

Special Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J. Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.

Stephen F. Forward applied for a license for the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. This house was closed at the annual meeting, owing to it's having a bad character. Several testimonials proving the respectability of the applicant were read, and the Bench decided on granting a license.

Folkestone Express 24 September 1870.

Saturday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, J. Clark, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

James W. Snelling was charged on the 10th September with aiding William Collins, a soldier of Her Majesty's Buffs, with deserting. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Private William Connor, of the 3rd Buffs, said: I went to the Prince Albert Inn on the 7th inst., and stopped there the next day until the evening. I was on pass until twelve o'clock Wednesday night. I was in uniform. I did not leave in uniform on Wednesday night. I was in private clothes then. I bought the clothes down town somewhere and I left my uniform in the bedroom. I did not give them into the custody as anyone, and I did not speak to the landlord concerning them. I don't think he saw me leave the house.

By Mr. Minter: I paid 6d. for my bed.

The Bench dismissed the case.

The same defendant was then charged with having received the clothes of the soldier.

Sergeant Richard Hills of the 3rd Buffs was called, and deposed that he went to the Prince Albert on the 10th and saw the defendant and demanded the clothes. He said he had some upstairs, which he found underneath the bed, and he fetched them down and gave them to witness.

Mr. Minter asked the Bench to dismiss the case on the ground that there was no evidence, the charge on the summons being for receiving, not detaining, the clothes.

This case was also dismissed.

Note: Date for Snelling is at variance with information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 22 August 1874.

Monday, August 17th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

There is the usual influx of mendicants during the season, and the police have considerable difficulty in clearing the town of them. Two men who gave names of John Cook and Manus Conway were charged with begging.

P.C. Keeler saw Cook go to Mr. Hart's and Mr. Tyson's and beg on Saturday, and Supt. Wilshere saw Conway go into the Prince Albert and Foresters' Arms public houses on Sunday, and followed him. Mr. Wilshere being in plain clothes, prisoner made the blunder of begging of him.

Prisoners were committed for 21 days hard labour each.

Folkestone Express 19 June 1875.

Thursday, June 17th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

John Doyle, a private in the 18th Royal Irish, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with stealing a box containing 5s. in money, belonging to William James Snelling, of the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street, on the 16th inst.

Prosecutor deposed that he kept the Prince Albert public house. On the previous night, about twenty minutes to eight, prisoner and another soldier came into witness's bar. They called for beer and paid for it. When witness had drawn the beer he went into the wash-house, when he heard a rattling of money and returned to the bar. When he got back no-one was in the bar. The soldiers had gone, leaving their beer untouched. The cupboard in the bar in which witness kept his till was wide open, and the box was gone. By reaching over the bar one could easily get at the box from the place where the prisoner was standing. Witness believed there were between 7s. and 8s. in coppers, and a bunch of keys, on which there was a corkscrew, in the box. Witness ran out, and was told some soldiers had gone towards Cheriton Road, and saw prisoner and another soldier in a field leading to the Camp. (Prosecutor had great difficulty in describing the locality, and appealed to His Worship, the Mayor, as to whether there was not a mill near by where he was. He noticed a public house, the Bouverie Arms, on the road, but could not tell where he went to afterwards)

Witness charged the men with the robbery of his money, when they denied it, saying they had just come from the Camp. Witness talked with them for half an hour, when he sent for a policeman and the other soldier ran off. The prisoner remained talking with witness till P.C. Keeler came up.

Cross-examined by prisoner: You remained talking with me for a long time. You asked me to fetch a policeman. I went out after you about ten minutes after I had served them.

To the Bench: I ran in the direction to which persons told me the soldiers had gone. When met the soldiers they were not running.

P.C. Keeler deposed that he apprehended the prisoner near the Cheriton Road mill the previous evening on a charge of till robbery preferred by prosecutor. Prisoner said he had come straight from the Camp into Folkestone. He searched the prisoner and found 2s 7½d. on him, in coppers, with the exception of a fourpenny piece. Witness afterwards found the box produced under a form in the bar of the Prince Albert, and the bunch of keys nearby. About half a dozen farthings were amongst the money he took from prisoner.

Prosecutor identified the box and keys. There were several farthings in the box.

Prisoner was remanded till Saturday.

Prisoner: My regiment will be gone away on Saturday.

The Mayor: I can't help what your regiment does. You are remanded.

Folkestone Express 26 June 1875.

Saturday, June 19th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and J. Tolputt Esq.

John Doyle, private in the 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot, was charged on remand with stealing a cashbox containing 5s. in coppers, the property of Wm.James Snelling, of the Prince Albert Inn.

Freeborn, another private in the same regiment, was charged with being concerned in the robbery.

Prosecutor repeated the evidence given on the previous Thursday, which was fully reported in our last impression. Prosecutor added that when he got up to the accused and charged them with the robbery, they denied the charge and wrote names (which proved to be false) on a slip of paper.

Cross-examined by Doyle: You were standing still when I came up.

Re-examined by the Bench: On Thursday afternoon I went up to the Camp, and identified Freeborn as the second man who was in the bar just before the robbery. I will swear to him positively.

P.C. Keeler also repeated the evidence previously given, adding that at one o'clock on Monday he accompanied prosecutor to the Camp. Prosecutor picked out the second prisoner (as did another young man) from several others. Witness searched prisoner and his kit, but found no money on him.

Edward Hickmott, carpenter, deposed that on Wednesday evening about eight o'clock he was on the Cheriton Road. Witness saw two soldiers walking through a field near the mill. Soon after this he saw prosecutor, and at his request stopped the men. Prosecutor charged the soldiers with stealing his till. Witness went for a constable, and when he returned with P.C. Ovenden the second man was gone. Prosecutor gave Doyle into custody. Accompanied prosecutor to the Camp on Thursday and picked out the second prisoner (Freeborn) as the man who was with Doyle. Snelling picked him out first.

P.C. Sharp deposed that he was on duty at the police station on Thursday afternoon. About 5 o'clock he received Freeborn into custody. He put him into a cell at some distance from Doyle. Soon after Freeborn came in he called out to Doyle “Can you hear, Jack?”, and Doyle answered “Yes”, adding “Did they find any money on you?”. Freeborn replied “No, not a copper”. Doyle said “That's good”. Freeborn continued “You ought to have gone along with me, Jack”. That's all witness heard, who was betwixt the two. They were obliged to talk loud to make each other hear.

The Mayor: Did they know that you were there?

Witness: Not that I know of. (Laughter)

Cross-examined by Freeborn: You did say, too, in answer to a question of Doyle's “They searched my kit and me too, but did not find a copper on me”.

The evidence was read over, when Doyle pleaded Guilty.

The Mayor read the usual caution, when Doyle withdrew his plea.

Freeborn pleaded Guilty, as did Doyle, when Freeborn said he admitted that he was with Doyle on Wednesday night. He had nothing to do with stealing the till. He was at the Camp by eight, and was in the Crown And Anchor, Dover Street, at the time the robbery was said to have been committed.

Prisoners were committed for trial, the prosecutor and witnesses being bound over to appear and give evidence at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 31 July 1875.

Quarter Sessions:

Friday, July 30th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

John Doyle, 28, and John Freeborn, 20, private soldiers in the 18th Regiment of Foot, recently stationed at Shorncliffe, were indicted for stealing 7s., the property of Wm. James Snelling, landlord of the Prince Albert Inn, on the 16th June.

Mr. Herbert Croft, instructed by Mr. Till, prosecuted.

Prosecutor deposed that he was landlord of the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. On the evening of the 16th June, about twenty minutes to eight, two soldiers, whom he identified as the prisoners, came to the bar and asked for two glasses of beer. Witness supplied them and took the money and stepped back into his wash house. A minute afterwards prosecutor heard some coppers rattle in the bar, and came back directly. Prosecutor found no-one there, and the beer stood in the glasses on the counter. Prosecutor saw that the cupboard under the counter was open and the till had disappeared. Anyone could have reached over the counter and taken the till. In the till was about 7s. or 8s. in coppers, including some farthings. Witness ran as fast as he could in the direction he was told some soldiers had gone. He came up with the prisoners near the mill on the Cheriton Road. Witness accused the prisoners of the robbery, when they denied it and said they had just come from the Camp. They were then going towards the Camp. The prisoners were asked for their names; Doyle wrote a name (not his own) on a piece of paper; Freeborn walked away. Witness sent for a policeman, and Doyle waited till P.C. Keeler came in.

P.C. Keeler deposed to apprehending the prisoner Doyle on the 16th June. Witness took the prisoner to the police station. When searched, prisoner has 2s. 7½ d. upon him, all in coppers, including some farthings and a fourpenny piece. Witness afterwards found the empty till in front of the bar. Witness saw two glasses nearly full of beer on the bar table. On the following day witness went to Shorncliff Camp with the prosecutor, when Freeborn was taken into custody.

Cross-examined by Freeborn: Hickmott did not identify you at that time.

Edward Hickmott, carpenter, of Grace Hill, saw two soldiers on the evening of the 16th June going towards the Camp. Could positively identify the prisoners as the men. On the following day witness went up to Shorncliffe Camp with prosecutor and saw some soldiers paraded, but could not then identify Freeborn.

On Freeborn's application, the witness's depositions were read over, when it appeared that when before the Magistrates witness swore that he identified Freeborn at Shorncliffe Camp.

The Recorder ordered Hickmott to stand down, telling him that his evidence was worthless.

P.C. Sharp said on the night of the 17th June prisoners were confined in separate cells, and witness sat in a reserve room nearby. Witness detailed a conversation which took place between the prisoners, Doyle asking Freeborn if they had found any money on him. Freeborn replied that they had not although they had searched him, when Doyle replied that that was right. There was no other prisoner in the range.

Cross-examined by Doyle: There was another prisoner in a cell close by, but not in the same range.

Superintendent Wilshere, called by the Recorder, said there were four prisoners in the cell on the night in question.

Prisoner Doyle said the case was a mass of contradictions throughout. He drew attention to the several inaccuracies in the evidence.

Freeborn also laid stress on the mistakes made by the witnesses.

The Recorder having summed up the case, the jury found both the prisoners Guilty, and the Recorder sentenced them each to six calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 28 July 1883.

Saturday, July 21st: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., and Alderman Banks.

Henry Webb was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse, and George Sider with being drunk. Sider pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Knowles said on the 12th inst. he saw the two defendants in a pony and trap at the bottom of Shellons Street. They were both drunk. They drove on to Rendezvous Street and stopped opposite the Prince Albert. He followed them with Sergeant Pay. Sider either got out or fell out of the cart. He took him into custody, and afterwards went back to help Sergt. Pay bring Webb to the station. He had received complaints previously about them. They were both incapable of taking care of a horse and cart.

Sergt. Pay said he saw Sider come out of the Gun Inn, get into a cart, and drive up the Bouverie Road, and afterwards return. He stayed about five minutes, and then went to the Shakespeare Inn, leaving his cart outside the Gun. He saw the two defendants afterwards, about nine o'clock, in the cart, coming up Grace Hill. They were both drunk.

Sider was fined 5s. and 8s. costs, and Webb 10s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Express 26 March 1887.

Notice.

TO CONTRACTORS.

Persons willing to tender for the erection on the old site, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, of the Prince Albert Inn for Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, are requested to send their names at once to me.

The Plans and Specifications may be seen, and particulars and Bills Of Quantities obtained at my office on or after Thursday next, the 31st inst.

Tenders are to be sent in to me not later than 5 o'clock p.m., on Thursday 7th April next, endorsed “Tender for The Prince Albert”.

Messrs. Nalder do not bind themselves to accept the lowest or any tender.

JOSEPH GARDNER,

Architect.

March 24th, 1887.

2, Cheriton Place,

Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 28 May 1887.

Wednesday, May 26th: Before H.W. Poole, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. W. Mowll applied on behalf of Messrs. Collyer to apply for permission for John Errington to draw on the site of the Prince Albert in Rendezvous Street. He alluded to the sale of the land by the Corporation, and said that his contention was that Snelling's licence had not ceased to exist, inasmuch as the whole of the building had not been pulled down. The application was made under the 1st sec. 5 and 6 Vic., cap. 44. He called William James Snelling, at present the holder of the licence at the Blue Anchor Inn. The licence of the Prince Albert Inn was in his name, and he had transferred his interest in the house to the Corporation.

John Errington, late landlord of the Black Bull, said he applied for permission to draw at the Prince Albert. He had held a licence in Folkestone for two years.

Mr. Joseph Gardener, architect, produced the plans which he had prepared for the new building. The whole of the old building had not been pulled down. There was a wall and doorway left standing. A shed had been erected, wherein they intended to sell during the building.

Mr. Holden said the Bench did not for one moment intend opposing the granting of the licence, as the property was sold with the understanding that the licence would be granted, but they did not wish to break the law, and the place where they wanted to sell was merely a shanty, and the law said they should have a room of certain dimensions.

Mr. Mowll thanked the Bench, and said he would renew the tenant's application in another form.

Folkestone Express 6 August 1887.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before General Armstrong, Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Mr. Mowll appeared on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer for a licence for the Prince Albert. He applied some time back for permission to sell from a hut, but the Bench thought that there was not sufficient premises, but since then the building had been nearly completed, and arrangements had been made for selling.

The Bench granted the licence to Ernest Charles Terry Hand.

Folkestone Express 17 December 1887.

Wednesday, December 14th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, was transferred to Mr. D. Jeffery.

Note: Date for change is at variance with information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 17 August 1895.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Monday, two women of very unprepossessing appearance, Bridget Marshall and Agnes O'Brien, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night.

Mr. Bradley remarked “I see these ladies have no fixed residence. I suppose they are visitors to Folkestone”.

Superintendent Taylor: Yes, sir. Season visitors.

P.C. Bean said his attention was called to the defendants about eleven o'clock, near the Prince Albert Hotel, Rendezvous Street. They were drunk, and he persuaded them to go away. At 12.45 he saw them again on Mr. Surrey's doorstep, singing, shouting, and disturbing the neighbourhood. He spoke to them, and they used very bad language, and he took them into custody.

Both defendants expressed regret, and said it was the first time. They could not get any lodgings, or it would not have happened.

Mr. Bradley: But you only had 6d. between you. You could not get lodgings with that.

Mr. Holden told them all their talk went for nothing. They had no business to get drunk, and no business to use obscene language.

They would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'. They went below.

Folkestone Express 8 May 1897.

Local News.

On Monday evening a man about 27 was taken to the Police Station, and subsequently handed over to the Dover police. It appears he was formerly employed at the Prince Albert Hotel, but left there and gave himself up to the County Police, alleging that he had embezzled money belonging to his employer. The latter declined to prosecute, and the man was released, when he begged of his late master to prosecute him. On Monday he was found on the line near the Abbot's Cliff signal box, with a handkerchief tied tightly round his throat. He told a man named Banks, who discovered him, that he had jumped off the cliff, but as he was not killed he tried to suffocate himself. Dr. Gilbert applied restoratives and the man was removed to the police station, and subsequently to Dover.

Folkestone Express 30 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 27th: Before Alderman J. Banks, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Horace Small, of the Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned for allowing his chimney to be on fire on April 16th.

Insp. Lilley said he saw the chimney on fire. He went into the kitchen of the hotel and saw the chimney on fire. Defendant was trying to extinguish the fire. He admitted the chimney had not been swept for some time, probably not since last spring.

Defendant said he was entirely in the Magistrates' hands.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 19 November 1904.

Tuesday, November 15th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Dominico Flassati and Horace Small answered three summonses against them for selling wine and spirits without a licence at 28, Rendezvous Street. Mr. Shaw again prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Shaw detailed the evidence he should call. He submitted that Flessati was acting as agent to Small, who was the landlord of the Prince Albert Hotel. Then Flessati instructed his waiters only to go to the other defendant's hotel, so really the customer was not a free agent in the matter.

Mr. Davies said on August 15th, accompanied by Mr. Cope, he went to Mr. Flessati's restaurant, leaving Messrs. Hayward and Bate outside, at five minutes past one. They ordered lunch. On the table next to theirs there was a wine list headed “Prince Albert Hotel”. Referring to the list, witness ordered a bottle of beaune. The waiter asked for the money, and it being quoted on the list at 2s. 6d., he gave him half a crown. The wine was served at 1.20. At 1.28 he ordered two liqueurs of brandy, and the waiter asked for the money and enquired if they wanted fourpenny or sixpenny brandy. Witness gave him 1s., and said “Sixpenny”. He saw the waiter come in and go to the counter at which Mr. Flessati was standing. He was carrying a tumbler, and the waiter filled two liqueur glasses and put the tumbler containing the remainder of the brandy on one side. Mr. Flessati was standing by the side of the waiter all the time. They drank the brandy. Witness paid the bill and left at 1.45. On August 17th they went again at eight o'clock, leaving Hayward and Cope outside. Witness ordered two liqueurs of brandy, and the waiter asked for the money, so witness gave him a shilling. The waiter left, and returned at 8.02, and he got the coffee, filled two liqueur glasses from the tumbler, and placed the glasses in front of them, and he also placed the tumbler containing a portion of the randy further up the table. They left at ten minutes past eight. On August 30th witness went to the Prince Albert and saw Mr. Small. He told him who he was, and that he wished to obtain his explanation of selling intoxicating liquors to Mr. Flessati and whether he had any arrangement with Mr. Flessati. He replied he had no arrangement whatever. Witness then said “What about the pink tickets which were handed over by the waiters?” He replied he did not know anything about any pink tickets. Mr. Cope said “Oh, yes, you do. I can go and find them for you in the bar if you like”. Mr. Cope went out and came back with about 200 tickets relating to beer, wine and spirits. Defendant then said he had the tickets, and it was Mr. Flessati's arrangement. Witness asked him for a wine list, and it was a facsimile of the other list obtained at Mr. Flessati's. He said he had an arrangement with Mr. Flessati and allowed 15 percent on the total except for four ale. On the same day he went to Mr. Flessati at 28, Rendezvous Street. He said he had carried on business there for three months, and that the only excise licences he held were a refreshment house keeper's licence and a tobacco dealer's licence. Witness asked him for his wine list, and he produced one for him. He also asked him if he had any arrangement with Mr. Small, and defendant replied “None whatever”. Witness asked him about the pink ticket arrangement, and he said there were no such things as pink tickets. He told defendant he was aware there were pink tickets and asked him to get the book which he took them from. He went downstairs with Mr. Cope, and they returned with the book which bore his initials. Then Flessati made the following statement before the tickets were produced: The wine is supplied by Henry Small, who is a friend. I have no other list except Mr. Small's. The waiters must go to Mr. Small's. When a customer asks for beer or spirits, the waiter asks for the money. If a customer asks for half a bottle of beaune, the waiter asks for 2s. 6d.”. Witness also asked him when he balanced up, and he replied “We never balance up”. Witness asked him who proposed the arrangement, and he replied he did. He said he made nothing out of the arrangement. Witness told him he did make something out of the arrangement, and that Mr. Small gave him a commission. He said Mr. Small did not allow him anything, but if he gave him a present he would take it. He further said he had no arrangement by which Mr. Small was to allow him a commission, and denied that he had made arrangements for Mr. Small to give him 15 percent commission. Witness asked him about the liqueur brandy, and defendant said he only charged 4d. for a liqueur brandy. Witness put it to him specifically that one of his waiters had taken 1s. for two brandies, and that he fetched it in a tumbler and poured out half of it under Mr. Flessati's eyes into the liqueur glasses. Defendant said it was not true.

Mr. Cope said he accompanied Mr. Davis to the restaurant, and afterwards when he saw Mr. Small and Mr. Flessati. He corroborated the previous witness's statement.

Mr. Hayward said on August 15th he kept observation on the premises during the whole time Mr. Davies and Mr. Cope were inside. At 1.17 a waiter left the premises and went to the Prince Albert. He asked for a small bottle of burgundy, and paid 2s. 6d. and handed in a pink slip. He received a bottle of beaune and took it back to the restaurant. At 1.30 the same waiter went to the Prince Albert and asked for eight pennyworth of brandy, carrying a tumbler. He was served with the brandy and returned. On August 18th he kept observation on the house. At 7.50 the waiter went to the Prince Albert and called for eight pennyworth of brandy. He paid for it and handed in a pink slip.

Mr. Bate, who was in company with Mr. Hayward, corroborated the latter's evidence so far as seeing the waiter leave Mr. Flessati's premises. He said he had been to the public house and asked the price of a small bottle of brandy over the counter, and he was told 1s. 9d.

Mr. Pinnex gave evidence that Mr. Flessati did not hold a licence to sell intoxicating liquors.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Small gave evidence on oath. He said he was the landlord of the Prince Albert. With regard to the wine lists, he had them on the counter of the various rooms, and anyone was at liberty to take one. Anyone asking for one, he was willing to give him one. With regard to Mr. Flessati, he did not in any instance supply him with anything without receiving the full amount over the counter. As an inducement to him to deal with him he told him he would allow him 15 percent on goods supplied to him with the exception of beer. There was nothing to prevent him going elsewhere if he chose.

Cross-examined, he said in his opinion he thought it was quite a legitimate action. He did not deny he had the pink tickets. He had not given Mr. Flessati the 15 percent, but had told him he would. He denied selling a bottle of beaune for 1s. 9d.

Mr. Flessati also gave evidence. He said he never sent for anything to the Prince Albert. The tickets were used as checks against the waiters. The liqueur brandies were 6d.

Mr. Minter contended that Mr. Small had nothing to do with the case, because he was at liberty to sell to anyone over the counter.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of the opinion that the sale did take place on unlicensed premises, so they were bound to convict. They were not going to inflict the full penalties, which were £50 in two cases and £20 in the other. They would each be fined the same as the other defendants, 20s. and 9s. costs in each case.

Mr. Minter gave notice that Small would appeal against the Magistrates' decision.

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 Prince Albert Hotel, from the late Mr. H. Small to Mrs. Jacob.

Folkestone Express 5 October 1912.

Friday, September 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J.J. Giles Esq., and Col. Owen.

Sarah Marsh was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street the previous afternoon. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Varrier said about half past one the previous day he was in Rendezvous Street, when he saw the woman, who was drunk, go into the public bar of the Prince Albert. She was refused drink, and when outside the house she commenced to make use of filthy language. Having previously cautioned her about her conduct, he took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry.

Inspector Swift said the woman was married, but was living apart from her husband. She was a housekeeper for two men at Lyminge.

Fined 5s. and 4s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment in default.

Folkestone Express 3 May 1913.

Monday, April 28th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Alderman Jenner, and Col. Owen.

Ernest Eustace was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Toms said he was on duty in Tontine Street, when he saw prisoner having an altercation with another man. Seeing he was drunk, with the assistance of P.C. Fox, he brought him to the police station.

P.C. Waters said about 11.30 he was on duty in Tontine Street when he saw prisoner arguing with another man named Maxted. He separated them and advised them to go away, the former doing so. Prisoner ran up to him and again argued, and he had to again separate them, and then P.C. Toms arrested Eustace.

P.S. Prebble said he was on duty at the police station when defendant was brought in, and he was drunk.

Defendant denied that he was drunk, and said the other men who set on to him and his friend were drunk.

Henry Smith said he was with prisoner on Saturday. They had three drinks in the Prince Albert from half past nine to “chicking out time”.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said the six men who set on prisoner in Tontine Street were more drunk than they were. (Laughter) A chap hit the prisoner in the face, and he struck back. He did not hear what the policeman said to him.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said there were two previous convictions against the prisoner. Last July he was sentenced to twenty one days' for a similar offence, and on the 8th of February he was sentenced to twenty one days' for being drunk and disorderly, and a month for assaulting a police constable.

Fined 5s. and 7s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' hard labour. The Magistrates allowed him till Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Express 4 September 1915.

Tuesday, August 31st: Before G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and W.G. Harrison Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel, Rendezvous Street, was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Jacobs to Mr. A.J. Valder.

Folkestone Express 9 October 1915.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday licence was transferred as follows: The Prince Albert, from Mrs. Jacob to Mr. A. Valder.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1918.

Local News.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was, on Tuesday, temporarily transferred by the Magistrates (Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and E.T. Morrison) from Mr. Valder to Mr. G. Manger, who formerly held a licence at Gravesend.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The following licence was transferred: the Prince Albert, from Mr. Valder to Mr. Munns (sic).

Folkestone Express 2 October 1920.

Tuesday, September 28th: Before Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, W. Hollands, and W.R. Boughton.

George Dunlop Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned for acting in contravention of the Beer Prices Restriction Order. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Misken (Maidstone) prosecuted on behalf of the Divisional Food Officer, and Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

William M.S. Packe, an Inspector under the Divisional Food Commissioner for Horsmonden area, said on July 31st he visited the Prince Albert Hotel accompanied by Inspector Alcock. They went into the public bar, where he saw the barman, whom he asked for two bottles of Bass. Witness was served with two half pint bottles, and he then tendered the barman 2s. He received a sixpenny piece and a penny in change. The man therefore charged him 1s. 5d. for the two bottles, which should have been 1s. 3d. He told the barman he had been overcharged to the extent of twopence. The barman then wished to refund him the twopence, but he refused to take it.

Cross-examined, witness said he called for the beer and paid for it. He did not lay information, because it was not n his area. They simply went into the bar to see if they were charged correctly. He told the barman he was an Inspector of the Food Control Office, and said “Have you not made a mistake?” It was then the barman took the twopence out of the till and offered it to him. He later saw the licensee. He (witness) did not drink the whole of the beer.

Ernest Frederick Alcock, of Ramsgate, said he was an Inspector under the Divisional Food Commisioner. He had heard the evidence of the last witness, and he corroborated it in every detail.

The defendant's barman, Waters, said he had been in the employ of Mr. Manger for 13 months in Folkestone. On July 31st he served Mr. Packe with the two bottles of Bass. He gave him 7d. change out of the 2s. He then went across to another customer, and Mr. Packe shouted across to him “Young man, have you not made a mistake?” Witness went to him, and on seeing the change he said “I am sorry, I have”, and then handed him the twopence. It was then Mr. Packe said he was an Inspector under the Food Control.

Defendant said when the barman called him he saw some money on the counter, and Inspector Packe asked him if he had received enough change out of the 2s. for the Bass. He immediately called Waters, who said he had made a mistake in charging 8½d. for each bottle instead of 7½d.

Mr. Haines contended that the sale of the beer had not been completed when the twopence was offered by the barman to the Inspector for the beer, and the original change had been untouched up to that time. He also commented on the fact that after the war had been finished two years such restrictions should be kept in force, and that millions of money should be continued to be spent on a Food Ministry. In that case, he added, just to set a trap for the defendant, the expenditure had been incurred of two Inspectors coming to Folkestone, and also of bringing them, together with a solicitor, to the Court that day. Then there were five Magistrates and the Clerk of the Court to assist in that blood-curdling drama. (Laughter) It was said that while Rome was burning Nero fiddled. That day they had a fiddling prosecution.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said the public must be protected, and the defendant would be fined £10 and £3 3s. special costs.

Folkestone Express 18 December 1920.

Inquest.

On Wednesday afternoon Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner) held an inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Robert Albert Bateup, aged 20 months, who died as a result of scalds the previous day.

Eva Esther Bateup said she resided at the Prince Albert Hotel, Rendezvous Street, and was a cook there. Deceased was her son, and was one year eight months old. Her employer allowed her to have the boy at her house. On Sunday morning about 11.30 she was in the kitchen working. Mrs. Swallow, another servant, was also there. Witness was preparing the dinner. Mrs. Swallow drew off from a boiler a pail three parts full of hot water, and placed it under the draining board. The boy was playing about in the kitchen at the time, and within a few minutes she heard her boy scream, and on looking round the pail was overturned and the boy was lying on the floor by the side of it. He was crying, and she could see the water had gone over him. Mr. Manger, her employer, came in, and they got the baby undressed as quickly as possible. They saw the back and buttocks were very red, as if they were scalded. Dr. Lewis was sent for, and arrived in ten minutes. In the meantime they put some oil on the scalded part. The doctor saw him on Monday and Tuesday, and on the latter day the boy was unconscious. The skin on the child's back was broken. He died on Tuesday afternoon.

Mrs. Elizabeth Jane Swallow, a domestic servant, employed at the Prince Albert, said on Sunday she drew a pail of hot water for the purpose of cleaning, and placed it under the drainer in the kitchen for a few moments in order that she might fill the boiler up again. The boy was standing buy her side, and he was holding up the ball for her to play with him. She noticed nothing further until the boy screamed, and she then saw the pail had been overturned and that his clothes were wet. She assisted the mother in undressing him, and she saw that he had been scalded.

The Coroner found that the child died from shock after being accidentally scalded.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1921.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sir S. Penfold, Alderman Pepper, Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Councillor Miss I. Weston, Miss Hunt, Councillor Boyd, Mr. Swoffer, Mr. Blamey, Councillor Boughton, Councillor Hollands, Councillor Stace, and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report as follows:- I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 114 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences 71, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and spirit dealers 15, grocers etc. off 6, confectioners wine on 3, and chemists wine off 6. This is an increase of one full licence compared with the return submitted last year, a licence having been granted to the Grand Hotel at the adjourned licensing meeting held on 10th March last. This gives an average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 293 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. Thirteen of the licences have been transferred during the past year. Three occasional licences have been granted to licence holders to sell drink on special occasions elsewhere than on their licensed premises, and 36 extensions of hours have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises. Two licence holders have been convicted during the year, viz.: The licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel was fined £10 and costs on 28th August for selling beer at a price exceeding the maximum price under the Beer (Prices and Descriptions) Order. The licensee of the Alexandra Hotel was fined £10 on 5th October for allowing the consumption of intoxicating liquor on his licensed premises after 10 p.m., contrary to the Order of the Liquor Control Board. During the year ended 31st December last 37 persons (28 males and 9 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 27 were convicted and 10 were discharged after being cautioned by the Bench In the preceding year 46 persons were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 34 were convicted and 12 discharged. Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. This is an increase of one since last year's report. Proceedings have been taken against the steward of one of the registered clubs for allowing consumption of intoxicating liquor after 10 p.m., but the case was dismissed on the payment of costs. There are 24 premises licensed for music and dancing, one for music only, and two for public billiard playing. As a result of the reports received from my officers, who have made numerous visits at irregular intervals to the licensed premises and places of entertainment, I am able to report that the houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

The Mayor said it was a great source of satisfaction to the Bench that Mr. Reeve had been able to make a report so favourable as the one he had submitted, especially in respect to the last paragraph. It was also a great source of satisfaction to the Bench to know that the charges for drunkenness were less during 1920 than during 1919. Forty six persons were proceeded against in 1919, and 37 in 1920, showing a decrease of 9. The Magistrates had reason to believe from the report that the licensed houses during the past year, in the main, had been well conducted.

Mr. Reeve: Yes, sir.

The Mayor said the Bench recognised that the licensees had a difficult task to perform. There were many Acts of Parliament and Orders from different Boards which they had to adhere to and carry out. Speaking personally, he preferred to see himself the Continental cafe system, which would be a much easier system to carry out than their public house system, and he did not know why it had not been tried in this country. He hoped some day someone would make the experiment. At the Continental cafes they saw any amount of people having a pleasant time and social intercourse, and taking their wines or coffee, and spending a very happy time. They had to deal with the English system, but he hoped that some day the Continental system would be tried, and that it would be a success on this side. He hoped that during the coming year the licensees would exercise the same caution and vigilance as they had during the past, and that cases of drunkenness would continue to decrease annually. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the Prince Albert. The licence of the Alexandra Hotel had passed into fresh hands since the conviction, and that would be renewed from that day. The Prince Albert would be referred back to the adjourned meeting.

The adjourned sessions were fixed for the 9th March.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1921.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel, which was deferred from the annual meeting, was renewed.

Folkestone Express 8 October 1921.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates at the special transfer sessions had before them the question of hours for the sale of drink.

The Bench refused the application of Mr. Manger for a certificate to serve supper drinks at the Prince Albert.

Folkestone Express 21 April 1923.

Local News.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was on Tuesday at the Police Court transferred to Mr. Samson George Roberts, who has conducted a licensed house in London, from Mr. Manger.

Folkestone Express 14 August 1926.

Tuesday, August 10th: Before Col. Owen, Messrs. G. Boyd, J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

Robert Fisher was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Grace Hill, arid he pleaded guilty to being drunk.

Inspector Pittock said that at 10.15 p.m. on Monday he was walking past the Prince Albert Hotel when a glass was thrown from the door, narrowly missing him. He went to look in the bar, and saw prisoner being ejected by a man named Whiting, a bricklayer. Prisoner was- making use of disgusting language. He stepped inside the bar to ascertain the cause of the trouble, and prisoner went in again, and he (witness) put him outside. Prisoner walked across the road, a crowd collected, and he took Fisher into custody. He was bleeding from a cut on the right hand, which was dressed at the Police Station. Whiting suffered from small cuts on the back of the head.

Defendant said he went to get a glass of beer. He went straight to the counter, called for the beer, and his usual custom was to take three or four paces back to allow customers to go to the bar. A man, who was a stranger to him, rushed over to him and said "I am the man for you, I will have a go”. He said “All right, then,” and the glass caught the top of the man's head and cut his (prisoner's) hand.

Prisoner was fined 5s.

Folkestone Express 7 January 1928.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday morning the licence of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, was transferred from Mr. S.E.G. Roberts to Mr. Christopher Andrews.

Folkestone Express 24 March 1928.

Tuesday, March 20th: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Miss A M. Hunt, Mr. J. H. Blamey, Mr. A. Stace and Col. Broome-Giles.

Christopher Andrews, the licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned for supplying intoxicating drink during prohibited hours. Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for Mr. Andrews, pleaded not guilty.

Inspector Pittock said at 10.20 p.m. on Friday, March 2nd, he saw three men enter the Prince Albert Hotel by the private entrance. He recognised one man, Wasley, as being a private resident. At 10.30 he went to the Hotel accompanied by P.C. Halse. He rang the bell and the door was opened by a barman. He walked into the saloon bar of the premises and saw the three men whom he had seen enter previously. Two were in the act of drinking from glasses containing what appeared to be beer. The third man, whose name was Trinder, had a glass in his hand Mr. Andrews and his wife were in the bar, near the entrance to the service bar. He asked Wasley what his glass from when he drunk contained and he said “It is ale." The other man, named Allen, said “It is ail right, he is our guest. We are staying here”. He (witness) turned to Wasley and said “You are not staving here?” He replied “No.” He then took their names and addresses. He told Mr. Andrews he should report him for supplying intoxicating drink for consumption during prohibited hours, and Mr. Allen, he informed, he should report him for aiding and abetting. Mr. Andrews replied “I was in the cellar when they came in and I suppose my wife served them without thinking”. Mrs. Andrews said “I served them. I thought it was quite in order as these two gentlemen (Allen and Trinder) are staying”. He left the premises but shortly after he returned and told Mr. Andrews he would like to make sure that Mr. Allen and Mr. Trinder were staying at the hotel. He then found both were staying there. Mr Allen’s name was in the register and Mr, Trinder entered his name in it during the time he was there. There was a clock in the room and it showed that the time was 10-30 when he entered. The clock compared with the Town Hall clock. Mr. Wasley was a local man.

Mr. Rutley Mow.ll, for the defence, said that as the law now stood the serving was not correct. Of course the licensee himself was entitled to entertain his own friends and the two commercial travellers lodging in the hotel were entitled to have their drinks as they liked, but unfortunately the two commercial travellers came in with a friend and they treated him. As the law stood that was not legal and the friend was not entitled to have his drink, although the two others were because they were residents of the hotel. That case did not need a long explanation because it was to he found in the evidence that Inspector Pittock had given, as he always did, very fairly. The Inspector told them that when he entered the premises the licensee had been down in the cellar. He could not think the licensee would have made such a mistake as was made by serving the friend. He would like to ask whether that was a serious case. He understood the defendant had been a licensed victualler for a great many years, and had an irreproachable character. He had only been in Folkestone a short time and he thought he was right in suggesting that when a man had had a very long career of rectitude as that man had, for 14 years, and had never been in trouble before, it was a case when a good record should stand him in good stead. He, therefore, left the case in the hands of the Bench, who, he was sure, would not want to be severe on a man who apparently had made a mistake, not by himself but who, through someone else, had made a little legal slip.

The Chairman said they had decided on the defendant’s plea that he was guilty of the offence, but before they came to a final decision they would like to hear the other two summonses in connection with the case.

Albert Allen was then summoned for aiding and abetting Mr. Andrews, and William Wasley was summoned for consuming intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on licensed premises. Both defendants pleaded Guilty.

No further evidence was given by the police.

Allen said Mr. Trinder and he had been playing snooker at the Esplanade Hotel, where they met Mr. Wasley, who was a friend. They suggested that they should have Mr. Wasley with them at the hotel where they were staying. He always entertained his friends at what he took to be his temporary home, and he always thought he was entitled to so entertain anyone. He had no idea that he was making a breach of the law, or he would not have done it. He had been on the road 33 years and that was the first time that he had been in a Police Court.

Wasley said he thought he was right in going with his friends. He would not have come had he known it was a breach of the law. It was the first time that he had appeared before the Magistrates in his life, and he was very sorry.

The Chairman said the Magistrates said there was no doubt the defendants had been straightforward in that matter. They admitted they broke the law. Though the Bench were bound to say that the defendants were guilty, they did not consider it necessary to impose a penalty. That, doubtless, would be a lesson to the defendants and the Magistrates were, as he had said, pleased with the straight straightforward way in which they had met the case. The defendants would be discharged under the Probation of Offenders' Act. That would not be a conviction against them.

Folkestone Express 28 November 1936.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court three summonses were heard for selling retail beer without a licence on the premises of the Savoy Restaurant, Rendezvous Street, on September 21st. The defendants were Flessati Ltd., Antonio Guiseppi Flessati, their manager, and Peter Chiesa, a waiter in the employ of the defendants.

The Magistrates were Dr. W.W. Nuttall and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

Mr Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty on behalf of the three defendants.

Mr. D. Willson, prosecuting on behalf of the Commissioners of Customs and! Excise, said there was one summons against each of the three defendants for having sold beer retail without a licence at the cafe. The summons was under the Finance Act, 1910, which required a licence to be held to enable beer to be sold and the penalty was £50. He handed in a certificate of registration of the company. On September 21st at about 1.30 p.m. two officers of the special enquiry staff went into the restaurant. They ordered lunch and Mr. Green ordered two light ales and the waiter, Chiesa, asked for the money and was handed 2/- and ten minutes later he returned with the two bottles of light ale. He handed the officer 11d. change. They consumed the beer and the lunch, paid the bill and left. The charge for the beer was 1/1 or 6½d. each. Although the beer was brought to the table in bottles, the bottle were removed before the bill was paid. During the time the two officers were the restaurant, two other officers keeping observation outside the premises. They saw the waiter leave the cafe and go to the public house, the Prince Albert, and pay 1/1 for the light ale. The two officers went into the restaurant in the evening and ordered dinner. They ordered two bottles of ale and paid the waiter 2/-. He was observed by two officers outside to fetch the beer from the Prince Albert. On that occasion the beers were only 1/0½ instead of 1/1. On this occasion the waiter went to the public house with some money also five empty bottles and the barman rang up 2½d. on the till. In the first case they paid 6½d. for the beer and in the second 6¼d. It had been ascertained from the licensee that the actual charge for the beer was 4½d. a bottle. The waiter charged customers 6½d. and received 2d. on the bottle which was, he submitted, the profit on the beer. He further submitted that the owners and manager of the restaurant were responsible for the actions of the waiter. When he was seen by the Customs officers, the defendant Flessati made a statement, as follows: “My instructions to all my waiters are that when customers order beers, the waiter is to ask for the money and go out and execute the order. They generally go to the Prince Albert in Rendezvous Street. I have no stocks of beer on my premises. If any profit has been made in this restaurant by the sale of beer I have no knowledge of it, and have never consented to or benefited by it. I have been associated with this business for 30 years and it has always been my endeavour to comply with the law”.

The waiter Chiesa, also made a statement. He said “I have been employed by Mr. Flessati for the past four months. When I first came here Mr. Flessati told me that when customers ordered beer I was to take the money, charging the customer the price of the beer, and go out to buy it for him. I usually go to the Prince Albert. I charge the customer the price of the beer and the bottle. If a customer asks for a light ale I charge him 6½d, 4½d. for the beer and 2d. for the bottle. If the customer were to ask for the 2d. for the bottle, I should let him have it, but no customer has done this so far. Later I take back the bottles and obtain the refund (2d.), which I keep myself. I have never passed on any such refund to Mr. Flessati. I remember the two men coming in lunch time yesterday and again for dinner yesterday evening. At lunch they ordered two light ales and at dinner they ordered the same. On each occasion I asked them for the money first and they gave me half-a-crown or two shillings. I went to the Prince Albert on each occasion and purchased two light ales, which I paid for in the public bar with the customers’ money. At lunch time I paid 1/1 for the two light ales and the bottles and this is what I charged the customers for the beer. At dinner time I took some empty bottles to the public house when I went for the light ales. I cannot remember number of bottles I handed in or how much money I paid, but I know I charged the customers the price of the beer and the bottles. They did not ask for the money for the bottles or take them away”.

The proprietors were responsible if there was a profit being made on the beer and being retained by the waiter. In that case they bad a waiter going, in the course of his employment, to fetch the beer from a neighbouring public house. He had been told that he was not to make any profit on the beer and he was, if necessary, to hand the deposit on the bottles to the customers. Despite those instructions he retained, what he maintained, was the profit on the beer himself.

Mr. William Gordon Green, officer of the special enquiry staff of the Customs and Excise, said on September 21st at 1.30 p.m. he went to the cafe with Mr. Pescard and ordered lunch and two light ales. The waiter said he wanted the money first, and he handed him a two shilling piece. At 1.45 the waiter returned with two bottles of Jumbo light ale and handed him 11d. change. He poured out the beer and took the bottles away. On that occasion they paid 6½d. each for the bottles of beer. They went to the restaurant again in the evening and ordered a meal, and Mr. Pescard ordered two bottles of Jumbo light ale and were served by the same waiter at 6.40 p.m. He handed Mr. Pescard 11½d. change from 2/-. The charge had been 6¼d. a bottle. The beer was poured out and the bottles removed immediately.

Cross-examined witness said on the first occasion he received the right change, but on the second occasion there was a difference of a halfpenny. If he bought a bottle of beer and drove out into the country to drink it with a meal he would have thrown the bottle away.

Mr. Mowll : You did not ask the waiter for the bottle, you allowed the waiter to take it away?

Witness : Yes.

You could have taken that bottle away yourself if you had liked? - If I was not a sane man I could.

Did you say to the waiter “Where is my change?” - No.

You did not ask the waiter to go and take the bottle back and get 2d. on it? - No.

Mr. Willson: Did you know that a deposit had been paid on it?

Witness : No.

Did you see a slip on the bottle marking the price on the bottle? - No.

You never got near enough to the bottle? - No.

Did the waiter ever offer you the bottle? – No.

John Pescard, and officer of the Customs and Excise special enquiry staff, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness.

Mr. Mowll: Did you ask for the bottle?

Witness: No.

Or for any deposit that may have been paid on the bottle? – I had no idea a deposit had been paid on the bottle.

Nothing was said about bottles? – No, I don't think so.

Mr. Graham Charles E. Reide, officer of the special enquiry staff, said he, with Mr. Binks, kept observation outside the premises. At 1.40 p.m. he saw a waiter come out of the restaurant and go into the public bar of the Prince Albert. He followed him and the barman handed him two bottles of Jumbo light ale. He handed the barman a silver coin and he rang up 1/1. In the evening he saw the waiter come out of the restaurant carrying five empty half-pint bottles. He went into the same bar and said to the barman “Two light ales”, putting the empty bottles down on the counter. The barman pointed to the bottles and said “How many?” The waiter replied "Five”. The barman then rang up 2½d.on the cash register and gave the waiter his change and two half-pint bottles of Jumbo ale. The next day they saw the defendant Flessati at the Savoy Restaurant and told him who they were. They cautioned him and he said he would like to make a statement. They saw the waiter Chiesa, he was cautioned and made a statement.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said looked at the front of the restaurant, but found no stock of beer or price list.

Mr. Leonard Barker, licensee of the Prince Albert public house, said previous to the time he was interviewed by the officers, waiters from Flessati’s Ltd. came to his public house for beer. When bottled beer was sold to the waiters twopence was charged on the bottle and refunded when the bottle was returned. There was no mark or stamp to say what deposit had been paid on the bottle.

Cross-examined, witness said Mr. Flessati had asked him before the case arose whether he could let him have the beer without paying a deposit on the bottles. He had asked him again since.

Mr. Mowll asked what was the offence for which his clients were charged? It was alleged against them that they sold beer - that they sold beer at an unlicensed place and if they sold beer at that place they had committed an offence, because the restaurant was only licensed for the sale of wine. He had to suggest that the evidence was quite cIear that every conceivable step was taken to make the sale of beer, not in the restaurant but at the public-house authorised to sell beer. The money was paid in advance and the messenger was sent with the money. The whole of the allegation of the prosecution was that by a fiction of law if the publican charged twopence on the bottle, that twopence, in some way or the other, became the profit on the beer. He challenged his friend to produce any High Court decision to that effect. No such thing had ever been decided that, the mere question of the bottle and deposit which was paid on it transferred the sale from the public house to the restaurant. His friend might be quite right in saying that if the waiter was committing an offence he was committing it on behalf of his master, even if his master did not know anything about it. There was no evidence there that there was any sale of beer at the restaurant. That was the whole of his defence and it was a complete answer. The most that was suggested was that the amount that was paid for the bottle was taken by the waiter himself and to that extent the waiter gained an advantage out of the transaction. He had put it to one of the witnesses that if he had bought the beer from the public-house and drunk it in the country what he would have done with the bottle and he said “Throw it away”. Mr. Willson said it was a well-known principle of the law relating to agency that if the agent made any selling profit or gain out of the transaction the status of principal and agent was destroyed at once. In both of those cases a selling profit was made, therefore at no time during those transactions was the waiter the agent of the officers. He either became a principal himself or acted as agent for his employer. There were two sales - one from the licensee to the waiter on licensed premises and the further sale at unlicensed premises from the waiter himself or his employer to the officers.

The magistrates retired and on their return the Chairman said they found that there was a sale of beer at the restaurant. The waiter would be fined £2, Mr. Flessati £3 and £3 3/- costs, and the summons against the company would be dismissed.

Mr. Mowll asked if the magistrates would state a case and the Chairman intimated that they would be agreeable to do so.