DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2023.

Page Updated:- Monday, 04 September, 2023.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1841

Prince Albert

Latest 1988

(Name to)

27-29 Rendezvous Road

Folkestone

Prince Albert 1870

Above shows the original Prince Albert circa 1870.

Prince Albert 1928

Above photo, 1928.

Prince Albert 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Prince Albert 2011 Prince Albert 2011

Above 2 photos kindly supplied by Patricia Streater, 2 August, 2011

 

Went upmarket and modern at some time and changed name to simply "Berties," unfortunately now closed.

 

 

 

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

This page is still to be updated.

 

Right next door to the pub on the left hand side there also used to be the offices for the Style and Wynch brewery.

Style and Wynch offices

Above photo showing the Style and Wynch offices, date unknown.

Style and Wynch offices

Style and Wynch offices shown in centre of photo, date unknown.

Style and Wynch offices

Style and Wynch offices shown on right of photo, date unknown.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 December 1855.

Wednesday December 26th:- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, William Major esq., and James Kelcey esq.

The following licence was transferred: - Prince Albert – from Sarah Berry to David Baldock.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 January 1856.

Petty Sessions, Wednesday.—(Before J. Tolputt, Esq., Mayor, W. Major and J. Kelcey, Esqrs.)

Transfer of Licence.—The Prince Albert, Folkestone, from Sarah Berry to David Baldock.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 April 1856.

Monday April 21st:- Before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, and James Kelcey Esq.

Harriet King was charged by police constable Nicholls with being drunk, and breaking a square of glass at the Prince Albert, in Rendezvous Street. Fined 1s. damage, and 8s. 6d costs, also 5s. for being drunk, and in default committed for one week to Dover.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 April 1856.

Local News.

Monday: Before the Mayor and Jas. Kelcey, Esq.

Harriet King, for drunkenness and wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street, and was committed for seven days in default of paying costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 February 1857.

Birth: Feb 17, at Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, the wife of Mr. David Baldock, of the "Prince Albert Inn," of a son.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 15 December, 1860.

THEFT OF TIMBER

Monday December 10th:- Present the Mayor, W. F. Browell, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey, Esqs.

Richard West was brought up in custody charged with stealing a piece of timber, value 1s., the property of Mr. George Pledge.

George Pledge deposed he was a coal merchant living in Rendezvous Street. The prisoner had worked for him at different times for some years, and also for his father. Was employed by him in the week ending in last month. Saw the timber now produced, and also a tub, on his premises, which he identified as his property.

William Morris, a labourer, in the employ of Mr. Pledge deposed he knew the prisoner by sight. About a fortnight ago saw him take the piece of wood from Mr. Pledge's coal store across to the "Prince Albert."

David Baldock, landlord of the "Prince Albert Inn," deposed he knew the prisoner from his working for Mr. Pledge. The piece of wood produced had been lying behind his yard door for a fortnight. On Friday afternoon last prisoner came into his house and asked for a pint of beer; he then said there is a barrel with whitewash and a piece of timber, which he offered to me for four-pence. At his own request I gave him a pint of beer and two-pence for the timber and barrel.

A previous conviction was here put in, but the necessary witnesses to prove his identity not being present, it could not be received.

Mr. Pledge, recalled, - on Saturday I saw the prisoner and accused him of the theft, but when I threatened to send for a policeman, he said he had stolen it but hoped he could be forgiven.

By the Court. – The exact words used by the prisoner were “I hope you won't prosecute me”.

The prisoner having been asked the usual questions, pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to fourteen days hard labour.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 18 October, 1862.

STEALING FROM A PUBLIC HOUSE

Saturday 11th October: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and W.F. Browell, Esq.

Henry Williams and Phoebe Andrews, on remand from Friday, were charged with stealing a portmonnaie, a purse, half-sovereign, and 2 10s in silver from the "Prince Albert" public house on Thursday the 2nd instant.

Mrs. Baldock was preparing her children for bed, between 7 and 8 in the evening, when Williams, who had been walking up and down the passage, came and leant on the kitchen door and she ordered him away. She heard him arranging with Andrews to go with her to the concert room at Sandgate that evening. Andrews had done half a day's washing for Mrs. Baldock that day, and before going upstairs with the children, she went to the till and paid her, locking the till, and putting the key on the second shelf. The till then contained rather more than 3, being a half sovereign and silver, chiefly half crowns and florins. She was upstairs only two or three minutes, and when she came down the prisoner was in the bar, the key in the till, the till drawn out, and the money gone. Andrews said she had served a pint of beer. Giving information to the police, P.C. Ovenden went to the "Inkerman Arms," Sandgate, at ten o'clock, where he found Williams, drunk. Taking him unto custody and searching him, he found on him a half sovereign, 8 half crowns, 4 florins, 12 shillings, 10 sixpences and 2 1/2d.

Mr. Edwin Le Batt said that Williams worked for him, and on Thursday came to him for 1s. to purchase materials for his trade. He came again to him later in the day and asked for 2s. – a friend having come from London with whom he wanted to spend the evening.

Williams now pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to six months' hard labour. Andrews, pleading not guilty, was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being taken.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 January 1863.

Quarter Sessions Extract.

“Not a true bill against Phoebe Andrews”

 

From the Folkestone Observer 3 January, 1863.

QUARTER SESSION EXTRACT

Thursday January 1st:- Before J.J. Lonsdale, Esq.

“The next bill, against Phoebe Andrews, 47, charwoman, for stealing two purses and 3, the property of David Baldock, was thrown out.

Note: Refers to theft at "Prince Albert." Jan Pedersen.

 

Southeastern Gazette 23 January 1866.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man named George Pledge was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day.

It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate-street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it.

The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 January 1869.

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

Mary Wilson was brought up in custody charged with stealing on the 1st inst. a bundle of mangling clothes, the property of Henry Stace, landlord of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, which she pledged on the following day at Mr. Hart's pawn shop. Prisoner pleaded guilty to pawning the goods, but not guilty of stealing, as she found them in the street.

Mary Jane, wife of Henry Stace, the prosecutor, deposed: I recollect Friday the 1st of January. On that day I had a bundle of clothes (consisting of ten pinafores – two diaper and the rest Holland -, two chemises, six pairs of drawers, one glass cloth, four bedroom towels, one pocket handkerchief, one tablecloth, one calico jacket and one wrapper apron, valued altogether at about 30s.) lying on a chair in the bar. They were placed there about six o'clock in the evening. Next morning about twelve o'clock I missed them. I do not know the prisoner. I have not seen her in the house, and my husband, who was in the bar all the evening of the 1st does not remember any woman coming in. In the afternoon I gave information to the police, and in the evening went down to Mr. Hart's shop, where I found part of my goods – nine pinafores, three towels, four drawers, the tablecloth, one chemise and the glass cloth. Last night I came up to the police station and identified the rest of my property, except the apron and a pair of drawers, and one chemise which the prisoner says she has on. The articles produced by P.C. Woodlands are my property, and are the same that were stolen. The towels and tablecloths were marked. No mark was on the others, but I can swear to them. I made them myself.

William Hart, assistant to Messrs. Hart and Co., High Street, pawnbrokers, said that on Saturday the 2nd inst., about five o'clock, prisoner brought the goods in the first bundle produced to the shop to pledge. She obtained two shillings on them. Last night she cam about seven o'clock and brought the second bundle produced. A police constable was found and he took prisoner into custody. She said she picked them up in the street.

By the Bench: There was no dirt on the wrapper.

P.C. Woodlands deposed: From information received I apprehended prisoner in Mr. Hart's shop last evening, and charged her with stealing the articles produced, from the Prince Albert. She said she did pledge them, but had found them in the street. They were no use to her and so she pledged them for 2s. On arriving at the station she gave me twp pair of drawers, a towel (forming the second parcel), and a pawn ticket, with the jacket and pocket handkerchief she had on. Last evening, at half past eight, I received the first parcel from Mr. Stroud at Mr. Hart's.

This was the case.

Prisoner was charged and cautioned. She pleaded guilty of being drunk, and picking them up in the street, so that she pledged them. She did not steal the bundle.

She was then committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, to take place next Friday.

Another charge of larceny in stealing a glass tumbler from Mr. Boult was withdrawn, as Mr. Boult could not positively swear to the glass, although it was of a particular pattern. Mrs. Pearson, of High Street, had the glass in her possession, and gave it up to Mr. Boult.

Notes: More Bastions lists the licensee as Henry Stay. Boult was licensee of the Victoria, South Street.

 

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 Chronicle 16 January 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

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

The only business before the court was, as we stated last week, the trial of Mary Wilson for larceny.

The learned Recorder reviewed the case to be brought on, stating that he saw no difficulty in it. The woman was found in possession of the stolen property soon after it's loss, and her justification of herself must come before the court. The Grand Jury were dismissed to their duties. Shortly after, the foreman returned to say the jury were not agreed as to their finding: they found a true bill of unlawful possession, but not of stealing. His Honour said that there not being two counts there must be a bill or no bill found, and soon after the Grand Jury returned a “True Bill”, and were dismissed with the thanks of the Borough for their services, and the learned Recorder said he thought they had given themselves unnecessary trouble in trying the case, instead of merely seeing that there was a case that should be inquired into.

The prisoner, Mary Wilson, having been placed in the bar, pleaded “I'm not guilty of taking them out of the bar. I found them on the street”. A jury was then empanelled, and the evidence of Mrs. Stay, William Hart and P,C, Woodland, as stated last week, taken. Our readers will remember that on the 1st of January, prosecutrix had a bundle of mangling clothes brought home, constisting of ten pinafores, two chemises, six pair of drawers, a glass cloth, four bedroom towels, a pocket handkerchief, a tablecloth, a calico jacket, and an apron, value about 30s., which she placed on a chair inside the bar; that at twelve o'clock next morning the bundle was missed, and on enquiries being made, part of the property was found to have been pledged at Mr. Hart's shop for 2s., and that on the following Wednesday prisoner was arrested trying to pledge the remainder. She now declined to cross-examine the witnesses, and her only defence was that she found the things.

The case being concluded, the learned Recorder recapitulated the evidence, remarking that the law was, that any person found in possession of stolen property, without giving a satisfactory account of it, would presumably be the thief, and it was not sufficient to find an article to lay claim to it, but the finder must believe it to be lost, and that there are no means of ascertaining the owner. In this case the prisoner appeared to have taken no pains to discover the owner, even if her tale were true that she found them. It was for the jury to decide, and if they were satisfied with her account of how she became possessed of the clothes they would acquit her, but if not they would find her guilty.

The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly half an hour, to the astonishment of the whole court, the prisoner included, returned a verdict of “Not Guilty”, and the prisoner was discharged.

 

Folkestone Observer 16 January 1869

Quarter Sessions.

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

Mary Wilson was indicted for feloniously stealing 10 pinafores, two chemises, two pairs of drawers, one glass cloth, four towels, one pocket handkerchief, one tablecloth, one calico jacket, and one apron, of the value of 1 10s., the property of Mrs. Mary Ann Stay, at Folkestone, on the 1st instant.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The following evidence was then taken:

Mary Ann Stay said she recollected Friday, the 1st January. She placed a bundle of clothes which had been brought from the mangle on a chair in the bar. Any person could reach them by getting up on the counter of the bar. Missed the clothes on Saturday the 2nd, about six o'clock, about which time she went to the bar for the clothes and found they were gone. Witness went out about seven o'clock on the evening of Friday, and returned home about nine. Did not look in the bar when she went out. Gave information to P.C. Woodland on Saturday evening, and went to Mr. Hart's. Identified the towels by the mark “H.M.J.S.”. Could not swear to the clothes by the cut, as she made them. The goods she saw at the pawnshop were not all marked. Had not seen the prisoner before she was brought before the magistrates.

William Hart said he was an assistant to Hart & Co. On Saturday, January 2nd, prisoner pledged a bundle of clothes for 2s. Did not specify the articles on the ticket as there was not room, but simply stated it in the books as “tablecloths &c.”. Asked the prisoner if it was her property, and she said it was. The cloth they were wrapped in was clean. On Wednesday, January 6th, prisoner came to the shop again and offered two pairs of drawers on pledge. Witness left the shop in charge of another assistant, and met P.C. Woodland in the High Street. Did not examine the last bundle. The policeman went back to the shop with witness, and asked the prisoner where she got the clothes she pawned on Saturday, and she said she picked them up in the street.

P.C. Woodland said he recollected going to the shop of Mr. Hart on Wednesday, January 6th, when he saw the prisoner there, and upon his asking whether she was the person who pawned some clothes at the shop on the Saturday previous, she said she did as she had no use for them herself. He then took her into custody and charged her with stealing them. She then handed him a bundle of clothes, which she said were a part of the bundle she pledged. When at the station prisoner took off a jacket from under her dress, and a handkerchief from the breast of her dress and gave witness. The clothes had been in her possession since they were taken from Mr. Hart's shop.

The prisoner still adhered to her former statement that she picked the clothes up in the street.

The Recorder summed up the facts of the case and explained the law touching the same.

After an absence of a quarter of an hour, the jury returned with a verdict of Not Guilty.

The prisoner was then discharged.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 January 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

These sessions were held on Friday before the recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

A true bill was brought in against Mary Wilson for stealing a bundle of clothes, the property of Henry Stay, at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. The prisoner had been apprehended while offering a portion of the property for pledge, at Mr. Hart’s pawn shop, High Street.

The prisoner declared that she found the bundle in the street, and the jury after considerable deliberation found her not guilty, and she was discharged.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 February 1869.

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

Timothy Danaher, private in the 3rd Buffs, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard, 35, Cheriton Place, said: About three o'clock on Tuesday morning I heard a crashing noise. I rang the bell violently and the noise ceased. In the morning I found the glass of the area door broken, but the key was not in the door, so that it could not be opened. Then the window of the housekeeper's room was broken, and a round brass dial and inkstand was missing from the room. On the previous evening I saw the house properly fastened. There were drops of blood outside the window, and spots of ink on the steps, also in the direction of the square.

Prisoner: I know nothing of the affair.

P.C. Charles Smith said: Yesterday between ten and eleven my attention was called to the robbery. I made enquiries and subsequently detained the prisoner at Hythe. I ascertained that he had offered the timepiece and inkstand for sale. I charged him with housebreaking and with having had the goods in his possession at seven o'clock. He said he knew nothing about the affair and had not had the things in his possession. I could not find the property. On searching him at the police station, I found a pair of gloves and the pocket of his trousers all smeared with ink. His hands and coat were also smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

Cross-examined: I went to three public houses and asked if you had offered for sale anything. One man told me you fell and cut your nose outside his house.

Henry Stay, landlord of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, said: On Tuesday morning, about half past twelve, prisoner came into my house and wanted a pint of beer, but I refused. He said he had been absent two days. I gave him a glass of beer to go home, and he went away.

Superintendent Martin asked for a remand to Friday, which was granted.

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

Timothy Danaher, on remand from Wednesday, was charged with housebreaking.

Miss Ballard, the prosecutrix, re-called, said she and her mother only lived in the house. The window of the housekeeper's room was not open, but the square of glass broken was large enough to allow anyone to get through. A net blind on the door was also torn down and taken away. The value of the goods taken was 7s. 6d., and they were the property of my mother, Harriett Ballard.

John Brooks said he saw the prisoner on the road to Hythe about eight o'clock on Tuesday morning, and he asked him if he would buy a clock for a pot of beer. He also had a netted window blind in his hand.

Cross-examined: Your nose was not cut when I saw you.

George Hall said he saw prisoner about half past ten on Tuesday morning in a street at Hythe, cut about the face, and dirty. Witness took him into a public house and gave him a pint of beer. Afterwards, in walking along the street, prisoner asked him if he could “push anything”, and if he were a detective. He then said “I broke into a house at Folkestone and stole a small clock”. Witness thought it was a public house lark, and advised him to take it back. Prisoner said he would go to O'Grady's and get it, and while there a policeman took him. The clock was in his trousers pocket when witness first saw him.

Cross-examined: It was not your gloves that made your pocket gape. You told me you were in Folkestone till about twelve, and then slept in a stable at Hythe. I did not ask you anything about a clock. You were bleeding at the nose when I first saw you.

Henry Stay, re-called, said prisoner was about twenty minutes in the house. He was drunk.

Pay-Sergt. Sam Scragg, 3rd Buffs, said prisoner was a private in his company. Prisoner was absent from Camp at 8-30 tattoo on Sunday and Monday last.

P.C. Smith, re-called, said it was in O'Grady's house he apprehended prisoner. On charging him with stealing, he denied all knowledge of it.

Cross-examined: I searched O'Grady's house when I took prisoner, but found nothing.

This was the case.

Mr. Boarer having cautioned prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, and said if he did break into the house he must have cut himself, and had he stolen the goods he should not have told Hall about it. No-one saw him break into the house, and no-one saw the articles in his possession. He wished to call the persons who saw him fall and cut his face about eight o'clock, and that there was no blood about him before.

Prisoner was then committed for trial at the ensuing Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Observer 6 February 1869.

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

Timothy Danaher, a private in the 3rd Buffs, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard said: I live at 25, Cheriton Place. On Tuesday morning about three o'clock I heard a noise at the lower part of the house. I rang the bell violently and the noise ceased. On going down in the morning I found the glass window of the back door smashed. The key was not left in the door. Found the window in the housekeeper's room broken, and missed from that room a round glass dial and an inkstand, which were left on the mantelpiece. I saw the house locked up and went to bed about 11 o'clock on the night previous. There was some ink spilt on the steps, and I saw some blood a little distance from the house, near Miss Sankey's. It was the area door in front of the house.

P.C. Smith said: My attention was called to the robbery on Saturday, the 30th January. Went to the house of the prosecutor and found the windows broken, and the ink and blood spilt, as described by the last witness. From further information I received I went to Hythe, where I found the prisoner in a private house in Durham Road. Heard that the prisoner had been offering the inkstand and timepiece to a man named Parks. I charged him with stealing the property, and also with having it unlawfully in his possession. Prisoner said he knew nothing about it, and that he had not had the property in his possession. I then locked the prisoner up in the police station at Hythe and made further enquiries about the missing property. On searching the prisoner at Folkestone I found the gloves produced, which are smeared with ink. Asked him how the ink came on the gloves, and prisoner said it had been on them since Saturday night. His hands and coat were also smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

Henry Stay said: I live at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. On Tuesday morning, about half past 12, prisoner came to the bar and begged me to draw him a pint of beer. He said he had been absent from the camp two days. I at first refused, but on him promising to go to the camp immediately, I drew him a glass of beer, which he drank and left the house. Prisoner did not then have the mark on his nose which he now has.

On the application of Supt. Martin the prisoner was remanded until Friday for the production of a witness who had refused to come.

Friday, February 5th: Before Alderman Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Timothy Danaher, on remand, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard repeated her evidence given on Wednesday, and in addition to that she said her mother and herself lived in the house alone at present. The inkstand was left on the table in the housekeeper's room. There was some mud on the inside of the blind of that room. The blind from the area door was also gone; it was a knitted blind. The value of the property was 7s. 6d. The articles were the property of her mother.

John Brook deposed: I live at Hythe. Saw the prisoner on Tuesday morning last about half past seven o'clock, between the Bell Inn and the Canongate, Hythe. He asked me if I would buy a clock. Did not see the clock. I told him I did not want it. Prisoner showed me an inkstand, which he took from his pocket. He asked if I would give him a pint of beer for it, and I told him I did not want it. The inkstand appeared to be lead or prewter. Prisoner had also a window blind in his hand. I was in my cart at the time, so that I did not examine the articles.

By the prisoner: Could not exactly see the inkstand. It was about six inches in diameter. You did have a piece of sticking plaster or dirt on your nose when I saw you.

George Hall, a shoemaker living at Hythe, deposed: I saw the prisoner on Tuesday morning last about half past ten. He was going round Theatre Street. I passed by him, but seeing his trousers covered in mud I called him, and said “Hello. What is the matter?”. He said he had only lost his belt. I took him into the Blacksmith's Arms and gave him a pint of beer, thinking that he might get himself clean. Prisoner asked me if I knew where a person named O'Grady lived. I then went into the house and waited about an hour. I afterwards went up the lane leading to the church in company with the prisoner, when he asked me if I could push anything. I asked him what he meant, and he said “Are you a detective?”. I said I was not, and he then said “Give me your hand as a friend”. I gave him my hand. I asked him what he had done, and he said he had broken into a house at Folkestone, and broken two windows and stolen a clock. I told him to take it back, thinking it was only a drunken lark. He said he would go back to O'Grady's and get the clock. There was a hole in his right hand trousers pocket, through which I saw the brass, I suppose, of the clock. I did not see the clock, but prisoner told me it was a clock that he had got. Prisoner did not say anything about an inkstand. He left me to go to O'Grady's for the inkstand.

By the prisoner: You told me you were in Folkestone until 12 o'clock, after which you came to Hythe and slept in a stable. I did not ask you whether you took the clock to Folkestone. You were not bleeding from the nose, but you had a piece of sticking plaster on it.

Sergeant Samuel Scragg, of the 3rd Buffs, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, said the prisoner was reported absent on Sunday and Monday at roll call. The roll was called at half past eight.

P.C. Smith repeated his former evidence, adding that when he asked the prisoner if he had been to Folkestone on the night in question, prisoner said he had been lodging in a stable at Hythe.

Prisoner, in answer to the charge, having previously received the usual caution, said that if he had broken into the house, and broken glass as described, he could not have done so without having cut himself. If he had stolen the articles he would have told the man Hall about it. There was no-one saw him break into the house, nor were the things seen in his possession. He would like to call the landlord and the woman, who, he said, would prove that his nose was not cut when he was there.

The Bench said they thought the evidence the prisoner wished to bring insufficient to cause the adjournment of the court. The prisoner was therefore committed for trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 8 February 1869.

Local News.

Timothy Danaher, soldier, was charged on Wednesday, before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer, Esqs., with breaking into 5, Cheriton Place, and stealing a timepiece and inkstand therefrom.

Miss Ballard was called, and she deposed to hearing a smashing of glass on Tuesday morning last. She rang the bell and it suddenly ceased. On going downstairs when she got up, she found some glass broken in the glass door and in the window leading to the housekeeper’s room. She missed a timepiece and an inkstand off the mantelpiece. There were several stains of ink and blood about. The house was properly locked up when she retired the previous evening.

P.C. Smith said he arrested the prisoner at Hythe, having heard that he had offered an inkstand and timepiece for sale. On searching him at the Folkestone police station he found a pair of gloves stained with ink; the inside of his pockets and his hands were also stained with ink.

Mr. H. Stay, of the Prince Albert, said that the prisoner called at his house a little after twelve o’clock on Monday night, and asked for a pint of beer. He said he belonged to the 3rd regiment and had been absent two days. Witness gave him a glass of beer, and told him to go home. He was drunk.

The case was remanded for further evidence till Friday.

The case was again brought up again on Friday, before the same magistrates, and the prisoner was committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 April 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

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

The Recorder delivered his charge to the Grand Jury. He remarked he was sorry so many gentlemen had been called away from their business, because there was one prisoner to be tried, but as the law at present stood it was necessary. There was but one case to be brought before them – one of housebreaking, and they would experience no difficulty in returning a true bill, according to the depositions, for the housebreaking and entering was actual, and not constructive, so there was no need for him to tell them waht was the law as to constructive housebreaking; in fact the crime was one of burglary, a very much more serious offence than mere housebreaking, having been committed between the ours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., which was punishable with penal servitude for life. He could not tell what was the reason the magistrates did not commit the prisoner to the Assizes, but whenever the greater offence included the less he considered it contrary to the intention of the legislature to commit for the smaller offence, more especially as it was in the province of a jury, where they could not find guilty of the greater offence, even if there were only one indictment, they could find a prisoner guilty of a less crime. The reason the magistrates committed prisoner for the less offence might have been to save expense and trouble, but if that had been the reason they might even have gone further and argued, that as it was only a 7s. 6d. case, they might, on the prisoner pleading guilty, convict him summarily. He need not say that in either case the magistrates would be committing an unjust act. He was not blaming the magistrates, because he did not know their motive. Some magistrates again felt a pleasure in exercising their jurisdiction, as in cases of serious assault, and dealt tenderly with a prisoner, so that his family might not have to go to a workhouse. All this was not right, and he (the Recorder) was satisfied that magistrates had no business to commit for a smaller offence than could be proved to have taken place. If this case had not been sent there for trial, they would have held a maiden session, and they might perhaps think he wanted to have the white gloves, but he considered that no chairman of the bench of magistrates should take the gloves, if during the quarter any cases had occurred in the borough which might have been sent for trial in the discretion of the bench.

The Grand Jury were then dismissed to their duties, and in the course of about three quarters of an hour returned with a true bill against Timothy Danoher, a private in the 3rd Buffs, stationed at Shorncliffe, for feloniously breaking and entering the premises of Harriett Ballard, the elder, in Cheriton Place, Folkestone, and stealing therein a round brass clock, a glass inkstand, and a knitted blind, value 7s.6d., on the 2nd of February last. A second count charged him with feloniously stealing the same articles.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, saying he was bad enough without telling a lie.

He also pleaded guilty to having been convicted at that court on the 9th day of April, 1867, of felony, having previously been convicted of housebreaking.

Being asked what he had to say in extenuation, prisoner said he was drunk, and did not know how he committed the offence. In the morning he kept close, with the intention of replacing the stolen property.

The learned Recorder said that would have done, had it been his first appearance as a prisoner, but he had been convicted before himself twice before, and received nine months and three months hard labour. But that was not all. When they came to his military offences they found he was guilty of habitual drunkenness – the cause, doubtless, of many of his crimes, but no extenuation – of desertion, of being absent without leave, and making away with his regimental necessaries, provided at the National expense, to procure the means of obtaining drink, of using insubordinate language in the orderly room, drunk and riotous, drawing a knife on a comrade, and committing every possible military offence, having been on the regimental defaulters' book more than fifty times. Did he think it possible there could be a worse character short of actual murder? Prisoner had had every chance, but now it was his (the Recorder's) duty to inflict a severe punishment, for prisoner was a dangerous person, and, had he been disturbed on this occasion, and had there been a knife in his way, doubtless he would have used violence. It was necessary that the public should be protected, and the punishment imposed on the prisoner would be five years' penal servitude.

On the application of Mr. Minter, who appeared to prosecute, the property stolen was ordered to be given up to Mrs. Ballard.

This terminated the business of the court.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 19 April 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

The spring session was held on Wednesday last, in the Town-hall, before the Recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

Timothy Danoher, a private in the 3rd Buffs, was charged with breaking into the house of Harriet Ballard, No. 25, Cheriton Place, and stealing therefrom a round brass clock, an inkstand, and a knitted blind, on Feb. 2nd.

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and admitted a previous conviction, on the 9th of April, 1867, for felony.

The Recorder said he had been twice convicted by him, and he would also read a number of sentences passed upon him by the military authorities. On Feb. 27th, 1861, 42 days’ imprisonment for habitual drunkenness; Dec. 10th, 1862, 42 days’ for being absent without leave; Dec. 17th, 1864, 28 days’ for using insubordinate language; July 3rd, 1865, absent without leave, 42 days’ imprisonment; Sept. 8th, 1865, for desertion, 112 days’ imprisonment; June 18th, 1866, for being absent without leave and threatening Private Bowman of the 2nd Dragoon Guards with a knife, 168 days’ imprisonment. He also appeared 42 times in the defaulter’s book. He thought that a worse character could not exist, and he must severely punish him. He therefore sentenced him to penal servitude for five years.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1869.

Annual Licensing Day.—A full bench of magistrates attended on Wednesday to grant renewals and hear fresh applications.

Several licenses were suspended owing to the complaints of the public, and the renewal of the licence of the Prince Albert kept by Henry Stay was refused altogether.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 September 1869.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at the Town Hall, before J. Minter Esq., and a respectable jury, on the body of Sergt. Alfred Hooper, of the Army Hospital Corps, who was found dead in bed at the Prince Albert Inn on Thursday morning.

Supt. Martin said: I went to the Prince Albert yesterday morning, and found deceased lying in bed in an upstairs room. He was on his back with his head on the pillow. There was no sign of a struggle.

Harriet Hobden said: I live in George Lane. I met deceased at Sandgate on Wednesday evening about half past ten. I did not know him. I had some brandy, and afterwards came with him to the Prince Albert to get a bed. We went upstairs directly, but deceased came down again for some soda water. I got into bed and went to sleep. I was intoxicated, and did not remember his getting into bed. I believe this was about half past eleven. I did not wake up till nine o'clock, and then I found him dead by my side. I got up and gave an alarm. Deceased appeared to be sober coming from Sandgate. He complained of his head being giddy.

Cross-examined by Mr. Martin: We did not have half a pint of brandy at the Prince Albert.

Sergeant Charles Godfrey, Army Hospital Corps, identified the body as that of Colour Sergt. Alfred Hooper, of the same corps, stationed at Netley.

Austin Jones Fergusson, assistant surgeon, Shorncliffe Camp, said: I have this day made a post mortem examination of the body of deceased, and ascertained to my own satisfaction the cause of death, which was disease of the heart, complicated with extensive disease of the kidneys of long standing. The whole of the internal organs were diseased. I believe he has been drinking for the last eight or ten days, and has not eaten anything for some time, as the stomach and intestines were empty.

A verdict in accordance with the evidence.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 September 1869.

Local News.

On Thursday morning, Colour-Sergeant Alfred Hooper, of the Army Hospital Corps, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, died suddenly at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. He met with a woman named Franks, at Sandgate, and was persuaded to accompany her to the above house, where they passed the night. In the morning she was horrified at discovering that her paramour was dead. A medical man was sent for, but the deceased had been dead for some time. The deceased is reported to have a wife and three children living at Southampton.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 November 1869.

Wednesday, November 23rd: Before W. Bateman, J. Tolputt, R.W. Boarer, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses.

George Bates, gardener, of Lydd, applied for a renewal of the license to the Prince Albert, kept by Henry Stay, whose license was refused at the last meeting.

This application was also refused, and Mr. Martin afterwards stated that it was only an attempt to blind the Bench. This applicant was the father of Mr. Stay, and it was intended for Stay still to keep the house.

 

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 Observer 24 February 1870.

Transfer of License.

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

Stephen F. Foreman applied for a transfer of the license granted to Henry Stay to sell excisable liquors at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. The license was refused on a former application being made, on account of the bad character of the house. The applicant put in testimonials as to character from several clergymen, churchwardens, farmers, &c., living at and near Cranbrook, and the Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 February 1870.

Wednesday February 22nd: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, John Clark, and John Gambrill Esqs.

This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses, and for other business.

Stephen F. Forward applied for a license to the Prince Albert, in Rendezvous Street, which had been closed since the last licensing day. He produced a testimonial and certificates of character and respectability, and the Bench granted the license.

 

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 Observer 22 September 1870.

Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, J. Clarke and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

James William Snelling, landlord of the Prince Albert Inn, was summoned for assisting a soldier of the 3rd Buffs to desert on the 7th inst.

Mr. Minter defended.

Private Connor, of the 3rd Buffs, stated that on Wednesday, September 7th, he went to the defendant's house where he stopped the night and till the next day evening. He was on pass till 12 o'clock on Wednesday night. When he came to the house he was in uniform, but he left in private clothes he purchased in the town. He left his regimentals in the bedroom, but did not give them into the care of the landlord. He did not think the defendant saw him leave the house.

Cross-examined: Paid 6d. for his bed.

This was all the evidence, and the case was at once dismissed.

There was a second charge of the defendant for receiving the clothes of a soldier in Her Majesty's service.

Sergeant Richard Ellis deposed to going to the defendant's house to enquire after the clothes of a deserter. The defendant told him that they were upstairs, and brought them down when he told him to do so. Witness saw by the number they were the last witness's.

This case was also at once dismissed.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 November 1869.

Licensing Sessions.

A special session was held on Wednesday, before W. Bateman, R. W. Boarer, J. Tolputt, and C. Dashwood, Esqrs.

George Bates, a gardener, of Lydd, applied for a licence for the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous-street, recently closed by the magistrates on account of its being a resort of persons of bad character. Mr. Minter read a petition signed by several people. No notices had been served in this case, and therefore the licence was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 December 1870.

County Court.

Saturday, December 10th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Snelling v Brockman: This was a claim for 20 arising out of an alleged breach of contract. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear, but sent a letter to His Honour admitting his liability. Mr. Minter said plaintiff occupied the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street, and he took it off defendant who said he only owed a day or two's rent, and he paid 48 for entering and for the fittings &c. Some time after, the landlord, through his agent, Mr. Banks, came on him for six months rent, which he refused to pay, and an execution was put in his house.

Mr. Snelling was called and said he took the place believing that defendant only owed a few days' rent. After he had been in the house a short while the execution was put in, and he had witnesses to prove that defendant convinced him that the rent was paid, which statement he took the house, and paid the money required of him.

His Honour gave judgement for 16 10s. 6d., and costs.

Notes: This puts Snelling at the Prince Albert earlier than the info in More Bastions. Also there is no record of Brockman.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 May 1872.

Monday, May 13th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, J. Clarke, and T. Caister Esqs.

Isaac Berry was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, or seven days imprisonment. Prisoner was also charged with wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street, whilst being pushed out of the house. He was fined 5s., 3s. 6d. costs, and 3s. 6d. damages, or 14 days.

 

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 Chronicle 19 June 1875.

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

John Doyle, a Private of the 1st Battalion, 18th Royal Irish, was charged with stealing, on the 16th inst., a box containing 5s. in money, the property of William James Snelling.

Prisoner was remanded until Saturday next.

 

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 7d. 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 June 1875.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, before W. Wightwick, Esq. (Mayor), J. Tolputt, and B. W. Boarer, Esqrs., 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 washhouse, 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 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.

Some other evidence was given, and P.C. Keeler proved that when prosecutor gave prisoner into custody, the latter had 2s. 7d. in his possession, all but a fourpenny piece being in coppers. There were several farthings amongst the money, and the prosecutor deposed that there were a great many farthings in the cash box at the time of the robbery. The prisoner was 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 June 1875.

Local News.

John Doyle and James Freeborn, privates in the 18th Royal Irish, were charged on remand on the 19th inst. at the Police Court, with stealing a till, containing 7s., from the Prince Albert Inn.

After evidence, the prisoners’ pleading stood as follows: Guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, and on the last-named plea they were, committed for trial.

 

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. 7 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 2 August 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

John Doyle, 23, and James Freeborn, 20, private soldiers in the 18th Regiment of Foot, recently stationed at Shorncliffe, were indicted for having stolen 7s., the property of Wm. James Snelling, landlord of the Prince Albert Inn, on the 16th June. Mr. Herbert Croft prosecuted.

The prisoners called for some beer at prosecutor’s house, and while his back was turned took several shillings worth of coppers from the till, and ran off, leaving their beer on the counter.

They were found guilty, and each sentenced to six months’ 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.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 24 November 1886.

Local News.

So, the dear old Prince Albert, in Rendezvous Street, has been pulled down at last! I hear that the venerable structure was sold “all standing” for 9 – doubtless as much as it was worth, considering the cost of demolition and cartage.

 

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.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 3 August 1887.

Local News.

The Prince Albert has secured it's licence. You know, of course, that the Prince Albert is the new public house which Messrs. Nalder and Collyer are erecting on Grace Hill, next to the Central Stores. It will undoubtedly be a good addition to the many important buildings that are being erected along Grace Hill, and both the proprietors and the builders (Messrs. Prebble and Son) are to be congratulated upon the celerity with which the work has been pushed on, so as to warrant the Magistrates in granting a licence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1887.

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

Mr. Worsfold Mowll applied on behalf of the firm of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer that a licence to sell beer and spirits at the Prince Albert, Grace Hill, might be granted. Mr. Mowll said he had applied before, and the Bench held that they could not grant the licence, but he showed the Bench that by Act of Parliament it was perfectly legal.

Joseph Gardner, architect, said he had been instructed by Messrs. Nalder and Colyer to take charge of the Inn. The plans had passed the Corporation. There were two rooms for the accommodation of the public, and the rent was 30 a year.

Mr. George Terry, the landlord, said he resided at Croydon. He had not held a licence for some time. He had formerly kept a licensed house in Folkestone.

Superintendent Taylor said he did not know anything against the man, and the licence was granted.

Note: No mention of Terry at the Prince Albert – or anywhere in Folkestone, according to More Bastions.

 

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.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 15 February 1888.

Saturday, February 11th: Justices Present: The Mayor, Messrs. Holden, Fitness, Hoad, Penfold and Ward.

Mr. Dudley Jeffrey, of the Prince Albert Hotel, applied for permission to sell until five a.m. on the occasion of a ball at the Masonic Hall. The Mayor said the Bench were not disposed to grant the extension beyond four o'clock, and with this concession Mr. Jeffrey expressed himself satisfied.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 22 February 1888.

Local News.

On Monday evening, while the Salvation Army was passing, the large lamp outside the new Prince Albert Hotel fell with a crash on the pavement. This is the second large lamp that has fallen in Folkestone; the last one was that outside the Alexandra Hotel about two years ago. For my part I shall carefully avoid walking under these things in future. It's not worth the risk.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 February 1890.

At the Hythe police court on Thursday, Dudley Jeffrey, of the Prince Albert Hotel, Folkestone, and his servant, George White, were summoned for cruelly ill-treating a horse on the 4th December.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the defendant, and Mr. Colam prosecuted.

Horace Wratten, a shepherd, stated that on the day in question he was on the Race Meadow and saw Mr. Jeffrey riding a horse, which fell on it's knees and then on it's nose and near side. It's legs were doubled over. It laid on the ground about five minutes, and was then led to the stable. Witness stopped with it during the night. The defendant White went next morning to fetch the horse.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Mr. Jeffrey got some straw and made the horse comfortable. He heard Jeffrey say to Mr. Jordan that it was not a fit place to put the horse.

P.C. Hobday said he saw the horse about 40 yards on the Folkestone side of the Swan. The defendant White was in charge and was coaxing the horse along as best he could. It appeared to be very feeble on it's fore feet. He asked White where he brought the horse from, and he said the Race Meadow, at West Hythe, and that he was going to take it to Folkestone. At the Swan stable it laid down in a helpless condition.

Thos. Elliott, proprietor of the Swan, said he saw the horse outside his stables on the 5th of December. Mr. Jeffrey brought a bottle of embrocation and rubbed the horse with it for about half an hour. It was decided to kill it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He thought it was an ordinary breakdown, and using the embrocation was the right treatment for an ordinary case.

Inspector Blake Jones, R.S.P.C.A., said he visited the stable on the Monday, and saw the horse in a loose box. It was prostrate and dying. He tried to get the animal on it's feet, but could not do so. He examined the legs, and found the near fore leg was intensely inflamed due to some severe injury of the fetlock joint. The off fore fetlock was swollen, but not so badly as the other. After the horse was killed the near for leg was cut off. Immediately the knife was inserted behind the knee, quite half a pint of matter gushed from the leg. HE handed the limb to Mr. Hogben for examination.

Mr. Hogben, veterinary surgeon, said the break was the worst he had ever seen. It ought not to have been moved a foot after it broke down.

Mr. Minter pointed out that it was simply an error of judgement on Mr. Jeffrey's part, and he took every possible care to treat the horse for the injury.

Mr. Henry Jordan said he was with Mr. Jeffrey on the 5th December. He thought the animal had broken down slightly in it's fore legs. He saw Mr. Jeffrey rub the horse's leg with embrocation, and foment it with hot water.

The Bench fined each defendant 10s. and 1 11s. costs.

 

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 Chronicle 30 April 1904.

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

Horace Small was summoned for allowing a chimney at the Prince Albert Hotel to be on fire on April 16th.

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

 

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 Chronicle 19 November 1904.

On Tuesday morning the first of a series of Excise prosecutions was opened at the Folkestone Police Court (the Woodward Institute), before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

Great interest was taken in the proceedings, which lasted from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. The summonses were laid against well-known traders, and in all cases related to the alleged selling of beers, wines, or spirits without a licence. The prosecution, at the instance of the Inland Revenue Department, was conducted by Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister.

Dominico Flessati (of Flessati's Restaurant, Rendezvous Street) and Horace Small, landlord of the Prince Albert Hotel, were proceeded against on three informations for selling wine and spirit without a licence.

In this case it was contended that a commission arrangement between the defendants made them practically partners, and that Small was, therefore, extending his business upon unlicensed premises. There was a ticket system in vogue, and the witnesses alleged that Small appeared to clear 9d. upon every bottle of a certain brand sold at Flessati's premises.

Mr. Small's explanation was this:- The fact is, I have an arrangement with Mr. Flessati. We keep all the tickets, total them up, and I allow 15 percent on the total, except for four ale”.

Flessati at first denied any arrangement, but afterwards produced a book of counterfoils, saying, however, that he made nothing out of the arrangement unless Mr. Small made him a present.

In Court Mr. Small made a candid admission that he did allow the commission, and said he did not look upon it as an offence.

Flessati's version was that the tickets had been printed to keep the waiters honest. He still denied any commission arrangement, but if Mr. Small liked to make him a present he would accept it.

The Bench convicted both defendants, and fined them 1 for each offence, and 9s. costs, the total amount being 4 17s. each.

In the case of Mr. Small, whose plea of Not Guilty had not been withdrawn, Mr. Minter at once gave notice of appeal.

 

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 Herald 19 November 1904.

Local News.

At the sitting of the Folkestone Bench on Tuesday, the hearing of a bunch of summonses taken out by the Excise Authorities against several local tradesmen was commenced. The Magistrates present were Alderman W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

There were three summonses against Dominica Flessati and Horace Small in respect of selling alcoholic liquors on premises in Rendezvous Street. Mr. Shaw prosecuted and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Davies stated that on the 15th August, accompanied by Mr. Cope, he went to Flessati's Restaurant in Rendezvous Street about one o'clock and ordered lunch. On the table adjoining that at which they sat was a wine list similar to the one produced, which was headed “Prince Albert Hotel, proprietor H. Small”. Witness ordered a bottle of Beaune. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him 2s. 6d., the price quoted on the price list. He left the shop, and shortly afterwards came back and gave witness what he ordered. Witness later on ordered some liqueur brandy. The waiter again asked for the money, and left the shop. Witness watched him, and saw him enter Small's house and return with the brandy. Flessati was standing by the counter, and the whole thing was done in front of him. Witness went to the shop again at eight in the evening, and ordered some coffee and two liqueurs. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him 1s. He left the shop, and returned and filled witness two liqueur glasses from a tumbler. On the 30th August witness went to the Prince Albert Hotel and saw Small. Witness told him who he was, and asked for an explanation with reference to selling liqueurs at Flessati's. Witness also asked him if he had any arrangements with Mr. Flessati as to the sale of liqueurs. He said “There is no arrangement whatever”. Witness said “What about the pink tickets which are handed over by the waiters?” “Pink tickets?” he said. Witness replied “Yes”. He said “I don't know anything about pink tickets”. Mr. Cope said “Oh, yes, you do. I can go and find them at the bar for you if you like”. Mr. Cope went to the shop and brought some of the tickets back. Small then said “I have tickets; it was Mr. Flessati who arranged it”. Witness asked for a wine list and Small handed him the one produced. Witness pointed to a bottle of Beaune on it (2s. 6d. a bottle). Witness told him it was only 1s. 9d. a bottle. Defendant then said “I have come to an arrangement with Mr. Flessati. We keep all these tickets and total up, and I allow him 15 percent on the total, except for ales”. Witness subsequently saw Flessati at his premises. Witness asked him how many licences he had, and ge replied “I have only a refreshment house keeper's and tobacco licence”. Witness then asked for his wine list, and he handed him the one produced. Witness further asked him if he had any arrangement with Mr. Small, and he replied “None whatever”. Witness then asked him about the pink ticket arrangement. Mr. Flessati made the following statement before he produced the tickets:- “The wine is supplied by Horace Small, who is a friend. I have no other wine list except Mr. Small's. We have everything fair, that is at Mr. Small's. The waiter must go to Mr. Small's. When a customer asks for beer, wines, or spirits, the waiter asks for the money. If a customer asks for half a bottle of Beaune, the waiter asks for 2s. 6d. I do not send a ticket”. Asked when he balanced up, he replied “We never balance up” Witness asked him who proposed the arrangement as to the tickets, and he replied that he did. He added that he did not make anything out of the arrangement, nor did Mr. Small allow him anything. “No discount?” queried witness, to which he replied “Certainly not. If he gave me a present I would take it”. Witness put it to Mr. Flessati that by arrangement with Mr. Small, he received a 15 percent commission, but that he denied. Asked about a liqueur brandy, he said that fourpence would be the price of it, and he never charged more. Witness said “During this month two liqueur brandies were called for, and the waiter asked for 1s. He left, and brought the brandy in a tumbler, poured out half the brandy into two little glasses under your eyes, and brought the two liqueurs to the customers”. Flessati denied that.

Alfred Wm. Cope proved accompanying Mr. Davies to the restaurant and to Mr. Small's, and corroborated.

James John Hayward said that, acting upon instructions, he and a companion named Bate kept observations outside the house during the time that Mr. Davies and Mr. Cope were inside the house. At 1.17 p.m. a waiter left the premises and went to the Prince Albert public house. He asked for a small bottle of Beaune and paid 2s. 6d., at the same time handing in a pink slip. There was 2s. 6d. written on the slip. He received a bottle of Beaune, and took it back to the restaurant. At half past one the same waiter went to the Prince Albert public house, and asked for 8d. worth of brandy, and handed in a pink slip. He was carrying a tumbler. He was served with the brandy, and returned to the restaurant. A lady was serving behind the bar. On the 18th August he kept up further observations. Just before eight o'clock a waiter went to the Prince Albert public house and called for 8d. worth of brandy. He paid 8d. for it and handed in a pink slip.

Mr. Bate corroborated all that had been said, except as to the amounts paid. He went to the public house and asked the price of a small bottle of Beaune, and learned that it was 1s. 9d.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he knew that there were different qualities of Beaune.

Horace Small, landlord of the Prince Albert, was next called in his own defence. He had some wine lists printed, and anybody was at liberty to take one from the coffee and dining-room tables. Anybody asking for a wine list would be given one. If he got a good order he would allow his customer a discount. With regard to Mr. Flessati, he had never been supplied with beers, wines, or spirits, unless he received full payment over his counter. As an inducement to Mr. Flessati to deal with him, witness did promise him 15 percent on all the goods he had from him. There was nothing to prevent him going elsewhere if he wished.

Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw: In his opinion the transaction was a perfectly legitimate one. The allowance of 15 percent had not been given, although it was promised. He had never sold a bottle of Beaune at 1s. 9d. to some people, and charged 2s. 6d. whenever it was wanted for the restaurant. He knew his barmaids were taking the tickets from the waiters, but, personally, he had not examined them.

Dominica Flessati, the proprietor of the restaurant, stated that when he sent out he sent to the Prince Albert, but he had never sent for any quantity of beer, wines and spirits without the real amount of money received from the customer. The idea of using the tickets was to ensure that the waiters went to the Prince Albert. It would have been possible for them, otherwise, to have gone to different public houses for the beer, obtained it cheaper, and pocketed the difference.

Mr. Minter having addressed the Bench, the Chairman announced that his colleagues and he were of opinion that the sale undoubtedly took place at the restaurant, and not on the licensed premises. The penalty in two of the cases was 50, and in the other 20. They would, however, inflict the same penalty as in the previous cases, of 1 for each defendant on each summons, and 9s. costs on each summons.

Mr. Minter gave notice of appeal in the case of Mr. Small.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 March 1905.

Local News.

It is with profound regret that we reprint the following paragraph from the London Evening News of the 16th inst.

During the inquest here today on Dudley John Jeffrey, aged 39, formerly manager of an hotel, it was stated that he had gone to his mother-in-law's house and said “See me take my last drink”.

She did not take much notice of the remark, as he had previously threatened suicide.

Subsequently arrested on a charge of being drunk, he was found dead in a police cell.

Death was found to have been caused by chloroform, of which he had taken two ounces. In the doctor's opinion life would have been saved had aid been summoned immediately after he drank the contents of the glass.

Returning a verdict of suicide, the jury said the mother-in-law should have more carefully examined the bottle which Jeffrey left on the shelf at her house.

Those who knew the deceased will be best able to link together the tragic chain of events which have had such a fatal ending. Folkestonians will remember the open-handed, generous (too generous), high spirited “Dudley”, who tried his luck at many occupations, but never struck a seam which led to success. In a minor degree the deceased was much of the calibre of the late Marquis of Anglesey – fond of outward adornment and always careless of expense.

Note: His age at death opens the question whether it WAS the same man at both the Prince Albert and the Guildhall.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 March 1906.

Local News.

We regret to announce that Mr. Horace Small, the well-known proprietor of the Prince Albert Hotel, passed away early this morning. He had resided in Folkestone for the last fifteen years, during which time he had endeared himself to everyone with whom he had come into contact, and departs without leaving an enemy behind. Two years since he was seized with a malignant disease, and for many months past all hope of his recovery had been abandoned. His age was 52, and he was a native of Tenterden. He was unmarried, but leaves a sister and brother. The sister, Mrs. Jacobs, has been with him at the Prince Albert for several years. We, with all who knew Mr. Small, offer our deepest sympathy to his sorrowing relatives.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1906.

Local News.

With deep regret we record the death of Mr. H. Small, the genial landlord of the Prince Albert Hotel, which sad event occurred early on the morning of Saturday last. The deceased, who was 52 years of age, had for some time past been suffering from diabetes. He was well known in the town and district. He was a respected Freemason, belonging to the St. Leonard Lodge, and a staunch member of the Constitutional Club. The funeral took place on Thursday afternoon.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, R.J. Linton, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Mrs. Lizzie Jacobs, one of the executors of the late Mr. Horace Small, on the application of Mr. H.W. Watts, was granted the temporary transfer of the licence of the Prince Albert Hotel. Mr. Watts mentioned that it was proposed to sell the business, and that would necessitate another application at an early date.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 April 1906.

On Wednesday morning, at the Borough Police Court, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding, the ordinary business was preceded by a special licensing sessions.

Mrs. Lizzie Jacobs, one of the executors of the will of Mr. Horace Small, was granted the temporary transfer of the licence of the Prince Albert Hotel, Rendezvous 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 Prince Albert Hotel, from the late Mr. H. Small to Mrs. Jacob.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. E.T. Ward and Mr. R.J. Linton.

A special session for the transfer of alehouse licences was held. Application was made and granted as follows: The licence of the Prince Albert 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 Daily News 2 May 1913.

Monday, April 28th: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Stainer, and Owen.

Ernest Eustace was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Toms, in proving the case, said on Saturday night prisoner was drunk in Tontine Street, where he was having an altercation with another man. Prisoner refused to go away, and commenced fighting.

P.C. Piddock corroborated.

Sergt. Prebble said that when brought to the station at 11.45 on Saturday night prisoner was undoubtedly drunk.

Prisoner said he was very excited, and he admitted striking another man with whom he quarrelled. The other man was drunk, but he (accused) denied that he was intoxicated.

Henry Smith, of the Radnor Lodging House, said prisoner had an altercation with another man, who struck accused, who at once hit back. Witness and accused had been together all day on Saturday. They had three drinks on Saturday night. They were in the Prince Albert about 1 hours. Neither he nor the prisoner were drunk.

The Chief Constable: What were you and accused doing on Saturday?

Witness: Hawking.

Have you a hawker's licence? – No; I was selling flowers.

What caused the trouble on Saturday night? – The others, who were drunker than what we were. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable said accused was fined in July last for drunkenness, and in February of this year given 21 days for drunkenness and an assault on a constable.

Fined 5s. and 7s. 6d. costs, and allowed until Saturday to pay.

 

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 Herald 9 October 1915.

Wednesday, October 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Col. G.P. Owen.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was transferred from Mrs. Jacobs 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 Herald 26 January 1918.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Thursday, before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and Mr. E.T. Morrison, the licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. A.J. Valder to Mr. G.D. Manger.

 

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 Herald 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Councillor E. Stace, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The following transfer was confirmed:

The Prince Albert, from Mr. Valder to Mr. D. 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 8d. for each bottle instead of 7d.

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 Herald 2 October 1920.

Tuesday, September 28th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor E.T. Morrison, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Councillor W. Hollands.

George Dunlop Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert, was summoned for a breach of the Beer Prices Order by charging more than the maximum price fixed for beer.

Mr. Misken prosecuted on behalf of the Divisional Food Commission, and Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector William Stephen Pack, an inspector under the Divisional Food Commissioner, said on July 31st he visited the Prince Albert public house at 6.30, accompanied by Inspector Alcock, also of the Food Control. He went into the public bar and asked the barman for two small bottles of Bass, meaning two half pint bottles. The barman having served him, witness tendered 2s. in payment, and received 7d. in change. The barman therefore charged 1s. 5d. for the two bottles. Witness said he had been overcharged to the extent of 2d., and the barman wished to refund the money, but he refused to accept it. Later he saw the licensee.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said they went there to see if they were served correctly. He did not taste the beer at first. Witness said to the barman “Have you not made a mistake?”, and then the barman said he had and he was sorry, and offered to give back the 2d. When he said “Haven't you made a mistake? I am an inspector under the Ministry of Food”, the barman wanted to give the money back. They did not drink the whole of the beer.

Ernest Fred. Alcock, of Ramsgate, an inspector under the Divisional Food Commissioner, corroborated.

Cross-examined, witness said Inspector Pack was not acting as his agent.

The barman, named Waters, said he had been barman for defendant for three years at Gravesend. He came with defendant to Folkestone some thirteen months ago. After giving Inspector Pack 7d. change he went to serve other customers, and then Pack said “Young man, have you not made a mistake?” Witness said “I have. I am sorry. I thought I was serving you in the private bar”. Pack said he was a Food Control Officer after witness had put the twopence on the counter.

Defendant said when he came into the bar some money was lying on the counter. Pack asked if that was enough change for two Basses out of 2s., and witness told Waters to correct it.

The Chairman said they considered the case proved and the public had to be protected. A fine of 10 and 3 3s. costs would be imposed.

 

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 Herald 18 December 1920.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) on Wednesday, on the body of Robert Albert Bateup, aged twenty months, who died from scalds the previous day.

Eva Esther Bateup, a cook at the Prince Albert Hotel, Rendezvous Street, stated that she was the mother of the child, who lived at the hotel with her by permission of her employer. On Sunday morning Mrs. Swallow, another servant, drew a pail of hot water water from the kitchen boiler and placed it under the drainer. The child was in the kitchen at the time. A few minutes later witness heard him scream, and looking round saw that the pail had been overturned, and that the boy was lying on the floor. Evidently the hot water had gone over him. Mr. Manger, her employer, came in, and the boy was undressed. The back and buttocks were very red, and the injured parts were dressed with oil. Dr. Lewis was called in, and he also attended the child on Monday and Tuesday. The infant died on Tuesday at 5.20 p.m.

Mr. Swallow, a servant, employed at the Prince Albert, stated that on Sunday morning she drew a pail of hot water and placed it under the drainer in the kitchen for a few minutes, whilst she filled the boiler again. The little boy was on the floor on the other side of the room. She did not notice him again until she heard a scream, and then saw that the pail had been overturned and the baby was alongside crying. His clothing was wet. Witness assisted his mother to undress him. His back and buttocks had been scalded.

Mr. Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert, stated that hearing a noise on Sunday, his wife and he went into the kitchen, where they saw the deceased in his mother's arms. The mother said the child had fallen into a pail of hot water. He could see that the infant was very severely scalded. The skin was peeling off. He at once telephoned Dr. Lewis, who arrived in about ten minutes. A lady speaking through the telephone told him to put oil on the scalded parts pending the arrival of the doctor. Everything possible was done for the child then and since. The doctor said it was a very serious case, and children sometimes died from the shock.

The Coroner found that deceased died from shock as a result of being 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 Herald 12 February 1921.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone 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 Herald 12 March 1921.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Councillor W.R. Boughton, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The renewal of the licence of the Prince Albert Hotel had been adjourned from the Annual Sessions. It was now 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 Herald 26 May 1923.

Wednesday, May 23rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was transferred from Mr. George Dunlop Manger to Mr. Samson Ernest Roberts.

 

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 Herald 14 August 1926.

Tuesday, August 10th: Before Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

Robert Fisher was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Grace Hill on the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said that at 10.15 the previous night he was passing the Prince Albert public house, when a glass was thrown from the door and narrowly missed him. He looked inside, and saw that prisoner was being ejected by a man named Whiting. Accused was making use of the most disgusting language. Witness was in plain clothes, but he told prisoner that he was a police officer and advised him to go away. Fisher again went into the public house, using filthy language. He again put prisoner outside, and later took him to the police station, where he charged him. Prisoner was bleeding from a cut on the right hand, which was dressed at the police station.

Prisoner said that on the previous evening he went into the public house to get a glass of beer. He went over to the counter and called for his beer. His usual custom was to take three or four paces back to allow customers to get to the bar. As he was going back an unknown man rushed before him and said “I am the man for you. I will have a go”. He replied “All right then”, and then the glass caught the top of his head, and cut his hand.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said that prisoner had three previous convictions for being drunk and disorderly against him, but none since 1921.

Defendant 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 Herald 24 March 1928.

Local News.

A Folkestone licensee, Mr. Christopher Andrews, of the Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned before the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday for having supplied intoxicating liquor after hours. William Wasley was summoned for consuming and Albert Allen for aiding and abetting.

Evidence for the police was given by Inspector Pittock, who stated that at 10.20 p.m. on Friday the 2nd inst., when passing the Prince Albert Hotel, he saw three men enter by the private entrance. He recognised one of them, William Wasley, as a local man. At 10.30, accompanied by another officer, witness found the door locked, and was admitted by a barman. In the saloon bar at the back of the premises witness saw the three men he had seen enter. Two were in the act of drinking ale from glasses – a man named Tinder, and Allen – and a third man, Wasley, had a glass in his hand also containing ale. All were in the bar, one seated in a chair. Wasley said his glass contained beer and witness tasted the contents and found it to be ale. The licensee was present, and Allen said “It is quite all right. He (meaning Wasley) is our guest. We are staying here and are paying for these drinks”. Witness asked Wasley if he was staying there and he said “No”. Witness told them he would report them, and the licensee said “I was in the cellar when the men came in and I suppose my wife served them without thinking”. Mrs. Andrews said she thought it was quite in order as the three gentlemen were staying there.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, defending, said the licensee was, of course, entitled to entertain his own friends, and the two commercial travellers who lodged in this hotel were entitled to have their drinks as they liked. But these commercials came in with a friend of theirs and they treated him, and as the law stood at present that was not legal. He was not entitled to have his drinks given him by these two gentlemen, although they were entitled, as residents of the hotel, to have drinks if they liked all night long. Mr. Mowll went on to mention that the licensee had been in the business a great many years, and had an absolutely irreproachable character.

The defendant Allen said he had been out with Mr. Trinder, and Mr. Wasley had been with them. They had no idea they were breaking the law.

Wasley said he thought there was nothing wrong in going to the hotel with his friends. He certainly would not have gone in if he had known he was breaking the law.

The Chairman (Colonel Owen) said defendants had all been perfectly straight and had admitted that they had broken the law, and the Bench were there to enforce the law. They were bound to say they were all Guilty, but did not consider it necessary to impose a penalty. The Bench were pleased at the straightforward way in which they had met the summonses, and they would be discharged under the Probation Act.

 

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 6d. 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 1/0 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 2d. on the till. In the first case they paid 6d. for the beer and in the second 6d. It had been ascertained from the licensee that the actual charge for the beer was 4d. a bottle. The waiter charged customers 6d. 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 6d, 4d. 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 6d. 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 11d. change from 2/-. The charge had been 6d. 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 2d.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.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 November 1936.

Local News.

A submission that a sale of beer does not take place on the premises when a diner at a restaurant orders a drink with his meal was unsuccessfully made by the defence at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, when three summonses for selling by retail beer without a licence were heard by Dr. W. W. Nuttall (presiding) and Mr. R. J. Stokes.

Flessati Ltd., Savoy Cafe, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, were summoned for selling , by retail beer cn September 21st last, and there were similar summonses against Guiseppe Antonio Flessati, a managing director and manager of the cafe, and Peter Chiesa, 9, Stevens Street, Tottenham Court Road, London, a waiter.

Mr. D. J. Willson prosecuted for H.M. Customs and Excise, and defendants were represented by Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover, who entered pleas of not guilty.

Mr. Willson said in this case there was one summons against each defendant for having sold beer without a licence on September 21st at the Savoy Cafe, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone.

On September 21st at about 1.30 p.m. two officers of the special enquiry branch of the Customs went to the restaurant, and Mr. Green, one of them, ordered two light ales. Chiesa asked for the money and was handed 2s. About ten minutes later Chiesa returned with two bottles of light ale, and at the same time he handed over 11d. change. The charge for the beer was 1s. 1d., 6d. each bottle. Mr. Willson said the beer was brought to the table in bottles, poured out and the bottles removed before the officers left. Two other officers saw the waiter leave the cafe and go to the Prince Albert public house and ask for two light ales. He there paid 1s. 1d. for the ale and returned to the cafe with the two bottles and change. The same thing happened in the evening. The two officers ordered dinner and two bottles of light ale. They paid the waiter 2s.; he went to the Prince Albert public house, and on that occasion was only charged 1s 0d. for the beer, instead of 1s. 1d. On that occasion also two other officers saw the waiter go to the public house with some money and also five empty bottles, which he handed in, and the barman rang up on the cash register 2d., 2d. each being allowed on the five empty bottles, making 1s. 0d. for the beer. He thought that might have been a mistake on the part of the barman and that he should have rung up 3d. In the first case the officers paid 6d. each, and on this occasion 6d. Mr. Willson said it was subsequently ascertained from the licensee that the charge for this beer was 4 d.. a bottle, and the suggestion of the prosecution was that the waiter, if not the proprietor, was making a profit of 2d. on each bottle of beer he served. That 2d. which had been obtained by the waiter in that way was in fact a profit on the sale of the beer.

Mr. Willson, after submitting that the position as regards the waiter was clear, he having obtained the beer and made a profit of 2d. on each bottle, said in regard to the question of the responsibility of the owner and manager of the cafe for the acts of a servant, there were a number of cases decided on that point.

Mr. Willson said statements were made by both Flessati and Chiesa when seen by Customs officers. Mr. Flessati said: My instructions to all my waiters are that when customers order beer, 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 nor 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.

Chiesa also made a statement, in which 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 6d.; 4d. 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 at 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 I 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 1s. 1d. for I 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 the 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 nor take them away.

Mr. Willson submitted that the proprietors of the cafe were responsible for what he contended was a profit which was being made on this beer. He understood the waiter had been told not to make any profit on the beer and to hand the deposit on the bottles to the customers; but he was maintaining that the waiter had made a profit and he had so rendered his employer liable to conviction.

William G. Green, an officer of the Special Enquiry Staff of H.M. Customs, said on September 21st, about 1.35 p.m., with Mr. Pascard, another officer, he went to the Savoy Cafe. Rendezvous Street. He ordered lunch and asked the waiter if he could have two light ales. The waiter replied “Certainly, but I should like the money first.” He handed the waiter a 2s. piece, and at 1.45 p.m. the waiter returned with two bottles of Jumbo light ale. The waiter handed him 11d. change, poured the beer into two glasses, and took the bottles away. Witness and the other officer afterwards left the premises. The same evening at 6.25, with Mr. Pascard, he again entered the restaurant and ordered a meal. At 6.30 Mr. Pascard asked for two bottles of Jumbo light ale, which were again served by the waiter. At 6.40 p.m. the waiter returned with the ale and handed Mr. Pascard 11d. change out of 2s. The beer was poured out and the bottles immediately removed. The charge was then 6d. a bottle each. The waiter was the defendant Chiesa.

Replying to Mr. Mowll, witness said on the first occasion he was handed the exact change which had been received by the waiter from the publican.

Mr. Mowll: Suppose you had been in a motor car and you did not want to get out, but you wanted a bottle of beer to consume on your journey. If you sent a messenger into a public house to buy a bottle of beer, what do you expect the publican to charge you?

Witness: The normal price which anyone going into a public house would have to pay.

Mr. Mowll: No, what anyone would be charged for a bottle of beer. What would you do with the bottle? - I should probably dispose of it in the nearest rubbish bin.

Mr. Mowll: It would be your bottle; you have sent out for it and paid the full price for the ale in the bottle. Was not this your bottle when you sent Chiesa to buy it for you?

Witness: The bottle was taken away from the table.

Mr. Mowll: No, you did not ask for it. You could have taken the bottle away with you. Did you say “Where is my bottle?” - No.

Mr. Willson: Did you know a deposit had been charged on the bottle?

Witness: I had not the slightest idea.

Mr. Mowll: I understand there was a slip on the bottle marking the charge made for the bottle.

Mr. Willson (to witness): Did you see the slip? - No.

Mr. Willson: You never had a chance to get near enough to the bottle to see it? - No.

John Pascard, an officer of Customs and Excise, corroborated the last, witness.

Mr. Mowll: You asked for two bottles of Jumbo light ale? - Yes.

Did you ask for the bottle or any deposit paid on it? - No, I had no idea any deposit had been paid on the bottle.

John Reide, another officer of the Customs Special Enquiry staff, said he kept observation outside the premises with Mr. Banks, another officer. During the lunch Chiesa came out of the restaurant and went into the public bar of the Prince Albert Hotel. Witness then saw the barman hand him two half-pint bottles of Jumbo light ale. The barman rang up 1s. 1d. on the cash register and gave defendant some change.

The waiter then returned to the restaurant. In the evening he saw the same waiter come out of the restaurant carrying five empty half-pint bottles and go to the same public bar. He said to the barman “Two light ales”, putting the bottles down on the counter. The barman said, “How many?” and the waiter replied “Five”. The barman rang up 2d. on the cash register, gave the waiter his change and two half-pint bottles of Jumbo light ale. The waiter then returned to the restaurant. The next day witness went to the Savoy Cafe and saw Mr. Flessati. He told him who he was and what he had come about. Witness told him they had reason to believe there had been an irregular sale of beer on the premises. After being cautioned he made a statement, which had been read by Mr. Willson. Witness subsequently saw Chiesa, and he also made a statement, which had been read.

By Mr. Mowll: They found no stock of beer on the premises nor any price list.

George Banks, another officer, also gave evidence.

Leonard Barker, the licensee of the Prince Albert public house, said defendant’s waiter had come to his house for beer, and a charge of 2d. was made on each bottle, the money being refunded when the bottles were returned. There was nothing on the bottle to indicate a charge.

Cross-examined, witness said before this case defendant had asked him if he could not let him have the beer at the price of the beer only, without any charge on the bottle.

Mr. Mowll, addressing the Magistrates, asked, “What is the offence with which my clients are charged?” The offence alleged against them was that they sold beer at an unlicensed place, and if they sold beer at this place they have committed an offence because the restaurant is only licensed for the sale of wines. The point is, did they sell beer at this place? He suggested the evidence was quite clear that every conceivable step was taken to make a sale of beer not at defendant's premises, but at a public house which was authorised to sell beer. The whole of the allegations of the prosecution was that by a fiction of law if the publican charged 2d. on the bottle, that 2d,. in some way or another, became a profit on the beer. He challenged Mr. Willson to produce any High Court decision to that effect. No such thing had ever been decided that the mere question of the bottle, and the deposit which was paid on the bottle, transferred the sale from the public house to the restaurant. This was a sale at the public house and it was not a sale at the restaurant. The prosecution might be quite right in saying if a waiter were committing an offence he was committing it on behalf of his master, even if the master knew nothing about it, that was to say in law he must be responsible for it. He said, however, there was no evidence in that case that there was any sale of beer at the restaurant and that was the whole of his defence and a complete answer. The most which was suggested was that the amount which had been paid for the bottles was taken by the waiter himself, and to that extent the waiter got an advantage out of the transaction.

Mr. Willson said it was a well-known principle of the law relating to agency that if the agent made any concerted profit or gain out of the transaction the status of the agent was destroyed at once. In both cases a profit was made, and therefore at no time was the agent the agent of the Customs Officers. He either became a principal himself or acted as an agent for his employer. In this case he submitted there were two sales, one at the licensed premises and a further sale on unlicensed premises, the restaurant.

After retiring, the Chairman announced that they found there was a sale of beer at the restaurant. Chiesa would be fined 2. Mr. Flessati 3 with 3 Guineas costs, and the case against the company dismissed.

Mr. Mowll asked if the Magistrates would state a case if necessary, and the Chairman said they would be prepared to do so.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 September 1942.

Local News.

Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to Mr. Leonard Barker, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, in respect of the Railway Bell Hotel, the licensee of which, Mrs. Gumbrell, is leaving the premises.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, Leonard Barker, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, Grace Hill, was fined 1 for a lighting offence.

Special Constable Jones said at 8.55 p.m. on September 5th he saw a light showing across the street from defendant's premises. He found a front door and the inner double doors wide open. The light was coming from an inner room. When he saw defendant he said “I don’t know how this occurred as I closed the door. Someone must have gone out and left it open”.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 October 1945.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred at a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday last week: Prince Albert Hotel, from Mr. Leonard Barker to Mr. Reginald Kem Winterton.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 July 1951.

Local News.

Seven Folkestone public houses were granted an extension of licence on weekdays until 11 p.m. and on Sundays to 10.30 p.m. until September 30th at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mr. W.J. Mason, appearing for the applicants, said a similar application had been granted to a number of hotels for the summer season and Festival of Britain. At Eastbourne 44 applications of the same kind had been granted and 115 at Hastings. The extension had been granted to all those who desired it in the other two towns.

The application was granted in respect of the Star Inn, Bouverie Hotel, Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Prince Albert Hotel, Globe Inn, and George Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 July 1951.

Local News.

During a heavy thunderstorm on Sunday afternoon, lightning struck a chimney stack at the Prince Albert Hotel, Grace Hill, damaging brickwork and the roof of the building.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 October 1953.

Local News.

Appearing on remand before Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday, Walter Henry Todd was sent for trial at East Kent Quarter Sessions on November 16th on three charges. He was charged with attempting to break into Wood's Stores, Tontine Street, Folkestone, and further with stealing a raincoat, the property of Henry Nelson Williams, Prince Albert Hotel, and stealing articles valued at 3 8/11 from the Swan Inn, Great Chart, near Ashford.

Stanley Taylor, resident manager of Wood’s Stores, said early on October 20th he found the top half of a window at the rear of the premises had been smashed near the catch and the window unfastened. The bottom half of the window was also smashed.

Henry Nelson Williams, licensee of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, said on an evening in the last week in September he was serving in the hotel. At about, 9.30 p.m. he went into the saloon and observed through the frosted glass window a figure standing near the hallstand. “I saw the figure move towards the front door”, he continued, “and I opened the door of the hall and saw Todd with a raincoat over his arm. He had not been in the bar that evening to my knowledge. I asked ‘What the devil are you doing here?’ He appeared flustered and said 'I have got the wrong coat'. I recognised the coat as my own, which I had placed on the hall stand. It was the only coat on the stand”. Witness said Todd handed back the coat, which was valued at 5 or 6.

Mrs. E. Watts, wife of the licensee of the Swan Inn, Great Chart, near Ashford, said she was serving in the bar on October 19th. About 1 p.m. accused, whom she knew by sight, came into the bar. He left at about 1.45 and ten minutes later she heard a crash somewhere in the building. Upstairs in her bedroom she found a wardrobe and a dressing table had been opened. An imitation pearl necklace, an ornamental hat pin and a brooch, together valued at 3 8/11 were missing.

P.C. Jenvey said at 10.15 a.m. on October 20th he asked where he had disposed of the articles and he replied “I threw the necklace into the alley between the Brewery Tap and Stokes, Tontine Street. I cannot remember what I did with the brooch”.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 November 1953.

Local News.

Sentence of five years’ imprisonment was passed on Walter H. Todd, 34, plasterer, at East Kent Quarter Sessions on Monday. Todd pleaded guilty to stealing, between September 23rd and 30th, a raincoat, valued 6, belonging to Henry N. Williams, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, Folkestone. He also admitted attempting to break and enter Messrs. E.G. Wood’s store, at Folkestone on October 19th, and, on the same day, at Great Chart, breaking and entering the house of Ena Watts and stealing imitation jewels and other articles, valued at 3 8/11.

Mr. J.H. Buzzard, prosecuting, said one day in September Mr. Williams saw through the frosted glass between the bar and his private hall a figure by the hall stand. He went out and saw that Todd had his raincoat over his arm. Mr. Williams said “What the devil are you doing? You have my raincoat”. He made Todd give it back and allowed him to go. Continuing, Mr. Buzzard said Mrs. Watts was the wife of the licensee of the Swan Inn, Great Chart, and at 1 p.m. on October 19th defendant was a customer in the house. When he left a few minutes later Mrs. Watts heard a crash and eventually found her bedroom window broken and a ladder on the ground underneath. Todd was seen catching a bus.

That evening the police heard thuds from the rear of R.G. Wood’s Store in Tontine Street, Folkestone, and Todd was found there. He had broken two panes of glass, one above, and the other below, a window catch.

D.C. Crane said Todd had a number of previous convictions. He had been to an approved school and to Borstal, and had had three years' corrective training. He served in the Army with a very good character from 1939-46 in North Africa, Palestine and Italy. It was not until 1948 he started committing offences. His trouble was drink. He was apparently a good worker earning good money, but he spent most of it on drink. When he was short of money he looked around for some means of getting some.

The Chairman (Mr. Tristram Beresford Q.C.) recalled that at Folkestone Quarter Sessions in 1947 he dealt very leniently with Todd in view of his Army record, but it did not seem to have been of much use. “The Prison Commissioners say the corrective training was of no use and has failed with you”, he added.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 July 1957.

Local News.

The value of a police officer’s uncorroborated evidence was vigorously attacked by defending counsel in a lengthy case, involving the conduct of a local hotelier, at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday. The officer was P. Sgt. J. Robertson, who gave evidence against James Robert Booth, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, Folkestone, who, represented by Mr. John Gower, pleaded Not Guilty to selling intoxicating liquor outside prohibited hours.

Mr. R. McVarish prosecuted. The case was dismissed, the Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) stating that Booth would be given the benefit of the doubt. “We consider that the sergeant was quite right in bringing the case, and we compliment him on the way in which he gave his evidence”, the Chairman added.

P. Sgt. Robertson said that at 12.15 a.m. on May 31st he was patrolling in Rendezvous Street and was passing the Prince Albert public house, when he saw a light in the lounge bar. He listened, and heard some excited voices from inside the lounge. The doors were closed, and a middle gate on the pavement leading to the bars was locked. He listened to an excited conversation and heard the following: “Will you have another before you go?” “Yes, one more”. Another voice said “I must go now”, and still another voice remarked “Come on, we won't be long now”. Witness, continuing, stated that he heard money passed, and then there was a mumbled conversation which he could not discern. He heard the clinking of glasses, and a voice said “Come on”. Then he heard “We must go”. He heard more money placed on the counter, and a voice said “Are you having one?” Witness, proceeding, said a door of the hotel opened and Booth came out, and looked up the road. Then a man, whom he now knew to be Sgt. Roberts, came out. Witness went up to them quickly, and asked them to go back to the bar with him, which they did. A man named Moss was sitting at the end of the bar with his hand round a liqueur glass which contained liquid appearing to be similar to gin. Booth said "It is Bols Kummel, which I have brought for myself”. There were other people there, all standing, and on the counter was 5/9. Witness said he took particulars of all those present, and found that they smelt of alcohol. He said the facts would be reported to his Superintendent and Booth said “These are my friends. Roberts is being married on Saturday”. Witness asked if anyone there claimed to be a resident of the hotel, but none did so. Permitted hours for opening were until 10.30 p.m.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gower, witness said the place was “like a fortress” and the nearest he could get to the bar was a distance of eight to 10 yards. He did not agree that the lounge bar could be placed apart from the rest of the house by the drawing of a curtain.

Mr. Gower: How many times did you hear money chinking or passing?

Witness: Twice.

Mr. Gower: You found 5/9 on the counter? – Yes.

Are you really saying that where you were, eight or 10 yards away, through closed doors, you could hear the chink of money? – Yes, twice.

Witness said he could hear the excited voices, but he could not differentiate between them, and he could not hear anyone saying anything about paying for drinks.

Mr. Gower: Have you got a suspicious mind? – Yes.

You rushed past them into the house? – Yes.

Without asking permission? – Yes, I just went in.

You wanted to do something to justify your actions? – Yes.

You thought the drinks were being paid for? – Yes.

You did not think to look at the till? – No.

Did you ask Moss how he came to be holding the glass? – No. I did not think of it.

Mr. Gower: There were five men there, summoned for drinking after hours, and only one of them, Moss, you say you caught red-handed. Are you still saying that you cannot remember how he came to be holding the glass in that way? Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you?

Witness: I am only concerned with the facts. He did not notice how many glasses there were in the sink. He could have done a lot of things, but he did not look for that, because he did not think it necessary.

Mr. Gower: You were excitable yourself and inclined to be aggressive? Did you say to Roberts “I will have you in the net”?

Witness: I do not agree that I said it, but it is a common expression used by police officers.

He was thinking of arresting Roberts for obstructing him in the course of his duty. He was drunk.

Mr. Gower: Why do you say he was drunk?

Witness said the man was not drunk, otherwise he would have had a charge preferred against him, but he was under the influence of drink.

Mr. Gower: Did you say you were the youngest sergeant in Folkestone?

Witness: I believe there was some conversation to that effect.

Mr. Gower: I don't want to use the word “moonshine”, but was that said to impress them? You also said you had been in the C.I.D.

Witness agreed that he might have said so.

Booth, giving evidence, said he had been licensee of the Prince Albert for about 12 months. On the night of May 30th he had five people in the lounge bar between 7.30 and 8, their names being Roberts, Moss, Cook, Evans and Harold. So far as the first three were concerned, he only knew them as people who came into the place, whom he had entertained upstairs and downstairs. He was told that Roberts was getting married on Saturday, and that Evans would be the best man. Defendant, continuing, stated that the men had two or three drinks, and said they were going, and he suggested that they should come back and have a drink with him about closing time. They came back at about 10 o'clock and had a drink each. At 10.30 he called “Time” and locked the place, and sat down in a corner of the bar, with the five men on the other side of the bar. Evans and Harold were drinking tomato juice, and the others had beer. He had a Kummel himself, but no money was passed. When the party was going to break up he went outside with Roberts to see if there was a taxi about, and P. Sgt. Robertson came in. There was no other glass on the counter, excepting the one containing Kummel, which he had drawn for himself. Not a penny was passed after closing time that night, and he regarded all those present as his friends.

Sgt. Terence M.J. Roberts, 14th Field Regt., R.A., Barford Camp, Bayward Castle, Durham, whose private address was given as 1, Priory Gardens, Folkestone, said he was being married on June 1st and Evans was to be his best man. On the night of May 30th he was in company with the other men mentioned; it was a party before his marriage. They had been in the Prince Albert earlier in the evening, and were invited to return. He saw no money passed after closing time. Booth told them he would have taken them upstairs to his private rooms, but his children were ill and were under the doctor. “P. Sgt. Robertson had been anything but congenial from the word go”, witness added. “He said he was a young police sergeant; he was aggressive. Words were passed, and he said he would put me in the “cooler””.

Derrick Moss, of 13, Clifton Crescent, Folkestone, said the 5/9 on the counter was his part of the cost of a taxi he was going to share with Harold.

Leonard Cook, of 19, St. John's Church Road, Folkestone, and Eric Harold, of 142, Sandgate High Street, both said no money was exchanged after closing time that night.

John Evans, of 4, Percy Street, Lincoln, said he was to be best man at Roberts's wedding, and it was a bachelors' party. The landlord asked them to stay behind and be entertained by him.

Mr. Gower, addressing the Magistrates, said there was to be a ceremony which traditionally called for a celebration of the type of a bachelor party. No-one had suggested that Roberts was not married or that it was not a bona fide stag party. There had been seven witnesses in the case, and only one, whose evidence was uncorroborated, had tried to show that money was passed. Mr. Gower deprecated the suggestion that the chinking of money could be heard through a grille, then another grille, across a public bar and servery, and from behind a curtain. Could one hear the chink of money from that distance at that time of night? The police sergeant had already told them that he had a suspicious mind, and when he saw 5/9 on the counter he immediately thought it was for drinks. Only one glass was on the counter, yet the sergeant had twice heard money passing in the 10 minutes he was listening. Also, Mr. Gower asked, could they trust the evidence of a witness who first said a man was drunk, and then said he was not drunk?

As stated, the case against Booth was dismissed.

In view of the Magistrates’ decision, Mr. McVarish stated that he did not propose to proceed with summonses alleging drinking intoxicating liquor after permitted hours against Moss, Roberts, Evans, Cook and Harold.

 

Folkestone Gazette 2 September 1959.

Local News.

Two soldiers stationed with 26th Field Regiment, R.A., at Ross Barracks, Shornclifle, were both conditionally discharged by Folkestone Magistrates on Friday after they had pleaded guilty to stealing a beer glass worth 2/3 from the Prince Albert Hotel. Defendants were Gnr. Alan Thomas Clark and Gnr. Trevor Archer Goddard.

Inspector E.S. Hack said at 11 p.m. on July 16th P.C. Edwards was driving a police car along Sandgate Road when he saw defendants walking on the pavement. Clark was carrying a pint beer glass. The officer stopped the car and walked over to defendants. Clark said he got the glass from somebody. Goddard said “I took it. I'll take the rap”.

Defendants were ordered to pay 7/6 Court fees each.

 

Folkestone Gazette 7 September 1960.

Local News.

After drinking together in a Folkestone public house on June 22nd two young men had an argument over a girl, and later that evening had a scuffle in Guildhall Street, resulting in one of the men receiving cuts to his hand.

At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Friday, Robert Dennett McNeil, of 47, North Street, Folkestone, who had the word “Love” tattooed on his right hand, was fined 5 for maliciously wounding a soldier with a penknife. The soldier was Gnr. James Naismith, of 16th L.A.A. Regiment, Shornclifle. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Both men are married and aged 23.

Mr. M. Armstrong, prosecuting, said the accused, Naismith, another man named Williams and a girl were drinking in the Prince Albert public house on June 22nd. McNeil left with the girl, and, presumably because he did not like it, Naismith followed soon after, holding the neck of a broken bottle. Williams, who saw Naismith with the bottle, went after McNeil to warn him. Subsequently they met with Naismith in Guildhall Street and they had a conversation in a shop doorway. A scuffle ensued, and the soldier later had to have several stitches inserted for cuts on his hand, Mr. Armstrong continued. As a result of information Sgt. Bailey went with a police officer to Guildhall Street, where he saw accused, who had blood on his jumper. He noticed a trail of blood, which led away from the shop doorway up to Cheriton Road, but he was unable to locate the injured person. Accused told the sergeant that he had seen a man with a cut hand and was pushed away when he offered to help. In a statement, Mr. Armstrong added, McNeil said that after drinking in the Prince Albert the girl asked him to walk home with her because she did not want the soldier to do so. “I later met Williams, who told me Naismith was looking for me with a broken bottle”, he said. As they were walking towards the Town Hall they saw the soldier, who said “Let’s have a go”. “I saw he had a broken bottle, so I opened my penknife. He made a lunge at me, and I put up my hands to stop him and then Naismith grabbed hold of the knife, which I pulled away”. “The argument stopped, and we both calmed down”, McNeil added. "I did not know that he was cut”.

Naismith told the court that he left, the public house with a broken bottle, but by the time he saw McNeil he had thrown it away. “I got hold of the knife with my hand, as I thought McNeil might come at me”, he added. “I don't remember how the fight started”.

Alfred John Williams, of 4, Hawks Lane, Canterbury, said he did not see the scuffle in the doorway, as it was dark, and he did not see the broken bottle.

D/Sgt. Frederick Booth said that Naismith made a complaint at Folkestone police station the following day. Witness saw McNeil on August 13th, when McNeil said “I thought he had dropped these charges. I was with him last night”.

McNeil told the court that at the time of the offence he had just come to Folkestone to see his wife. He added that he took the knife out to frighten Naismith, who, he was under the impression, still had the broken bottle. “He caught hold of the blade, which I drew back as I thought he was going to use the bottle against me”, he said. He did not realise Naismith was cut, and later that evening went to Canterbury.

D. Sgt. Booth said that at the time of the offence McNeil was separated from his wife but had since returned. He was born in Scotland and had been unemployed for a time, but had now obtained employment at the atomic power station at Dungeness. He had two previous convictions.

Earlier on Friday Naismith was fined 5 for carrying an offensive weapon, the broken bottle he had been seen by Williams to hold when he left the Prince Albert on June 22nd.

In a statement, Naismith said that the matter started over a girl. “I had a bit to drink and lost my head”, he added, “and after breaking the bottle I was going to look for McNeil”. He threw the bottle away before he met McNeil in Guildhall Street, Naismith said.

D. Sgt. Booth said Naismith had five findings of guilt and six convictions, none of a similar nature to the offence. He was called up in 1958, and was due for release any time now.

An officer from his regiment said that Naismith had not had a happy career in the Army, and had been absent a number of times, due to family trouble in Scotland. “As a result he has got himself into debt, and is only drawing 7/6 a week instead of his normal entitlement of 2 4/1”, he added.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1961.

Local News.

Folkestone police arrested five men for being drunk and disorderly last Saturday on what was probably the worst day for drunkenness the town has known for many years.

One of them, 18-year-old Scotsman, Edward James O'Brien, of 7, Connaught Road, Folkestone, assaulted a publican who refused to serve him, and smashed seven beer glasses. He pleaded Guilty to five offences, and was sentenced to three months' detention. O'Brien admitted assaulting Maurice Bernard Tillman, occasioning him bodily harm; committing wilful damage to seven beer glasses and to a police cell, and being drunk and disorderly in Rendezvous Street. He also admitted a fifth offence, committed two days later, on March 5th, of stealing 40 cigarettes belonging to Jimmy Heath Ltd.

Chief Inspector R.A. Young, prosecuting, said that at 6.10 p.m. on Saturday, O'Brien burst through the public bar door of the Prince Albert public house, laid his head on the counter, and said “Give me a pint”. O'Brien turned to face the customers in the bar, used abusive language, and knocked over a table and some beer glasses. Mr. Tillman tried to restrain him, but the youth butted him in the face with his head, making his nose bleed profusely. He followed this up with a kick at the licensee's groin, but his boot missed its target and struck Mr. Tillman's left knee. O'Brien was ejected from the bar, but came back again, got behind the counter, and broke some more beer glasses. Dealing with the theft charge, Chief Inspector Young said that at 5.40 p.m. on Monday, O'Brien went into Jimmy Heath Ltd.'s wine shop in Rendezvous Street and asked for a bottle of wine. The woman assistant turned round to get him a bottle, but suddenly remembered it was not yet 6 p.m., and therefore wine could not be sold. As she turned back to face O'Brien, she saw him put two packets of cigarettes in his pocket.

Sentencing him to three months' detention, the Chairman, Mr. P.V. Gurr, said he hoped he would go back to Scotland when he was free again.

 

Folkestone Gazette 22 March 1961.

Local News.

At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Friday Henry Quinn, of 11, Marshall Street, Folkestone, was fined 2 for being drunk and disorderly, and 3 for causing wilful damage to 14 beer glasses. He was also ordered to pay 25/8 to cover the cost of the damage.

Inspector Gray said that at 8.30 p.m. on Sunday, March 12th, Mr. Maurice Tillman, licensee of the Prince Albert public house, was serving customers in the saloon bar when he heard the door of the public bar burst open and a voice shout out an obscene expression. He went to the public bar and saw Quinn pushing customers out of the way, repeatedly shouting out this expression. Defendant moved into the saloon bar, banged on the counter and shouted “Get me a taxi”. Some customers took him outside and later Mr. Tillman looked out of the window and saw a crowd of people fighting in the street. Then Quinn returned to the public bar and a general melee ensued, during which tables were overturned and glasses smashed. A police officer tried to restrain Quinn; Mr. Tillman said he saw defendant punch the policeman and knock him to the ground. Two more police officers entered the bar and after a short struggle Quinn was taken away.

P.C. Derek Gardner said that at 8.50 p.m. he saw a crowd of people fighting in Rendezvous Street outside the public house. He told them to stop, and all dispersed except Quinn, who was staggering in the middle of the road, shouting and swearing, and waving his arms about.

Defendant went into the public bar and he followed him, trying to restrain him. Quinn knocked over a table and several glasses, and was very drunk and disorderly. He appeared to be in a temper. With the assistance of other police constables he removed Quinn from the bar and took him to Folkestone police station.

Quinn told the court “I just want to apologise. I had a row with my wife. I had a drink in the house and I went out for a walk. That was the last I knew”.

Mr. Baden Fuller, the Chairman, told him “We hope you realise you have made a perfect nuisance of yourself.

 

Folkestone Gazette 17 April 1963.

Local News.

The following application for transfer of licence was granted by the Folkestone Licensing Magistrates on Wednesday: Prince Albert Hotel, Folkestone, from Mr. F.C. Charman to Mr. A. Wood.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 January 1966.

Local News.

Two policemen were assaulted by three men outside the Prince Albert public house in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, on Christmas Eve, Folkestone magistrates were told on Monday.

Two of the men, John Doran, of Shellons Street, Folkestone, and Walter Dominie Walsh, of London Street, Folkestone, were told by the chairman, Mr. F. J. Baden Fuller ”These are extremely serious offences. We had considered whether to send you both to prison”.

Doran was fined 35 for assaulting a police officer, 5 for being drunk and disorderly and 2 for damaging the seat of a police van. Walsh was also fined 15 on each of two charges of assaulting a police officer and 5 for causing a breach of the peace. Charges for assaulting a police officer and causing a breach of the peace, against the third man, John Coyne, of Bridge Street, Folkestone, were dismissed.

Mr. A.C. Staples, prosecuting, said the men were among a group of about 10 men involved in a disturbance outside the public house. When P.C. Graham Newton was arresting Doran, he was hindered by Walsh and another man. Walsh caught hold of the officer and shouted that Doran had done nothing. He then struck Sergeant Ronald Sired a violent blow on the chin. When P.C. James Booker went to the sergeant’s assistance, he was punched in the mouth by Walsh. Coyne tried to get Walsh away from Sergeant Sired and continued to push and pull during the melee. When charged, Coyne was said to have replied “That’s what I get for trying to help. I shall see a solicitor”. Doran was shouting in an unintelligible manner and struck P.C. Newton in the chest when he attempted to arrest him. Then he kicked the officer inside the police van, and damaged the wooden bench seat of the van. When charged he denied hitting anyone and said he was not drunk. Walsh, on being charged, said “I don’t remember anything or anyone but you tore my shirt. I want your name”.

A witness for the defence, Mr. Peter Richardson, of 20, Queen Street, Folkestone, said at no time did he see Doran or Walsh strike a police officer. Neither did he see Coyne push or pull any police officers. He added “If the police had been a little more tactful, nothing of this would have happened”. He said that the police grabbed Doran from behind and added “If you take hold of an Irishman from behind when he has had a few drinks, you have got trouble”.

Doran, in evidence, said he drank only seven half-pint bottles of beer and was not drunk. Outside the public house, the police took hold of him from behind and he was given no chance to explain. This made him annoyed and he agreed that he was shouting and struggling. He did not strike P.C. Newton but agreed that he may have pushed him. He did not attempt to kick him.

Coyne said a disturbance broke out inside the Prince Albert following a game of darts. He was not involved and left the premises as he knew there would be a rush for the door. He denied that he had pushed or pulled any of the police officers. He could not have restrained them because he was carrying a parcel. After Doran and Walsh had been taken from the scene in a police van he called at the police station because he knew they had not started the trouble. At that time, he did not think that he would be arrested for assault, but as soon as he arrived he was “pushed right through and told he had assaulted a police officer”.

Walsh said that when the police arrived, Doran was dragged along the pavement. He did not think this was right because he was not involved. He did not attempt to free Doran but was merely trying to protect. He denied striking Sergeant Sired or P.C. Booker. After the sergeant had torn his shirt collar, he lost control of himself and agreed that he resisted arrest.

 

Folkestone Gazette 17 May 1967.

Local News.

Mr. Leonard Barker, of 14, Segrave Road, Folkestone, retired licensed victualler, who died in March, left 12,491 gross, 12,416 net. Duty paid was 745. Probate has been granted to his niece, Miss Winifred M. Barker, of 10 Hurst Avenue, Horsham, and nephew Walter E.J. Barker, of 148, Comptons Lane, Horsham. He left 500 and certain effects to Mrs. Dorothy M. de Vere, if still in his employ at his death and not under notice; 50 to Dr. Fritz Ewer, of Greenoaks, Military Road, Sandgate, “for his kindness and attention to my late wife during her long and painful illness”; and 25 to the Rev. Gethin-Jones, late of The Vicarage, Sandgate.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 July 1967.

Local News.

Police were called to a public house in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, on Saturday, because two men refused to leave the public bar.

“They had to be forcibly ejected”, said Inspector Alan Bourlet, at Folkestone Court on Tuesday. “Outside on the footpath they became extremely truculent. One of the men tried to pick a fight and both were using obscene language. They were arrested and taken to the police station. They were put in the cells but found to be too drunk to charge”, added the Inspector.

In Court, Harvey Thompson, of Cheriton Road, and Owen O'Donnell, of Shellons Street, admitted being drunk and were each fined 5.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1971.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Police are keeping an extra careful eye on some pubs in Folkestone - particularly those popular among young people. This was revealed by Chief Superintendent W. Pullinger in his report to the annual meeting of the town’s Licensing Justices, on Wednesday.

He said that during 1970 licensed premises had been generally well-conducted, But he went on “As in most towns, certain premises require additional police supervision to ensure that the liquor licensing laws are not abused. This is sometimes due to slackness on the part of the licensee, or to popular premises attracting large numbers of young people”.

Mr. P.J. Baden-Fuller, the Chairman of the Justices, appreciated the difficulties licensees faced with young people. He said the Justices hoped that those licensees concerned would try to enforce the liquor laws, but added “It is so difficult to tell the ages of young people sometimes”.

Later, The Herald spoke to landlords of Folkestone pubs that are popular with youngsters – only to find they did not think they had a problem. Several of them agreed with Mr. Baden-Fuller that it was difficult to tell the ages of some young customers. The answer to a difficult situation was, they agreed, firmness and rigidly following the maxim “If in doubt, don’t serve”.

At the Shakespeare, in Guildhall Street, Mr. Ron Balsom, the landlord, said “I have spent many years in London as a licensee, and the young people here are a lot different. I find them very reasonable and very well behaved. They certainly do not cause me any headaches”.

Mr. Alan White, landlord of the Prince Albert in Rendezvous Street, said “There is an occasional problem caused by young soldiers from Shorncliffe wanting a drink. You know who they are and you just have to handle the situation firmly. Trouble is caused when youngsters unused to alcohol have a few drinks and get a bit het up. A landlord has a duty to regular customers, and must make sure that kind of situation does not arise”.

At the West Cliff Shades, Christ Church Road, a spokesman said there were no problems worth mentioning, though there had been occasional instances of vandalism.

At the British Lion, in The Bayle, Mr. Gerry Hourahane said “It is difficult to judge ages, particularly those of foreigners. But if you ask them what year they were born they usually answer correctly without thinking”.

Another aspect of Chief Superintendent Pullinger's report to the Justices was that hotels and restaurants are catering more for Continental visitors. The number of restricted licences granted to hotels, restaurants and other premises had increased, he reported. “This is no doubt due to more people requiring intoxicants for consumption with their meals, particularly in Folkestone, where the number of Continental visitors, especially day visitors from France and Belgium, continues to increase.

The report showed that 19 cases of drunkenness were dealt with by the police in 1970, compared with 16 in 1969, an increase “which does not reflect on licensed premises”. Fourteen cases of motorists unfit to drive through drink were also dealt with by the police – two fewer than in 1969. There are now 177 licensed premises in Folkestone. The police had no objections to any licences being renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

When 1,400 continentals visit Folkestone next Thursday the doors of local pubs will be open to them all afternoon. On Tuesday local Magistrates decided in favour of a second application to allow 17 pubs to remain open especially for the visitors. They had vetoed a previous application. The second made by publicans was amended to allow for a half-hour break at 5.30 p.m. before their premises opened for the evening session.

Mr. J. Medlicott, for the publicans, told the Magistrates that the visitors were delegates attending a conference in Bruges. One of its highlights was to be a visit to England. He referred to a letter received by Folkestone Corporation from the British Tourist Authority supporting the publicans' application. The visit – by Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and Germans – was a special occasion, not just a shopping expedition, said Mr. Medlicott. It had been arranged by a Bruges tourist organisation which had particularly asked that pubs should be open in the afternoon.

Police Inspector R. Sanders made no formal objection to the application – but doubted whether the visit was a special occasion.

The Chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, Mr. Alan Stephenson, said later “The cross-Channel visitors' committee of this Chamber is very pleased that this has been seen as a special occasion by the Justices. When one is reminded that this extension is no more than happens in many market towns every week of the year, it seems a fair request, especially as Folkestone’s image abroad could be much influenced by the original decision not to allow the pubs to open”.

The pubs which will stay open are; Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Royal George, London and Paris, True Briton, Harbour Inn, Princess Royal, Clarendon, Brewery Tap, Earl Grey, Prince Albert, George, Globe, East Kent Arms, Guildhall and Shakespeare.

 

South Kent Gazette 2 February 1983.

Local News.

Licensee Alan White was blessing the wonders of low alcohol lager this week after being told that he had just been offered a free holiday in Denmark. For Alan, who has run the Prince Albert Hotel in Rendezvous Street for the past 19 years, has won first prize in a competition run by a leading brewery.

In order to win Alan, who is 62, had to complete a spot-the-difference contest and then extol the virtues of the low-alcohol lager Danish Light in less than 30 words. His winning entry was: Enjoy your evening drinking, You know you'll be all right, For it's quite safe to drink and drive, If you stick to Danish Light.

Now Alan and his wife, Kay, are looking forward to enjoying a weekend in Copenhagen staying at one of Denmark's top hotels, The Copenhagen Admiral. The visit will also include a guided tour of the famous Faxe Brewery.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 September 1986.

Local News.

A ship’s badge from the former H.M.S. Folkestone may leave the town if a local buyer is not found. Landlord Alan White - who displays the solid-brass badge in the Prince Albert pub in Rendezvous Street - wants it kept on public display in the area after he retires in October. Originally it was in the Ship in Sandgate. When the landlord, George Warden, moved on, Mr. White bought the badge for 250. Since then it has adorned the wall of the bar in the Prince Albert, bringing good luck to regulars and staff. But Mr. White wants to sell it to someone who will keep it in the public eye when he leaves the area. “I don’t want any more than I paid for it”, he said, “but I will take it with me if no one comes forward”. And charity could benefit from the sale. If the badge goes for more than 250, the surplus will be given to the blind in Kent. The badge was taken from the sixth H.M.S. Folkestone, which operated as a convoy ship during the last war. It was broken up in 1948. The first ship to bear the name was built in 1704, and served with the Royal Navy until 1727. Bids for the badge should go to Alan White at the Prince Albert.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 September 1986.

Local News.

Three possible buyers have responded to an S.O.S. by pub landlord Alan White to keep a unique ship's badge in Folkestone. Mr. White – landlord of the Prince Albert pub in Rendezvous Street – is selling the badge from the former H.M.S. Folkestone when he retires in October. It now hangs on the bar wall. But he wants the buyer to keep the badge on public display in the town - otherwise he will take it with him when he goes. The three bidders came forward after the Herald reported the badge was on sale last week. Mr White wants at least what he paid for it - 250. Anything over that sum will go to the Kent blind. “I can guarantee at least some money will go to charity if I can find the right buyer”, he said. The bidders are said to be people with a keen interest in maritime history. The Folkestone was the sixth ship of that name to serve with the Royal Navy. It was broken up in 1948. Enquiries about the badge should go to Alan White at the Prince Albert.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 October 1986.

Local News.

Another royal port of call has been found for the ship’s badge from the last H.M.S. Folkestone. The Prince of Wales pub in Guildhall Street succeeds the Prince Albert in Rendezvous Street as home for the solid brass plaque. It had been in danger of leaving the Shepway area - where it has been on public display for over 30 years.

Alan White, retiring landlord of the Albert where the badge has spent the last 22 years, wanted to sell it to a local buyer. But only on condition that it would be kept in the public eye when he and his wife Kay left Rendezvous Street. Otherwise it went with him into safe keeping. His S.O.S. in the Herald was answered by a concerned regular, who wants to stay anonymous. He bought the badge for 250, and donated it to the Prince of Wales where he also enjoys a pint.

Landlord Kevin Atkins - “Yorkie” to his friends - has pledged to keep the maritime relic in Folkestone. “I will carry on the same tradition as Alan”, he said at Thursday night’s presentation by Mayor Kelland Bowden. “The badge will stay in Folkestone when I move on”. Mr Bowden told the packed Prince Albert that he remembered the ship’s badge when it hung on the bar wall at the Ship in Sandgate over 30 years ago. He also had the pleasant task of presenting 100 to the Kent Blind Nation’s Dave Garrod collected by customers at the Albert.

Alan and Kay White retired after 22 years behind the bar of the Rendezvous Street pub at the end of last week. What would they remember most from over two decades of serving drinks? “Our friends in Folkestone”, said Mr. White, “and that includes our fellow licensees”.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1989.

Advertising Feature.

If you’re wanting to impress your loved one, spouse or favourite business contact, Bertie’s could be the place to go. It’s a new restaurant and cellar bar that opens this week on Rendezvous Street, and it’s aiming quite simply to be the best - anywhere.

Bertie’s owner Barry Thompson says “I got sick and tired of being ripped off with bad service, little choice and poor food. So I decided the answer was to set up a restaurant of my own”. The restaurant takes its theme and name from the old pub it is housed in - The Prince Albert Hotel. Barry has kept many of the original features, including the mirrors, panelling and the old pub signs which are now mounted above the serving area in the cellar bar. Everything is designed to build up the atmosphere of a Victorian establishment, from original mahogany chairs and tables, to the new high quality wallpaper and carpets. There is also a bandstand providing seating for diners who like an elevated view or to accommodate live music for private functions. The cellar bar has many secluded corners, providing the ideal surroundings for private conversation.

The attention to detail does not stop at the dining area or bar. The kitchens are spacious and there is a special area for waiters to add the finishing touches to food, as well as preparing coffee and other drinks. And even the food continues the Victorian theme. The menu will change every few weeks, and includes dishes like Bertie's Bird - pheasant stuffed with Victoria plums, and Surf 'n’ Turf, which is fillet steak with Pacific prawns. A three course meal for two with drinks will cost 40 to 50. So next time you've got something to celebrate, why not give Bertie's a try?

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

FREE William 1841-48+ (age 50 in 1841Census) Bagshaw's Directory 1847

BERRY George 1848-50 Bastions

BERRY Sarah 1850-Dec/55 (widow age 63 in 1851Census) Folkestone Chronicle

BALDOCK David Dec/1855-62 (age 43 in 1861Census) Folkestone ChronicleMelville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862

SPICER Thomas 1862-64 Next pub licensee had Bastions

CLARK Thomas 1864-66 Bastions

JULL Edward 1866-68 Bastions

STAY Henry 1868-69 Bastions

Licensed revoked 1869-70 Bastions

FORWARD Henry 1870 Bastions

BROCKMAN Mr 1870

SNELLING William J 1874-87 Next pub licensee had BastionsPost Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882

HOAD Ernest 1887-88 Bastions (Holding manager)

JEFFERY Dudley 1888-91 Next pub licensee had BastionsPost Office Directory 1891

SMALL Harriett 1890-93 (widow age 60 in 1891Census) Bastions

SMALL Horace 1893-1906 (age 47 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1899

JACOBS Elizabeth 1906-15 Bastions

VALDER Albert 1915-19 Bastions

MANGER George Dunlop 1918-23 Bastions

ROBERTS Samson 1923-28

ANDREWS Christopher 1928-29 Bastions

BARKER Leonard 1928-45 Next pub licensee had Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938 (Also "Railway Bell")

WINTERTON Reginald 1945-49 Bastions

EPSOM Gordon 1949-53 Bastions

WILLIAMS Harry 1953-56 Bastions

BOOTH James 1956-58 Bastions

TILLMAN Maurice 1958-62 Bastions

CHARMAN Frederick 1962-63 Bastions

WOOD Arthur 1963-64 Bastions

WHITE Alan 1964-86 Bastions

GRIFFIN Mark 1986-88 Bastions

Renamed "Bertie's"

http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/princealbert.html

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room