Folkestone Express 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

The licensing day was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The licenses were all renewed with an exception in the case of Mrs. MacDonald, of the Princess Royal.

The Mayor said that several complaints had been made regarding her house, and she was fined once in the course of the year.

Mrs. MacDonald: Several travellers came to her house, and she was not supposed to ask what they were. She had not had a free and easy since Christmas, and the house was never opened after twelve. When she took the house it was carried on in a very bad way.

Superintendent Martin said he had several complaints about the house.

The Mayor: As complaints have been made, the license will be suspended till the adjourned meeting.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

County Court.

Monday, October 11th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Matilda MacDonald v Frederick Bonny: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, who claimed £50 for breach of contract.

Mr. Minter said defendant had not performed an agreement he entered into with the plaintiff to take the house occupied by her at a valuation. The memorandum was dated March 15th, 1869, and the defendant was to take possession of the house, the Princess Royal, on the 6th of April following, and to pay a sum of £250. The agreement also said if either person fail in carrying it out they shall forfeit a sum of £50. The valuation was made by Mr. Banks at the time mentioned and then the defendant failed to carry out the agreement, hence the present proceedings. He had various letters containing excuses received from time to time from the defendant.

Mrs. MacDonald was then sworn. She said: After I entered into the agreement I was ready and willing to give up possession, and am still willing to do so.

By defendant: I did advertise the house, but I do not know if I did so in the Telegraph.

The defendant said it was all a misrepresentation from beginning to end. The advertisement said the house was doing £100 per month, and he had since ascertained it did not.

His Honour: Why did you not ascertain that before you signed the agreement?

Mr. Minter read some of the letters received from defendant, his wife and solicitor, which contravened the statement of the defendant, and showed he was trying up to the middle of June to dispose of freehold property to effect the purchase.

His Honour gave judgement for the full amount of damages.

Folkestone Express 24 December 1870.

The Princess Royal Inn.

Wednesday, December 21st: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. Raynor Holmes applied for a temporary authority to sell excisable liquors at this house, which he had taken of Mrs. MacDonald. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 4 February 1871.

Tuesday, January 31st: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Kelcey, J. Clarke and J. Gambrill Esqs.

George Walword, a respectably dressed young man, was charged with feloniously and burglariously entering No. 7, Longford Terrace on the 27th ult. The prisoner gave his address as No. 2, Smith's Court, Great Windmill Street, Haymarket, London.

Mrs. S.A. Castle, lodging house keeper, living at 7, Longford Terrace, said: Mr. Colvin is lodging at my house. He has been there since the 12th of October. The prisoner lived as footman to Mr. Colvin. He left last Friday week (the 20th ult.). I have lost £15 since he left from my cash box. I missed it on Sunday night about ten o'clock; both were locked. I took the cash box out to take it upstairs, when I found that the back of the box was broken, and a tray removed from the position I had placed it in. I missed three five pound notes. I know the numbers on one of Bank of England and one of the Manchester Bank. I do not know the other. The numbers of the two notes are 35117 and 01026. Mr. Colvin knows the number of the other one. I received one of the notes from Mrs. Colvin last Wednesday and two from the bank here.

Mr. Binny James Colvin, the gentleman referred to by the prosecutrix, said: The prisoner was in my service as footman. He entered service on the 7th October; he left me on the morning of the 20th January. Last Wednesday Mrs. Castle received from me, with other money, a Bank of England note for £5, numbered 41648.

Miss Louisa Barnett, housemaid to Mrs. Castle, said: On Saturday night I fastened all the doors at 10-10 p.m. All the windows were fastened, except the middle dining room window, that was not fastened in consequence of the catch being broken. I examined the house at half past seven o'clock the next morning. The breakfast room and dining room door was open. The dining room window was open and the table removed and the curtains disturbed. The dining room is in the front of the house. The prisoner broke off the catch while cleaning the window over a week before.

Mrs. Colvin said: I paid Mrs. Castle money last Wednesday, and amongst that money was a Bank of England note for £5. The number of that note was 41648.

Mr. R.A. Holmes, a licensed victualler at the Princess Royal, South Street, said: I know the prisoner. Last Saturday night between eleven and twelve he came to my house and had six pennyworth of brandy and water. He went away again and wished me goodnight. He returned about half past one; he rang about twenty minutes, then I got up and let the prisoner in. I asked him how it was he came so late; he said he had got locked out. He did not lodge at my house. He asked me whether he could have a bed. I told him “Yes” and we both went upstairs and I showed him the bedroom. He asked me whether I could cash him a £5 note. I said “Not now. We will see about that tomorrow morning”. On Sunday about eleven o'clock he asked for hot water, and ordered breakfast. He said he had a situation to go to on Wednesday and he came down here for his character. He said he should not go up to the house on Sunday morning. He had his dinner and tea. After tea he gave me a £5 note he wanted cashed. I told him I had not got it in the house, and that Mrs. Holmes was going to see a friend of hers, and most likely she would cash it for me. He gave me the note – can't say if it was a Bank of England or not – but I looked at the back and saw the name of Minikin on it, as near as I could make out. Mrs. Holmes took the note to Madam Pay's and she brought me back the change. The note was in two halves; it had been cut and joined together. It was about nine o'clock when she returned. She gave the gold to me, and I gave it to the prisoner. He went to bed and he said he wanted to be called to go to London by the excursion train. A policeman came and apprehended him about a quarter to eight o'clock.

Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Pay said: I live at Pier House in Harbour Street. Mrs. Holmes came to me on Sunday evening and asked me to change a Bank of England note 35117. I gave the note to the policeman on Monday morning.

P.S. Reynolds said: I went to the Princess Royal public house shortly after 8 o'clock. I apprehended him in the bedroom. I charged him with breaking into 7, Longford Terrace and searched him. I found on him two five pound notes and four sovereigns. I cautioned him; he did not make any reply to the charge. The two notes are both of the Bank of England and are numbered 01026 and 41648. I then brought him to the station.

Mrs. L. Holmes, the wife of Mr. Holmes deposed to getting the note changed by Mrs. Pay.

After reading the depositions, the prisoner was formally charged. He made no reply.

He was then committed to take his trial at the next Maidstone Assizes, the witnesses being bound over to prosecute.

Folkestone Express 19 September 1874.

Wednesday, September 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

The following received temporary authority to sell intoxicating liquors at the houses named until the transfer day:

Mr. Baker, Princess Royal.

Folkestone Express 19 May 1877.

County Court.

Saturday, May 12th: Before G. Russell Esq.

George Bartholomew Baker v Rayner Francis Holmes: This was an action brought to recover the sum of £1 0s. 9d. for goods supplied and money lent. Mr. Minter defended.

The plaintiff, a licensed victualler, stated that the claim was made up of 10s. money lent to the defendant, and refreshments, including soda water, whisky, bottled ale and tea, 10s. 9d. The money was lent in May, 1876, and the refreshments were had when the defendant visited the town.

His Honour: Was the refreshment supplied on the premises? – Yes.

His Honour said that doubtless the plaintiff, being a licensed victualler, knew as well as he did that the law would not permit him to recover.

The plaintiff said that the defendant stopped at his house, and he further pointed out that the items of the bill included tea.

In answer to Mr. Minter the plaintiff said that he took the house of which he was the landlord from the defendant, and was at the present time in his debt.

Mr. Minter informed His Honour that the defendant pleaded a set-off. His client was quite willing to pay the plaintiff's claim, and did not wish to take advantage of the Statute.

His Honour entered judgement for the plaintiff, but suspended execution of order for one month.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1878.

Saturday, October 5th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Captain Carter, Alderman Caister and W.J.Jeffreason Esq.

Richard Bingham, an itinerant photographer, was charged with stealing a sovereign on the previous afternoon, the money of James Berry, a hawker.

Prosecutor said about three o'clock on Friday afternoon he was standing in front of the bar of the Princess Royal public house. Prisoner was also there with two companions. He (prosecutor) was talking to a waterman about a very nice pony he was the owner of, when the prisoner joined in the conversation, and said he could produce a donkey which he would back for a sovereign to trot against the pony. Prosecutor immediately took a sovereign from his trousers pocket and placed it upon the counter. Prisoner snatched it up and put it behind him. Prosecutor asked him to put the sovereign back, and he then offered him a halfpenny, saying that was the coin he had laid down. As he refused to give up the sovereign, prosecutor sent for a policeman, and prisoner was given into custody.

In reply to prisoner, prosecutor denied putting the sovereign back into his pocket.

David Hearne, a mariner, living in Mill Bay, said he was in the company of the prosecutor at the Princess Royal and saw the sovereign put down on the counter, and also saw the prisoner take it up and substitute a halfpenny.

In reply to the prisoner he said he was sitting about two yards from the counter and he could see the coins as they laid upon it.

John Sullivan and Walter Polhill gave similar evidence, and John Watts, barman at the Princess Royal, said when Berry produced the sovereign, he told him to put it in his pocket. He did so, and afterwards produced it again. He saw the prisoner put down a halfpenny, and he said “That's what he put down”.

P.C. Old, who took the prisoner into custody, said he had no money upon him when searched.

Prisoner, after the usual caution, hesitated for a moment, and then said “I think I had better plead Guilty”, and he was sentenced to two months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 25 June 1881.

Friday, June 17th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, Captain Fletcher, Alderman Hoad. M.J. Bell and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Guthrie was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of Emily Pryke, from a bedroom at the Princess Royal Hotel.

Prosecutor said she was living at the Princess Royal Hotel. On the 26th May she left a sovereign in a bag in her bedroom. She missed it on the morning of Thursday the 16th, and told her sister, Mrs. Arthur, the wife of the landlord. Prisoner was called upstairs and asked if she had taken it, and she denied having been to the bag or having seen the sovereign.

Sarah Arthur, wife of the proprietor of the Princess Royal, said on Thursday morning, having been informed by the prosecutrix, her sister, of the loss of the sovereign, she questioned the prisoner, who denied having seen it. In the evening she again asked prisoner about it, and she the confessed that she had taken it. Prisoner was then given into custody. She had been in witness's service nine weeks.

Superintendent Rutter said he was taken to the prisoner's bedroom about ten o'clock on Thursday evening. In reply to his questions, prisoner said she had bought a dress, and given 10s 6d. for it. In her box he found 5s. in silver.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1885.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Hoad, W. Bateman and F. Boykett Esqs.

The Licence of the Princess Royal was transferred to Mrs. Arthur, administratrix of her late husband.

Folkestone Express 13 June 1885.

County Court.

Tuesday, June 9th: Before W.L. Selfe Esq.

Sarah Arthur v H. Thomas: Plaintiff, the landlady of the Princess Royal Hotel, sued the defendant for £8 for money lent. Defendant admitted the debt, and an order for payment by instalments was made.

Folkestone Express 17 March 1888.

Saturday, March 10th: Before Alderman Sherwood, J. Hoad, J. Holden, S. Penfold, J. Fitness, and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Sarah Arthur was charged with allowing card playing on her premises on the 29th February.

Sergt. Harman said on the 29th February he was on duty at half past ten o'clock at night with Constable Smith. He heard a noise in Mrs. Arthur's house, the Princess Royal. He heard money rattling, and voices, and cards thrown on the table. He heard someone say “I'll go another halfpenny”, “I'll have another”, and so on, until the game was finished. After listening for some time he and Swift went into the house. The right hand room was full of young men. There were 13. There was a general scramble, two or three glasses of beer were knocked off the table, cards thrown about the room, and money as well. He succeeded in getting 19 cards out of the pack they were playing with. Five or six men had cards in their hands, which they concealed. He found 4d. in coppers, and Swift found 6d. Mrs. Arthur came in and asked what was the matter. He told her he found the men gambling for money. She said “Oh, dear, was they playing for anything?” He asked the men for their names and addresses and they gave them. He spoke to them about the folly of wasting their money and time in that manner.

Mr. Minter: Was Mrs. Arthur there then? – No.

Sergeant Harman: I spoke to the young men about the folly of wasting their time and their money in that way.

Mr. Minter: We don't want to hear your sermons. (Laughter)

Witness continued: He told Mrs. Arthur he should report her. She said “How do you think I can pay my rent and taxes unless I let these men do something?”

By the Magistrates: I was waiting outside some minutes, and heard the door open to the bar several times.

By Mr. Minter: There is a passage between the room and the bar. Mrs. Arthur's son was present when she said “How can I get a living unless I let these men do something?” Mrs. Arthur did not say she was not aware of what they were doing.

P.C. Swift corroborated Sergt. Harman's evidence. He added that he saw two packs of cards and a cribbage board on the mantelpiece.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said one could not but regret that the police had nothing better to do than to go round and interfere with people playing an innocent game of cards. He supposed that strictly legally, according to the endorsement on the licence, a landlord or landlady was bound not to allow his or her customers to play at cards, dice, or any other unlawful games in their house. Everyone was perfectly aware that was the law.

Mr. Bradley: Games themselves are perfectly lawful. It is playing for money.

Mr. Minter said very good. The real question was whether the defendant had knowingly permitted gaming to take place. Generally speaking, Sergeant Harman gave his evidence very surely, but unfortunately he was like all policemen, when they went for a prosecution they thought it was their duty to get a conviction, and did not always confine themselves to speaking the truth, but allowed their imagination to run away with them. Sergt. Harman felt because he had a weak case against the widow he must make it blacker by suggesting that the room where the men were playing opened to the bar where Mrs. Arthur was sitting, but they found there was a passage between the two. Then, as to his statement that Mrs. Arthur said to him “How can I live unless I let these men do something?”, she would deny ever having said it. There was such a thing as straining the law, and the police would, he thought, be much better engaged in looking after thieves and vagabonds than in straining the law against persons like the defendant. He should call before them witnesses who would tell them they took the cards to the house, and that they were not playing cards in the ordinary sense, but a game called Pink Dominoes – that, as he was informed, was a game played by laying the cards on the backs the same as they did dominoes.

Alderman Sherwood remarked that he had heard of a play called Pink Dominoes.

Mr. Minter said at all events it was a very innocent game. Further, he said that he knew of hotels in a city of this country where, for fifty years, night after night, cards were played for shilling or half crown points – aye, and by Magistrates sitting on the Bench, too – without the police ever dreaming of interfering. He would not say it was done in Folkestone, but it was quite probable. (Laughter) He urged that if it was not a matter which the Bench ought to take cognisance of because, although technically the men might have been breaking the law, Mrs. Arthur knew nothing of it.

Mr. Minter then called the defendant as witness. She said she had kept the house three years since her husband's death and there had been no complaints about it. On that particular evening she had not been in the room at all and did not know what was going on. The customers were very quiet. The first she heard was a scuffle. She did not hear the police enter. She said “They are not playing for money, are they?”, and asked the sergeant how he thought she could live unless she had people in her house.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, defendant said they did play cards in her house, but not for money.

John Ketward, a fitter, said he took the cards produced to the Princess Royal about eight o'clock. They played Pink Dominoes for a drop of beer. He thought six were playing. The others were looking on. The money on the table was to pay for beer.

John Rolfe, a mariner, said Mrs. Arthur did not enter the room while he was there. Sergt. Harman jumped over him and he “thought the ceiling was coming in”. The police would have had a drop of beer if they had waited a little longer. (Hear)

The case was dismissed, but the Bench said there were grave doubts in their minds.

An individual in court cried “Hear, Hear”, and the Superintendent was asked who it was. This individual, however, like Sam Weller's “Guvnor”, under similar circumstances, did not come to the front.

Folkestone Express 18 August 1888.

Saturday, August 11th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Frederick Smith was charged with creating a disturbance on the 6th August.

P.C. Keeler said at eleven o'clock on Monday evening he saw the defendant and others leave the Princess Royal, in South Street. They made a disturbance, and he told them to go away. They went into Harbour Street, and he again cautioned them, and a third time in Tontine Street. He then asked defendant his name, which he refused to give, and was taken to the station.

Defendant was bound over to keep the peace in 1866. He was again bound over in the sum of £10 for three months, and ordered to pay 8s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Princess Royal.

Supt. Taylor said on Tuesday night a man was carried out of this house dead drunk and taken on board a collier. There was no proof that he was supplied with any drink in the house, but no doubt he was. The house was very badly conducted generally, and gave the police a lot of trouble. Noisy characters were encouraged, and boys and girls 17 or 18 years of age assembled outside dancing and shouting. The applicant was a widow, and if she was unable to conduct a house like that properly, she should get assistance.

The Mayor said they had had complaints brought to them on Monday night as to the conduct of people in that particular street. The applicant would certainly be punished if she harboured boys and girls, and the police would have their eye upon the house.

Granted.

Folkestone Express 6 September 1890.

Letter.

The Princess Royal.

Dear Sir,

My object in writing this is to vindicate that which to my mind appears a gross injustice. I have been staying at the above house for the past fortnight, and can confidently say during that period none of those unsightly disturbances complained of in your issue of 30th inst. have taken place.

It is said complaints arise from the conduct of people in that particular street; surely this woman (the proprietress) is not to be held responsible for the whole street merely because she happens to hold a licence on one house.

I trust you will kindly insert the foregoing, especially as the paragraph referred to is calculated to do the house no good.

I am, dear sir,

Yours sincerely,

A Lover Of Justice.

Folkestone Express 19 December 1891.

Saturday, December 12th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert and J. Clark Esqs.

Henry Bailey was charged with stealing one hundredweight of coals from the ship Robbie Burns, the property of James Bryant and another.

P.C. Knowles said at half past five that morning he was on duty at the Harbour, and noticed a sack in a yard outside the house next door to the Princess Royal Inn. He watched until a quarter past six, when he saw the prisoner go to the coal-plate of the Princess Royal and knock on it with his hand. He then walked up and down for some time, and a female came out of the Princess Royal. Prisoner went back to the sack, and witness saw the coal plate raised, but he could not see who it was raised by. Prisoner shot the coal into the hole and hung the sack on the iron fence in front. Prisoner went to the door, and was moving the sack again as witness was coming down the steps. He took the sack from prisoner and asked if it belonged to him. He said “Yes”. He asked “Is that your coal you shot down there?” He replied “Yes, it was the sweepings of the ship. That's our privilege”. He charged him with stealing it, and he replied “The Captain gave it to me”. Witness then went into the cellar of the Princess Royal, and found a quantity of nubbly coal on top of a lot of fine coal, and Mrs. Arthur was at the top of the stairs when he came up. She said “The man asked me to buy some coals, but I have not paid him”. When charged at the station by Sergeant Harman he made no reply. Witness had previously put the coal into the sack, and prisoner carried it up the street to the station.

Thomas Goldsmith, Captain of the Robbie Burns, said the prisoner was employed in unloading the ship. She was laden with best East Hartlepool coal for Messrs. Dunning and Bryant. There was no other ship in the harbour with the same description of coals. The coals produced were the same kind as his cargo. He had not given any coal to the prisoner, nor had he authorised him to take any from the ship. Men employed in unloading had no privilege to take anything until the ship was unloaded, and then only dust. The ship had not finished unloading until half past nine that morning.

Sarah Arthur, landlady of the Princess Royal, South Street, said she knew the prisoner by sight. Prisoner went to her house a few minutes past six, and asked her if she wanted to buy a bag of fine coal that morning. She hesitated, and he said “It's only about a hundredweight from the Robbie Burns”. Nothing was said about the price. She did not know he was going to bring them then. The iron plate of the coal cellar was not fastened. She saw the constable, and told him she had bought the coal, but had not paid for them. She knew the prisoner by sight. She had not bought coals of him before. She thought they were the sweepings of the ship. She did not see them.

There was a previous conviction against the prisoner, and he was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The Mayor said the Magistrates thought the conduct of Mrs. Arthur was very reprehensible in buying coal in that manner.

Folkestone Express 9 January 1892.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 4th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Henry Bailey, a labourer, pleaded Guilty to stealing a hundredweight of coal, the property of Messrs. Bryant and Dunning, coal merchants. He also pleaded Guilty to a previous conviction for felony. Mr. Matthew prosecuted.

The Recorder said he saw there was a previous conviction for resisting the police, in October, 1883.

Mrs. Arthur was called by the Recorder, and asked how it was she came to buy the coal at six o'clock in the morning. She said she did it really without thinking – it was fine coal.

The Recorder said it was a great temptation to people. He advised her not to do the same again, remarking that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. Addressing the prisoner, he said the facility with which stolen goods seemed to be disposed of in Folkestone was a most remarkable thing. He had noticed ever since he first sat there as recorder; he had never heard of any place where greater facilities seemed to exist. It put temptation in the way of people like the prisoner when they could readily dispose of coal they had robbed from ships by shooting them down into the cellars of publicans. Under the circumstances he would only inflict a sentence of two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 10 January 1894.

Wednesday, January 7th: Before J. Fitness, J.R. Davy and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilborne.

Alfred John Pope was charged with being drunk and disorderly in South Street on the 23rd December. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Lawrence proved the case. He stated that at a quarter past eight on the 23rd of December he saw the defendant in South Street. He was very drunk and rolled against the fence in front of the Princess Royal. Witness helped him up and afterwards got him into the street. Defendant used very bad language, so witness took him into custody.

Defendant said he hadn't had anything to drink for some time. He had got a drop too much, and could not remember what he said.

The Magistrates fined him 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1894.

Provisional Transfer.

Wednesday, February 21st: Before J. Fitness, E.T. Ward, and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Authority to draw at the Princess Royal was granted to Mrs. Rebecca Felmingham.

Folkestone Express 16 February 1895.

Wednesday, February 13th: Before W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Arthur Felmingham was summoned by Arthur Smith for refusing to quit the Victoria Inn when ordered, but did not appear.

Supt. Taylor said he had received a doctor's certificate stating that defendant was not in a fit condition to attend.

The summons was therefore adjourned for a week.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1895.

Wednesday, February 20th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Brooke, T.J. Vaughan, and Geo. Spurgen Esqs.

Robert Felmingham, whose wife until recently was the holder of the licence of the Princess Royal, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Victoria Inn on the 11th February. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the complainant, and Mr. H.W. Watts for the defendant.

Caroline Louisa Smith, wife of Ernest Victor Smith, the holder of the licence of the Victoria Inn, South Street, said: On Monday the defendant came into our house. I heard him using bad language, and went down and requested him to leave. My sister had previously asked him to leave. He left after a few minutes, and the door was bolted to prevent him returning. He came back again when somebody else entered and was again requested to leave. I was afraid he would smash the windows. He went out and returned a second time. He put out his arms and knocked all the glasses over – two grog glasses and two pints of beer. I requested him to go out the third time, and he would not, and I sent for a policeman. In the meantime defendant commenced to fight. He said he had got no licence, and he was going to cause a disturbance in my house. His wife was the licence holder of the Princess Royal. When I went downstairs, defendant had blood on his face, and I saw that he was intoxicated. During the time he was there he was not served with any intoxicating liquor. He had been served with some soda water. He asked for whisky and soda, but we refused to serve him. A customer came in and asked for a pint of beer. Defendant took out his tester and tested it. When I went downstairs he asked me if I was the landlady. He tested the beer in front of my face, and asked where the landlord was. I asked him four or five times to leave, and after a time he went out. I saw him strike a man named McKay. He struck a man named Marshall as well. Defendant was the aggressor.

In reply to defendant, witness said: I requested you to leave four times altogether. I did not serve you with whisky and soda – only plain soda. I saw the blood on your face when I came down. It was here (pointing to her lips).

Mr. Watts, who came in rather late, took up the cross-examination at this point, and in answer to him she said: I did not hear anyone say to defendant “We'll do you”. I saw McKay strike defendant, but it was in self defence. I sent for Charles Caggett, a constable, between four and five. In the meantime another constable was fetched by a friend of defendant's.

Annie Louise Turner, sister of the first witness, and barmaid at the Victoria Inn, gave similar evidence as to defendant's behaviour.

Edward Henry Anslow, a labourer, said he saw defendant outside the Princess Royal on the 11th inst. He spoke to a young fellow, and asked him if he wanted a pint of beer, and he declined. He then asked witness if he wanted a pint, and he said “Yes”, but did not get it. (Laughter) Defendant offered him half a sovereign if he would hold his coat, as he wanted to fight a young man in the road, but he did not fight with him. Instead, he went and interfered with Mr. Tolputt's waggoner, and his nose was cut. When defendant returned he went into the Princess Royal, and the company there dispersed. Then he followed them into Swift's house. Witness went in after, and saw defendant with his clothes off. He said he was the best man in Folkestone, and no-one could take it out of him. He was served with some soda water – nothing else. He refused to quit the place three times. The second time he knocked over all the glasses – one pint of beer belonged to witness. He was not what witness would call drunk. He seemed to know what he was about. With regard to the row that took place between McKay and defendant, defendant kept saying he was the best man, and he struck McKay, and got knocked down.

In reply to Mr. Watts, witness said Mrs. Smith sent for a policeman before defendant was knocked down. When the constable came he was standing up.

Edward George Bricknell gave similar evidence. He said defendant wanted to fight with him.

Mr. Hall had other witnesses, but did not think it necessary to call them.

Mr. Watts said it must be admitted his client had a certain amount of liquor, but he was not responsible for the disturbance.

The Bench, however, held that the charge was fully proved, and fined defendant 30s. and 20s. 6d. costs, or a month's imprisonment.

Mr. Hall asked for the costs of his witnesses, but the Bench declined to allow them.

Folkestone Express 11 December 1897.

Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to sell at the Princess Royal Inn to Andrew Adams.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 15 June 1901.

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

Mr. John Riddall was granted a transfer of the licence of the Princess Royal.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1903.

Monday, March 2nd: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Fredk. Godfrey was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Nash said about 6.20 on Saturday evening he was called to the London And Paris Hotel, and there saw prisoner. At the request of the landlord witness turned him out. Prisoner then went to the Princess Royal Hotel, where he was refused drink. He then went to the Harbour Inn, where he was again refused drink. About 7.20 p.m. witness was again called by Mr. Gray to eject prisoner. On getting him outside, witness found he was drunk, and consequently arrested him.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1904.

Saturday, January 23rd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter and J. Stainer Esqs. The Mayor and Aldermen Vaughan and Spurgen were present, but did not adjudicate.

More than ordinary interest was evinced in the Police Court proceedings, a well-known resident – George Colman, of 5, Marine Terrace, appearing to answer two charges; while the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street, was served with a summons by the police in relation to the conduct of his house.

At the outset Supt. Reeve stated that there were two informations against the defendant Colman – one for being drunk on licensed premises, taken out by the police, and the other for refusing to quit, taken out by the landlord.

The latter case was taken first, and in reply to the charge, defendant, who was represented by Mr. J. Minter, pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Mr. Riddall, the landlord, and in opening the case, said that on January 14th the defendant entered the Princess Royal, but by reason of his disorderly conduct the licensee had to order him out. Defendant, however, omitted to go, and remained in the house for some ten minutes until the police came, when he left. He (Mr. Haines) need hardly say that the licensed victualler in these days had an important duty to perform, not only to himself in the interests of the licence entrusted to him, but also to the public. Defendant was a man not unknown in Folkestone, and his eccentricities and extraordinary conduct made him such that the licence holder considered him a nuisance whether he had a drink or not; in fact Mr. Riddall had given orders to refuse to serve him if ever he went to the house. On this occasion defendant remained in the house, singing and striking dramatic attitudes, and carrying on in that extraordinary way which so many knew of, and in order to put a stop to such conduct the Licensed Victuallers' Association, which he also represented that day, desired the Bench to support them in their endeavours to carry out their duties in a proper way. Whether the defendant's eccentricities were due to the fact of not having a properly balanced mind he did not know, but at all events, he “broke out” at times in such a way that one hardly knew what to do with him. If in the end the Bench were satisfied that the case had been proved, he need hardly say that he did not press for a heavy penalty; but certainly it was time that an individual like the defendant was prevented from being a nuisance to everybody, and from being a means to endangering the licences held by publicans.

Selina Riddall, the first witness, said: I am the wife of the complainant, who is the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street. The defendant is not a regular customer at the house, but I know him; I have seen the gentleman before. I also know he is an eccentric man. On the evening of the day in question, I remember the defendant coming to the house. A musical box was playing in the saloon bar, and when he came in he imitated a man playing a violin. He also recited a little, and did a good deal of talking. His conduct was such that I desired him to leave the house. He made a noise and created a disturbance in the bar. Defendant refused to leave, and remained another five minutes. The police eventually came, and then he left. I did not serve him with any drink; in fact I have had instructions from my husband not to serve him.

During the examination of this witness, the Clerk frequently reminded Mr. Haines not to trouble about the defendant's eccentricities, the charge being one of refusing to quit. Mr. Minter also complained of the manner in which Mrs. Riddall was led in giving her evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: What kind of a thing is this musical box? – Not a very large one.

Is it anything like these barrel organs we hear in the street? – No.

Is it anything that would make your stomach ache to hear? – No answer.

I suppose the music is very nice and very exhilarating? – No answer.

It is done for the purpose of merriment, I suppose? – I don't know.

The music is not played to make people serious and sorry, is it? – No, I think not.

Was your husband there? – No.

Do you remember what tune the musical box was playing? – No.

How many tunes does it play? – A good many.

When the musical box began playing the defendant imitated the playing of a violin? – Yes.

That is what you call disorderly conduct? – He was acting and such like. The music set him dancing.

That is what it is meant for? – I think not. He was very noisy.

James Taylor, residing at 25, Victoria Road, a fly driver, stated that he went into the Princess Royal a few minutes before ten in company with two others. Just behind them was the defendant, and on hearing the musical box he began to imitate a banjo. Afterwards he tried to show people how he learnt boxing some time ago. He was not dangerously near the customers. Witness and the others had something to drink, but he did not hear the defendant call for anything. The landlady asked him to go, and witness's friend, on hearing that he refused, remonstrated with him.

Mr. Minter: When this musical box was playing you say he imitated the banjo? – I should think so.

He didn't do any harm? – No.

And when he was showing his skill and science at what he had learnt in his youth in fighting, he didn't do any harm? – No, but he was a nuisance in the bar. He interfered with the customers.

In what way? – In showing his fighting attitude.

Did you hear the defendant sing? – Yes.

What did he sing? – I could not say. It was only a line or two.

Do you know him? – I know him by sight.

Do you know the eccentricities talked about? – Yes.

John Baston, a hairdresser, 12, South Street, corroborated the last witness's evidence, adding that defendant emptied a glass of beer which did not belong to him.

Without hearing any further evidence, the Bench decided to dismiss the case.

John Riddall, the landlord of the house, was then charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Swift gave evidence to the following effect: About 25 minutes past 10 on the night of the 14th inst., in consequence of what P.C. Ashby told me, I went with him to the Princess Royal, of which house the defendant is the licensed holder. In the bar I saw a man named Geo. Colman, drunk, in front of the counter, attempting to execute a step dance. He was flinging his arms and legs about. Mrs. Riddall was behing the counter, watching Colman and laughing. There were other men in the bar, and they appeared to be highly amused. I said to Mrs. Riddall “Do you see the condition of this man Colman?”, but she made no reply. I then said “Have you served him?” She hesitated, but eventually replied “I have not served him; the other gentlemen treated him with it”. I advised her to get him removed from the premises, and I also asked Colman to leave. Defendant said to Mrs. Riddall “Is there anything owing?”, and she replied “No. It is all paid for”. I told her that I should report her husband for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. She said “Thank you. He has paid for nothing here. What he has had the other gentlemen paid for”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Did you make any note at the time? – I committed it to writing.

At the time? – My report was made while it was fresh in my memory – not two hours afterwards.

Do you suggest this was all said by Mrs. Riddall? – Yes.

What ledy you to believe that Colman was drunk? – His conduct.

How long did you keep him under observation before you told him to leave the house? – I had the door opened and watched before I entered. They were all looking on and laughing at his antics.

But you cannot say that he was drunk? – I know him when he is sober, and I know that there is a vast difference in him when he is sober.

When he is sober he is not eccentric, I suppose? – I don't say he is an eccentric.

I put it to you that he is an eccentric man? – No, not when he is sober.

What was his appearance? – He was unable to stand erect.

What was your duty if he was unable to stand erect? – No answer.

It was your duty to take him in charge. – He was not incapable.

Could he walk erect? – No, hardly.

Did you follow him up? – No.

You didn't think he wanted to be followed? – I swear he was drunk.

In further cross-examination it was gathered that witness had seen defendant the worse for liquor on previous occasions, but it was not his duty to follow a drunken person.

Re-examined by Supt. Reeve: Where does the defendant live? – 5, Marine Terrace.

How many public houses would he pass between the Princess Royal and his home? – None.

P.C. Ashby stated that at 10.15 p.m. on the 14th inst. he was on duty in South Street, when he noticed the door of the Princess Royal was open. Colman was leaning on the bar. Witness waited a moment, and hear defendant call for a “long sleever”. At 10.25 p.m. he went in company with Inspector Swift to the house, where he saw the defendant drunk and doing a step dance in front of the bar. Having corroborated the statement made by the last witness as to what transpired, witness added that Colman said to Inspector Swift “Hands off me or you are a dead 'un”.

Mr. Haines: You heard the defendant ask for a 'long sleever”? - Yes.

Did you see him supplied? – No.

Why did you go to Inspector Swift? – I didn't make a report.

But you would not have gone unless you made a report to him? – I didn't speak to him about the house. Inspector Swift said “Have you seen Coloman?”, and I answered “Yes, I saw him in the Princess Royal”.

Defendant could not walk straight? – No.

Was he helped out? – No.

What made you think he was drunk? – His face was flushed, his speech very thick, and he could not walk erect. (Loud laughter)

No evidence was called for the defence, the Bench, after consulting with their Clerk, being quite satisfied that the case ought to be dismissed.

In face of the decision of the Magistrates, Supt. Reeve asked permission to withdraw the charge against Colman for being drunk. With this view the Chairman quite acquiesced.

Mr. Minter said that on behalf of the defendant Colman he ought to say that he had abundant testimony to prove that he was perfectly sober. They had heard a greta deal about his eccentricities, and unfortunately it was so. He was well known throughout the town, and it was lamentable that he was so eccentric. This, to his mind, was the only excuse that could be offered to the police for believing that Colman was drunk. No doubt they had mistaken his eccentricities for drunkenness.

The Chairman: We quite agree with what you say. We are quite satisfied.

Folkestone Express 25 March 1905.

Wednesday, May 22nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Princess Royal Hotel, South Street, was temporarily transferred from John Riddalls to Charles Stephen Bassett.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

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

The Bench considered several applications for the transfer of licences, and granted the following: The Princess Royal from Mr. J. Riddall to Mr. G.S. Bassett.

Folkestone Express 2 December 1905.

Saturday, November 25th: Before The Mayor and T. Ames Esq.

Rose Annie Maud Foreman was charged with wilfully breaking a glass panel in the door of the Princess Royal Inn, South Street, and doing damage to the amount of 10s., the previous night.

P.C. Cox said about 10.50 the previous night he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner deliberately smash with her fist the plate glass panel in the door of the Princess Royal. He took her at once to the police station, and charged her with wilfully breaking the glass.

Charles Stephen Bassett, the landlord of the Princess Royal, said he had to turn the prisoner out and lock the door on her. He then went to serve other customers in the bar, and while doing so he heard a smash of glass. He rushed out and saw the prisoner taken into custody. He estimated the damage at 10s.

Prisoner expressed her sorrow, and was ordered to pay the damage, 10s., and a fine of 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906.

Wednesday, October 10th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, E.T. Ward, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

James Sellis was summoned for assaulting Charles Stephen Bassett, the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. De Wet said he was instructed to prosecute by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. The defendant had pleaded Guilty, but he asked the Magistrates to bear in mind that the case was of a decidedly aggravated nature. The prosecutor was a newcomer and that was his first licence. Up to the present he had always conducted his house in a proper and able manner, and he took all the steps he possibly could to protect his own licence, and also his customers. The defendant, it appeared, insulted a customer, and, on being rebuked by the landlord, he turned round and swore at him. On being requested to leave, he at once hit Mr. Bassett on the nose and eye. He then left the house,, but not being satisfied he immediately came back and ripped off the landlord's tie and waistcoat. He asked the Magistrates to deal with the defendant very seriously indeed, because they were aware licensed houses must be conducted properly, especially at that end of town.

Charles Stephen Bassett, the prosecutor, said at about 10.30 p.m. Mr. Angelo Sellegro came in for some stout. Defendant said to him “Hello, old Saffron Hill”, and hit him on the head with a hat. Sellegro left the house, and he called Sellis to order for insulting his customers. He asked him to leave, but defendant remarked he did not care for the whole Italian colony. Witness then told him he should have to put him out. He went round the bar and opened the door. Defendant then hit him on the nose, in the eye, and loosened some teeth. He (witness) did not lay hands on him. Defendant rushed into the house again shortly after and said “Come outside and fight me in the street”. He then pulled his tie and also his waistcoat off his back. Sellis had been a regular customer at the house.

Cross-examined by the defendant, prosecutor said he had only had to find fault with defendant on one occasion previously. He took it the defendant was acting drunk at the time of the assault. He did not see his (prosecutor's) wife throw a pint of beer over him.

Defendant said he was very sorry. He was in drink at the time, or else it would not have happened. He hoped the Magistrates would be as lenient as possible with him, and he would take care the drink would not get him into trouble like that again.

The Chairman said the landlord had taken a very proper step in bringing the defendant before the Bench, and they had decided to fine Sellis £3 and 9s. costs, or one month's hard labour in default, for the assault.

Defendant said he had only £1 with him, and he asked for time to pay the remainder.

The Magistrates ordered defendant to pay £1 down and the balance in 14 days.

Folkestone Express 11 April 1908.

Wednesday, April 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, R.J. Linton and R.G. Wood Esqs.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly after ten o'clock on the 26th March, he saw the defendant, who was drunk, go into the Wellington public house. Immediately after he came out without being served. He cautioned him about going on licensed premises whilst he was drunk. About 10.20 he saw him go into the Royal George, so in company with P.C. Prebble, he went into the house and told the barmaid not to serve defendant. Mrs. Kirby, the landlady, came into the house and refused to serve him. At first defendant refused to go, but when they were going to eject him he left the premises.

P.C. Stiles said at 8 p.m. on the same day he went into the Princess Royal after the defendant and another man, who were drunk, and told the barmaid not to serve them.

Defendant, who said it was of no use him saying anything against the constables, was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, but he preferred to do seven days' hard labour in default.

The Chief Constable said he would like to say a few words with regard to the duty of the police. His instructions were to his men – and he had no reason to doubt that they were carried out – that at any time when they saw a drunken man enter a licensed house they were to follow him and warn the licensee or the person in charge. In the case referred to, when the man was seen drunk, he was practically on his own doorstep.

Folkestone Express 22 January 1910.

Wednesday, January 9th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, Major Leggett, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

The following licence was transferred: The Princess Royal, from Mr. C.S. Bassett to Mr. W. King Heritage.

Folkestone Express 26 February 1910.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Dwoffer, and R.J. Linton.

The following transfer was confirmed: The Princess Royal from Mr. Bassett to Mr. Heritage.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1916.

Friday, May 26th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Fynmore, Alderman Pepper, Councillor R.G. Wood, and H. Kirke Esq.

The licences of the Castle Inn, Foord Road, and the Princes Royal, South Street, were temporarily transferred from the landlords to their wives, the husbands having been called up for military service. It was elicited that the wives had assisted in the management of the houses, and that there would be a competent man left on each of the premises.

Folkestone Express 1 March 1919.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred at the Police Court on Wednesday: The Princess Royal, South Street, to Mr. Heritage from his wife.

Folkestone Express 22 December 1923.

County Court.

Tuesday, December 18th: Before Judge Terrell.

Reginald Herbert Baker v W. Purbrick: Claim for damage for personal injury, £50.

Mr. C.T. Williams (instructed by Messrs. Berry, Tomkins and Co., London) appeared for Baker, and Mr. A.K. Mowll defended.

The case was originally set down for trial by jury, but the parties agreed that the case should be tried by His Honour, who ordered plaintiff to pay 1s. each to eight members of the jury, who were drawn by ballot. After they had received the shilling they were discharged.

Mr. Williams said they had agreed that the amount should be £25 for damages, and the only point was one of liability. He would have thought that the case was hardly open to argument, having regard to authorities on the subject. He could not see that there was any defence in law.

Reginald Herbert Baker, 45, Chart Road, Folkestone, said that on the 18th July, at 7 o'clock in the evening, he was walking along South Street, and when passing the True Briton public house he felt a severe blow on the top of the head. He was taken into the Princess Royal, and when he came out, twenty minutes later, he saw the guttering lying on the floor. There would be thirteen or fourteen feet. He saw Mr. Purbrick, who gave him assistance. It was quite a calm evening.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He did not see anything fall; he would have got out of the way if he had seen it. He would imagine that it was the guttering that struck him. At the time of the accident he was alone. There was no wind that evening. He remembered falling forward.

Mrs. Strode, 24, South Street, said she saw the accident, when she was standing on the doorway of her house. She saw the guttering falling from the True Briton, and it struck the plaintiff on the head, knocking him forward. A large quantity of guttering came down, and it smashed on the road.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: She did not see the guttering strike any part of the wall. Everyone was surprised that the man was not killed.

William King Heritage, Princess Royal Hotel, said he was standing in the doorway of the hotel, and saw the accident. The man staggered after being struck by the guttering. He rendered assistance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He did not see the guttering strike the coping, but he would imagine that some of it did hit the coping.

That completed the plaintiff's case.

Defendant said the True Briton was three storeys high, and the guttering would fall 35ft. to 40ft. The agreement with the brewers for the tenancy did not call upon him to do any exterior repairs. The landlords were in liquidation at the time. The Receiver for the Brewery paid for the repairs to the guttering. Some of the guttering might have struck the coping and the wall, but he could not say as he did not see the accident.

Frederick William Parker, of Messrs. Cook and Parker, builders, Folkestone, said he repaired the guttering, which was in a very fair condition. The screw heads were rusty, but the fascia board was in good condition. It would not be possible to see the defects in the guttering from the road. It would require quite a minute inspection.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Guttering was liable to decay and fall if it was not attended to, but if attended to in time it would not fall.

His Honour held that an occupant of a house that was in a decayed state, either wholly or in part, was liable if by reason of the decay an injury was done to the public.

He gave judgement for £25 and costs.

Folkestone Express 7 January 1939.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Transfer Sessions on Wednesday, a protection order in respect of the Princess Royal, the former licensee of which was the late Mr. F.D. Buddell, who had only been in occupation for a very short time before his death, was granted to Mr. Horace Robins, of 52 Walton Road.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

There was a decrease of six cases of drunkenness before the Magistrates during last year, the total number being 24 as against 30 in 1937. There were no proceedings against any licence holder during the twelve months. These were the main features presented by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) in the annual report he submitted to the Magistrates at the annual licensing sessions at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when the Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) offered congratulations upon such a satisfactory state of affairs.

The other magistrates on the Bench were Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman W. Hollands, Mr. S.B. Corser, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mr. P. Fuller.

The following licences were transferred: The Princess Royal from the executor of the late Mr. Tom Buddle to Mr. H. Robbins; the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. P. Attwood to Mr. W A. Powell.

Note: Executors not listed in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Licensing Sessions, the justices had before them applications for the removal of the licences of the Princess Royal in South Street and the South Foreland in Seagate Street to premises, for which there were off licences at present, at Morehall and Cheriton respectively, but they refused both. The proceedings lasted throughout the whole of the day until the early evening.

The Magistrates who heard the application with regard to the removal of the Princess Royal to the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores, Cheriton Road, were Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Dr. F. Wolverson and Alderman W. Hollands.

Mr. B.H. Waddy (instructed by Messrs. F. Hall and Co.) appeared for Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, the owners of the Princess Royal, and Mr. J H. Kent, the licence holder of the Morehall Wine Stores.

There was a good deal of opposition. Mr. B.H. Bonniface represented Mr. C. Garland, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel and other licensees, Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for Mr. Samway, the licensee, and also the owners of the White Lion Hotel at Cheriton, and Mr. L. Pocock for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The Rev. W.J.T. Brown represented the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers, the Rev. H. Charleston, the St. Andrew’s Methodist Church and Mrs. Longhurst, 251, Cheriton Road, who, with others, had prepared and presented a petition against the application.

Mr. Waddy said that application, if granted, would have the effect of bringing about a re-distribution of the licences in the borough and a reduction in their number by one. The latter fact should certainly appeal to those who were opposing in the temperance interest.

At the outset he might say if the Magistrates removed the licence of the Princess Royal from the Harbour district they and the licensees in that district would have no need to fear that the premises would thereafter be used club premises, because it was part of the policy of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, pursued in all parts of the country, to insert a clause in the agreement for the sale of the premises that they would not be used as a registered club.

Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw my opposition.

Mr. Waddv, proceeding, said the taking away of the licence of the Princess Royal would not hurt the public in any way. In a quarter of a mile radius of that particular area there were 28 full licences and if they added to that the beer on-licences and the off-licences there were within that quarter of a mile circle 45 licensed premises for the use of the public. Therefore it was quite obvious if they removed the Princess Royal from that district the public were not going to suffer through lack of facilities. The opposition from the Customs and Excise was really on the question of the monopoly value. They all knew of cases where the little country pub was being shifted to a main arterial road, but it could not be suggested that in that case they were, in any way, removing a house with a dying trade. He had figures dealing with the trade at the Princess Royal and he was in a position to prove them. In 1936 the number of barrels of beer sold there was 108, in 1937, 132, and in 1938, 150. Therefore in two years there was an increase of very nearly 50 per cent., so it could not be possibly suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade. The spirits sold were 89 gallons in 1936, 89 in 1937, and 92½ in 1938. His clients sought to remove the licence to the Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in existence since the year 1912, when a justices’ off-licence was obtained for the premises. If the removal was granted then that particular licence would go. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was only one licensed house on that side of the railway line, and that was the White Lion Hotel, exactly on the half mile circumference. South of the railway was the Railway Bell (sic), which did not oppose the application.Concerning the opposition of the White Lion Hotel, they would find on looking up the records that in 1904 the proprietors of that hotel actually applied for a full on-licence within 100 yards of the present Morehall Wine Stores. If anyone was going from Cheriton to Folkestone they had to go a long way into Folkestone before they could reach a fully licensed house. There had been a very considerable increase in the number of houses in the district since the magistrates granted the off-licence. He could not give them the actual accurate figures concerning the number of houses, but in the quarter mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there were 900 houses and within a half mile area there were 1,915. Therefore they had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 or 10,000 people in the area. The number of houses erected since 1927 in the area was no less than 727. If the application was granted it was quite obvious substantial alterations would have to be made.

The Chairman: Is the building coming down?

Mr. Waddy: No. He then proceeded to explain the alterations to be carried out according to the plans which he submitted. He said accommodation would be provided for Mr. Robbins, the temporary manager at the Princess Royal, who would be the manager under Mr. Kent if that application was granted.

The Chairman pointed out that the magistrates did not see on the plans any special room for women and children.

Mr. Waddy said there was not such a room at the Princess Royal and they had kept in the plans as near to the accommodation as they had there, because if they had more accommodation the Customs and Excise would say at once they were building bigger premises.

The Chairman intimated that the magistrates that day had decided to deal with the application as an ordinary removal of a licence.

Mr. Waddy said regarding the opposition concerning the monopoly value, a removal was allowed without monopoly value. They were only removing the licence to slightly bigger premises. The White Lion Hotel opposition was purely a trade opposition, which should not carry any weight. The opposition of the Churches was always difficult. His clients respected the views of such opposition, but they thought they were mistaken as to the effect of the granting of such a licence. It would certainly not be putting a licence in the district where there was not one before. He did not know whether a petition was to he presented against the application.

The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said there was a petition signed by 220 people, 21 of whom were nearby residents. The canvass had been taken within the quarter of a mile.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) was handed the petition by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown. It stated that in the petitioners’ opinion the opening of a fully licensed house would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the locality.

Mr. E.F. Carr, manager of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, said the Company would give an undertaking that if the premises of the Princess Royal were sold a clause would be included preventing their use as a club. The figures concerning the trade at the house given by Mr. Waddy were correct.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rutlev Mowll, Mr. Carr said the Railway Bell (sic) was their house. They hoped by the removal of the Princess Royal to have an increased trade, and it might be a much more increased trade.

Mr. J.H. Kent said he had held the licence of the Morehall Wine Stores since 1912, when it came in existence. His experience during the whole of that time definitely was that full licence facilities were required at that particular spot. Almost daily he had had that opinion expressed by people who came to the Stores. If the Bench granted the facilities for the premises, he was prepared to have Mr. Robbins, the present licence holder of the Princess Royal, as the manager.

Mr. W.B. Macgowan, of 7, Beachborough Villas, said he knew the area very well. He supported the application. He happened to be a life long abstainer. They were, in that particular area, expecting a large increase of population which had not been taken into account because a huge building of flats, probably as big as the Grand Hotel, was in course of erection within a few hundred yards of the licensed premises. He thought the licence was very useful and necessary.

Mr. W. Wood, of 285, Cheriton Road, said he was a retired builder and his home was about 50 yards from the Morehall Wine Stores. If he wanted a drink he had either to go to the White Lion, or come into Folkestone, where he went to the Bodega to have a full two pennyworth ride on the bus.

Mr. Mowll: Do you drink beer or do you drink spirits?

Mr. Wood: I drink anything I can get hold of.

Mr. George A. Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, said he was a retired Civil Servant, and had resided in Folkestone since his retirement. He was not a relation of the previous witness. He certainly supported the application. In his case, the only time he went into a public house was to have an opportunity of having a chat with his friends, and under present conditions to do that he had either to go to the White Lion or the Railway Bell (sic), quite a long distance.

Mr Rutley Mowll said if that removal was likely to receive the large amount of custom, which he presumed Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp expected, he suggested it was a case where monopoly value should be paid. He could not go back 30 years as Mr. Waddy suggested, but he did not think that could have any bearing on the position that day. He represented Mr. Samway, of the White Lion Hotel, and if that application was granted his trade was going to be redistributed. Mr. Samway's prosperity would not be enhanced. He also represented Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, the Kent brewers, who opposed the application as a full licence at the Morehall Wine Stores would affect the business of the White Lion Hotel. With regard to the people who resided in the area, they went there knowing perfectly well there was no public house in it.

Mr. Pocock said it would be unfair for a licensee or the owner of a licence not to pay a fair value for being allowed to go to such an area as suggested in that application. He did not think it would be a fair thing to allow a new licence in that rapidly growing area without some payment. Therefore he opposed the application strongly.

The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had seen practically all the new houses grow up and he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing such an application had previously been refused by the magistrates it was clear there was no demand for such a house among the old residents. The people who occupied the new houses were not the kind of people to frequent public houses. Twenty-one tradespeople in the nearby locality had signed the petition against the granting of the licence. There were moral arguments which should be borne in mind by the magistrates, but he did not think there was any need for him to stress some of the evil effects of strong drink to them.

The Rev. H. Charleston said he associated himself with Mr. Brown’s remarks.

Mrs. Longhurst said she owned and lived in a house practically opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. They did not want a public-house because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She and two others obtained the signatures for the petition, and she only had three people who said they wanted a public house there.

The Magistrates retired for some time to consider their finding and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the application for the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal to the Morehall Wine Stores was not granted.