Dover Chronicle 15 December 1849

Sudden deaths.

Within a fortnight, Mr. Clout, carpenter, whilst taking his allowance at the "Providence," as was his usual custom, fell, and was soon a corpse.

Dover Chronicle 26 February 1853.

Petty Sessions, Thursday: Before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, Wm. Major, Samuel Mackie, Thomas Golder, and Wm. Bateman Esqs.

Francis Fox, of the Providence public house in this town, and late in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, was brought up in custody for having in his possession two coloured lithographic prints, and other articles, the property of the South Eastern Railway Company. Mr. Church appeared on behalf of the company, and Mr. Ford, clerk to Mr. Hart, for the prisoner.

John Carpenter deposed – I am a sergeant of the R division of the Metropolitan Police at Greenwich. From information I received, I applied for a warrant, and searched the prisoner's house. I told the prisoner he was suspected of stealing some lithographic prints. He said “I have nothing of the sort in my house, and you are welcome to search it.” I told him I should do so. On searching the top room of the house, in a sort of cupboard, I found a good number of prints of different descriptions; I should think about twenty, as near as I could judge. I did not find the print I was in search of. Mr. Chinnery, the Company's agent, came in, and I then showed him the prints, and came away, leaving them there. On Monday last I again went to the house with Mr. Chinnery, and again examined the prints, but found there was not so many as I found on Saturday. I asked Fox what had become of the remainder and he said “For what I know, they are all there.” I then called his attention to the two prints now produced, which are quite alike. I asked him where he got those prints from, and he told me he had bought them of a man of the name of Clarke, and had given him seven francs for them, with the one I now produce. I then found 50 other prints, which I now also produce. I asked him where he got them from, and he told me he bought them of a man of the name of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone, but he did not recollect what he gave for them. I found several other things in the house which he could not account for – there was some leather and a camp stool. I made a memorandum, copying the reading at the bottom of the prints, and told him I should make further enquiries respecting them. I then went downstairs, but was immediately called back by Mr. Chinnery, who said “Fox has given another account of those – he says he bought them of my brother.” I then said to Mr. Chinnery “Where is your brother?”, who replied “He is gone to Australia.” I then asked Fox if he knew Mr. C.'s brother had gone to Australia, and he said “Yes, he did.” I asked him why he had told a falsehood about it, and not told me that at first. He said he did not like to do so, and did not want to get anyone into trouble. I then asked him where he was when they were given to him, and he replied “I was in the office, and he told me to take them and not let his brother see them.” I then said “You must have been aware that something was wrong, or else there was no need to conceal them.” I took the whole of the prints (nine in number) to London, and went to Messrs. Ackermann's in the Strand, and showed the two prints first produced to Mr. Ackermann, who said he had lost two like them.

Mr. Church, on behalf of the Company, asked for the prisoner to be remanded until Friday next, which was granted.

Mr. Ford, on behalf of the prisoner, applied for bail, but the Magistrates, after considering for some time, refused to accept it.

Southeastern Gazette, 1 March 1853.

Robbery at the Custom-house.

At the Petty Sessions on Thursday, before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, W. Major, W. Bateman, Y. Golder, and S. Mackie, Esqrs., Francis Fox, harbour porter, and packer in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, at the Custom-house, was charged with stealing some lithographic prints. Mr. Church, solicitor to the company, attended to prosecute. It appeared from his statement that property had been frequently missed, and at last suspicion fell on the prisoner, who had been in the company's service some years.

John Carpenter, sergeant of police, R division, deposed:— Yesterday week I received information of robberies at Folkestone. I procured a search warrant, and proceeded to the prisoner’s house; it is a public-house called the "Providence Inn." I told the prisoner that he was suspected of stealing a lithographic print, which I described. I searched the taproom, and found in a locker behind the screen, a sort of portfolio, which contained a number of prints of various sorts, I should say twenty. I did not find the print I was in search of. At this time Mr. Chinnery, the company's agent, came in. I shewed him the prints, and came away and left them there. On Monday last I again went to the house, and found there were not so many prints as on the last visit I made. I remarked this, and tne prisoner said they were all there for what he knew. I then called his attention to the two prints (which I produced); I asked him where he got them from; he said he bought them of a man named Clark, and had given him seven francs for them. I asked where he was to be found, and he said on board the Undine at Dover, I then found these five other prints (produced). I asked where he got those from, and he said he had bought them of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone; he could not recollect what he gave for them. I found many other things, some leather and a camp stool; he said he could not tell how they came into his house. I made a copy of the reading at the bottom of the prints, and told him I should make further enquiry respecting them, and went down stairs. I was immediately called back by Mr. Chinnery, who said that the prisoner had made another statement, namely, that the prints had been given him by his (Mr. Chinnery's) brother, who had gone to Australia. I said "Why did you tell me a falsehood; why not have said so at first?" He replied he did not like to do so, as he did not like to get anybody in trouble. He told me to take them, and not to let his brother see them. I then took the prints, nine in number, and proceeded to London. On showing them to Mr. Ackermann, in the Strand, he exclaimed, “Those are the two missing out of the twenty-five that were consigned to me." He shewed me the invoice, where those were included; he said there were fifty prints sent from Paris to him, being twenty-five pairs, from a Mr. Sinett. I went to the prisoner’s house, and saw four prints, framed and glazed, which I particularly observed; when I went again they were removed from the frames, and the frames put away. Prisoner said he had had the prints about twelve months, and that he bought them of Clark.

Mr. Church asked for a remand, to enable the officer to make further enquiries.

Mr. Ford (who attended from Mr. Hart’s office), for the prisoner, asked to have the prisoner admitted to bail.

Mr. Church thought that as there were a serifs of robberies committed, the ends of justice might be defeated by doing so. After a short consultation the prisoner was remanded to Friday next.

Bail refused.

The hall was crowded to hear the examination of the prisoner Fox, who was always considered a respectable man, and was doing a good business as a publican.

Southeastern Gazette, 8 March 1853.

The Robbery at the Custom-house.

In the evidence given against Francis Fox, the assertion made by the prisoner, that the prints were given to him by Mr. Chinnery’s brother, has been completely contradicted by the fact that a letter has been received by Mr. Chinnery, from his brother, who is in Australia. To have written from there he must have sailed early last year, whereas the prints stolen were not published until the September following.

Re-examination of Francis Fox for Stealing Prints from the Custom-house.

Friday.

(Before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, T. Golder, W. Bateman, W. Major, and W. Smith, Esqrs.) The evidence of polico-sergeant Carpenter, of the detective force, was read, and also the following additional evidence adduced.

Mr. Church attended to prosecute for the South Eastern Railway Company, and Mr. Ford (from Mr. Hart's) for the prisoner.

Mr. Church, in his address, remarked that evidence would be produced to shew that the prints were published in September last, and that they could not have been purchased, as stated by the prisoner, twelve months since. He was unable to produce the publisher of the prints, Mr. Sinnett, as he was that day engaged to attend the Emperor Napoleon’s secretary, to submit some drawings of the Emperor and Empress; but that he would be produced on the trial. The 50 prints were coloured on the 17th September last, and transmitted to Boulogne on the 21st, arrived at Folkestone on the 22nd, and at Mr. Ackermann’s in London on the 23rd.

James Steer, superintendent of the Folkestone police, corroborated in every particular the evidence given by the witness Carpenter at the last examination.

Sergeant Carpenter deposed:— In the evidence I gave at the last examination of the prisoner, I stated that some prints were seen at the prisoner’s house, framed, and that I took the name of them and the marks; afterwards, when I returned, they were gone, and the frames hid, which I produce. On going to Mr. Carragetti, in Baldwin's-gardens, I found duplicate copies of the three prints. I was informed by him, that, he was in the habit of having prints of the same kind from France, through Folkestone.

Mr. Church wished the bench to know, that the prints from the frames did not disappear till after the prisoner was in custody.

Mr. Samuel Chinnery deposed:— I am Custom house agent, in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. I went to the house of the prisoner on Saturday, the 19th February. I went alone to the house, proceeded up stairs, and found Sergeant Carpenter in the course of his search. We went up stairs, and in my presence Carpenter found two large prints, a glazed print, and the small one in a portfolio, in which there were, I should think, about 40 prints. I went again to the prisoner’s house on the 21st February, in company with Carpenter and Inspector Steer, and in the tap room we saw the prints now produced. They had diminished by 20, as near as I could guess. The prisoner was asked where he got them from, and he said he had the two large ones from a man named Clark, a seaman on board the Undine, and that he had had them by him a year or more. As I was going down stairs he called me back, and he said, "Mr. Chinnery, your brother gave me those prints, but I did not like to bring you into trouble, and therefore the statement I made was false." I said, "Good heavens, you don’t mean to say that. I believe, painful as the explanation is, the truth is the best." I then told Carpenter that the prisoner had made another statement. Carpenter asked me where my brother was, and I told him in Australia; he asked the prisoner if he know that my brother was gone there, and he replied that he did know it. I asked the prisoner if my brother had given them to him as belonging to passengers, who had left them behind. He said, Yes, and that he did not think they were taken out of cases.

By Mr. Church:— My brother left England in March, 1852, The prints referred to came over from Boulogne in September, 1852. I produce my entry book and letter of advice, dated the 21st September, together with the bill of landing. The prisoner’s salary is about 18s. or 20s. per week; he was a porter in the employ of the company.

By the Mayor:— It is usual for persons to complain of losses. Other things have been lost. The prisoner has been in the employ of the company three years in continuation, and oft’ and on eight years.

Examination resumed:— It is the prisoner’s duty to convey the goods from the ship to the Custom-house; he has access to the place where the goods are laid out, and is allowed to go in and out; the goods were consigned to the company.

By the Mayor:— It would be no part of the prisoner’s duty to assist in packing.

Thomas James Greenop deposed:— I am clerk to Mr. Chinnery. I produce an entry book containing the prints consigned to Messrs. Aekermann and Co.; the entry is my own handwriting. The case was marked F. S. I counted the prints; it is my invariable practice to do so, and I think I did so in this instance, as I put down the number 234. I don’t recollect who packed or unpacked them.

By Mr. Ford:— They are generally opened in my presence.

Mr. Richard Cock deposed:— I am landing waiter at this port; it is part of my duty to check the number of prints that pass in cases through the Custom-house. I produce an entry book containing the number. The entry is marked F. S.; there wore 234 prints (single French). The number is called out by the weigher; his duty would be to count them.

Cross-examined:— I don’t count one case in ten. I have no recollection of this particular case going through the Custom-house. We have quantities of 1,200 sometimes, when we count a bundle or two, and if correct we do not count the others, as it would spoil the prints to handle them.

John Rogers deposed:— I am a packer in the South Eastern Company’s employ. I have been employed there two or three years. I produce my entry of the goods in question. I was there on the day referred to. I never knew the prisoner to be off duty. I have seen the prisoner in the room where the goods are exposed; the porters have access to those rooms.

Nicholas Keating, warehouse keeper, produced his book, and swore to the goods being sent off by rail.

Ferdinand Ackermann deposed:— I am a printseller, and live in the Strand. On the 23rd September last. I received a consignment of prints from Mr. Sinnett, Paris; they were accompanied by a letter of advice and Invoice, which I produce. At the bottom of the invoice is the number of the prints. I checked the invoice; they were not correct, there being two short. I have since looked at my books, and find that. I can account for all except three; the two stolen and one I suppose was sold for cash. The value of the prints is 10s. each. I believe when they were first sent to me, it was just after the date of their publication. I never sold any of the prints to any one in Folkestone, or in the county of Kent.

The guard of the train, the way-bill checker, and carman of the company, were called to prove the transit of the package, and its delivery unopened to Mr. Ackerman.

The case having been concluded, the Mayor, having duly cautioned the prisoner, asked him for his defence.

Mr, Ford, on behalf of the prisoner, declined to make any defence, and the prisoner was committed for trial at the next quarter sessions.

Mr. Ford asked the magistrates to admit the prisoner to bail, as he thought the case a very slender one, and as the object had been accomplished, viz., giving time to the prosecutors to obtain information, there could be no objection to admit the prisoner to bail.

Mr. Church urged upon the magistrates not to do so as he considered a very serious case had been made out against the prisoner.

The magistrates consulted together and retired, and after some time consented to take bail, the prisoner in £200, and two sureties in £100 each, and to give forty eight hours’ notice of such bail.

Dover Chronicle 2 April 1853.

Quarter Sessions: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder, W. Kelcey Esq., Mayor, R.D. Brockman Esq., M.P., D. Major, W. Major, S. Mackie, T. Golder, J. Bateman, W. Bateman and W. Smith Esqs.

The Recorder charged the Grand Jury very briefly, merely regretting that he could not congratulate them as heretofore upon the lightness of the calendar; although the cases were not numerous, they were very serious. He did not apprehend they would experience any legal difficulties in the execution of their duty.

The first bill of indictment handed to them charged Francis Fox with robbing his employers – the South Eastern Company. Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Church appeared for the Company; Mr. Clarkson, instructed by Mr. Hart, for the prisoner. During the absence of the Grand Jury the counsel on both sides complained loudly of the want of accommodation – especially of the absence of any place in the nature of consulting rooms. The Recorder entirely coincided; and lamented the inconvenience to which they were put: he pronounced it disgraceful, the Grand Jury Room being the only one, which, of course, was then occupied.

The Grand Jury having found a true bill, the prisoner appeared to his bail, and having taken his place in the dock, his counsel, having conferred with Mr. Bodkin, rose and said that the prisoner was charged first with larceny, in that he had stolen two prints, of the value of 10s.; and secondly with receiving them. He should certainly have adopted a different course to that which he was about to take, had not more evidence been brought forward than had been adduced before the Magistrates, He did not complain that such was the case. He could not struggle against the charge in its matured state. There was no doubt the prisoner had been betrayed into a breach of trust towards his employers, which he could not, and would not attempt to justify. He should therefore take upon himself the responsibility of advising the prisoner to plead Guilty to the charge of simple larceny.

Mr. Bodkin said the only motive of the prosecutors was to promote the ends of justice. He thought that those ends would be served by allowing the prisoner to plead Guilty to the first count; he should not offer any evidence upon the second; there was a third, but he should withdraw that altogether.

The prisoner having pleaded Guilty, Mr. Clarkson, in mitigation, urged that his character hitherto had been unsullied, and proposed to call witnesses to substantiate that statement; but the Recorder said it was not necessary.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said – The offence of which he had declared himself Guilty was one of a very serious nature, which was aggravated by the attempt to screen himself by throwing the charge upon another, who, being abroad, was unable to vindicate himself. That course was most unfavourable to him; morally it was a greater offence than the original crime. The punishment he should award was twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

We are told the scene outside of the Court was most distressing, as soon as the wife and family heard the sentence. The prisoner has been keeping a public house, and up to this time considered by his neighbours as a respectable and rather prospering tradesman.

Southeastern Gazette, 5 April 1853.

Borough Sessions.

These sessions were held on Friday, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., Recorder. On the Bench were also the Mayor (W. Kelcey, Esq.), J. Bateman, W. Bateman, W. Smith, S. Mackie, D. Major, T. Golder, and W. Major, Esqrs.

Francis Fox, harbour porter in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing two prints, value 10s., the property of the said company.

The prisoner had been engaged as harbour porter for some years, and was considered a very respectable man. He also kept a public-house called the "Providence," where he was doing a good business. The articles were found in his house, and he having stated to the detective officer, Carpenter, of the R division, that he purchased them of a man named Clark, and afterwards that they were given to him by one of the company’s clerks, who had gone to Australia, both stories were proved to be false at the examination of the prisoner before the magistrates.

Mr. Clarkson, for the prisoner (who had been advised to plead guilty), stated that he had hitherto borne an irreproachable character, and that he felt that it was useless to struggle against a conviction, but he trusted that the court would, in passing sentence on the prisoner, consider all the circumstances.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, told him that the offence to which he had pleaded guilty was one of a very serious nature, and that the punishment must be for a lengthened period; that the prisoner’s crime was aggravated by an innocent person being accused by him, and who was not now in this country, to defend himself from that accusation. The Recorder then sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labour.

The prisoner, who appeared surprised at his sentence, was then removed.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 19 December, 1863.

ASSAULT

Wednesday December 16th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt, Esq.

William Spearpoint was brought up on a summons, charged with an assault on Henry May.

Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

It appeared from the evidence of plaintiff, who is a porter on the South Eastern Railway, that on the 11th inst. He went into the "Providence Inn," when defendant came in, and after some altercation, struck plaintiff, who took up a wooden spittoon in self-defence. A scuffle ensued until they were separated.

Mr. Minter cross-examined the plaintiff, and for the defence called William Jenkins, who put a different complexion on the case. Ultimately the case was dismissed.

Folkestone Chronicle 24 August 1867.

Monday, August 19th: Before J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Richard Underdown was summoned by Stephen Saunders for assaulting him on the 15th August last. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant said: I am a bootmaker, and reside in Tontine Street. On Thursday night last, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I was coming out of the Providence, in Beach Street, when I saw a policeman, the defendant, and another man. There had apparently been a scuffle, and I said to the other man, Neville, “You'd better put on your coat and go home”. I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, inside the passage, and defendant came across the road to me, and while I was looking another way he struck me a violent blow in the mouth with his fist, so that I have not been able to work since. I gave him into custody, but when we got to the police station Newman said I had better summon him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter for defendant: I did not see the fighting. Defendant had received a blow on the face. I gave defendant into custody, and went up to the police station. Defendant might perhaps gone as far as Powell's, for that i only a few steps off. It is not true that police constable Smith offered to take him into custody and I refused to give him in charge. Defendant has not offered me an apology on account of the blow being unintentional, but someone came out to me about it on Saturday night.

Police Constable Edward Smith said: On Friday morning between 12 and 1 o'clock I was on duty at the bottom of the town and heard a noise of quarrelling. I went into Beach Street and saw defendant and another man fighting. I told them to go home quietly and not make a disturbance. Neville went away, and defendant crossed the road to where complainant was standing, and without any provocation struck him a violent blow on the face, knocking him backwards into the passage. Defendant was not sober: he was drunk. I took him into custody, but Sergeant Newman persuaded complainant to summon him instead.

Cross-examined: I told defendant he had better go home and he went away a few steps, perhaps as far as Powell's eating house, and complainant gave him into custody. I have never threatened to take defendant up the first time I had a chance.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that no doubt an assault had been committed, but that under the circumstances a nominal fine would be sufficient. The conduct of the policeman was most extraordinary. He first of all told the man to go home, and then as he was going home took him into custody. The defendant was a man well-known in the town, and the constable was not justified in taking him. The sergeant knew his duty better, and recommended the complainant to summon him. It appeared that defendant and a man named Neville had had blows, and defendant thought it was complainant who had struck him, and went up to him and gave him a smack in the face.

He called William Burvill, who stated that he was with defendant on Thursday evening in the Providence, and saw Neville strike him, and directly afterwards he went up to complainant and struck him. Police constable Smith said to complainant “Give him in charge, and I'll take him”, but he (witness) did not hear any reply made, and defendant and himself walked away. When they got opposite Powell's two policemen took defendant into custody. On Saturday night he went to offer an apology and any payment required. To the best of his knowledge defendant and complainant have always been the best of friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.

The Bench were sorry to see respectable men come before them for fighting while in liquor. Defendant was fined 5s. and costs, in default 14 days'.

Folkestone Chronicle 3 June 1871.

Sudden Death.

A melancholy sudden death happened yesterday to an old man named Richard Down. The deceased, who was an inmate of the workhouse, came to Folkestone to pass a little time with his friends, and went in the early part of the evening to the Providence Inn, Seagate Street, where he ordered some bread and meat. Whilst in the act of eating, he was observed by some in the room to lay his head back in the chair, as if asleep, and his appearance being rather strange, the attention of those in the room was attracted to him. On trying to rouse him, the deceased was found dead. Dr. Bateman was sent for, who examined the body, which awaits an inquest, to be held today at noon.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 June 1871.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Saturday morning last on the body of Richard Downs, who died at the Providence Inn whilst in the act of eating some food. From the evidence of a man named Austen, and other witnesses, it appears that the deceased went to the house where he met with his death on the previous evening. On the table was some liver that had been fried for a cat, and a man named Nash asked deceased to eat some of it with him. Both ate some of the liver, and Nash, when he heard someone coming to take away the liver, exclaimed “Have another piece, old Dick”, and deceased took a large piece and put it in his mouth. He then doubled up in an extraordinary manner, dribbled at the mouth, and manifested other alarming signs, and when they went to examine him the poor old man was found dead. The police were immediately sent for, and Dr. Bateman, but before the latter arrived, deceased had expired. Dr. Bateman made a post mortem examination on the following day, when he found that a large piece of liver had been lodged in his throat, which caused instantaneous death. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the above facts.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 June 1875.

Monday. May 31st: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Tolputt, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Francis Scott, remanded from Saturday, was charged with stealing a fowl and a duck, of the value of 7s., the property of Albert Attwood, High Street.

Henry Silvester, an errand boy, stated that he was behind the counter when he saw the prisoner take the chicken. He immediately informed Mrs. Attwood.

Mrs. Attwood stated that she charged prisoner with stealing the chicken, which he immediately produced, and pleaded to be forgiven, as he was hard up. She told him to go, and he left. She saw the prisoner pass the shop about 5 o'clock, and about half past 6 o'clock P.C. Smith came to the shop with a duck in his hand, and she then missed a duck from the window, and she identified that produced as the one she had placed there.

P.C. Swaine stated that he went to the Providence Inn, where he found prisoner offering the duck for sale for 3s., and he took him into custody.

The prisoner was further charged with stealing, on the 27th instant, a pair of boots, of the value of 18s. 6d., the property of John Saunders, boot maker, Tontine Street.

John Saunders stated that between one and two o'clock on Thursday afternoon he missed a pair of boots from his shop.

Charles Quintin, waiter, stated that he saw the prisoner on Thursday afternoon, a little before four o'clock, talking to a man named Gatehouse, whom he saw buy the boots of prisoner for 6s.

Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions on both charges.

Folkestone Chronicle 31 July 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday July 29th:

Francis Scott was charged with stealing one fowl and one duck, of the value of 7s., the property of Albert Attwood, at Folkestone, on the 21st of May, 1875.

Mr. Glynn prosecuted.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing one pair of boots, of the value of 18s. 6d., the property of John Saunders, at Folkestone, on May the 27th, 1875.

Prisoner also pleaded Guilty.

Prisoner said he was not in the habit of doing these things, and attributed his guilt to giving way to drink, and asked that he might be dealt with leniently. He had passed two months in prison awaiting his trial, a circumstance he hoped that His Honour would take into merciful consideration.

The Recorder said he was sorry to see the prisoner in that position, but inasmuch as he had confessed his guilt, he would pass on him the lenient sentence of three months imprisonment for the first offence, and three months for the second, the sentence for the second to commence at the expiration of the first.

Folkestone Chronicle 14 July 1877.

Inquest.

Last evening an inquest was held at the Town Hall on the body of Albert Stephen Warman, aged 6 years, the son of William Warman, landlord of the Providence Inn, who was found dead in about four feet of water near the South Eastern Railway Company's jetty on the harbour. There was no evidence to show how the deceased came into the water, and the jury accordingly returned a verdict of Found Drowned.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 October 1889.

Thursday, October 10th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Major H.W. Poole.

John Herron was charged with stealing a coat from Henry Whiting.

The prosecutor said he lived at 35, Charlotte Street. About three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon he went into the Providence Inn. He had with him a pilot cloth coat. Witness was sitting in the taproom. The prisoner and a man named Cox were in the room and witness treated the prisoner. During the afternoon he fell asleep, and when he awoke the prisoner had gone and he missed his coat at once. He went outside of the door and saw the prisoner in the street. He was wearing the coat. Witness said “Give me my coat. You have got it on your back”. He replied “I shall not until you give me 2s. You sold the coat to me”. Witness did not sell it to him, and had never thought of doing such a thing. He valued the coat at 10s.

P.C. Stannage said he saw the prisoner standing at the corner of Harbour Street, with the coat produced across his arm. Whiting pointed him out. Prisoner said he gave prosecutor 2s. for it, and the prosecutor denied it. The prosecutor had been drinking but was not drunk. He knew what he was doing. The prisoner was sober.

Herron asked for an adjournment until Saturday, in order that he might secure Cox as a witness.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 June 1899.

Local News.

Mr. Walter E. Polhill was granted a temporary licence for the Providence Inn, Beach Street, of which he has recently become landlord.

Folkestone Chronicle 15 June 1901.

Wednesday, June 12th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, and Pledge, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. Mott, from the Half Moon, Dover, takes up his abode at the Providence.

Folkestone Chronicle 29 June 1901.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before Messrs. Pledge, Peden, Spurgen, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

William Spearpoint (otherwise known as Seaweed) was charged with being drunk on the 16th inst., and refusing to quit licensed premises. Last week he was fined for being drunk on the same occasion.

Mrs. Mott, wife of the landlord of the Providence Inn, Beach Street, said the defendant came to the house on the 16th. She refused to serve him, and he refused to quit. She then sent for the police, when the defendant went out quietly.

Defendant said he was very sorry, but he had no recollection of the occurrence. He would never go inside a public house again!

The Chairman, after cautioning Spearpoint, discharged him.

Folkestone Chronicle 30 November 1901.

Saturday, November 23rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, Messrs. Wightwick, Swoffer, and Herbert, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Temporary authority to sell at the Providence Inn was granted to Mr. M. Hoskins, of Dover, who stated that it was his intention to apply for the transfer of the licence on the next licensing day.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville, Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope, Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting; and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel, as to her husband's conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear)

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man's living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel's observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

The Providence.

When Mr. Arthur F. East came up for the renewal of the Providence licence, Chief Constable Reeve drew the attention of the Bench to the number of transfers which had taken place at this house.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said that when in August last he had occasion to speak to the tenant about a class of women served at the house, the reply was “Well, if I do not serve these women I do not get a living”.

Mr. J. Minter called Mr. Benjamin Twyman (representing Messrs. Flint, the brewers), who explained that a previous tenant had held the licence for 34 years. After that, there had been some little difficulties, which necessitated the change of tenants, but with the present tenant the brewers hoped to obviate any further transfer.

The Chief Constable said that this was a fully-licensed house, but the Excise would prove that the spirit licence had been allowed to drop.

Mr. East said that with improving business he anticipated the renewal of the spirit certificate.

Mr. Minter handed in for the inspection of the Bench the plans of the proposed alterations. He said the house was not an Hotel Metropole, but it suited the locality in which it was placed. In any case, he would ask the Bench to give his clients another twelve months before deciding to refuse the renewal of the licence.

The Chairman said that the Bench had decided to allow the renewal.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 June 1904.

Monday June 6th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

Joseph Martin was charged with being concerned with another man (in custody) in stealing a pair of boots valued at 4s. 11d.

A fisherman named Punnett deposed to prisoner and another man visiting the Providence Inn, in Beach Street, on Thursday, the 2nd of June. The other man was carrying a pair of boots, and said they were a new pair and had only been worn once. Prisoner said “Who wants to buy a new pair of soildiers' boots? They have only been worn once. They are a nice pair. Who'll give 2s. 6d. for them?” Witness tried one on and said “They will just suit me. I'll have them”. He slipped out, got the 2s. 6d., paid it to prisoner, who gave him the boots. Shortly after the men left the house together. On Friday, the 3rd, witness identified the other man at the police station.

Henry Warren, a boot salesman, of Dover Street, identified the boots by a private mark in the waist. On Thursday, the 2nd, a quantity of similar boots hung outside the shop. He could not swear to the actual boot.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand until Wednesday, when prisoner could be charged jointly with the other man now in custody.

Prisoner: I am absolutely innocent.

Remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, June 8th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Messrs. J. Stainer, E.T. Ward, W.C. Carpenter, and G.I. Swoffer.

George Smith and Joseph Martin (on remand) were charged with being concerned together in stealing a pair of boots, valued at 4s. 11d., on the 3rd of June.

Martin, a tall, vicious-looking man of the tramp order, had evinced signs of insanity since the remand, and created quite a scene upon being ushered into the dock. From the official point of view the madness was feigned, from the spectator's point of view there was much method about the man's madness for, during the time he had been waiting to take his place in the dock, Martin had carefully loosened one of his boots. In a moment he had slipped it off and struck a violent blow at one of the constables in attendance. Fortunately the blow missed its mark. Martin, however, continued to struggle and ramble so much that the united efforts of three constables and an inspector were required to keep him in order. In a short struggle the man had one of his trousers legs nearly torn off.

The evidence was that on the 5th of June the two prisoners visited the Providence Inn and offered the boots for sale. A fisherman named James Punnett tried one boot on, and finding it fitted gave Martin 2s. 6d. for the pair. Smith was arrested at Folkestone, and Detective Sergt. Burniston fetched Martin back from Dover.

It was very apparent that Martin was dreading Quarter Sessions, for when the Bench asked the men if they would be tried by the Court then sitting, Martin forgot all his rambling and said “This Court. Guilty. I sold the boots, and he (pointing to Smith) pinched them”. (Laughter)

Smith said he did not remember anything about the occurrence.

Martin was sentenced to 14 days', and Smith to a like amount, this sentence to follow upon the one in the previous case.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 February 1905.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.

The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.

Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8th, 1905. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or one on licence to every 313 persons.

Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year, viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence was transferred twice during the year.

The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.

Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since transferred his licence and left the house.

Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant, and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.

For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case a conviction being recorded.

For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17 persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.

Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42 occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.

The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the renewals be refused.

The houses situate in this congested area which in my opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn, Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

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

The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in theor power to prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief Constable Reeve's report that there are a very large number of licensed houses in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable's report, viz., The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these houses are closed the owners will be compensated.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr. W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance, tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.

The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory's objections were practically the same as those which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours with the advocates' objections who represented the other houses.

Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a man's licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates' consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.

After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent back to Quarter Sessions for reference.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.

It was decided that the principal meeting to be held pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the East ent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard: Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown, High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were: Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic), Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr. Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the tenants.

Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective Sergt. Burniston.

Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for the last few years.

As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and paid £180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference between £180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house, when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this year and one last year?

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph, had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of trade, and was of use to the locality.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited, and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria.

Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C. Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.

On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:-

“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons.

Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons.

At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences were refused and two renewed.

The licences which were refused were:- the Victoria Inn, South Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street; and Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the houses closed.

Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.

During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

During the year ended 31st December last 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.

Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred the licence and left the house.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested area, also the public houses within the area.

Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 109 persons.

There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”.

The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained.

The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope, Fenchurch Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

The Adjourned Annual General Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Monday, when the Chief Constable opposed the renewal of five licences on the ground of redundancy, and one on the ground of misconduct. The evidence was of the usual technical order, where a whole host of police witnesses testified to an extraordinary state of things which had apparently gone on for years. The sitting lasted from 11 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., and was only relieved by one little light episode when Mr. Mercer on two occasions quoted the Folkestone Herald as bearing upon a case heard at the Court, and on each occasion the Chairman saying that the report was wrong, whereupon Mr. Mercer intimated that he should give up taking the Herald.

The Bench sitting on Monday morning were Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. W. Linton, and Major Leggatt.

The Providence.

The Providence, Messrs. Flint and Co, landlord Mr. Green. Mr. Mercer for the tenant and owners.

This house was objected to solely upon the grounds of redundancy.

Chief Constable Reeve, sworn, said: I first of all put in a plan in which I have marked the whole of the public houses in a congested area; marked from the corner of Harbour Street by the Bayle Steps, by High Street, Dover Road to Raglan Hotel, and thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, five to a house; there are 42 on-licensed houses within the area, 36 full licences and six beerhouses, giving a proportion of one on-licence to every 109 inhabitants within that area, while in the Borough at large the population is one on-licence to every 326 of the population. There are also situated within the area six licences for the sale of beer and spirits off the premises, one refreshment house with a wine on-licence, and one wine off-licence, making a total of 50 licences for the sale of drink by retail, being one licence to every 92 persons within this area, against one to every 230 in the Borough at large. There are also four registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a membership of 898, within the area. During the year 1905, out of 183 charges of drunkenness in the Borough, 93 arose within this congested area. The house in question in the Providence Inn, Beach Street. The present licensee is Henry Green, who obtained the transfer on the 2nd Sept., 1903. The registered owners are Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. The rateable value of the house is £20. This house forms one of a block of five in Beach Street, four public houses and a shop. There are two entrances to this house, one on each side. The accommodation of the public consists of two small compartments and a tap room. The accommodation of the licensee is on the top floor. There have been five transfers of this licence within the past seven years. Within a radius of 100 yards there are 21 other on-licensed houses, within a radius of 130 yards there are 30 other on-licences, and within a radius of 200 yards 33 other on-licensed houses.

Mr. Mercer: Making a total of 63, or 33?

Witness: Thirty three. I consider the house unnecessary, and accommodation for the public and licensee I consider to be the worst of the houses in that particular block.

By Mr. Mercer: I do not know the exact trade; that is impossible for a private individual to find out. Last year the same house was before the Compensation Authority, and the licence renewed. The character and conduct of the house is not objected to.

Mr. Mercer said the present tenant had been in the house a number of years. The trade done, taking an average for 1902, was 136 barrels and 52 gallons of spirits. The rent of the property was £12 per annum, but because the rent was low, did that suggest that this house in particular should go? If this house, why not the Little Wonder? Why not the Chequers? Why not the South Foreland? He hoped the Bench would renew the licence.

The Chairman said the house would be referred to the Quarter Sessions to be dealt with under the Compensation Act.