DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1838

Providence Inn

Latest 1906

7 (14) Beach Street

Seagate Street Post Office Directory 1874

Folkestone

Providence Inn left

Above photo showing the "Providence Inn" on the left. The "Blue Anchor" is centre and on the right the "Queen's Head Hotel."

 

South Eastern Gazette 4 December 1849.

FOLKESTONE. SUDDEN DEATH.

On Friday morning last Mr. William Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, as was his usual custom, went to the "Providence Inn" for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest has been held before W. Bateman, Esq., and a verdict of "Died by the visitation of God" returned.

 

Canterbury Journal 8 December 1849.

On the morning of the 30th ult., Mr. William Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the "Providence Inn," as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest was held by Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God” returned.

 

Kentish Gazette, 11 December 1849.

FOLKESTONE.

On Friday morning last, Mr. Wm. Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the "Providence Inn," as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest has been held before Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of "Died by the visitation of God" returned.

 

Kentish Gazette 8 March 1853.

At the Patty Sessions OR Thursday, before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, W. Major, W. Bateman, T. 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 bad been frequently missed, and at last suspicion fell on tbe 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 tap-room, 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 showed 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 the prisoner said they were all there for what he knew. I then called his attention to the two prints (which I produce); 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, and told him I should make further enquiry respecting them, and went downstairs. 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 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 showed me the invoice, whore 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 be bought them of Clark.

Mr. Chureh 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 series of robberies committed, the ends of justice might be defeated by doing so. After a short consultation, the prisoner was remanded till Friday next. Bail refused.

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

 

Southeastern Gazette 8 March 1853.

Local News.

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 no published until the September following.

Friday, March 4th: Before The Mayor, S. Mackie, T. Golder, W. Bateman, W. Major, and W. Smith, Esqs.

The evidence of police 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 show 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. Clurch 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 upstairs, and found Sergeant Carpenter in the course of his search. We went upstairs, 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 downstairs 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 knew 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 off 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. Ackermann 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 were 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 anyone 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.

 

Kentish Gazette 15 March 1853.

Friday: (Before VV. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, T. Golder, W. Bateman, W. Major, and W. Smith, Esqrs.)

The evidence of police sergeant Carpenter, of the detective force, was read, and also additional evidence adduced. 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 lime consented to take bail, the prisoner in 200, and two sureties in 100 each, and to give forty-eight hours’ notice of such bail.

 

Southeastern Gazette 5 April 1853.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday April 1st: Before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

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 he imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labour.

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

 

Kentish Gazette 12 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 19s., 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.

 

Folkestone Observer 30 May 1863.

Wednesday May 27th:- Before the Mayor.

Mary Kane Skips was charged with being drunk. Pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ovenden said that the prisoner came along Radnor Street and went into the South Foreland. She had not been there many seconds before she was put out. She was then going into Providence when she tripped over the step, and there lay in the passage not being able to get up, she being so drunk. He took her into custody and brought her to the station.

She was fined 5s., and costs 3s. 6d., to be paid in a week.

 

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.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 19 December, 1863.

ASSAULT

Tuesday December 15th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt, Esq.

James Spearpoint appeared on summons for an assault on Henry May on Friday the 11th instant.

Henry May, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company said: Last Friday afternoon I called in at the "Providence" public house, Beach Street. I had been there about 20 minutes when Spearpoint came in. He had a piece of net, a needle and some twine in his hand, and asked where the man was he fetched that for. He asked if I could make a round bottom to the net: I said I could. He wanted to bet me 5s. that I could not. I said I had not got 5s. and handed the net back to him. He then swore at me and challenged me to fight, which I declined to do. He then wrung my nose, got hold of my whiskers, and gave me a back-handed blow across my eye. He was in the attitude of striking me again when I took up the spittoon in self defence. I told him if he struck me again I would hit him with it. He then struck me in the face and I threw the spittoon at him. I don't think it hit him. He struck me again several times, and I then closed with him and held him against the table, when a shipmate of defendant's took me away, and he struck me again on the lip and underneath the jaw. We were then separated by the bystanders.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Other people were in the room, amongst whom was Mr. Brown, a shoemaker; Mr. Jenkins was also there. I have called no-one as witness. I did not call defendant a ---- bully when he was engaged in an argument with another man. He didn't say he would punch my head if I called him those names again. I didn't jump up and seize him when he said those words. I didn't hold him on the table with the spittoon in my hand over his head. Defendant didn't call someone to pull me off. After Jenkins pulled me off I didn't throw the spittoon at him.

Mr. Minter addressed the bench on behalf of the defendant, and said he was at the "Providence" holding an argument about the net, when May called him a ---- bully, and that was the commencement of the row and Spearpoint said “If you say that again I shall punch your head”. May then got up, and so did Spearpoint, and they wrestled together, when May pushed him on the table on his back, and picked up a spittoon, when Spearpoint called Jenkins to pull him off. May was not satisfied when separated, but he must throw the spittoon at him. Spearpoint then struck him in the mouth, not before, as he had a witness to prove.

He called William Jenkins, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, who said: I went into the "Providence" on Friday afternoon. As I went in I heard May say “You are a ---- bully”. Spearpoint got up and said “If you call me a ---- bully again I shall punch your head”. May got up and closed on Spearpoint and pushed him on his back on the table. May had hold of him close by the neck with one hand, and had a spittoon in the other. Spearpoint called out “Bill, part us”. I jumped up and separated them. They went at it again, and May threw the spittoon at Spearpoint. Spearpoint then struck him in the mouth. I did not see any blow struck before that. May then went out of the house. When I went into the room the net was lying on the table.

By the complainant: I did not see you strike defendant with your fist, but you struck at him with the spittoon.

The bench said the case had entirely broken down because complainant had brought no witness to corroborate his evidence. They must therefore dismiss the case.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 December 1863.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Tuesday (before Capt. Kennicott, R.N., and J. Tolputt, Esq.), William Spearpoint was 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 Observer 15 July 1865.

Monday July 10th:- Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

A young man, described on the charge sheet as a tailor, and who gave his name as Daniel Harvey, was charged with being in the house of William Warman, landlord of the Providence public house, for an unlawful purpose on Sunday night.

William Warman said he was the landlord of the Providence public house. About eleven o'clock las night his wife, who had gone to bed, called to him and asked if he had been upstairs in the room overhead. He said he had not been there, and his wife asked him to go up and see if anyone was there because she had heard someone moving about. Thinking his wife must have been dreaming he went upstairs without taking a candle, and on going into the room he asked if anyone was there. He received no answer, but to make sure no person was there he felt round the room in the dark with his hands, when, to his great surprise, his hand came into contact with the leg of a person who was lying on the bed. Grasping it tight, he pulled the intruder off the bed onto the floor, and out of the room downstairs, and when he got into the light he found the prisoner. Asked him how he came there, when the prisoner said he had paid for his lodgings and had a right to sleep there. Witness said he never let lodgings, as his house was only just large enough to accommodate his family. Prisoner had evidently been drinking, but he was not drunk, and could walk up and down stair well enough. He said he was a stonemason by trade and had been working at Ramsgate. He had his shoes off when witness pulled him off the bed; gave him into custody of Swain, the policeman, and he was taken to the station house. Missed nothing out of the room. Had never seen the prisoner before.

The magistrates discharged the prisoner, who said he had been drinking all day on Sunday with some friends at Sandgate, and did not know how he came into the house.

 

Folkestone Observer 24 February 1866.

Friday February 23rd: Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Charlotte Glasgow was charged with assaulting Margaret Ann Mullett.

Prosecutrix, a single woman living in North Street, said: On the 27th December last, just before two o'clock in the afternoon, I went to Mr. Warman's, the Providence public house, for some beer. The defendant served me with the beer, and then asked me to stop a moment, as she wanted to speak to me, and I did so. Mr. Iverson came out of the room, and defendant said to him “Here, Steve, I don't see why she shouldn't have a serving out as well as me”. She them pushed me into the tap room, and Mr. Iverson kissed me under the mistletoe, and my earrings were broken.

The Clerk: Never mind what other people have done. What did defendant do?

Witness: She only pushed me.

The Clerk: What did she do afterwards?

Witness: She did not touch me any more.

The Clerk: Is that all you have to say?

Witness: That's all, sir.

Mr. Boarer: How is it you left it over so long?

Witness: Because they promised to pay for the earrings, and they have not done so.

The Clerk: But the defendant did not break them?

Witness: No, sir, but it was through her they were broken.

The Clerk: You have summoned the wrong person.

Mr. Boarer: And in the wrong court, too.

The Mayor: You have proved no case. The case is dismissed.

Mr. Boarer: It is perfectly ridiculous to bring such a case here, taking up the time of the court with such a frivolous thing.

 

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 Observer 24 August 1867.

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

Richard Underdown was summoned by Stephen Saunter for assaulting him on the 15th of 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 your coat on and go home”. I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, in 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 Sergeant 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 is only a few steps off. It's 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 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 have a chance.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that no doubt an assault in law 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 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 stuck 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, and defendant and himself walked away. When they got opposite Powell's, two policeman took defendant into custody. On Saturday night he went to complainant to offer an apology and any payment required. To the best of his knowledge defendant and complainant have always been the best friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.

The Bench was 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 Express 3 June 1871.

Sudden Death.

Last evening between five and six o'clock, as a man named Richard Downs was eating bread and meat at the Providence Inn, he suddenly fell down and expired. It is supposed that his death resulted from suffocation through a piece of the meat lodging in his throat.

 

Southeastern Gazette 6 June 1871.

Local News.

On Friday evening, between five and six o’clock, as a man named Richard Downs was eating bread and meat at the Providence Inn, he suddenly fell down and expired. It is supposed that his death resulted from suffocation through a piece of meat lodging in his throat.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 10 June 1871.

Inquest.

On Saturday last an inquest was held at the Town-hall, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner, on the body of Richard Down.

From the evidence it appears that the deceased was at the Providence Inn on the previous evening, eating liver which had been fried for a cat. In attempting to swallow a piece 2in. long and lin. wide, it stuck in his throat, and caused almost immediate death.

The jury returned a verdict of death by accidental suffocation.

 

Folkestone Express 22 February 1873.

Thursday, February 20th: Before W. Bateman, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Mary Bran was charged with stealing a pint beer glass, value 9d., the property of Mr. W. Warman, Providence Inn.

Fanny Hall, prosecutor's servant, said prisoner went in the house when the family were upstairs on the 19th instant about half past four in the afternoon, and on witness coming downstairs she saw prisoner going out of the house with her apron tucked up. She afterwards missed five glasses from the bar.

P.C. Smith said from information received he went to prisoner in Seagate Street and asked her what she had under her apron. She pulled out a pint glass and said “only a glass”, which she had taken from the Providence to get her children some grub.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour, Mr Bateman remarking that he was very sorry to see her in such a position, as he had known her for several years, and always thought her to be a respectable woman.

 

Southeastern Gazette 9 September 1873.

Local News.

On the afternoon of Wednesday last an inquest was held before J. F. Till, Esq., (deputy coroner), to enquire into the circumstances of the death of John Benfield, who was found dead in a sawpit in an outhouse in Mr. Redman’s occupation, early that morning.

The deceased was found by Joseph George Colley, who had been to work in his garden early in the morning, and at half-past five, on going to put his tools in the saw-pit, he observed deceased on his face, doubled up at the bottom of the saw-pit. He had been with the deceased the night before at the “Providence” where they had a pint of beer together.

Mr. Bateman, surgeon, was sent for, and on his arrival found the deceased’s extremities cold, but there was still slight warmth under his clothing. He had no doubt death arose from suffocation. He should suppose the deceased was stunned by the fall and was suffocated in the sawdust. There were no marks of violence on the body, nor any evidence of a struggle.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the facts as disclosed in evidence.

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 December 1874.

Local News.

A mixture used as a lotion was given instead of a cough mixture, to an infant fifteen months old, the child of Mr. William Warman, of the Providence Inn, by a servant girl, on Friday last. The poor little child lingered on until Tuesday, when it died, after suffering most acutely. Dr. Eastes did everything possible to alleviate its suffering.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 16 July 1877.

Inquest.

On Friday evening an inquest was held at the Town Hall, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner for the borough, touching the death of Albert Stephen Warman, aged six years, son of Wm. Warman, of the Providence Inn, Beach Street, who was found in the harbour about half-past two that afternoon.

The child was in the habit of going to meet his father coming home to dinner, and on the day in question left home about half-past eleven for that purpose. A lad named Thomas Webb, thirteen years of age, was sculling in a boat and was about to pick up a wooden pipe which he saw floating, when he observed the child about a foot under water, standing upright, with one arm round a post. The body was recovered and taken into the company’s shop, when every means was applied to restore animation, but without effect.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned,” there being no evidence to show how deceased got into the water.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 4 April 1888.

Thursday, March 30th: Present: J. Hoad, J. Sherwood, J. Fitness, S. Penfold and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Jane Cranner, an “old hand”, was charged with stealing a counterpane, of the value of 2s. 4d., the property of Jane Harris, on the 29th of February last. There have been more prepossessing ladies in the “cage” than Jane.

Mr. Harris stated that on the night in question she put out the counterpane to dry in the yard, and missed it on the following morning. Access to the yard could be obtained by means of a gate which was left open.

Jesse Robus, who was deaf and appeared somewhat stupid, deposed that he was at the Providence Inn in Beach Street yesterday morning, and the prisoner – whom he did not know – requested him to take a bundle to the pawn shop. He took it to Mr. Joseph, where the police were called in.

Sergeant Ovenden stated that he was called to Mr. Joseph's establishment, when the bundle containing the counterpane and a pair of curtains were handed over to him. He accompanied Robus to the Providence, where he pointed out prisoner. Witness arrested her and charged her with stealing the articles from the house of prosecutor. She replied “I did not steal it. Three soldiers of the Oxford Regiment tackled me. We had a scuffle and I picked up the counterpane with my own curtains in a bundle. I threw them in a window of Mr. Peden's and called for them next day”.

James Harris, in the employ of Mr. Peden, fruiterer, of Sandgate Road, said that on going to work on the morning of 1st March he found a bundle containing curtains in the cellar. From the position where he found them, they might have been thrown in through the window. He had been told that a woman had since claimed them.

Mr. Joseph, jun., having given evidence, Jane was called upon to answer the charge, when she said that what she had stated to the police was correct.

Having been previously convicted, she was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

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 Express 12 October 1889.

Thursday, October 10th: Before Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and J. Brooke Esq.

John Heron was charged with stealing a cloth coat, value 10s., the property of Henry Whiting.

Prosecutor, who resides at 35, Charlotte Street, said on the previous afternoon he went into the Providence Inn, and threw his coat on a chair. Prisoner came into the room, and he treated him. Witness went to sleep, and when he woke up his coat was gone and also the prisoner. A man named Cox was still in the room, and he asked Cox where his coat was. He went outside and saw prisoner with the coat on. He asked prisoner to give it up, and he said he would not unless he gave him 2s., saying he had bought it. Witness gave information to the police.

Prisoner said he told the prosecutor he could go and fetch a policeman, he should not run away, and he waited until the policeman came.

P.C. Stannage, who took the prisoner into custody, said he alleged that he lent prosecutor 2s. on the coat. Prosecutor denied it. Prosecutor had been drinking.

The case was remanded until Saturday.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 November 1897.

Local News.

Yesterday Thomas Riley was remanded until Monday on a charge of stealing a rabbit, the property of Wm. Stone, 21, Mill Bay.

 

Folkestone Express 20 November 1897.

Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Reilly was charged with stealing from a hut on the 8th November a live tame rabbit, value 4s., the property of William Stone, of 21, Mill Bay.

Prosecutor, a labourer, said the rabbit produced was his, and it was kept at the back of his house in a hutch in Mill Bay in the yard. He saw it on Monday evening at seven o'clock. At nine o'clock he saw the door of the hutch was open, and on going to look for the rabbit found it was gone. He saw it again on Thursday in the possession of a man named Bell, at 38, Bradstone Road. Its value was 4s. The yard was open to several houses, and prisoner had been there several times.

William John Bell, of 38, Bradstone Road, a mariner, said he bought the rabbit of prisoner at the Blue Anchor about a quarter to nine on Monday night. Prisoner asked half a crown for it, and witness bought it for 2s. and a pint of beer. Prisoner said it was his rabbit, but he had no convenience for keeping it.

Sergeant Dunster apprehended the prisoner and charged him with the theft. He said “Yes. I bought the rabbit from a man they call “Chalky Harry””. Afterwards he said he bought it from a man called “Bricky Tom”. At the police station, when charged, he said he did not steal the rabbit – ho bought it from another man and gave 1s. for it.

Prisoner persisted that he bought it, but did not know whether he could find the man from whom he bought it. He was remanded till Monday.

Monday, November 15th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Reilly, who had been remanded on Friday, was charged with stealing a rabbit.

Joseph Compron, of 14, Radnor Street, said he was in the bar of the Wonder Tavern on Monday evening, when he saw “Navvy Tom” speaking to prisoner. Afterwards they went out, and when they came in prisoner was carrying a parcel. Prisoner gave Tom a shilling and called for a quart of beer.

Adelaide Warman, of the Providence Inn, said that “Navvy Tom” came into the bar one night, and asked her if she wanted to buy a tame rabbit. She said “No”.

The Chairman: Well, prisoner, although you have called these witnesses, there seems no doubt that you stole the rabbit. We might send you to prison, but we think a fine will answer the purpose. We shall fine you 1, and in default you will have to go to prison for 14 days.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 November 1897.

Police Court Record.

Thomas Riley was charged on remand with stealing a live, tame rabbit.

In addition to the evidence previously taken as to the rabbit being missed from a hutch in the back yard of William stone, 21, Mill Bay, labourer, Joseph Compton, a labourer, 14, Radnor Street, deposed that on the night of the 8th inst. he saw a man known as “Navvy Tom” speak to defendant in the Wonder Tavern and hand him a parcel. The defendant returned later and gave “Navvy Tom” a shilling, which “Tom” handed to another man, and called for a quart of beer.

The daughter of the landlady of the Providence deposed that one night a watercress seller (known as “Navvy Tom”) asked her if she wanted a tame rabbit, and she replied in the negative.

The defendant's defence at the first hearing of the case was that he got the rabbit from another man.

The Bench fined defendant 1, or 14 days' hard labour.

The man called “Navvy Tom” was then charged with stealing the rabbit from a hutch.

In view of the Bench's decision in the previous case, Superintendent Taylor asked that the charge might be withdrawn.

This was agreed to by the Bench.

 

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 Express 17 June 1899.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Providence Inn was transferred from Joseph Charles Pettifer, one of the executors of the late licensee.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 June 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday the following transfer was granted: Providence Inn, Mr. Walter Henry Polhill.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 17 June 1899.

Transfer of Licence.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Providence Inn, Beach Street: Adelaide Warman to Walter Henry Polhill.

 

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 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.

Arthur Mott was granted temporary authority for the Providence Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1901.

Tuesday, June 18th: Before T.J. Vaughan Esq., and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Wm. Spearpoint was summoned for drunkenness of the 13th June.

Sergt. Lawrence said at 7.20 on the previous Thursday evening he saw prisoner very drunk in Beach Street. After being ejected fron the Providence Inn, he fell down in the street, and was incapable of moving.

Defendant, against whom there were seven previous convictions for the same offence, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs or seven days'.

 

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 Express 29 June 1901.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before Alderman J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and G. Peden Esqs., and Lieut Col. Westropp.

William Spearpoint, who was fined for a similar offence on the previous Tuesday, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and refusing to quit licensed premises on June 16th.

Sarah Mott, wife of the landlord of the Providence Inn, said the defendant went in on the 16th inst., and asked for a drink, but witness refused to serve him. Some of the customers persuaded him to leave. He refused to leave at witness's request, and she sent for the police, and Sergt. Lawrence ejected him.

The defendant said he had no recollection of the offence.

The Chief Constable said the policeman who ejected the defendant was not present, having been on night duty.

The Bench dismissed the defendant with a caution.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 June 1901.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before Aldermen Pledge and Spurgen, Councillors Peden and Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Wm. Spearpoint, who was before the court last Wednesday for drunkenness, was charged with having been drunk and refusing to quit licensed premises.

Mrs. Mott, landlady of the Providence Inn, said on the 16th inst. defendant came into the house the worse for drink. Some of the customers got him outside, and he then came in again, but he did not have anything to drink. Sergt. Lawrence came in, and defendant then went out, at the first time of asking. The sergeant had not to eject him.

Defendant said he was Guilty, but did not remember anything about it. He was dismissed with a caution.

 

Folkestone Express 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Providence Inn to Mr. Watt (sic).

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Arthur Watt (sic) was granted a licence for the Providence Inn.

 

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 Express 30 November 1901.

Saturday, November 23rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, Colonel Hamilton, and W. Wightwick, G.I. Swoffer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Providence Inn, Dover Street, was temporarily transferred to John Hoskins, late of Dover.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 November 1901.

Saturday, November 23rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Hoskins was granted temporary authority to sell at the Providence Inn.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1901.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before J. Stainer, G. Peden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Col. W.K. Westropp.

A special licensing sessions was held, when Mr. Hoskins was granted transfer of the licence of the Providence Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 January 1902.

Wednesday, January 15th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Alderman W. Salter.

The licence of the Providence Inn, Beach Street, was transferred from Arthur Mott to Henry Hoskins.

 

Folkestone Express 19 April 1902.

Wednesday, April 16th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Arthur Fredk. East was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Providence Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 14 June 1902.

Wednesday, June 11th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

A transfer of licence for the Providence Inn was granted to Mr. Eastes.

 

Folkestone Express 19 July 1902.

Saturday, July 12th: before Lieut. Colonel Westropp and J. Stainer Esq.

Stephen Bailey was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises, the Providence Inn.

Arthur F. Easts stated that defendant went to his house on the 8th July and asked for a pint of beer, saying he would pay some other time. Witness refused to trust him, but gave him a glass. He then asked for another glass, and when it was refused he became very violent, and as he wanted to fight he was put outside. He returned and knocked down a glass partition, breaking half a dozen tumblers.

Defendant, who had nothing to say, was fined 10s. and 9s. costs. He promised to pay for the damage.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 July 1902.

Saturday, July 12th: Before Mr. J. Stainer and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Stephen Bailey was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises.

Arthur Frederick East, proprietor of the Providence in East Street (sic), said that defendant was disorderly in his house.

Defendant pleaded Guilty, and was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

Allowed a week to pay.

 

Folkestone Express 28 February 1903.

Monday, February 23rd: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, G. Peden, and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Mary Ann May (on bail) was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Smoker said about 2.30 on Saturday afternoon he was called to the Providence Inn, where he saw defendant lying on the doorstep. On lifting her up he found she was too drunk to stand. With the assistance of a civilian, witness brought her to the police station.

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

The Superintendent said with reference to the woman being found on the doorstep he had seen the landlord, who said the woman was drunk when she entered the house, and when being put outside she fell on the steps and was unable to get up.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 February 1903.

Monday, February 23rd: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, G. Peden, and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Mary Ann May was charged with being drunk and incapable in Beach Street on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Smoker said that on Saturday afternoon, about half past two, he was called to the Providence beerhouse, Beach Street, when he saw the defendant lying in a doorway. He assisted her to rise, and found that she was in a drunken condition. With the assistance of a civilian he took her to the police station.

Defendant, who had nothing to say, was ordered to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

The Chief Constable informed the Bench that the landlord, seeing that the offence had occurred in his doorway, had called upon him on Saturday evening, and had explained that the woman was drunk when she came to the house, and he refused to serve her.

 

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 Express 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.

Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench, withdrawn.

The flowing counsel were engaged:- Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for the two new licences.

The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would, by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.

The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable spirit decide what reduction should then be made.

Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered, was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair, for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.

The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear all the evidence.

The Providence.

Inspector Swift gave evidence, and said there was no spirit licence in existence.

The Superintendent called attention to the number of transfers that had taken place.

Inspector Swift also said he had spoken to the licensee as to loose women frequenting the house, and he said if he did not serve those women he could not get a living.

Mr. Minter: I don't see any notice of objection on that ground.

The Superintendent: It is a proof of non-necessity of the house in my mind. It is an admission from the landlord himself.

Mr. Twyman, a representative of the owners, Messrs. Flint, explained how it was that there had been so many changes. It was previously in the hands of one tenant, Mr. Warman, for 34 years, but subsequently tenants had left for various reasons. The trade was five and a half barrels a week.

The Superintendent said the spirit licence was taken out for six months, and then lapsed.

Mr. Twyman said the owners did not know the licence had lapsed. The house was free for all but beer.

The Justices eventually granted the licence “for another year”.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o'clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

The five beerhouses on licences were granted before the 1st May, 1869, and had been continuously renewed since that date, therefore they could not refuse to renew the licences, except upon one of the four grounds set out in Section 8 of the Wine and Beerhouses Act, 1869.

The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed, between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.

At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.

The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.

Mr. Glyn: i think it would be fairer to the “trade” to postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.

The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.

Consideration of the applications for the renewal of licences to which objection was taken by the police was then proceeded with.

With regard to the Providence, the Chief Constable called the attention of the Justices to the number of transfers which had taken place at this house recently.

Inspector Swift deposed that the house was one of a block of five in Beach Street, four of which were public houses.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that in August last he complained to the landlord about something which he had seen in the house, and he replied “If I could not serve the women I could not get a living”.

Mr. Twyman, representative of Messrs. Flint, brewers, Canterbury, the owners of the house, explained the reasons why so many tenants had been in the house. In the first instance, he said, the tenant held the licence for thirty four years, and after his death four or five years ago his widow carried it on for two years. The next tenant was in about a year and a half, and the next man who took it was a fish dealer. Owing to the fact that he was away from home a good deal, and because they thought it was not satisfactory that a woman should be left so much alone, they advised him to give up the house. Unfortunately the wife of the tenant who followed was not satisfactory, and the present tenant entered into the occupation in April last.

Applicant stated that he had now found from enquiry that it would serve his purpose to take out a spirit licence, and if the licence was renewed, he would immediately do so.

Mr. Minter, who appeared in support of the application, said that of all the cases this was the one of which they might fairly give them another twelve months before they dealt with them. (Laughter)

The Chairman: We will grant this licence for another year.

 

Folkestone Express 22 August 1903.

Wednesday, August 19th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

A temporary transfer of the licence of the Providence Inn was granted from Arthur Frederick East to Henry Green.

 

Folkestone Express 5 September 1903.

Wednesday, September 2nd: Before W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer Esqs.

The licence of the Providence Inn was transferred from Arthur Frederick East to Henry Green.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 September 1903.

Wednesday, September 2nd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer.

Licence was transferred as follows: Providence Inn, Beach Street, from Frederick East to Henry Green.

 

Folkestone Express 5 December 1903.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Colonel Westropp and E.T. Ward Esq.

A plan showing proposed alterations to the Providence Inn was approved.

 

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 Herald 11 June 1904.

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

Joseph Martin was charged with another man in being concerned in stealing a pair of boots.

George Punnett said he lived at No. 23, Radnor Street. He was in the Providence Inn on the day in question when prisoner and another man came into the bar, the latter carrying a parcel. The man who was carrying the parcel said “Who wants to buy a pair of soldiers' boots? They have only been worn once”. He (prisoner's companion) also said he had been to the pawn shop in order to pawn the boots, but it was closed. Prisoner said “They're a nice pair of boots; who'll give half a crown for them?” Witness caught hold of the boots and, putting one on, said “They just fit me. I'll have them”. He went out, and returned in a few minutes with the half crown. He handed it to prisoner, and he gave him (witness) the boots. Prisoner and the other man left the house together. On Friday, the 3rd inst., he saw the man who was with prisoner at the police station.

Mr. H. Warren said he was a boot salesman, carrying on business in Dover Street. He identified the boots by a private mark, T 4s. 11d., as his property. On Thursday a number of boots were hanging outside the shop, but he did not miss any until the police called.

Prisoner was remanded until Wednesday.

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

Joseph Martin, a street artist, and George Smith were charged with being concerned in stealing a pair of boots from a shop in Dover Street, the property of Mr. Hy. Warren.

On being taken from the police station to the Court the prisoner Martin made an attempt to escape, but was overpowered by three constables. Immediately on being placed in the dock he took off one of his boots, with the intention apparently of hurling it at Inspector Lilley. A struggle followed, and the Chief Constable and Detective Burniston came to the assistance, the Inspector taking off Martin's other boot while the constables held him firmly. This done, prisoner became somewhat quieter, and the case was proceeded with.

The evidence of Stephen Punnett and Henry Warren, given at the hearing on Monday, was repeated.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that on Friday, the 3rd inst., he saw the prisoner Martin detained at the Dover police station. He said to him “I shall charge you with being concerned with a man named George Smith, now in custody at Folkestone, with stealing from outside a shop, No. 66, Dover Street, one pair of boots”. He cautioned him, and Martin said “I met the man at the Providence Inn, and sold the boots for him”. Witness took him to the Folkestone police station, and there charged him, but he made no reply. That (Wednesday) morning he charged the prisoners with being concerned together with stealing a pair of boots. Neither made any reply to the charge.

Smith repeated the story that he was in drink at the time, and did not know what he was doing.

Martin said “I received the money for them, but he (pointing to Smith) “pinched” them.

Both prisoners were sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 9 July 1904.

Wednesday, July 6th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and J. Stainer Esq.

Edward Wilson was summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises of the Providence Inn on June 27th. Defendant did not appear.

P.C. Sales said he saw the defendant in Beach Street, drunk, in company with another man. They went into the Providence Inn. Witness followed, and drew the landlord's attention to defendant's condition, and told him not to serve him. Defendant was refused drink, and was asked by the landlord to leave the premises. At first he refused to go. When witness asked him for his name and address, he gave a wrong name and address. When witness told him he should report him, he left the house.

Fined 5s., and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 July 1904.

Tuesday, July 5th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Edward Wilson was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Providence Inn.

P.C. Sales stated that about ten o'clock on the night of the 27th ult. he was in Beach Street, when he saw the defendant, who was drunk, go into the Providence Inn with another man. The attention of the landlord was called to the man, and the former refused to serve him. Wilson declined to go at first, and gave a false name. Subsequently he left the house, and witness found out his correct name.

Defendant was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

 

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 Express 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Chronicle for details).

The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year. With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses, viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those houses would be compensated.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.

The Providence.

This house was opposed on the ground of redundancy.

The Chief Constable deposed that it was a fully licensed house, but the spirit licence had not been put in force. Last year the licence was renewed on condition that the spirit licence should be taken out. The trade had increased since the new tenant took the house. No complaint had been made about the house.

 

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 Express 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The objection against the licence of Mr. Henry Green, of the Providence Inn, was then heard.

The Chief Constable said in that case he should like to call for the register in order to show the number of transfers which had been made in that house. During the last ten years there had been six transfers of the house. The Providence was in a block of four in Beach Street, the three other houses being the Blue Anchor, the Queen's Head, and the Wonder. The house in question was a fully licensed one, and the present licensee obtained the transfer in September, 1903. Messrs. Flint and Co. were the registered owners and the rateable value was 20. Three of the houses were fully licensed, including the Providence, and the Wonder was a beer “on”. The accommodation for the public consisted of two small compartments and a tap room. There was a small snug which was very dark indeed. Within a a radius of 100yards there were 24 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33, and within 200 yards there were 37. At the annual licensing meeting in 1903, he was directed to oppose the renewal of the licence on account of redundancy and structural reasons, and also because there was no spirit licence in force for the sale of spirits, although at the time it was a fully licensed house. The licence was renewed on the undertaking that the spirit licence would be taken up. It seemed to him there was a very small trade done at the house, and in his opinion it was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said the trade done was small. The class of customers were fishermen who resided in the neighbourhood, flower hawkers, and a few women. He did not think the licence was necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Insp. Swift said he had known the Providence for 22 years. A lot of young men, mere youths, used the house.

Mr. Green went into the witness box, and said he sometimes sold seven barrels in a fortnight, and sometimes eight. He did not encourage youths to go to his house. The trade of the house had increased since he took it.

Cross-examined, he said he did not think that if his house was shut up there would be sufficient accommodation for his customers elsewhere.

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

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in which they were situated.

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

The register showing the number of transfers that had been effected in connection with the house was produced by the Chief Constable, who said that there were six transfers in the last ten years. The present licensee was Mr. Henry Green, who obtained the transfer of the licence in September, 1903. The rateable value was 20. The house was in Beach Street, and was one of a block of four on-licensed houses, three fully licensed and one beer on. The house had two entrances, one on each side, and the accommodation provided for the public consisted of two small compartments and a tap room. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 24 on-licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33 on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards there were 37 other houses. Witness had been instructed the previous year to oppose the house on the ground of redundancy, and because it had no spirit licence. However, the licence was renewed on an undertaking that a spirit licence would be taken out. There seemed to him to be very little trade done at the house, and in his opinion it was unnecessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Avory: The licence had been held by a tenant named Warman for thirty years. In 1899 it passed from Mrs. Warman, the former landlord's widow, to a man named Polhill, who gave it up in 1902. There had been three other tenants, the last of whom was the present tenant. In 1903 some alterations were made with the sanction of the Bench. The tenant had no other occupation. Witness believed that he did a better trade than the previous tenant.

Detective Sergeant Burniston described the trade of the house as a small one. Its customers were a few fishermen and a few female hawkers. The bar was dark on account of being low pitched. The four houses in the block were badly constructed, but three of them were larger and lighter than the Providence.

Inspector Swift said that he had known the house for 22 years. It was frequented by youths, women of questionable character, and juvenile soldiers.

Mr. Avory: Do you think public houses are only intended for old men?

Witness: No, sir. They are used by young men, very young.

Further questioned, witness said that certain revelry and singing went on in this house, which other adjoining houses would not put up with.

Mr. Henry Green, the tenant of the house, stated that he sold seven or eight barrels of beer in a fortnight. Most of his customers were fishermen. He offered no special inducements to young people, and he denied that he had more persons of questionable character in than did any other landlord. His trade had greatly increased.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve: If the Bench took away his licence his customers would have to go elsewhere, and he did not think that there would be sufficient accommodation for them anywhere else.

Mr. Avery contended that the marking of an arbitrary area on a plan as had been done by the Chief Constable produced an unfair result, for the reason that in every town one spot could be divided out where there was a cluster of licensed houses. The Bench should not be guided by any line drawn upon a map, because in that way they would not give due consideration to the wants of the people who were outside that district. The Magistrates were not dealing with theoretical questions, but questions of practical politics, namely, as to whether any of the houses should be sent to Quarter Sessions for consideration. He submitted that it was worthy of consideration whether any practical result would follow from a reference of those cases to the Quarter Sessions for the county. He believed, from inquiry, that at the present moment it would be found that there had been referred to Quarter Sessions a number of houses far exceeding any possible strain which the compensation funds could be put to. In other words the compensation funds would not be sufficient for the number of cases which would require to be met. The result would be that a total deadlock would be produced at Quarter Sessions. It could not have been intended by the Legislature that those objections should be multiplied by an enormous number of houses being referred, all of which were to have a claim upon the compensation funds, when there were no funds, or the funds were not sufficient. Quarter Sessions would be obliged to say “We must hold our hands, for we cannot deal with any of the questions, or we shall be obliged to reduce the amounts below what they should be”. Counsel further argued that in the case of Raven v Southampton Justices it was laid down that it was not sufficient to produce a map which, when viewed, showed there were too many houses in any particular neighbourhood, but that there should be some grounds distinguishing it from other licensed houses in the neighbourhood which justified the taking away of that licence rather than the licences of other houses in that street or the adjoining street. He went on to compare the Perseverance and the Welcome Inn, houses practically together, where convictions had been recorded against one and not the other, and yet the Perseverance was opposed while the other was not.

The Bench decided to refer the case to Quarter Sessions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 March 1905.

The adjourned licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq. (in the chair).

Mr. Minter applied for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant a provisional license in the meantime.

Mr. Mowll next applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster. After hearing the evidence, the Bench came to a similar decision.

They also referred the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs. Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor Else.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 May 1905.

Local News.

We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the 15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and four from Elham.

The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The Star.

The Committee have decided that there is no need to interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.

 

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 Daily News 26 May 1905.

East Kent Licensing Authority.

At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports in Seagate Street came up for hearing.

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs. Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.

Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases were proceeded with on their merits.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.

Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation is settled.

The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with at present.

 

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 Express 3 June 1905.

East Kent Licensing.

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

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

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.

The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone Chronicle)

Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases of drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police in carrying out their duties.

The Welcome public house was objected to on the ground of misconduct. The Hope, the Channel, the Providence, the Tramway and the Blue Anchor were objected to on the ground that they were not required. All the other licences were granted.

 

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 Express 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone Chronicle for details)

The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their premises.

All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of misconduct.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Chronicle)

It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions the licences of the Blue Anchor, the Providence, the Welcome, the Tramway, the Channel, and the Hope would be opposed, on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood. The licence holders of those houses received this information as they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 February 1906.

Local News.

The annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held on Wednesday, before E.T. Ward Esq., in the chair.

The Chief Constable reported that there were 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz., full licenses 85, beer “on” 9, beer “off” 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 5, and confectioners' 3. This gave an average, according to the census of 1901, of one license to every 225 persons, or one “on” license to every 326 persons. Three of the “off” licenses (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist), would not be renewed, as the premises were no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons. During the year ended 31st December, 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were, convicted and 19 discharged. This was an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and 8, convicted as compared with the preceding year. Only one license holder had been convicted during the year. All the licenses were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following houses on the ground that they were not necessary: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notice with regard to the Welcome Inn, on the ground of misconduct.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 5th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Providence.

This licence was opposed on the grounds of its not being required, and the Bench decided to refer it to Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Mercer appeared in the above case for the owners.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday, when the six licences which were adjourned from the Brewster Sessions were considered. On the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Providence.

The next licence to be considered was the Providence. Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of Messrs. Flint and Co., Canterbury, the owners, and also the tenant.

The Chief Constable said he would first put in a plan on which he had marked the whole of the public houses in a congested area, which was formed by a line from the Harbour, up High Street, along the Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and then over Radnor Bridge to the sea. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,500, five to a house. There were 42 on-licensed houses within the area, being 36 fully-licensed and six beer “on”, giving a proportion of one on licence to every 109 inhabitants within that area, whilst for the borough at large the number was one to every 326 inhabitants. There were also situate within the area six licences for the sale of beer, liquor, and spirits off the premises, one refreshment house with a licence, and one off licence, making a total of 50 houses for the sale of drink by retail, being one licence for every 92 persons within that area, against one to every 230 in the borough. There were 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, 93 arose within that congested area. The house in question was the Providence Inn, situate in Beach Street. It was opposed on the ground that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was Mr. Henry Green, who obtained a transfer of the licence on September 2nd, 1903. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co. The rateable value of the house was 30. The house formed one of a block of five in Beach Street, in which there were three fully licensed and one beerhouse. There were two entrances to the house, one on each side. The accommodation for the public consisted of two small compartments and a tap room. The accommodation for the licensee was on the first floor. There had been five transfers of the licence within the past seven years. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 other licensed houses, within a radius of 150 yards there were 30 other on licences, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 33 other on licences. The premises altogether were very small, and the accommodation, both for the public and the licensee, he considered to be the worst of the licensed houses in that particular block.

Cross-examined, the Chief Constable said the house was objected to last year. It went before the Compensation Authority, who at their preliminary meeting were willing to renew it. There was really no alteration in the circumstances which existed last year, save that the Duke of Edinburgh had been closed.

Mr. Mercer said the house was only tied for malt liquors. The trade done averaged 137 barrels of beer and 52 gallons of spirits a year. The rent of the property was 12 a year. Mr. Mercer commented upon the fact why other houses were not objected to in the block, and considered that there should be some evidence of differentiation. The only difference he could see in the houses of the block was that his house did not occupy such a large amount of ground space. There was not a word against the house; it had a good trade and it was in a good position.

The Chairman said the justices had decided to refer the licence to the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Mr. T. Ames.

The Providence.

The case of the Providence Inn was next taken. Mr. R.M. Mercers appeared for the owners (Messrs. Flint and Co.).

The Chief Constable, in the course of his evidence produced a plan, on which he had marked the whole of the public houses. Within a certain area there were 920 houses, with a population of approximately 4,600. There were 62 on-licensed houses within the area, being 56 full licences and 6 beerhouses, giving a proportion of two on-licences for every 109 inhabitants within the congested area, whilst for the borough at large the proportion was one for every 326 inhabitants. There were also situated within the area six licences for the sale of beer, spirits, etc., off the premises, one refreshment house with a wine on-licence, and one wine off-licence, making a total of 70 licences for the sale of drink by retail, being two licences to every 92 persons within the area, against 1to every 230 for the borough at large. There were also four registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a membership of 898. During the year 1905, out of 183 charges of drunkenness in the borough, 93 arose within the congested area. The house in question, the Providence, was in Beach Street. He opposed it on the ground that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was Henry Green, who obtained a transfer of the licence on the 2nd September, 1903. The rateable value of the house was 20. The house formed one of a block of five in Beach Street. There were two entrances to the house, one on each side. The accommodation consisted of two small compartments and a tap room. The accommodation for the licensee was on the first floor. There had been five transfers of the licence within the last seven years. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards there were 30 other on licensed houses; and within a radius of 200 yards there were 33 other on licensed houses. He considered the trade a small one. The premises were altogether very small, and the accommodation for the licensee and the public was, he considered, worse than that of any other licensed house in that particular neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The house was objected to last year. The compensation authority renewed the licence at their preliminary meeting. There had not been sufficient time yet to judge whether drunkenness had decreased in consequence of the closing of the houses the licences of which had already been taken away.

Mr. Mercer addressed the Bench on behalf of the owners. The house, he said, was a fully licensed one, only tied for malt liquors. The average trade was 136 barrels of beer. The bar was altered last year at a cost of some 50, which the owners spent. Why were not the other houses objected to close by? Why should that one be singled out? The Magistrates were bound to have a principle of differentiation. They could not shut up houses without some reason. The Master of the Rolls had said it was contrary to common justice that one house should be selected out of a mass of houses. There must be evidence. There was no evidence here of differentiation at all. He did not protest against it; it was unfair.

The Chairman said the house would be referred to Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 1 October 1906.

Canterbury Licensing Sessions.

At the Canterbury Licensing Sessions today the question of the renewal of the licences of The Hope, The Tramway, The Providence, and The Blue Anchor came up for hearing. Lord Harris presided. The Folkestone Licensing Justices were represented by Mr. T. Matthew, instructed by Mr. H.B. Bradley.

The case occupied some time, and eventually the justices unanimously decided not to grant the renewal of either of the licences, but to uphold and confirm the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Bench.

The question of compensation will come up for consideration at a later date.

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1906.

Local News.

On Monday last the East Kent Licensing Bench at Canterbury considered the question of renewing the licences of the Providence, the Hope, the Tramway Tavern, and the Blue Anchor, public houses referred to them by the Folkestone licensing justices. In each case they decided to refuse the granting of the licence, and the next matter for them to consider will be how much compensation is to be paid to the brewers and holders of the licences for the closing of the houses.

 

From the Canterbury Journal and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 6 October, 1906.

THE PROVIDENCE, FOLKESTONE.

Mr. R. M. Mercer represented the owners and tenant of the "Providence," Folkestone, and Mr. H. B. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices of Folkestone.

Chief Constable Reeve, of Folkestone, stated that the "Providence" was in close proximity to other licensed houses, it being one of a block of four public houses. The licence of the other three public houses in the same block - had been withdrawn that morning. The accommodation and the trade at the house were very small.

Detective-Sergeant Burniston stated that the trade done at the house was of a low character, and, in his opinion, the house was unnecessary.

Mr. R. M. Mercer said he hoped it would not be thought that he was going back on his intention not to contest the case, but as the licences of all the other houses had been refused he hoped they would listen to what feeble resistance they allowed on those occasions. (Laughter.) Mr. Mercer then appealed to the Bench to renew the licence of the "Providence Inn."

The Committee refused to renew the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 October 1906.

Local News.

The Compensation Authority for East Kent sat at Canterbury on Monday and Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding.

Amongst the 31 houses scheduled, there were four from Folkestone. These were; The Providence, Blue Anchor, the Hope, and the Tramway.

The owners of the Providence and the Hope sought for renewals.

In these cases Mr. H.B. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices of Folkestone in opposition to the renewals, and Mr. R.M. Mercer, of Canterbury, appeared for the owners and tenants.

Mr. H. Reeve (Chief Constable) stated that in the case of the Providence it was in close proximity to other licensed houses, and in fact comprised one of a block of four public houses in a very small area. The accommodation and the trade done were both very small, and the house had been transferred five times during the last seven years. It was a stuffy little place, and the central bar so placed that the licensee could not have supervision over the whole of the bar.

In reply to Mr. Mercer, witness said the house was referred back last year, and then renewed. The rateable value was 32.

Mr. Mercer: You told the Committee there had been five transfers in seven years. You might have said five in thirty seven, as one tenant was there for 30 years. Have you attacked the Royal George? – Not yet, sir. (Laughter)

Why not? – Because it is a better house than this.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said the trade done was of a very poor class.

Mr. Mercer spoke of the other houses in the block having been withdrawn, and the Providence ought to remain, as it was the oldest in the neighbourhood.

The Committee declined to grant the application.

In the cases of the Providence, Blue Anchor and the Hope, the fixing of the compensation was adjourned to a subsequent meeting.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GITTENS Jane 1838

FOX Margaret 1841

FOX Francis 1842-51 (age 52 in 1851Census)

FOX Thomas 1846-53 Bagshaw's Directory 1847

POPE Zachariah 1853-57

WARREN Maria 1857-60

WARMAN Stephen 1861 (age 76 in 1861Census)

WARMAN William 1860-95 (son) (age 65 in 1891Census) Post Office Directory 1862Post Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891

WARMAN Adelaide 1895-99

PETTIFER Joseph Charles (As Executor) 1899

POLHILL Walter 1899-1901

MOTT Arthur 1901

HOSKIN Henry 1901-02

EAST Frederick 1902-03

GREEN Henry 1903-06

 

EPPS Herbert J Epps 1922 Post Office Directory 1922

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room