DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 17 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1864

Raglan Hotel

Sept 2016

104 (119) Dover Road

Folkestone

Raglan Hotel 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Raglan watercolour 1980

Above watercolour 1980 painted 2004 by Stuart Gresswell, once licensee of "Guildhall" and "Raglan" kindly sent by Jan Pedersen.

Raglan, Folkestone

Picture taken from Folkestone CAMRA website and hopefully to be updated. http://www.camra-afrm.org.uk

Raglan 2009

Above photo 2009 by Nick Smith Creative Commons Licence.

Raglan 2016

Above Google image, August 2016.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 29 September, 1871.

PUBLIC-HOUSE TO LET

The "Carpenter's Arms," Peter Street, Charlton, Dover; also the "Lord Raglan," near the South-Eastern Railway Station, Folkestone. Apply to Alfred Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover.

 

From The Dover Express, Friday, November 10, 1871.

PUBLIC-HOUSE TO LET.

THE "Lord Raglan," near the South-Eastern Railway Station, Folkestone.

Apply to Alfred Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald, Saturday 6 May 1933.

Death of well-known licensee. Mr. Bert Twigg.

The death of Mr. H. G. Twigg, of the "Raglan Hotel," Dover Road, at his residence on Friday evening last week, was learnt with deep regret by members of the licensed trade.

Bert Twigg, as he was familiarly known, was 61 years of age, and had held a licence during the past 13 years.

He had been in ill health for the past two years, and had undergone several operations at the Royal Victoria Hospital. At one time he appeared to have recovered, but after a relapse he did not regain good health.

He was of an exceedingly jovial disposition, and was a striking figure.

He served in the Middlesex Regiment (Territorial Army) for a number of years, reaching the rank of Sergeant-Major, and being awarded the Long Service decoration.

In the trade he was an energetic worker, and a popular member of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. He was a member of the committee for a number of years and at one time was Chairman of the Association.

The deepest sympathy is extended to the widow and son in their sad bereavement.

The Funeral.

The funeral took place at Canterbury on Monday.

 

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

Just been informed 24 January 2015, that the pub has been sold for redevelopment into; you guess it; FLATS.

Latest news is I have heard the pub is apparently closed in September 2016.

 

Folkestone Observer 24 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

The magistrates issued their licensing certificates on Wednesday to all established publicans who applied for them, Mr. Morford, of the Fountain, being the only pub who got a lecture, and that a not very severe one. There were seven applications for new houses, and certificates were granted for four, namely: The Rendezvous, Mr. S. Hogben (another publican lost a 10 bet over this, we hear); Alexandra, Mr. Spurrier: Raglan, Mr. Lepper; and a house in Bouverie Mews, Mr. J. B. Tolputt.

Notes: If this is the first license for the Raglan it puts the accepted date of 1864 into doubt. Also, no record of Tolputt having a license anywhere. Could this, however, be the first license for the Albion Hotel?

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.

The third applicant was Mr. Godfrey Lepper, for a license to the Raglan Tavern, a house recently erected in the Dover Road, to which no special opposition was offered.

The court was then cleared for a short time, and on the re-admission of the public Captain Kennicott said the magistrates had decided on granting a license to Mr. Lepper.

Note: The granting of the license for the Raglan seems to throw doubt on the 1864 date claimed in More Bastions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 August 1866.

Local News.

Wednesday last was the annual licensing day, when the magistrates on the bench were Capt. Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt and A. M. Leith Esqrs.

All the old licenses were renewed. There were seven applications for new licences namely, Mr. Hogben for the Rendezvous, in Broad Street, (lately opened as a luncheon bar); Mr. Spurrier, for the Alexandra, in Harbour Street; Mr. Lepper, for a new house, the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Road; Mr. J. B. Tolputt, for a house in Bouverie Square; Mr. Elliott for the Gun, Cheriton- Road; Mr. Tite, for the Shakespeare, Cheriton Row; and Mr. Mullett, for the Star, in Seagate Street. The Bench granted licences to the four first-named, and refused the other applications. Mr. J. Minter presented a petition signed by all the publicans in the town against new licences, and appeared specially to oppose the granting of licences to the Rendezvous and Star.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 December 1866.

Court Of Bankruptcy, London.

Wednesday December 12th (Before Mr. Registrar Roche).

Re. Godfrey Lepper – This was the first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees, under the bankruptcy of Godfrey Lepper, described as of the Raglan Tavern, 1, Dover Street, corner of Mill Lane, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, Builder, Contractor, and Licensed Victualler.

Mr. J.F. Holmes, solicitor, 6, Milk Street, Cheapside, appeared for the bankrupt, who petitioned the court on the 28th day of November last, attributing his bankruptcy to the following cause, viz: inability to sell or let the property built by bankrupt. The total amount of his debts is 1300 unsecured, due to creditors residing in Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury and Dover; and to creditors holding security about 2500, making an aggregate of about 3800.

After the admission of a number of proofs, Mr. J. Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Company), of Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of court under the 110th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1863, the Registrar reported that the resolution was duly carried, and adjourned the sitting till Saturday next, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Winslow to stay further proceedings.

It was stated to the reporter that the bankrupt's assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the .

Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting, and the proceedings ended.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 December 1866.

Local News.

Re Godfrey Lepper: The first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees under this bankruptcy took place before Mr. Registrar Roche, on Wednesday last.

The bankrupt, who was described as of the Raglan Tavern, No. 1, Dover Street, Folkestone, builder, contractor, and licensed victualler, attributed his bankruptcy to inability to sell or let the property built by himself. The total amount of the bankrupt’s debts is 1,300 unsecured due to creditors residing at Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury, and Dover, and to creditors holding security about 2,600. Mr. James Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Co.), Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of court under the 110th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the sitting was adjourned, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Winslow to stay further proceedings. It was stated that the bankrupt's assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the . Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 December 1866.

Wednesday December 19th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Thomas Sandford and Edward Stone, alias Bayley, were charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, of the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday the 16th.

Godfrey Lepper deposed that the prisoners were at his house on Sunday afternoon just after five o'clock, when he came back from the Harbour. They were in the bar, Bayley sitting down, Sandford standing up by the counter. They remained there the greater part of the evening. Before they left he missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf by a clock in the bar, which were there when he closed the house at five minutes past three that afternoon. The shelf is eight feet from the ground, and cannot be reached except by standing on the counter. He did not accuse prisoners of taking the cigars, but asked his wife if she had taken them down. She said not, but neither of the prisoners answered. Superintendent Martin brought the loose cigars produced tied up in a handkerchief to him at half past eight o'clock last evening. They were his property, and the same as had been stolen on Sunday last. He identified them by the ribbon that tied them. He accompanied the Superintendent to the prisoner Stone's house, at a quarter to eleven o'clock, in Charlotte Place. I found two bundles of cigars buried in the garden at the back. He saw Sandford in custody at the police station and heard him say “Stone took the cigars and gave them to me”. Saw Stone arrested: at first he said he was innocent, but when shown those taken from Sandford's garden, admitted that he had taken them, and that the others were concealed in a heap of shavings.

Cross-examined by the prisoner Sandford: There are other cigars in the town like those, but I know these are the ones that were stolen.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull said he knew both prisoners well. Sandford lives about fourteen yards from him. About four o'clock on the previous afternoon, as he was out in his meadow looking at the sheep, he saw in the dyke between his meadow and that of Sandford's a bundle, which on opening he found to be the loose cigars produced. There were 96 cigars, which he handed over to the police.

P.C. Sharpe said that last evening at seven o'clock he went to the Black Bull Inn, and received from the last witness the cigars, which he gave to Supt. Martin.

Henry Newman, a bricklayer, said he knew both the prisoners. He was in Stone's company on Sunday afternoon at the Raglan Tavern at twenty minutes to three o'clock. He saw prosecutor on Monday morning, who told him the cigars were stolen, and afterwards he met Stone and told him that Lepper said if he would return them he would forgive him. Stone said he hadn't had them. He then said Lepper was going to send a policeman after Sandford, and Stone asked what had Sandford done with his box of cigars?

P.C. Reynolds said: from information received he went last evening about eight o'clock to the prisoner Sandford's house, charged him with stealing the cigars, and took him into custody. Sandford said “I don't know nothing about it”. He took him to the police station, and on the way there told him some cigars had been found at the back of his premises. At the police station Supt. Martin charged him and he said “Stone took them and gave them to me”. Afterwards apprehended Stone at his house in Charlotte Place, about ten o'clock, and charged him with the robbery, but he said he was innocent, and that the house might be searched, and no cigars could be found. He brought him to the police station, where Sandford repeated before him his statement that Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. Stone afterwards said “I took 'em and you'll find mine buried in the garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief under some shavings”. Witness went and found the cigars as he said.

Supt. Martin deposed that he had received the first bundle of cigars produced from P.C. Sharpe last evening, and the second bundle from P.C. Reynolds. He had heard that constable's evidence, and it was correct as far as regards the statement of the prisoners.

Stone pleaded Guilty. Sandford refused to plead. They were then formally committed to the next Quarter Sessions, and applied to be released on bail, but after a consultation the bench decided to refuse Stone, but admitted Sandford – if he could find bail for 120 – himself in 60, and two sureties of 30 each, thus practically refusing bail to both prisoners.

 

Folkestone Observer 22 December 1866.

Wednesday December 19th:- Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

William Sanford, 20, and Edward Stone, 28, were charged with stealing some cigars.

Godfrey Lepper said: I am a carpenter, and landlord of the Raglan Tavern at the corner of Mill Lane. I know both the prisoners. I saw the prisoners in my house at five minutes past five on Sunday afternoon the 16th instant. They were in the bar. The prisoner Stone was sitting down and the prisoner Sandford was leaning against the counter. They remained there from half an hour to three quarters of an hour. Before they left I missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf beside the clock in the bar. I had seen them safe at five minutes past three o'clock in the afternoon. Both the prisoners were in the bar at that time. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor, and you have to get on the counter to reach it. Superintendent Martin showed me some cigars last evening tied up in a handkerchief. I compared the cigars with some which I had in a box, and I am able to identify them as my property. The cigars produced are the same cigars as those produced by Superintendent Martin showed me. The value of the two boxes of cigars I lost is 25s. I went with Superintendent Martin to the prisoner Stone's house in Charlotte Place last evening about a quarter to eleven o'clock. P.C. Reynolds, who was with us, dug a hole in the back garden by the wall, and found the handkerchief now produced, containing two bundles of cigars. I identify them by comparison with the other cigars that I have, and by the ribbon with which they are tied up. I saw the prisoner Sandford in custody at the station house last night about half past ten o'clock. I heard the prisoner Sandford say Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. I was present at Stone's house when he was taken into custody by P.C.s Woodlands and Reynolds, and accompanied them to the station house, where we arrived about half past ten o'clock. I heard Stone say he was innocent. When the cigars had been produced which had been taken from Sandford, Stone then said he had taken the cigars, and told us we should find the others at the back of his house in the garden.

Cross-examined by Sandford: I can swear that the cigars were my property, and I have cigars in court with which they can be compared.

Robert Fisher said: I am landlord of the Black Bull. I know both the prisoners. Sandford lives about forty rods from me. Last night about four o'clock I was in my meadow at the back of my house, and happening to turn my head I saw lying in the dyke between my meadow and Sandford's garden a parcel tied up in a red and white cotton handkerchief. I took it up and opened it, and found it to contain ninety six cigars and a cork. I took them indoors and thought someone had taken them from my house. My wife told me that P.C. Reynolds had been up the night before enquiring about some cigars. I handed the cigars to P.C. Sharpe.

P.C. Sharpe said: I went to the Black Bull last night about seven o'clock, and received from the last witness the parcel of cigars now produced, which he said he had found at the top of the meadow near Sandford's garden.

Henry Newman, bricklayer, living at No. 23, Darlington, said: I know both the prisoners. I was in the company of Stone on Saturday, about twenty minutes to three in the afternoon at the Raglan Tavern. On Monday morning I saw Mr. Lepper, and he asked me if I knew anything about two boxes of cigars, which he had missed on Sunday afternoon. I told him No. He said “There were only you, Stone and Sandford there yesterday afternoon”. Afterwards, while at work behind the Chequers, I saw Stone and asked him if he knew anything about the cigars. He said No. I told him if he had anything to do with them, if I was he, I would take them back to save any farther bother, for Mr. Lepper said if they were taken back he would forgive them. He said he knew nothing about them. I said Mr. Lepper was going to send a policeman and have Sandford locked up. He then said “What's he done with his box of cigars?”. I took him on one side and told him if he had got the cigars and would let me have them I would take them back to Mr. Lepper and try to make it up. He said he had not got them.

Cross-examined by Stone: I believe I came and saw you on Monday morning. It was not four o'clock in the afternoon.

Prisoner: I will settle up with him next year. I have nothing more to ask him.

P.C. Reynolds said: Last evening about half past eight o'clock, from information I received I went to the prisoner Sandfard's house. He came and opened the door and I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. I took him to the station. On the road I told him there had been some cigars found at the back of his premises. After I had him at the police station the Superintendent charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he said. He then asked hm if he wished to give any explanation as to the cigars that were placed on the table in front of him. He said Stone took them and gave them to him. I afterwards, about ten o'clock, apprehended Stone at his house in Charlotte Terrace. I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars at Mr. Lepper's house on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it; he was innocent. I asked him if he had any cigars about his premises. He said No, he was innocent. I might search the premises where I liked. I then took him into custody and brought him to the police station. Superintendent Martin charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he had to say. He fetched the prisoner Sandford out of the cell, put him in front of Stone, laid the bundle of cigars on the table and the question was asked Sandford if Stone did not give him the cigars. He said “Yes, Stone took them and gave them to me”. Stone made no answer, but directly afterwards Stone said “I took them, and you will find mine buried in a garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief, underneath some shavings”. I went about a quarter to eleven last night and dug in the garden, and found the bundle of cigars produced (a second bundle) tied up in a handkerchief.

Superintendent Martin Said: I received the handkerchief, paper and cigars produced (the first bundle) from P.C. Sharpe last evening; and from P.C. Reynolds the handkerchief and two bundles of cigars now produced (the second bundle). They have been in my possession since I received them. I heard the deposition of Reynolds, and it is quite correct so far as the statements made by the prisoners are concerned.

The prisoners being cautioned, Stone pleaded Guilty; Sandford said nothing.

The bench then committed the prisoners for trial at the next quarter sessions, and bound the witnesses to prosecute.

Both prisoners then applied to be permitted to give bail. The bench refused to allow bail to Stone, who admitted his guilt, but would take bail for Sandford in two sureties of 30 each and himself in 60.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 January 1867.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday January 3rd:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Larceny.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Edward Stone and Thomas Sandford for stealing on the 16th December last two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, of the Raglan Tavern. A second count charged Sandford with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen.

This being all the business of the Grand Jury, the Recorder thanked them for their attendance and discharged them.

The indictments having been read over to the prisoners, Stone pleaded Guilty; Sandford Not Guilty to both counts. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner Sandford.

The first witness, Godfrey Lepper, had been called, when the Grand Jury returned and said there was some misunderstanding. They had found a true bill against Sandford on the second count only, and thrown out the first count – that of stealing. On reference to the bill, it was endorsed “True Bill”, and the Recorder said he did not know what to do, the Grand Jury being discharged, they were no longer in existence, and he could not take notice of them.

The facts of the case having been fully recorded in our issue of a fortnight since, it will only be necessary to give an outline of it.

Godfrey Lepper, the prosecutor, deposed that the prisoners were drinking together in his house on Sunday afternoon and evening, the 16th December. During that time two boxes of cigars were stolen from the bar, where prisoners were. On Tuesday a bundle of cigars, wrapped in a handkerchief, being half the quantity stolen, was found by Robert Fisher, of the Black Bull Inn, in a ditch between his field and Sandford's garden, and the rest of the cigars were found in Stone's garden. On the prisoners being apprehended, Stone admitted taking them, in the presence of the prosecutor, Superintendent Martin, and P.C. Reynolds, at the police station, and at the same time Sandford said “Stone took them, and gave them to me”.

While Supt. Martin was giving his evidence, Mr. Minter objected to his repeating the words used by Sandford, as it was not a voluntary statement, but the cigars were shown the prisoner, and he was asked what explanation he could give.

The Recorder said there decidedly was nothing to prevent the prisoner's words being given in evidence; there appeared to be no threat, intimidation, or promise held out to him, but he said it after being duly cautioned. The evidence might be given.

Mr. Minter, in an ingenious speech, proved to his own satisfaction doubtless, that prisoner was quite innocent. He had no knowledge of the other prisoner, who admitted having taken the cigars, and therefore Sandford had not done it. Stone gave him some cigars, and he took them as a gift, not even dreaming they were stolen. Afterwards hearing that cigars had been stolen from the Raglan, and that Stone was suspected, instead of returning them to Lepper as he should have done, he foolishly threw them away out in the garden, and forgot all about them, hence when he was apprehended, he said “I don't know anything about any cigars”. Afterwards, when reminded of the circumstance, and shown the cigars, he said “Stone took them and gave them to me”, meaning that Stone must have taken them, not speaking of his own knowledge; and he further laid down the law that if Sandford did not know at the very moment of receiving the cigars from Stone, know that he had stolen them, he could not be found guilty.

The learned Recorder then summed up, and told the jury that as no-one had been seen to steal the cigars, they must use their own judgement in their decision; the prisoner Sandford had been in the company of Stone, in the place and at the time the cigars were stolen, and half the proceeds of the robbery were found in Sandford's possession. They must therefore see if his explanation of the circumstance was a sufficient explanation. If they thought it satisfactory entirely, and the facts to be consistent with an innocent man receiving them as a gift, they must find him not guilty. Each of the witnesses had stated that Sandford was of good character so far as they knew, and that must be taken into account; but so must also the circumstances of his being in the company of a person who had been previously convicted of felony.

The jury retired to consider, and after an interval returned a verdict of “Not Guilty”, to the manifest surprise of everyone in the court who had heard the evidence. Sandford was then discharged.

The Recorder then addressing Stone, told him that a previous conviction being held against him, he was liable to a long term of penal servitude. A mild sentence seemed to have no effect on him, but he had done the best thing he could do now in pleading guilty. He was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

 

Folkestone Observer 5 January 1867.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, January 3rd: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Edward Stone, 28, plasterer, who can neither read nor write, pleaded guilty to stealing two boxes of cigars, the property of Godfrey Lepper, on the 16th of December, and to a previous conviction on the 9th July, 1857, for felony.

Thomas Sandford, 20, plasterer, imperfectly educated, pleaded not guilty to indictments – one for stealing two boxes of cigars, and one for receiving with guilty knowledge.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Mr. Thomas Cobb, addressing the Recorder, said it was the intention of the Grand Jury to find a true bill on the count for receiving and not for stealing.

The Recorder looked at the indictment and said it was endorsed “A true bill”.

Mr. Brooke, foreman, and other members of the Grand Jury confirmed Mr. Cobb's statement.

The Recorder said as a Grand Jury they did not then exist (the learned gentleman had previously dismissed them), and he could not take notice of them. They were dead.

After some consideration the Recorder proceeded with the case, complaining, however, that no legal gentleman appeared for the prosecution.

Godfrey Lepper, being sworn, said: I am a carpenter. I recollect Sunday afternoon the 16th of December. On that afternoon I missed two boxes of cigars off a shelf in the bar of the Raglan Tavern. I am landlord of the Tavern. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor. I saw them at three in the afternoon. I missed them about half past five. I saw Sandford there about five o'clock outside the bar. He was in and out the whole of the evening. I cannot say that I saw him go out. I saw Stone there, sitting down. They were the only two in the bar at that time. I saw the cigars through Superintendent Martin bringing them to me on the following Tuesday evening, about eight o'clock. They were tied up in a red handkerchief in paper. One box of cigars was Henry Clay's; the next were Mexican cheroots. I compared others that I had with them. The cigars brought me were some of the same kind. It is only from the general appearance that I believe them to be mine. When I missed the cigars I used every exertion to find out the persons who had taken them. After Superintendent Martin brought me the cigars, I went with police constables Reynolds and Ovenden to Stone's house to take him, and afterwards I went to the station house, and there Sandford said in the presence of Stone that Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone then said the other portion of the cigars would be found at the back of his (Stone's) house, in the garden, buried in a handkerchief. Superintendent Martin and P.C. Reynolds and myself went to Stone's back garden and found them there. Superintendent Martin took those cigars. (Cigars produced). There is nothing but their general appearance that makes me think they are mine.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There were other people in the house, but there were no persons in the house during the time that these cigars must have been taken. I did not see them taken. I did not go with the policeman when Sandford was taken. There was not much general conversation when I was at the station. There was a conversation about the stealing of the cigars. Sandford did not say that he did not steal them at all; he said Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone denied taking them at first, but when he saw the cigars that had been found at the Black Bull, he admitted that he had taken them, and that some of them would be found at the back of his house. Part of the cigars had been in my house eleven months and three weeks. The Mexican cigars had been there that time; the others had been there five months. I was adjudicated bankrupt on the 28th of October. I have not received my order of discharge.

Mr. Minter here took objection to the indictment, the cigars being the property of the assignee, but the Recorder said it would be a mere misdescription, if anything, and he had full power to amend. The indictment was accordingly amended.

Mr. Lepper: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minter; they are my property. It was arranged on the 12th that the property is to remain mine, and I am to pay for it by instalments.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull: I live near the prisoner Sandford. On the 19th December I found a handkerchief in the dyke between my field and Sandford's garden. I opened the parcel and found ninety six cigars in it. It was a red handkerchief. I believe the handkerchief produced to be the same. I took them indoors and said “I have found a prize”. I told P.C. Sharpe that I had found some cigars, and let him have them.

Cross-examined: Prisoner lives next door to me, and has lived there three or four years. He has always borne a good character.

P.C. Sharpe received the cigars from last witness, and handed them over to Superintendent Martin.

Henry Newman, being called, said he had nothing to do with Sandford's case, and the Recorder looking over his deposition directed the next witness to be sworn.

P.C. Reynolds said: In consequence of information received I went to Sandford's house and he came to the door. I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper's on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. On the way to the station I told him some had been found on the back of his premises. He made no answer. I brought him to the station. Superintendent Martin told him he was charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, and putting the cigars on the table, asked him if he wished to give any explanation. He said Stone had taken them and given them to him. I searched him, but did not find anything on him.

Cross-examined: I have known the prisoner for some years, and his friends are very respectable, and he has borne a very good character himself, as far as I know. When I took him into custody, I did not take him to the Black Bull, nor call there, nor see Mr. Fisher. I did tell him something, I believe, about Stone stealing the cigars.

Superintendent Martin received the first lot of cigars from P.C. Sharpe, and was himself present when Reynolds dug up the second lot in Stone's garden. The cigars had been in his possession ever since. Was present when Sandford was brought in, and cautioned him about what he should say. Asked him if he had any explanation to give respecting the cigars.

Mr. Minter submitted that what followed could not be received in evidence on the ground that Superintendent Martin had no business to produce the cigars and say “Now what have you to say about them? What explanation have you to give?”. In fact it was holding out a theft – not in language, but in substance.

The Recorder said he thought the evidence might not be excluded.

Witness continued: I charged him with stealing the cigars, and asked him if he had any explanation to make about their being found on his premises, having previously cautioned him. He said Stone took the cigars, and gave him the cigars produced.

Cross-examined: I have known prisoner for some years, and considered him to be a respectable young man living at home with his father.

Mr. Minter then addressed the jury, contending that Sandford had no knowledge of Stone's theft when he took the cigars, and that when he became aware of that theft through the enquiries of the prosecutor he threw the cigars away, and his statement of Stone's having stolen them was but a repetition of the policeman's statement to himself.

The Recorder summed up the evidence very carefully, and the jury retired, but in a short time returned with a verdict of Acquittal.

The Recorder then sentenced Thomas Day to twelve months' hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 8 January 1867.

Quarter Sessions.

The winter Quarter Session for Folkestone was held on Thursday, at the Town-Hall, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., Recorder.

Edward Stone pleaded guilty and Thomas Sandford not guilty to an indictment charging them with stealing, on the 16th December last, two boxes of cigars value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, and the latter prisoner also pleaded not guilty to a second count, charging him with receiving the same, knowing them, to have been stolen. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner Sandford.

Just as the trial commenced, the grand jury, who had been discharged on their bringing in true bills against these prisoners, as there were no other cases, said they only meant to return a true bill on the second count against Sandford but on examination the whole bill was found to be endorsed as a true bill, and the Recorder said as they had been discharged he could not take notice of the mistake.

The facts of the case were that both prisoners were in the prosecutor’s house, the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday, the 10th December, nearly all the afternoon and evening. During that time prosecutor missed two boxes of cigars from a high shelf in the bar. On Tuesday evening the contents of one box were found in a ditch by the side of Sandford's garden, and given to the police, and the contents of the other box found in Stone’s garden in some shavings. After the prisoners were taken into custody, and when they were at the police station, Sandford said before Stone and three of the witnesses, “Stone took them and gave them to me,” although previously he had denied all knowledge of the cigars.

Mr. Minter addressed the jury in defence of his client, urging that he received the cigars as a gift without the slightest knowledge or suspicion that they were stolen.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Stone, who had pleaded guilty, was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 February 1867.

Advertisement:

Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Property.

........ A Public House, known as the Lord Raglan in a most commanding situation in Dover Street, and near to the South Eastern Railway Station.

Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward have received instruction from the Assignees, under a Deed Of Assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Godfrey Lepper, to offer for sale by public competition, at the Lord Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone, on Thursday February 28th, 1867, at two for three o'clock precisely, the above property.

Lot 1: The Lord Raglan Tavern, a free Public House, in a most commanding situation, near the Junction Station of the South Eastern Railway, having a double frontage to Dover Street and Mill Lane, recently erected, and from it's undeniable position certain to command a large trade. The house contains on the Basement, large cellar, kitchen, scullery, W.C., coal and wine cellars; on the Ground Floor, bar, bar parlour, counting house, and tap room. On the First Floor, club room, bagatelle room, and bedroom, with seven bedrooms and W.C. above; and is now in the occupation of Mr. G. Lepper. Possession could be had immediately on completion of the purchase.

Lot 1 is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor, for a term of 99 years, from the 29th of September, 1864, at an annual Ground Rent of 5.

Note: This is almost certainly proof that the Raglan was not built for Kingsford of Dover, but, as previously noted, built by Lepper himself.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 November 1867

County Court.

Monday November 18th: Before W.C. Scott.

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for 1 3s. 8d. for goods supplied. Defendant said he owed some; he did not know how much. The fact was, he used to go into the Raglan (plaintiff's house) and sit there playing cards from morning till night. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept no account. Order for 5s. per month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought forward after this year.

 

Folkestone Observer 23 November 1867.

County Court:

Monday, November 18th: Before J.C. Scott Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for 1 3s. 8d. for goods supplied.

Defendant said he owed some, but did not know how much. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept no account.

Order for 5s. a month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought after this year.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 January 1868.

County Court.

Monday January 20th: Before W.C. Scott.

Godfrey Lepper v Hughes: Claim for 14s 3d. Ordered to be paid in a month: defendant pleaded a set-off, but not having given notice of it, it was not allowed.

 

Folkestone Observer 25 January 1868.

County Court.

Monday, January 20th: Before J.C. Scott.

Lepper v Hughes: This was a claim for 9s. for refreshments.

To be paid in a month.

Lepper v Memphis: This was a case where defendant was ordered to pay 5s. a month, but had failed to comply.

Ordered to stand over for a month to allow defendant to pay the first instalment of 5s., or sent to prison for 14 days.

Lepper v Newman: This was a claim for 1 2s. 5d. for refreshments generally, and the defendant had been ordered to pay 5s. per month, but had not done so. The defendant said that he did not owe the money, and he should not pay the debt; he would rather go to prison. Ordered to stand over for a month, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Lepper v T. Newman: In this case the defendant denied the debt, and said he would rather be in prison all his lifetime than pay what he did not owe. Committed for 14 days.

Lepper v Hollis: In this case the defendant admitted the debt, but had been unable to pay his instalments of 5s. per month in consequence of being out of employ. To pay in a month or 14 days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday August 10th: Before W.C. Scott.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was a claim to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, held by defendant as tenant to plaintiff, a brewer at Buckland, Dover. Mr. Percy Claris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Claris produced the agreement for letting the house: It was dated 21st October last, and the tenancy was to commence on the 29th September: the rent was to be 25, and the tenancy was to be determined at any time at the expiration of three calendar months, after notice had been given by either party, with the usual proviso for entry in twenty one days, after non-payment of rent when due. Notice had been given to defendant to leave on the 6th July, but he had refused to go till paid for fixtures, which were the property of the landlord.

Plaintiff was sworn, and two letters produced by him, one from defendant dated 4th June, stating that he would go out at any time, on a fair valuation, that he would settle all demands, and transfer the licenses; the other was from Mr. Minter, stating that the fixtures belonged to defendant, subject to a loan of 45 from plaintiff; that the notice was insufficient, but that he would not complain of that, and that defendant would not go out till the valuation had been made.

Charles Browning, clerk to plaintiff, proved serving the notice to quit on Mrs. Lepper, at half past two on the afternoon of April 6th.

The defence was that a proper notice had not been served, for two reasons. First, that the “any time” in the agreement must mean at any quarter-day, and that as the rent was payable on the new quarters, the notice to quit must not expire on an old quarter-day, as otherwise the agreement must have contained a proviso that a proportionate part of the rent should be paid at the time of leaving. Then in the second place the agreement required three calendar months, after notice is served to quit, while the notice, served on the afternoon of the 6th April was “to quit on the 6th July”, so that three months after notice was not allowed, the day of service being excluded.

His Honour said it was a curious point, but he thought he must allow it to be a proper notice, and that the clause in the agreement precluded the limitation of the notice to quarter days. The objection was too technical, and he decided on the merits of the case that possession must be given. He reserved the date of giving up till the other cases were heard.

Same v Same: Claim 17 5s. 6d., 14 9s. 3d. being balance of beer account, and 2 16s. 3d. for one and a quarter years' hire of fixtures. The account was commenced in November 1865, the defendant became bankrupt at the end of 1867, when plaintiff purchased the house, there being then a balance due of 29 8s., which had not been claimed since.

Plaintiff was examined on these points, but a bill was produced by Mr. Minter, in which the sum due at defendant's bankruptcy was included. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he bought the house at the sale, and defendant afterwards came over to Dover to say that he might buy the fixtures for 45; he perhaps might have asked witness to lend him the money, but he certainly should not have done so. He was not anxious to have defendant as a tenant. Messrs. Dickenson bought the house, but defendant refused to stay in it with them, and so witness bought it. Witness did not advance 54 on the fixtures and agree to take five percent on it, nor agree to take it back 10 at a time, nor say he would rather have it all at once. After a great deal of questioning witness said that what he might have offered was that if defendant could get a tenant who would buy the fixtures, he might keep any overplus, after paying the 45, his rent, and the beer score.

Mr. Minter said that was all he wanted to know.

Judgement was given for plaintiff within seven days.

Same v Same: This was a claim for a year and a quarter's rent, 31 5s., up to the 24th June.

Mr. Minter said it would perhaps save time if he said at first his objection to the case was that the County Courts Act prohibited splitting claims for the purpose of adding to the expense.

This was overruled and the plaintiff called. He stated that the rent due was 31 5s., and produced the agreement for letting and taking the house.

Mr. Minter objected that according to that agreement the tenancy only commenced on September 29th so that only three quartrs' pnt was due.

Mr. Claris characterised the defence as dishonest and dishonourable, and His Honour protested against such recriminations.

Plaintiff was proceeding to say that he purchased the house in March, but Mr. Minter objected to hear anything about that unless the conveyance was put in, especially as Mr. Claris had not opened the case, except as to the agreement.

Mr. Minter argued that defendant was left in charge of the house by the assignees to keep the business together, and that the tenancy could not commence till the date fixed in the agreement. Then the County Court Act specially provided against a multiplicity of suits, and here were three plaints and a proceeding in equity in this court, so that plaintiff, having obtained judgement in one case, was precluded from obtaining one now. In the first cause, that for ejectment, the clause claiming rent was struck out and a separate action brought, while the rent and beer score, with the rent of fixtures, were again separated because, had they been included in one suit, it would have amounted to more than 50, and would have been out of the jurisdiction of the court.

His Honour asked for an explanation, and Mr. Claris said it was intended to distrain for the rent when the action for ejectment was commenced, but there was nothing to distrain on (Mr. Minter said there was 40 or 50 worth), and the rent and beer account were quite distinct.

An order for payment for four quarters' rent was made.

Same, in Equity: Mr. Minter called His Honour's attention to an injunction granted by him forbidding defendant to remove the fixtures, and the order had been obeyed, although no other proceedings having been commenced in equity, the injunction ought not to have been issued. He therefore asked His Honour to say that he had no power to make the injunction, and to discharge it with costs, because it was agreed that the fixtures should be valued, and possession given. The fact was, the fixtures were the bona fide property of defendant, who would be damaged to the amount of their value if he had to give up possession of the house without removing his fixtures. He could not understand why these proceedings should have been taken, instead of carrying out the arrangement entered into. The defence had not been a factious defence, for plaintiff now owed defendant more than he claimed. However, he would consent to an order for possession in a fortnight, and continue the injunction to the next court, if plaintiff would undertake not to make the giving up possession a technical objection to the suit.

An order to deliver up possession in ten days was then made, and an immediate order for the rent.

Notes: This case appears to be conclusive proof that the Raglan was built by Lepper himself, and that the granting of his license in 1866 was, indeed, the first license that the Raglan had, rather than the date of 1864 mentioned in More Tales. It is mentioned during the case that Kingsford's purchased the house from Dickenson's (who took over from Hills at the brewery in Tontine Street), and therefore any idea that the house had been built for Kingsford seems to be mistaken.

 

Folkestone Observer 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday, August 10th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone.

Mr. Percy Claris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Claris, in opening the case, said this was an action brought by plaintiff, a brewer residing at Buckland, near Dover, to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, let by plaintiff to defendant under an agreement dated October, 1867, at the yearly rental of 25, the tenancy commencing on the 29th of September of that year. The agreement contained a clause to the effect that the tenancy could be determined at any time after three calendar months notice any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding; and in addition to this there was the usual “provision for entrance in 21 days” upon non-payment of rent. Notice was served on the defendant on the 6th of April to quit on the 6th of July, but defendant had not quitted, giving as an excuse that he would not leave until plaintiff had agreed as to the payment for certain fixtures, but as those fixtures belonged to the plaintiff he did not agree to that little proposition.

Mr. Minter, on seeing the agreement, said he did not think it was properly stamped; it was a half crown stamp instead of a lease stamp.

His Honour overruled the objection.

Plaintiff then gave evidence in corroboration of his lawyer's statement, adding that he received the letter produced from the defendant. (It was to the effect that as plaintiff had decided to let the house, he would be prepared to give up possession upon a fair valuation being made of the fixtures and agreed upon between them. A letter from Mr. Minter was also read which stated that defendant had directed him to say that the fixtures belonged to him and he would not part with the possession of the house until the valuation was settled and agreed upon.)

Charles Browning proved the service of the notice at half past two on the 6th of April.

Mr. Minter said that was not a proper notice to quit for two reasons; first, they must take the notice to quit as it stands – that the tenancy should be a yearly tenancy from the 29th of September, at the yearly rent of 25, giving the quarter days upon which that rent was payable, and he contended therefore that the notice should be given on one of those days. The agreement said the tenancy should cease and determine at any time after three calendar months' notice. Now he contended that that clause meant at any time after three months' notice expiring upon one of the quarters named in the agreement. He cited the case of Kemp v Derritt, Campbell's Law Reports, where it was decided that it must be at one of the quarters upon which the rent was payable that notice to quit was to be given and expire. If the agreement meant that the tenancy should be determined at any moment after three months' notice had been given and expired, then there would have been a provision that a proportionate part of the rent should then and there become and be made payable to the proprietor, but explicit as the agreement otherwise was, it contained no such thing. Taking this, his friend's contention, to be right, then the defendant would occupy the house for six weeks without paying any rent. He said, in the reasonable meaning of the agreement, and also in law, by which the case had to be decided, the quarter should be taken to end at some quarter named in the agreement. If His Honour was against him on this point, he had a second to fall back upon. The agreement stated that three calendar months should be given, and this should be exclusive of the day of service; therefore the notice was informal because that day had been calculated in the time. The notice was specific in itself and binding upon them, giving the day which it expired, and including both the first and last days to make the three calendar months notice. It had been decided that the time must be exclusive both of the first and last days, both of which in this case the matter was quite clear; the agreement – three calendar months after notice had been given. He confidently submitted the first point as being entitled to succeed upon it; if His Honour was against him, then he called his attention to the second.

His Honour said this was a close point to take.

Mr. Claris said in ninety nine cases out of a hundred notices were served as this had been.

Mr. Minter said he must call His Honour's attention to the agreement which stated clearly that it must be three calendar months after the notice in writing, which, he contended, must be given on a quarter day.

His Honour replied that there was a special clause introduced in that agreement, that at any time whatever notice should be given, any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding. He therefore overruled Mr. Minter's first objection; and as to the second, he should overrule that too, because it was too technical to notice. He would decide the case upon it's merits.

Mr. Minter then asked His Honour to defer judgement until the next case had been heard.

His Honour consented.

Plaintiff brought a further claim against the defendant, for 17 5s. 6d., of which 14 9s. 3d. was the balance, and 2 16s. 3d.for one and a quarter years' hire of fixtures to the Raglan Tavern.

Mr. Claris stated that defendant had admitted his liability over and over again by the payment of sums on the account, and he therefore thought His Honour would have no difficulty in deciding in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff stated that defendant agreed to give 2 5s. per year for the use of the fixtures, that being a charge of 5 percent on the purchase money. The account had been delivered, but never disputed.

Cross-examined: I know nothing of defendant being asked to stay in the house as a tenant. I was not at the sale; my son was there. I simply bought the fixtures as belonging to the house. The defendant was to pay me rent for those fixtures – 5 percent on the purchase money. I did not advance the 45 as a loan at interest to Lepper at 5 percent, and it was not agreed that he should pay me back at 10 at a time. I never said I would rather have the whole 45 back at one time; you are putting words into my mouth that I know nothing about. The understanding was that if another person accepted the house the fixtures were to be taken by him at a valuation, and any over-plus to go to defendant.

His Honour: That is, would you have been satisfied with the return of the 45 you paid for them?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Minter: I don't call any witnesses, and it it not necessary for me to address Your Honour on the present case.

His Honour then gave judgement for plaintiff.

A third case was then gone into, being a claim for rent.

Mr. Claris said he did not know what defence could be set up to this, as defendant had been in the house and paid no rent. Mr. Minter had given them two very ingenious defences, and perhaps he would now give them a third.

Mr. Minter said he would give his defence at once, and referred to the 63rd Section of the 9th and 10th Victoria, chapter 95, which refers to splitting the accounts, under which he contended that by plaintiff's first case he was debarred from obtaining a judgement on the second.

His Honour: Not at all.

Mr. Claris: We are not bound to bring the action for rent and beer together. This defence is still more ingenious.

His Honour: That is no defence to it.

Plaintiff then gave evidence stating that 31 5s. 0d. were due for five quarters' rent.

Mr. Minter contended that under the agreement under which they were suing, three quarters' rent only were due.

Mr. Claris replied that he was suing for three quarters under the agreement, and two quarters due before that agreement was entered into. This was simply a dishonest and dishonourable defence set up by the defendant.

Mr. Minter did not know what his friend meant by those terms, but he should learn the law before he came there.

Mr. Claris replied that defendant ought to have paid the money, knowing as he did that it was owing.

His Honour: Stick to the law upon the matter, please.

Mr. Minter still contended there was no tenancy before the agreement existed, defendant having lived in the house, and it was his own property up to the time of his bankruptcy, after which he continued to reside there.

Plaintiff, however, stated there was an agreement between them on his purchasing the house, but failed to prove more than one quarter previous to the agreement.

Mr. Minter then fell back upon the statute relating to a multiplying of suits. Three cases had been taken against the defendant besides one in equity, making four, simply, it seemed to him, to multiply the costs. The whole of the accounts together, with the 29 odd due before the bankruptcy, would have taken it out of the jurisdiction of that Court, and he contended that plaintiff had no right to split up his accounts to bring it there, therefore the latter claim must be abandoned.

His Honour having asked for some more explanation, Mr. Claris said he had intended to distrain for rent as his best mode of obtaining it, but on sending in he found that defendant had taken great care there was nothing there to distrain upon. If the defendant had any ground of complaint, it was against himself. The summons for the beer account was taken out in the meantime, consequently the claims were not made separate. If Lepper had abided by his agreement made on his first interview with him, not a sixpence might have been expended in these matters.

His Honour gave a verdict for four quarters' rent.

Mr. Minter then made an application with reference to the fourth case, viz., that the injunction issued – to restrain the defendant from removing any of the fixtures of the Raglan Tavern, should be dissolved. He was in a position to prove that the fixtures belonged to the defendant, subject to 45 lent by plaintiff, and such being the case, defendant would be damnified by that injunction.

His Honour ordered possession to be given up in 10 days, and renewed the injunction to that time.

 

Folkestone Express 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday, August 10th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Plaintiff is a brewer at Dover, and the defendant the landlord of the Raglan Tavern in Dover Street. This was an action to recover possession of the said premises.

Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said plaintiff is a brewer near Dover, and the action was brought to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Street, which was let to defendant for 25 per annum, the tenancy being a yearly one. An agreement had been drawn up between the plaintiff and defendant, in which there was a clause that said three months notice to quit should be sufficient, and that the tenancy was to terminate at the end of three calendar months “notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary”. On the 6th April last plaintiff's clerk served a notice to quit on the defendant. His tenancy therefore expired, according to the agreement, on the 6th July, but he would not give up possession unless plaintiff paid for some fixtures.

He called Mr. Kingsford, the plaintiff, who deposed he had received some letters from Mr. Lepper, one of which said that he should be prepared at any time to deliver up possession on a fair valuation being made. On that taking place he would give up possession and transfer the license. Witness the put in a letter he had received from Mr. Minter, which objected to the notice because it was not a sufficient one, although he would leave if a proper valuation was made and the fixtures paid for.

Mr. Charles Brownrigg, clerk to plaintiff, proved serving the notice on Mrs. Lepper on the 6th of April.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He came by the two o'clock train, and the notice was served at half past two in the afternoon.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had not received a proper notice to quit. It was shown by the agreement which was made on the 29th September last that the tenancy was a yearly one, and that the rent became due at the end of one of the usual quarters. The meaning of the tenancy clause is that three months' notice is sufficient, and the notice is to expire at the expiration of one of the quarters for which rent was payable. If the tenancy was to determine at any moment, there would have been a provision in the agreement how that portion of the rent should become payable. No claim could be made on the defendant for a portion of a quarter, and he could therefore occupy the tenancy for six weeks without paying any rent at all. He contended that the tenancy ought to end on one of the quarters mentioned in the agreement. He would next show that he had not received a proper notice. The agreement provides that the tenant is to give up possession after three months notice has been given, therefore it ought to be dated and served on April 5th, when actually it is delivered on April 6th, and the notice says they must deliver up possession on July 6th. Strictly speaking the time ought to be exclusive of the first and last days, and it is quite plain that the agreement must mean three clear calendar months.

His Honour stated that the clause relating to the notice was a special one and is intended for special occasions; the second objection is too technical. He should decide the case on it's merits, although he would make note of the two objections. Possession to be given up in ten days.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was a claim for 17 15s. 6d., being a balance due to plaintiff for beer, &c., supplied. The same counsels as in the previous case.

Verdict for the plaintiff, the amount to be paid in seven days.

Kingsford v Lepper: The plaintiff claimed 31 5s., being five quarters' rent. Same counsels both for plaintiff and defendant.

Mr. Minter objected to the case proceeding, as it was specified in the County Courts Act that actions could not be multiplied, and this claim ought to have been combined with the previous one.

Mr Claris: One is a claim for rent, and the other was a debt incurred, and therefore could not be included in one action.

His Honour overruled the objection and allowed the case to proceed.

Mr. Kingsford said defendant had possession by verbal agreement up to the 29th September.

Mr. Minter took objection to the case proceeding unless the conveyance was produced.

His Honour did not consider this necessary.

Mr. Kingsford (in answer to Mr. Minter): The property was not conveyed before the 25th March.

His Honour thought there was something in the fact that defendant was his own landlord previously, and that the assignees had left him in possession.

Mr. Minter: Defendant could not have been a tenant without he made an agreement, and the agreement was not made till September 29th.

Mr. Claris: But plaintiff made a verbal agreement with the defendant.

Mr. Minter said that under the County Courts Act the plaintiff could not recover, as there was a clause which specially stated that no multiplication of suits should be allowed, to prevent the increasing of costs. He quoted some cases which had been decided in support of the view taken by him of the question. According to this the two claims ought to have been combined; if they had the plaintiff would have no right to bring the action in this Court, as it would be a bar to the claim, the total amount exceeding 50. The splitting up one action into two was not lawful, and they could not sue for the whole amount as it would have been out of the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Claris said they had distrained for the rent, but they found none worth distraining.

Mr. Minter: There is 50 worth of property on the premises.

His Honour gave a judgement for 25 for four quarters' rent, as there was no proof that the property was conveyed on March 25th.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 October 1868.

County Court.

Monday October 12th.

Equity Court.

Kingsford v Lepper: Mr. Claris applied on behalf of plaintiff for leave to proceed to execution to obtain possession of the Raglan Tavern, for which a suit was prosecuted at the August court. Mr. Minter said his client had been readmitted as a tenant by the plaintiff, and His Honour said in any case there was no need to apply to the court for leave.

 

Folkestone Express 17 October 1868.

County Court.

Monday, October 12th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

G. Lepper v Charles Hughes: Claim for 7s. 6d. Plaintiff stated this claim was for beer supplied last year.

Defendant alleged Mr. Lepper owed him 8s. 11d. for seeds and labour.

His Honour said whatever set-off defendant had against plaintiff was a separate claim. He must give judgement for plaintiff with costs.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Mr. Claris, who appeared for the plaintiff, said at the last sitting of the Court, a judgement in the case of Kingsford v Lepper gave plaintiff possession of the property of the defendant in 10 days. On the 20th of August notice of appeal was given, but no case had been submitted for His Honour's notice.

His Honour said there was no necessity for this application, as the previous order stands good.

 

Folkestone Express 21 November 1868.

County Court.

Monday, November 16th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was a claim for 25 for rent, but on account of the absence of defendant's counsel the case was ordered to be adjourned, on defendant paying the costs of the day.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 December 1868.

County Court.

Monday December 14th: Before W.C. Scott.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Mr. P. Claris appeared for plaintiff, the brewer of Dover, and Mr. Minter for defendant, the landlord of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street.

Mr. Claris said the case had been adjourned from last court, because Mr. Minter was at that time engaged in another cause. The facts were rather peculiar, for judgement in the case was obtained at the August court, notice of appeal being given, but not prosecuted, and judgement not being enforced. Then through some inadvertence on the part of plaintiff's clerk, a demand for rent up to the 11th October had been made, and that had perhaps revived the tenancy, and it was now necessary to take some other proceedings. Defendant was either a tenant from year to year – under the agreement with plaintiff – or on sufferance. Under the agreement was a proviso that if six months' rent should be in arrears, after twenty one days the tenancy should cease. It would then only be necessary to prove that the value of the house was under 50 a year, that half a year's rent was due, and that no sufficient distress could be made, for an execution for 17 had been issued and a return made of nulla lona. It was particularly hard on plaintiff, who had purchased the house and fixtures, and the scheme was merely to extort money from him. The fixtures were let to defendant at a yearly rental, but he wished to assert that plaintiff had only lent 35 on them, and to make him have in a valuer and pay the difference between 35 and the value of them. The arrangement really was, that if defendant could get a customer for the fixtures when he left, he might have all they realised over 35, after paying all debts due to plaintiff.

Mr. Kingsford was called to prove the tenancy agreement, and that more than six months' rent was due on the 3rd November.

Cross-examined: Subsequent to his obtaining judgement against defendant in August, he did refuse to supply any more beer. He recognised the writing (of the demand for rent) as that of his son or clerk, but it was unauthorised.

Mr. Fowle was called to prove that the value of the house was under 50 a year.

Examined: He had never been over the house, nor did he know how many rooms it contained.

That was the case.

Mr. Minter would not go into the hardship of the case, or he could make out a good one. Defendant paid 130 for his fixtures, and states that plaintiff lent him 35 on them, and it was very strange that the rent charged on them should amount to just 5 per cent on that sum. But the question was – could His Honour grant the order asked for? If plaintiff proceeded on the agreement (which was determined by the proceedings of the August court) half a year's rent was not due, for judgement was recovered for rent up to the end of June, and if he proceeded under the implied tenancy, he could not succeed.

His Honour remarked that judgement had been recovered, but it appeared that no money for rent had yet been received. Was therefore the rent less in arrears than before?

Mr. Minter said decidedly so, for it is an axiom in law that a man cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. Plaintiff had got judgement once, and if he did not choose to enforce it he could not come to the court and ask His Honour to forget that judgement and give another. The fact was, there was a new tenancy created by the demand for rent, the first quarter due on the 11th October, and there was nothing but the fear of the consequence of that act to prevent plaintiff going to the Registrar and issuing judgement.

His Honour said that would certainly appear to be the best way, as he could not make an order when less than half a year's rent was due. But judgement had once been given, and there had been no appeal. Judgement for defendant would be entered with costs, but defendant must pay the costs of the adjournment.

Same Plaintiff and Defendant – Margaret Court, garnishee.

Mr. Claris said that in the August court, plaintiff obtained judgement for 17 15s. 6d., and as there was no satisfaction, he had taken out this summons in the form of a sci fa. Mrs. Court had a son apprenticed to defendant, and on the 18th ultimo there was a sum of 10 due for premium, which he asked His Honour to order to be paid into court.

Mr. Minter protested against the production of the indentures, which could not have been seen but for a breach of professional confidence on the part of Mr. Claris, who prepared them, as solicitor for Mrs. Court and defendant, and therefore had no right to tell Mr. Kingsford of their existence. His Honour was not, however, bound to make the order, and he thought, under the circumstances, he would not do so. For the premium was a consideration of apprenticeship – defendant being bound to pay the lad certain sums of money weekly, and if this premium were attached, the apprentice would be damnified by the defendant not being able to pay those sums. As to the argument that no return could be made to execution, the judgements obtained in this court were pleaded as a set-off to a suit carried on in the Queen's Bench.

His Honour decided that this was not a case in which he could make an order.

 

Folkestone Observer 19 December 1868.

County Court.

Monday, December 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street.

Mr. Claris said the facts of the case were very peculiar. It appeared that in August last His Honour gave judgement for plaintiff in this case, and on the defendant's becoming bankrupt plaintiff had bought the house of Mr. Lepper, and afterwards let it to him. He fixtures were also bought of and let to defendant, which was an unusual proceeding on the part of the plaintiff, but he was obliged to do so. The defendant now wished to extort money from plaintiff for the fixtures, and on the demand being refused, he declined to give up possession.

The agreement was put in and read, and Mr. Kingsford proved that there was more than half a year's rent due on the 3rd of November.

By Mr. Minter: He had refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The letter, which was a demand for rent, was in the handwriting of a clerk.

Mr. Minter made a lengthy speech on behalf of the defendant, after which His Honour thought they had better enforce the judgement of the last court.

 

Folkestone Express 19 December 1868.

County Court.

Monday, December 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, a brewer at Dover, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said this action was brought forward at the last court, but was adjourned at the defendant's request. The plaintiff wanted to recover possession of the Radnor Tavern (sic), Dover Street, and the circumstances were rather peculiar. At the court held last August, His Honour made an order that possession was to be given up in ten days, and against that order the defendant's counsel, Mr. Minter, made an appeal, as a demand for rent had been sent in to the defendant; perhaps this revived the tenure. In consequence of this he was obliged to adopt some other proceeding. Mr. Claris then produced the agreement under which the house was let, and the Act bearing on the question. He would prove that the yearly value of the premises was under 50 if there was an objection that the case did not come within the jurisdiction of that court. In the August court they had recovered a whole year's rent in August last, of which there was not one farthing paid. He could prove power to re-enter, and he thought the case was a particularly hard one for his client, and the opposition appeared only to extort money. Mr. Kingsford, when he bought the house, bought the fixtures with it, which was certainly rather an unusual circumstance for the landlord to do. The house was sold in consequence of Mr. Lepper becoming a bankrupt, and then when the plaintiff bought the house he let it to the defendant, as he had lost a considerable sum of money, and told him if he could get more than what he gave for the fixtures he had no objection to his having the surplus. Now the defendant wants the plaintiff to buy the fixtures over again.

He called Mr. Kingsford, who said there was more than a half year's rent due on the 3rd of November last.

By Mr. Minter: He refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The demand for rent produced was in the handwriting of his clerk or son.

By Mr. Claris: Did not instruct his clerk to send in any demand.

By His Honour: The demand was sent in after the judgement of the court was given.

Mr. Fowle was then called. He said that he was a clerk to Messrs. Brockman and Harrison; was experienced in valuing. He knew the Raglan Tavern. To the best of his judgement it was not worth 50 a year.

By Mr. Minter: Did not know how many rooms it contained; had never been in the house.

Mr. Minter said he should contain his observations to the point before them. He did not know whether His Honour had the power to make the order because there may be a half year's rent in arrears. On no other ground can the plaintiff succeed in his right to re-enter, as the condition mentioned must continue in force at the time, but Mr. Kingsford can't prove that there was a half year's rent in arrears, but only one quarter. His Honour made an order for the rent and possession in August. Then a demand for rent was made, which made it a fresh tenancy. He contended that there is a half year's rent due; the defendant contends there is only a quarter. The demand was a waiver of the right to re-enter. His Honour has already given judgement in this case, and if the plaintiff does not choose to enforce that judgement, he has no right to come here and ask His Honour to pronounce another judgement on the same case. The first action was for the possession of the premises, and now the action is for the same object. Unless there is some fresh reason or new set of circumstances to recover, they could not come there and try to get His Honour to deliver another similar judgement. So far as this is concerned, the argument is null and void, and now a new tenancy has commenced, and the landlord can't take any course. There is nothing at the present moment to prevent him going to the registrar's office and executing His Honour's judgement in this case, only he may fear the consequences.

Mr. Claris was almost ready to accept the proposition that there was a fresh agreement.

His Honour thought it would be the best way for the plaintiff, to act on Mr. Minter's suggestion. He must non-suit the plaintiff. Defendant's costs allowed.

Kingsford v Margaret Court: This was proceedings taken under the Court Garnishee.

In August last the plaintiff recovered an action for 17 15s. 6d. with Mr. Lepper, which had not been paid, and Mrs. Court was indebted to Mr. Lepper under an indenture of apprenticeship to the amount of 10, which was half the amount of premium to be paid.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the court ought not to have known of the existence of these indentures. Mr. Claris was Mr. Lepper's solicitor, and he has betrayed confidence by producing them.

Mr. Claris denied that he had been Mr. Lepper's solicitor.

Mr. Minter: The indenture of apprenticeship produced was one by which the defendant's son was to learn the business of a carpenter and builder, and Mr. Lepper was bound by that indenture to pay the apprentice certain sums of money. He is still an apprentice, and has half his time to serve. Mr. Lepper has had to sue Mr. Kingsford for 30 or 40 by action in a superior court.

Mr. Claris replied.

His Honour said he would give judgement in favour of the defendant on the first point, as the money was given for the apprentice to learn his trade. If it had been a clear debt he would have given in favour of the plaintiff.

 

Folkestone Express 30 January 1869.

County Court.

Monday, January 25th: Before W.G.S. Harrison Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Thomas Newman: The order was made in November, 1867. Defendant had paid 17s., and there was 9s. 2d. due. His Honour committed him for 14 days; order suspended for 14 days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

License of the following house was transferred at a special sessions:- The Raglan Tavern –

Mr. Percy Claris, of Dover, appeared for Mr. Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover, the landlord of this house, and applied for permission to sell excisable liquors to be granted to James Morford. A license for the house was granted to Godfrey Lepper, who had left the house and refused to transfer the license. Under these circumstances the magistrates had power, if they pleased, to grant temporary permission to sell. He put in the agreement under which Lepper held the house, and said they had spent 60 on him, and as Lepper had no money to pay it was no use to waste any more.

He called James Morford, who stated he was now tenant of the house. He took possession on the 25th of January, before which the house was empty. He applied to Lepper to transfer the license, but was told Mr. Minter was keeping it as security for his costs.

Godfrey Lepper attended to oppose the application. A suit had been pending since August last, and was now removed to a superior court. Mr. Claris came into the house last month with five men, and ejected him with his goods, throwing them into the street. Mr. Minter could not attend that morning.

Mr. Claris said the case was not in a superior court. An action was brought in August for ejectment, and judgement given for plaintiff, possession being ordered in ten days. Notice of appeal was given, and they could not proceed till the next court in October, and by some mistake a claim for rent was made, not under the agreement. A fresh action was brought in November, but the former judgement being still in force, plaintiff was directed to act on it. The time for taking out execution was just expired, and as it was no use wasting more money on him, Lepper was forcibly ejected from the house as an intruder, leaving him, if he pleased, to take action for it.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Claris said Lepper was not ejected under the order of the court.

Permission granted.

 

Folkestone Observer 27 February 1869.

Tuesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Mr. Claris, solicitor, Dover, applied on behalf of Mr. James Morford for permission to sell excisable liquors at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street. A license had been granted to Mr. Lepper, but as he had been ejected for non-payment of rent, he had refused to transfer his license, contrary to his agreement with Mr. Kingsford. They had offered to pay for the unexpired term of the license, but Mr. Lepper would not accept it, his object being to keep the house shut up, that he might extort money from Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Claris then called James Morford, who said he was the tenant of the Raglan Tavern, and took possession on the 20th January. The house had been shut up previously. On asking Mr. Lepper to transfer the license and sign the necessary papers, he said he could not do it.

Mr. Lepper opposed the application, stating that this case had been going on since August last, and had been carried into a superior court. Mr. Minter would have been there that morning, only that he was engaged. Mr. Kingsford had broken the agreement by refusing to supply him (Mr. Lepper) with beer; and as to the tenancy, Mr. Kingsford had acknowledged him as such by sending in a demand for money.

Mr. Claris said an action was brought to eject Mr. Lepper from the premises, and a verdict was given for ejectment in 10 days, and Mr. Minter gave notice of appeal, but at the October court he stated that he should not go on with the case. It appeared that during that time a clerk of Mr. Kingsford's had, in mistake, sent in a demand to Mr. Lepper for rent, thereby, Mr. Lepper said, renewing the tenancy, but at a subsequent court it was ruled that the mistake was not sufficient to make a new tenancy, and the verdict of the former court should remain in force. There was money due to Mr. Kingsford from Mr. Lepper for rent, beer, &c., to the amount of 60 18s. 6d.

Mr. Lepper said the fittings did not belong to Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Bradley asked if he was ejected under the orders of the court.

Mr. Claris said he was an intruder, and was therefore put out.

The Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Express 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License.

The Raglan Tavern – James Morford applied for a transfer, and the application was supported by Mr. Claris.

Mr. Claris, in making the application, said the license was in Mr. Lepper's name, and he refused to transfer it. His object in doing so was to extort money from Mr. Kingsford, the brewer, to whom the house belonged. He hoped the Bench would exercise the power they had, and grant the application of his client notwithstanding this.

Mr. James Morford, sworn, said: I am the present occupier of the Raglan Tavern. I know Mr. Lepper, and I took possession after he left. That was on the 20th of January. The house was shut up. I have asked Mr. Lepper to transfer the license, but he said he could not let me have it, as Mr. Minter held it. I have also asked him to transfer; he said he could not do so.

Mr. G. Lepper said this case has been pending since August last. Mr. Minter could not attend as he is engaged in very important business. Five men came to the house and turned him, Mr. Lepper, out, and at present a case concerning that was in a superior Court. The landlord broke his agreement with me by not supplying me with any beer.

Mr. Claris: So the real facts of the case are these: that the August County Court gave Mr. Kingford power to eject Mr. Lepper in ten days; then Mr. Minter gave notice of appealing to a superior Court, consequently nothing could be done till October, when Mr. Minter said he could not appeal as Mr. Kingsford had admitted Mr. Lepper as tenant. At the next Court the time had expired for the appeal to be made, and consequently he, the speaker, sent some men there to turn out Mr. Lepper, leaving him to take such steps as he thought proper. Mr. Kingsford has not received one farthing of rent during the time Mr. Lepper has been his tenant, and he has been put to expenses amounting to 60 18s. 6d., besides the cost of an ex parte injunction, and it will be impossible to get any of this back.

Mr. Lepper: There is 30 2s. 8d. due to me for work done in the house.

Mr. Claris: We were compelled to carry out these extraordinary measures, and although Mr. Lepper was not ejected under the process of the Court, there is no doubt he was simply an intruder. We had a judgement from the County Court, but the time had just expired. His conduct during the time he had been connected with Mr. Kingsford would not bear investigation.

Mr. Lepper said Mr. Kingsford acknowledged him as his tenant. He was sorry his solicitor was not there.

The Bench could see nothing to deter them from granting the license.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 March 1869.

Transfer of Licence.— James Morford, of the Raglan Tavern, applied for a transfer of license from Lepper, the late occupier. Mr. Lepper opposed the transfer. Mr. Claris supported the application on behalf of Mr. Kingsford, brewer, of Dover, proprietor of the house. He addressed the Bench, and entered into the details of the transactions that had taken place between Mr. Lepper and his client, who was put to a great deal of trouble and expense to obtain possession, having to resort to forcible measures to eject the tenant, and now he did all he could to thwart the present tenant in obtaining the license. Mr. Lepper alleged that he was the injured party, but the bench did not entertain his statement, and granted the license.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 July 1871.

County Court.

Saturday July 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

English v Lepper: This was a claim for a debt of over 2 for printing and advertising. Defendant paid 1 18s. in Court and said that that was all that was due, as the rest was overcharges, and was a debt incurred before plaintiff's bankruptcy.

Plaintiff said he had bought his debts back at the time of his bankruptcy.

The case was adjourned in order to allow defendant to obtain evidence proving that he had been overcharged.

 

Folkestone Express 13 January 1872.

Wednesday, January 10th: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Transfer of License.

The license of the Raglan Tavern was transferred from James Morford to George Pearson.

 

Folkestone Express 20 December 1873.

Wednesday, December 17th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Mr. William Summers, who was formerly manager of the Naval Club in London, and who came to Folkestone to manage the County Club, applied for a temporary license to the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, which was granted, excellent testimonials as to character being produced. Mr. Summers has also taken the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street.

Note: Date for Summers taking the Brewery Tap is at variance with information in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 6 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 3rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Hoad, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

George Godden surrendered on bail to a charge of being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language.

The evidence of P.C. Hogben showed that prisoner was creating a disturbance in the bar of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, about six o'clock on Tuesday evening, and witness removed him at the request of Mr. Summers, the landlord. When prisoner got into the street he used most abominable language in a tone loud enough to be heard by ladies passing by in carriages, and some forty of fifty persons who had assembled. He had also stripped, and wanted to fight the landlord.

Ordered to pay 18s., or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 September 1875.

Notice.

Ancient Order Of Druids.

Cinque Ports Lodge 426

Raglan Tavern, Dover Road

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that TOM BURTONSHAW (formerly Secretary) having been expelled from the above Order, he has no further connection with this Lodge, his expulsion being confirmed by the Grand Lodge. Members are CAUTIONED NOT TO PAY him any contributions to the Benefit Fund in future.

James Borland, P.A.. President

C.J. Moore, P.A., Secretary

Folkestone, Sept. 2nd, 1875

 

Folkestone Express 13 November 1875.

Monday, November 8th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

Jane Filmer was charged with stealing a quantity of pork and a cotton pocket handkerchief, together of the value of 4s. 3d., the property of Alfred Grimstead.

Prosecutor said he was a plasterer, living in Ship Street. On Saturday evening he was in the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, when prisoner came in, accompanied by a sailor. Prosecutor had laid his handkerchief, containing the pork, upon the settle, and, after finishing his ale, he missed it. Prisoner and the sailor were also gone. He then gave information to the police.

P.C. Keeler said that from information he received he went in search of the prisoner, and found her at the Raglan Tavern at 9.30 on Saturday evening. She had the handkerchief and pork produced under her arm. Witness charged her with the robbery, when she said a friend of hers named “Katie” had dropped it in the bar. Witness then took her into custody.

In reply to the Bench, prisoner said she had no statement to make, and she was then committed for trial.

 

Southeastern Gazette 15 November 1875.

Local News.

At the police court, on Monday, before W. Wightwick, James Tolputt, R.W. Boarer, and T. Caister, Esqs., Harriet Jane Payne, alias Jane Filmer, was charged with stealing a joint of pork and a handkerchief, value together 4s. 9d., the property of Alfred Grinstead.

Prosecutor was on Saturday evening in the Raglan Tavern, where he saw the prisoner in company with a sailor. He missed the parcel after he had been in the house about two minutes, and gave information to the police the same evening.

P.C. Keeler deposed to finding prisoner at the Raglan about half-past nine, with the bundle in her possession, partly covered by the cape she was wearing. When asked for it she dropped it on the floor. She said that a friend of hers had dropped it in the bar, and she took it in a joke.

She was committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Express 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 24th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Filmer was charged with stealing a quantity of pork, value 4s. 3d., the property of Alfred Grinstead, at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, on the 6th November.

Mr. Croft appeared for the prosecution and said that the case was of so simple a nature that it would not be necessary for him to go into details. He would therefore at once proceed to call the evidence.

Alfred Grinstead said: I am a plasterer, living in Ship Street. On the 6th November I went into the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road. I had two friends with me. I had also a parcel. The one produced is the same that I had with me. I know it by the handkerchief with which it is wrapped up. It was just after nine o'clock when I went into the Raglan, and I saw the prisoner and a soldier there. I laid my bundle down on a chair near to which the prisoner was standing. I laid it down whilst I paid for three glasses of ale which I had called for. Whilst I was paying for the ale, the prisoner left, and also the soldier, but I did not see them go. I then missed the bundle and gave information to P.C. Keeler.

P.C. Keler said: On the 6th November from information received I went in search of the prisoner, and found her in the Raglan Tavern. There was a soldier with her. She had the parcel produced under her arm, and I asked to look at it. She then let the parcel drop on to the floor. I examined it, and found it had got meat in it. The meat was afterwards identified by the prosecutor. I charged the prisoner with stealing it, when she said that a friend of hers had left it for her to take care of. I then took her into custody.

Prisoner in answer to the Court said that she took up the parcel thinking it belonged to her friend. She had no idea that it belonged to the prosecutor.

The Recorder having summed up the evidence, the jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of Guilty, and the learned Recorder sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Wednesday, January 26th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer and T. Caister Esqs.

Mr. Summers, landlord of the Raglan Tavern, applied for a special license on the occasion of the annual dinner of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows on the 8th February.

Mr. Bradley (assistant Clerk to the Magistrates) said that it would be necessary to make the application at the Petty Sessions immediately preceding the date of the dinner.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1876.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and General Armstrong.

William Seabrooke and Robert Elliott were charged with being deserters from the Royal Artillery, stationed at Dover.

Both pleaded Guilty.

Superintendent Wilshere said from information he received he went in search of the prisoners on Tuesday night, and found them at the Raglan Tavern. He charged them with being deserters, when they said they were engineers. Assistance was procured and they were conveyed to the police station.

The Bench ordered them to be handed over to the military authorities.

 

Folkestone Express 21 April 1877.

Saturday, April 14th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Colonel De Crespigny, W.J. Jeffreason Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Philip Cox, a mariner, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language in Dover Street. The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ovenden deposed on Saturday evening he was called to the Raglan Tavern, where he found the prisoner, who then walked out in company with some other men. He had got but a short distance down Dover Road when he fell to the ground. His friends got him up but he immediately fell down again. On both occasions he used offensive and indecent expressions. The prisoner then went into the Crown And Anchor, to which witness was shortly after called to eject him. This he did, and the prisoner was taken home by some friends. Witness said that there had been frequent complaints about the prisoner's conduct and bad language in Dover Street.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly, and 5s. and 8s. costs for using obscene language, the alternative in each case being seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 21 July 1877.

Saturday, July 14th: Before J. Clarke Esq., Alderman Caister, and General Armstrong.

George Hall was summoned for being drunk in the Dover Road on the 6th March last. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Keeler stated that he was on duty in the High Street on the 6th March last, and was sent for to the Raglan Tavern. He went, and in the bar found the defendant lying on a form, speechless drunk. He obtained a conveyance and took him to the station. Upon searching defendant he found a bottle of whisky (produced) in his pocket. Dr. Mercer was sent for and defendant was taken to the Union next day.

Superintendent Wilshere stated that he was at the station on the 6th March when the defendant was brought to the station insensible. He immediately sent for Dr. Mercer, who said “The man is gorged with drink. Nature might recover itself, but he is so far gone as to be dead”. Dr. Mercer and Dr. Bateman called all that night and the next day, and defendant was removed to the Union.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 10s. costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 27 April 1878.

Wednesday, April 24th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.

Temporary authority was granted to Mr. William Harrison Marsh to carry on the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road.

 

Folkestone Express 20 September 1879.

Wednesday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, J. Fitness, M. Bell, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

The license of the Raglan Tavern was transferred from William Marsh to William Cheeseman.

 

Folkestone Express 23 June 1883.

Wednesday, June 20th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

The transfer of the license for the Raglan was confirmed.

 

Folkestone Express 1 November 1884.

Wednesday, October 29th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett and A.M. Watkin Esqs.

Transfer Of Licence.

Temporary authority was granted to Joseph Muller with respect to the Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1885.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Fletcher, J. Fitness, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the Raglan was transferred to Mr. Quinton.

 

Folkestone News 2 May 1885.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Monday, before The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Fitness, T. Caister, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., the Raglan Tavern was transferred to Mr. Quinton.

 

Folkestone Express 15 May 1886.

Saturday, May 8th: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, and Alderman Caister.

Alfred Swinborne, described as a flower seller, was charged with stealing a watch, value 1, the property of William Watts.

Prosecutor said he lived at Canterbury. On Friday he saw the prisoner at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, and entrusted him with a pawn ticket and the money to go to Mr. Joseph's and redeem a watch and take it to him. Prisoner did not return, and prosecutor gave information to the police. The watch produced was his.

By the prisoner: You were not drunk, nor was I.

Joseph Whiting, of the Bricklayers' Arms, Fenchurch Street, said the prisoner went to his house on Friday evening. He had been drinking, but was not drunk. He offered the watch produced for sale for half a sovereign. Witness told him he did not want it, and the prisoner went away. Prisoner said he had found the watch.

Sergeant Pay said he went in search of the prisoner and found him in Harbour Street. He told him the charge and took him into custody. Prisoner said he didn't steal the watch. He took it out of pawn for a gentleman, and afterwards could not find him.

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

 

Folkestone Express 22 December 1888.

Friday, December 13th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Alderman Banks.

John Davidson was charged with stealing a woollen shawl, and a silver mounted walking stick, the property of some person unknown.

Sergeant Harman said he was in Dover Street about half past seven on Thursday evening, in plain clothes, and from a communication he received from Boat Inspector Brice, he watched the prisoner, who he saw come out of the Perseverance beerhouse with the shawl over his shoulders and the stick in his hand. He saw prisoner go into several shops and public houses, and at half past eight followed him into the Raglan at the top of Dover Street. He cautioned him and asked him where he got the shawl and stick from. He replied “The shawl belongs to me. It was my mother's. I didn't steal the stick. It belongs to some gentleman”. He took him to the police station and charged him on suspicion of stealing the articles, and detained him for enquiries to be made. Prisoner said he did not steal the stick; he only took it. There was a lot of flymen in the house at the time. He asked prisoner what house, and he said he would go back and show him, but witness declined to go. Prisoner was under the influence of drink, and made no reply at the station to the charge.

Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand in order that he might trace the owner of the stick, which had on the silver knob the initials “F.C.S.”

On Saturday the accused was again brought up, and there being no further evidence adduced, he was discharged.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1889.

The Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, before Dr. Bateman and a full Bench.

Objection.

Objection was raised against the Raglan because the house had not been conducted properly.

Mr. W. Mowll appeared for the owners, Beer and Co., and promised to see that the house was conducted better in the future.

 

Folkestone Express 31 August 1889.

Wednesday, August 28th: Before Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole, J. Pledge and F. Boykett Esq.

The General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

All the old licenses were renewed without opposition or comment except the following:-

The Raglan Tavern: In this case the Superintendent said the house had not been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the twelve months, but he had been unable to get a case strong enough to prosecute.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of Messrs. Beer, the owners, said they were very anxious their houses should be conducted in a proper manner.

Applicant said he had not been cautioned by the police during the four years and nine months he had been there.

Supt. Taylor said the house was the resort of loose women. He had brought the matter to the notice of the owners. The licence was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 9 December 1893.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Temporary authority was granted to Frederick William Cullen to sell at the Raglan Tavern.

Note: Date for this is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 June 1895.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the licence of the Raglan Hotel was transferred to Mr. Robson.

 

Folkestone Express 8 June 1895.

Wednesday, June 5th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Raglan Tavern was transferred to W.T. Robson.

 

Folkestone Express 24 October 1896.

Local News.

On Saturday last Sidney Thomas Robson, of the Raglan Tavern, was summoned for selling liquor at prohibited hours. Sergt. Swift deposed to finding the house open at 11.30 on the night of the 5th inst., and several people were playing at “nap”. The defence was that the defendant had entertained his friends at supper, and the Magistrates dismissed the summons. On a second summons, for permitting gambling with cards, the defendant was convicted, and fined 10s. and 14s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 7 August 1897.

Friday, July 30th: Before C.J. Pursey Esq., and Alderman Salter.

John Bowden, an outporter, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road on Thursday evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Watson said on Thursday evening he saw prisoner ejected from the Raglan Hotel. He used most filthy language and he had to be taken into custody.

Prisoner, who had been previously convicted for a similar offence, was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'. Defendant was refused time for payment, and went to prison.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 9 July 1898.

Saturday, July 2nd: Before Ald. Banks, J. Pledge, J. Fitness, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

License was transferred to Mr. King, of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Henry King was granted permission to sell at the Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Henry King, Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.

Transfer was sanctioned to Mr. Henry King, Raglan Tavern, corner of Dover Street and Dover Road.

Hythe Reporter 13 August 1898

 

Folkestone Police Court.

At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following licence was transferred:

Mr. Harry King was granted a transfer of the licence of the Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Daily News 15 February 1905.

Inquest.

An inquest was held this (Wednesday) afternoon by the Borough Coroner (G.W. Haines Esq.) on the body of G. Mitchell, of 9, Grosvenor Mansions, London, an estate agent.

Charles William Stewart, decorator, of 6, Upper Park Street, Islington, identified the body as that of his brother-in-law. Deceased, who was 30 years of age, was developing a building estate, and resided where he carried on his business. His wife was still alive. He left home on Saturday evening, saying he was going to Paris to transact some business with a Mr. Raggerty, for whom he was managing an estate. Witness saw him six or eight months since, but knew nothing of his affairs.

William Adams, of the coastguard station, Sandgate, deposed that he found the body at 7 a.m. on the beach on the Lower Sandgate Road, near the western Lift. He was returning from Folkestone to Sandgate. Tide was ebbing, and it would be high water at 5.10 a.m. Deceased was fully dressed, excepting his hat, and had on a long coat with a collar. He was lying flat on his face, with his right arm extended. A glove was on the hand, and the face was bleeding. Witness gave information to the police, and saw the deceased undressed at the mortuary.]

Henry King, landlord of the Raglan Hotel, deposed: I identify the body as that of a man whom I had seen at the Alexandra Hotel the night previous. I asked him if he was staying at Folkestone, and he said “No, I have come from Paris tonight”. He left the Alexandra at 11 o'clock and went round by the Royal George. He seemed cheerful and rational. In conversation he said he was seasick when he went on the sea. He was perfectly sober. I noticed his coat was muddy as if he had been sitting down. He said nothing as to where he was going, but kept on smoking cigarettes. He paid for mine and Mr. Barber's drinks with half a crown, and told tales and laughed heartily. I was surprised when I heard he had no stick or bag. I did not notice if he was wearing a ring.

Dr. Thornton Gilbert deposed: I went to the mortuary to see the body, and found no marks of violence except on his face and scalp, which I should say was caused by the pebbles and stones on the beach. There was a lot of sand in his mouth and nostrils. I should say he died from drowning. I was told that when they stripped him his body was still warm, so he could not have been in the water long. He had been shaved about three hours before going into the water. He had a double row of teeth at the top, and one finger had the appearance of having had a ring on.

E. Chadwick deposed that he attended at the mortuary yesterday morning and saw the body. The deceased had on him 1s. 3d., a watch, a pair of links, and a pair of gold spectacles. The watch had stopped at 2.20.

A verdict of “Died from drowning” was returned, there being no evidence to show how the deceased got into the water.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 February 1905.

Inquest.

On Wednesday afternoon the Borough Coroner, Mr. G.W. Haines, and a jury inquired into the circumstances surrounding the death of a well-dressed stranger, who was found dead within a yard of the water on the Lower Sandgate Road on Tuesday morning. Many rumours of a more or less startling nature had been circulated during the day. It was therefore very satisfactory when it was known that the body had been identified, and that a possible chain of circumstances would be given in evidence. – such at least as would point almost conclusively as to how and by what means deceased met his death.

Charles Edward Stewart, of 6, Upper Park Street, Islington, said: I am a builder and decorator. I identify the body now viewed by the jury as that of Frederick Mitchell, an estate agent, of 9, Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, London, S.W. He was developing a building estate for another gentleman. I should say he was about 30 years of age. Deceased was my brother-in-law. His wife is still alive.

The Coroner: Is his wife present here today?

Witness: No; I could find her in two or three minutes.

The Coroner: Do you know when he left Grosvenor Mansions last?

Witness: On Saturday to go to Paris to see the gentleman for whom he carries on business transactions. The man's name is Rafferty, and his London address is Grosvenor Mansions. It is six or eight months since I saw the deceased. I do not know much about his affairs, neither does his wife.

William Adams, a Coastguard attached to the Sandgate Division, said: Yesterday at 7.30 in the morning I was returning from Folkestone to Sandgate, when opposite the new lift I saw a body lying about one yard clear of the water. The water was ebbing. It was high tide at 10.05 a.m., and was then quarter ebb. Deceased was fully dressed, with the exception of his hat. He had a long coat with the fur collar turned up over the head. The body was face downward, with the right arm extended, and the fingers all out so (flat). A glove was on one hand. I immediately gave information to the police, and accompanied the body to the mortuary.

Henry King, sworn, said: I am licensee of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road. The body now lying at the mortuary I identify as that of a man I saw on Monday night. I went into the Alexandra Hotel about 10 o'clock in the evening. The man was dressed in an overcoat with an astrakhan collar, had prominent teeth, and was very good looking. I sat down beside him, and asked of he was staying in Folkestone. He said “Oh, no!”, and told me he had just come over from Paris. At eleven o'clock he wished Mr. Barber and I goodnight, and walked off round by the George. He seemed perfectly cheerful and rational. I noticed that his overcoat round the bottom and his boots were covered in mud.

The Coroner: What was he drinking?

Witness: Whisky hot.

The Coroner: Was he sober?

Witness: Quite.

Continuing: He did not say where he was going. In conversation, he said he did not like the sea travelling as it always made him sick. When he paid for the drink I think he put down 2s. 6d., and I believe had 1s. 9d. change. When he went out I said to Mr. Barber “What a nice fellow he seems”. He had been laughing and we had been telling each other tales.

The Chief Constable: Was he carrying a bag or anything?

Witness: No.

Dr. W.T. Gilbert deposed: By your orders (the Coroner's) I went to the mortuary this morning, and saw the body in the same position as you have now seen. I found no marks of violence, blows or contusions, except on the face and scalp. I was told that he was found on the pebbles. The wounds were quite superficial, and would not account for death. I was told that there was a lot of sand in his mouth and nostrils. I should say that he died from drowning. The only evidence I got was that when they were stripping deceased his body was still warm. On looking at his upper lip I should say that he had been shaved within three hours of getting into the water. He had a very peculiar condition, that is, he had a double row of teeth in the upper jaw. His little finger showed the mark of having worn a ring. I could not detect any smell of drink; that would be neutralised by the water.

Edwin John Chadwick, Town Sergeant, sworn, said: I attended the mortuary yesterday morning and undressed the deceased, and took an inventory of all he was wearing. This included (among other things) a 14 ct. gold watch and chain, 1s. 3d. in money, two stones, a leather case with card case attached, with an envelope, on which was written the address – F. Mitchell, care of Mr. Rafferty, 9 Grosvenor Mansions – a compass and two sleeve links.

The Coroner directed Mr. Stewart to go and fetch Mrs. Mitchell, but after some minutes the witness returned to the Court. He informed the Coroner that deceased's wife had taken some rooms in Victoria Grove, but he could not find her. She had not attended the Court as she had not thought it necessary. Had she known that she was wanted to attend, she would readily have come to the Court. Deceased, witness said, did not tell his wife much about his business affairs.

The Chief Constable suggested to the Coroner that witness did know a little more than he had stated.

The Coroner: Do you know whether the deceased had at any time threatened to take his own life?

Witness: On a good many occasions he had said life was not worth living.

The Coroner: Was a letter received by his wife from Folkestone?

Witness: Not from Folkestone, but from Paris.

The Coroner: Do you know the contents of that letter?

Witness: No.

The Coroner: Who has it?

Witness: His wife.

The Coroner: Generally, what were the contents of that letter?

Witness: That since he had arrived in Paris he had come to the conclusion that his journey was a failure, and that he had no hope for the future in life.

The Coroner then addressed the jury and reviewed the evidence, drawing particular attention to the doctor's evidence, which negative any suggestion of violence.

The jury at once returned a verdict that deceased was found drowned. There were no marks of violence, and no evidence to show how deceased entered the water.

 

Folkestone Express 18 February 1905.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Wednesday afternoon at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on the body of Frederick Mitchell, a house and estate agent, og Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, S.W. The body was found the previous morning on the beach by a coastguardsman. The Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) conducted the enquiry.

Charles Edward Stewart, a builder and decorator, of 6, Upper Park Street, Islington, said he identified the body as that of Frederick Mitchell, of Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, a house and estate agent, in business for himself. He was woth three or four other gentlemen developing a building estate. Deceased's age was about 30, an was the brother-in-law of witness. His wife was in Folkestone, but was ill. On Saturday evening the deceased left Grosvenor Mansions. He said he was going to transact some business for the gentleman for whom he carried on an estate. The gentleman's name was Patrick Rafferty. Witness last saw the deceased about six months back. He did not know, nor did the deceased's wife know much about his affairs.

William Adams, a coastguard, attached to the Sandgate Station, said the previous morning at 7.30 he was returning from Folkestone to Sandgate, and when opposite the new lift he saw the body lying about a yard from the water, which had just left him. High water was at ten minutes past five. Deceased was fully dressed, with the exception of the hat, with a heavy greatcoat on. The body was lying flat on the face with the right arm extended, the fingers of the hand also lying out flat. Witness could not see any hat near. The body was bleeding from the face, which appeared to be bruised through coming into contact with the rocks.

Henry King, licensee of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, said he had seen the body lying at the mortuary, and he identified it as that of a man who he was with on Monday night for about an hour. He met the deceased in the Alexandra Hotel about ten o'clock in the evening. Witness asked him if he was staying in Folkestone, and he replied he was not. He also said he had come from Paris that night by the boat at nine o'clock. At eleven o'clock they came out of the hotel, and the deceased left them at the door going round at the George. He appeared very rational and quite cheerful. He said, however, that he dreaded the sea because he was always sick when he went on it. He had been drinking hot whisky but was quite sober. From the bottom of his coat for about a foot up there was a lot of mud, and it looked as though the deceased had been sitting down in it. Deceased did not say where he was going. He paid for the drinks with half a crown. He did not appear to witness as though he was suffering from mental depression. Deceased was wearing a hard hat. Witness did not notice whether he was wearing a ring.

Dr. Gilbert said he went to the mortuary that morning and saw the body. On examining it he found no marks of violence, or contusions except on the face and scalp. The marks, he considered, were caused by the action of stones and pebbles. There was a lot of sand about. The wounds were quite superficial, and would not account for death. There was a lot of sand in the mouth and nostrils; in fact the latter were choked up. He should say deceased died from drowning. He was told that when the body was stripped it was warm, so deceased could not have been in the water many hours. Looking at his upper lip he should say the deceased had been shaved within three hours of getting into the water. Deceased had a double row of front teeth – a peculiar physical condition. On the left hand there were marks as though he had worn a ring on the little finger. Witness could not smell any evidence of drink, which, however, would be neutralised by the water he swallowed.

Adams, re-called, said there was a lot of sand where he found the deceased.

Edwin J. Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said he went to the mortuary the previous morning and undressed the body. In the pockets of deceased he found a pair of compasses, two stones, a leather case with card case attached, containing an envelope which bore the name F. Mitchell. There was also a 14 carat gold watch, a gold chain, a pair of gold links, and 1s. 3d. on him. He had no ring upon him.

The Coroner, in summing up, said there was no suggestion that Mitchell had been robbed, and no marks about him of any violence.

Mr. Stewart, who had been in search of the deceased's wife, returned and said he could not find her. He further stated that deceased always made a deal more of things than what he ought to. Mrs. Mitchell had the impression that there was no need for her to attend. She had received a letter from her husband posted at Paris in which he said he had come to the conclusion his journey was a failure and he did not think there was any prospect in future life.

The Coroner's Officer stated that deceased's watch stopped at 2.20.

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

 

Folkestone Herald 18 February 1905.

Inquest.

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines), on Wednesday, upon a body which was found on Folkestone beach on Tuesday morning.

The deceased was identified by Charles Wm. Stewart, a builder and decorator, residing at 6, Upper Park Road, Islington, as Frederick Mitchell, his brother-in-law, a house and estate agent, of 9, Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, London. Witness could not say how old deceased was, but guessed about thirty. Mr. Mitchell had carried on business at his residence, as far as he could state, and left Grosvenor Mansions on Saturday evening to transact business with a man named Rafferty, as he said. Witness did not know much about the affairs of deceased.

The Coroner, on being told that the dead man's widow was in Folkestone, desired that she should be called.

William Adams, Coastguard, of Sandgate Station, stated that he found the body on the beach about 7.30 a.m. on Tuesday, opposite the new lift. The water had just left him, being about a yard away, high tide occurring about 5.10 a.m. on that morning. He was well-dressed, having on a heavy greatcoat with an astrakhan collar turned up, but no hat, and was lying on his face with his right arm extended. He had one glove on. The clothes were soaked through, and had a quantity of sand adhering. There was some blood on his face. Witness gave information to the police.

Henry King, licensee of the Raglan Hotel, stated that he saw deceased in the Alexandra Hotel on Monday evening, and could identify him because of his prominent teeth. He was with him for an hour on Monday night. When deceased was asked if he was staying in Folkestone, he replied “Oh, no”. Witness described him to an acquaintance, on that occasion, as a very nice fellow, and stated that he was very rational, and told tales, laughed, and altogether left no room for the slightest suspicion that he was even downhearted, much less contemplating suicide. The only thing deceased said that was in any way disagreeable was that when he went on the water he was always sick. He had returned from Paris that evening. During the evening he drank whisky, and was smoking all the time. In payment he put down half a crown, and received in change about 1s. Witness noticed that his boots were covered with mud, as also was his coat about a foot from the bottom. He wore a clean white shirt, collar, and cuffs, and was, on the whole, well dressed. When he left, with his hands in his pockets, about 11 p.m., he was quite sober, and wished them a cheerful goodnight.

Dr. J.W. Thornton Gilbert stated that he found no marks of violence on the body, except slight wounds on the face and scalp. There were no bruises or contusions. He considered the wounds due to the actions of the stones, pebbles, etc. The mouth and nostrils were choked with sand, and he considered deceased had died from drowning. Asked how long the body had been in the water, the doctor stated that he had no direct evidence on that point, but the body was warm when stripped. The upper lip had been shaved within three hours, not by artificial means, but through some cause while in the water. He had a peculiar double row of front teeth in the upper jaw, and a ring mark on his little finger. There was no smell of drink. If there had been originally, the water would have eradicated it.

William Adams, on being re-called, stated that a large amount of sand was on that part of the beach.

Edwin J. Chadwick, Coroner's Officer, stated that he searched deceased at the mortuary, and found on him a pair of compasses, a 14 carat gold watch and chain, and a letter with his name and address upon it; also a leather purse.

Upon being asked if there was any suggestion of suicide, Mr. Stewart stated that Mrs. Mitchell had received a letter from Paris from deceased, containing something to the effect that since he reached Paris he had come to the conclusion that his journey was a failure and that he had no hopes or future prospects in life.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned, but that there was no evidence to show how deceased came to be in the sea”.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 March 1905.

Monday, March 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillor G. Peden, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. E.T. Ward, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

John Bexhill, alias Hiriam Heisden, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on Saturday night.

P.S. Laurence stated that after 11 p.m. prisoner was shouting and challenging someone to fight. At the Raglan Hotel he threw down his hat and offered to fight again. Witness took him into custody. Prisoner became violent, and witness closed with him, there being a struggle on the ground for about ten minutes. P.C. Prebble came to the assistance of witness, and prisoner was handcuffed, and his legs tied. He was so violent that his boots had to be taken off. P.S. Laurence said he had known him for thirteen years, but had never known him to work.

Prisoner was sent to prison for a month, with hard labour. As he left the dock, accused remarked to the Magistrates “You don't keep me; I keep myself”.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Messrs. Spurgen, Carpenter and Fynmore.

The Bench approved plans for alterations at the Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

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

The Bench approved of plans for alterations at the Raglan Tavern.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

Mr. King applied for the approval of a change of plans in the Raglan.

 

Folkestone Express 23 February 1907.

Wednesday, February 20th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames and C. Jenner Esqs.

The licence of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. H. King to Mr. C.H. Barker.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 February 1907.

Wednesday, February 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor J. Jenner, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore and T. Ames.

The licence of the Raglan Inn, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Charles Hy. Barker to Hy. Keene.

Note: This appears to be a mix-up and misnaming. This should be from King to Barker.

 

Folkestone Express 2 March 1907.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggatt, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The Raglan Tavern, from Mr. H. King to Mr. C.H. Barker.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 March 1907.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Councillor G. Boyd, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The licence of the Raglan Tavern was transferred from Mr. Henry Kingsley (sic) to Mr. Charles Henry Barker.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.

The transfers of the licences of the Bricklayers Arms and The Raglan were confirmed.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The licences of the Raglan and the Bricklayers Arms, which had been temporarily transferred since the annual licensing meeting, were confirmed by the Justices.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.

The renewal of the licence of the Raglan Hotel was granted to the new tenant.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Licensing Bench on Wednesday, February 12th, was constituted as follows: Messrs. Ward, Boyd, Leggett, Swoffer, Stainer, Herbert, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The Chief Constable read his report (for which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, but the Bench were still of opinion that there were too many licensed houses in a certain portion of the town. Therefore a number would have their licences withheld until the adjourned sessions on the ground of redundancy. Formal opposition to the renewals would be served so that full enquiries could be made into the trade of these houses, with a view of referring some of them to the Compensation Authority.

The following were the licences which were held over: The Raglan, Dover Street; Oddfellows, Dover Street; Royal Oak, North Street; Isle of Cyprus, Bayle; Lord Nelson, Radnor Street; Lifeboat, North Street; Wellington, Beach Street.

 

Folkestone Express 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Justices present were E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer Esqs. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Stainer did not take part in the licensing business, not being on the committee.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 119 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full Licences 73, Beer On 7, Beer Off 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers Off 15, Grocers, etc. Off 9, Confectioners' Wine On 3, Chemists Wine Off 5. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 281 persons, or one on licence to every 418 persons. As compared with the return submitted last year this is a decrease of two licences. At the general annual licensing meeting last year a new licence was granted for the sale of beer off the premises at Morehall, and two other off licences were discontinued.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of that Committee on the 7th August, 1912, the licence was refused, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on the 28th December last.

During the past year fifteen of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Six occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 34 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

In the preceding year 54 males and 31 females were proceeded against, of whom 66 were convicted and 19 discharged.

The number convicted of drunkenness last year, viz., 46 males and 18 females, is, I find, the smallest number convicted in any year since 1896.

Of those proceeded against, 31 were residents of the Borough, 34 were persons of no fixed abode, 13 residents of other districts and seven were soldiers.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken against the holder of an off licence for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

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

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, eight for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I have no complaint to make as to the conduct of any of the licensed houses, and offer no opposition to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

The Chairman said it was a very satisfactory report indeed, but they felt that there were still too many licensed houses, particularly in certain portions of the Borough, and the Justices would direct that a certain number of the applications for renewal should be deferred till the Adjourned Sessions, so that they might have evidence as to the trade those houses were doing, and decide whether any of them ought to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

The houses to be dealt with were seven in number, namely; the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, the Royal Oak, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington.

With those exceptions the existing licences were granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman remarked that the report was a very satisfactory one, but, in the opinion of the Bench, there were still too many public houses in certain portions of the town, and they would defer the renewal of certain of the licences to the adjourned sessions, so that they might have evidence as to what trade they were doing, and see if any of them were to be referred to the compensation authority.

The licensees of the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, Dover Street, the Royal Oak, North Street, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington were called forward.

The Chairman said the renewal of the licences of those public houses would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions, and notice of opposition would be served in the meantime on the ground of redundancy. The Chief Constable would be directed to serve the notices.

The licences of all the other houses were then renewed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 10 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 10th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Stainer, Herbert, Harrison, Morrison, Linton, Boyd, Stace, Jenner, and Giles.

There was again a large crowd in Court on Monday morning, when the fate of 7 licensed houses (referred for redundancy) hung in the balance.

At the commencement of the proceedings the Chief Constable said the Bench had to consider the seven licences adjourned from the annual sessions on the ground of redundancy. He invited the Bench to hear the evidence in regard to such houses separately and give a decision after hearing all the evidence.

The Raglan.

Tenant, C.H. Marker, brewers, Geo. Beer & Co., rateable value 36.

The Chief Constable offered the same objections.

Mr. Mowll appeared to ask for the renewal of the licence.

The barrelage in the case of the Raglan was given as 1910, 176 barrels, 126 gallons of spirits, 1911, 205 barrels of beer, 111 gallons of spirits, 1912, 214 barrels of beer, 157 gallons of spirits.

The Bench retired at 4 p.m., and returned at 4.10, the Chairman announcing that the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to Canterbury and the other five licences would be renewed.

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Raglan Tavern.

Mr. R. Mowll asked for a renewal of the licence of the Raglan Tavern.

Mr. Reeve said the tenant was Mr. Charles Henry Baker, who obtained a transfer on February 27th, 1907. The registered owners were Messrs. G. Beer and Co. The rateable value was 36. The accommodation consisted of a front bar, which was divided into two compartments by a partition six feet high. Each compartment had a separate entrance from the street, one in Dover Street, and the other at the corner. There was also an entrance in Dover Road, which opened into a lobby, which was very dark, the only light being obtained from a fanlight in the lobby. There was no yard or back way. The landlord's living room was at the back. There was no urinal provided for the customers. The nearest licensed house was the Martello, 22 yards away, the rateable value of which was 44. The bars were clean, and the premises were generally suitable, with the exception that there was no urinal. He had no complaint to make as regarded the conduct of the house. The trade, he should say, was small, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in accommodating the customers elsewhere.

Mr. Oliver, a member of the owning firm, said in 1910, 176 barrels of beer and 123 gallons of spirits were sold, in 1911, 205 and 111, and in 1912, 211 barrels and 137 gallons of spirits.

The Chairman: Then the Budget does not seem to have decreased your spirit trade. (Laughter)

Mr. Baker said he paid 261 1s. 5d. to go into the house, 244 being for furniture and fittings. He did nothing else for a living, and did not want to leave the house.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Justices, mentioned that the house formerly belonged to Mr. Kingsford, who was his grandfather, and he chose that excellent site for the premises. In a sense, therefore, it was a personal matter, and he appealed to the Bench not to take away the licence, so that when he came to Folkestone, as he often did, and passed the house, he would not have to think that what his grandfather obtained with a rake, he, his grandson, lost with a shovel. (Laughter)

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licences of the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to the Quarter Sessions. For those there would be provisional licences. The five other licences would be renewed, but they thought that the owners of the Wellington and the Raglan should consider the question of the urinals.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Police Court on Monday, when the licences of the seven houses deferred at the Annual General Sessions came up for hearing. Mr. E.T. Ward was in the chair, and he was supported by Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel C.J. Hamilton, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Captain Chamier, Mr. J.J. Giles, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison and Councillor A. Stace.

The Raglan Tavern.

The Bench next considered the licence of the Raglan Tavern. Mr. Rutley Mowll represented the owners.

The Chief Constable stated that the house was situated at the corner of Dover Road and Dover Street. The licensee was Mr. Charles Henry Barker, who obtained the transfer of the licence to himself in February of 1907. The registered owners were Messrs. George Beer and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was 36. The accommodation for the public consisted of a front bar, divided into two compartments by a partition about six feet high. Each compartment had a separate entrance from the street – one in Dover Street, and the other at the corner. There was also an entrance in Dover Road, which opened into a lobby leading into a bar parlour. This bar parlour was dark, the only light being obtained through the fanlight over the door communicating with the lobby. There was no yard or backway. At the back was the landlord's living room, into which there was a separate entrance from Dover Road, but this door did not appear to have been used for some time. There was no urinal whatever provided for customers on the premises, and complaints had been made from time to time regarding nuisances arising from this lack of provision. The nearest licensed house was nearly opposite, the Martello, which was 22 yards away, and which had a rateable value of 44. The next was the Railway Inn, in Dover Road, on the left hand side as one went up to the Junction Station, which had a rateable value of 28. The bars of the Raglan were clean, and the premises generally were clean and suitable, with the exception of the lack of provision he had referred to already. He had no complaints to make as to the conduct of the house. He should say that the trade was a small one, and he did not think that there would be any difficulty in accommodating the customers of the house elsewhere.

Mr. F. Oliver said he was Manager for Messrs. Beer and Co. The Raglan Tavern was a long leasehold house. The trade during the last three years had been as follows: 1910, 176 barrels of beer, 123 gallons of spirits; 1911, 205 barrels of beer, 111 gallons of spirits; 1912, 214 barrels of beer, 137 gallons of spirits.

Mr. Charles Henry Barker, the licensee, said that when he took over the house he paid 261 6s. 5d. to go in, 244 of which was represented by the furniture and fixtures. He had been entirely dependent on it, and had done nothing else for a living. He had been making a living during the last seven years.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He had a small pension of something under 3 a quarter.

In addressing the Magistrates, Mr. Rutley Mowll drew attention to statement made by Lord Harris, in which he requested that local Justices should take care not to send up to the Court for compensation houses which were obviously doing a trade such as to make them not redundant. Lord Harris stated that he did not hesitate to use such strong terms as to say that to hold that a house using five barrels a week was redundant was absolutely ridiculous. Proceeding, Mr. Mowll said if they took the view that because there were other houses which could accommodate the custom of a particular house, therefore they would take away the licence of that house, they would be able to remove a great many. But that was not the view of the question taken by the Compensation Authority. Mr. Mowll concluded by stating that the Raglan originally belonged to Mr. Kingsford. Now, Mr. Kingsford was his grandfather. He asked the Magistrates to imagine his feelings when he came down from the Junction Station, and saw the house which was put there by the wisdom of his grandfather. If they deprived it of its licence that morning, when he saw the house in future he would have to say “My grandfather got that house in with the rake, and his grandson got rid of it with the shovel”. (Laughter).

The Magistrates retired for a period to consider their decisions. On their return the Chairman said that with regard to the Raglan, the Bench would renew the licence, but they would like that in that case also the urinal question should be attended to.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 March 1914.

Local News.

Great consternation was caused this (Tuesday) morning at the Police Court when three licensed victuallers were summoned for selling cigarettes between 6 and 7 on a Wednesday evening.

The Bench consisted of Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. Giles, Fynmore, Jenner, Owen, and Boyd.

The defendants were Charles Henry Barker, John William Summerfield, Edward William James, and Julia Willson. Mr. Holme appeared for the defence, and the Town clerk prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence that the defendants had been asked to supply these goods, and were under the impression that they were exempt.

As everyone knows, the legislature never included licensed victuallers in the Act, and Folkestone would never have heard of this prosecution but for the action of a few bona fide tobacco dealers, who petitioned the Corporation to ask the Home Office.

The case of Mr. Summerfield was taken first. Mr. Holme, for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

The Town Clerk, in opening the case, said the summons was issued under the Shops Act, 1912, and this was the first case taken under the Act. He proceeded to deal with the provisions of the Act, and the adoption of the Order by the local authority in respect to tobacconists.

Harold Summerfield, and assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's Office, said on February 18th he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the bar parlour and asked the assistant for a packet of shag tobacco. At first the assistant refused to serve him, and said “It is Wednesday afternoon, and I cannot serve you”. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant called him back, and said “I'll oblige you this time. You must not tell anyone as we should be getting into trouble”. He was served and paid 4d. for the tobacco.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holmes: Witness did not know whether this public house had any different features as regards the sale of tobacco to any other house. So far as witness was concerned, it was a mere casual sale.

Mr. Holmes: A register is kept under the Act?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Holme: Is the Royal Standard in the register?

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Holmes: Are any public houses in the register?

The Town Clerk: A few; the large ones.

Mr. Holmes: There is a notice in the Act which requires that every person should be served with a notice.

The Town Clerk: I do not think the question should be put.

Mr. Holme: Very well, I'll get it from defendant that no such notice was served.

The Town Clerk combatted the right to put the question and Mr. Holme said for the present he would not press it.

The Town clerk: That closes my case.

Mr. Holme, opening the defence, dealt with the interpretation of the Act, which had to be construed as an Act, which had to be considered as the exception and not within the rule. He pointed out that if the Act was to be seriously considered, he would take the early closing of fruit shops. Why, absurd as the proposition was, it would equally apply to the Metropole Hotel, where they could not supply vegetables and dessert on Wednesday afternoons and evenings. Dealing with a circular from Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, which pointed out that distinction could be made between regular sale and casual sale, he said the prosecution had admitted that exceptions had to be made, and having made exceptions and got within the walls of the Act they must adopt a common-sense point of view. The Act exempted licensed victuallers, unless brought in.

The Town Clerk: Not only licensed victuallers, but other people.

Mr. Holme: Yes, but licensed victuallers are included, and I am here today for the licensed victuallers.

The Town clerk: I submit that it is not within the power of the Bench to go into anything subsequent to the Act. The section says that the Order is an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Holme: If the case goes to the High Court it is essential to get out all the points. I contend that the Order was never intended to include my clients.

Mr. Andrew advised the Bench to accept the Town Clerk's objection.

Mr. Holme: May I put my point? Can anything be more unfair than not to consult the licensed victuallers, and then making an Order including them in it? I do ask the Bench to consider the circumstances under which the Order was made. The scheme of the Order says that before you bring in an exempted class you must consult them. Voting papers must be sent out, or an an alternative a petition from two thirds of the people affected. The licensed victuallers were neither asked to vote, consulted, or asked to sign. Proceeding, he seriously suggested that if the local authority intended to make the Order, in all common sense the first thing that authority should have done was consult those who they brought within the Order.

The Town Clerk: Then not being a substantial part of the business, you would not be entitled to vote.

Mr. A.J. Hart, secretary to the Licensed Victuallers' Association, said he had inspected the register at the Town Clerk's office, and did not find the name of a licensed victualler.

By Mr. Andrew: He did not look for the names of hotel keepers, as that did not interest him.

Mr. Holme, the Town clerk, and Mr. Rutley Mowll discussed the legal position with Mr. Andrew.

The Bench retired, and on returning said they considered the case proved, but would not inflict any penalty on payment of costs.

The other cases were withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1914.

Local News.

On Tuesday a most important point with regard to the sale of tobacco by licensed victuallers on the weekly half holiday occupied the attention of the Folkestone Magistrates for close upon two hours and a half. The Magistrates consisted of Colonel Fynmore, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen, and three licensed victuallers had been summoned.

The first case held was that of John William Summerfield, the licensee of the Royal Standard, and he had been summoned for contravening Section 4 of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on Wednesday, February 18th, at 6.37 p.m., that being the weekly half holiday fixed by the Town Council. Defendant pleaded Not uilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme, of London, defended.

Mr. Kidson, in opening the case, said that was the first summons to come before the Bench under that particular Act. He, therefore, thought he ought to refer the Magistrates to the various Sections bearing on the question. He then read Section 4 of the Act, which dealt with the closing of shops on one half day of the week. He then pointed out that the schedule exempted various trades, amongst which were the tobacconists. He explained that sub-section 6 provided that the local authority might by Order extend the provisions of the Act to the shops of any class exempted if they were satisfied that at least two thirds of the occupiers of the class of shop approved of the Order. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, and it was confirmed by the Home Secretary. By sub-section 7 of Section 4 it was provided that in case of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions, the occupier of the shop would be guilty of an offence, and would be liable to a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding 1. That was the first case which had come before the Bench. By Section 6, sub-section 3, as soon as the Secretary of State had confirmed any Order that Order became final, and had the effect of an Act of Parliament. Complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing that Order, therefore it became necessary for the Inspector to make inquiry. They would hear what occurred from the evidence. To assist the Bench he would like to read a circular letter sent out by him, as follows: Shops Act, 1912. I enclose copy of an Order which has been made extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops. This Order is now in force, and must be complied with by the occupiers of the classes of shops therein referred to. With respect to the sale of tobacco, etc., at places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other refreshment places, the Home Secretary has made the following statement, and it is the intention of the Town Council to act in accordance with such statement.

Copy statement: “I am to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State is advised that licensed houses in which a retail trade in tobacco is regularly carried on are subject to the provisions of the Order, but that the Order would not apply to the occasional sale of tobacco in hotels and inns in connection with meals, e.g. the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.” A copy of that letter was sent to the defendant.

Mr. Kidson then gave evidence of the appointment of Mr. J. Pearson, the Sanitory Inspector, as Inspector under the Shops Act, 1912, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, assistant to the Sanitory Inspector, said he visited the Royal Standard public house at 6.37 on the 18th February, which was a Wednesday, and the half holiday. He entered the bottle and jug department, and asked the assistant behind the bar for an ounce of shag tobacco. The man replied “It is Wednesday afternoon. I cannot serve you”. He (witness) replied “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The man then called him back again, and said he would oblige him that time, and that he must not tell anyone, or he would get him into trouble. The man served him with an ounce of shag tobacco, and he (witness) paid 4d. for it. He did not see any notice whatever in the bar with reference to the Shops Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness said the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house. He did not think they pushed the sale of tobacco more than any ordinary public house did. There was no separate counter for the sale of tobacco, So far as he knew it was a casual sale of tobacco carried on at the house.

Mr. Holme, at this stage, asked for the register which had to be kept under the Shops Act, and when it was produced, he requested him to say whether the Royal Standard was to be found in the register.

Mr. Kidson said he admitted the Royal Standard was not entered in it. He believed there were a few public houses mentioned in it, but only some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme asked the witness if he knew whether the notice calling upon the defendant to say which was his principal trade had been served upon him.

Mr. Kidson argued that that was not a proper question to put. The point was, it seemed to him, had that Order and the Act authorising the Order been contravened?

Mr. Holme agreed to leave the matter until later. He then addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defence, and in the course of his remarks he said that was a very important case. The matter was fairly simple. They had before them the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing the words. Conceivably, they might say they meant they forbade in the district at the time in question the sale of tobacco without any exception whatever. If they were construed in that way, it would have a far reaching effect, not only on the public houses, but all the fine hotels in the district, including the Grand, the Pavilion, and the Metropole. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette after dinner in that case. If the Order was really carried out, they would not be able to have any game or vegetable for dinner at the Metropole or any other hotel. That would be absurd, and the prosecution would agree that would be absurd. The circular of the Home Secretary was, he contended, an admission that some exception was to be allowed to that general rule. By that circular a breach was made in the walls of the Act. They could not apply those words without some exception. The only exception the Home Secretary had allowed was if a cigar or cigarette was sold in connection with a meal. Not once in the regulations was the word “meal” used, and, therefore, that was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. It would be a difficult problem to say what a meal was. He suggested that the word “meal” could not be read into the Act. He agreed the circular was founded on common sense. They had to look deeper than that for a principle.

At this stage Mr. Holmes read several answers to questions put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and arguing on those answers he said the Magistrates really had to consider in that case whether that was a casual sale or was a regular trade or business carried on at the Royal Standard. The true principle they had to apply was whether that sale was casual and ancillary to what was going on in the establishment, or was it a sale in connection with the trade that was going on in the house. The Royal Standard had not developed into a miniature shop for the sale of tobacco. He was going to prove by the defendant that he had never sold any tobacco or cigarettes to a person except that it was a casual sale, and, therefore, it did not come within the words of the Act. It was an abuse of language to call the Royal Standard a shop for the sale of tobacco. That was his submission on the main point.

Mr. Kidson had mentioned Section 4 of the Act, which provided for the half holiday closing. Then Section 6 exempted licensed victuallers unless they were brought in by a special Order. Before an exempted trade could be included, certain formalities had to be gone through. By a sub-section and the regulations there had to be a two thirds majority of the shops before the trade could be brought in. A register was also to be prepared.

Mr. Kidson said it was not the Magistrates' duty to go into anything prior to the making of the Order.

Mr. Holme said he was not going to say the order was bad, but he wanted to try to find out whether the prosecution meant to bring in his client. Did the Order include his client? If he could show that the prosecution, when they made the Order, had no intention of brining in his client, surely that was relevant to the matter.

A good deal of argument ensued on this point, and Mr. Holmes said he could not imagine anything more unfair than that an Order should be made without consulting all the people whom it could affect.

The Magistrates' Clerk eventually said that Mr. Holme might raise the point should the question of inflicting a penalty arise.

Mr. Holme said he admitted for the sake of argument the Order was good, nevertheless he did ask the Bench to take into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Proceeding, he said no voting paper was sent to his client. He admitted that a notice was published asking tradesmen to go to the Town Clerk's office to see if they were on the register. He wished to point out there was a provision in the Act by which they might have got out of that dilemma. It was that sub-section which dealt with the case of a mixed trade. He submitted, however, that that was not a mixed trade, but that a publican's business was one trade, catering for the public. In the case of a mixed trade the Council had to inquire from the occupier which he considered to be his principal trade.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had not a separate counter for the sale of tobacco, and he made no special effort to push tobacco. If tobacco was sold to the Inspector in that case, it was the one solitary exception that he had sold tobacco to a man who had not purchased something else. His tobacco trade was about 5 percent of his trade. He had had no notice served on him requiring him to say what he considered to be his principal trade, and no voting paper was sent to him.

The Magistrates' Clerk held Mr. Holme was not entitled to put questions on that point.

Mr. Summerfield said he did not sign any application for the Order to be made.

Cross-examined, he said he would not call his tobacco trade his principal trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not be entitled to have your name entered on the register.

Mr. A. Hart gave evidence as to going to the Town Clerk's office and examining the register. He could not find the name of the Royal Standard entered in it, nor any other licensed house.

The case of Charles Henry Barker, the licensee of the Raglan, was next dealt with. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kidson put in the Order made by the Home Secretary, and produced the appointment of the Inspector of Nuisances as the Inspector. In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Barker's name was not entered in the register. The Council did not ascertain by vote whether the defendant or other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. The petition asking for the Order was received from the tobacconists.

Harry Summerfield said he visited the defendant's premises at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18th, and asked for a 2d. cigar. He was served with it, and paid 2d. for it.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask for any refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates at length on the matter. He urged that his client had committed no offence, as it was an occasional, casual sale. He pointed out also that bread and cheese, or even a biscuit, would be regarded as a meal, and he held that a man would be able to purchase a cigar or cigarette. According to the Home Secretary, that was a casual and occasional sale, and not within the meaning of the Act. It would be very hard indeed to apply the Order to such a case as that. In his opinion it was a condition precedent to the making of that Order that the Town Council should first have been satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class should approve of the Order. If his client was one of that class to be prosecuted, then he was also one of the class who had the right to vote for the Order. In other words, the Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny to them the privileges of the section. He contended that there was no provision in the Act which said that the Order for the weekly half holiday should have the operation of the Act of Parliament. It was only by closing order that might have the effect of an Act; the weekly half holiday Order did not have that effect, for they had to be made, and could be revoked. In conclusion, he suggested that instead of coming to a decision that day, they should postpone that matter for a short time, and give the licensed victuallers the opportunity of approaching the Corporation and putting before them their views, and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order. He thought the Council would agree to the revocation of the Order, for it would be saving the trouble of deciding a point of law. They must not forget that a conviction was a serious objection to a licensee. It seemed to him the best course would be to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation.

Mr. Kidson said if there was an adjournment there ought to be an undertaking given that there would be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Council to be unfair with the licensed victuallers. If the latter did approach them, he was certain they would consider the matter.

Mr. Holme said for his client he would prefer to have a definite decision.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case had been proved, but inasmuch as the parties had suggested a re-consideration by the Council of the position of licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and they dismissed the cases against Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Barker, on payment of the costs, 8/6.

Mr. Holme asked the Clerk if he would state a case.

The Clerk said there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme said that was very unfortunate. Nothing could be more inconvenient for his client, for they were no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The Clerk said if there had been a conviction he would not have stated a case. He would have left it to the defendants to apply for a mandamus.

Summonses against Mr. E.W. James, another licensed victualler, and Mrs. Julia Wilson, a shopkeeper, were withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1914.

Local News.

The question of the right of publicans to sell tobacco on Wednesday afternoon (early closing day), was discussed at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, four licence holders having been summoned for a breach of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on the 18th February after 1 p.m.

The Magistrates were Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G. Boyd and J.J. Giles, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The case against John Wm. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, for selling tobacco at 6.30 p.m. on the 18th February was first heard. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk said this was the first summons that had come before them under that particular Act, and he thought perhaps he should refer them to the various sections bearing upon the question. Mr. Kidson then went into many details concerning various sections of the Act. He mentioned that tobacconists were under one section exempt from the Act, but added that another section provided for this particular matter, and the local authority had power, if satisfied that they had at least two thirds majority of tobacconists to include them. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, which was confirmed by the Home Secretary. The Order provided “That the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, with respect to the closing of shops for the serving of customers in the afternoon of one weekday in every week, are hereby extended to the undermentioned shops in the urban district of Folkestone, to all shops except those in the Morehall district, and in High Street, Sandgate, wherein is carried on the trade or business of the sale of tobacco or smokers' requisites”. That Order was confirmed by the Home Secretary. In referring to many legal points in the case, Mr. Kidson alluded to Section 6, sub-section 3, which provided “As soon as the Secretary of State has confirmed any Order, the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament”. A complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing this Order. Therefore it became necessary to make inquiry. Inquiry was made, and the facts in this case were very simple, and he presumed could not be disputed. He thought it was hardly necessary to draw their attention to the fact that the Order provided that the day of the half holiday should be Wednesday for all the shops. They knew that this was a new Act of Parliament, and the Order was newer still. The Magistrates might like to know what steps had been taken to make known Orders and Acts of Parliament of the kind. If it would be of any assistance, he would explain what had been done.

The Chairman expressed the wish of the Bench to hear the particulars.

The Town Clerk then produced a circular (which, he said, was sent out to the defendant amongst others), in which he stated that he enclosed a copy of the Order which had been made extending the provisions of section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops, including tobacconists. Next Mr. Kidson touched upon a statement made by Mr. McKenna, in which he said he was to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State was advised that licensed houses in which the retail trade of tobacco was regularly carried on, were subject to the provisions of the Order, but did not apply to the casual sale of tobacco at hotels and inns in connection with meals and the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.

Mr. Holme pointed out that the opinion of the Home Secretary was not binding on the Bench.

The Town Clerk said it was an intimation of the view he would like the authorities to take.

Mr. Holme: It is an admission by the prosecution.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said that Mr. Pearson was appointed the Inspector under the Act for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, an assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, on the 18th February, a Wednesday, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the premises by the door at the bottom of Bridge Street, and asked the assistant for an ounce of shag tobacco. There was a small pigeon hole where customers were served. The assistant refused to serve him at first, saying it was Wednesday afternoon. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant then called him back, and this time served him, saying “I will oblige you this time,, but you must not tell anyone, or we shall get into trouble”. The assistant then served him, and witness paid him 4d. Witness saw no notice in reference to the Shops Act.

Mr. Holme said there was no dispute as to the facts. However, the case was not an important case. Mr. Kidson said it was the first case in the Borough; he (Mr. Holme) believed it was the first case anywhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness stated that the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house, and he did not know that it made any special effort to push the sale of tobacco any more than other public houses.

Mr. Holme pointed out that in hotels there were cabinets and counters for the sale of tobacco, and, turning to witness, asked “There was nothing of the kind here. Was there, in fact, any tobacco on the bars?”

Witness: I saw none.

Was anyone else buying tobacco when you were there? – Not in that department.

Did you see anyone else buy tobacco? – No.

Had you been in the house before? – No.

As far as your knowledge goes, it was the only case of an ounce of tobacco being sold? – Yes.

So far as you know, it was merely a casual sale? – Yes.

Mr. Holme pointed out that, under the Act, a register was to be kept, and in the register there were set out the different classes of shops affected. He asked witness to find the Royal Standard in the register.

Mr. Kidson said the Royal Standard was not in the register.

Mr. Holme asked if any public house was in the register.

Mr. Kidson: There are a few; some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme remarked that for some perfectly unexplained reason the Royal Standard was not in. No doubt there was a very good reason. Continuing, he asked witness if he could tell him if there was a provision under the Act by which a local authority might serve a notice on any shop occupier requiring him to say which he considered his principal trade, and could the witness tell him if that notice was served on the occupier of the Royal Standard?

Mr. Kidson submitted that it was not a proper question. It did not matter what notice was served. That was not the question for their consideration at all. The point was whether the Order was contravened.

Mr. Holme said the matter to be considered was fairly simple. They had the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. It might fairly be said that the question was “That in the district and at the time in question no shop might be kept open for the sale of tobacco”. Those were the words they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing those words. They might say that in the district and at the time in question it forbade the sale of tobacco without any exception whatsoever. That was one way of construing them, but he pointed out how ver far-reaching would be their decision if that course was adopted. It would affect all public houses and all hotels in the district. It would include the Metropole and the Grand. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette, not even after dinner. And it went even further than that. Mr. Kidson did not read the Order with regard to prohibiting shops being open for the sale of poultry, game, of perishable articles, fruit, vegetables and flowers. Under the Act it enabled him to include confectionery. If the Order applied at the Metropole, they would be able to sell no game; they would have no game at dinner on Wednesday afternoons, no vegetables, no fruit, no dessert. If they construed the words strictly, that was the result, and it would be absurd. He need not remind them that they had to construe the Act, and not the Home Secretary's circular. The circular was to the effect that some exception had to be made, and once they got inside and allowed an exception this case came within the exception and not within the rule. He (Mr. Holme) knew the Act from beginning to end, and not in one place did the word “meal” occur. It was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. What was a meal? There was not only the difficulty of the definition of the word “meal”, but there was also the question of how long after could a man be served. Some people smoked immediately, some hours afterwards. He agreed that the circular was founded on common sense, but he argued that Mr. McKenna meant that “a meal” was to be simply alluded to as an example, as a sort of exception, and they had to look deeper for the principle. He read Mr. McKenna's answer in the House of Commons, in which Mr. McKenna said he did not think the casual sales of cigars or cigarettes in hotels and restaurants for consumption on the premises, as for example, after dinner, or other meal, would amount to the carrying on of a retail trade so as to prevent such sales on the day of the half-holiday. Therefore he argued they had to consider, was it a casual and ancillary sale, or was it really the sale of tobacco or a regular trade going on in the same house? He quoted an extract from a paper called “Tobacco”, in which it was stated “Licensed victuallers are developing into miniature tobacco shops”. Had the Royal Standard developed into that? There was no counter, no separate place where cigars or tobacco were exposed for sale. Mr. Holme next referred to the steps necessary to be taken in the case of those wishing to be brought under the Order. A voting paper was to be sent out to each one, and a register of all the different shops affected was started. When one found that the Royal Standard was not in the register one wondered why they were brought to the Court.

Mr. Kidson asked the decision of the Magistrates as to the power to go into anything prior to the making of the Order. He suggested it was not within their power to do so.

After a considerable amount of legal argument Mr. Holme said he imagined nothing was more unfair than that the Order should have been made without the licensed victuallers being consulted. The licensed victuallers were not consulted, and he maintained that they were not in the Order at all. The scheme of the Act said that before they made an Order they must consult them in one of two ways. After describing the mode of procedure, he said no licensed victualler, so far as he knew, had received a voting paper. And why? Because he was not on the register. The alternative plan was to have an application signed by two thirds of the people affected. In this case no application was signed by the licensed victuallers, and certainly not by the Royal Standard. Mr. Holme pointed out a section dealing with mixed trades, but held that in this case it was not a mixed trade. It was in the power of the local authority to serve a notice on a man asking him which was his principal trade. Could anyone call an ordinary public house a shop for the sale of tobacco? It might as well be argued that if he went into a public house for a box of matches to light a lamp that it was a shop for the sale of matches.

Mr. Summerfield, the defendant, stated that he was the licensee of the Royal Standard. There was no separate counter for tobacco. He made no special effort to push the sale of tobacco. The sale to the witness of the prosecution was a solitary exception. He had sold tobacco to men who had been having something else at the same time. It was a casual sale. The proportion that tobacco bore to the rest of his trade was about 5 percent. No notice was served upon him as to what he considered to be his principal trade. A paper was not sent to him asking whether he wished the Order to be put into force.

The Magistrates' Clerk said Mr. Holme was not entitled to put these questions.

Mr. Holme argued that if the case was going to the High Court they were material facts that the High Court should know.

Mr. Summerfield, continuing, said no notice or voting paper was served on him, and he did not send in any application for the Order to be made. He did not approve of the Order. He did not think any licensed victualler had sent in an application, and they did not approve of it.

In answer to the Town Clerk, Mr. Summerfield said he considered 5 percent of his trade a very small, and not a substantial part, of his trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not have been entitled to vote.

Mr. Holme: That is a question of law.

Mr. Kidson argued that no injustice had been suffered by the licensed holders, because they were not entitled to vote, even if they had received notices.

Mr. Holme put another construction upon the case, to the effect that the whole sub-section depended on the notice being served first. He did not think Mr. Kidson had any application where any such notice was served.

Mr. Kidson said his point was that Mr. Summerfield had suffered no injustice, though he had not served him with the notice referred to under the sub-section. He quite agreed that the notice must be served, and Mr. Holme objected that it was not served, but even if the notice had been served Mr. Summerfield would not have been entitled to a vote.

Mr. Holme characterised the method as very extraordinary, and contended that the Corporation were absolutely outside their powers. They were bound to give these people a vote before they made the Order.

Mr. A.J. Hart, of the Bouverie Arms, said he had inspected the register and he did not fine the Royal Standard there, nor any other licensed victualler; There were no licensed victuallers in it at all. Tobacconists were in the register.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Was there any hotel proprietor?

Mr. Hart: I did not notice any.

Mr. Holme said that in hotels they had real counters, where they carried on the sale of tobacco, but in an ordinary public house they had nothing of the kind. It was for the Magistrates to say whether the Royal Standard was selling tobacco as a trade in itself, or whether the trade was merely casual or ancillary. The answer was obvious. There was no special trade. They were casual sales, and not a trade under the circumstances. If they did hold that licensed victuallers were within the scope of the Act, then the local authorities were in a tight dilemma in making the Order without consulting them.

Mr. Kidson submitted that Mr. Holme was wrong in his contentions. However, if he (Mr. Kidson) was wrong, the sooner it was put right the better for everyone concerned. It was almost impossible to get everyone within a class of trade who was entitled to vote to do so, but they did their best. They advertised according to the Act of Parliament, and they called attention to the Act that if anyone whose name was not in the register thought he should be on, he could find out by coming to the office, by making proper application for the same, and if in the opinion of the local authority he was entitled his name would be put on the register. They advertised in the local papers, and were only too wishful to get everyone on the register who felt he was entitled to be on. There was no intention to keep anyone off.

Mr. Holme suggested that another case should be heard before his case was decided, and this case was adopted.

Charles Henry Barker was summoned for a similar offence on the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the defence, asked Mr. Kidson various questions, which were replied to under protest.

The Town Clerk said Mr. Mowll's client was not on the register, and he did not ascertain by vote whether his client and other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. They were not included when ascertaining whether they got a majority of the shopkeepers of the class for the purpose of the Order.

Mr. Mowll: So they were entirely excluded.

Mr. Kidson pointed out that a bill was published in prominent parts of the town inviting those interested to see that their names were on the register.

Mr. Mowll asked whether the licensed victuallers were taken into consideration in arriving at whether they had a two thirds majority in favour of applying section 4 to the tobacconists' trade.

Mr. Kidson: No, because they were not on the register, and did not apply to be put on the register.

Mr. Summerfield, assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that on the 18th February, at 6.30 p.m., he went into the public bar of the Raglan Hotel. He asked Mr. Barker for a twopenny cigar, and he was served with it. He saw no notice with regard to the Shops Act in the bar.

Mr. Mowll asked witness if he treated himself to a little refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Summerfield replied that he had nothing to drink. There were other customers there. He did not hear anyone else ask for a cigar while he was there. There were two others in the bar at the time. He simply went in, bought his cigar, and walked out.

Mr. Mowll: How did you like your cigar? – I have not tried one. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether it was necessary whether it was necessary to call evidence with regard to the lad having a drink, but he did not dispute the sale of the cigar. He proceeded to ask the Bench to note how the matter worked out according to the Home Secretary's dictum, which, of course, was not a law. The Home Secretary agreed that a person going to the Metropole Hotel and having lunch was entitled to have a cigar. Strictly speaking, if the Order was properly enforced, he was not entitled to have it at all, but it was a casual sale, and therefore the Home Secretary said “It was a casual sale of a cigar”. If it was casual, why not in this case? This young man came into the bar and had a drink. Should not that sale be just as casual as the sale of a cigar in the Metropole, and therefore outside the Act? He saw no reason why one was outside the Act and the other within. A person who drove up to the Metropole and had his cigar after lunch committed no offence. The poor were just as much entitled to a cigar as the rich. The real difficulty arose because of the rather peculiar operation of those Orders. It was a casual sale, and he argued that a meal was not necessary to make it casual. If it was, look how absurd it would be? One man had a five course meal, one had a one course meal of biscuit and cheese, and perhaps another would not like the cheese, and would have a biscuit, or a glass of his clients' famous stout (laughter), or Wincarnis, or anything else. It would be hard indeed to apply such an Order to such a case as this. He said it was a condition precedent to the making of this Order that the Town Council should first be satisfied that the occupiers of two thirds of the shops of the class approved of the Order. They excluded the licensed victuallers in arriving at a decision. His point was this; that they could not have it both ways. If they were one of the classes to be prosecuted, then they were one of the classes who had the right to vote. The Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny them the privileges of the section. The Town Council, obviously motivated by the best motives – no-one questioned that – had not, in fact, taken reasonable steps to be satisfied that they had a two thirds majority, or if they had done so, then obviously they never intended to include public houses, because they had not been given an opportunity of having voted. If they included licensed victuallers, they had not a two thirds majority of the trade. They had been entirely ignored. They could not ignore people whom they held were responsible under the Act. Either they were responsible under the Act, or they were not responsible, in which case they were excluded and had no vote. In conclusion, he pointed out that the licensed victuallers were conducting a trade in which they were bound to keep open; they were under an obligation to the brewers to do so, and there was certainly no attempt on the part of the Corporation as a local authority to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on the weekly half-holiday. It was almost impossible, if they worked it out, to say that a man was to sell behind the counter beer and whisky, lemonade and ginger beer, and could not sell at the same time a cigarette, or, as in his case, a cigar. His (Mr. Mowll's) suggestion was this, and he did it on his own responsibility. That was a new Act. He could not help thinking that the local authority, when they made this Order, were under a misapprehension. Either they did not appreciate what the Order really was going to mean, or did not realise that licensed victuallers should be on the register and given an opportunity to vote. His suggestion was that instead of coming to a decision that day in deciding to convict or otherwise, they should postpone the matter for a short time, say three months, and give the licensed victuallers an opportunity of approaching the Corporation and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order which they had made. He alluded to the powers to revoke the Order, and said he thought that if the matter was put before the Corporation in the light he had suggested they would agree to revoke the Order, and so they would be saved the necessity of coming to a decision on rather a difficult point of law. Then there remained the question of whether they convicted or not. A conviction was always an objection to a licensed victualler, and he maintained that it would be the best course to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation to say whether this Order, which was really rather absurd, could not be revoked, and thereby put an end to the whole thing.

Mr. Kidson, in reply, said that even had the licensed victuallers had notices sent, they would not have been entitled to vote. Continuing, he said that if the matter was sent to the Council he raised no objection. He would only say this, that if an adjournment were made, there should be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Corporation to be unfair to the licensed victuallers.

Mr. Holme said he would prefer that they should have a decision that day.

After the Magistrates had returned from a lengthy consideration of the matter, Col. Fynmore said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case was proved, but inasmuch as the parties suggested a reconsideration by the Council of the position of the licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and dismissed both cases on payment of the costs (8s. 6d. in each case).

Mr. Holme said he begged to state a special case.

The Magistrates' Clerk pointed out that there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme expressed the opinion that it was very inconvenient. They would be no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The summonses against Mrs. Julia Willson and Mr. Edward Wm. James were withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 May 1933.

Obituary.

The death of Mr. H.G. Twigg, of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, at his residence on Friday evening of last week, was learnt with deep regret by members of the licensed trade.

“Bert” Twigg, as he was familiarly known, was 61 years of age, and had held a licence during the past 13 years. He had been in ill-health for the past two years, and had undergone several operations at the Royal Victoria Hospital. At one time he appeared to have recovered, but after a relapse he did not regain good health.

He was of an exceedingly jovial disposition, and was a striking figure. He served with the Middlesex Regiment (Territorial Army) for a number of years, reaching the rank of Sergeant Major, and being awarded the Long Service decoration. In the trade he was an energetic worker, and a popular member of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. He was a member of the committee for a number of years, and at one time was Chairman of the Association.

The deepest sympathy is extended to the widow and son in their sad bereavement.

The funeral took place at Canterbury on Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 27 May 1933.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions on Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court, a protection order in respect to the Raglan Tavern was granted to Mrs. Twigg, the licence being previously held by her late husband.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 May 1933.

Local News.

At a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday a protection order was granted to Mrs. H.G. Twigg in respect of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, the licensee of which, Mr. H.G. Twigg, died recently.

 

Folkestone Express 15 July 1933.

Local News.

On Wednesday, at a transfer sessions at the Folkestone Police Court, the licence of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, was transferred to Mrs. Twigg, her late husband having previously held it.

 

Folkestone Express 5 May 1934.

Local News.

Mr. Richard Stanley was granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the Raglan Hotel to him from Mrs. Twigg, the present licensee, at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday. Mr. Stanley was formerly licensee of the Fox Inn, Basingstoke.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 May 1934.

Local News.

The licences of the Raglan Hotel and Jubilee Inn were on Wednesday transferred to Mr. Richard Stanley and Mr. Harold Clement Chawner respectively. The licence of the Raglan was formerly held by Mrs. Jane Rosetta Twigg, and the licence of the Jubilee was transferred from Mr. Edward Charles Stanley Rogers.

 

Folkestone Express 22 May 1937.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Raglan Tavern from the present licensee, Mr. Richard Stanley, to Mr. Lewis Arthur Stanley Hall, of 16, Wanborough Road, Oxford.

 

Folkestone Express 29 May 1937.

Local News.

The Folkestone Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court, on Wednesday, when Mr. R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. R.J. Stokes and Alderman G.A. Gurr were the Justices on the Bench.

The licences of the Martello Hotel and the Raglan Hotel were transferred to Mr. Chapman and Mr. L. A. Stanley respectively, to whom protection orders were granted recently.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 May 1937.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, the licence of Martello Hotel, Dover Road, was transferred from Mr. A.W. Bridges to Mr. R.L. Chapman, of Wye (Kent), a Protection Order having been granted last week. A similar application was made and granted in respect of the Raglan Tavern, the licence being transferred to Mr. L.A.S. Hall, of Oxford, from Mr. Stanley.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Raglan Hotel in Dover Road from Mr. Hall, the present licensee, to Mr. H. J. Wraite, a former manager of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1942.

Local News.

Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to Frank Frederick Lester, of Faversham, in respect of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, the licence of which has been held by Mr. W. Martin, representing the brewers.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 August 1945.

Local News.

Charged with the theft of a handbag alleged to have been stolen from a Folkestone public house, Emily Maud Munton, of Browning Place, Folkestone, was remanded by the Folkestone Magistrates on Monday.

Munton, who appeared before the Magistrates in a dazed condition and was stated to be subject to epileptic fits, was charged with stealing a handbag and its contents, including a leather wallet containing 9 and personal papers, the property of Mrs. C.E. Lesser.

Mrs. Charlotte E. Lesser, wife of the licensee of the Raglan Hotel, said on Friday she placed her handbag in a club room adjoining the saloon bar. The bag was partially covered with a hat. The bag was there at 9.05 p.m., but it had gone at 10.30 p.m. Defendant had come into the public bar with a soldier just before 9 o'clock, and later Munton went to the saloon bar. When she saw defendant again she had taken off her coat and was carrying it over her arm. Defendant left shortly after with a soldier. In the wallet, as well as 9, were her identity card, a pair of spectacles and a bank book. Defendant had no reason to go to the club room.

D.C. Bremer said at 3.15 p.m. on Saturday he was patrolling Sandgate Road when he saw Munton. He stopped her and told her that he was making enquiries respecting a handbag containing 9 in money which had been stolen from the Raglan Hotel. He cautioned Munton, who said “Yes, I had the bag, took the money out and hid it in a lavatory in Dover Road”. He told defendant that she would be detained. On arrival at the police station he found Munton was in possession of three 1 notes, 6/4 loose change, a black leather wallet and an identity card in the name of Charlotte E. Lesser. He cautioned Munton, who said “They came from the bag; that’s the only money left”. Defendant later informed witness that the blue frock she was wearing she had purchased that day out of the money she had stolen from the bag. Witness said he later recovered the handbag and contents from a public lavatory in Dover Road.

The acting Woman Probation Officer told the Court that Munton had been placed on probation for two years on May 22nd at Hythe for larceny. Munton was known to be an epileptic and under medical care.

The Magistrates remanded Munton until yesterday.

Alderman J.W. Stainer presided, with Mr. P.V. Gurr and Mr. C.A. Wilde.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 September 1945.

Local News.

A young Folkestone woman who appeared on remand before the Folkestone Magistrates last Friday on a charge of stealing a handbag and its contents was sent to prison for four months. Defendant was Emily Maude Munton, of Browning Place; she had appeared before the court on the previous Monday charged with the theft of a handbag and its contents, including 9, the property of Mrs. C.A. Lesser, of the Raglan Hotel, Folkestone.

At the adjourned hearing, before Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. P.V. Gurr and Mr. C.A. Wilde, Munton pleaded Guilty.

There was a further charge of on August 18th, with intent to defraud, obtaining from the Postmaster General 3 by means of a forged Post Office Savings receipt. Munton also admitted this charge.

Miss Elsie Bennett, postal clerk at Cheriton Avenue sub-post office, said on August 18th Munton came to the Post Office and asked for a withdrawal form. Defendant filled the form in for the withdrawal of 3. Munton produced an identity card in the name of Charlotte A. Lesser and was paid 3.

D. Const. Bremer said in defendant's possession was a Post Office savings book and an identity card in the name of Mrs. Lesser. Witness found 3 had been withdrawn from the savings bank book, and Munton said “I drew it this morning”.

Munton also admitted stealing on March 9th a clothing supply cheque valued at 3 14/11 and on the same day obtaining from Henry Playfair Ltd. a pair of shoes with the cheque.

There were further charges of obtaining on June 15th three pairs of silk stockings from William Reid; of stealing a 1 note at East Grinstead; also at East Grinstead stealing other amounts.

Chief Insp. W.H. Hollands said on January 20th, 1942, defendant was before the Court for theft and was bound over for 12 months. On May 22nd this year, at Hythe, for stealing jewellery, Munton was placed on probation for two years. The clothing cheque mentioned, added Chief Insp. Hollands, was found by defendant in March and she obtained shoes and silk stockings with it. Before the police could take proceedings, however, defendant was taken ill and admitted to East Grinstead Hospital, where she stole from five persons who were patients there.

After adjourning the case until the afternoon, the Chairman announced that defendant would be sent to prison for four months.

 

Folkestone Gazette 13 February 1963.

Local News.

Permits under the Betting and Gaming Act for amusements with prizes have been granted to the Martello Hotel, True Briton, Ship Inn, East Cliff Tavern, Raglan Hotel, Royal Pavilion Bars, Railway Tavern, and Royal Standard.

 

Folkestone Gazette 6 May 1964.

Local News.

Another pile of pennies for the British Empire Cancer Research Fund. This one, at the Raglan Hotel, was knocked over by Mrs. E. Fagg on Friday. Total value of the pennies, collected over a short period, was 10 12/-. Thanks were expressed to Mr. F. Pepper, the licensee, and Mrs. Fagg by Mr. Sydney Hancock.

 

Folkestone Gazette 31 March 1965.

Local News.

A pile of pennies to be given to the Cancer Research Campaign is pushed down by Ald. Wilf Harris, Folkestone's Mayor-elect. He is watched by the licensees of the Raglan Hotel, Folkestone, who collected the money.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 April 1965.

Local News.

Alderman Wilf Harris, Folkestone’s Mayor-elect, pushes over a pile of pennies at the Raglan Hotel, Folkestone. Watching is Mrs. E. Fagg, who organised the collection in aid of the Cancer Research Campaign, and the licensee, Mr. W.J.C. Davis. The pile took live months to build and raised 19 6s. 6d.

 

Folkestone Gazette 4 January 1967.

Local News.

Miss W.E. Alden, matron of St. Mary's Hospital, Etchinghill, pushes over a pile of pennies at the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone.

Mrs. E. Fagg, a regular, has been collecting pennies in the bar since last Christmas, and the pile was worth 19 3s. 9d. The pennies bought presents for old people at St. Mary's Hospital who had no-one to visit them at Christmas.

Mrs. W. Davis, publican's wife, Mrs. Fagg, and men from the bar took parcels to the hospital on Christmas morning.

 

Folkestone Gazette 13 December 1967.

Local News.

Mr William Davis, licensee of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, has won his battle to have the giant road direction sign removed from outside his hotel, where, he complained, it blocked out light and view. In his fight Mr. Davis wrote to his local M.P., Mr. Albert Costain, and to the town council. Now the sign, which replaced a much smaller one, has been moved to the opposite corner. This week a corporation spokesman said “We moved the sign when we wre able to find this other suitable site. It is not the best site from the point of view of the motorist it is designed to help, but it is one we consider to be reasonably acceptable”.

In a letter to the Gazette this week Mr. Davis wrote “I would like to thank you and your staff for the assistance you gave me in my fight against the department concerned in the erecting of a motorway road sign which completely obliterated one side of my premises. It is very gratifying to know that in this near-as-damn-it police state the Press still has the freedom to publish the views of the man in the street without prejudice. Once again, I thank you”.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 June 1968.

Local News.

When the licensee of a Folkestone public house set out for home after a darts match he had no worries about being stopped by the police and asked to take a breath test because he played safe - he and his wife took a taxi. But when William Davis, licensee of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, arrived home he was locked out. The keys were on the bar counter of the public house where the darts match had been played.

But Davis did have the keys of a car parked in the driveway to the Raglan, and it was only a few hundred yards to the home of his barman, who had a duplicate key to the hotel. The temptation was too great.

At Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Tuesday Davis was fined 40 and banned from driving for a year after he had pleaded Guilty to driving with more than the prescribed limit of alcohol in the blood, and careless driving.

Mr. Glenn Hill, prosecuting, said two police officers in a car in Dover Road in the early hours of Monday morning decided to follow Davis when they saw his car swing to the centre of the road and then swing back to its own side. They saw the car turn again to the centre of the road, slow to about 15 m.p.h. and then move back to its nearside. The car turned into Hill Road, where a motorcyclist came up behind it. When the driver of the car signalled he was turning right the motorcyclist moved forward slightly to overtake the car on the nearside, but then the car's signal was cancelled and the vehicle moved back, said Mr. Hill. The same thing happened again, and when the policemen stopped the car the
driver, Davis, told them “I am looking for my barman”. When they noticed that his breath smelled of drink they asked him to take an Alcotest, which proved positive. Davis told the police that he had drunk four or five whiskies and explained he had been locked out. The result of a blood test showed 133 milligrams of alcohol in comparison with the stipulated limit of 80.

Mr. S.J. Moss, defending, told the Court that he was not making excuses for Davis, who had had 28 years’ service with the Coldstream Guards, 15 as a R.S.M. “He is a strict disciplinarian”, said Mr. Moss. “He came out of the Service in 1961 with an exemplary character and had one public house for 18 months before moving to the Raglan”. Mr. Moss said that Davis returned home in a taxi so there would be no trouble about breathalysers. When the taxi drove away he found he had left his keys behind. “So there he was, left out in the early hours of the morning with the car on the forecourt”, said Mr. Moss. “His barman lives in Hill Road but he was not sure of the address. As far as Davis was concerned, he felt fit to drive.” The car swerved when Davis wiped the windscreen which had steamed up. He signalled his intention to turn because he thought he had reached the turning he wanted, but then discovered it was not. He asked that the special circumstances of the case should be taken into consideration.

The magistrates fined Davis 25 and banned him from driving for a year for driving with excess alcohol in his blood, and 15 for driving without due care and attention. His licence was endorsed and he was ordered to pay four gns. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 February 1976.

Local News.

Rumours that Whitbread Fremlins were closing pubs throughout the Folkestone area because of financial problems were denied this week. Word got round that pubs were being forced to shut after three local houses closed, changed hands or were placed on the market within a matter of weeks.

It is now believed that the Raglan in Folkestone is being offered for sale as a free house, and that negotiations are in hand to open the former Fleur-de-Lis at Sandgate as a club. The Star and Garter, also in Folkestone, is now in temporary use as a social dub. But on Monday, although no official company statement was available, it was made clear that Whitbreads have no ulterior motive for these moves. Any recent closures or changes, it was said, were simply in line with the company’s normal procedures. “There is nothing particularly dramatic going on”, said one employee, who refused to be quoted as a company spokesman. “All brewers are gradually disposing of small houses, particularly those which are unsuitable for modernisation. This is really just a continuation of something that we've been doing since the turn of the century”. He added that the three Whitbread houses in question had all arrived on the market at the same time as “pure coincidence”. “Tenants have left or retired for various reasons and this is just a process that is going on all the time, anyway”, he said.

A spokesman for the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association commented “We haven't been told anything officially, but what happens to these houses is entirely up to the brewery. I believe it is what is called rationalisation. If a place is uneconomical, then when it becomes vacant the brewers are going to sell it. After all, they, like a licensee, have to make a living”.

 

Folkestone Gazette 9 February 1977.

Advertising Feature.

Just a year ago The Raglan was just another pub on the east side of Folkestone. Walk through the doors and you wouldn't give the place a second thought. Walking through those same doors today is a revelation. For in the past nine months it has changed beyond recognition. Extensive redecoration and new furnishings have made it one of the smartest places in town.

The change came after the old pub in Dover Road was bought from Whitbreads last year.

The present licensees, Stuart and Gilly Gresswell, took it over as a free house in March. At 23, Stuart is one of the youngest publicans in the area. But he has been in the business for five years, and was brought up in a pub – his father runs the Bourne Inn at Eastbourne. Needless to say, he has no illusions about just how tough the job is. “Making it look easy is the hardest part”, he says with a smile.

The Gresswells are particularly pleased that their revamped pub has been so readily accepted by regulars in the area. “It was very much a man's pub before”, says Gilly. “But now we want to make it somewhere for all the family. Some of the people who come in here to play darts take a look and say “It’s a bit posh, isn’t it?” But they soon get used to it. After all, we are giving them saloon bar comfort with public bar prices and their wives seem to like the place”.

As a free house, the Raglan is also popular with the beer connoisseurs. At the moment they deal with three breweries, Whitbreads, Charringtons and Ind Coope. “We are keeping an eye on what people want”, said Stuart. “And we can always add a few things in the future”.

A grand official opening is planned for the pub at lunchtime on Monday. With its plush decor, choice of beers and traditional pull pumps for the real draught bitter buffs, it should be quite an occasion.

 

South Kent Gazette 1 June 1983.

Local News.

Bring A Bottle Party candidate Phil Todd is a man on his own. He is party leader, Parliamentary candidate and campaign manager. Even his best friends and party supporters who helped him draw up his manifesto say they would not vote for him. But he is aiming for at least 100 votes in his vain attempt to become Folkestone and Hythe M.P. in the General Election.

He will be fighting on the slogan “Our policies reach the voters other parties cannot reach”. And he launched his manifesto at his unofficial campaign headquarters, The Raglan, in Dover Road, Folkestone. He has had almost 3,000 copies of it printed and he will be giving them away at weekends in the Guildhall Street shopping precinct, roughly halfway between the East Kent Arms and the Guildhall Hotel. Another 1,000 are being printed next week to post to potential voters. They are in the party colours, black and amber, which just happens to be the same as Folkestone Town football club's. There are 13 points in his manifesto, but because that is an unlucky number 10 has been left out so there are only 12 policies.

There is something to appeal to everyone, whatever their political leanings. His 13 point plan is: Flexibility of pub licensing hours so that pubs can open in accordance with public demand; Establish Folkestone as a Free Port to encourage local industry and reduce unemployment; Introduction of postal vote for electors on holiday; High jackpot on pub fruit machines; Improved public transport facilities in rural areas at pub closing times; Automatic entry to Football League for Folkestone Town Football Club; Pub games to be recognised as Olympic sports; Raising of the deposit for elections to stop silly candidates standing; General Election day to be declared a Bank Holiday; Compulsory walking of dogs to pubs between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays; Guinness on the National Health; Establishment of a Hangover Research Council.

And if that fails to get him into treble figures there are rumours of alliance talks for the next election with Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party, who will be in Folkestone to play at the Leas Cliff Hall the day after the election.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 April 1986.

Local News.

Raglan pub landlords Gilly and Stuart Gresswell celebrate ten years at the Harbour Way hostelry. But there was no fooling on their April 1 celebration as they were joined by friends, regulars and fellow licensees for a champagne buffet. “We were just babies ourselves when we came here and intended to stay just one year”, said Gilly, 29, who is now proud mum of Tommy, 4, and Ian, 2. She and her husband like Folkestone so much they might stay on another ten years, she said. Folkestone and District Ladies Auxiliary, the landlady charity group, raised well over 100 with a three-legged-race round town centre pubs on Sunday. Cash raised from their fundraising events will be distributed to local charities at the Jue annual general meeting, said Gilly.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1993.

Local News.

Builder Paul Watkinson had his thick curly hair and bushy beard shaved to raise 250 for the South East Kent Special Olympics group. Customers at his local, The Raglan, in Dover Road, Folkestone, were charged 50p for a snip. Paul, of The Tram Road, Folkestone, said “It feels very strange without all that hair”.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1997.

Canterbury Crown Court.

A pool match at a Folkestone pub between rival teams erupted into violence after two players clashed, a court heard. It ended with one of them being punched in the face and suffering a serious eye injury. The game between the Raglan pub in Folkestone and Portex Social Club from Hythe was then abandoned.

Canterbury Crown Court heard that the Harvey Division 1 match at the Dover Road pub on December 23 last year was at 3-0 in the best-of-nine contest when trouble flared.

Portex player Simon Oakland said there had been a normal jovial pub atmosphere when he reached an important game. “Balls were going to and fro, and I got snookered”, he told the jury. “I went to play a shot and someone shouted out. It put me off and I missed”. Mr. Oakland said Raglan player Toman Wooding, 21, had been noisy, and he was told to be quiet by the referee. “He walked to the bar and I called to him “Can you shut up, you w****r; we're trying to play pool here”, said Mr. Oakland. “I didn't see him walk round the pool table, but the next thing he was in front of me and he hit me in the face. I was just stunned. I wasn't knocked out. My eye started to swell up and felt very munb”. Mr. Oakland, who said the Social Club now plays in a different league, suffered a fractured eye-socket and still has numbness to his gums and the left side of his face. Mr. Oakland said the Social Club's president, John Wise, called off the match, and the team packed up and left.

Mr. Wise said Wooding inflicted a “vicious blow”, which he thought was unprovoked.

Referee Phillip Rose said there had been illegal coaching during the match, and then Mr. Oakland was hit. “There were two blows in fairly quick succession”, he said. “They were gut-wrenching, hard and sickening. Simon hadn't acted aggressively”.

Wooding, of Martello Road, Folkestone, denied inflicting grievous bodily harm, claiming he acted in self-defence when he thought he was going to be attacked. “He was going to hit me, so I hit him first”, he said. “I suppose I did lose my rag for a split second. I should not have whacked him”.

Wooding was convicted of the charge on a 10-2 majority verdict.

Nigel De Bijl, prosecuting, said Wooding had previous convictions for threatening behaviour and assault causing actual bodily harm.

James Lloyd, defending, asked for a pre-sentencing report, and added that Wooding had been in a psychiatric hospital some time ago.

Remanding him on bail until September 18 and banning him from pubs in the meantime,, Judge Jonathan Langdon said although it was a serious offence, it was at the bottom end of the scale. “There was probably one blow under considerable provocation – a public insult”, he said. “Although all options are open, it may be that some sort of disposal in the community may be possible”. He added “Normally people who are convicted of this sort of offence face a custodial sentence. All options remain open”.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 November 1997.

Canterbury Crown Court.

A Folkestone man, whose aggressive behaviour was blamed on drug and alcohol abuse, has been jailed for six months. Toman Patrick Wooding was told by Judge Jonathan Langdon that he couldn't hide behind a medical condition which resulted from his long-term abuse and custody was the only answer.

Wooding, 21, of Martello Road, was at Canterbury Crown Court for sentence on Tuesday, following his conviction earlier of wounding Simon Oakland, causing grievous bodily harm. Mr. Oakland suffered a broken cheekbone after being hit by Wooding following a dispute during a pool game.

Mr. Oakland was a member of the away team playing Wooding's team at the Raglan pub on December 23. Things started pleasantly, but as the evening wore on some barracking and jeering developed. At 9.30 Wooding had finished playing a game and was still by the pool table when the next game started, and he began giving tips, which isn't allowed. Mr. Oakland told him to shut up in an insulting manner. Wooding squared up to him and invited him outside, but Mr. Oakland refused and Wooding suddenly punched him in the face, causing the fracture.

At the sentencing hearing, Michael O'Sullivan, for Wooding, said he had been in hospital for detoxification, which had jolted him. His stepfather, with whom he lived, was having a steadying influence and if Wooding kept off non-prescribed drugs the risk of offending was reduced.

Jailing Wooding, Judge Langdon said although there was an element of provocation, the incident resulted from Wooding's irritating behaviour. It was his third conviction for violence and his violent outbursts resulted partly from his long-term abuse of drugs and alcohol. “You cannot hide behind a medical condition which is partly brought on by your abuse”, he said.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

LEPPER Godfrey 1866-69 Next pub licensee had

MORFORD James 1869-72

PEARSON George 1872-73

SUTTON Henry 1873 Next pub licensee had

SUMMERS William 1873-78 Post Office Directory 1874 (Also "Brewery Tap")

MARSH William Harrison 1878-79 Next pub licensee had

CHEESEMAN William 1879-80

HALL James 1880-82 (age 45 in 1881Census)

ELLIOTT Alfred 1882-83

GREGORY Jane 1883-84

SMITH Thomas 1884

MULLER Joseph 1884-85

Charles 1885-93 Post Office Directory 1891

Cullen Frederick 1893-95

ROBSON Sydney 1895-98

KING Henry 1898-1907 Kelly's 1899Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

BARKER Charles Henry 1907-20 (age 47 in 1911Census) Post Office Directory 1913

TWIGG Herbert G 1920-May/33 dec'd Post Office Directory 1922

TWIGG Rosetta 1933-34

STANLEY Richard 1934-37

HALL Lewin 1937-38 Post Office Directory 1938

WRAIGHT Harry 1938-41

MARTIN Wilfred 1941-42 (Holding Manager)

LESSER Frank 1942-51

HOLBOURE Cyril 1951-62

PEPPER Frederick 1962-64

DAVIS William 1964-69

SKINGLE Alfred 1969-70

LOADER Leonard 1970-76

LEHMANN Kenneth & GRESSWELL Stuart 1976-87

MITCHELL John 1987-96

Last pub licensee had ROWLING Malcolm 1996-2001

ROWLING Patricia & Victoria 2001-04+

 

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

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