Sort file:- Folkestone, February, 2023.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 14 February, 2023.


Earliest 1864

Raglan Hotel

Sept 2016

104 (119) Dover Road


Raglan 1908

Above photo 1908, kindly supplied by Alan Taylor.

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.

Raglan 2009

Above photo 2009 by Nick Smith Creative Commons Licence.

Raglan 2016

Above Google image, August 2016.

Raglan 2023

Above photo 2023.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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 natur