Folkestone Express 9 December 1899.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Arthur James Hart was granted a transfer of the licence for the Railway Inn.

Folkestone Express 25 May 1901.

Saturday, May 18th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, W. Wightwick, and Geo. Peden Esqs.

George Barton, of 38, Walton Road, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, to which he pleaded Guilty.

Insp. Swift stated that about 10.30 p.m. on the 11th inst., he was called to the Railway Inn, where he saw the defendant drunk and altercating with the landlord. Witness asked him to leave, and ultimately he did so.

The defendant was fined 1s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 19 January 1907.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and G. Spurgen Esq.

The licence of the Railway Inn was temporarily transferred from Arthur James Hart to William Hopkins.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1907.

Wednesday, January 23rd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, Major Leggett, and W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The Railway Inn, from Arthur James Hart to William Hopkins.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 6th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

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

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coollinge.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable said the next business was to consider the opposition to five licences.

The Railway Inn, Beach Street, was the next licence to be considered.

Mr. Walter Hills (Margate) represented Mr. William Hopkins, the tenant, and Mr. Minter appeared for the owners.

The Chief Constable put in the plan and figures of the congested area, and also the notice of objection to the licence on the ground that it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. Continuing, he said the house was situate in Beach Street and the licensee was William Hopkins, who obtained the transfer of it on January 23rd last. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was £20. The house was next door to the Alexandra Hotel, and within a few doors of the Royal George Hotel. In Beach Street there were 24 houses altogether, six of them on-licensed houses, two beer and four full. That was a fully licensed house. The premises were old and very low pitched. There was only one entrance to the house, and that was from Beach Street, which opened into a small front bar, and from that small bar was an inner room called the bar parlour. He believed there was no outer window looking into that bar parlour, and the only light obtained was from the front bar. That bar was only about 6 ft. 6 in. or seven feet high at the most. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 15 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were altogether 27 other houses with on licences. At the back of the house there was an entrance by a passageway from Harbour Street. A window from the kitchen opened into the yard of the adjoining house. The rateable value of the house was £20, and was the lowest of any of the licensed houses in the street. The premises and the accommodation for the public were inferior to any of the other licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood. He considered the licence was unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Hills congratulated the Chief Constable upon his notice of opposition. He said it was the most concise of any he had seen throughout the whole of East Kent.

In cross-examination by Mr. Hills, Mr. Reeve said when he first came to Folkestone eight years ago he considered the licence was not necessary. They had already closed ten houses in that neighbourhood within two years. When the licence was transferred to Hopkins he told him that the Magistrates had come to the conclusion that certain licensed houses in that neighbourhood should be closed, and although he did not know, probably his house would be one of them. Since Mr. Hopkins had gone into the house, he believed the chief trade was from the cab drivers on the stand close by. The tenant was a most respectable man. He should say that the house was not likely to do a considerable trade during the summer season. There would be ample accommodation elsewhere for the men who used that house. It was true that plans for extensive alterations to the house had been put before the Bench, but they remained in abeyance until after that opposition was dealt with. Although that may be the oldest house, the others were better adapted for the trade.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he would not call the trade done by the house an excellent trade, but a fair trade for such a small house.

Det. Sergt. Burniston gave evidence of frequently visiting the house, and stated that in his opinion it was inferior to any of the other houses in the street, and was not necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Hills, in appealing to the Justices to renew the licence, commented upon the hardship it would be to Mr. Hopkins if it was refused.

William Hopkins, the tenant, said he was, previous to taking the house, in the employment of Messrs. Ramell for eight years, and previous to that for a period of twenty years in the employ of Mr. Peden, of the Pavilion Shades. He invested £145 in the house when he took it over. When he took it over the only reference he had from the Chief Constable was that they were closing some of the houses down there. There was no suggestion to him that his house would be reported. From January 17th up to February 26th he had sold 35½ barrels of beer, twelve bottled beer. He considered he would do a great deal better in the summer. The men who used his house were cab drivers, the men working on the colliers, and the fishermen. He was getting a good living from the house, and was well satisfied with it.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he paid £19 a year rent. He would get about 50 customers in his front bar. He did not think if his licence was not renewed that the other houses in the neighbourhood would be able to meet the class of trade at his house. He thought all the licences in that part were necessary.

Messrs. Ash and Company's manager then gave evidence as to the amount of beer they supplied to the house, which was perfectly free for spirits and wines. He wished to hand in a statement of the figures, but the Chairman said the Justices thought they should have the figures before them.

The witness then gave the figures, which were as follows:- In 1900, 400 barrels; 1901, 352; 1902, 222; 1903, 227; 1904, 244; 1905, 202; 1906, 197. The reason he gave for the trade falling off was that the late tenant, who was the son of the former tenant, was not a suitable tenant or a suitable man to be a publican.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said the house was 100 years old. According to the Chief Constable, the house ought to be done away with because it did not try to draw people to take their liquor by extraneous aids. If they remove that house, they would remove a very ancient landmark. There was not room in that house for the Chief Constable to breathe because it was too low-pitched for him. They had anticipated that by placing plans before the Justices to enlarge the rooms in order to give him an opportunity of breathing when he made his inspection. They had done a good trade at the house, and it seemed hard that because some neighbours had built up palatial mansions by the side of them that the licence should be done away with. Rather the teetotallers should support them in their application and do away with their neighbours, who were trying to attract people into drink. They really did good to the neighbourhood. The Justices had certainly been very hard on the owners of that house, for they had taken away no less than five of their licences already.

After retirement by the Justices, the Chairman announced that they had decided to refer the licence to the County Licensing Committee.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1907.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to the houses being closed and compensation given.

The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the others will be compensated.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1907.

Wednesday, October 9th: Before The Mayor, Major Leggatt, E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. De Wet, on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., brewers, produced plans of alterations to the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and made an application to the Magistrates for their consent to their being carried out. He said no doubt the Magistrates would remember the renewal of that licence was referred back to the adjourned licensing sessions, when a report against the renewal of the licence was made on the ground that it was not wanted and on several other points. The Chief Constable, in his report, then stated, first, that there was only one entrance; secondly, that the bars were very low pitched, being from six to seven feet; thirdly, that it was very poorly lighted. He also said that the premises provided the worst accommodation of any of the premises in the area. They would see from the plans put before them that Messrs. Ash and Co. had done their very best to satisfy the exact suggestions of the Chief Constable. The case was referred to the Compensation Authority, and the evidence of the Chief Constable was again gone into. After due consideration, that authority agreed to grant the renewal of the licence. Messrs. Ash and Co. felt that they had won the day, yet they ought to fall in with the proper suggestions to a certain extent of the Superintendent. There were one or two points he asked them to consider in connection with the plans. First, they provided for two entrances. Then, with regard to the pitch, the old premises were 6 ft. 9 in., but it was proposed to make the pitch of the bars 9 ft. There would also be ample accommodation in the public and private bars and bar parlour. They would also see that it was proposed thare should be an apartment for bottles and jugs. The ventilation would also be greatly improved, and there would be an extra bedroom. The application was for consent to certain alterations wherby increased facilities might be given for trade.

Mr. A. Bromley, in explaining the plans to the Magistrates, said a small cottage next to the house was proposed to be taken, in order that the inn could be altered in accordance with the new plans.

Mr. Ward said the Bench considered that the plans were practically for new premises, for which a fresh licence would have to be applied for.

Mr. De Wet said the area of the premises would be about doubled, but the drinking facilities would not be doubled. The same thing was allowed to the Eagle Inn.

The Magistrates, however, refused to allow the plans.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make in respect of the Railway Inn. The plans had already been deposited. They would remember on the last occasion he applied to them he laid elaborate plans before them, which they refused on the ground that the alterations destroyed the identity of the premises, and they stated a new application should be made. In the present plan they had provided for the objections that were raised at the annual transfer day, viz., only one entrance from the street, that the bars were low pitched, that it was badly lighted and ventilated, and that the public accommodation was bad. In teh revised plan they would see that the owners had acquired an old cottage, next to the Railway Inn, and they proposed to absolutely pull that down and to brick up that portion at the back where there had been a right of way to the inhabitants of the cottage. They proposed to put a wall there 6 ft. in height. They would see on the east side they were providing a second door, which led into the public bar and also communicated with the urinal. They would also see that in the serving place there was a window that now looked out into its own yard. That window also provided ample light for the private bar and further light for the public bar. It also promised ventilation for both bars. In addition to those they complained that the bars were low pitched. They now proposed to make the bar 9 ft. in height. Originally it was 6 ft. 9 in. As far as facilities for drinking were concerned, it was not giving persons greater facilities for drinking, but it gave the police far better supervision. In making these alterations, the owners had had to go to considerable expense, but they felt it was justified in order to meet the requirements of the police.

Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, then went into the witness box, and in his evidence bore out Mr. De Wet's statement. He added if the plans were passed the premises would be completely self-contained.

In answer to the Chairman, witness said with regard to the bar, they would practically rebuild that part, having to heighten the roof.

By the Chief Constable: He estimated the cost of alterations at about £400. He could not that say within a radius of 200 yards there were 27 other licensed houses.

The Magistrates were about to retire to consider the plans, when the Chief Constable said he should like to point out the house was situated in the centre of a congested area. At the last annual licensing sessions it was his opinion that the house was unnecessary, and that was his opinion now. He thought it was the least suitable house in the whole neighbourhood.

Mr. De Wet considered those remarks most unfair.

The Chairman, in giving the Magistrates' decision said the annual licensing sessions were not very far off, and they thought the plans had better be adjourned till then. If the licence was renewed, then they could bring forward the plans.

Folkestone Express 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Superintendent's Report.

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen's Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen's Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates' certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

From the Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The "Railway Tavern," the "Eagle Tavern" and the "Bricklayers Arms" on the ground of redundancy, the "Railway Hotel," Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the "Packet Boat," so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

The Railway Inn.

The next for consideration was the Railway Inn, in Beach Street, the applicant for the licence being Mr. William Hopkins. Mr. R.M. Mercer (Canterbury) appeared for the owners and the tenant.

The Chief Constable said the licence was objected to on the ground that it was not required. He put in the figures of the congested area given in the previous case. The house was situate in Beach Street and the tenant was William Hopkins, who obtained the transfer of the licence on January 23rd last year. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value of the house was £20. Next door to the house was the Alexandra Hotel, with a rateable value of £140, and 36 yards away was the Royal George, with a rateable value of £56. There were 24 houses altogether in Beach Street, and five were on licensed houses. The house was old, low pitched, and had only one entrance from the street, which opened from the tap room. Behind the tap room was a small bar parlour, which was very dark, as the only light was obtained from the front bar. That was all the accommodation for the public. There was also a back way from the house to Harbour Street, and which led from the kitchen. There was a right of way down the passage for the adjoining property owners, and the window in the living room or kitchen opened into the yard of the adjoining house. The premises and accommodation were much inferior to those in the neighbourhood. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 14 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 24 others. The house, in Mr. Hopkins' time, had been conducted in a very satisfactory manner. The customers were men chiefly employed at the Harbour and cab drivers from the stand opposite. For so small a house there appeared to him to be a fair trade done there, and in his opinion there would be ample accommodation in the remaining houses if the licence of that house were taken away. Commencing at the Princess Royal there were seven houses practically all in a row, finishing at the Royal George. He considered that number unnecessary and excessive. The house was undoubtedly the smallest and the least suitable, and, in his opinion, doing the least trade of the seven.

Cross-examined, he said there might have been ten applications for permission to alter the premises since January 27th, 1907. The licence was renewed by the Compensation Authority last year. He did not know that the owners purchased the adjoining property seven days after that. He did not see why the Alexandra Hotel should not do more trade than the Railway.

Mr. Mercer said he thought the Magistrates, when they had heard what the trade of the house was, would say they (the owners) were justified in offering some resistance to the opposition. Whether in those days of doubt and difficulty it was worth trying to preserve a licence he was not in a position to say. Perhaps they would be better able to say in three months' time. While there was hope, however, they were struggling to keep what they had got. He thought the Bench would admit that they had endeavoured to better those premises. They had been put to the expense of obtaining plans and putting them before the Bench ten times. Under those circumstances, he ventured to say, the licence ought not to be taken away. It had the additional misfortune of being referred to the Compensation Authority last year. It was suggested that if the licence was taken away not only did they lose the licence and the value it was to them, but the money which had been expended on the neighbouring property had been entirely thrown away. It should not be suggested that the rateable value affected the question of compensation. According to the Kennedy judgement, the compensation was based practically entirely on the trade done. They were doing an enormous trade. He was inclined to think, although he had no means of judging, that if the Magistrates compared the trade that house was doing with the neighbouring house they would find that house was doing five times the amount done by the other.

William Hopkins, the tenant, said he had been in the house since January 17th, 1907. He had taken out his trade for that year until December 31st. The figures given on the paper handed in was the amount of trade done.

The Chairman said they had always had the figures read out.

Mr. Mercer said the business done amounted to 362 barrels of beer, including six barrels done in the bottled trade. They had also sold 132 gallons of spirits.

Mr. Hopkins said he was satisfied with the amount of trade he had done. He had had no trouble with the police. Practically at every special sessions plans had been submitted for alterations to his house.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he considered twenty five houses within 200 yards were not too many for the needs of the neighbourhood. The passage leading to the back of the house also led to a restaurant.

The Bench decided to hear the other case before they gave their decision.

The Magistrates retired for a short time. On their return into Court the Chairman announced that they had decided to refer both the Railway Tavern and the Eagle Tavern to Canterbury.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1908.

East Kent Licensing.

At the Licensing Committee's sitting at Canterbury on Thursday, the three licences referred by the local justices, namely the Eagle Tavern, High Street, the Railway Tavern, Beach Street, and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, were considered, and the Court decided not to renew any of them. They will be dealt with by the Compensation Committee.

Folkestone Express 24 October 1908.

East Kent Licensing.

At a meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee on Monday, many cases were dealt with.

In the case of the Railway Inn, Beach Street, Folkestone, of which Mr. W. Hopkins is the tenant, and Messrs. Ash and Co., of Canterbury, the registered owners, Mr. P. Brothers, secretary to the brewers, handed in a signed agreement for £1,655, of which the owners will receive £1,520, and the tenant £135.