DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 06 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1734

Railway Inn

Latest 1908

26 Beach Street

Folkestone

 

Folkestone News 22 November 1884.

Saturday, November 15th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Richard Oliver was charged with stealing nine pairs of stockings, value 12s., from the shop of Stephen Petts, on the 14th inst.

Prosecutor said the stockings were hanging outside his shop on Friday morning. He identified the stockings produced as his property.

Charles Thew, a labourer, said he saw prisoner hawking some stockings for sale, at 3d. per pair, in the Fish Market, about half past eleven on Friday morning. Witness gave him 9d. for three pairs of them. Sergt. Ovenden subsequently came to his house and h gave them up.

Turner Court said he saw the prisoner selling stockings, and he went up to him, saying “What have you got?” Prisoner said “I will give you this pair”. As soon as witness heard they were stolen property he went to Mr. Petts's and gave them up. A few minutes afterwards Sergt. Ovenden came in.

Edward Paine, a seaman, said the prisoner was offering stockings for sale in the Railway Inn on Friday. Witness bought a pair for 6d.

Sergt. Ovenden said he found the prisoner in the bar of the Queen's Head public house about ten minutes after one. The man was apparently asleep, and the worse for drink. Witness took him to the police station. He made no reply on being charged with theft. Witness received the stockings produced from the above named witnesses.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. The stockings were handed to him by a person he had seen several times in the town, who asked him to dispose of them, as he might as well do that as stand about with his hands in his pockets. The person spoken of said he would be satisfied if prisoner brought back 1s. 9d., and appointed to meet him at the Queen's Head. Prisoner had no idea they were stolen property.

The Bench found prisoner Guilty and sentenced him to six weeks' hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with stealing three jugs, value 2s., from the shop of John Surrey on Thursday night.

Prosecutor identified the jugs produced.

Thomas Venner, a porter, said he saw prisoner at the Rendezvous. They left the house together, and went along as far as Mr. Surrey's, when witness saw prisoner take three jugs from the shop. Witness then turned back.

Mr. Bradley: Why didn't you go into Mr. Surrey's shop and tell him?

Witness: Well, I thought it was nothing at all to do with me, and I made no more to do but turned round and went back.

Mr. Bradley: Did you give information to the police?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bradley: You thought he had a right to the things?

Witness: No, sir.

The Mayor: Do you mean to say you saw this man steal these jugs and didn't think it was your duty to go and inform the police?

Witness: I could not say he stole them.

The Mayor: But you saw him take them?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Mayor: Then why did you not go and inform them?

Witness: I did not know whether he bought them or not.

The Mayor: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, said the defendant came in on Thursday night between half past nine and ten with three jugs. A fisherman named Hart bought them of him. Hart left them with the landlord to go to sea.

Prisoner (in reply to the usual question): To this charge I must plead Guilty.

The Bench gave him a month's hard labour, to follow the last sentence.

The Mayor: Venner, I wish just to speak to you. The Bench consider the way in which you have given your evidence is very unsatisfactory, and the fact is you have run a very good chance of being put in the same position as prisoner. You saw the man take the jugs and hadn't the honesty to inform Mr. Surrey of his loss. Such conduct is very reprehensible. You must be more careful.

Venner: Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Mayor: The Bench wish me to make a remark with regard to the exposing of goods for sale by tradesmen. Now and then it acts as an incentive to men out of employ to steal. We hope in future they will not expose more goods than it is necessary.

Supt. Taylor said goods were very much exposed outside of the shops in the town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1889.

Objection.

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

Objection was raised in respect of the Railway Inn, but the licence was granted, the magistrates ordering the applicant to be more careful in the future.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1896.

Police Court Record.

William Williams was summoned for obstructing Beach Street with a truck. P.C. Burneston, on the 16th September, saw the defendant's truck standing outside the Railway Tavern (sic) for two hours. He eventually found defendant in a public house. Defendant said he was sorry, but he had not known the regulations. Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days'. Allowed a week to pay in.

 

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 Herald 9 December 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mr. A.J. Hart for the Railway Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1900.

Monday, December 3rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Carpenter, and Messrs. Hoad, Ward, Vaughan, and Stainer.

Edward Holbrook, fisherman, was brought up on a charge of having been drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on Saturday night.

P.C. Sales said on Saturday night he was called to eject prisoner from the Railway Inn. He ejected him, and he then started using bad language in the street, challenging witness to lock him up.

Fined 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 May 1901.

Saturday, May 18th: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold, Messrs. Peden, Pledge, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

George Barton was charged with being drunk on licensed premises on the 14th inst.

Inspector Swift said that at 10.15 p.m. he was called to the Railway Inn, Beach Street, where defendant was having an altercation with the landlord. He was drunk. Witness requested him to leave, which he did.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs, allowed seven days to pay.

 

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 Daily News 28 March 1906.

Wednesday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Victor Whitworth Uniacke was charged with being drunk and incapable in Beach Street the previous evening.

P.C. Ashby stated that he was on duty in Beach Street the previous evening about 6.45 when he saw the accused. He was drunk, and reeled from Beach Street to Harbour Street. He went into the Railway Inn, but he was refused to be served. Witness advised him to go home, but he did not take the advice, and as he was incapable of taking charge of himself, he was conveyed to the police station and charged.

Prisoner, a well dressed young man, admitted that he was drunk, but denied that he was unable to take care of himself. He said he had been in ill health, and a little drink overcame him. He much regretted his conduct.

He was fined 2s. 6d. with 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

As the only assets accused appeared, by his statement, to possess were a portmanteau and an umbrella, he was taken below.

 

Folkestone Daily News 16 January 1907.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before Messrs. Ward, Spurgen, Vaughan, and Fynmore.

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Railway Tavern (sic), an old Folkestone house, formerly known as The Dolphin, which has been in the occupation of the Hart family for many years, was granted to Mr. William Hopkins, one of the oldest Hackney carriage drivers in Folkestone.

 

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 Herald 19 January 1907.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Alderman G. Spurgen, and Mr. R.J. Fynmore.

An application was made for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Railway Inn from Mr. Arthur Hart to Mr. William Hopkins, and this was granted.

 

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 Herald 26 January 1907.

Wednesday, January 23rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. T. Ames, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore.

The licence of the Railway Inn, Beach Street was transferred from Arthur James Hart to Wm. Hopkins.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Tuesday, February 5th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such offences.

The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were illegal. Every licence holder must understand that they were to be immediately removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be removed.

The renewal licences for the Black Bull Hotel, the Railway Inn, the Chequers, Queen's Head, Channel Inn, Alexandra Tavern, Perseverance, and Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, were adjourned till the 4th March, some on account of convictions, and some for the consideration of closing them under the Licensing Act. The other applications were granted, a full report of which will appear in our next issue.

 

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 Herald 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey.

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

The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory, and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny, pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful, and not create nuisances with these machines.

The licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen's Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition being given on the ground of redundancy.

The renewals of the licences of the Black Bull Hotel, Alexandra Tavern, Imperial, and Railway Hotel were all adjourned till the adjourned sessions for reasons not given.

The Justices fixed the 4th March as the date of the adjourned licensing meeting.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Railway Inn.

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

There were seven licences to be considered: The Black Bull, Railway Tavern (sic), Railway Hotel, Perseverance, Chequers, Channel Inn, and Queen's Head.

Hills, of Margate, appeared for the tenant, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Minter for the owners, Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury.

The Chief Constable said he opposed on similar grounds to the Channel Inn, viz., that the house was not required. The present tenant obtained the licence on January 23rd of this year. The rateable value of the house was 20. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 15 other public houses. The house was the lowest rated house in Beach Street, and was much inferior to any of the other houses in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Hill: Do I understand you personally reported to the Bench that this house was unnecessary? – Yes.

You took the initiative? – No, sir.

Did you accompany the Sub-Committee? – Yes.

Did you raise any objection? – No.

Why do you today? – By order of the Committee.

Is this the first time that you have objected to this house? – Oh, dear, no.

How long ago? – Eight years ago.

Has this house been included in the list before? – I could not say.

Do I understand that you had already closed eight houses in this area? – Yes, under the Compensation Act.

If it was in your mind at that time, don't you think it would have been right to tell Mr. Hopkins when he invested his money in the house? – I intimated to him that the Bench were closing houses in that area, but I could not tell him his house would be one of those selected.

What does his trade consist of? – I believe he supplies the cabmen principally.

Do you know this licence has been in existence for over 100 years? – I do not.

Have you had any complaint against this house? – I do not remember one single complaint.

Do you know the tenant has been in the employ of Messrs. Ramell? – Yes.

And that he was for 20 years in the employ of the proprietor of the Pavilion Shades? – I shouldn't be surprised.

Have you considered the abnormal population in the summer? – I have.

Don't you think this house would do a very good trade in the summer? – I do not.

Don't you think this house very convenient for the class of men it supplies? – Yes.

Do you think these men would go to the Royal George to get what they need? – Yes, there is ample provision for them there.

Don't you think this house is absolutely necessary for the supplying of refreshments to this particular class of men? – No, sir, decidedly.

Don't you think if the necessary alterations, to which you have referred, were carried out, it would still be a hardship on the tenant? – I do not.

If I prove that this house is doing an excellent trade, isn't that sufficient cause for the existence of such a house? – No, sir.

If the plans put in are carried out and approved of, do you think it right to do away with this old house in preference to a modern one?

The Chief Constable said if this house is reconstructed he should say take some other house that was less suitable for public convenience. He did not know what trade was done at the house.

Mr. Minter: Why haven't you an idea as to the trade done at this house? You had in the case of the Channel Inn. – No, sir, I have an idea that the men who go there can drink a lot.

Mr. Minter: That's because it's good liquor.

Inspector Burniston corroborated the Chief Constable, and said in his opinion the landlord could get a living there.

Mr. Hills dealt with the age of the house, character of the tenant, and the fact that he had not been sufficiently warned before investing his savings by going into the house. He asked the Bench to put themselves in his position. He had so improved the trade that he was drawing nearly a barrel a day, which would be increased 30 or 40 percent during the summer. The trade was for particular persons employed at the Harbour.

W. Hopkin, the tenant, bore out the statement made by Mr. Hills. He admitted that the Chief Constable told him that they were closing some houses in that neighbourhood, but did not say that his house would be interfered with.

Mr. Moxon, manager to Ash and Co., deposed that the average trade was:- 1900, 401; 1901, 350; 1902, 222; 1903, 244; 1904, 202; 1905 197. The reason why it fell off was on account of the licence being transferred from Mr. Hart to his son, who was not so well fitted for a licence holder. (Note: Figures relate to barrelage, not takings, as reported)

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he did not want the house reported. There was no evidence of redundancy because the house in question was doing a very satisfactory trade. If a gin palace with glaring windows with all attractions was drawing trade, it could not be compared with an unassuming house that did not unduly attract customers. They should not remove an old landmark. The house had been doing a good trade for 100 years, and even the teetotaller should support this house rather than the gin palace and all its attractions. Ash's ales were a household word. They supplied good stuff, and had had already five licences taken away. He appealed to the Bench not to remove an old landmark, and if they granted the licence he should immediately ask them to pass the plans for remodelling the house.

The Bench decided to refer it.

 

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 35 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 Herald 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Railway Inn.

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

The next case was that of the Railway Inn, Beach Street. Mr. Hills appeared for the tenant (Mr. Wm. Hopkins), and Mr. Minter for the owners.

The Chief Constable handed in the plan submitted in the last case, and said the licence was objected to on the ground that it was not required for the wants of the neighbourhood. The tenant obtained the transfer in January of this year. The owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value of the house was 20. Within a few doors was the Royal George. In Beach Street there were 24 houses altogether, and 6 of them were on licensed public houses, two being beerhouses, and four fully licensed houses. This was a fully licensed house. A plan of the premises was put in. The premises were old and very low-pitched. There was only one entrance from the street, which opened into a small bar. Through that there was an inner room called the bar parlour. There was an outer window looking into the inner parlour, and the only light obtained was from the front bar. This bar was only about 6 ft. 6 in. or 7 ft. high. Within a radius of 100 yards of the house there were 15 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were altogether 27 other on licensed houses. There was at the back of the house an entrance from Harbour Street. There was also a window in the landlord's kitchen, which opened into the private garden of the adjoining house. This was the lowest rated licensed house in that street. The premises and the accommodation for the public were inferior to any of the other licensed houses in that immediate neighbourhood. Witness considered the licence necessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hill: The house was included in a list that he reported on five years ago, but the Compensation Act was not then in force. He believed that the case had been mentioned since, but the Licensing Committee thought that others should go before it. When the tenant received the licence witness told him that his house might be one of those selected this year for opposition. He had no authority to tell the landlord that it would be opposed. He believed that since the new tenant had been there the major part of his business was with cab-drivers, colliers, and fishermen. He should not be surprised if the licence had been in force for 100 years or more. He did not know that it was in the hands of the Dunn family for 50 years, and the Hart family for 35 years. Witness did not remember a single complaint against the house. The tenant was a most respectable man, and had been in the employ of Messrs. Ramell. From the tenant's point of view, he would not say it was a great hardship to lose his licence.

The Chairman: I think that is a matter for the Committee.

Witness, further cross-examined, did think that the abnormal population of the town would affect that house in the summer months. Thehouse was very convenient to those unloading the colliers. He thought the landlord of the Royal George would be very glad if the class of men using the Railway Inn could not use that inn, and were to use his house. There was ample accommodation for these men there. It was a fact that improvements were contemplated in the house, but the consideration of the plans was left in abeyance pending this enquiry. If the Bench saw fit to insist upon the accommodation being equal to that in the adjoining houses he saw no reason for opposing on the score of the adaptability of the house.

The Chairman: The house is objected to on the grounds of redundancy.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he had reason to believe that the people who went to the house could drink a lot.

Mr. Minter: No doubt, for they get such excellent liquor.

Mr. Reeve had no idea of the amount consumed, but he had reason to think that there was a fair trade for a small house.

Detective Burniston corroborated, and gave as his opinion that the Railway Inn was inferior to any house in the street. He considered the licence unnecessary.

Mr. Hills, having addressed the Bench, called Mr. William Hopkins, who said that previously he was for 20 years at the Pavilion Shades. He saved 200, and paid for the valuation of the house 145. From the 17th January to the 26th February he disposed of 35 barrels of beer and 12 dozen bottled beer. He knew when he went into the house that a great deal of summer trade could be done. His customers consisted of cab-drivers, fishermen, and seafaring men. He was perfectly satisfied with what he was doing at this time of the year.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve: He paid 19 a year. There was one front and one back door. He was firmly of opinion that it was necessary to have sixteen houses within 100yards of his house.

The Chief Constable: Do you know why the late tenant left?

Witness: Bad trade.

Mr. Charles Moxam, manager to the owners, gave particulars of the business done in the house. In 1900, 401 barrels were consumed; 1901, 352 barrels; 1902, 222 barrels; 1903, 227 barrels; 1904, 244 barrels; 1905, 202 barrels; and 1906, 197 barrels. The reason that the business fell off after 1901 was that the then tenant was not altogether a suitable man for a publican, he having merely taken over the house at his father's request. The present tenant had done 35 barrels, and he was of opinion that the figures of 1900 could be equalled.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of the owners. If a house did a good trade it could not be said to be redundant. He pointed out that the refusal of the renewal would mean the removal of an old landmark. He though he could claim that the teetotallers should support him, because his clients did not go to the extent of advertising their establishment as a flaming gin palace. It was not fair that the house should be done away with simply because two houses had been erected on either side of the Railway Inn. No less than five of these owners' houses had been taken away.

The Bench announced that they would refer the case to the East Kent Committee.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 July 1907.

Local News.

Our readers will remember that at the recent Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer the licences of the Channel Inn, High Street, the Queen's Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, to the County Licensing Authority. At a meeting of this body on Thursday the question came up for consideration, and eventually it was decided to withdraw the licences of the Channel Inn, the Perseverance, and the Queen's Head. The licence of the Railway Inn was renewed. Compensation will, of course, be granted to the owners and tenants of the closed houses.

 

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 Herald 13 July 1907.

Local News.

The Railway Inn.

Lord Harris presided at the principal meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Thursday.

The Committee had referred to them twenty four houses, including four from Folkestone, viz., the Channel, High Street; the Railway Inn, Beach Street; the Perseverance, Dover Street; and the Queen's Head, Beach Street.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the Justices, Mr. Bodkin for the brewers (Messrs. Ash and Co.), and Mr. H. Morris for the tenant (Mr. William Hopkins).

Mr. Reeve stated that of the twenty four houses in Beach Street, six were licensed premises. This house was the lowest rateable value of the six, and within 100 yards of it there were 15 other licensed houses, while within 200 yards there were 27. The tenant had held the licence since January, and before he took it witness told him to hesitate, as the Justices had a tendency to close houses in the congested area. The tenant was formerly a cab driver.

In reply to Mr. Bodkin, witness said he had nothing to say against the conduct of the house at all. He was aware that five others of Ash and Co.'s houses in this district had gone.

In reply to Mr. Morris, witness said he believed the Dunn and Hart families had held the house for a great many years.

Mr. Bodkin said it would be a particular hardship to Messrs. Ash and Co. if they were made to lose this house in addition to the five they had already had to surrender. He also commented upon the apparent action of the Justices in choosing houses for reference, saying that they seemed to think that because a licensed house was a small one of no great appearance it ought to go. A strict enquiry into all the circumstances would show these houses to be even more useful to the community than some of the large ones allowed to remain.

Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, gave evidence as to proposed alterations to improve the pitch and tone of the house, involving an expenditure of between 500 and 600.

Mr. P. Brothers, Secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the premises were freehold property, and had been in their hands about forty years. The trade had greatly improved during the present tenancy. His firm were quite prepared to spend the sum Mr. Bromley had mentioned on improvements.

In reply to Mr. Matthews, witness said the firm had other houses in Folkestone, but not in the immediate neighbourhood.

The tenant stated that he was a cab driver for 29 years, and saved 200, which he had invested in the house. He paid 140 valuation. He handed in a memorial signed by 250 persons in favour of the retention of the licence.

The Committee decided to renew the Railway Inn, but to refuse those of the Channel, Perseverance, and Queen's Head.

 

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 Herald 12 October 1907.

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

Mr. De Wet, on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., made an application in respect of the Railway Inn. He said the Bench would remember that at the general annual licensing sessions the renewal of the licence was referred back to the adjourned sessions. Then a report was made against the renewal of the licence of the house on the ground that it was not wanted, and also on several other points which he would enumerate. The Chief Constable had stated that there was only one entrance to the premises, that the bars were very low-pitched, being from 6 ft. to 7 ft., and that a certain parlour, sometimes called a tap room, was very badly lighted, the light only coming from the small front bar; also that these premises were the worst for accommodation of any of the houses in that neighbourhood. From the plans put forward it would be seen that Messrs. Ash and Co. had done their very best to satisfy the exacting requirements or suggestions of the Chief Constable. The case of the Railway Inn had been referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee, and the question was gone into. After due consideration that authority agreed to renew the licence. Messrs. Ash and Co., although they had won the day at Canterbury, felt that they should fall in with the suggestions of the Chief Constable. He therefore submitted to the Bench and explained the plans, which Messrs. Ash asked them to approve.

Mr. A. Bromley, architect, also explained the plans to the Bench. He said that provision was made for two entrances.

The Bench, after scrutinising the plans, considered that when the alterations proposed were made, they would not be old premises at all, but would be new ones, for which a fresh licence would be required. The area of the premises would be quite double that of the present.

Mr. De Wet argued that the Bench had adopted proposals similar to that which he put before the Bench in the case of the Eagle Tavern.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Messrs. Herbert, Fynmore, Boyd, Carpenter, and Leggett.

Mr. De Wet made an application on behalf of the Railway Inn. He said the business had been considerably improved since he last applied to them. The revised plans showed that the owners had acquired the old cottage adjoining in order to provide greater accommodation to the public, and also to provide a second entrance for the convenience of the police. Extra light had also been provided, which disposed of the objection of the house being badly lighted. The bar was a nine foot one, and as far as the facilities for drinking were concerned no extra facilities had been provided.

Mr. Bromley gave evidence as to the plans providing the extra accommodation referred to by Mr. De Wet. He said in order to raise the bar to nine foot it would be necessary to raise the roof.

In reply to the Chief Constable, Mr. Bromley said the estimated cost would be about 400. There were two backs of other houses that led to the back of the house.

The Chief Constable said he was still of opinion that the house was unnecessary. It was situated in the congested area, and it was, in his opinion, the most unsuitable house for the renewal of the licence.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said they had come to the conclusion that they thought the matter had better be adjourned till the next Sessions.

An application by Mr. Filmer, of the Guildhall Vaults, to alter his billiard room so as to give him wider space, was granted.

Mr. Goldsmith, of the Packet Boat Inn, applied for permission to remove a cottage that at present supplied the roof of the taproom, and utilise the space for improving the house.

The matter was adjourned till the Annual Licensing Sessions, the Magistrates, in the meantime, promising to go down and inspect the premises.

 

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 Herald 7 December 1907.

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

An application was made for sanction to alterations at the Railway Inn.

Mr. De Wet, who appeared for the applicant, said he had provided for the principal objections that were raised at the annual Licensing Sessions. They were that the building was badly ventilated, that the bars were low, and that the place was badly lighted. The plans that the owners had produced remedied all these defects.

Mr. A. Bromley, who was called as the architect, said that he estimated the cost of the alterations at about 400.

The Chief Constable said that this building was situated within the congested area. He thought this house was unnecessary, and he hoped the Bench would consider that point.

The Bench deferred the matter to the next Licensing Sessions.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

Mr. James Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, and also for a beer off licence for the Morehall Hotel.

The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.

The following licences were under consideration: Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and Packet Boat.

The licences of the Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Packet Boat, and Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, were adjourned till March 2nd.

 

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 4 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.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report. (For which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well conducted.

The various licensees then came forward for their renewals.

The Magistrates formally gave notice that the granting of the following licence would be deferred till the adjourned licensing meeting, and that in the meantime notice of opposition would be served:-

The Railway Inn, Beach Street, Folkestone; lessee Mr. Wm. Hopkins.

 

Folkestone Daily News 2 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 2nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Carpenter, Herbert, Leggett, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, and Stainer.

Railway Inn, Beach Street.

Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of the owners and tenant (Mr. William Hopkins).

The Chief Constable said he opposed on the same grounds as in the previous case, viz., that the house was not required in that area. The present tenant had occupied the house since February, 1907, and the owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., the rateable value being 20. There were 24 houses in Beach Street, and 5 of them were on licensed houses. Within a radius of 150 yards there were 14 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 250 yards there were 24 licensed houses. The house had been conducted in a very satisfactory manner. For a small house there was a fair trade done there, but in his opinion if the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation in other houses.

Mr. Mercer said there had been no less than ten applications made since January, 1907, and the chief objection seemed to have been the construction of the house. The owners had tried to meet all requirements in this respect. The licence came before the compensation authority on July 11th, 1907, and the licence was allowed to be held. The owners had spent over 600 on alterations, and he submitted that the class of customers catered for at this house would not go to an hotel. The trade was an enormous one, both in beer and spirits, and if compared with a certain neighbouring house the Bench would find that his client was doing five times as much trade as that house. They did 362 barrels of beer a year, and 132 gallons of spirits.

Mr. Hopkins, the landlord, in reply to the Chief Constable, said he thought his house was required. His customers were chiefly composed of cabdrivers and seafaring men.

The Chairman said they would take the other case before giving their decision.

The Bench decided to refer the case.

 

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 Herald 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Councillor G. Boyd, Col. Fynmore, Col. Hamilton, Messrs, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Town Hall on Monday morning, when the licences of three houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street (Beer and Co.), the Eagle, High Street (Style and Winch), and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street (Ash and Co.), were referred to the Compensation Authority for East Kent.

The Railway Inn.

Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared for the owners and tenant, and admitted all the formal evidence as given in the last case.

The Chief Constable stated that the objection to the house was on the ground of redundancy. The house in question was in Beach Street. A plan had been sent showing the present house, and alterations that the owners were anxious to make. The owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., of Canterbury. The tenant was Mr. Wm. Hopkins, and the rateable value of the house was 20. Next door to the house was the Alexandra Hotel, the rateable value of which was 140, and 36 yards away was the Royal George, with a rateable value of 56. There were twenty four houses in Beach Street, and five of them were on licensed premises. The house in question was old and low pitched, and there was only one entrance from the street, which opened into 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 there was for the public. There was also a back way to the house from Harbour Street, and that led to the kitchen door. There was a right of way down the passage for the adjoining property owners, and the window in the living room of the landlord opened into the backyard of the adjoining house. The premises and accommodation were much inferior to any other licensed house in that neighbourhood. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 14 other on licensed houses, and ithin a radius of 200 yards there were 24 other on licensed houses. The house in the present tenant's time had been conducted in a very satisfactory manner. The customers were chiefly men employed at the Harbour and cabmen from the cab rank opposite. For so small a house there appeared to be a fair trade done there, but in his opinion if the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation in the adjoining houses for the customers that used the house. Commencing at the Princess Royal, there were practically seven licensed houses in a row. He considered that number to be excessive and unnecessary. The Railway was undoubtedly the smallest, least suitable, and, in his opinion, doing the least trade of the seven.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The chief objection has been as to structure. There had been ten applications to the Bench for alterations. The licence had been renewed by the Compensation Authority. He did not know that in consequence of the renewal by the Compensation Authority the owners acquired the adjoining premises and submitted plans. There was no doubt the owners had tried to improve the place. He did not think the trade could be compared with the Alexandra. There had only been two applications for transfer of the house for 38 years.

Mr. Mercer, addressing the Court, said he hoped by showing the amount of trade and the desire to improve the premises to prove the necessity of resisting the opposition. Whether in these days of doubt and difficulty it was worthwhile preserving a licence at all he did not know. Probably they would know in three months, but whilst there was life there was hope. If it was thought compensation should be based on rateable value that was entirely wrong. Speaking as Clerk of the Peace in a City Borough, he could say that the main figure in arriving at the question as to compensation was entirely as to trade. The Railway was doing an enormous trade from the point of view of barrelage and spirits. He suggested that a paper should be handed to the Court showing the amount of trade done, and he asked that it should not be divulged. His client, who held another house in that particular property, would show that the Railway did more trade than some of the neighbouring houses, and five times as much as the Alexandra.

William Hopkins, tenant of the house, said that he had got out the amount of trade done at the Railway Inn for twelve months, and the figures showed the exact figures. There were 362 barrels of beer, including six barrels done in bottled beer, and 132 gallons of spirits. Since January, 1907, when he went in, he was quite satisfied with his house. He had had no trouble with the police. His customers consisted of seafaring men and cab drivers. Witness was the tenant when the house was referred, and practically at every special session plans had been submitted for alterations to the place.

Cross-examined: He did think that 24 houses in a radius of 200 yards were necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

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

The Bench then considered the cases of the Railway Inn and the Eagle, and on their return the Chairman announced that the cases would be referred to the Compensation Authority at 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 Herald 11 July 1908.

Local News.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at Canterbury on Thursday, when Lord Harris presided.

The following Folkestone houses came up for decision: The Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, an alehouse, belonging to Messrs. G. Beer and Co. Mr. Joseph Wormold tenant; the Railway Inn, Beach Street, Folkestone, alehouse, belonging to Messrs. Ash and Co. Mr. William Hopkins tenant; The Eagle, High Street, Folkestone, a beerhouse (ante 1869), belonging to Messrs. Style and Winch. Mr. William Henry White tenant.

Of these the following were allowed to go to compensation without opposition: The Bricklayers Arms and the Eagle.

The Railway Inn.

This was the only house contested, Mr. Matthew appearing for the licensing justices, Mr. Joseph for the brewers, and Mr. Morris for the tenant.

Chief Constable Reeve gave evidence as to the number of licences in the borough. Within 100 yards of this house there were 14 other licensed houses, and within 200 yards 24. The accommodation was poor, but the house had been well conducted, and there was a fair trade done for so small a house. In his opinion the house was not necessary, and there would be ample accommodation left if it was done away with.

In reply to Mr. Joseph, witness said it was true that there had only been five changes at the house for 38 years. The present tenant was a very respectable man. This was a house he personally caused to be scheduled some six or seven years ago. It was referred last year, and renewed by the local Committee. He admitted that plans for improvements had been got out, but these had never come before the Licensing Justices. He did not know of any cottage being purchased – which adjoined the licensed house – so as to make the improvements. He did not think there was so much trade done at the Fishmarket, and down at the Harbour, as there was six months ago.

Mr. Joseph: Is that the only altered circumstance since a year ago? – That is about all.

How many licences were sent for compensation last time? – Five, I believe.

And those five would counterbalance the depression in trade, would they not? – The whole five were not referred for compensation.

In reply to the Chairman, witness said Messrs. Ash and Co. had another house almost directly opposite, and two others in the vicinity.

Mr. Joseph submitted that this licence ought to be renewed. It was a great hardship upon the owners and tenant, and to everybody concerned, that this house should have been referred again this year. It was referred last year by the Licensing Authority, when it was considered most carefully by that Committee, who ordered the licence to be renewed. No fresh circumstances had arisen that would cause the Committee to alter their decision of last year. Having given figures of the increased trade now done at the house, and referred to the respectable class of trade done, Mr. Joseph referred to the alterations it was suggested should be made, and urged that it would not be fair to either the owners or the tenant to take away the licence now.

Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, gave evidence as to preparing plans for improvements to the house to the extent of 500 or 550. Messrs. Ash and Co. were quite prepared to carry out the suggested improvements.

In reply to the Committee, it was stated that Messrs. Ash and Co. gave 250 for the cottage adjoining the house.

Evidence was given by the tenant, Mr. Hopkins, to the effect that he last year did as much as 362 barrels, and he was perfectly satisfied with the living he was getting there.

Mr. P.G. Brothers, secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., gave figures showing the increased trade under Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Matthew: But you could place Mr. Hopkins elsewhere if this house was referred?

Mr. Brothers said they had nowhere else to put him.

Mr. Matthew: But it is easy to create vacancies. (Laughter)

Mr. Morris submitted, on behalf of the tenant, that it would be a very great hardship if he had to go now after the decision of the Committee only a year back.

The Committee decided to send the house for compensation.

 

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 24 October, 1908.

EAST KENT LICENSING COMMITTEE. SUPPLEMENTAL MEETING AT CANTERBURY. COMPENSATION AWARDS.

The supplemental meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee met at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on Monday for the purpose of considering claims for compensation under the Licensing Act of 1904. Lord Harris presided, the other members of the Committee present being Lieut.-Colonel S. Newton-Dickenson, Messrs. F. H. Wilbee, H. Fitzwalter Plumptre, J. H. Monins. F. E. Burke, F. Cheesmsn, and A. Flint. The majority of the agreements as to terms of compensation between owners and tenants were signed, only four cases being referred to the Inland Revenue. The following agreements were signed:—

"Railway Inn," Folkestone, Ash and Co., 1,520, W. Hopkins 136.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 October 1908.

East Kent Licensing.

A supplementary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, at Canterbury, on Monday, when Lord Harris presided. The following Folkestone houses were considered for compensation:-

The Railway Inn.

An alehouse in Beach Street; tenant, Mr. William Hopkins; owners, Messrs. Ash & Co.

Mr. Percy Brothers, secretary to the brewers, said the owners and tenant had agreed to 1,655 as compensation, the owners to receive 1,520, and the tenant 135.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 February 1929.

Obituary.

In her ninety third year Mrs. Luisa Ann Hart passed away at 3, Richmond Street on Tuesday.

Mrs. Hart will be remembered by many as the widow of the late Mr. James Hart, licensee of the Railway Inn, Beach Street.

She leaves five sons and three daughters. One of the former is Mr. Albert Hart, who at one time was the landlord of the Black Horse Inn, Swingfield, and an energetic late Secretary of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Society. Mr. Hart is now a builder at Hawkinge.

The late Mrs. Hart belonged to old Folkestone stock, and was widely esteemed.

The funeral took place yesterday at the Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 May 1970.

Stroller.

One thing leads to another. My reference recently to the mini-display of old documents and photographs of the wine trade in Folkestone before and after the turn of the century has prompted a townsman to let me see some more interesting papers and early photographs of Folkestone.

In particular, they reveal that 100 years ago there was a Railway Inn in Beach Street, not many steps from the Tram Road and the Fishmarket. No doubt it took its name from the nearby railway, linking the old Junction station with Folkestone Harbour. The licensee, James Hart, one of a well-known Folkestone family, paid Thomas Ash, “common brewers of the City and County of Canterbury”, a yearly rental of 15. In those days 15 was 15. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that Mr. Hart should “bear and pay all rates and taxes whatsoever, with the exception of the land and property tax, chargeable in respect of the said premises”. Twenty-nine years later the licence was transferred from father to son, Arthur James Hart. At that time the licensee paid a publican's licence of 14 5s. 3d. to the Inland Revenue for the privilege of carrying on business.

There's no doubt that the Beach Street of those days was almost the hub of Folkestone's business life. There were other inns, notably Horlock’s Royal George Hotel (almost destroyed in the last war). Its immediate proximity to the railway and harbour was described as being “peculiarly adapted to the convenience of the continental tourist . . . with extensive and beautiful views of the sea and the coast of France”.

For all the faults of our civic fathers, they cannot be blamed for the disappearance of Beach Street and adjacent narrow, picturesque streets with their little shops. The Luftwaffe did the deed in the later part of 1940. The instrument-in-chief was a land mine. For those who knew old Folkestone well and never failed to be charmed by a stroll through the narrow, cobbled thoroughfares, that particular piece of Blitzkreig is still hard to forgive.

The Railway Inn had disappeared before 1914, also the Blue Anchor at the entrance to The Stade. There were, however, plenty of other drinking and eating-houses in the closely-knit huddle of byways and highways.

For a number of details I have to thank Mr. Bill Hart, one of the senior members of the printing staff at the Folkestone offices of Messrs. F.J. Parsons (Kent Newspapers) Ltd. His father was Mr. Arthur James Hart, who became licensee of the Railway Inn in 1899. Mr. Arthur Hart's brother, Albert, was long associated with Folkestone Football Club before and after the First World War, and will still be remembered by some older townsmen. He was also a Folkestone Councillor, builder and Kent football legislator.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

HART James 1870-99 (also railway breaksman age 38 in 1871Census)Post Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891Kelly's 1899

HART Arthur James 1899-1907 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

HOPKINS William 1907-08+ Next pub licensee had

 

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room