Folkestone Express 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

The licensing day was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

Fresh Application:

George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, Harvey Square, applied for a license. Mr. Minter, who supported the application, said that a number of new houses had been built in this neighbourhood, and, the house being of a very respectable character, he did not see what interest they could have in objecting to grant one. Houses are more likely to keep respectable when they have a license, which places them under the surveillance of the police.

Mr. Minter called the attention of the Bench to the fact that at Liverpool the magistrates granted licenses to every respectable applicant, and the houses there were of a good class and character. He did not think this ought to be a question of necessity, but one of respectability.

After a short consultation, the Mayor stated that the magistrates were unanimous in refusing the application. They did not see any necessity in the application, and they wished it to be understood that they will not grant licenses without the necessity is shown.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1869.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Spirit License (Fresh Application)

George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, applied. Mr. Minter supported the application, and put in a memorial.

The Court was then cleared. When re-opened the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to the unanimous decision that no more licenses should be granted, but in exceptional cases, as they were of opinion that too many licensed houses already exist. The application would be refused.

Folkestone Express 22 January 1870.

County Court.

Monday, January 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George Burgess came up for his last examination. Mr. Minter supported the application for discharge. As there was no opposition, the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1870.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The Richmond Tavern: Mr. George Burgess applied for a spirit license. Mr. Munter appeared on behalf of the applicant, who, he said, had conducted this house as a beerhouse for the last four years without any complaint. He had a memorial signed by nearly all the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, which was a largely increasing one, and Mr. Minter hoped they would accede to his request, the number of houses that had been erected there rendering some accommodation really necessary, as it would be very convenient to the inhabitants.

The Bench decided on not granting the above application.

Folkestone Express 31 August 1872.

Wednesday, August 28th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

Brewster Sessions.

The proceedings were of a routine nature and, contrary to expectations, no allusion was made by the Bench to the new Licensing Act. There was not a single complaint against any licensed victualler or beerhouse keeper. The applicants had merely to pay their eight-and-sixpence each and, under the provisions of the new Act, give the names and owners of their respective houses, and receive their licenses. Each holder of a license was informed by Mr. Martin, Superintendent of Police, that he must close his house at eleven o'clock on working days and ten o'clock on Sunday nights, an announcement which did not cause any manifestation of feeling on the part of those whom it concerned.

It was incidentally stated that the North Foreland public house had been bought by Mr. Hodge for the purpose of preventing it being used as a public house.

The only application for a new wine and spirit license was made by Mr. George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, Harvey Road.

Mr. Minter, in supporting the application presented a numerously signed memorial from inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and stated that the tavern had been in the occupation of applicant several years and no complaint had been made against the house. There was a large and increasing neighbourhood, and the house stood at a corner, surrounded by other houses. There was a necessity for a spirit license, which the memorialists strongly recommended the Bench to grant, and all the signatures were genuine, and were those of persons living in the neighbourhood. Mr. Minter called the attention to the fact that the license of the North Foreland would be stopped, so that if the granted the new application, which was the only one made, there would be the same number of public houses in Folkestone as at present. The granting of the license would be a great convenience to the neighbourhood.

Mr. Martin, at the request of the applicant, was asked as to the conduct of the house, when he gave the negative testimony that he had had no complaints from the police. He had known the house several years.

Applicant was sworn and stated that the rent of the house was £35. There were eight rooms in it, two of which besides the bar would be for the use of the public. The house belonged to his brother.

The Court was cleared for a short time and on the re-admission of the public the Mayor said the Bench were of opinion that applicant had not made out his case, and that they did not intend to grant any more licenses for that neighbourhood at present. The application was therefore refused.

This was Mr. Burgess's sixth application for the spirit license, and on this occasion there was no opposition.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1873.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The licensing committee met at ten o'clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o'clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

Mr. Till appeared in support of an application by Mr. George Burgess for a spirit license to the Richmond Arms (sic) beerhouse, Harvey Street, and said that Mr. Burgess had occupied the house thirteen years, and the present was the sixth application he had made for a spirit license, and on no occasion had there been any opposition to his applications, and he had never had the slightest complaint against his house. The neighbourhood was increasing in population and there was no house with a spirit license very near. Applicant had spent a considerable amount of money in improving his premises. Mr. Till having presented a memorial from inhabitants of the neighbourhood said he must leave the matter in the hands of their Worships as he had an engagement which necessitated his going away at twelve o'clock.

The Bench took time to consider the application, and at a later hour informed Mr. Burgess that they saw no reason to alter the decision they arrived at on former occasions and refused to grant the license.

Note: This was the SEVENTH application.

Folkestone Express 29 August 1874.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The seventy four licensed victuallers, twelve beershop keepers and twenty three grocers and wine merchants had their licenses renewed, with the exception of those named.

New Licenses.

Richmond Tavern: Mr. George Burgess applied for the eighth time for a spirit license for the Richmond Tavern.

Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application, and having shown that the house was well conducted as a beershop, and that it was a suitable place for a license, the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 16 June 1877.

Tuesday, June 12th: Before W.J. Jeffreason and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Catherine Harrington once more made her appearance in the dock, charged as of yore with being drunk and disorderly.

The scene of her exploit on this occasion was the Richmond Tavern, from whence P.C. Sharpe was called about ten o'clock on the previous evening to remove her owing to her violent conduct and abusive language. He used all his persuasive powers to make her go away, but she resisted his kindly endeavours and deposited her gentle frame in the muddy road and blasphemed to her heart's content. So contrary was the fair and gentle creature that P.C. Sharpe was reluctantly obliged to convey her to the place where she had often been before, viz., the police station.

Prisoner in accordance with her usual custom promised the Magistrates to repent and reform from her evil ways, and to leave the town directly she quitted their august presence. She pathetically informed the Justices that she only came out of the Union on Monday morning, and not a mouthful of victuals passed her lips from half past six o'clock, when she left that noble institution, till she arrived in Folkestone in the afternoon, when she met a female who treated her to a single glass of beer, which took seven hours to drink, and at the expiration of that time “got into her head”, owing to her not having anything to eat “the whole day long”.

The Bench disbelieved her promises of amendment, and being afraid that she would not leave the town if they let her go, sent her over to Dover gaol for three weeks, and ordered her to be set to hard labour during that period.

Folkestone Express 25 October 1884.

Saturday, October 18th: Before Captain Carter, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Temporary authority was granted to George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, to carry on business at the Rendezvous.

Folkestone Express 1 November 1884.

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

Transfer Of Licence.

The licence of the Richmond Tavern was transferred to Cornelius John Burgess.

Folkestone Express 21 March 1885.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before The Mayor, Captain Fletcher, Captain Crowe, and Alderman Hoad.

John Lewis was charged with being disorderly and refusing to quit the Richmond Tavern.

Mr. Burgess, the landlord, said the defendant went to his house about four o'clock on Saturday afternoon. He was “as near sober as possible”, and he let him have two half pints of beer. He then became excited, and remained nearly two hours. His wife was there, and they began quarrelling. Witness ordered defendant to leave the premises, and he refused. Witness then sent for the police, who removed him. About half an hour after the defendant returned, and demanded some more beer, and again refused to leave the house, saying he would lay wait for witness, and in five or six days he would “pay him for it”.

P.C. Lilley said he was called to the Richmond Tavern about eight o'clock to put the defendant out.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 10s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1889.

Re Burgess Bankruptcy:

The report is identical and verbatim as was in the Folkestone Chronicle of this date, but with the following footnote:

Mr. James Flint states that the evidence given by the debtor with reference to his having been with him at the White Hart for an hour is entirely incorrect. They were not in the house for more than five minutes, and subsequently took the bus from Hythe to Folkestone, where the bankrupt cashed his cheque, and certainly was not intoxicated when Mr. Flint left him.

Folkestone Express 2 February 1889.

Wednesday, January 30th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and J. Brooke Esq.

The licence of the Richmond Tavern was transferred to Mr. Burgess, brother of the late landlord, and owner of the premises.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1889.

Local News.

Re. George Burgess. At the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court on Friday, the Official receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll), said the case was adjourned to enable certain parties to be examined privately. That had been done, and as a result of that private examination there would no doubt have to be motions before the court. As far as the bankrupt was concerned he had no further questions to ask him. The bankrupt was then allowed to pass the public examination.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1889.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The licence of the Richmond Tavern was transferred to Frederick Burgess.

Folkestone Express 17 August 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

His Honour Judge Selfe held a sitting of this Court on Monday at the Guildhall.

Re. George Burgess.

The petition was filed in December, 1888. This was an application for discharge. The total debts amounted to £650 14s. 1d., and the assets realised £142 8s. 5d. A dividend of 3s. 3d. had been paid.

The Official Receiver (Mr. Mowll) alleged that the debtor had not kept proper books of account, and that he had traded after knowledge of insolvency. The debtor had been bankrupt about 24 years previously. He also said that the bankrupt had put one of his creditors, viz., the Committee of the National Art Treasures Exhibition, to unnecessary expense by a frivolous defence to an action brought against him.

Mr. Ward said the debtor had intended to appeal against the decision given in the case of the Art Treasures Exhibition, but he had thought better of it. The defence was that the guarantee was obtained by fraud and that Lord Radnor had promised to contribute £3,000. The Official receiver drew the attention of the Court to the transaction with Messrs. Flint. The bankrupt, on the eve of his bankruptcy, and when he admitted he knew he was insolvent, gave a security to Messrs. Flint. This security was carefully considered by the Official Receiver and Messrs. Flint paid £100 to the trustee of the estate and were allowed to prove for £113, the balance of the account. A sum of £5 was also paid to a man named Barrow by the bankrupt after he knew he was insolvent.

The Judge: What are your prospects now?

Debtor: Haven't any.

By the Official Receiver: The distress by Lord Radnor for rent was put in at the end of December. The valuation of the bankrupt's garden was completed a day or two before the distress was put in.

The Official Receiver said the debtor ought to have filed his petition directly after the valuation was made.

In reply to His Honour, Mr. Mowll said that his own personal opinion was that the mere suspension of the discharge was no punishment at all. What he would ask was that where a man might be in a position to earn money, and where the liabilities were not large, that the man should be ordered to pay an increased dividend. He did not think it would be too hard to make up the dividend to 5s. in the £.

His Honour said that the question was what was a practical and proper order to make upon the facts made known. In one case the Court of Appeal strongly condemned the clogging of a case with conditions of payment. How could an order be made upon the debtor? It was useless to make an order when there was no probability of the money being paid. Under the Act of Parliament the report of the Official Receiver was made prima facie evidence of the facts of the case. It was for hism to consider how far the charges were sustained. Having entered into the facts of the case, His Honour said with regard to the allegation of trading with knowledge of insolvency, there was no doubt that the debtor traded on in the hope that a good season would, as he said, “bring him back to his bearings”. It was not a thing which should be dealt with very seriously. Loss had occurred to the creditors from the debtor not having called independent advice upon his position. With respect to the Folkestone Art Exhibition, he thought if the promised guarantee was not obtained by fraud, as asserted in the defence of the debtor and others, it was at least obtained in such a way as to render the fact of the debtor's objection to pay a very light matter indeed. In one case he knew, a railway guard, earning about two guineas a week, was induced to guarantee £25 towards the Exhibition upon the representation that he would only be liable for a small portion. He did not feel disposed to order a larger dividend to be paid. If no dividend had been paid it would have been a proper course to make such an order. The discharge would be suspended for 12 months.

Folkestone Express 14 December 1889.

Wednesday, December 11th: Before Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Transfer.

Mr. Ward applied for a transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern from George Burgess to A. Farr and the transfer was granted.

Folkestone Express 21 May 1892.

Wednesday, May 18th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Richard Major, landlord of the Richmond Tavern, was summoned for having his premises open during prohibited hours on Sunday week.

Mr. Minter, instructed by the Licensed Victuallers Protection Society, defended.

Sergeant Harman said he went with P.C. Dunster to the Richmond Tavern on Sunday morning, the 8th inst., at two a.m. They went into the house and found five men there, and glasses and pots which had contained drink. The defendant said “They have all engaged beds, Sergeant, so what can I do?” He took their names and addresses, and at five minutes past two saw a man named Mercer leave with another man. He found one man in bed. There were only three bedrooms in the house.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, stated that the landlord of the house was away at Chatham, and had left a properly qualified manager in charge. He did not dispute the facts as stated, but said that the cause of these men being there was that a lodger named Aird, who had lived there for the past three months, gave a supper party, and those men were his guests. He quoted a case which had been tried in the Queen's Bench, in which Baron Pollock quashed a conviction of the justices.

Mrs. Alice Saunders, employed at the Richmond Tavern, said that on Saturday at midday she received an order to prepare a supper for Mr. Aird and his friends for 9.30 the same night. The order was for four persons, but six sat down. The house was closed at ten o'clock.

By the Bench: She had been there about three months. She went there the latter end of March.

Hamilton Aird, a butcher, said he had been living at the Richmond Tavern about three months. He occupied a bedroom, and had his meals in any room that was convenient. When he went to dinner on Saturday he ordered the supper to be prepared for that night between nine and ten o'clock. There were three guests invited to the supper, and everything was paid for by him.

Henry Arthur Parr, manager ast the Richmond Tavern, said Mr. Aird had been lodging there for about three months, and he had his bills to prove it. He asked for supper to be provided on Saturday night for two or three or perhaps five or six. Supper was laid in his private room. His house was closed at eleven o'clock, not ten as stated by Mrs. Saunders. The man in bed had been there two hours before the sergeant came.

The Bench retired, and on their return announced that they had decided to convict, the defence set up not being made out. The licence would not be endorsed, but defendant would be fined 50s. and 18s. costs.

Folkestone Express 28 May 1892.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

George Lepper, Richard Penny, Edward Down, Thomas Mercer, and David Larkin were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 8th May. Lepper and Larkin pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday morning, May 8th, he visited the Richmond Tavern. He found six men there. Down tried to escape by a side door, Mercer tried to conceal himself in the kitchen, and Penny and Lepper were in the smoking room. He told them he should report them. Down said he should not have been there had it not been for Aird. The others made no reply. He went upstairs and found Larkin in bed, and as far as he couls see he was undressed. He told him he should report him for being there during prohibited hours, and he made no reply. He saw Mercer leave about ten minutes past two. He left P.C. Dunster with instructions to watch. He saw on the smoking room table five glasses and a pewter pot.

Mr. Minter appeared for Larkin, and cross-examined the witness, who said he did not ask the landlord if there was anyone upstairs. The landlord asked him to go upstairs. He saw Larkin's clothes on a chair. He had some difficulty in waking Larkin. He did not go upstairs a second time, but went into the bedroom a second time. Larkin was still lying in bed. He did not ask “What is the matter?”

P.C. Dunster said he saw Larkin leave the Richmond Tavern at twenty minutes past one, go into No. 4, Richmond Street, and close the door. He did not know who lived there. About ten minutes to two he visited the Richmond Tavern in company with Sergeant Harman, and there found Larkin in bed. The other defendants were in a room below. About ten minutes past two he saw two men leave the house – Mercer was one. About half past two another man left; he could not say who that was. About three two others came out and one of them was Larkin.

By Mr. Minter: I don't know that Larkin lodges at 4, Richmond Street. I did not see him leave to go back to the Richmond. I was not then watching the house.

Lepper said he was employed by the landlord of the house as potman.

Henry Arthur Farr was called, and said Lepper was employed by him as barman and potman. His wages were 12s. a week. He had no stated hours.

By Mr. Minter: He was not acquainted with Larkin before this evening. About a quarter past twelve he went to the house and asked witness if he would oblige him with a bed, as he had lost his key. He showed him upstairs at once. He paid eighteen pence for the bed. He went to bed and did not leave till eight o'clock in the morning, when he made him a cup of tea. Larkin had nothing to do with the other defendants. He was a perfect stranger to him. He asked Sergeant Harman to go upstairs and see there was nobody concealed.

Dunster was re-called, and in answer to Mr. Minter, he repeated that he saw Larkin go to No. 4, Richmond Street. He saw him come out of the Richmond Tavern at 1.20. About three he saw Larkin leave. He did not go to 4, Richmond Street.

Mr. Minter said he was sorry to say it came to a case of perjury one way or the other. He could not help it. They must accept the responsibility. But he should like to make an observation or two on Larkin's case, because it had assumed an aspect of a very serious nature. If Dunster had told an untruth, which he suggested he had, the question came, had he deliberately told an untruth, or was he mistaken? He was under the impression that he was mistaken. It was terrible to suggest that a police constable was deliberately telling an untruth without some real motive, and he did not wish to suggest it. But what he wished to suggest was, that he was utterly mistaken with regard to Larkin. He had very likely mistaken him for the man next to him, who was very much like him. The defence he was instructed to make was clear and distinct, and when he told them who Larkin was, he thought the Bench would agree that he was a man as much entitled to credence as the police constable, who was evidently mistaken. Larkin happened to be down here as the holder of a special mission. He was a member of the detective force from Scotland Yard, and was not a person who was in the habit of running about to public houses at night, or of stopping out at night. On the occasion in question, he was in bed when the police went into the house. He had been to Hythe, and if it was necessary to trace his movements on that evening he should apply for an adjournment. He lodged in Richmond Terrace, close to the Richmond Tavern. A widow occupied the house, and he himself was in the habit of getting in early. But, as he said, he had been to Hythe, and he thought he had his latch key with him, but he had not. He would not quibble about the hour, although the policeman was mistaken as to that also. He said he saw Larkin come out of the house at a certain time after one o'clock, and go down towards Richmond Terrace to his own lodgings. Then again he said he saw Larkin come out of the Richmond Tavern at half past three, and go he did not know where. Now, that was rather important, for this reason. He was still standing close to the Richmond Tavern (within 20 yards), and where could Larkin go at that time, supposing it was he, except to his own house? Dunster said he did not know where he went to, and for a very good reason, because he never saw him. Larkin went in between twelve and one o'clock. He went to his own door, thinking he had got his latch key, but he had not got it, and seeing a light in the Richmond Tavern went there and asked for a bed. He was told to go round to the side door; he went there and went straight upstairs exactly as the landlord had described, and went to bed. On the former occasion the two defendants who had pleaded Guilty said they had been to supper with a man named Aird, who was not summoned there that day. But the magistrates did not swallow that supper. (Laughter) They did not believe in the tale that it was a bona fide supper, and they convicted the landlord for having them there. On that occasion it was distinctly proved that Larkin was in bed. Unfortunately for him the supper party caused the landlord to be summoned and fined. Then the Superintendent, acting no doubt on the information of Dunster, who said he saw Larkin come out of the house at half past one and again at half past three, felt bound to summon Larkin as well as the others. The Superintendent knew Larkin, and he should appeal to the Superintendent as to Larkin's conduct, to show that he was not in the habit of drinking, or of breaking the law. On the contrary, he occupied a position which would prevent his doing that. He was an utter stranger to the other defendants, and also to the manager of the house. It was very hard that Larkin, who had committed no offence at all, and who had a perfect right to go to a public house for a bed – it was very hard on him because a dunder-headed policeman, which he said he was, had made a mistake in regard to him – that he should be brought there. The Superintendent ought to have exercised a little judgement in cross-examining Dunster before putting Larkin to the indignity of coming there to defend himself. It was intolerable that a man should be put to the trouble of coming there to defend himself and to give this explanation because a dunder-headed policeman had mistaken one man for another. If they were satisfied with the explanation he had given, they would dismiss the summons. He denied utterly what Dunster had said. But Sergeant Harman, with the lively imagination which all those policemen had, when they got into the box and wanted to get a conviction, was not satisfied with saying he had trouble to wake the man, but wanted to suggest that he was only shamming. The policemen should be taught to give evidence in a proper way. He could understand that the Superintendent desired to avoid any imputation of partiality, and therefore, on the information before him, decided to summon the detective as well as the other men, lest it should be said that he favoured a member of the police force. After a few further remarks he called the following witnesses:

Edward Down said he did not know Larkin at all. He was not drinking with them that evening. He was not in the room at all.

Thomas Mercer also said he did not know Larkin at all. He was not with them, nor was he in the room.

David Larkin himself was called, and said he was a detective officer on special duty attached to Scotland Yard. He had been here for five months. The statement of Dunster that he saw him leave the Richmond Tavern at a quarter past three was not true. He passed the Town Hall about five minutes to 12. He lodged in Richmond Street with a widow. When he got there he found he had not got his key, and instead of knocking the landlady up, seeing a light in the Richmond Tavern, he went there for a bed. He did not know any of the defendants except Lepper, nor had he ever spoken to either of them. Mr. Farr, the landlord, let him in at the side door, and he went upstairs to the bedroom and went to bed. He had nothing to drink. He got up next morning about a quarter past eight. From the time he went in until past eight in the morning he did not leave the room. He had a cup of tea with the landlord in the morning. When Sergeant Harman entered the bedroom he was asleep. When he entered the second time he asked what was the matter. Harman saw his clothes on the chair. On Sunday he saw the Superintendent and explained the matter to him. It was about a quarter past twelve in the morning when he went to the Richmond Tavern.

The Magistrates fined Down and Mercer 2. 6d. and 9s. costs, Lepper and Penny 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs,. With regard to Larkin, there was great discrepancy in the evidence, but they were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The summons against him would be dismissed.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1896.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. F. Hall applied on behalf of Mrs. Harriet Hogben for temporary authority to sell at the Richmond Tavern until the next transfer day. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1896.

Wednesday, July 29th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and General Gwyn.

Several transfers of licence were granted, including the Richmond Tavern to Mrs. Hogben.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1903.

Thursday, February 12th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Alderman Salter, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Two little lads, Frederick Thomas Clark (10), and John Keeling (9) were charged with stealing a contribution box from the Richmond Tavern.

Florence Ovenden, wife of Charles Ovenden, landlord of the Richmond Tavern, said she recognised the defendants. They come into the bar of their house on Tuesday afternoon about four o'clock. She asked them who they were looking for. Clark replied “My father”, and said his father's name was Green. She said she had not seen him and did not know him. One stood on the step, and the other just inside on the mat. She had a contribution box on the bar counter, which anyone could reach standing on the mat. When they left she went into her sitting room, and while there she thought she heard the sound of a footstep. She went into the bar. She could not see anyone, but missed the box at once. She went into the street, but only saw a number of little children. The value of the box was one shilling. There was money in it, but she did not know how much.

The box (in pieces) was produced for inspection by the Bench.

Detective Burnsiton said on Wednesday morning he called on the last witness at the Richmond Tavern, and acting on the description given to him he went to 7, Norris Place, Mill Bay, where he saw the boy Clark. He said to him “You answer to the description of a boy in the Richmond Tavern yesterday afternoon, and shortly after you left the bar Mrs. Ovenden missed a contribution box. I am going to take you there for the purpose of identification”. He replied “John Keeling took the box. There was only 2½d. in it. I buried the box in the garden”. He was taken to the Richmond Tavern, where he was identified as one of the lads. In the garden of Brook Cottage he found the box buried. Later on he saw Keeling in the Fishmarket and charged him with being concerned in the theft of the box. He replied “Clark took the box. There was only 2½d. in it. He gave me a farthing”.

He Chief Constable said three weeks ago Clark received twelve strokes with the birch rod and Keeling eight strokes for a similar offence.

Two little urchins only seven years of age and brothers of the boys before the Bench were brought forward, and the Chief Constable explained that these children had been taken to the police station on several occasions for being concerned in several petty thefts, but on account of their tender years they could not bring any charge against them. It seemed to him that the parents were more to blame than the children, and he was only sorry that the Bench had not the power to send the parents to a prison or a reformatory for not doing their duty to the children.

The boys pleaded Guilty and elected to be tried summarily.

The boy Clark apparently has a tender regard for bad characters, for on Tuesday night, thinking no doubt to meet a kindred spirit, he went to the theatre to see “The Worst Woman In London”, and arrived home at the respectable hour of one a.m.

The Bench said it was very difficult to decide what to do, and adjourned the case for a week, the defendants to remain in the custody of their parents.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1903.

Thursday, February 19th: Before W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., Aldermen Salter and Penfold, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The two boys, Clark and Keeling, who were remanded a week ago on a charge of stealing a contribution box from the Richmond Tavern, were again brought before the Bench.

They were ordered to receive six strokes each with a birch, the Chairman expressing a regret that they could not send them to a Reformatory because they were too young. If they came before the Bench again, the parents would be bound over to be responsible for their behaviour.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1903.

Local News.

The death is announced of Mr. George Burgess, formerly of the Richmond Tavern, who latterly carried on a fruitrere's business in Cheriton Road. The funeral took place on Tuesday.

Folkestone Express 5 October 1912.

Local News.

At the police court on Wednesday the following transfer of licences was sanctioned by the Magistrates: Richmond Tavern, Harvey Street, from Mr. C.P. Ovenden to Mr. Edmund Finn.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 10 April 1920.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1924.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.J. Tyson, Miss Weston, Miss Hunt, the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Alderman Pepper, Col. Owen, Col. Broome-Giles, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace, W. Hollands, E.T. Morrison, J.H. Blamey, and W.R. Boughton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) presented his report as follows: I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 114 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and taking the population of the Borough according to the last Census this gives an average of one licensed house to every 329 persons. The following are particulars of the licensed premises: Full licences 71; beer on 7; beer off 6; beer and spirit dealers 13; grocers, etc., off 6; confectioners wine on 3; chemists wine off 4; cider and sweets off 1; Total 114 (81 on and 33 off). Fifteen of the licences have been transferred during the year. Four occasional licences have been granted to licence holders to sell drink on special occasions elsewhere than on their licensed premises, and 60 extensions of hours have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises. In no case has any abuse of the privilege been reported. Six hotels and one restaurant have authority under Section 3 of the Licensing Act, 1921, to supply intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on weekdays, viz.: Metropole Hotel, Grand Hotel, Majestic Hotel, Regina Hotel, Esplanade Hotel, Royal Pavilion Hotel, and Central Cafe. During the year ended 31st December, 1923, 26 persons (21 males and 5 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 16 were convicted and 10 discharged after being cautioned by the Bench. Of those proceeded against, 8 were residents of the Borough, 5 were soldiers, 10 were of no fixed abode, and 3 were non-residents. This is an increase of one as compared with the number proceeded against last year, when 25 persons (16 males and 9 females) were proceeded against, of whom 16 were convicted and 9 discharged. The permitted hours, as allowed by the Licensing Act, 1921, have been fixed by the Licensing Justices for the Borough of Folkestone as under: On weekdays from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. On Sundays from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. All the licensed premises have been periodically visited at irregular intervals by my officers during the year to see that the same are being conducted in a satisfactory manner, and I am pleased to report that with few exceptions no adverse reports have been submitted to me. There are 28 premises licensed for music and dancing and one for public billiard playing. During the year two licensees have been proceeded against for breaches of the Intoxicating Liquor Laws, viz.: (1) 15 June 23 Henry William Cork, George the Third, Fenchurch Street, permitting intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his licensed premises during non-permitted hours; the case was withdrawn upon my application to the Bench. (2) 7 September 23 Alfred John Cope, Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, failing to have his name and expression of business for which the licence was granted affixed to the premises; fined 10s. On 20th October, 1923, Michael Ivory, of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road, was convicted and fined £1 at Newport, Isle of Wight, for consuming intoxicating liquor on licensed premises during restricted hours. I beg to report that in my opinion there is still a redundancy of licensed premises on the older portion of the Borough. Observation has been kept, and it would appear that very unequal trade is done between house and house in the same neighbourhood. Three houses, viz.: The Oddfellows, Dover Street, The Belle Vue, St. John's Street, The Richmond Tavern, Richmond Street, according to reports received, are doing the least trade in the area referred to, and I have no hesitation in saying that they are redundant to the needs of the public, and I accordingly recommend that the licence of each house be referred back for your consideration at the adjourned meeting. I have to express my appreciation of the fairness and courtesy extended to me by the Bench during my first year of office, and also for the able assistance I have received from your Clerk, Mr. John Andrew.

The Chairman said they were especially pleased, it being the Chief Constable's first year there, that he was in a position to present such a good report. The members of the Licensing Authority were very gratified that the report was so good. They were of opinion that such a good report must point to the fact that the licence holders had been careful during the past year to see that the law had been carried out and adhered to on every possible occasion. Proceedings had only been taken against two licence holders, and they were reminded that in one instance the Chief constable withdrew the summonses, and in the other case the offence was of a technical nature. Then with regard to the cases of drunkenness, out of the 16 convictions only eight of them were residents of the Borough. When they considered the population of Folkestone and that Folkestone was a port, with a fishing quarter, and with a military district adjoining, the Magistrates thought it spoke well for the community. They knew the community of Folkestone was very sober, but it only required a few indiscreet persons to spoil their record. They were glad to know that those few indiscreet persons had exercised great discretion during the past year, and they hoped the number would not be increased during the present year. On behalf of the Bench he offered his congratulations to the licence holders and the general public, who had enabled the Chief Constable to present such an excellent report. The Justices had given full consideration to the question of the renewal of those houses specifically mentioned with regard to redundancy, and they had decided to put back the renewal of those licences for consideration at the adjourned meeting, and they directed the Chief Constable to cause opposition to their renewal. As proceedings were also pending against the Prince of Wales Inn for alleged breaches of the Licensing Act that licence would not be renewed, but would be put back to the adjourned meeting also. The question of the renewal of the licences of the Rose Hotel and the George the Third had also been considered, and they would be renewed that day. All the other licences would also be renewed.

Folkestone Express 1 March 1924.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before Dr. W.J. Tyson and other Magistrates.

The Magistrates considered the opposition of Mr. Beesley to the renewal of the licences of the Oddfellows Inn, Dover Street, the Richmond Tavern, and the Belle Vue on the ground of redundancy.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared in the cases of the Oddfellows Inn and the Richmond Tavern, both of which are owned by Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the respective licensees, Mr. G.A. Woodley and Mr. A. Ingleton, and Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Messrs. Mackeson and Co., the owners, and Mr. F.J. Taylor, the licensee, of the Belle Vue Inn.

Evidence was given by Mr. Beesley and Inspector Pittock to the effect that the houses were unnecessary for the needs of the district, and the latter gave evidence as to the result of his observations regarding the trade done at the three houses compared with the other houses in the district.

The Magistrates decided to renew the licence of the Richmond Tavern, but referred the other two houses to the Compensation Authority at Canterbury.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before Dr. W.J. Tyson, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. J. Blamey, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) opposed the renewal of the licences of the Oddfellows Inn, Dover Street, the Richmond Tavern, Richmond Street, and the Bellevue Hotel, St. John's Street on the ground of redundancy.

The Richmond Tavern.

In the case of the Richmond Tavern Mr. Mowll also appeared for the licensee.

The Chief Constable said the Richmond Tavern was an old fully licensed house. The licensee, Adam Ingleton, obtained the transfer on August 24th, 1921. Two previous transfers had been made in the years 1912 and 1920. The owners were A. Leney and Co. There were other houses in the immediate neighbourhood. In Harvey Street there was the Harvey Hotel, with a rateable value of £84. A superior trade was done by these neighbouring houses to that done at the Richmond Tavern.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said the licensee was satisfactory and the house was kept very clean.

Inspector Pittock stated that between January 21st and February 23rd observation was kept, and the number of customers at the Richmond Tavern was 101; at the George III 375; at the Star and Garter 121; and at the Harvey Hotel 265. The averages were: Richmond Tavern 6; George III 28.8; Star and Garter 7.5; and the Harvey Hotel 24. Trade at this house had decreased considerably during the past two years to his knowledge.

Mr. G.P. Wood, of the firm of Messrs. A. Leney and Company, put in particulars as to the trade of the house from 1912 until 1923. His firm regarded the house as a valuable one, and trade had been increasing lately. The number of barrels of beer (36 gallons each) supplied in 1912 was 265, whilst the number in 1923 was 166.

The Bench retired, and upon their return the Chairman said they had decided that the licence of the Richmond Tavern should be renewed, but with regard to the Bellevue Hotel and the Oddfellows Inn, they would be referred to the compensation authorities.

The licences of the Oddfellows Inn and the Bellevue Hotel were provisionally renewed.

Folkestone Express 3 October 1931.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court the licence of the Richmond Arms, Harvey Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. A. Ingleton to Mr. E.J. Jordan, who for some years had been employed on Folkestone Harbour.

Folkestone Express 31 October 1931.

Obituary.

It is with very deep regret that we have to announce the death of Mr. Charles Parks Ovenden, who until a month ago was a well-known licensed victualler. He had been in failing health for some time, and retiring from his business he went to reside at 29, Joyes Road, Folkestone, where he died on Wednesday.

Mr. Ovenden, who was 59 years of age, was the third son of the late Mr. Stephen Parks Ovenden, a highly respected Folkestone resident. He was for a number of years a solicitor's clerk in the office of the late Mr. Harrison, the Town Clerk of Folkestone. For 20 years he was a member of the Parish Church Choir. In his younger days he was a keen football player, and for some years he was the goalkeeper of the Folkestone Football Club when they were an amateur side and played on the Park Farm ground, other members of the team including Messrs. Sidey, Billy Harris, and J.S. Clark.

The deceased leaves a widow and two sons, and with them and his brother and sisters the deepest sympathy will be felt in their sad bereavement.

The Funeral will take place on Monday at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge at 2.20 in the afternoon.

Folkestone Express 24 March 1934.

Local News.

Four silver cups, awarded by the United Friendly Societies (Folkestone) Royal Victoria Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund to the licensed houses collecting the highest amount of money in the town during the year, were presented on Monday evening.

The principal award went to Mr. T.I. Jordan, of the Richmond Tavern, who collected £16 15s. towards the fund. The second prize was gained by Mrs. E.A. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, collecting £8 6s. 8d.; third place by Mr. S. Herbert, of the Swan, with £4 7s. 6d.; and finally Mr. H.W. Cork, of the Red Cow, who collected £3 12s. 8d. Messrs. B. Todd, S. Burvill, G. Spicer, and Mr. G. Dunkling, who superintended the collecting at the respective houses, were the recipients of presents of cigarettes.

Folkestone Express 22 September 1934.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday had before them applications in connection with the temporary transfer of licences until the next Transfer Sessions. On the Bench were Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman J.W. Stainer, and Judge H. Terrell.

The first application referred to the Richmond Tavern, where the transfer was taking place from Mr. T.J. Jordan, the present licensee, to Mr. T.D. Goldsmith, who was stated to have lived in Folkestone nearly all his life, having been employed for the past twelve years by the East Kent Road Car Company as a bus conductor.

The Bench granted the protection order in each case.

Folkestone Express 13 October 1934. Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates had before them on Wednesday an application for the transfer of licences. This was in respect of the Richmond Tavern, 1, Richmond Street, from Mr. E.J. Jordan to Mr. T.D. Goldsmith, a bus conductor who has resided in the town for some years. The Magistrates granted the application.