Folkestone Express 6 February 1875.

Notice.

Ann Medhurst (deceased).

All persons having any claim on the estate of Ann Medhurst, of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, (who died January 17th, 1875) are requested to send the particulars thereof to John Minter, Solicitor, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, on or before 25th February instant. And all persons indebted to the Estate of the said deceased are requested to pay their debts within the same period to the undersigned.

John Minter,

Solicitor,

Guildhall Street.

February 5th, 1875.

Folkestone Express 27 May 1876.

Inquest.

On Tuesday evening Mr. Coroner Minter held an inquest at the Town Hall on the body of John Whitehead, a stableman, aged 45 years, who was found in the stable at the Rose on Monday morning under the following circumstances:

Dr. Bateman said: I knew the deceased. I identify the body as being that of John Whitehead, who was formerly a groom. On Monday morning last at six o'clock I was called to the Rose stables, and I found the deceased in a sitting posture in a corner of the stable, with his back against the wall, and his head leaning forward on his bosom. I observed blood upon his coat and waistcoat, and upon the ground. He was at the foot of the loft when I saw him. On examination I found a wound in the throat, about an inch and a half long. I also found a smaller wound leading into the trachea. Deceased was dead, cold and stiff. In my opinion he had been dead several hours. I believe the wounds were self-inflicted. There were no marks of violence or of any struggle. The wound was so situated that I believe the blood would flow into the windpipe.

Joseph Hook said: I am a flyman at the Rose Hotel, and knew deceased. I last saw him on Sunday evening. He was then out of employment. I locked my stable up at a quarter past nine o'clock, and hid the key in a place known to my son and the ostler. I was not aware the deceased was in the stable at twenty minutes past six. My son went there before me. I saw deceased in a sitting posture in the corner of the stable at the foot of the ladder leading up to the loft. His head was drooping, and I noticed marks of blood on his clothes. I called to him, touched him, and came to the conclusion that he was dead. I then sent for the police.

William Henry Hook: I am son of the last witness. On Monday morning I went to the Rose stables at ten minutes past six o'clock to feed my father's horse. I found the key in it's usual place and unlocked the stable door. I saw deceased in sitting position in a corner of the stable at the foot of the ladder leading up to the loft. My father then came. I saw deceased on Sunday afternoon, but did not notice anything different to his usual appearance.

Joseph Hook, re-called, said he had seen deceased frequently of late, but not noticed any difference from his usual manner.

Charles Holdstock: I am employed at the Rose Hotel as underboots. On Monday morning William Henry Hook called me into the stable, where I saw deceased. I saw marks of the blood on his hands and clothes. I then went for the police. When I returned I noticed some spots of blood upon the ladder. I went up into the loft, and there found a pocket handkerchief, a belt, two pieces of rope, and a knife produced. There was blood on the handkerchief, the knife, and the pieces of rope. There was also blood on the floor of the loft.

P.S. Woodlands said: I produce a handkerchief, knife, pieces of rope and belt, which I received from last witness. I knew the deceased and saw him on Saturday morning, and he asked me to give him two pence as he was starving. I gave him sixpence and said “Why don't you go to the house?”. He said he did not like to do so as there would be plenty of work presently.

The Coroner, in summing up the evidence, said, of course it was for the jury to determine the state of mind the man was in when he committed the act, but to his idea it mattered very little whether they returned a verdict of “Temporary Insanity” or not, for in one parish in the town he could say that the clergyman appeared to think very slightly of it, and the man wouldn't get a Christian burial whichever way they determined.

A juryman: Could not a dissenting minister be brought in?

The Coroner: I have nothing to do with that.

A juryman: A verdict of felo-de-se appears to have been a caution to would-be suicides in days gone by, and I think we ought to go back to it again.

The jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a verdict of felo-de-se.

Folkestone Express 20 October 1877.

Wednesday, October 17th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Armstrong, and Captain Crowe.

Thomas King, a young man, having the appearance of a soldier, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Abraham Swain in High Street on the 15th inst.

He pleaded guilty to being drunk, and on the second charge being read he said he supposed he might as well plead guilty to the lot.

P.C. Swain said the prisoner was creating a disturbance in front of the Rose public house, and he caused a mob to assemble. He wanted to fight, and he refused to go away. Subsequently he went to the top of the street, but came back again, and as he was behaving indecently, he, with Sergeant Reynolds and P.C. Knowles took him into custody. Before he did so, prisoner struck him on the breast.

He was fined 5s. and costs, or seven days', for being drunk, and 15s. and costs, or fourteen days', for the assault on the constable, and committed in default.

Folkestone Express 28 December 1878.

Local News.

The well known Rose commercial hotel narrowly escaped a disastrous fire on Sunday night. One of the servants, when going to bed, noticed smoke and a smell of fire, apparently proceeding from the billiard room. On examination it was found that the heat from the fire had ignited the joists beneath the grate, and apparently they had been smouldering for some days. The grate was quickly removed, and the fire put out. But for this timely discovery it is very probable the flames would have broken out in the night, and a large portion of the valuable property adjacent would have been in great danger. As it is, the damage will be easily repaired.

Folkestone Express 13 September 1879.

Advertisement.

To Brewers, Wine and Spirit Merchants, Hotel Proprietors and the Trade in General.

Mr. James Pledge has been favoured with instructions from Messrs. Medhurst, who are retiring from business, and offer to Public Competition, upon the Premises, on Tuesday, September 30th, 1879, at three o'clock in the afternoon precisely, in ONE LOT, all that old established Freehold Family and Commercial House, known as the ROSE HOTEL.

Situate in the centre of the town of Folkestone, at the junction of three streets, together with the valuable goodwill of the business now carried on.

The above Hotel is a Free House of undeniable reputation, and has been conducted by the present proprietors for the last 28 years. It contains well fitted Bar, Bar Parlour, Commercial Room, Coffee Room, Smoking Room, and other Sitting Rooms, 16 Bedrooms, well-appointed Billiard Room (detached), Kitchen, Scullery, and other domestic offices, Coach House, Stabling for 8 Horses, and good Cellarage.

The Furniture, Fixtures, Stock and Trade Effects &c. will have to be taken by the purchaser at valuation in the usual way, and possession will be given immediately upon completion of purchase.

As a Family and Commercial Hotel, The Rose stands by repute in this most favoured and fashionable watering place unrivalled, and commands the principal commercial interest; the business is large and remunerative, and commends itself to persons seeking an important investment.

The premises are most substantially built, in excellent order, and substantial repair, admirably arranged for comfort and business purposes, and afford an opportunity for investment seldom to be met with.

For particulars and cards to view, apply to Mr. John Minter, Solicitor, or to the Auctioneer, Folkestone, from either of whom conditions of sale may also be had.

Folkestone Express 5 November 1881.

Monday, October 31st: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, M.J. Bell, F. Boykett and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Rodgers, an army pensioner, was charged with stealing a watch, value 20s., the property of James Mullett, on the 22nd inst.

Rebecca Mullett, wife of the prosecutor, residing at No. 6, St. Eanswythe's Terrace, said on Saturday the 22nd she missed a watch from the dresser in the kitchen. She saw it at nine o'clock in the evening. She gave information to the police on Sunday morning. On Friday, the 28th inst., a man named Charles Gilbert went to her and showed her a watch, which she identified as her property. She had had it for five years.

Charles Gilbert said on Sunday the 10th October he was in the Rendezvous Tavern. Prisoner came in about one o'clock in the afternoon. Witness saw him take a watch from his pocket. He wound it up, and as it would not go witness thought it was broken. He offered prisoner 5s. for it, and he replied “It's yours”. He gave prisoner 5s. and took the watch. On Friday, in consequence of something he heard, he went to see Mrs. Mullett. He showed her the watch, which she identified as her property. On Saturday afternoon he gave the watch up to Sergeant Butcher. He knew the prisoner by sight, as working at the Rose Hotel.

Sergeant Butcher said he went on Saturday afternoon to last witness, and in consequence of what he told him he went in search of prisoner, whom he found at Mrs. Worsley's in Rendezvous Street. He told prisoner he had a watch in his possession. Prisoner replied “Oh”. He told him he should have to take him into custody on a charge of stealing it. He replied “I bought it one Sunday off a boy for one shilling at the Rose Corner”. He added “Joe saw me buy it” (meaning the ostler at the Rose). Witness took him to the ostler, who said he did not see him buy it. He then took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the magistrates and pleaded Not Guilty. He said a boy came up to him at the Rose corner and said “Will you buy this watch? I will sell it to you for 2s.”. He told him he had only got one. He said “You can have it”. He admitted subsequently selling it to Gilbert.

In reply to the Bench, Mrs. Mullett said two errand boys went into the kitchen between nine and eleven on the evening when she missed the watch. There was no-one else in the kitchen whilst they were there.

The Bench considered the case proved, and the prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 26 November 1881.

Folkestone Express 7 June 1884.

Local News.

On Saturday last the new billiard room which Mr. Ralph, the enterprising proprietor of the Rose Hotel, has added to his premises, was opened under most favourable auspices. The room, which is on the upper floor in a new building on the site of the old stables (the ground floor being designed for a stock room), is admirably adapted in every way for the purpose for which it is intended. It was built by Mr. Robert Webster, from designs by Mr. Reginald Pope, architect, who superintended the work, and carried out the wishes and suggestions of Mr. Ralph in a very admirable manner, and it must have been satisfactory to them to hear the expressions of admiration from all who saw the place for the first time on Saturday. The dimensions of the room are 40 ft. by 28 ft., and it is 14 ft. in height. It is approached from the rear of the hotel by a covered way. Ample space is afforded for two splendid new tables, which have been supplied by Messrs. Burroughs and Watts. On the occasion of the opening several professional players from London were present, together with many of the best players in Folkestone, who took part in a handicap game, which resulted in favour of the best all-round player in the neighbourhood. The ventilation and lighting are particularly good. The embellishments are not yet completed, but excellent taste has been exhibited in the arrangement of the seats, the lavatories, and the floor coverings, and in every way the comfort of the patrons of the game has been carefully studied by Mr. Ralph.

Folkestone Express 20 June 1885.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Thursday evening on the body of Henry Read, a commercial traveller, who has been staying at the Rose Hotel, who committed suicide by shooting himself that afternoon.

Mr. Frederick Ralph, the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, identified the body as that of Henry Read, a commercial traveller, who resided at Brixton. He had known the deceased for three or four years, as he was in the habit of staying at the Rose. He arrived in Folkestone on Wednesday, June 3rd, and had been staying in the hotel since that time. He had had a letter from deceased's employer asking if he was staying at his house, and he answered that he was staying there. Another letter was then received from Mr. Taylor, deceased's employer, asking him to remove any razors or dangerous articles from deceased's possession, as he had been rather strange of late. His employer came down to him soon after the receipt of the letter. He went into the bedroom with witness and asked him to take a razor away that was lying on the table, and he replied that he did not think it would be much good as he carried a loaded revolver. Deceased's employer went away without seeing him, and left a letter for him. He asked deceased if he would go to London, and he said that he would go in the morning. He asked him if he wanted any money to go with, and he said “No”. At one o'clock that afternoon he went to the bedroom where the deceased was, and found him in bed and said “You have not gone by the nine o'clock train”, and he said “No, I'll go by the next one”, and he said there was one at two o'clock. He asked deceased if he would have any breakfast, and he said no, he had had nothing to eat for two or three days. He left deceased, and at two o'clock he sent John Worsley, the boots, to the room, and he returned and said deceased had left the room. He then went up again and found the deceased lying on the floor between the bed and wall on his face, with blood on the floor and on the back of his shirt. He appeared dead. He knew deceased had a revolver, as he had shown it to him about a week ago, and the one produced was the same. He told him he had been shooting small birds. Deceased was always a peculiar man, but he thought he was a little more depressed this time.

John Worsley, boots at the Rose Hotel, said at a quarter to eleven that morning he took deceased a letter to his bedroom which came by post addressed to him. He opened the door and witness gave him the letter, and he gave him a pair of boots to clean. He went to deceased's room at 10 minutes to two that afternoon by direction of his master. He opened the door and looked in. Not seeing deceased in bed he thought he had gone out. He returned to the bedroom and found deceased in his nightshirt lying on his face on the floor by the side of the bed. He saw a pistol lying at deceased's feet. There was blood on his shirt. He immediately went and called Mr. Ralph.

Supt. Taylor said shortly after two o'clock that afternoon he was called by Mr. Ralph to the Rose Hotel, and went with him to the room where the body was lying. He explained the position of the body.

Dr. Charles E. Perry said he examined the body of the deceased that afternoon. In his chest he saw a hole about two inches external to the left nipple, between the fourth and fifth ribs. On the back he found another opening between the fifth and sixth ribs, and from the position of the two openings he concluded the bullet must have passed through deceased's heart, and he had no doubt deceased's death was caused by a bullet passing through the heart.

A verdict of suicide while insane was returned.

Folkestone Express 14 November 1885.

Wednesday, November 11th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

George Grant, a private in the 7th Dragoons, was charged with being found at the Rose Hotel with intent to commit a felony.

Susan Johnson said: I am a domestic servant at the Rose Hotel. About six o'clock last evening I heard someone on the tiles of an outhouse which adjoins the building and leads up to a window. I heard a tap at the window and saw a person's hand. It was dark. I rushed downstairs to the boots. The boots came up with me. He went into one of the bedrooms, and I remained outside. A policeman came shortly after, went into the bedroom, and came out with the prisoner. Prisoner must have crossed a passage to get into the bedroom where he was found. I saw the marks on the window of the water closet where the man had got in. The window was large enough to allow of a man getting in. I do not know the prisoner, and never saw him before.

John Worsley, boots at the Rose Hotel, said: About ten minutes past six last evening I was told there was somebody in one of the rooms. I went upstairs and into bedroom No. 21. I searched it, and found the prisoner under the bed. I came down, and gave information to the police, and prisoner was given into custody. I asked prisoner what he was there for, and he made no reply. He was the worse for drink.

Sergeant Pay said he went to No. 21 bedroom and saw the prisoner lying on the floor under the bed. He told him to come out. He said “All right. I am not doing any harm, am I?” He moved the bed and got the prisoner out and charged him with being there for the purpose of committing a felony. Prisoner had been drinking, and was the worse for drink. When charged at the station, prisoner replied “I have been drinking”.

The prisoner said he went into the back yard of the public house next to the Rose, and saw a light at the window. He fancied he saw a female beckoning to him, and he got on to the outhouse, through the water closet window, and then into the bedroom. Finding no-one there, and hearing people running about, he was frightened and got under the bed.

An officer attached to the regiment said the prisoner had been convicted 15 times for drunkenness and military offences in two years.

The Bench thought there was no felonious intention on the part of the prisoner, and discharged him with a caution.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1888.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before F. Boykett, H.W. Poole, J. Brookes and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Samuel Lewis was charged with stealing four silver dessert spoons, two silver ladles, four silver teaspoons, and one silver egg spoon, the property of Mr. F. Ralph, of the Rose Hotel.

Herbert Freeman Brown, a watchmaker, residing at 4a, George Lane, said he knew the prisoner, who first went to his shop about the 12th of October. He had the bowl of a silver table spoon, and asked him to buy it. Prisoner said it was picked up out of the town refuse. Witness bought it, and gave either 1s. 9d. or 2s. for it. The trade allowance to him would be 2s. 6d. an ounce. Prisoner went to his shop a second time, and had either the bowl of a teaspoon or a table spoon, which he asked witness to buy. He made no statement about it, and witness weighed it and gave a fair value for it, but could not say how much. Prisoner had paid him three further visits, and on each occasion brought the top of a silver spoon, for which he gave the prisoner 6d. each – considerably lower than their value. Each of the tops produced were marked with the letter “S”. The bowls he had bartered away, and the tops he had broken up. The price he offered the prisoner for the tops was low because he was suspicious of the prisoner, and he thought by offering a low price the prisoner would not take it, and he would thus get rid of him. The last visit made by prisoner was nearly a fortnight ago. He gave information to the police the day after the prisoner visited him last.

William Hall, a watchmaker, living at 111, Dover Street, said the prisoner visited his shop about six months ago. The first week in November prisoner took the bowl of a silver table spoon, and asked him to buy it. He gave 3s. for it. It weighed a trifle over an ounce. The prisoner visited him again four or five days after. He had the top of a silver table spoon, marked with the letter “S”. He gave 1s. fot it. A few days after the prisoner came again with another top of a spoon, marked in the same manner, for which he gave him 1s. Witness asked no questions. On the prisoner's fourth visit he brought a teaspoon broken into two parts. He did not remember how much he gave prisoner for it. It was marked with either a letter “S” or “B”. On the fifth visit the prisoner took the bowl of a silver table spoon, for which he gave 2s. 8d. A few days after, he bought the top of a table spoon from the prisoner. It was marked with either a letter “S” or “V”.

Mr. Fredk. Ralph, the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, said the prisoner was an outdoor luggage porter, engaged by commercial travellers using his house. The prisoner had been about for about six months, and during August and September the waiters had been in the habit of employing him to wash up various articles. Early in October witness missed four silver dessert spoons, two silver ladles, four silver teaspoons, and one silver egg spoon. The pieces produced formed portions of spoons missed from his stock. The value of the missing articles was £3 8s.

Supt. Taylor said he apprehended the prisoner on that charge on the previous day. He said to him “I shall arrest you for stealing a quantity of silver plate from the Rose Hotel”. He replied “It's a mistake”. He then took prisoner to the police station, entered the charge, and read it to him. He replied “It's false”.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and the Bench sentenced him to three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 15 February 1890.

Monday, February 10th: Before H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Charles Standing, 19, was charged with stealing two gold watches, a gold ring, a silver scent box, and other articles, of the total value of £7 10s., the property of Miss Bertha Maud Remnant.

Prosecutrix said: I am staying with my brother-in-law, Mr. Ralph, at the Rose Hotel. I took to the hotel with me a jewel case and kept it in a box in my bedroom at the hotel on the second floor. It contained two gold watches, a gold ring with the word “Mizpah” on it, a silver scent box, and a variety of other small articles. I last saw them safe in the jewel case on the 2nd of February. Last Friday afternoon I missed an old purse from the trunk in which the dressing case was kept. I found that the jewel case had been forced about half past eight in the evening. I also missed the two gold watches and the ring. I did not know I had lost the scent box until Mr. Taylor told me he had got it. I have been assisting my sister in the business of the hotel since I have been there. Prisoner was employed in the hotel as billiard marker and assistant in the kitchen. He had no business to go into the bedroom.

Mr. Fredk. Ralph, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, said: The prisoner was kitchen boy and assistant billiard marker. He slept out of the hotel. I did not know where he lodged, but I know now that he lodged on the Bayle. He had been in my service five or six months. On Saturday morning, from information I received, I sent for Superintendent Taylor about twelve or one o'clock. He sent for the prisoner to come to my private room. I then asked prisoner if he knew anything about the things that were missing. He replied that he knew nothing about them at all. I heard the Superintendent caution him. Prisoner consented to have his box searched, and accompanied me and the Superintendent to No. 29, The Bayle, where he lodged, and occupied a bedroom on the first floor. We all three went into the room, and prisoner pointed out a box belonging to himself. He took the things out. Superintendent Taylor saw a brown leather purse in the box. It was opened in prisoner's presence. It contained a gold watch, a ring, and a silver scent bottle. Superintendent Taylor asked prisoner to account for the possession of the articles. He made no reply. Prisoner had no business whatever to go to the bedroom. I had seen him on that floor two or three times, but did not speak to him about it. He might have had occasion to go to the end of the passage, but as a rule he had no right there.

Mr. Walter Joseph, assistant to his father, Mr. Simeon Joseph, pawnbroker, High Street, said he recognised the prisoner. On the 7th of February he went to the shop for the purpose of pledging the gold watch produced. He said the watch belonged to his sister, and that he was a son of Professor Davis. He asked for a guinea on the watch, and witness advanced that sum. He gave the name of Tom Davis, and the address 25, Black Bull Road. Witness gave him the ticket produced. The number of the watch was 32,761.

Supt. Taylor said: About half past 12 on Saturday I was sent for to go to the Rose Hotel, and saw Mr. Ralph in his private room. Prisoner was sent for and came. I cautioned him, and then prosecutor said “There have been several articles stolen from the hotel lately, and you, with others, are suspected. He replied “I don't know anything about it”. I said “I suppose you know that two gold watches were stolen this week?” He said “No, I don't”. I said “I understand you have been seen on the second floor. What were you doing there?” He replied “I have never been upstairs except with the waiters to clean the windows”. I asked him if he had any objection to having his box searched. He said “No”, and we went to his lodgings on The Bayle, and in a room on the first floor he pointed out a box as being his. It was not locked. He opened it and took from it several articles of clothing, and in the bottom of the box I found the brown purse produced. I opened it and took from it a gold watch. It had the initials “B.M.R.” on the back. I took the watch, and asked him how he accounted for possession of that. He said “Oh, my sister gave me that years ago”. I told him I should take him into custody for stealing that and other articles from the Rose. In the purse was a silver scent box and a “Mizpah” ring. Prisoner made no reply. I replaced the clothing in the box. In the right hand pocket of a vest I found a pawn ticket for the watch, 32,761. When asked if he had anything to say as to that, prisoner made no answer. In the box I also found a second purse containing £1 0s. 3d. I took him to the police station.

Miss Remnant was re-called, and identified the second watch by the initials. The first one she identified by it's general appearance. She bought it from her brother-in-law. The ring was given her by her brother, and the scent box had been in the family a long time. The purse was in the bottom of her trunk. She valued the whole of the articles at £7 10s.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Ralph said he had a good character with the boy from the Co-Operative Society, and he seemed to be a fairly good boy.

Supt. Taylor said since the prisoner had been in the hotel there had been continual thefts of small articles, several of which he found in the prisoner's box. Other servants had been suspected of the thefts. It was not until recently that suspicion was directed to the prisoner.

The Bench sentenced him to three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 25 April 1891.

Transfer.

Wednesday, April 22nd: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Holden and E.T. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Pier Refreshment Rooms was temporarily transferred to Mr. F. Ralph, of the Rose Hotel.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1891.

Thursday, April 30th: Before H.W. Poole, J. Brooke, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Emile Volberg, a Dutchman, was charged with stealing a brown leather bag containing a quantity of paper, value 30s., the property of Messrs. Hobbs and Son. Mr. Mather interpreted the evidence.

P.C. Lawrence said at half past ten on Wednesday night he saw the prisoner in Dover Street, carrying the bag produced. He asked him where he was going with it. He replied “To Dover”. He asked what there was in it, and he replied “Clothes”. He had seen prisoner the previous night walking about the lower part of the town, but carrying no bag. He took him into custody and charged him with stealing the bag. He could speak no English. When charged by the Superintendent he made no reply.

Henry Worsley, boots at the Rose Hotel, identified the bag produced as the property of a gentleman named Hobbs. He saw it at the hotel between seven and eight on Wednesday night in a room on the ground floor.

Cobden Hobbs, a traveller from the firm of W. Hobbs and Son, paper manufacturers, of Maidstone, said he left the bag at the Rose Hotel in charge of the boots. The bag was worth 30s., but the contents were of no value.

Prisoner was a seaman on board the ship Corona, of Rotterdam. He said he left her at Dover, and she was gone to North America. He stole the bag because he was hungry.

Prisoner was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1892.

Local News.

On Thursday at the London Sheriff's Court before Mr. Under Sheriff Burchell and a jury, the case of Bertha Pearce v William Bowtell, an action for breach of promise of marriage, came on for the assessment of damages.

Mr. Savage, in opening the case, said the defendant was head waiter at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, and the plaintiff was vegetable cook in the same employ. The defendant realised an income of about £300 a year. The plaintiff was in receipt of £14 a year, and she made in “tips” about £8 in addition. Soon after the plaintiff went into service, defendant gave her an engagement ring. He persistently asked her to leave her situation, and she eventually did so. Several letters passed between the parties. There was one with no date, in which he wrote “My Darling Bert, Thanks for your loving letter, which came most welcome. Dear Pet, will be down at your place tomorrow night about 7.30 to quarter to 8, and then we will have a nice walk together. You must excuse this short note, because Harry is away tonight. Your own loving and affectionate, Will”. Then followed plenty of the usual hieroglyphics, and the postscript “I will give you plenty of kisses tomorrow”. Another letter, bearing the postmark of the 7th June, 1891, was couched in these terms “Dear Bertha, I just write this note thinking it best that we should come to an understanding. We haven't been able to hit it off lately for the simple reason that I am not attentive enough. I always was a bad courting chap, and like my liberty best. It is not because I have another girl, as I have not. I hope you will “except” this letter in the same spirit as I send it, and let our engagement end. Any time you want a friend, you can always depend on one in me”. After the receipt of this letter, the plaintiff tried to see the defendant, and when she eventually met him she could get no further explanation, and was, therefore, compelled to bring this action.

The plaintiff, a comely young woman, stated that the marriage day was fixed by the defendant, who represented that he made between £200 and £300 a year, exclusive of tips. He also said that he intended to take a public house. The engagement lasted about 14 months. The only reason the defendant assigned for breaking off the engagement was that he did not want a girl. (Laughter) She thereupon taxed him with having been out to Canterbury with the chambermaid and kitchenmaid, which he did not deny.

Defendant was called. He said he was 27 or 28 years of age – he didn't know which. (Laughter) His wages were 8s. a week and board. He sometimes had tips averaging about 1s. 6d. or 2s. a week. He did not keep his promise because he was not in a position to keep a wife. He had the same respect for the girl as he always had, and he would not mind marrying her now if he had the means. He never told her that he gave £3 10s. for the engagement ring. He did not know that he would have given her one, except that she was always bothering him for one.

Mr. Savage: Do you think she is a chaste girl?

Defendant: I don't know what you mean by that.

Did you write this letter to her? “April 6th, 1891. My own Darling, I hope you are not cross with me over Saturday night. I had too much to drink, and had no business to get in that state; I do feel so ashamed of myself now. I hope, darling, you will forgive me with all your heart. My darling pet, I hope you won't be cross with me, for you are the only friend I have in the world that loves me. I wish I had you here, pet; I would kiss those lips of yours. Can't you send them by post; I could kiss them away. Think of your darling Will, and dream about me. God bless you, darling. From your ever loving and devoted lover, Will”.

Defendant said he did not cast any reflection upon the plaintiff. He withdrew £50 from the bank after the writ was served. He now had no money, except what he had in his pocket, and anyone was welcome to see what that was. (A laugh)

The jury assessed the damages at £25.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1892.

County Court.

Tuesday, March 8th: Before Judge Selfe.

Bertha Pearce v W. Bowtell: This was a case in which the plaintiff had obtained £25 in damages for breach of promise of marriage. His Honour ordered payment of 12s. a fortnight.

Folkestone Express 15 May 1897.

Wednesday, May 12th: Before J. Fitness, W. Salter, G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. Ralph to Mr. Hargreave.

Folkestone Express 19 June 1897.

Wednesday, June 16th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, and J. Fitness Esqs.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. Hargrave.

Folkestone Express 14 January 1899.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel: This well-known hotel has within the past few days passed into the hands of Mr. Percy C. Venner, who has had large experience in the business, and who will, we are sure, maintain the prestige which the Rose acquired in the hands of the late Mr. Richard Medhurst, and his successor, Mr. F. Ralph.

Saturday, January 7th: Before Alderman Banks, and W.G. Herbert and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Percy Venner was granted temporary authority to carry on business at the Rose Hotel.

Folkestone Express 21 January 1899.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Capt. Carter, James Pledge, John Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. P.H.R. Venner, who held a temporary authority.

Folkestone Express 4 February 1899.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel was sold by auction in London on Wednesday, and purchased by the present occupier, Mr. P.C. Venner.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1902.

Friday, August 22nd: Before Alderman Banks and W. Wightwick Esq.

James Douglas Somerville was charged with larceny.

Mr. P.H. Venner, proprietor of the Rose Commercial Hotel, said prisoner went to his house between three and four o'clock on Thursday afternoon, and seemed to be in a dazed state. Witness asked him to leave the premises, but he said he wanted accommodation for a week. Witness replied that they had no rooms. Shortly afterwards he went into the commercial room and took some chicken from a dish and ate it. When requested to leave he did so, but returned later, when he took an umbrella. Shortly afterwards a gentleman complained that his was missing. Witness then gave information to the police.

John Walter, an assistant at Messrs. Lewis and Co.'s, said about 4.45 p.m. prisoner went into the shop and asked to see some pants and vests. He selected three pairs and then asked for some shirts, and selected one. He then inquired if they kept boots. Witness said “No, but I can get some”. Prisoner said he would be much obliged if witness would do so. Witness procured four pairs and prisoner tried on a pair and told him to give the old ones to the porter. He then asked for some dark trousers, and selected a pair. He then asked for the bill and said he would call in the morning and pay for the articles. Witness asked for his name and address. He gave the right name, but said the address was Room 273, Hotel Metropole. Prisoner then asked if witness could lend him a crown. Witness then called Mr. Linom and asked if he knew the gentleman. Mr. Linon told the prisoner he could not take anything away without paying. Witness then went to speak to Mr. Linom, and prisoner left the shop with the boots in his possession, and witness gave information to the police.

The second porter at the Hotel Metropole gave evidence to the effect that prisoner had never stayed there.

P.C. Lemar said on the 21st inst. he was on duty in Rendezvous Street about six p.m., when his attention was called to prisoner by Mr. Linom. He arrested prisoner, and when searched he had 4s. 6½d. in his possession. Prisoner appeared to be very drunk.

The Superintendent said prisoner had served for twelve months in Bethuen's mounted Infantry. He had drawn his gratuity and was waiting for his passage to America.

Fined £1, or in default 14 days' hard labour in each instance.

Folkestone Express 9 September 1905.

Saturday, September 2nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Alderman Vaughan and J. Stainer Esq.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. Venner to Mr. R. Hunt.

Folkestone Express 23 September 1905.

Thursday, September 21st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Fredk. Charles Horlick was charged with stealing half a sovereign, the money of Mr. Hunt, the same morning. Prisoner is a chef. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Mr. George Robert Hunt, son of the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, said he had missed money from a locked desk in the office, and on Wednesday night placed two marked half sovereigns in the desk, and locked it. About 7.25 that (Thursday) morning he went to the desk, which was closed, but unlocked. One of the marked half sovereigns was missing. In consequence of what he was told he went into the Rendezvous Hotel, next door to the Rose, and received from Mr. Godfrey the half sovereign produced, which was one of the two he placed in the desk. He recognised it by certain marks upon it. About 8.30 he sent for the police. Prisoner had been in witness's father's employment for a fortnight, but he was previously employed by Mr. Venner.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said he put some marked money in the desk on Tuesday night, and on Wednesday morning it was still there. Witness's father had the key of the desk at night. The chambermaid would have the key of the office first thing in the morning, in order that the staff might get out stores – tea, sugar, etc. He thought the desk was opened by a knife – forced. On one occasion when money had been missed the desk was found unlocked. With a thin, sharp knife the lock could be forced easily. He believed prisoner had been in Mr. Venner's employ for a year. Sometimes he slept out of the hotel, and did so on Wednesday night.

Emery, a waiter at the Rose Hotel, said he saw the prisoner at seven o'clock that morning. Ata quarter past seven witness was in the Commercial Room, and saw the prisoner go in the direction of the office, and also saw him come back with some eggs. Later in the morning he saw prisoner leave the hotel, and he was absent about five minutes. He said he had been in the Rendezvous when someone went in and changed half a sovereign. He spent 1s. 4d., and the landlord gave him 9s. 10d. change in mistake.

Mr. Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said the prisoner went to the bar that morning and asked for a drop of whisky. He had three pennyworth, and tendered half a sovereign. He also had a quartern of whisky in a bottle to take away. Witness gave him 8s. 5d. change. He was the first customer that morning. Witness put the half sovereign on a shelf at the back of the bar. Shortly after Mr. Hunt entered the bar, and witness gave him the half sovereign he received from the prisoner.

Inspector Lilley said he went to the Rose Hotel about eight o'clock that morning and saw Mr. Hunt, who handed him the half sovereign produced, and from what he said witness examined a desk in the office. The lock could very easily be forced with a thin-bladed knife. He had interviews with the other witnesses, and about 8.30 saw the prisoner in the kitchen of the hotel. He told him he would be charged with stealing a half sovereign from the desk in the office that morning, and he replied “I had not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. At the police station prisoner said “I only had the half sovereign I changed in the Rendezvous that the governor paid me”. There was 8s. 5d. in money found on prisoner when he was searched, and among other things a small knife.

Mr. Robert Hunt, licensee of the Rose Hotel, said he paid the prisoner 30s. on Saturday, but could not say in what coin. He put the mark on the coin produced on Tuesday night. He marked at the same time three other coins, and took the dates of them.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said he was positive he had never marked any coins before. On three different occasions last week a half sovereign was missing from the desk.

Prisoner said he was perfectly innocent. The half sovereign he changed that morning was paid to him on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

He was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Bench fixing bail at £20, and one surety in £20, or two in £10.

Folkestone Express 14 October 1905.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 9th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Frederick Charles Horlick, a chef, aged 38, was charged with stealing half a sovereign, the property of his employer, Robert Hunt, the licensee of the Rose Hotel, on September 21st. Mr. Weigall prosecuted.

Robert George Hunt, son of Mr. Hunt, the licensee, said that he assisted his father. He had a desk in the office, near the entrance, and in consequence of losses from the desk his father marked two half sovereigns and some silver on August 19th. On the following day he put the coins in the desk just after eleven o'clock at night, and locked it up. The next morning, shortly after seven o'clock, the desk was shut but not locked. He looked inside and missed one of the marked half sovereigns. In consequence of information he received he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, where he saw the half sovereign which was marked by means of a scratched triangle on the Queen's chin. The prisoner was the chef employed by his father.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the hotel, said on September 21st he first saw the prisoner in the kitchen at seven o'clock. A quarter of an hour later he saw the prisoner come from the office and go by the commercial room window in the direction of the Rendezvous Hotel. At half past seven he saw the prisoner in the kitchen, and he said he had been in the Rendezvous, and a man had changed half a sovereign and got the wrong change.

George Alfred Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous, said on September 21st he saw the prisoner at twenty minutes past seven, when he came in and called for a Scotch and a quarter in a bottle. He tendered witness the half sovereign (produced), which he put on a shelf at the back of the bar, He did not notice at the time that there was a mark on it. Prisoner left, and almost immediately Mr. Hunt came in and pointed out the triangle on the Queen's face on the half sovereign tendered by the prisoner.

Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, gave evidence of marking the coins.

Inspector Lilley said the desk in which the money was placed was easily opened when locked by means of a knife being used to push the bolt back.

Prisoner made a statement from the dock to the effect that he got the half sovereign out of the kitchen drawer, which was for his use. It was the half sovereign which was given to him in his wages. How the marked coin got into his drawer he did not know.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

Mr. Hunt was re-called, and in answer to the Recorder said his suspicions were aroused by the waiter telling him that he had seen the prisoner open the desk. He had previously missed two half sovereigns and a sovereign.

The Recorder said Mr. Hunt had done what was perfectly right.

Prisoner said he was innocent. He did not touch the desk.

The Chief Constable said there was noting against the prisoner.

The Recorder said it was idle for the prisoner to say he was innocent. It was a very bad crime, for it was the betrayal by a servant of a master's confidence. Those cases in that borough would meet with the utmost severity. He would be imprisoned for six calendar months with hard labour.

Local News.

At the police court on Wednesday the licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. P. Venner to Mr. R. Hunt.

At the Quarter Sessions on Monday, Frederick Charles Horlick, a chef, was sentenced to six months' hard labour for stealing a half sovereign, the property of his employer, Mr. R. Hunt, of the Rose Hotel. Subsequently the man's wife made a strong appeal to the Recorder, who eventually reduced the sentence to one of three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 2 January 1909.

Local News.

We regret to have to record the very sudden death of Mr. Robert Hunt, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, and formerly of the Ship Hotel, Brighton, and the Salisbury Hotel, London. The deceased gentleman had, it appears, been for some time suffering from heart trouble, and had consulted a specialist, who advised him that his death would possibly take place without warning. On Christmas morning he had been down to the locality of the Harbour with several friends, and was returning by way of High Street to his home shortly before two. When near the publication office of this paper, he was suddenly seized and almost immediately died. His family having been apprised of the sad event, he was carried to the Rose Hotel.

The deceased had a large circle of friends and was greatly respected by them, his genial demeanour and happy temperament gaining for him the esteem of all who came into contact with him.

The funeral took place on Tuesday, unfortunately in a heavy snowstorm, but nevertheless there was a large attendance of mourners at the graveside, and upwards of sixty wreaths and other floral tributes being sent to be laid on his grave. The Rev. C.S.M. Playfair, senior curate at the Parish Church, officiated and the service was attended by several members of the Masonic Lodges, who, as usual, cast sprigs of acacia upon the coffin as they took a last look at it. Mr. Hunt was only 52 years of age, and it is almost superfluous to say that the family have received tokens of the deepest sympathy from all their friends, two of whom, it may be said, travelled from Paris to attend the funeral.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1909.

Local News.

An outbreak of fire occurred in the billiard room of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, on Monday afternoon. At 2.38 a call was received at the Fire Station, and the members of the Brigade were on the spot within three minutes. On arrival they found the room was filled with smoke so dense that it was impossible to see where the fire was. By crawling on hands and knees the firemen were able to take stock of the outbreak, and after twenty minutes brisk work succeeded in extinguishing the flames by chemical extincteurs. It is supposed that a lighted match thrown onto the floor set fire to the settees, and the settees, wainscoting, and pictures were well alight when the task of extinction commenced. Practically the whole of the room, which is a commodious one, was more or less damaged by the heat and smoke. Inspection afterwards revealed the fact that by the use of extincteurs the usual large amount of damage done by water was conspicuous by its absence. Although the fire had burnt away the floor and the joist, the plastering underneath was not even broken, and very little water had got through to the room below. Had ancient methods been adopted, the stock room, which is immediately beneath the billiard room, would have undoubtedly been flooded, and more damage would have been done by water than was actually done by fire. The damage, which is estimated at £100, is covered by insurance.

Folkestone Express 24 April 1909.

Local News.

Percy William John Hunt, of the Rose Hotel, was summoned at the Petty Sessions on Wednesday, under sub-section 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for suffering gaming upon his licensed premises.

Mr. Groser, barrister (instructed by Mr. J.F. Churchill), appeared on behalf of defendant.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

P.C. Sales said at 12.30 on the morning of the 12th inst., he was in Rendezvous Street, near the Rose Hotel, when he heard voices and the rattle of money in the commercial room, the windows of which were open but the blinds were drawn. Witness stood by the window, and heard those inside say “I'll go four on red”, “I'll have twopence on black”, “I'll have threepence on red”, and other similar remarks. On looking through the window he saw eight men seated round a table playing cards. There was a pile of money by the side of each of them. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each, and he saw money pass between them. Witness kept observation, and at 12.45 heard one say “Who says a drink?”, and called the waiter. One said “I'll have a sloe gin”, and another “Mine is a brandy and soda”. Witness saw the waiter come into the room, and drinks were ordered and brought by him. During the time the waiter was in teh room card playing was going on. Shortly before one o'clock P.C. H. Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. Witness signalled to him, and he came over. Witness called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he looked through the window. About one o'clock witness rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter, and Johnson and witness slipped by him and went into the commercial room, where witness saw eight men seated at the table, playing cards, with money beside each of them. There were glasses on the table, some containing liquor. Witness took possession of the cards, and took the names and addresses of the gentlemen. Witness then asked the waiter to call Mr. Hunt, who subsequently came downstairs. Witness said to him “Are you the landlord?” He replied “Yes”. Witness said he should report him for a summons for permitting gambling on his licensed premises with cards. At the same time he pointed to the gentlemen in the room and said that they would also be reported. Mr. Hunt replied that they were all staying there and that the room was private. He did not know they were gambling. Witness replied “Your waiter did; he has been in the room with drinks”. Mr. Hunt replied that he could not serve them as he (Mr. Hunt) had the keys. Was there anything he could do for witness? Witness said he should submit a report.

Cross-examined, witness said there was a notice on the door of the commercial room with the word “Private” upon it. The man witness said was the waiter was the boots. It was not just after twelve when the drinks were brought in. When the boots came in and served the drinks the gentlemen were playing for money, and there was money on the table. Mr. Hunt, who was at present carrying on the hotel, was the son of Mr. Hunt, who died suddenly on Christmas Day. The late Mr. Hunt had carried on the house for some three or four years. Prior to him Mr. Venner held the licence, and during the period when the house was conducted by Mr. Venner and the late Mr. Hunt, and until that complaint, the house had borne a very high character for respectability. As far as he knew there had been no complaint of any sort or kind. The licence was recently transferred to the defendant.

P.C. H. Johnson said shortly before one o'clock on the 12th inst., he was called by the previous witness to the Rose Hotel. When a few yards from the hotel he heard voices and money rattling. On looking through the window he saw eight persons sitting round a table playing cards. He could hear counting “One, two, three”, and so on, and he saw money passed. After waiting two or three minutes the last witness rang the bell. It was answered by the boots, whom they walked past and into the commercial room, where witness saw eight persons sitting round a table. Several had cards lying on the table in front of them, and some had cards in their hands. There was money in front of each one, varying from one shilling to five or six. P.C. Sales collected the cards and handed them to witness, and told the gentlemen they would be reported. He then called the boots and asked him to fetch the landlord. After a minute or two Mr. Hunt came downstairs, and P.C. Sales told him he would be reported for permitting gambling upon his licensed premises. At the same time he pointed to the door of the commercial room and said those gentlemen would be reported. Mr. Hunt said “This is a private room. I did not know they were gambling”. P.C. Sales said “You waiter did. He has been in there with drinks”. Mr. Hunt then asked if there was anything he could do for him. They left the premises.

Cross-examined, witness said he had no idea how long Sales had been watching before he came up.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Groser, before calling witnesses, addressed the Bench at some length. He said a party of hockey players came to the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday, they having a number of matches to play in the neighbourhood. Some fourteen gentlemen arrived at the hotel, and they engaged bedrooms and also a private sitting room, the commercial room being given up to them. The gentlemen played cards, but it was not until shortly after twelve o'clock, after the boots had served them with drinks on the Monday, that they played for any stakes at all. As a matter of fact, what they were playing was farthing “Nap”. The boots would tell them that when he went into the room there was nothing whatever to indicate that the gentlemen were playing even for so small stakes as he had mentioned. He should ask the Magistrates to accept the testimony given by the constable as to the reputation of the persons who had been associated with the hotel, and say that under the circumstances there was no connivance on the part of Mr. Hunt or the man he had left in charge. Mr. Groser quoted the case of “Somerset v Hart” in support of his contention. Mr. Hunt was in bed, and it was not suggested that he knew that anything was going on. With regard to the boots, he could hardly be called a person who was clothed with authority in that case.

The first witness for the defence was Mr. Robert Hunt, manager of the Rose Hotel. He said he had been carrying on the business since the death of his father. During his father's lifetime he had assisted him in the management. Prior to the visit of those gentlemen cards had not been played in his house. His father had a strong objection to cards being played upon his premises at all. On the Thursday before Good Friday he had a party of fourteen gentlemen who came to stay at his hotel. He allocated them the commercial room as their sitting room for their exclusive use. The party remained at his house until Monday morning. There was a piano in the room. During the occupation by those gentlemen of the room from time to time witness went in to see them and to attend to their requirements. At no time was there any indication of any card playing for stakes of any sort going on. Witness went to bed on Sunday night about 11.35. Before going to bed he went into the commercial room, and one of the gentlemen was playing the piano and the others were playing cards. Four of them were at bridge. When he retired they were not playing for money. Only the boots was up then. The boots' work was in the kitchen. He would have to answer the bell. Between the kitchen and the door of the commercial room there were two passages. It was not possible to hear from the kitchen what was going on in the commercial room if the door was shut. The piano might be heard. It would be impossible to hear conversation. Witness had been in bed about three quarters of an hour when he was fetched by the boots. It was about 12.30. He went downstairs and saw two police officers. They said they would report him for permitting gambling on his licensed premises. They had been in the commercial room. Witness replied that he had no knowledge of their gambling. The constable said “Your boots did, because he has been serving them with drink”. Witness then asked the boots in front of the officer if he had seen any gambling going on, and he replied “No, sir”. The boots could serve them with drinks, as witness had given him the keys.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he saw the gentlemen card playing before he went to bed. He did not give any special instructions to the boots to see that there was no gambling. There was drink on the table when he came down. The gentlemen were playing with their own cards. Witness had no cards. The boots had always had instructions from him as to gambling, but not on that particular night.

By Mr. Groser: He did not think it was possible for a man of the boots' height to see over the glass in the door, a part of which was ground glass.

William Warman said at Easter time he was boots at the Rose Hotel. He had been there eighteen months previously. He remembered the party of gentlemen coming for their Easter holiday. Prior to Sunday night he had not seen any indication on the part of the gentlemen that they were playing cards for money. On Sunday night Mr. Hunt went to bed at about twenty five minutes to twelve. Witness was left to attend to anybody who might require his services. There was no other servant up. His duties were to get the boots down, to put “calls” down, and prepare the coals and wood for the fires. He had nothing to clean up in the bar. He last went in the commercial room about twelve o'clock. When he was rung up he was in the kitchen. Witness answered the bell and went in to take the gentlemen's orders. He stood at the corner of the table near the door. The gentlemen were sitting at the far end from the door. He could see they were playing cards. He did not see any money on the table. He had not any indication that they were playing cards for money. He was absent about five minutes getting the drinks. When he went back there was no money that he could see on the table. The gentlemen were not saying or doing anything that would lead him to suppose that money was being played for. He was quite sure of that. He had no suspicion in his mind whatever. After serving the drinks, witness went back into the kitchen, and he did not go into the room again for any purpose before the constables came. He heard the bell ring, and when he opened the door the constables pushed by him and went straight to the commercial room and looked over the glass. They opened the door and walked in. When the police came from the room they asked witness where Mr. Hunt was, and requested him to fetch him. Witness said he was in bed and he fetched him, and Mr. Hunt came down. The constables asked Mr. Hunt if he knew gambling was going on on his premises, and he said “No”. The constables took Mr. Hunt into the commercial room and showed him the gentlemen who had been playing, and they said they would have to summon him for allowing gambling upon his premises. The policemen then turned to witness and asked him if he knew thay had been gambling. Witness replied “No, but I knew they had been playing cards”. The late Mr. Hunt and the present Mr. Hunt were very particular about gambling. Witness heard nothing to lead him to suppose that the gentlemen were going to gamble. When the commercial room door was shut it was not possible to hear conversation going on if one was in the kitchen. Witness did not hear anything when he was in the kitchen. When he answered the bell for the drinks the door was shut.

Cross-examined, witness said he went upstairs about three times before the constables came, and he went twice into the bar. He was quite sure he did not see any money on the table in the commercial room. When they rang the bell they had a chance to clear the money off the table.

Mr. Edmund John O'Connell said he was one of the gentlemen composing the hockey party which stayed at the Rose Hotel for Easter. They had the commercial room absolutely to themselves. About twelve o'clock on Saturday night they played cards for the first time for stakes. They were not playing for money when Mr. Hunt retired. Mr. Hunt bade them “Goodnight” about 11.30. It was about a quarter past twelve when they called for their last drinks. The boots, when he took the orders, stood by the door. He was out of the room about five minutes. There was nothing to indicate to the boots that they were playing for money. There was no pile. It was quite possible for the boots to see what was going on. They were playing “farthetto”. The cards were their own property. They did not know there was any wrong in what they were doing.

Cross-examined, witness said he agreed generally with what the constables said.

Mr. Paul Broder, also one of the party, said he agreed with the last witness that it was perfectly possible for Warman not to have noticed that they had changed their game and were playing for money.

Cross-examined, witness said he agreed with what the constables said.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return the Chairman said they were unanimously of the opinion that the charge was proved, and Mr. Hunt would be fined £5 and 14/- costs.

Mr. Groser said he would have to consider his position. The Bench would probably give the usual time for the notice. The fine could be paid at once. He proposed to take the opinion of a Divisional Court.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) submitted his annual report as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 125 premises for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz: Full licences, 76; beer “on”, 7; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers, etc., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total, 125.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 245 persons, or one “on” licence to every 369 persons.

There are two other houses licensed by the Inland Revenue for the sale of beer, wine and spirits off the premises, under the provisions of the Excise Acts, for which no Magistrates' certificate is required.

Since the last annual licensing meeting ten of the licences have been transferred.

Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 45 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 93 persons (73 males and 20 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. Ninety were convicted and three discharged.

This, I am pleased to report, is a decrease of 14 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, and a decrease of 32 persons proceeded against when compared with 1907.

Of those proceeded against 38 were residents of the borough, 10 residents of other districts, 36 of no fixed abode, and 9 soldiers.

Since the last annual meeting two licence holders have been convicted, namely: One permitting gambling – fined £5 and costs; one permitting drunkenness – fined 40/- and costs. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given, and will be dealt with by the Recorder at the next Quarter Sessions.

Fourteen clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. These clubs have a total membership of 3,063, an increase of three clubs and an increase of 1,261 members, as compared with 1903, the year in which clubs were first registered.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

I am pleased to report that with very few exceptions the licensed houses during the past year have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

I have received notice of two applications to be made at these sessions to sell beer off the premises.

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant.

The licences were then renewed, with the exception of the Chequers Inn, Seagate Street (Walter Howlett), Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street (Percy William John Hunt), and the Wellington (Charles William Copping Skinner), which were deferred to the adjourned licensing sessions on March 7th.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

Three licences had been referred to the justices for consideration – the Rose Hotel, the Wellington public house, and the Chequers.

The Rose Hotel.

Mr. Reeve (the Chief Constable) said that the licence of the Rose Hotel was adjourned to that meeting owing to a conviction against it. He offered no further objection to the licence.

The Mayor, addressing Mr. Newman, who represented Mr. Hunt, said the licence had been adjourned. It would be granted now. The Bench, however, trusted there would be no further trouble in regard to gambling in the house, or anything of that sort.

Folkestone Express 14 May 1910.

Notice.

Pursuant to an Order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice made in the matter of the estate of Robert Hunt deceased, and in an action Hoare and Company Limited against Percy William John Hunt 1910 H No. 557, the creditors of Robert Hunt, late of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Licensed Victualler, who died in or about the month of December, 1908, are on or before the 31st day of May, 1910, to send by post prepaid to Mr. Alfred Dods, of 9, John Street, Bedford Row, in the County of London, a member of the firm Messrs. Smith, Rundell, and Dods, of the same place, solicitors for the defendant Percy William John Hunt, the executor of the deceased, their Christian and surnames, addresses, and descriptions, the full particulars of their claims, a statement of their accounts, and the nature of the securities, if any, held by them in default thereof, they will be peremptorily excluded from the benefit of the said Order.

Every creditor holding any security is to produce the same before Mr. Justice Eve, at his Chambers, the Royal Courts of Justice, London, on the 8th day of June, 1910, at 12.30 o'clock in the afternoon, being the time appointed for adjudicating on the claims.

Dated this 28th day of April, 1910.

Sandilands and Co., 12, Fenchurch Avenue, London, E.C. (Plaintiff's solicitors)

Folkestone Express 28 May 1910.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton, and Major Leggett.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. Hunt to Mr. Cook (sic). Temporary authority had been granted.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col.Fynmore, J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Harrison and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

An application was made for sanction for certain alterations to the Rose Hotel. After consideration permission was granted.

Folkestone Express 21 August 1915.

Wednesday, August 18th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs.

Mr. A.R. Bowles presented plans for alterations at the Rose Hotel. He stated that at the licensing meeting in February plans were deposited for proposed alterations, and they were passed by the justices. Nothing had, however, been done, although a tender was accepted, but the builder refused to sign the contract because of the difficulty of transport. Those plans had now been amended, and the essential points of the scheme had been included in them. The drainage was to be carried out in full.

The amended plans were approved.

Folkestone Express 9 December 1922.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday Andrew Devine was charged with having been drunk and disorderly the previous day in Rendezvous Street, and he pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Thorne said that at 2.20 p.m. he saw the prisoner in Tontine Street. He was offering to fight two working men, and he thrust a clenched fist into their faces. He advised defendant to go away, and he went. He saw him enter the Brewery Tap public house, and he went after him and stopped his beer. With the assistance of the landlord he ejected him.

The Clerk: What do you mean; prevented him being served?

P.C. Thorne: Yes. At 2.45 he saw the prisoner in Rendezvous Street and enter the bar of the Rose Hotel. With the assistance of P.C. Simpson he took prisoner to the police station.

Devine: I am sorry it happened.

Inspector Bourne said prisoner had been in the town about a month. He had no money in his possession.

Devine:My wife has got the money. I came here on account of my health. (Laughter)

The Clerk: You have been doing nothing since you came here except rest?

Devine: That's it, sir.

The Clerk: And this is the end of it.

Fined 10s.

Folkestone Express 4 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday the licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. J.H. Kent.

Folkestone Express 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr .G. I. Swoffer and other magistrates, the following licence was transferred: Rose Hotel, from Mr. Alfred Cope to Mr. James H. Kent.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1927.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Mr. Davis (instructed by Mr. Haines) said he appeared on behalf of the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores, Cheriton Road, and the application was for the removal of the full licence from the Rose Hotel in Folkestone to the Morehall Wine Stores. The application, and the desire of Mr. Kent, who was the licensee, was to sell by retail at the new premises, either on or off the premises, of intoxicating liquors that he could sell under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, which, of course, was what the licensing justices would have in mind in dealing with a licence of that description. What opposition was there?

Opposition cane from Mr. Rutley Mowll, on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, and the owners of the White Lion Hotel, and of the Victoria Hotel, in Risborough Lane, Mr. Scorer, on behalf of the Rev. D.C. Kenward, and the Rev. G.A. Uden, the minister of the Baptist Church, and property owners.

After hearing the evidence and considerable argument, which included that by Mr. Mowll that the public would not get the benefit of the monopoly value, which was stated to be £3,000, by that transference of the licence, the Magistrates retired, and on their return the Mayor announced that the application was not granted.

Folkestone Express 5 March 1927.

Council Meeting Extract.

On Wednesday the members of the Folkestone Town Council were occupied for several hours in discussing recommendations by the Entertainments Committee, the principal of which dealt with the terms suggested for the proposal to transfer the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Council rejected the terms, and the result will be that there is very little likelihood of there being a licence obtained for at least a year.

The Special Committee's report was as follows: The Committee have had several interviews with Mr. Kent and his Solicitor (Mr. W.J. Mason of Messrs. Hall and Co.), and have visited and inspected with them the Leas Cliff Hall. Suggestions were made by Mr. Kent that if he carried out the catering he should pay the Corporation, as rental, a percentage of the net profits; but after fully considering such suggestion the Committee came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory and simplest way of arriving at the amount to be paid by Mr. Kent was by a percentage on the gross takings, and this was eventually agreed to. Mr. Kent is the absolute owner of the licence, which is a free licence, and he definitely declined to consent to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee. The Committee having carefully considered the whole matter recommend the Council to enter into an Agreement with Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall and for catering there, and submit the following terms as the best they were able to arrange, and recommend their approval and adoption by the Council:—(1) Mr. Kent to be the caterer for all purposes for the Leas Cliff Hall. (2) Mr. Kent rot to sublet, assign or transfer the right of supplying- refreshments without the consent of the Corporation and then only to a person approved by the Corporation. (3) Mr. Kent may sublet the catering for refreshments, other than intoxicating liquor, to a person to he approved by the Corporation. (4) Mr. Kent to pay the Corporation 12½ percent on gross takings for intoxicating liquor and 15per cent on gross takings for other refreshments and articles except on cigarettes, the percentage shall be five and on chocolate 7½. (5) The prices to be charged shall be usual and reasonable prices as may be agreed from time to time and for the first year the charges for intoxicating liquor shall be “Commercial” charges. (6) Mr. Kent to pay for all gas consumed by him. (7) The period of the agreement shall be until, and may be determined on, the 31st December, 1930, by either party giving six months' previous notice, and if such notice be not given it shall continue from year to year determinable by either party giving six months' notice, to expire on the 31st December in any year. (8) After the expiration of the first 12 months of the Agreement, the terms as to the payment to the Corporation may be considered and revised. (9) On the termination of the Agreement, Mr. Kent shall sell the licence to the Corporation or their nominee for the sum of £2,000, plus an amount not exceeding £500 for Mr. Kent's out of pocket expenses in connection with the acquisition, transfer and removal of the licence, if so required by the Corporation; and if the Corporation shall terminate the agreement, the Corporation shall buy the licence from Mr. Kent, if so required by him. In like circumstances, such equipment as is not stamped with the owner's name belonging to Mr. Kent or to any person to whom he has sublet with the approval of the Corporation shall be sold and bought at a valuation. (10) No person will be admitted inside the Leas Cliff Hall except in accordance with conditions which may he prescribed hy the Council and no intoxicating liqour shall be sold for consumption off the premises except in conformity with restrictions from time to time made by the Corporation. (11) One or more bars shall be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall as may be agreed. (12) Mr. Kent has absolute freedom of purchase for all intoxicating liqours and undertakes not to become tied in any way to any firm. (13) A formal agreement to be settled on behalf of both parties by Counsel, whose fees shall be paid in equal shares by the parties. (14) In case of disagreement between the parties as to any of these heads of agreement the matter shall he left to the decision of Counsel, which shall he accepted as final by both parties.

Mr. Councillor Saunders did not vote in favour of the above terms.

The Town Clerk was instructed to consider as to any further points of detail and if on any point he could not agree with Mr. Kent’s Solicitor, it was understood that the matter should we left to Counsel and each party would accept his decision.

The Committee recommended that there should be a bar on each side of the Cloak Room below the northern entrance of the Hall.

The question was raised that the Committee did not recommend the acceptance of the terms but merely submitted them.

The Council decided to revoke a resolution passed previously by them that no bar should be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall at present.

The Council then agreed to resolve themselves into a public committee for the purpose of discussing the Committee's report.

Councillor Saunders said Mr. Kent's original terms were 25 percent of his net profit, rising to 33 1/3 percent for a period of seven years, with compensation at the end of the first seven years of £5,000 if it was taken from his. He thought that was absolutely accurate.

The Mayor, in reply to Councillor Stainer, said the licence belonged to Mr. Kent, who had bought it for £1,000.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to move Clause 9 should be deleted – that dealing with giving £2,500 to Mr. Kent as compensation should the licence be required from him.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the terms were the final and best terms they could get from Mr. Kent. If they altered those terms the matter would fall through.

Councillor Saunders said he was not convinced that those terms were the best they could get. He thought they should negotiate on the 20 percent basis for intoxicants.

The Town clerk, in reply to Mr. Saunders, read a letter offering 30 percent of the net profits for the privilege of selling cigarettes, tobacco, etc., in the Hall for the first year.

Councillor Saunders said he had received letters from two reputable licensees stating that they would be prepared to pay £1,000 flat rent for the licence in the Hall. The Committee had had to negotiate with a pistol at their head, because Mr. Kent and his legal advisor had not budged. They should get a big revenue from the licence, because their capital charges were about £5,600, and that was the only chance of recouping themselves. For the 12½ percent the Council had to provide light, cleaning, heating, bars, bands, advertising and all the usual things that the trader had to pay for out of his profit. He suggested that the probable net profits for the licensee was somewhere about 50 percent. Mr. Kent’s offer was really one of 2s. 6d. in the £1 for all the facilities, and that was ridiculous. Mr. Kent was asking them to put him in the shop front of Folkestone and giving him their most valuable site. The Committee never had a chance of discussing the matter on a business basis. Hastings and St. Leonards had got a licence for their new Hall, and there was no question of County Magistrates there. That licence was granted to the Hastings Entertainments Manager. He suggested that the attitude they should take up, unless they could get considerably better conditions, was that they should advertise for the general catering, and take the necessary steps before the next annual licensing sessions. Mr. Kent suggested that he would only get £26 a year out of it, but that was unthinkable.

The Mayor said the Committee majority recommendations were in favour of the terms being accepted. With reference to what Councillor Saunders said about 50 per cent profit, that was not substantiated before the Committee. Mr. Kent’s figures were 35 per cent. The quotations by Mr. Kent were on a commercial hotel basis The prices were similar to the Queen’s Hotel. If they charged Harbour Street prices the profits would be less. The Committee tried to get an offer of 15 percent on the gross takings, but Mr. Kent said it could not be done. The agreement was being brought up on the lines mentioned in the Committee’s report. Those were the best terms they could get.

Councillor Moncrieff: You say we can alter these proposals?

The Mayor: Mr. Kent is not prepared to accept other proposals.

Councillor Moncrieff: Then it means we have to say that we accept or reject? The issue is a very simple one; we ought to reject.

Alderman Franks said the Committee were instructed to negotiate for the best terms. They had done so, and it was for the Council to say what should be done. Those were the best terms the Committee could get, and he thought they were a fair and proper arrangement. He went so far as to recommend them to the Council.

Councillor Moncrieff said he was quite in favour of what had been said by Councillor Saunders, who had put the position so ably before them. At the end of the period stipulated by Mr. Kent they had no chance of retaining that licence except by paying an exorbitant rent. That was a ver bad bargain for the town.

The Mayor said they had been told 12½ percent on the gross takings was not sufficient. If Mr. Kent took £100 per week the Corporation's share would be £650. He would have to employ six waitresses and one cellarman, and his expenses would run to nearly £20 a week. Therefore there would not be much profit for Mr. Kent. Hastings had got a licence, the Corporation having been granted it. The Council should be aware that did not mean that the Hastings Corporation were not paying for the licence. The Excise Authorities would fix the monopoly value, and the Hastings Corporation would have to pay some thousands for that licence. Mr. Kent had got the licence dirt cheap - £1,000. When he applied for the licence to be transferred to the Morehall the licensed victuallers fixed the monopoly value at £3,000. They also knew that when the Grand Hotel obtained their licence they had to pay £9,000. He took a line between the two, and he estimated they would have to pay some £4,000 or £5,000 for such a licence. Out of the £2,500, if they bought the licence at the end of the period for, £500 was for expenses. Therefore Mr. Kent would make £1,000 out of his deal. They did not think a man was coming there to pay to £1,000 a year for supplying drinks only. They would get £1,000 a year if the turnover was £150 a week. He never thought they were going to get £650 out of a £100 a week turnover. They would never get a cheaper licence. He was not satisfied with the 7½ percent. That was all they could get. The percentage on smokes and minor details they might negotiate upon. Mr. Kent would not accept anything different on the drinks and the price of licence. The Mayor mentioned that the refreshments, other than intoxicating drinks, would be let to a sub-contractor, who would be Messrs. Gironimos.

Councillor Forsyth said it was a well-known fact that the most prosperous and the biggest profit was made out of the licensing trade.

During the subsequent lengthy discussion Councillor Russell raised the point as to whether they could restrict anyone taking liquor out of the hall, and the Town Clerk said if a condition of that kind was put on the licence by the Magistrates on agreement by the two parties, that would be sufficient to carry such a condition out.

The Mayor said that had been agreed between the parties.

The Mayor moved, and Councillor Broome-Giles seconded, the adoption of the minutes.

Councillor Hickson moved that having received the Committee’s report the Council regarded the terms as entirely unsatisfactory, and decided to reject same, and they further decided to meet the licensing position in some other manner. He said if it was good business for Mr. Kent it was excellent business for the Corporation to do the thing themselves.

Councillor Saunders seconded the amendment, which was carried by 13 votes to 7, and the Council approved of the resolution.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1927.

Local News.

During the past week considerable interest if it was taken iri Folkestone regarding the question of the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall. Last week, it will be remembered that the Town Council turned down terms put before them by the Committee by which Mr. J.H. Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, was to remove the licence of that Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. On Friday the General Purposes Committee considered an offer, and recommended its acceptance, from Mr. Kent to sell the licence for £1,500, provided it could be removed to the Leas Cliff Hall. A protest mating was held on Tuesday evening in the Town Hall against the proposal and on Wednesday morning after considerable opposition the Council decided to purchase the licence. Subsequently a Bench of County Magistrates sitting in the Police Court granted the removal of the licence from the Hotel to the Hall, an undertaking being given by the licensee that there should be certain restrictions to the licence.

A special meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held on Friday morning to consider an offer to sell the licence he had previously offered to transfer from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Mayor presided, and there were present Aldermen T.S. Franks, C.E. Mumford, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, J.A.. Barfoot, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, H.F. Russell, R.L.T. Saunders, A. Castle, Mrs. Gore, S. Kingsforth, A.W. Hickson, W.H. Moncrieff, Mrs. Anness, W.B. Banks, C. Turnham, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson).

The Town Clerk read the following letter from Messrs, Frederic Hall and Co., solicitors for Mr. J.H. Kent:— Dear Sir,—Referring to the conversation which has taken place between the Mayor and Mr. Kent, we are now instructed to say that, in view of the decision of the Corporation yesterday, Mr. Kent is willing to continue his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall on condition that if the removal is sanctioned the Corporation will pay Mr. Kent £1,500 for the transfer of the licence to the Corporation of their nominee. As the application will not be continued by Mr. Kent unless the Corporation desire to acquire the licence on these terms, he thinks that, should such application be refused by the Justices, it would only be reasonable for the Corporation to pay his expenses in connection with the application for removal and transfer.

The Mayor said the conversation was between the Town Clerk and Mr. Kent, and not Mr. Kent and himself.

Councillor King-Turner said he had heard other men were prepared to offer their licences to the Council.

Councillor Younghusband: Then why don't they?

The Mayor said he was afraid it would not take them very far that morning.

Alderman Pepper said he thought it was a very good offer, and he moved that it be Accepted.

Alderman Franks seconded.

Alderman Pepper said he took it if the application was made the transfer would be to the Leas Cliff Hall in Mr. Kent’s name, or in anybody’s name.

The Town Clerk said the transfer would be from Mr. Kent to some other individual.

Councillor Kingsnorth: Do I understand, supposing the Council purchase the licence from Mr. Kent, we are free to get another caterer altogether?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Saunders said he would like to point out to the Council the very great difference in Mr. Kent's attitude now, and prior to Wednesday's Council meeting. (Hear, hear). They were told at the Committee meeting that Mr. Kent would not consider the sale of the licence, that he wanted it to trade with. They found, after the attempt to exploit the ratepayers on Wednesday had failed, he was now prepared to sell his licence at a profit of £500. He was strongly of opinion they did not want Mr. Kent’s licence. He believed they wanted a licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, and they should get that licence in a straightforward and honest manner at the Brewster Sessions. They were asked to pay Mr. Kent, whose licence he respectfully submitted was not worth 4d., £1500, which was £500 more than he had paid for it, even if it was paid for. It was all very well to say it was a good business proposition. It was not; it was a rotten one. All they wanted was a licence similar to that obtained at Hastings. There they had their licence endorsed, which would have a considerable bearing on the monopoly value. At Hastings they could serve half-an-hour before an entertainment, and a quarter of an hour after. If they had a seven days' licence they would be the only place of public entertainment in Folkestone that would be selling intoxicating liquor on the seventh day. That was a strong point for the ejectment of this licence.

Councillor Broome-Giles said if Councillor Saunders had two licensed victuallers prepared to pay £1,000 a year for the licence, it would e a very economical thing for the Council to pay £1,500, and be assured of £1,000 a year hereafter. If any other licensed victuallers wanted to transfer their licence they had had plenty of time to do so. He was a teetotaller and a non-smoker, and he knew the evils of drink, and he knew there were more chronic diseases from either tea or cocoa than from alcohol. He supported the purchase of the licence.

Councillor Saunders said the view Mr. Kent was presenting showed he had got a colossal cheek. He asked them to pay £500 profit.

The Mayor said that at Hastings they were not allowed to sell anything outside the bars, which after the Brewster Sessions on Wednesday would not be worth 4d. to him. (Hear, hear).

The Mayor said the licence they had at Hastings was similar to the licence they had at the Theatre, nothing could be taken into the hall, and if they had a licence like Hastings they could not supply anything on the restaurant style. The bars they had at Folkestone would be all right for waitresses to go and get drinks to take into the hall. If they did not accept that offer they could not do anything for twelve months.

Councillor Saunders: If drink is supplied in the main hall of the building will it be possible for a child under fourteen to enter the building?

The Town Clerk: I am afraid I have not considered that point.

The Mayor: Yes, the child would not go into the bar, but the child could be in the hall where drinks are brought out from the bar.

Councillor Stainer said they had a very different proposition before them that morning. On Wednesday Mr. Kent made an offer to the Corporation for the removal of the licence to the Leas Cliff Hall, on terms which were presented to the Corporation, and he trusted to his friends to uphold those terms, and a large sum of money to be put in his pocket.

Councillor Brett said he objected to the statement that Mr. Kent trusted to his friends.

Councillor Stainer: His supporters.

Councillor Younghusband: We are not his supporters.

The Mayor: I do object to this. It is unjust, and it is not worthy, and if you re going to treat people like that you are not going to get people to serve on the Committees.

Councillor Stainer said he did not want to offend anyone's feelings.

Councillor Younghusband: Then don't say these things.

Councillor Stainer said they were told on Wednesday night that they were rock-bottom terms, and not forty eight hours had passed before they found they were not rock-bottom terms. It was a suggestion on the part of Mr. Kent. Heads I win, tails you lose”. There were a great many people who objected to a licence at all. He did not think it was right the Council should involve themselves in a full licence when the opinion of the town was for something more restricted. If they applied for a full licence there would be opposition when the application was heard.

Alderman Pepper asked Councillor Stainer of he would support a modified licence.

Councillor Stainer said he would not.

Alderman Pepper said those people who wanted a drink were just as likely to go to Heaven as those people who did not. Everyone did not want to drink tea, coffee, or lemonade.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said the thing that struck her was Mr. Kent coming down in his terms.

Councillor Parfoot said they should have a full licence. He moved as an amendment that they should offer Mr. Kent £1,000 for his licence and £100 for his expenses, subject to the licence being kept alive.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he believed it was a fair and reasonable proposition.

Councillor Hickson asked, if the off-licence would be of no use to them, could they sacrifice it if they wished? There was a volume of opinion in the town, and if they could do something a bit tactful by surrendering something which would be of no use to them, could they do it?

The Mayor said the off-licence was of no use to them at all. The Magistrates could endorse it, nullifying the off-licence, if the Council consented.

The Town clerk suggested that when the application was before the Magistrates they should ask the Magistrates either to endorse it or for the Council to give an undertaking that they would not use it for off–consumption.

Councillor Hickson said he was of opinion i they wanted a licence, and he wanted to put the building on a footing so that it was going to make it a success. If they were not going to give it a fighting chance, how were they going to justify their future position with the ratepayers? By getting all these things necessary to the elements of success they were giving it a chance. If they dosed with the offer they would have cause to congratulate themselves in two or three years' time.

Councillor Brett said it seemed to him the Council were doing a thing that was clearly in the interests of the ratepayers, and the offer should be accepted.

The amendment was lost by 18 votes to 7.

Councillor Barfoot moved that they should accept Mr. Kent's offer, but that the £1,500 was to include all expenses.

Councillor Mrs. Anness seconded.

The amendment was lost by 10 votes to 6.

Alderman Pepper's resolution was carried by 12 votes to 7, not voting, 1.

It was decided the Council should meet on Wednesday morning to confirm the recommendations of the Committee.

The Town Clerk mentioned the question of bars at the Leas Cliff Hall, and the matter was referred to the Entertainments Committee.

It was decided to give an undertaking that the off-licence would not be used.

Councillor Hickson: What about the Sabbath day?

The Mayor: You will keep it.

Despite the early hour, nine o'clock, of the special meeting of the Council, there was a very large attendance of members, the only absentees being four aldermen and Councillor Hanchard, who is unwell.

The Mayor presided, and there were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks, G. Spurgen, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. Gore, R. Kingsforth, L.J. Stephens, G. Gurr, H.L. Russell, W.H. Moncrieff, R. Forsyth, Mrs. Anness, A.H. Ulyett, C. Turnham, W.B. Banks, W.J. King-Turner, C. Bell, A. Castle, and A.W. Hickson.

The Town Clerk said since the meeting on Friday he wrote a letter to Messrs. F. Hall and Co., stating that at the meeting of the General Purposes Committee it was decided to recommend the Council to accept the offer made on behalf of Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence, subject to the conditions decided upon at the meeting. On the following day he wrote a further letter to Messrs. Hall stating that there was another condition which the Corporation wished made, and that was that the payment of the purchase price was subject to the sanction of the Ministry of Health for a loan of the payment of £1,500 for the licence. He had received a letter from Messrs. Hall in which they stated that they agreed to the first condition that the removal of the licence should be granted and confirmed. With regard to the second condition that Mr. Kent would take any steps necessary and required by the Corporation to prevent the licence from lapsing, Messrs. Hall wrote that Mr. Kent would, if the necessary order was made, remove the licence to the Hall and would hold the licence until required by the Corporation, and that he was not required to render any service to the Corporation. Messrs. Hall agreed to the third condition that if the removal be refused, or not confirmed, the Corporation pay expenses incurred after that meeting, and to the fourth condition that a formal agreement be prepared if the Magistrates grant the removal. With regard to an undertaking being given about consumption of drink off the premises and the endorsement of the licence to that effect, Mr. Kent, Messrs. Hall and Co. stated, was willing to ask the justices to so endorse the licence and to give an undertaking that sale for consumption off the premises would not take place. Concerning the condition that the payment should be subject to the sanction of the Ministry being obtained for a loan, Messrs. Hall wrote they felt the Corporation must see the impossibility of that condition. They felt that the agreed purchase price should be paid in 14 days, and the proposed agreement with the Council must be required for that to be done. Mr. Kidson, continuing, said on Saturday the Rev. D. Kedward and the Rev. J.W. Inglis came to see him and they asked if they would be able to come to the meeting that morning in order to place the views of the people they represented before the Council. After consultation with the Mayor he intimated to them that he could not promise that the Council would receive the deputation inasmuch as they had so recently put their case before the Council, but if the deputation did attend the question would be put before the Council to decide. He had since received a letter in which the Rev. J.W. Inglis expressed thanks to him for letting them know the Mayor's decision, but it was not their intention to wait upon the Council and beg for a hearing. If they wished to insist upon the point they had a statutory right to be heard because the proposal was an entirely new proposal which had not been placed before the Council. They therefore had no option but to oppose the application before the Magistrates. No notice had been taken of the suggestion of a round table conference, which might have obviated such a necessity as going before the Council. Mr. Kidson added that it was not the Mayor's decision that the deputation should not be allowed to speak.

Councillor Stainer said the previous night a public meeting of ratepayers was held to protest against the proposal, and the resolution, which he read, was passed at the meeting by a large majority. The meeting was thrown open entirely to the public, and the expressions of opinion by the meeting was strongly opposed to the application.

The Mayor: You are not suggesting the 1meeting was unanimous?

Councillor Stainer: It was not unanimous. A vast majority of the people voted in favour of the resolution.

Councillor Saunders : Do I understand that Mr. Kent expects us to pay any loss incurred in the keeping of the licence running from the day of our purchase?

The Town Clerk: You have only undertaken to pay if the licence is refused.

Councillor Saunders: The licence has to has to be kept alive until we require it.

The Town Clerk: That does not mean keeping the licence running. It was not necessary for anything to he done.

Councillor Saunders: You mean it is not necessary for him to continue trading on the Leas? The licence can be suspended until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: That is so.

Councillor Saunders: We may possibly incur some expense until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: As soon as the removal to the Hall is confirmed the licence is removed to the Hall.

Councillor Saunders: Then the trade under it would be suspended.

The Town Clerk: That is possible. The Hotel Metropole is a case of a licence suspended for a time.

Councillor Saunders: Has this licence been previously offered to the Corporation before this offer was made by Mr. Kent?

The Town Clerk: Strictly peaking, no. Messrs. Sherwoods' representative called upon me at the beginning of September and said he understood this licence could be purchased because it was going to be discontinued. I brought it up before the Entertainments Committee, and they did not think it necessary to take any steps. There was no record on the minutes. There was a General Purposes Committee at the end of September, and I as not quite certain whether I had been approached in confidence or not, so I went, up and saw Mr. Boughton and asked him if I as at liberty to mention it to the General Purposes Committee. He replied “You are, but it is no use you doing so now as it is sold”. Therefore it did not come before the Committee. I think £1,000 was suggested as the price then.

Councillor Saunders said there was no doubt that the price was £1,000. Could they close a place when they thought fit without losing the licence?

The Town clerk: If you wish to close it one day a week you can do so. You need not keep it open all the year round. You have an instance in the Hotel Metropole.

Councillor Russell: Would £1,500 be a final payment for this licence, or is it likely there will be a reassessment of the monopoly value next February by the Excise people.

The Town clerk: I don't know what you mean by assessment.

Councillor Russell: It is assessed at £1,000.

The Town Clerk: We are buying it for £1,500.

Councillor Russell: Is it possible for the Excise people to largely increase the amount.

The Town Clerk said he knew nothing to come along at all except the annual duty which was paid according to the scale.

Councillor Russell: I understand this payment will not be final.

The Mayor: It will, except for the final duty to the Excise authorities.

Councillor Brett said there was an attempt in 1909 by the Excise authorities to put a monopoly value on a transferred licence. There was a decision in the Divisional Courts that no such assessment could be made on the monopoly value on removal of licence.

Councillor Phelan said in the event of the Council not accepting Mr. Kent's offer, would the Council have to apply for a new licence, if they required a licence?

The Town Clerk: Yes, sir.

Councillor Swinhoe-Phelan: Would it cost you £4,000 or £5,000?

Councillor Turnham: It would cost you £6,000 or £7,000 at least.

Councillor Saunders: It might.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said he understood that a licence in Radnor Street might be abolished and available. Would it be possible to take that licence over instead?

The Town Clerk said if they bought a licence in Radnor Street they would have to apply for the removal of it to the Magistrates.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said if licensed premises fell to them in that way through the Radnor Street scheme, when would they apply to the Magistrates?

The Town Clerk: At next year's annual sessions.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan: If we do not accept Mr. Kent's offer this year we cannot trade in liquor this year?

The Town Clerk: You can only obtain a removal order at the same time as a new licence is obtained.

Councillor Saunders said the matter had been bungled from beginning to end. He hoped the Council was going to turn the recommendation down because it was bad business.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the subject had been decided really by the General Purposes Committee, and they should pass the resolution.

Alderman Franks moved, and Councillor King-Turner seconded that the meeting be resumed as a Council meeting.

Councillor Saunders: Surely we are entitled to more discussion than this?

Councillor Moncrieff: There has not been a resolution moved yet.

The Mayor: You don't want to move a resolution until you go into Council.

Councillor Monerieff: Why not? At the moment we are simply skirmishing, and asking for information. It is a matter of most vital importance to the town. The discussion on a resolution should take place in Committee, and the resolution confirmed at a later date.

The Mayor: Immediately we go into Council I shall move the confirmation of the minutes of the General Purposes Committee, and then discuss it in the usual way.

Councillor Saunders: You are only doing it I to stifle independent discussion. At the previous meeting you moved your resolution in committee, and this morning you don't want to give up a chance to discuss it.

Councillor Barfoot: If it goes before the Council you will have amendment after all.

The Mayor: You want to talk it out, that is all I know.

The resolution was carried by 16 votes to 10.

Councillor Moncrieff moved that the offer in the minutes be deleted, and said they would be wise in waiting until the next Brewster Sessions, and proceed in a straightforward and honourable way to procure a licence. The Council should have the costs that would be entailed by the acquiring of the licence in front of them before they discussed the expediency of the same. The £1,500 would mean a 1¼ d. rate on next year's rates. They would require two bars, and have to advertise for a caterer. He gathered they would surrender the off-licence part of the licence, and they would not use the bars as an ordinary public house, and no-one would have a drink unless they paid for admission. He would like to know what would be the cost of a new licence. He knew when they were talking about a question like this they were frightened about the monopoly value. Margate had no licence for any of its Halls.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he was one of those people who believed the Leas Concert Hall required a licence, but he believed it required a licence not of the character and description they had offered them that morning. The whole business of this licence had been badly handled, and it had created a bad impression in the town. If they had a round table conference between now and next February they would get a general census of public opinion. He was told that any endorsement or agreement with the Magistrates was not legally binding under the Licensing Law. People were getting frightened over the monopoly value. It was another red herring. They had heard Councillor Dallas Brett's red herring. They had not got a monopoly of red herrings. Councillor Brett had got some. (Laughter) They should set an example as a local government body. They should be perfectly honest. He did not think it was an honest attempt to give the ratepayers, in the best interest of the town, what they wanted. They had not been trying to do what the ratepayers wanted. They had been hustled and bustled into this thing. He hoped the Council would definitely turn it down. In his opinion it was not a clean deal, and the sooner they washed their hands of this thing the better. He had offered at the Council meeting to give the Town Clerk, in confidence, the names of two people whose letters he had in his pocket. Whether they doubted his word or not was immaterial. He had still got the offers in his pocket.

The Mayor: I hope they will prove useful later on.

Councillor Brett said he could not conceive in what way it was suggested that the purchase from any person who had something to sell, which was beneficial to the Council, was in any way not straightforward and honest. His suggestion was that if they could buy for £1,500 what it would coat he them £5,000 to £6,000 to get elsewhere, and if they could start making a profit on that at once so that they got something additional in their pocket, they were making an exceedingly good bargain for the Council.

The .Mayor said it had been mentioned to some authority in the Ministry, and the Town Clerk was encouraged to think there would be no difficulty in getting a loan for it.

Councillor Moncrieff: And pay double the amount.

The Mayor said the Town Clerk would tell them that an endorsement by the Magistrates that morning would be absolutely binding. If they broke that endorsement they forfeited their licence entirely. There was a feeling it should be the same type of licence as at Hastings. When the Council went before the Magistrates for a licence on the same lines as Hasting he would join the opposition, and he would fight against them for all he was worth.

Councillor Saunders: Good.

The Mayor: You say good. When I fight I don't fight for nothing.

Councillor Saunders: Right. Let's take our coats off.

The Mayor said he preferred the cafe system where the family could sit together at a table, and not be divided. At Hastings they would have to go through a door and have drink, and a child could not go through that door. If that was what they wanted at Folkestone he would oppose it. What he wanted was where intoxicating drink could be served on their beautiful balconies, where a wife, and the son and daughter were taking coffee, and if they wanted a liqueur they could have it.

Councillor Stainer rose to speak.

The Mayor: Sit down, cannot I speak?

Councillor Stainer: I wanted to ask a question.

The Mayor: Haven’t you had a good turn, do you want all the talk?

Alderman Pepper: Whenever the Mayor is speaking a member should sit down.

Councillor Stainer sat down.

Councillor Castle asked if the licence could be endorsed, if outsiders could demand to be served.

The Mayor said it would be absolutely illegal.

Councillor Kenny said what was the deal; he could sum it up in one word “Rotten”. It was absolutely wrong the Council should attempt to rush it through when there was so much opposition against it in the town.

Councillor Forsyth said people thought they were not getting a square deal. They would have the choice of two or three licences when they proceeded with the Radnor Street scheme.

The Mayor said that scheme had gone by the board and there was only one house, and it was not proposed to acquire it.

The resolution was lost by 15 votes to 11.

There voted in favour: Councillors Kenny, Stainer, Barfoot, Swinhoe-Phelan, Saunders, Castle, Moncrieff, Forsyth, Bell, Anness and Banks. Those against were the Mayor, Aldermen Spurgen, Pepper and Franks, Councillors Broome-Giles, Younghushand, Brett, Russell, Mrs. Gore, Kingsnorth, Stephens, Gurr, Hickson, Turnham, and King-Turner.

Councillor Barfoot moved that the resolution for the purchase of the licence be not approved, and that an offer be made to the owner of the licence to purchase the licence for £1,000, if and when the Justices consented to the removal of the licence, and the transfer of the licence, and the transfer of the licence to the nominee of the Council.

It struck eleven o’clock at this point, and the Mayor suggested that in common courtesy to the county magistrates they should get on.

Councillor Saunders was speaking, when he said "You are rude, Mr. Mayor, reading when I am speaking.” (Laughter)

The Mayor: I have heard this (the arguments used by the opposition) about half-a-dozen times.

Councillor Saunders: That is right. I shall hear lots of things about six times. It is roughly a ½d. rate, and Councillor King-Turner tells us it is a piffle. I cannot understand him going up to an election in the East Ward and putting £500 in one person's pocket.

The amendment wan lost by 14 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows on this motion: For; Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks, Barfoot, Bell, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer, Swinhoe-Phelan and Ulyett—11. Against: The Mayor, Aldermen franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth, King-Turner, Russell, Stephens, Turner, and Younghusband. Not voting; Councillor Castle.

The Mayor moved that the offer be accepted on the terms previously agreed to in the General Purposes Committee.

Councillor King-Turner seconded.

The resolution was carried by 15 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows:— For: The Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth. King-Turner, Russell, Stephens. Swinhoe-Phelan, Turnham and Younghusband—15. Against: Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks. Barfoot, Bell, Castle, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer and Ullyett—11.

The Entertainments Committee was instructed to proceed with the provision of a bar or bars.

The meeting then closed.

Immediately after the Town Council meeting closed the Magistrates to hear the application for the removal of the licence took their seats in the Police Court. Mr. H. Rigden presided, and there were also on the Bench Brig.-Gen. Tylden, and Messrs H. P. Jacques, W. G. Tester and A. S. Jones. They are members of the Elham County Bench.

Mr. G. W. Haines appeared to make the application for Mr. Kent, and Mr. Rutley Mowll was present representing the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Mr. A. F. Kidson, the Town Clerk, represented the Corporation.

'There was a large attendance in Court, including a number of clergy and ministers, for whom the Rev. Dr. Carlile was deputed to act as spokesman.

Mr. Haines said he appeared in support of that application for the removal of a licence known as the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to a new building called the Leas Cliff Concert Hall, which was the property of the Town Council. By an anomaly of the law by reason of the Justices being ratepayers, and they being interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting on the Bench, in connection with the application. By reason of that, the Bench, being County Justices, had been asked to come there to arrange the domestic affairs of Folkestone. He might say the Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he thought it would be better if he proved the necessary steps for serving and posting notices.

Mr. E. Cook gave evidence of serving notices and the posting of them.

The Clerk read a letter from Mr. Montague Burton, as freehold owner of the premises, consenting to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said the application was for a full licence, and an undertaking would be given asking the Magistrates that the licence should be endorsed that no sale should be made for intoxicants to be consumed off the premises, and he thought he would not have any farther objection from Mr. Mowll.

Mr. MowlI said it was suggested that an undertaking should be given by the licensee as binding upon the licence, and to be endorsed thereon, that no person should be served with intoxicating liquor at the Leas Cliff Hall unless such person had (1) previously paid the usual charge for the time being for admission to the building (which was to prevent persons using this place as an ordinary public house), and (2) no intoxicating liquors should be served for consumption off the premises (that was to prevent it being used for supplying persons off the premises). He understood that they were endorsed on the licence, and would become binding upon the licence, and the licensed victuallers would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines: We should have asked for these conditions ourselves.

Mr. Mowll: That means that my friend considers my presence is unnecessary.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Andrew): I think they heard sometime ago that you were likely to oppose.

Mr Haines said it was known that Mr. Kent purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel, and the Corporation had agreed to buy him out for £1,500. Seeing the monopoly value might have been something very considerable, they were to get that licence, subject to the Bench granting the licence's removal, for what they considered to be in the interests of the town from the financial point of view and from other interests. The Leas Cliff Hall had involved a cost of over £60,444. The justices would understand what Folkestone was trying to do in putting its attractions before the visitors that they had with regard to a building like that in its ordinary amenities in which facilities should be given to such a building as those that could be obtained in other places. The Council had arrived at a conclusion by which they had resolved that matter should go through. The Council would be only too glad to comply with any suggestion of the Magistrates to conduct that place as it should be. He did not know what opposition he might have now the Licensed Victuallers' opposition had gone.

The Clerk said he had not received notice of any opposition.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about 50 residents and tenants and occupants on The Leas adjacent to the building.

Mr. Haines: That is all I have to deal with, then.

Mr. J.S. Dahl produced plans of the building, and said it was the suggestion that two service bars should be made in the building on the gallery level. Ample arrangements had been made for closing these during prohibited hours.

The Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided as to what use would be made of the middle floor. It had been suggested it might be used by members of a club, and members of the public could enjoy the club. If it was not used as a club it would probably be used as a writing and reading room.

Dr. Carlile: I want to ask whether Mr. Dahl can tell you whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Arising out of what has been said by the Town Clerk, is it intended to ask the Bench to grant a licence before it is determined what use shall be made of these premises? If there is to be a restaurant, then surely an application should be for the supply of intoxicants there with food. If it was a club then surely they would need a licence for the club. The whole point I want to make is, if it is not clear what the licence is, it is very difficult to oppose it.

The Town Clerk said there had been a meeting of the Council that morning, at which a resolution had been passed, which invested an interest in the new building with the applicant. It was the intention of the Council that no one should be admitted to the building without paying. It was the Council's wish it should be on the licence.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the Council had any power to bind its successors.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said it was an undertaking by the licensee, and if there was a breach of the regulation it would be a subject for the refusal by the Justices to renew the licence. From the legal point of view it did not matter whether the Council agreed or not, it was a binding undertaking rendering a licensee liable if it was not carried out.

Dr. Carlile asked if the Council had come to any decision to give this power to the licensee. If the Council could not bind its successors, surely it could hardly give authority to someone if they could not bind their successors.

The Town Clerk said he did not agree the Council could not bind their successors. The successors of the Council were already bound in respect of the building. The Corporation were constantly binding their successors.

Dr. Carlile said that supposing in a year’s time the Leas Cliff Hall did not attract the number of people who would pay the price determined, and the price was reduced to 2d. or 3d., that would alter the whole complexion of the licence, it would simply be the same that the prison was paying to go in, the payment would be so small that it would practically be a public-house. (Cries of “No”)

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any amount as to the charge mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile said it was purely a matter quite friendly, and he was not trying to score a point. There was a statement made in Council that the charges would be so much, and the point he wanted to ask was, if the charges were reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would not that materially affect the licence?

The Chairman: Is there any chance of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile raised the point of a big conference or public service, where obviously there would be no admission.

The Town Clerk said they must comply with the undertaking, whatever the undertaking was.

Dr. Carlile asked whether it was the intention of the Town Council, and whether any vote had been taken at all, to shut the place entirely from the possible use of congresses or religious conferences.

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates’ Clerk said there could be no sale of liquor except under the circumstances he had mentioned. It was not a question of the Corporation; it was a question of the licensee.

Dr. Carlile said he was asking whether the effect of this would be that the use of the building could not be obtained for a conference and meetings. If so, had it been determined by the Council?

The Town Clerk said he did not see why they should not allow conferences to be held.

Dr. Carlile said there would be no charge for admission.

Mr. Haines: Such members attending the conference would be debarred.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the bars would be in part of the building which was specially licensed, or whether the whole of the premises were proposed to be licensed, whether part of the premises upon which intoxicants were sold would be open to children under fourteen years of age.

The Town Clerk: Yes, I have no doubt they will.

Dr.Carlile: Does that mean that people going to that lovely place will have to leave their children outside?

The Town Clerk: It does not. He further pointed out that children would be excluded from those rooms where drink was sold.

Dr. Carlile asked for the numbers voting for the application to be made to the Magistrates that morning.

The Town Clerk: 15 in favour, and 11 against.

Mr. J.H. Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, said he had purchased it under an agreement from the owner, and he had agreed to be the Council's nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, he said he agreed to surrendering the off licence, and that no one should be supplied unless they paid for admission.

Dr. Carlisle asked if anyone could say whether it was for a full licence.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said the licence in question was a full licence with full conditions, and the magistrates could not attach any agreement with regard to Sunday sales.

Dr. Carlile asked if he would he prepared, if the licence was endorsed, not to trade on Sunday.

Mr. Haines: He has not power to vary the statement already agreed to.

Mr. Kent: No.

Dr. Carlile said he was exceedingly sorry it was necessary he should make any application to the Magistrates that day. He was there with gentlemen who represented the clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all the denominations in that area. They presented a memorial a week ago when the proposals came before the Council. Some important changes had taken place, and for those they were very grateful, and they only regretted the concessions had not gone further so that it might have been possible for them not to appear in opposition to their friends. There was no personal feeling in this matter, and no opposition to the Mayor and members of the Corporation. It was a matter involving very considerable issues. The application they had before them placed the Bench in a very considerable difficulty. They had considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed, the Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or as to what should be done. They were asking the Magistrates now to very seriously consider the application for a Sunday licence. The licensee had told them that he was not prepared to give any undertaking not to proceed with the application for a seven day licence. It sometimes happened that in Folkestone they had a united service. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not large enough to hold the people who wished to go. He was sure it would be the intention of some of the churches to apply for services in this building. It would be a very objectionable feature if they had in one part of the premises religious services going on, and in another part open bars They had in Folkestone, as in all places of this kind, a large number of conferences. They had a church congress, and various other congresses. For these congresses to come, and not to pay admission, would mean that it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That would be a very awkward thing, and exceedingly difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid, and who had not paid. The first year was sure to be an experimental year in Folkestone. It was obvious Folkestone did not know its own mind on the subject. There had been an emergency meeting that morning to decide whether the application should be made, and it showed there was considerable haze on the matter. If the hall on the cliff was no more successful than the Marine Gardens Pavilion on the Lower Road, it would be closed for part of the winter. If this licence was granted the hall must be open, and that would mean the ratepayers would have to pay for the staff to keep the place open, although very few people were going in. They heard it might be possible to have a club in one of the rooms. He submitted to the Licensing Magistrates that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended building a west end club when they agreed to this large sum of money being spent upon this place. Here was a west end club, and anyone who wanted a club could do the same as he did, and pay for it, and not go on the ratepayers for it. To ask them to grant a licence for premises that were not yet determined as to their character was to come before the Bench with an application which was at least premature. The two points that had been conceded were very valuable, and they were glad. A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them this licence was necessary to put Folkestone in the forefront, they did not admit Folkestone was in the background. A large number of places had a licence, but Margate had no licence for its Winter Gardens. There were a number of other places where they had not a licence. A large number of people were concerned in the town as a matter of conscience. They conscientiously objected, as ratepayers, to be made parties directly to the sale of intoxicating drink That was an objection which weighed heavily with a large number of people. The difficulties about a licence were very considerable. No authority had been given from the ratepayers to apply for a licence of that kind. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as of great importance. The presence of little children on the part of the premises in which drink would be served was to them a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record.

Mr. Haines said he wished to assure Dr. Carlile that his clients, and he knew the Magistrates always had lent a sympathetic ear to any dictates of conscience, and they were serious and conscientious in the objections they raised from the Temperance view. They always had them, and it was perhaps wise they should be reminded they had got these points on Temperance. They had in Folkestone a splendid record, and they had a great thing to be proud of, and they did not want to mar it, and up to the present Folkestone was likely to maintain its reputation. They hoped to keep good. Dr. Carlile did not think that when there was a conference anyone would go to the bar and say they had paid for admission when they had not. The instructions would be that people attending conferences who had not paid would not be served.

Dr. Carlile: My point is that it would be a very objectionable thing if you had the open bar while the conference was going on.

Mr. Haines: At one time I see there is a letter by Dr. Carlile in which he is trying to bring the Licensed Victuallers.......

Dr. Carlile: I suggest the whole thing has so changed since that paper was printed that anything it contains is not worth your attention.

Mr. Haines said Dr. Carlile raised the point as to whether it would be fair to Licensed Victuallers in the same neighbourhood. They had surrendered the off licence, so naturally they were not represented that day. This was some of the imagination that got into the head of the people that they had not faith in. Dr. Carlile had said at the last Council meeting “There was a possibility of anybody, accompanied by his young baby, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road”. He suggested they were facing a very serious moral problem, which would make them pause before they took out a licence. That was a libel on their young people, and upon their town – (hear, hear) – and the police who administered the law, to say that such a thing could possibly happen. Imagination ran away with their discretion, and although they meant well, they made that opposition. He rather liked to take Dr. Carlile in what he said – Folkestone had a splendid record, and they should do nothing to mar it, and he hoped they never would.

After the Magistrates had retired, the Chairman said they had decided to grant the licence, but they made the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading, to meet the objections.

Folkestone Express 9 April 1927.

Local News.

On Tuesday the East Kent Licensing Authority, at Canterbury, confirmed the removal of the seven day licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall.

The Justices' decision means that one of the oldest licensed houses in the town closed its doors for the sale of intoxicating drink on Wednesday morning. The Rose Hotel has for over 150 years been a noted hostelry, and it was used as a coaching house in days gone by.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1929.

Obituary.

We have to record with deep regret the death of Mrs. Venner, the wife of Alderman P.H. Venner, of Margate, who passed away in a London nursing home on Tuesday, following an operation.

The late Mrs. Venner was well-known in Folkestone, where she resided for a number of years. Mr. Venner, it will be remembered, was the proprietor of the old Rose Hotel, the famous hostelry in Rendezvous Street, and which was demolished two years ago, and also of the Clarendon Hotel in Tontine Street. On leaving Folkestone before the War, Mr. and Mrs. Venner went to Margate to reside, and since their residence there they have most capably filled the office of Mayor and Mayoress. The deepest sympathy will be extended by his many Folkestone friends to Alderman Venner in his great loss.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1933.

Obituary.

We record, with deep regret, the death of Mr. Frederick Ralph, of Beaulieu, Bouverie Road West, Folkestone, who passed away suddenly at Manor Court Nursing Home on Saturday last, in his 80th year.

Mr. Ralph had been in bad health for a long time; indeed, he had not been able to leave his house for more than eight months, yet maintained his accustomed keen interest in affairs.

Mr. Ralph was born in 1854 opposite old Newgate Prison (now demolished), and he could remember the tolling of the Great Bell of St. Paul's when the Prince Consort died in 1861, and, as a boy, witnessed the last public execution which took place at Newgate in 1868 or 1869. After occupying various posts in London (he was for a few months in the Temple), he migrated to Hastings, where he met and married his wife, who predeceased him by exactly five years. At Hastings he became a member of the Royal Naval Volunteers, and in carrying out his duties as manager to Messrs. Norton and Townsend he personally supervised, when a heavy sea was running, the loading of the wines on board Lord Brassey's yacht “The Sunbeam”. From Hastings Mr. Ralph went to Maidstone, where he became proprietor of the Queen's Head Hotel. Here he organised the first regatta to be held on the Medway.

Leaving Maidstone, Mr. Ralph came to Folkestone over 50 years ago, and bought the Rose Hotel (now no more) in Rendezvous Street. The hotel was, in those days, the recognised rendezvous of the principal citizens; the large hotels further west were not built. As time went on his business interests in Folkestone developed steadily. He was closely associated with the formation of the Pleasure Gardens Theatre Company, and, at his death, he was the senior member of the Board. He was always happy to remember that the late Lord Radnor personally invited him to join the Directorate. He took the greatest interest in theatrical affairs and knew many stage celebrities. For a short time Mr. Ralph was connected with the Victoria Pier. For many years he was Chairman of the Queen's Hotel, resigning this position only recently owing to failing health. He formed the Folkestone Billposting Company, which developed branches at Dover and Hastings, this business being afterwards amalgamated with Messrs. Partington, Kent, Limited, of which company he was Chairman at the time of his death. He was also Chairman of the Burlington, and for some years was Chairman of the Grand, afterwards remaining as Director.

About 30 years ago, Mr. Ralph formed the Leas Pavilion Company and took a continuously active interest in this business to the last. He was for some years on the Board of the Folkestone Gas Company, and likewise held Directorships in Messrs. D. Baker and Co Ltd., and the Silver Spring Mineral Water Company.

Mr. Ralph was always keenly interested in sport, and in his younger days was a natural athlete, being, in particular, a lightweight boxer of considerable merit, while many will also recall his great skill as a billiards player.

As a businessman Mr. Ralph had foresight and courage. He took endless pains to make anything he was connected with a success, and was outstanding for his high standard of commercial probity. It would not be too much to say that he was far more concerned with other people's interests, if he felt responsible for them, than he was even for his own. However, his judgement was rarely at fault, and his business ventures were almost uniformly successful.

He was a man of very considerable personality, one with a finely developed sense of humour, and he had an amazing collection of anecdotes, with great powers as a mimic.

His greatest virtues were his sense of justice and his generosity. Throughout his long life he performed kindnesses both small and great, and it is no more than his due to say his passing will be widely regretted. He felt the death of his wife very keenly, and during the last few years he was sorely tried by his inability to lead as active a life as formerly. Nevertheless, his interest in affairs remained unimpaired to the last.

He leaves a son and daughter, Mr. F.H.M. Ralph and Miss Violet Ralph, to mourn their loss.

The funeral took place on Wednesday at the Cheriton Road Cemetery.