DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1717

Rose Hotel

Latest 1923

(Name to)

24 Rendezvous Street

Broad Street Pigot's Directory 1839

Folkestone

Rose Hotel

Above picture is of the former "Rose." Date circa 1915.

Rose Hotel

Above showing Rendezvous Street and the Rose Hotel from a postcard, date unknown.

 

Pigot's directory of 1839 gave the address as Broad Street.

Bagshaw's directory of 1847 states that the "Rose" was also operating livery stables and in the Post Office Directory 1874 was referred to as the "Rose Commercial Hotel."

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 29 April 1765.

Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. William Pope, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. Thomas Rolfe, and Mr. John Baker.

Neat Ladd, James Francklyn, Chas. Hill, Thos. Wilton, Ambrose Dadd, Ric Boxer, Widow Jeffery, Widow Gittens, Ric Beear, Mary Gittens, and Joseph Trevillon were fined at this Session 3/4 each for having false measures in their houses, which fines were paid into the hands of the Overseers of the Poor.

Neat Ladd, George; James Francklyn, Rose; Charles Hill, White Hart; Thomas Wilton, no record; Ambrose Dadd, Chequers; Richard Boxer, Fishing Boat; Widow Jeffery, Royal George; Widow Gittens, North Foreland; Richard Beear, Three Compasses; Mary Gittens, Privateer; Joseph Trevillon, Crown.

 

Kentish Gazette 8 July 1780.

Advertisement: Notice is hereby given that the Annual Meeting of the Union Society of Folkestone, established for the benefit of widows and of sick or superannuated members, will be held at the sign of the "Rose," in the said town, on Monday, the 10th instant, July; when any person, not exceeding the age of forty years may become a member of the said Society (if approved by a majority of the members then present) on paying the usual entrance of Twenty Shillings.

Dinner at one o'clock.

This Society is possessed of a large capital.

 

Kentish Gazette 23 August 1783.

Advertisement: Notice: The creditors who have proved their debts under a Commission of Bankrupt awarded and issued against Phineas Jacob, late of the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, shipbuilder, dealer and chapman, are desired to meet the assignees of the said bankrupt's estate and effects, on Thursday, the 28th day of August instant, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, at the "Rose," in Folkestone; in order to determine whether the several vessels now building in the said bankrupt's yard shall be finished by his assigners or not, and to assent or dissent from the said assignees commencing, prosecuting, or defending any suit or suits at law, or in equity, for recovery of any part of the said bankrupt's estate and effects, or their compounding, submitting to arbitration, or otherwise agreeing any matter or thing relating thereto, and on other special affairs.

 

Kentish Gazette 25 December 1804.

Advertisement.

To be sold by auction, by J. Fuller.

At the Rose, in Folkestone, on Friday, the 4th day of January, 1805, at six o'clock in the evening (subject to such conditions of sale as will be then and there produced) the following premises, situate at Shellons Lane, near the Gun, in the town of Folkestone.

Lot 1: All that large barn, with the yard, stable, and piece of garden-ground thereto belonging, now in the occupation of Wm. Nickholls and John Oldfield.

Lot 2: All those two compact dwelling houses, with the garden-ground thereto belonging, adjoining Lot 1, now in the occupation of John Oldfield and Mrs. Cowley.

Lot 3: All that large tenement, in three dwellings, with the spacious yard, garden, and stable thereto belonging, in the occupation of John Cook, Wm. Swain, Wm. Pilcher, and Thomas Barber.

The tenants have notice to quit at Lady Day next.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 25 April 1808.

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Joseph William Knight, John Castle, John Gill, John Bateman and James Major.

The following person was fined for having short measures in their possession, viz.:

Stredwick 2/6.

 

From the Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal 7 September 1819.

VALUABLE BREWERY,

Free Public Houses and other estates,

To be Sold By Auction, By Messrs. White, (Without Reserve).

Pursuant to certain orders of the Vice Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the Major part of the Commissioners named and authorised in and by a Commission of bankrupt awarded and issued against Matthew William Sankey, of the City of Canterbury, brewer, dealer and chapman, at the Guildhall, of the said city of Canterbury, on Wednesday next, the 22nd day of September next, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, (subject to such conditions of sale as shall be then and there produced.)
The following very Valuable Freehold Estates, in Lots.

Valuable Brewery free public houses and other Estates to be sold by auction by Mrs white without reserve.

Lot 21. A Messuage called the "Rose," (formerly in two tenements,) with the stable, outhouses, edifices, buildings, yard, garden, land, and appurtenances, situate in the town of Folkestone aforesaid, and now in the occupation of James King.

 

Kentish Chronicle 4 May 1830.

Death: April 25, at Boulogne, Mr. James King, landlord of the "Royal Oak" at that place. The deceased was formerly proprietor and landlord of the "Rose Hotel," Folkestone.

 

Maidstone Gazette 4 May 1830.

Death: April 25, Mr. J. King, landlord of the "Royal Oak Inn," Boulogne, and formerly proprietor and landlord of the "Rose Inn," at Folkestone.

 

Maidstone Journal 4 May 1830.

Death: On Sunday morning, at Boulogne, Mr. James King, landlord of the "Royal Oak Inn" at that place. The deceased was formerly proprietor and landlord of the "Rose Inn," at Folkestone. He has left a widow and four children to lament their loss.

 

Kentish Gazette 16 July 1833.

Whereas a Fiat in Bankruptcy is awarded and issued forth against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer and Chapman, and he being declared bankrupt is hereby required to surrender to Edward Drake Brockman, Esquire, and Ralph Thomas Brockman and Edward Sedgwick, Gentlemen, the major part of the Commissioners named and authorised in and by the said Fiat, on the twenty sixth day of July instant and the twenty seventh day of August next, at twelve o'clock at noon on each day, at the Guildhall of the town of Folkestone aforesaid, and make a full discovery and disclosure of his estate and effects; when and where the creditors are to come prepared to prove their debts, and at the first sitting to choose assignees, and at the last sitting the said bankrupt is required to finish his examination, and the creditors are to assent to or dissent from the allowance of his certificate. All persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or that have any of his effects, are hereby required to take notice that they are not to pay or deliver the same except to such person or persons as the Commissioners shall appoint, but they are to give notice thereof to Mr. John James Bond, Solicitor, Folkestone; or to Mr. James Boxer, Solicitor, 3, Bow Lane, Cheapside, London.

 

Kentish Gazette 13 August 1833.

On Wednesday last at the house-warming at the Rose Inn, Folkestone, about forty gentlemen sat down to an excellent dinner, provided in the first style, by Mr. John Coulter, the worthy and assiduous landlord. The Mayor was prevented from taking the chair by illness, and it was filled in an able manner by Mr. Franklin, of Maidstone.

Note: Gives an earlier starting date for Coulter.

 

Maidstone Gazette 20 August 1833.

On Wednesday last at the house-warming at the Rose Inn, Folkestone, about forty gentlemen sat down to an excellent dinner, provided in the first style, by Mr. John Coulter, the worthy and assiduous landlord. The Mayor was prevented from taking the chair by illness, and it was filled in an able manner by Mr. Franklin, of Maidstone.

Note: Gives an earlier starting date for Coulter.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 19 April, 1834. Price 7d.

THE COMMISSIONERS in a FAIT of BANKRUPTCY, awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, intend to meet on the Tenth day of May next, at Twelve o'clock at noon, at the Guildhall of the Town of Folkestone, aforesaid, in order to admit the Accounts of the Assignees.

JOHN JAMES BOND

Folkestone. Solicitors to the Assignees.

18th April, 1843.

 

Dover Telegraph 19 April, 1834.

The Commissioners in a Fiat of Bankruptcy, awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, intend to meet on the tenth day of May next, at twelve o'clock, at noon, at the Guildhall of the town of Folkestone, aforesaid, in order to audit the accounts of the Assignees.

John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees, Folkestone, 18th April, 1834.

 

Dover Telegraph 26 July 1834.

The creditors who have proved their debts under a Fiat in bankruptcy awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, are requested to meet the Assignees of the Estate and effects of the said Bankrupt on Monday, the 18th day of August next, at twelve o'clock at noon precisely at the offices of Mr. Bond, Solicitor, Seagate Street, Folkestone, to assent to or dissent from the Assignees compromising on terms that will be proposed at the meeting a certain suit in Chancery which has been commenced against the said assignees and the said Bankrupt, and others, by William and June Edwards, infants, (by Mr. Edward Watts, their next friend), respecting a certain sum of money, part of the property of the said Bankrupt, now in the hands of Mr. William Humphrey Bodman, of Maidstone. Also to assent to, or dissent from, the said Assignees compounding with a person, to be named at such meeting, for and concerning a small sum of money due from him to the said Bankrupt's estate. And on other Special Affairs.

John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees, Folkestone, 22nd July, 1834.

 

Dover Telegraph 28 November 1834.

Whereas the creditors who have proved their debts under a Fiat in bankruptcy awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, were requested to meet the Assignees of the Estate and effects of the said Bankrupt on Monday, the 18th day of August at twelve o'clock at noon precisely at the offices of Mr. Bond, Solicitor, Seagate Street, Folkestone, (pursuant to notice inserted in the London Gazette of Friday, the 25th day of July last), to assent to or dissent from the Assignees compromising on terms which would be proposed at such meeting, a certain suit in Chancery which has been commenced against the said assignees and the said Bankrupt, and others, by William and June Edwards, infants, (by Mr. Edward Watts, their next friend), respecting a certain sum of money, part of the property of the said Bankrupt, now in the hands of Mr. William Humphrey Bodman, of Maidstone; also to assent to, or dissent from, the said Assignees compounding with a person, to be named at such meeting, for and concerning a small sum of money due from him to the said Bankrupt's estate; and on other Special Affairs. And whereas one third in value of such Creditors did not attend the said meeting. Now notice is hereby given that the said Creditors are hereby requested to attend the Commissioners named in the said Fiat, or the major part of them, on Saturday, the 6th day of December next, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon precisely, at the Guildhall of the town of Folkestone, aforesaid, to show cause why the said Commissioners, or the major part of them, should not consent to the matters mentioned in the said advertisement, pursuant to the powers vested in them by the Act of Parliament of 6th Geo. 4th, cap. 16, sec. 88.

John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees.

 

Dover Telegraph 14 February 1835.

The Commissioners in a Fiat of Bankruptcy, awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, intend to meet on Monday, the 2nd day of March next, at twelve o'clock at noon, at the Guildhall of the said town of Folkestone, in order to audit the further accounts of the Assignees, and to make a Dividend of the Estate and Effects of the said Bankrupt; when and where the Creditors who have not already proved their debts are to come forward prepared to prove the same, or they will be excluded from the benefit of the said Dividend. And all claims not then proved will be disallowed.

Folkestone, 9th Feb., 1835. John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees.

 

Dover Telegraph 27 February 1836.

Advertisement: The Commissioners in a Fiat of Bankruptcy, bearing the date of the 5th day of July, 1833, awarded and issued forth against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, dealer and chapman, intend to meet at the Town Hall of Folkestone, on Monday, the 21st day of March, 1836, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon to audit the further accounts of the Assignees of the estate and effects of the said Bankrupt, under the said Fiat, pursuant to an Act of Parliament made and passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty, King George the Fourth, entitled “An Act to amend the Laws relating to Bankrupts”, and the said Commissioners also intend to meet at the same place, on the same day, at one o'clock in the afternoon in order to make a Dividend of the estate and effects of the said Bankrupt, when and where the creditors who have not already proved their debts are to come prepared to prove the same, or they will be excluded from the benefit of the said Dividend, and all claims not then proved will be disallowed.

John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees.

 

Dover Telegraph 26 March 1836.

Advertisement: Payne's Bankruptcy. The creditors who have proved their debts under a Fiat of Bankruptcy issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, dealer and chapman, may receive a first and final dividend of one shilling and seven pence halfpenny in the pound on their respective debts by applying at my office in Seagate Street, Folkestone, any day between the hours of ten and two.

John James Bond, Solicitor to the Assignees.

Folkestone, 21st March, 1836.

 

Dover Chronicle 1 September 1838.

On Tuesday evening, the 14th of August, a deal box arrived at Folkestone by the “Times”, London and Folkestone coach, addressed, in a man’s hand, “Mr. Spain, Church Street. Folkestone, Kent,” which on being opened was found to contain the dead body of a very fine male infant. An inquest was held on the following day, before J. J. Bond, Esq. coroner, Mr. George John Dunk, foreman, and a respectable jury, when the following evidence was adduced:

William Spain, carpenter, being sworn, said: Last night, about seven or eight o’clock, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to my house, and said to me “I have got a box, and I think it belongs to you”, and he then left a box, which is now before the jury. The box was corded and nailed down, and there was a card on it, with the following words: “Mr. Spain, Church Street, Folkestone, Kent.” I do not live in Church Street, but in Rendezvous Street. I told John Hambrook I did not expect a parcel, and that I thought the box was for Henry Pain, in Church Street; upon which he answered that he had carried it there, and Mr. Henry Pain would not take it in. I then some short time after unpacked the box, and the first thing I found in it was some white paper shavings. On removing the shavings there was a piece of brown paper with sixpence in it; and near it was a piece of white paper with some writing on it, which I now produce, with a piece of whitey-brown paper, and half-a-crown wrapped up in it. I then removed a piece of flannel, and on doing so discovered another piece of flannel with a child wrapped up in it, upon which 1 immediately went to Mr. Bateman, surgeon, and informed him of the circumstance. Mr. Bateman then came and examined the child, and told me I had better go to Mr. Bond and acquaint him of it. I then went to Mr. Bond and told him all the case; that was about ten minutes past nine.

John Bateman, surgeon, being sworn, said: Between eight and nine o'clock last night, the last witness came to me, and in consequence of something which he told me 1 went with him to his house, and he showed me the box now produced before the jury, and which I found to contain the body of a male child. The child appeared to me to have been born three or four days. It was wrapped up in flannel, and had on a cap and a small bed-gown. I had the body stripped and minutely examined every part of it, but found no marks of violence. From the appearances of the body I am of opinion that the mother had gone her full time, and that the child was born alive. It appeared evident also that the mother had not been delivered by a midwife, as the precaution of tying the umbilical cord had not been taken, in consequence of which the child most probably died from the effects of haemorrhage. That is my decided opinion so far as I could form an opinion from the appearance of the body. When I saw the body it was in such a state of decomposition as to preclude all possibility of dissection.

Henry Pain, parish clerk and sexton, being sworn, said: At nearly seven o'clock yesterday evening, John Hambrook, the younger, who carries out the parcels from the London and Folkestone coach, came to me at my house in Church Street and said he had brought a box for me. He then showed me a box, which is the same now produced before the jury. I looked at the direction on the box, and I then told him that that was not my name. Hamhrook then took the box away, and I have not seen it since until now. The box when brought to me had some cord about it, and appeared to be nailed down.

John Hambrook the younger, was called by the constable three times at the door of the court, but did not answer; consequently, and to enable the coroner to correspond with the commissioners of Metropolitan Police on the subject, the inquest was adjourned to Monday the 20th of August, at five o'clock in the evening, on which day the jury again assembled, and the coroner read to them a communication he had received from the commissioners of police, by which it appeared that the box in question had been booked in the evening of Monday the 13th of August, at the Golden Cross. Charing Cross, but no trace of the party who took it to the booking office could be obtained.

John Hambrook was again called three times at the door of the court but did not appear, and consequently the inquest was again adjourned to Saturday the 25th of August, at six o’clock in the evening.

It subsequently appeared - by the confession of Mr. Coulter, of the Rose Inn, the coach proprietor, resident at Folkestone - that be had given positive directions to his servants not to attend upon the coroner without a written summons.

On Saturday evening, the 25th of August, the jury again assembled, when the coroner having taken the precaution to send a written summons to the coach porter and coachman, they both attended and gave evidence as follows:

John Major Hambrook, coach porter, being sworn, said: On the 14th of August, at about six o'clock in the evening, I left a box at Mr. Spain’s house, who is a carpenter, and lives in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. Mr. Spain said he thought it did not belong to him, but notwithstanding, he took it in. The box I left at Mr. Spain's was much the same sort of box as that now produced, but I cannot swear it is the same. I had previously taken the box to Mr. Pain, the clerk, who lives in Church Street, Folkestone, but he would not take it in. The witness, being asked if the above is all that he knows respecting the death of the male child aforementioned, answered “It is”.

Richard Wallis, coachman, being sworn, said: I drove the “Times” coach from London to Folkestone on the 14th of August, and I remember that a box—very much resembling the box now produced—was brought down by the coach to Folkestone on that day. The box was booked at the branch office belonging to the “Times” coach, called the Golden Cross, Charing Cross, and was brought to me by the branch coach to the King’s Arms, in the Kent Road. The “Times” coach starts from the Blossom’s Inn, Lawrence Lane, Cheapside.

The Coroner then read over the whole of the evidence to the jury and commented thereon, when the jury - after retiring to confer for about half-an-hour, returned a unanimous verdict “that the deceased had been wilfully murdered by some person or persons unknown”.

 

Dover Telegraph 8 March 1834.

Advertisement: The creditors who have proved their debts under a Fiat in bankruptcy awarded and issued against Thomas Payne, late of the town of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Innkeeper, Dealer, and Chapman, are requested to meet the Assignees of the Estate and effects of the said Bankrupt, on Saturday, the twenty-ninth day of March instant, at twelve o'clock, at noon, precisely, at the offices of Mr. Bond, Solicitor, Seagate Street, Folkestone, to assent to or dissent from the Assignees presenting or commencing actions, suits, or other proceedings at Law, or in equity, against certain debtors to the said Bankrupt's estate, a schedule of whose debts will be submitted to the Creditors at such meeting. Also to take into consideration and to assent to or dissent from the said Assignees continuing, or discontinuing the defence of, or compromising on such terms as the said Assignees shall think advisable, a certain suit in Chancery which has been commenced against the said assignees and the said Bankrupt, and others, by William and June Edwards, infants, (by Mr. Edward Watts, their next friend), respecting a certain sum of money, part of the property of the said Bankrupt, now in the hands of Mr. William Humphrey Bodman, of Maidstone. Also to assent to, or dissent from, the said Assignees compounding, submitting to arbitration, or otherwise agreeing to and settling all or any of the several matters and things aforesaid. Also to assent to, or dissent from, the said Assignees taking such proceedings as they shall think proper in His Majesty's Court of Review to disable one of the Solicitors for the said Plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit in Chancery, and who is also one of the Commissioners named in the said Fiat, from sitting and acting as a Commissioner under the said Fiat during such time as the said suit shall be pending. Also to assent to, or dissent from, the said Assignees paying certain expenses of a Counsel's Opinion, which they have found it necessary to take on certain matters connected with the affairs of the said Bankrupt, and other extraordinary expenses incurred, and to be incurred by them, in relation to the said bankrupt's affairs previous and subsequent to the appointment of the said Assignees, not exceeding an amount to be named at such Meeting. And on other Special Affairs.

Note: Rose Hotel.

 

Dover Chronicle 31 January 1835.

Death: January 20th, the infant child of Mr. J. Coulter, of the Rose Inn, Folkestone.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 4 September 1838.

FOLKESTONE. Revolting case of child murder and concealment.

On Tuesday evening, the 14th of August, a deal box arrived at Folkestone by the "Times," London and Folkestone coach, addressed, in a man’s hand, "Mr. Spain, Church Street. Folkestone, Kent," which on being opened was found to contain the dead body of a very fine male infant. An inquest was held on the following day, before J. J. Bond, esq. coroner, Mr. George John Dunk, foreman, and a respectable jury, when the following evidence was taken, viz:—

William Spain, carpenter, being sworn, saith as follows:— Last night, about seven or eight o'clock, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to my house, and said to me "I have got a box, and I think it belongs to you," and he then left a box, which is now before the jury. The box was corded and nailed down, and there was a card on it, with the following words written upon the card:— "Mr. Spain, Church-street, Folkestone, Kent." I do not live in Church-street, but in Rendezvous-street, Folkestone. I told John Hambrook I did not expect a parcel, and that I thought the box was for Henry Pain, in Church-street: upon which he answered that he had carried it there, and Mr. Henry Pain would not take it in.

I then some short time after unpacked the box, and the first thing I found in it was some white paper shavings. On removing the shavings there was a piece of brown paper with sixpence in it; and near it was a piece of white paper with some writing on it, which I now produce, with a piece of whity-brown paper, and half-a-crown wrapped up in it. I then removed a piece of flannel, and on doing so discovered another piece of flannel with a child wrapped up in it, upon which I immediately went to Mr. Bateman, surgeon, and informed him of the circumstance. Mr. Bateman then came and examined the child, and told me I had better go to Mr. Bond and acquaint him of it. I then went to Mr. Bond and told him all the case, and that was about ten minutes past nine.

John Bateman, surgeon, being sworn, saith as follows:— Between eight and nine o'clock last night, the last witness came to me, and in consequence of something which he told me I went with him to his house, and he showed me the box now produced before the jury, and which I found to contain the body of a male child. The child appeared to me to have been born three or four days. It was wrapped up in flannel, and had on a cap and a small bed-gown. I had the body stripped and minutely examined every part of it, but found no marks of violence. From the appearances of the body I am of opinion that the mother had gone her full time, and that the child was born alive. It appeared evident also that the mother had not been delivered by a midwife, as the precaution of tying the umbilical cord had not been taken. In consequence of the umbilical cord nor having been properly secured, the child most probably died from the effects of haemorrhage. That is my decided opinion so far as I could form an opinion from the appearances of the body. When I saw the body it was in such a state of decomposition as to preclude all possibility of dissection.

Henry Pain, parish clerk and sexton, being sworn, saith:— At nearly seven o’clock last evening, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out the parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to me at my house in Church-street and said he had brought a box for me. He then showed me a box, which is the same box as is now produced before the jury. I looked at the direction on the box, and I then told him that that was not my name. Hambrook then took the box away, and I have not seen it since until now. The box when brought to me had some cord about it, and appeared to be nailed down.

John Hambrook the younger, was called by the constable three times at the door of the court, but did not answer, consequently, and to enable the coroner to correspond with the commissioners of metropolitan police on the subject, the inquest was adjourned to Monday the 20th of August, at five o'clock in the evening, on which day the jury again assembled, and the coroner read to them a communication he had received from the commissioners of police, by which it appeared that the box in question had been booked in the evening of Monday the 13th of August, at the "Golden Cross," Charing Cross, but no trace of the party who took it to the booking office could be obtained.

John Hambrook was again called three times at the door of the court but did not appear, and consequently the inquest was again adjourned to Saturday the 25th of August, at six o’clock in the evening.

It subsequently appeared—by the confession of Mr. Coulter, of the "Rose Inn," the coach proprietor, resident at Folkestone—that he had given positive directions to his servants not to attend upon the coroner without a written summons.

On Saturday evening, the 25th of August, the jury again assembled, when the coroner having taken the precaution to send a written summons to the coach porter and coachman, they both attended and gave evidence as follows, viz:-

John Major Hambrook, coach porter, being sworn, saith:— On the 14th of August, at about six o'clock in the evening, I left a box at Mr. Spain’s house, a carpenter, who lives in Rendezvous-street, Folkestone. Mr. Spain said he thought it did not belong to him, but notwithstanding he took it in. The box I left at Mr. Spain's was much the same sort of box as that now produced, but I cannot swear it is the same box. I had previously taken the box to Mr. Pain, the clerk, who lives in Church-street, but be denied taking of it in. The witness being asked if the above is all that he knows respecting the death of the male child aforesaid, answers "It is."

Richard Wallis, coachman, being sworn, saith:— I drove the "Times" coach from London to Folkestone on the 14th of August, and I remember that a box—very much resembling the box now produced—was brought down by the coach to Folkestone on that day. The box was booked at the branch office belonging to the "Times" coach, called the "Golden Cross," Charing Cross, and was brought to me by the branch coach to the "King’s Arms," in the Kent Road. The "Times" coach starts from the "Blossom’s Inn," Lawrence Lane, Cheapside.

The Coroner then read over the whole of the evidence to the jury and commented thereon, when the jury—after retiring to confer for about half-an-hour, returned a unanimous verdict "that the deceased had been wilfully murdered by some person or persons unknown."

 

Maidstone Journal 11 September 1838.

On Tuesday evening, the 14th of August, a deal box arrived at Folkestone by the “Times”, London and Folkestone coach, addressed, in a man’s hand, “Mr. Spain, Church Street. Folkestone, Kent,” which on being opened was found to contain the dead body of a very fine male infant. An inquest was held on the following day, before J. J. Bond, Esq. coroner, Mr. George John Dunk, foreman, and a respectable jury, when the following evidence was taken, viz :

William Spain, carpenter, being sworn, saith as follows: Last night, about seven or eight o’clock, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to my house, and said to me “1 have got a box, and I think it belongs to you”, and he then left a box, which is now before the jury. The box was corded and nailed down, and there was a card on it, with the following words written upon the card—“Mr. Spain, Church Street, Folkestone, Kent.” I do not live in Church Street, but in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. I told John Hambrook I did not expect a parcel, and that I thought the box was for Henry Pain, in Church Street; upon which he answered that he had carried it there, and Mr. Henry Pain would not take it in. I then some short time after unpacked the box, and the first thing I found in it was some white paper shavings. On removing the shavings there was a piece of brown paper with sixpence in it; and near it was a piece of white paper with some writing on it, which I now produce, with a piece of whitey-brown paper, and half-a-crown wrapped up in it. I then removed a piece of flannel, and on doing so discovered another piece of flannel with a child wrapped up in it, upon which 1 immediately went to Mr. Bateman, surgeon, and informed him of the circumstance. Mr. Bateman then came and examined the child, and told me I had better go to Mr. Bond and acquaint him of it. I then went to Mr. Bond and told him all the case, and that was about ten minutes past nine.

John Bateman, surgeon, being sworn, saith as follows: Between eight and nine o'clock last night, the last witness came to me, and in consequence of something which he told me 1 went with him to his house, and he showed me the box now produced before the jury, and which I found to contain the body of a male child. The child appeared to me to have been born three or four days. It was wrapped up in flannel, and had on a cap and a small bed-gown. I had the body stripped and minutely examined every part of it, but found no marks of violence. From the appearances of the body I am of opinion that the mother had gone her full time, and that the child was born alive. It appeared evident also that the mother had not been delivered by a midwife, as the precaution of tying the umbilical cord had not been taken. In consequence of the umbilical cord not having been properly secured, the child most probably died from the effects of haemorrhage. That is my decided opinion so far as I could form an opinion from the appearances of the body. When I saw the body it was in such a state of decomposition as to preclude all possibility of dissection.

Henry Pain, parish clerk and sexton, being sworn, saith: At nearly seven o’clock last evening, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out the parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to me at my house in Church Street and said he had brought a box for me. He then showed me a box, which is the same box as is now produced before the jury. I looked at the direction on the box, and I then told him that that was not my name. Hambrook then took the box away, and I have not seen it since until now. The box when brought to me had some cord about it, and appeared to be nailed down.

John Hambrook the younger, was called by the constable three times at the door of the court, but did not answer, consequently, and to enable the coroner to correspond with the commissioners of Metropolitan Police on the subject, the inquest was adjourned to Monday the 20th of August, at five o'clock in the evening, on which day the jury again assembled, and the coroner read to them a communication he had received from the commissioners of police, by which it appeared that the box in question had been booked in the evening of Monday the 13th of August, at the Golden Cross. Charing Cross, but no trace of the party who took it to the booking office could be obtained.

John Hambrook was again called three times at the door of the court but did not appear, and consequently the inquest was again adjourned to Saturday the 25th of August, at six o’clock in the evening.

It subsequently appeared - by the confession of Mr. Coulter, of the "Rose Inn," the coach proprietor, resident at Folkestone - that be had given positive directions to his servants not to attend upon the coroner without a written summons.

On Saturday evening, the 25th of August, the jury again assembled, when the coroner having taken the precaution to send a written summons to the coach porter and coachman, they both attended and gave evidence as follows, viz :

John Major Hambrook, coach porter, being sworn, saith: On the 14th of August, at about six o'clock in the evening, I left a box at Mr. Spain’s house, a carpenter, who lives in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. Mr. Spain said he thought it did not belong to him, but notwithstanding he took it in. The box I left at Mr. Spain's was much lhe same sort of box as that now produced, but I cannot swear it is the same box. I had previously taken the box to Mr. Pain, the clerk, who lives in Church Street, but he denied taking of it in. The witness, being asked if the above is all that he knows respecting the death of the male child aforesaid, answers “It is”.

Richard Wallis, coachman, being sworn, saith: I drove the “Times” coach from London to Folkestone on the 14th of August, and I remember that a box—very much resembling the box now produced—was brought down by the coach to Folkestone on that day. The box was booked at the branch office belonging to the “Times” coach, called the Golden Cross, Charing Cross, and was brought to me by the branch coach to the King’s Arms, in the Kent Road. The “Times” coach starts from the Blossom’s Inn, Lawrence Lane, Cheapside.

The Coroner then read over the whole of the evidence to the jury and commented thereon, when the jury - after retiring to confer for about half-an-hour, returned a unanimous verdict “that the deceased had been wilfully murdered by some person or persons unknown”.

 

Maidstone Gazette 11 September 1838.

On Tuesday evening, the 14th of August, a deal box arrived at Folkestone by the “Times”, London and Folkestone coach, addressed, in a man’s hand, “Mr. Spain, Church Street. Folkestone, Kent,” which on being opened was found to contain the dead body of a very fine male infant. An inquest was held on the following day, before J. J. Bond, Esq. coroner, Mr. George John Dunk, foreman, and a respectable jury, when the following evidence was taken, viz :

William Spain, carpenter, being sworn, saith as follows: Last night, about seven or eight o’clock, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to my house, and said to me “I have got a box, and I think it belongs to you”, and he then left a box, which is now before the jury. The box was corded and nailed down, and there was a card on it, with the following words written upon the card—“Mr. Spain, Church Street, Folkestone, Kent.” I do not live in Church Street, but in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. I told John Hambrook I did not expect a parcel, and that I thought the box was for Henry Pain, in Church Street; upon which he answered that he had carried it there, and Mr. Henry Pain would not take it in. I then some short time after unpacked the box, and the first thing I found in it was some white paper shavings. On removing the shavings there was a piece of brown paper with sixpence in it; and near it was a piece of white paper with some writing on it, which I now produce, with a piece of whitey-brown paper, and half-a-crown wrapped up in it. I then removed a piece of flannel, and on doing so discovered another piece of flannel with a child wrapped up in it, upon which 1 immediately went to Mr. Bateman, surgeon, and informed him of the circumstance. Mr. Bateman then came and examined the child, and told me I had better go to Mr. Bond and acquaint him of it. I then went to Mr. Bond and told him all the case, and that was about ten minutes past nine.

John Bateman, surgeon, being sworn, saith as follows: Between eight and nine o'clock last night, the last witness came to me, and in consequence of something which he told me 1 went with him to his house, and he showed me the box now produced before the jury, and which I found to contain the body of a male child. The child appeared to me to have been born three or four days. It was wrapped up in flannel, and had on a cap and a small bed-gown. I had the body stripped and minutely examined every part of it, but found no marks of violence. From the appearances of the body I am of opinion that the mother had gone her full time, and that the child was born alive. It appeared evident also that the mother had not been delivered by a midwife, as the precaution of tying the umbilical cord had not been taken. In consequence of the umbilical cord not having been properly secured, the child most probably died from the effects of haemorrhage. That is my decided opinion so far as I could form an opinion from the appearances of the body. When I saw the body it was in such a state of decomposition as to preclude all possibility of dissection.

Henry Pain, parish clerk and sexton, being sworn, saith: At nearly seven o’clock last evening, John Hambrook the younger, who carries out the parcels for the London and Folkestone coach, came to me at my house in Church Street and said he had brought a box for me. He then showed me a box, which is the same box as is now produced before the jury. I looked at the direction on the box, and I then told him that that was not my name. Hambrook then took the box away, and I have not seen it since until now. The box when brought to me had some cord about it, and appeared to be nailed down.

John Hambrook the younger, was called by the constable three times at the door of the court, but did not answer, consequently, and to enable the coroner to correspond with the commissioners of Metropolitan Police on the subject, the inquest was adjourned to Monday the 20th of August, at five o'clock in the evening, on which day the jury again assembled, and the coroner read to them a communication he had received from the commissioners of police, by which it appeared that the box in question had been booked in the evening of Monday the 13th of August, at the "Golden Cross," Charing Cross, but no trace of the party who took it to the booking office could be obtained.

John Hambrook was again called three times at the door of the court but did not appear, and consequently the inquest was again adjourned to Saturday the 25th of August, at six o’clock in the evening.

It subsequently appeared - by the confession of Mr. Coulter, of the "Rose Inn," the coach proprietor, resident at Folkestone - that be had given positive directions to his servants not to attend upon the coroner without a written summons.

On Saturday evening, the 25th of August, the jury again assembled, when the coroner having taken the precaution to send a written summons to the coach porter and coachman, they both attended and gave evidence as follows, viz :

John Major Hambrook, coach porter, being sworn, saith: On the 14th of August, at about six o'clock in the evening, I left a box at Mr. Spain’s house, a carpenter, who lives in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. Mr. Spain said he thought it did not belong to him, but notwithstanding he took it in. The box I left at Mr. Spain's was much the same sort of box as that now produced, but I cannot swear it is the same box. I had previously taken the box to Mr. Pain, the clerk, who lives in Church Street, but he denied taking of it in. The witness, being asked if the above is all that he knows respecting the death of the male child aforesaid, answers “It is”.

Richard Wallis, coachman, being sworn, saith: I drove the “Times” coach from London to Folkestone on the 14th of August, and I remember that a box—very much resembling the box now produced—was brought down by the coach to Folkestone on that day. The box was booked at the branch office belonging to the “Times” coach, called the Golden Cross, Charing Cross, and was brought to me by the branch coach to the King’s Arms, in the Kent Road. The “Times” coach starts from the Blossom’s Inn, Lawrence Lane, Cheapside.

The Coroner then read over the whole of the evidence to the jury and commented thereon, when the jury - after retiring to confer for about half-an-hour, returned a unanimous verdict “that the deceased had been wilfully murdered by some person or persons unknown”.

 

Maidstone Journal 28 May 1839.

We regret to state that a serious accident happened to Mr. George Potter, of Dover, late of this town, on Friday last, when returning to Dover, in a four-wheeled chaise, with Mr. & Mrs. Bridge, of Sutton Valence. On leaving Folkestone the horse set off at full speed down the hill, near the "Rose Inn," and dashed the chaise against the fence, by which the whole party was thrown out and, we are sorry to learn, much hurt, though happily no bones are broken. Mr. and Mrs. Bridge were taken to the "Rose Inn," where they remain. Mr. Potter was able to proceed to Dover.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 25 May, 1839. Price 5d.

ACCIDENT

On Thursday last, as Mr. and Mrs. Bridges, of Sutton near Maidstone, were returning from Sandgate, in a four-wheeled chaise, with Mr. Potter of this town, the horse, after passing the "Rose Inn," Folkestone, suddenly became unmanageable, and started off with great rapidity down the hill towards the tan-yard. In coming on contact with the fence the carriage was overturned, and the party was thrown out with great violence. They were carried to the "Rose Inn," where medical aid was promptly procured, and every attention paid to them by Mr. and Mrs. Coulter. We are happy to find that no material injury was sustained by any of the party, further than a few severe bruises, and that no bones were broken.

 

Kentish Gazette 13 December 1842.

Death: Dec. 9th, at Sandgate, Sarah, wife of Mr. Thomas Payne, formerly of the Rose Inn, Folkestone, and lately of the Coach Office, Sandgate, aged 77.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 21 November 1843.

FOLKESTONE.

Mr. Major, on his re-election to the office of Mayor on the 9th inst. invited the Town Council, and Joseph Baxendale, esq. the chairman of the South Eastern Railway, to a breakfast, a la fourchette, at the Pavilion. The Mayor and Corporation, and a party of gentlemen, afterwards dined together at the "Rose Hotel."

 

Kentish Gazette 9 April 1844.

Deaths.

April 2nd, at Folkestone, Mr. John Coulter, of the Rose Inn, in his 38th year, much respected in his situation, and regretted by a numerous acquaintance: and on April 6, of the same age, Jane, the beloved partner of the above, who sank under the shock, from which no effort could raise her, thus surviving her husband only four days.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 13 April, 1844. Price 5d.

We last week recorded in our obituary the death of Mr. Coulter, of the "Rose Inn," and we this week have the painful task of announcing the sudden demise of Mrs. Coulter, his widow, who was so much effected at her husband's death as to cause her own, which took place on Sunday morning last, at half-past two o'clock. She went off in a fit when the corpse of her husband was removed from the house for internment, and expired the following day.

 

Kentish Gazette 30 April 1844.

The Estate of John Coulter, Deceased:

All persons to whom John Coulter, late of the Rose Inn, Folkestone, was indebted at the time of his decease, are requested to send the particulars of their respective claims to my Office, Bridge Street, Folkestone, in order that they may be examined and discharged. And all persons who were indebted to the said John Coulter are requested forthwith to pay the amount of their respective debts at the same place.

RICHARD HART, Solicitor to the Executors.

Folkestone, 29th April, 1844.

The Estate of Jane Coulter, Deceased:

 

All persons to whom Jane Coulter, late of the Rose Inn, Folkestone was indebted at the time of her decease, are requested to send the particulars of their respective claims to my Office, Bridge Street, Folkestone, in order that they may be examined and discharged ; and all Persons that were indebted to the said Jane Coulter are requested forthwith to pay the amount of their respective debts at the same place.
 

RICHARD HART, Solicitor to the Administratrix.

Folkestone, 29th April, 1844.

To Innkeepers, Coach and Omnibus Proprietors: Rose Hotel, Folkestone.

Horses, Carriages, several sets of harness, 200 quarters corn sacks, and Five Shares in the Folkestone Gas Light and Coke Company, to be sold by auction, by Mr. Thomas Robinson, on Friday, 10th May, 1844, by order of the Trustees under the will of the late Mr. John Coulter:

Comprising two very superior young and active horses, two omnibuses, one four-wheel van, very superior Stanhope, with patent axles; two very neat and elegant light carts, several sets of coach and other harnesses, 200 quarters of corn sacks, sack-barrow, beer dray, water cart, with barrel and trunk complete; garden roller, several puncheons and casks of various sizes, together with a variety of other as well as useful articles.

Also Five shares in the Folkestone Gas and Coke Company.

The Goods may be viewed on the morning of the day of sale, which will commence at Twelve o’clock precisely.

N.B.-The Gas Shares will not be put up for sale until the whole of the other articles are disposed of.

 

South Eastern Gazette, Tuesday 29 July 1845.

To Travellers via Folkestone. "Rose Inn," Folkestone.

W. Vigor begs respectfully to inform Passengers too and from the Continent, by this point, and visitors to the sea side, but they can be comfortably accommodated at his house, at very moderate charges, combined with every effort to deserve that support which has so long been extended to this establishment.

Superior sleeping and sitting room. Wine and Spirits of first-rate quality.

Good stabling, with lock-up coach-house. Saddle horses, gigs, flies, &c., on the shortest Notice. Coaches to Sandgate, Hythe, &c.

An omnibus runs between the "Rose Inn" and the Folkstone station, on the arrival and departures of every train.

 

South Eastern Gazette, Tuesday 18 February 1851.

Folkestone.

There was six publicans charged by the police with serving beer, &c., contrary to the law.

Mr. R. T. Brockman appeared for the watch committee. Mr. Delasaux of Canterbury for several of the defendants.

William Vigo, "Rose Inn," for a similar offence, was fined 1s. and costs.

 

Southeastern Gazette 8 June 1852.

Letter.

Sir, You will please contradict in your paper of next Tuesday that any such thing as a still was found on my premises.

W. Vigor, Folkestone, June 6th.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 February 1853.

Local News.

On Wednesday last, Mr. R. Medhurst, of the Rose Inn, undertook for a wager to hit with a crossbow a penny piece thrown up five times out of ten. He succeeded in hitting five out of six.

 

Southeastern Gazette 15 August 1854

Local News:

At the petty sessions, the following licence was transferred: The Rose Inn, from Wm. and Richard Medhurst to Richard and Ann Medhurst.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 16 January 1855.

County Court.—This court was held on Thursday, before C. Harwood, Esq.

Medhurst v. Valyer.—This was an action brought by Richard Medhurst, of the Rose Inn, against the well- known omnibus and fly proprietor at Sandgate, for 9, for a horse sold. Defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff having proved the sale without a warranty, and that the defendant had chopped the pony away, payment was ordered to be made.

Shortly afterwards Mr. Valyer entered the court, and told the Judge he had mistaken the time; he had a defence to the action, that the horse was unsound, and that the plaintiff had given his word to him that it was perfectly sound.

His Honour told the defendant that as he had not returned the horse when he found it so, and no written warranty was given, he must pay the money; but if he could prove the warranty, he could bring his action against the plaintiff next court day.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicles, Thursday 22 May, 1856.

CHARGE OF FELONY

Thursday May 22nd:- Before G. Kennicott Esq.

Bernard Osterloh and Heinrich Meberwassen were brought up by police constable Nicholls on suspicion of having stolen a pilot cloth overcoat from the "Rose Inn," the property of W. Gilbert, a farmer, of Capel. The prisoners were discharged, no person appearing to prosecute.

 

Folkestone Observer 22 June 1861.

Assaulting the police.

Wednesday June 19th:- Before the Mayor and W.F. Browell esqs.

Thomas Byrne, Private in the 18th Royal Irish, now at the Camp, was charged with assaulting P.C. Swain, while in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Swain was on duty near the Rose Inn, Rendezvous Street, on Saturday night, about half past twelve o'clock, when three soldiers came up from the direction of Grace Hill, and passed him. When they arrived at Mr. Hills, baker, they stopped about two minutes and then all returned. When prisoner was about four feet from him he jumped at witness, with both fists clenched. Guarding the blow with his left hand, he knocked prisoner down with his right. Prisoner got up and renewed the attack, holding his belt clenched in his right hand, and struck witness with it on the chest, cutting off the top button of his coat. He had, while on the ground, called to his comrades to loose their belts, and give it to the b--- in lengths, but they ran off, and prisoner also escaped. The assault took place close under the lamp, which was lit at the time. Witness yesterday picked out the prisoner on parade.

The magistrates convicted the prisoner and sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 10 May, 1862.

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER

Wednesday May 7th:-

William Mann, a private soldier of the 10th Regiment, was brought up, charged with an attempt to commit murder.

Thomas Newman, sworn, deposed he was Police sergeant for the borough, and had charge of the night watch. About a quarter past 12 this morning he saw prisoner standing outside the "Rose Inn;" he had a rifle in his hand; prisoner made some observation which witness did not understand. In reply to P.C. Ovenden, witness thought he was on picket, and Ovenden asked him if he had been an escort. Witness and Ovenden stood for about two minutes near the prisoner, when he suddenly advanced, and gave witness the rifle, telling him it was loaded, and said “I am your prisoner. It was a good job I did not meet him”. The rifle was loaded. Prisoner was then taken to the station, and there searched, when several rounds of ball cartridge was found on him, as well as percussion caps loose in his pouch.

Daniel Kearney being sworn, deposed he was Colour Sergeant in the 10th Foot. The prisoner belongs to the same Regiment. The rifle and accoutrements produced belong to the prisoner. He was in Camp at tattoo last night; he was reported absent this morning. Prisoner had no business away from the Camp; he had no right to take the ammunition away from the Camp; had not heard of his having quarrelled with anyone; he was a sergeant in the Army Hospital Corps, but was reduced to the ranks; he generally bears a good character.

Remanded to Friday at 10 a.m.

 

Folkestone Observer 10 May 1862.

Intent To Commit Murder.

Wednesday 7th May:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith esqs.

William Mann, a private in the 1st Battalion, 10th Regiment, lying at Shorncliffe was brought up under the following circumstances:-

Thomas Newman, police sergeant, having charge of the night watch, about quarter past 12 o'clock in the morning saw the prisoner standing opposite the Rose Inn, in Rendezvous Street. The prisoner had a rifle in his hand, he made some observation which witness did not understand in reply to an observation made by police constable Ovenden, and he went across the road and stood under the gas lamp, opposite the door of Mr. Poole's shop. Witness and Ovenden thought he was on picket, and Ovenden asked him if he had been on escort and if his companions were in the town. He said they were not. They stood about two minutes near the prisoner, he looking at them with the rifle in his hand. Then he suddenly advanced towards witness, and handed the rifle to him and said “Take that, I am your prisoner. Mind the gun is loaded and cocked. It is a good job I did not meet him”. When witness lifted the rifle he looked at the muzzle and said “The cap is off”. Witness let the hammer down on the nipple and the prisoner said “I will show you it is loaded”, and he then pulled out the ramrod and put it down the barrel. It did not go by two or three inches to the bottom; witness brought the prisoner to the station. At the station the prisoner pulled out of his coat pocket the number of his regiment which had been taken from his cap, he took from under his coat a military ball bag which contained 9 rounds of ball cartridges all loose, in the pouch which he produced there was a belt containing 10 rounds of ball cartridge, there was also a quantity of loose percussion caps in another small pouch – these he carried on his cross-belt which was under his greatcoat. Ovenden asked him a question about his being over here, and he declined to answer it, being as he said in custody.

Danial Kearney deposed, that he was colour sergeant of No. 10 Company of the 10th Regiment of Foot and knew the prisoner, who belonged to the 10th Regiment. The military accoutrements and the rifle produced belonged to the prisoner. He was in camp at Shorncliffe the night before at tattoo (9 o'clock). That morning he was reported absent. The prisoner had no business away from the camp. Every soldier is supplied with 20 rounds of ball cartridges and 30 caps, but the prisoner had no right whatever to take the ammunition away from the camp. Witness had not heard of his having had any quarrel with any comrade or officer at the camp. He was sergeant in the Army Hospital Corps, but was reduced to the ranks. He generally bears a good character in the regiment.

The prisoner was remanded to Friday, on which day he was again brought up, and was handed over to the military authorities.

 

Folkestone Observer 1 July 1865.

Wednesday June 28th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., Captain Leith R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

Henry Stone was charged with being drunk and assaulting P.C. Reynolds on the 28th instant.

Police constable Reynolds (8) said this morning at a quarter before three o'clock he was on duty at the bottom of High Street, when the prisoner, who was drunk, came up to him and asked whether he had seen a man go up the street. He told prisoner that Charles Wapshaw had just gone up the street home, and it was time he had gone home. The prisoner asked him why the b---- h---- he did not tell him before when he asked him a civil question. Witness told him to go home and not abuse him, when prisoner said “I know you want me. Why don't you lock me up?”. Prisoner refused to go home, and he took him into custody when, on coming up High Street, prisoner turned and kicked him on the thumb and sprained it. When near the Rose Hotel he had a scuffle with the prisoner, and both fell to the ground. Witness said the prisoner had often met him in the street and abused him.

Prisoner said it was no use his saying anything, and complained that the constable had ill-used him, and hit him on the nose in the cell.

The constable denied this, but said he had to use force to get prisoner into the cell.

The magistrates fined prisoner 5s. and allowed him a week to pay the money, in default seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 September 1867.

Friday September 20th: Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and S. Eastes Esqs.

This was a case for infringement of the Mayor's Orders by allowing a dog to be “at large” between 24th August and 28th September inst.

Richard Medhurst: Mr. Minter appeared for defendant, and asked for a copy of the smaller notice issued by the Town Clerk, which he was told had been equally circulated with the one signed by the Mayor.

P.C. Woodland, being sworn, said: On Saturday, about 12, I was on duty in Rendezvous Street, and saw defendant's dog. Didn't see any string round the dog's neck; won't swear the dog belongs to defendant. Mr. Medhurst and his mother are both tenants of the Rose Hotel. Have often seen the dog in the yard, and following other people about.

Mr. Minter said the case must break down, because it had not been proved that the dog belongs to defendant. He pointed out the improper method of conducting these cases. Persons ought to be told at the time of offending before being summonsed. Defendant can also prove that his dog has been kept tied up.

Case dismissed.

Mr. Minter then applied for costs, but they were not allowed.

 

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.

Local News.

We hear that extensive alterations and additions are about to be made at the Rose Hotel. A new coffee room, commercial room, and private bar will be built in the present yard, with the addition of another storey over the whole of the building. This, in addition to providing the accommodation which has long been required, will make the building much more imposing in appearance. The contractor is Mr. Webster, and the architect Mr. Reginald Pope.

 

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 Chronicle 20 June 1885.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Thursday evening, before J.J. Minter Esq., coroner, and a jury, on the body of Henry Read, a commercial traveller, who came to his death under the following sad circumstances.

Mr. Ralph, landlord of the Rose Hotel, sworn, said: I recognise the body of deceased, which the jury have just viewed, as that of a commercial traveller named Read, well known to me for three or four years, deceased having regularly stayed at my house during that time. I believe he came to my hotel last on Wednesday fortnight, and has been staying there ever since until today. In answer to a letter I wrote to his employer, Mr. Taylor, of Wood Street, London, that gentleman came down on Wednesday morning last to enquire after him. His employer wrote to tell me that deceased had been very queer of late, which Mr. Taylor reiterated when he came. They went together into his bedroom. The deceased was not there, and his employer recommended the removal of some razors, as he thought he would do himself some injury. In the evening, when deceased came home, I recommended him to go to London. He said he would, and I offered to lend him money, which deceased said he did not require. About 1 o'clock next day I went to his bedroom. He was in bed. I said “You have not gone by the train”. “No”, he answered, “I will go by the one o'clock train”. I said “There is one at two o'clock”, and asked him if he would have any breakfast. Deceased said “No”, and that he had not eaten anything for three or four days. About two o'clock I sent the boots to his bedroom, but deceased was not there. I then went into the bedroom, and found deceased in his nightshirt, lying on his face between the bed and the wall, on the floor, and blood on his body. I then sent for the doctor. I knew deceased had a revolver, which he showed me. I know it had five chambers, and believe the one produced is the same. He told me he had been shooting small birds with it. He was always a peculiar man, and I did not see anything unusually peculiar excepting that I thought him a little more depressed than usual.

John Worsley, boots at the Rose, stated that at a quarter to eleven Thursday morning he took a letter to the deceased in his bedroom, which was addressed to him. Deceased opened the door, and witness gave him the letter. He went up again about ten minutes to two bu the direction of his master. He looked into the room, and not seeing deceased in bed he thought that he had gone out, and told his master. He returned to the bedroom of deceased, and found him lying on his face on the floor, and a pistol near his feet. He saw blood on his shirt, and immediately called Mr. Ralph.

Superintendent Taylor deposed to visiting the Rose Hotel, having been sent for, and described finding the body of deceased in the position described by the other witnesses. He found a mark in the wall, such as would be produced by a bullet, and on the floor between the wall and the feet of deceased he found the bullet now produced, and which fitted the cylinder of the revolver, and has on the point of it some mortar, apparently contracted from the indentation on the wall.

Dr. Perry's evidence went to prove that deceased's death was caused by a bullet shot through the heart and the haemorrhage which followed.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst in a state of temporary insanity”.

 

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 News 20 June 1885.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Thursday evening by the Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) respecting the death of Henry Reid, of Brixton, who had shot himself at the Rose Hotel the same afternoon.

Frederick Ralph, landlord of the Rose Hotel, said: I identify the body as that of Henry Reid, a commercial traveller. I have known deceased for three or four years, and he has been in the habit of regularly staying at my house. Deceased came to my place last Wednesday fortnight, I believe, and has been staying there until today. Yesterday his employer came down to enquire after him. I had received a letter from his employer, Mr. Taylor (of the firm of Taylor Bros., Wood Street, Cheapside, London) asking whether deceased was still at my house, and whether he had any samples with him? He also stated that deceased had been rather curious in his manner for some time past, and asked me to remove any razor which might be found in his bedroom. Mr. Taylor reiterated his statement about deceased's manner when he came yesterday, and together we went to deceased's bedroom, where we saw a razor. In reply to Mr. Taylor I said I did not see much use in removing the razor, as he had a loaded revolver with him. Deceased had shown it to me a week before. Deceased was not at home, and Mr. Taylor left in the evening. On deceased's return I told him of the visit of his employer, and asked him to go to London, which he promised to do next day. I asked him whether he wanted any money to go to London with, and he said “No”. I did not see him again until this afternoon. I heard he had not gone by the 9 o'clock train, and so I went to his bedroom and found him still in bed. I said “Well, you have not gone by the 9 o'clock train?”, and he said “No, I am going by the 1 o'clock train”. I said “There is one at two o'clock” and I then asked him to come down to breakfast. He said he could eat nothing, and had eaten nothing for three or four days. I said “I will order the 'bus for you” and left him. I did not see him again alive. At two o'clock I asked the boots, John Worsley, if deceased had gone, and he said “No”. I sent him upstairs, and he returned saying deceased had left the room. Worsley then went back again, and then found the body of the deceased lying there. No-one heard the report of the pistol. Deceased had only his nightshirt on, and was lying on the floor between the bed and the wall. He was lying on his face. There was blood on the floor and also on his shirt. I did not touch him. He appeared to be dead. I did not see the pistol. I then left and went for Dr. Perry. I identify the revolver produced as that which the deceased showed to me. He said he had been shooting small birds. I had not noticed anything peculiar about deceased. He was always somewhat peculiar, and he certainly did seem somewhat depressed this time. I believe deceased had left his firm before he came to my house.

John Worsley, boots at the Rose, said: At a quarter to 11 this morning I took a letter to deceased which had come addressed to him. He opened the door of his bedroom and I gave him the letter. He gave me a pair of boots to clean. At ten minutes to two I went up again at the direction of my master. I opened the door and looked in. I did not see him and so thought he had gone out. This I told to Mr. Ralph. I returned again to his bedroom and then found deceased, lying on his face by the side of his bed. I saw a pistol lying at his feet. I also saw blood on his shirt. I immediately called Mr. Ralph.

Supt. Taylor said: Shortly after two o'clock today I was called by Mr. Ralph to the Rose Hotel and went to No. 30 bedroom, where deceased is now lying. I there saw the body of deceased lying on the floor between the bed and the fireplace. He was lying on his face with his left arm under his body. At his feet lay the pistol which I now produce, and which is a five-chambered revolver. It contained two full cartridges and two cases, one of which had been recently fired. In a line behind deceased, about 3 ft. from the floor, I found a mark in the wall – a mark such as would be produced by a bullet – and I found the bullet which I now produce, which fits the pistol and has on the point of it some mortar apparently from the wall.

In reply to a juryman the Coroner said the letter received that morning by deceased was from his mother, asking him why he had not been to see her and telling him to confide in his employer.

Dr. C.E. Perry said: Shortly after two o'clock this afternoon I was called to the Rose Hotel. I went at once, and upstairs in room No. 33 I saw deceased in the position described by the previous witnesses. I turned the body over, and underneath found a large pool of blood in which the nightshirt was saturated. On examining the deceased's chest I saw a hole about two inches internal to the left nipple between the fourth and fifth ribs. On the back I found another opening between the fifth and sixth ribs. The conclusion I came to was that it was quite certain the bullet had passed through the heart, and so caused deceased's death. The act, I am of opinion, was committed by deceased himself.

Superintendent Taylor, re-called, said: After Dr. Perry had left I made a further examination of deceased's nightshirt, and on the left breast I found a large jagged hole, the edges of which were charred by close contact with the pistol when it was fired.

Mr. Ralph, re-called, said deceased's employer told him that deceased was wrong in his accounts. He said he had come down to see him because his mother was in much trouble at his being away.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst in a state of temporary insanity”.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 June 1885.

Inquest.

On Thursday evening an inquest was held at the Town Hall on the body of Henry Read, a commercial traveller staying at the Rose Hotel. Deceased had been staying at the hotel about a fortnight. When the boots went into his bedroom on Thursday he found deceased lying in a pool of blood, shot through the heart, and a revolver at his feet. Dr. Perry proved that he had a bullet wound in the breast and back. A verdict of “Temporary insanity” 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 Chronicle 8 December 1888.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Major Poole, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W. Wightwick and J. Brooke Esqs.

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

Herbert Brown, watchmaker, of George Lane, said he knew the prisoner. He first came to his shop on the 12th of October. He brought the bowl of a silver table spoon and asked witness to buy it. He said it was picked out from the town refuse. Witness gave him the market value, but was not quite certain whether it was 2s. or 2s. 3d. The trade allowance to witness would be 2s. 6d. an ounce. He came to witness's shop about a fortnight afterwards with another bowl of a spoon. It was silver, and between the size of a tea and a tablespoon. Witness did not ask him any questions about it, but bought it. Did not know how much he gave for it. The prisoner had been to him on three occasions since, and on each occasion brought the top of a silver spoon. Witness gave him 6d. each for them, but that was considerably below the value. Witness had broken up one handle for use in his business, and one bowl he had exchanged to a traveller for the value of goods supplied. The reason why he offered him a price so much below the value was because he wanted to get rid of him. He had some slight suspicions. It was nearly a fortnight ago when the prisoner called last, and witness questioned him again as to where he got the handles from. He again stated that he got them from the town refuse.

Mr. Hall, watchmaker, of 111, Dover Street, said he knew the prisoner. He first came to witness's shop about six months ago. In the first week of November he brought the bowl of a silver tablespoon, which he asked witness to buy. It weighed a trifle over an ounce, and witness gave him 3s. for it. Did not ask him where he got it from. About four or five days afterwards he brought the handle of a silver tablespoon. It had the letter “S” marked on it. Witness gave him 1s. for that, but he made no statement about it. He paid a third visit a few days after that, and brought another handle of a silver tablespoon, for which witness gave him 1s., without asking any questions. He came on another occasion with a silver teaspoon. It was broken in two parts. Witness could not remember what he gave for that. It was either marked with a letter “S” or a letter “B”. On his fifth visit he brought another bowl of a silver tablespoon. Witness gave him 2s. 8d. for it. It did not weigh quite an ounce. He did not make any statement about it. Witness bought another top of a tablespoon a few days afterwards. It was marked similar to the spoons produced. Witness did not keep any book, nor did witness ask the prisoner any questions concerning the spoons. Had bought things of prisoner before, and he had then stated that he had found the things amongst the town refuse. Witness therefore thought he had found the spoons.

Mr. Ralph, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, said prisoner was the luggage porter, and was engaged by commercial travellers using witness's house. He had been in that capacity about six or eight months. He had access to witness's house as a luggage porter, and the visitors had employed him to wash up knives and forks in the scullery. Witness had seen him in the scullery washing up. Early in October witness missed two silver dessert spoons, two silver soup ladles, four silver teaspoons and one silver egg spoon. The pieces produced were portions of witness's property. The value of the missing articles was 3 8s.

Supt. Taylor deposed that he apprehended the prisoner yesterday. He said “I shall arrest you for stealing a quantity of silver plate from the Rose Hotel”. Prisoner replied “It's a mistake”. Witness read the charge to him at the police station, when he replied “It's false”.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty. He had a wife and family, and, being pressed for money, was tempted to steal. He pleaded for leniency.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to three months' hard labour, the chairman remarking that had there been no receiver there would not have been any stealer, and severely censured the silversmith for receiving the goods.

 

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 Chronicle 15 February 1890.

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

Charles Standen, a youth, was charged with stealing two gold watches, one gold ring, one silver scent box and two purses, the property of Bertha Maud Remnant, valued at 7 10s., at the Rose Hotel, on Friday.

Bertha Maud Remnant said she was staying with her brother-in-law (Mr. Ralph) at the Rose Hotel. She kept a jewel case in a box in her bedroom on the second floor in the hotel. The case contained two gold watches, a gold ring, a silver scent box, and a variety of other small articles. She last saw the case on the 2nd of February. She missed them about four o'clock on Friday, and also missed a purse from the trunk where the jewel case was kept. The case had been forced and the lock broken. The prisoner was employed at the hotel as billiard marker, and assisted in the kitchen.

Mr. Frederick Ralph, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, stated that the prisoner had been in his employ as billiard marker about five or six months. On the morning of the 8th inst., from information he received, he sent for Superintendent Taylor about midday. He came to the hotel, and witness sent for the prisoner. He came into the private room where witness and the Superintendent were. Witness told him several things had been missed, and asked him if he knew anything about them. He said he knew nothing about them. The Superintendent cautioned him. Witness had his box searched at his lodgings, on The Bayle, in the presence of Superintendent Taylor. It contained a gold watch, a ring, and a scent box. Mr. Taylor asked him how he came in possession of the articles, but he made no reply. The prisoner had no business to go to the bedroom. He had seen him on that floor once or twice, but he had never cautioned him.

Walter Joseph, an assistant to his father, a pawnbroker, in High Street, said he recognised the prisoner as the man who came to his shop on Friday, for the purpose of pawning the gold watch produced. He said it belonged to his sister, and that he was the son of Professor Davis. He asked a guinea, and he advanced a guinea. He gave the name of John Davis, of 25, Black Bull Road.

Supt. Taylor said he was sent for to go to the Rose Hotel about half past 12 on Saturday. He saw Mr. Ralph in his private room, and the prisoner was sent for. He said “Standen, I'm about to ask you some questions. You need not answer them unless you choose to. There have been several articles stolen from the hotel lately, and you, with others, are suspected”. He said “I don't know anything about it”. Witness said “I suppose you know that two gold watches have been stolen this week”. He said “No, I don't”. Witness said “I understand you have been seen on the second floor. What were you doing there?” He replied “I have never been there except with the waiters to clean the windows”. Witness went to his lodgings to search his box. He opened it, and at the bottom of the box he found the brown purse produced. Witness opened it and took out a gold watch. Asked him how he accounted for being in possession of it. He said “My sister gave me that two years ago”. In the right hand pocket of a waistcoat witness found the duplicate of a pawn ticket for a watch. Witness also found a second purse in the box, containing 1 0s. 3d.

Miss Remnant was again called and swore to the watches as her property. She also identified the purses, the ring, and the scent box as being her property. She valued them at 7 10s.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Ralph said the prisoner had a good character when he came to him.

Supt. Taylor remarked that there had been continual robberies of small articles from the Rose ever since the prisoner had been employed by Mr. Ralph, but it was not until quite recently that suspicion had been directed to him. In searching the box, he might say, he had discovered several other articles which had been stolen from the Rose.

The prisoner was sentenced to three calendar months imprisonment, with 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 February 1890.

Local News.

On Monday the magistrates sentenced a youth named Charles Standen to three months’ hard labour for stealing two gold watches, a gold ring, a silver scent box, and several other articles of jewellery from the Rose Hotel, The jewellery was taken from a bedroom. Standen was employed at the Rose as billiard marker, and during the past few months several robberies have been perpetrated there. Some other missing articles were found in the prisoner’s box.

 

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 Chronicle 2 May 1891.

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

Emile Volberg, a Dutchman, about 20 years of age, was charged with stealing a brown leather bag from the Rose Hotel on Wednesday.

The evidence was translated by Mr. Mather, of the South Eastern Railway.

P.C. Lawrence said about half past ten on Wednesday he saw the prisoner in Dover Street. He was carrying a bag, which he now produced. He asked him where he was going to with the bag, and he replied “To Dover”. Witness asked him what he had in it, and he said “Clothes”. He had seen him previously walking about the lower part of the town. He took him into custody on suspicion of having stolen the bag. He was charged by the Superintendent, but made no reply.

Henry Worsley, boots at the Rose Hotel, said a gentleman named Hobbs stayed at the hotel from time to time. He knew the bag produced; it belonged to Mr. Hobbs. He last saw it between seven and eight on Wednesday evening in the luggage room.

Cobden Hobbs said he was a member of the firm of William Hobbs and Son, paper manufacturers, of Maidstone. He was staying at the Rose Hotel on Wednesday, and left the bag produced in charge of the boots. It was worth 30s., but the contents (paper) was of no value.

Prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, said it was the first offence he had ever committed; he was driven to it through hunger.

Sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour.

 

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 Herald 2 May 1891.

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

Emile Volberg, a Dutchman, was charged with stealing a leather bag, the property of Messrs. Hobbs and Son, valued 30s.

Mr. Mather was sworn interpreter, and P.C. Lawrence said that about half past ten o'clock on Wednesday night he saw prisoner going up Dover Street, with the brown leather bag produced in his hand. He had been seen previously by the constable without any bag.

Henry Worsley, boots at the Rose Hotel, said he knew the bag, which he saw in the luggage room at the hotel, about eight o'clock on Wednesday evening.

Cobden Hobbs, traveller, identified the bag, which he left with the boots at the Rose. The value of the bag was 30s., the contents were paper patterns, and of no value.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he had come from Rotterdam by the steamer Corona, to Dover. The vessel had gone on to America. It was his first offence, and he had been driven to it by hunger.

The Chairman said they considered it a most impudent robbery, but as prisoner appeared to be a foreigner and in want, they decided to give him the lenient sentence of 14 days' imprisonment.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 6 May 1891.

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

Emile Volberg, a Dutchman, or rather a Dutch boy, was charged with stealing a brown leather bag from the Rose Hotel.

Prisoner was seen carrying the bag about by P.C. Lawrence, who, having suspicions, arrested him.

Mr. Cobden Hobbs appeared, and said the bag was his, and Henry Worsley, boots at the Rose, deposed to the bag being left in his charge.

Prisoner was unable to speak a word of English, and the evidence was translated to him by Mr. Mather. The plea was that he stole the bag because he was hungry.

14 days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 January 1892.

Local News.

At the London Sheriff's Court on Thursday, 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. J.T. Savage appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Matthew for the defendant.

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 3 in addition. Soon after the plaintiff went into the 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 very welcome. Dear pet, will be down at your place tomorrow night about half past seven to quarter to eight, 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 a postmark of June 17th, 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 could get no further explanation, and was, therefore, compelled to bring this action.

The plaintiff, a comely young woman, gave evidence to the facts stated by her counsel. She further 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 he intended to take a public house. The engagement lasted about fourteen 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 kitchen maid, which he did not deny.

Defendant said he was twenty seven or twenty eight 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 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, without leaving the box, assessed the damages at 25.

 

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 Herald 30 January 1892.

Week by Week.

Mr. William Bowtell, head waiter at the Rose Hotel, must regret having tried his prentice hand at what he appears to have found the somewhat difficult art of courting. He seems to have become enamoured of the vegetable cook, Miss Bertha Pearce, employed at the same establishment, and so spirited was his wooing that before he had been in his situation very long, he had persuaded the vegetable cook to say “yessir”, and accept an engagement ring. In the course of a few short weeks, however, a change came o'er the spirit of Love's young dream, and he wrote regretting that they had not been able to hit it off lately, but the fact was he was always a bad courting chap, and under the circumstances, he hoped she would give him his liberty and cry off. The jury at the London Sheriff's Court gave the deserved young lady 25 as a balm for her wounded feelings. The case would not have been worth notice except that a fact which came out in the course of it serves to solve the vexed question “What shall we do with our boys?” It was stated that the income of the defendant was 300 a year. Who would go to the expense of having their hopefuls crammed in order to pass examinations for public offices when, by providing them with a white tie and a dress suit, they could be put in the way of realising such a comfortable income? I should, perhaps, in fairness, add that the head waiter denied his receipts were anything like this, but then defendants in breach of promise cases always are badly off – according to their own showing.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 March 1892.

Local News.

At the County Court on Tuesday, before His Honour Judge W.L. Selfe, the judgement summons of “Bertha Pearce v William Bowdell” came on for hearing. The amount claimed was 43 8s. 8d., which was awarded the plaintiff a few weeks ago as damages in her action against the defendant for breach of promise of marriage.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for the defendant. Plaintiff, who is described as a cook, did not put in an appearance.

Defendant was sworn, and stated that he was head waiter at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone.

Mr. Watts: Is that the principal commercial hotel in the town? – I couldn't say it was the principal commercial hotel. I couldn't give an opinion on the matter. It is one of them. There are several.

How long have you been there? – About two years.

What are your wages? – 8s. a week.

How much do you take a week in tips? – They vary a great deal.

About? – I can't say; about 1s. 6d. or 2s. a week on average.

But a good many commercial travellers go there? – I couldn't say a great many.

How many a day? – I couldn't say exactly.

Mr. Minter: I don't know why his master's business should be enquired into.

Mr. Watts (continuing): Do you mean to say your wages are only 9s. or 10s. a week? – They vary. Sometimes the tips are 5s. a week, and sometimes only fifteen pence.

Had you some money in the Building Society? – Yes.

Sixty pounds? – Something like that.

His Honour: When did you have that? – Up to the 7th of December.

Mr. Watts: Was that after you had received a letter threatening you with this action? – Yes, it was after that, but at the same time I wanted the money.

What did you do with it? – You can quite understand that a good part of it has gone in legal expenses through you.

You don't mean that I have had any of it? – No.

You haven't spent 60 in legal expenses. What have you done with the rest of it? – I thought I had a right to do what I liked with my own money, and I went for a fortnight's holiday. (Pulling his money out of his pocket) I'm worth 3s. 7d. now.

How much did you spend on this holiday? – Oh, about 20.

What have you done with the rest? – I have spent a lot in drink and in gambling. As a matter of fact, I'm nearly penniless.

You represented yourself as earning considerably more than you say now? – I never represented anything of the sort. It is only assumption on your part when you say I earn 300.

Didn't you say, when the action was heard, that you drew this money out after the writ was served? – No; that was the suggestion of the solicitor who conducted the case. He asked me the question, and then told me to get out of the box before I had time to answer it. (Laughter)

Mr. Minter: Does your master charge for attendance? – Yes.

And the servants simply have wages? – Yes.

I believe you have been foolish enough to go betting? – Yes; I lost considerably more than I won.

His Honour: Are you married? – No.

Mr. Minter: He intended to be married, but he came to the conclusion that he could not keep a wife, and he was honourable enough to tell the young lady so.

His Honour: And the hard hearted jury said he was responsible for 25 damages! (Laughter)

Mr. Minter: But he was represented as earning 300.

His Honour said he did not think he could have been represented as earning that amount because the jury would not have stopped at 25. He could not accept the defendant's statement that he did not average more than 2s. a week in tips. At any rate he got his board and lodgings and 8s. a week – he believed he got more – and there would be an order for 12s. a fortnight.

 

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 Herald 12 March 1892.

County Court.

Before His Honour Judge Selfe.

Bertha Pearce v Wm. Bowtell: Mr. Watts was for the plaintiff, Mr. Minter for the defendant.

In this case the plaintiff, formerly a cook at the Rose Hotel, had obtained a verdict of 25 damages against the defendant, who is a waiter at the same establishment, and she now sued for the amount. The plaintiff did not appear, but the defendant went into the box, and in reply to Mr. Watts, said he could not say whether the Rose was the principal hotel in the town. He could give no opinion; there were several. His wages were 8s. a week, and in tips he averaged 1s. 6d. or 2s. He could not say more, and it was very doubtful whether he got as much as that. A good many commercials came there.

Mr. Minter did not know why the landlord's business should be enquired into. His Honour said it was quite relevant.

Some weeks he did very bad. He might at times get 5s. and another time only 5d. He did not expect to get a tip from everyone who came to the hotel; if he had one he would not be there in Court. He had not managed to save some money, but he did have some money in a building society, something like 60, he believed. He drew it out after he received a letter threatening him with the action; he wanted it. He did not mean to say that the greater portion of it had gone in legal expenses. He supposed he could do what he liked with his own money, so he went for a fortnight's holiday in September and spent it. Now he believed he was worth 3s. 7d. (Witness drew out some coins from his pocket and remarked he found it was not quite as much as that). Perhaps he spent 20 on his holiday, and then there was legal assistance, and the worry. He had never been (line missing with paper tear) and gamble. He never represented himself as earning considerably more; it was an assumption on his (Mr. Watts') part to say he was earning 300 a year; it was ridiculous.

By Mr. Minter: His master charges for attendance. Many of the customers came and went away giving nothing, others gave a few coppers. In this action for breach of promise he did not put in an appearance; judgement went by default. Since then he had been foolish, and had been betting, and had lost his money.

By His Honour: He was not married. He had intended to be married, but had come to the conclusion that he could not afford to keep a wife.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said he was unable to accept the defendant's assurance that he did not average more than 2s. a week in tips. Then he had his board and lodging, in addition to 8s. a week. So he thought he might fairly say that he received in money 12s. a week, and out of that he would have to set apart a substantial sum as a salve for the wounded feelings of Miss Bertha Pearce. He must pay 12s. a fortnight.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 16 March 1892.

County Court.

Mr. William Bowtell did not feel disposed to pay up the sum of 25 and costs awarded Miss Bertha Pearce by a sympathetic jury as compensation for blighted affections. I think you know the story; but the subsequent proceedings in the Count Court for the amount in question are interesting as throwing a new light upon the average earnings of waiters. Many are the fabulous stories told of waiters who, waxing rich on “tips”, have retired at middle age and become landlords of flourishing public houses or hotels. But, alas! These were waiters whose course of love ran smooth, and who settled down with, maybe, the kitchenmaid, cook, or chambermaid as co-partners, or, as the novels have it, got married and lived happy ever after. When Mr. W. Bowtell swears in Court that his tips amount to 1s. 6d. or 2s. a week, we are, or course, bound to accept the statement as bona fide; but at the same time it is a sad reflection on the generosity of the “commercials” who frequent the hotel where Mr. William Bowtell played havoc with Bertha's affections. How William must have gloated over his extra 1s. 6d. at the end of the week! The whole case is a salutary warning to waiters not to fall in love without due foresight, at all events in Folkestone, where “tipping”, it appears, is so little in vogue that the product of a week in one of it's largest commercial hotels is only eighteen pence. His Honour's belief in the veracity of William's statement as to his “tips”, however, was not very strong, for, observing that it was not according to his experiences that waiters no longer looked for “tips”, he ordered the faithless waiter to pay the amount claimed, in instalments, at the rate of twelve shillings 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 Up To Date 15 May 1897.

Hall Of Justice.

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 Chronicle 24 July 1897.

Tuesday, July 20th: Before The Mayor, Mr. W. Wightwick, and Mr. G. Spurgen.

John Samuel Terry was granted temporary authority to sell at the Rose Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 August 1897.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday – Captain Willoughby Carter presiding – transfer licence was granted to Mr. John S. Terry, Rose Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 January 1898.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel.

This famous hostelry, so long and honourably connected with the name of the late Mr. William Medhurst, and later with that of Mr. F. Ralph, has lately changed hands. The Rose is, we suppose, one of the best-known and best conducted “commercial” hostelries in the kingdom, and has thus become one of the institutions of Folkestone, and bearing these facts in mind we have no hesitation in quoting the following appreciative notice of its present proprietor from that smartly-conducted trade journal “The Caterer and Hotel-Keeper's Gazette”. The writer of the article says: Mr. John S. Terry, the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone – a well known house in the popular and fashionable Kentish watering place – has had a long experience in various departments of the icensed trade. He was for more than twenty five years engaged with a firm of wholesale wine and spirit merchants. During this period his duties very largely consisted of gauging and valuing, and, becoming expert in these important operations, he relinquished the engagement to which we have referred to devote himself entirely to the business of gauging and valuing on his own account. This enterprise Mr. Terry carried on for twenty years, when he made a further departure by purchasing the Rose Hotel at Folkestone – a property which seemed to promise well, and which, we believe we are correct in saying, has fully justified the anticipations which Mr. Terry had formed as to its possibilities under his administration. Before he came into its possession, the Rose Hotel was favourably known to a wide connection, and its earlier traditions have been fully maintained under the later regime. Mr. Terry takes every pains to uphold the recognised standard of the house in the matters of cuisine and cellar, and pays strict attention to the requirements of his guests – a policy which has, so far, fully justified the aims and expectations originally formed by him when he purchased the business. Folkestone is a health-recruiting ground, and as a headquarters for temporary residence was never more popular than is the case at the present moment, and it is only by scrupulous attention to the comforts, and even to the idiosyncrasies, of guests, that the popularity of such a resort and of its hotels can be fully retained and developed to the advantage of the community.

 

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 Up To Date 14 January 1899.

Local News.

The tenancy of the Rose Hotel was transferred, and a temporary licence granted by the Magistrates on Saturday last. An extension of time was granted to Mr. Adams, of the Oddfellows, Dover Street, for a dinner.

The Magistrates were Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. John Fitness, while Alderman Banks occupied the chair, but it was not clear to the public whether he took part in the proceeding or not. He certainly did not vacate the chair. As regards Mr. Herbert, we have no remarks to make, but we always understood that licensing justices must neither be directly or indirectly connected with the liquor traffic, yet Alderman Banks's firm act as agents for many brewers and have a great deal to do with valuing and transferring tenancies of the same.

Mr. Fitness, we are informed, is the owner of two shops which have off licences for the sale of wine, spirits and beer, one being Makin's in Guildhall Street, and the other Messrs, Fisk's on the Sandgate Road.

We only thought that probably some others might think these gentlemen indirectly interested in the trade.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 January 1899.

Licence Transfer.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Messrs. Willoughby Carter, Pledge, Vaughan and Holden.

The Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, from Mr. Terry to Mr. Venner. In this case it was explained that Mr. Venner was employed by the mortgagees, and put in as manager.

 

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 Herald 21 January 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday last transfer was granted to the following: Mr. Venner, The Rose.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 21 January 1899.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Transfer was granted for The Rose to Mr. H.R. Venner, of London.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 January 1899.

A Glimpse of Old Folkestone (Taken from The Watering Places of Great Britain)

The Rose Commercial Inn is a very comfortable establishment, with good accommodations, including stabling and lock-up coach-houses. It is situated in Broad Street, opposite the entrance from Sandgate Road, commanding a fine land prospect, and within a few minutes' walk of the beach. Coaches and vans to and from London, Dover, Sandgate, Hythe, and every other part of the coast call daily.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 7 February 1899.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel was offered for sale by auction in London on Wednesday and purchased by the present occupier, Mr. Percy C. Venner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 February 1899.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel: The Estates Gazette of last week says: The number of licensed properties on sale this week at Masons Hall Tavern was limited to one, Mr. S. Bradford selling the freehold of the Rose Hotel, No. 24, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, one of the oldest and best known commercial and family establishments, possessing a commanding position in this favourite seaside resort. The sale was made by order of the mortgagees. There are 27 bedrooms in the house. A profitable trade is carried on, and the hotel has an attractive front elevation, partly faced with ornamental tilework. The valuation was estimated at 1,200, and the stock at 250. Mr. Bradford shortly introduced the property, and the first bid was 8,000. At 8,750 the Rose was declared sold.

As stated last week, Mr. Venner was the purchaser.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 August 1902.

Yesterday (Friday), August 22nd: Before Alderman Banks and Mr. W.G. Wightwick.

James Douglas Somerville, a Colonial trooper, was charged with having stolen an umbrella from the Rose Hotel, and a pair of boots from Messrs. Lewis, Hyland and Linom.

Percy Harry Venner, of the Rose, deposed that prisoner came to the house, and witness asked him to leave. Prisoner asked for a week's accommodation, and witness said he had none, being full up. Prisoner left, but came back, and, taking up a chicken, started to eat it. Witness ordered him out, and he left. He went out subsequently with an umbrella (produced).

John Walter, an assistant at Messrs. Lewis, Hyland and Linom, stated that prisoner came to the shop and selected several articles, and wanted to have them entered. Mr. Linom said he could not, and prisoner, who had put a pair of boots on, went off. Prisoner gave his name, and said he was at Room 373, Metropole Hotel.

Frank Newbury, a porter at the Metropole, said prisoner had not stayed there.

P.C. Lemar proved the arrest. When charged, prisoner said “Oh! God bless me!”

Prisoner now said he was drunk.

The Superintendent said prisoner had served in Bethune's Mounted Infantry.

Fined 1 and costs, of 14 days' in each case.

 

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. 6d. 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 Chronicle 29 April 1905.

Local News.

The Rose Hotel is again on the market. Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward are the auctioneers.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 May 1905.

Local News.

At the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, on Thursday afternoon, Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward offered for sale the valuable freehold commercial house known as the Rose Hotel. Bidding commenced at 5,000, and rose to 6,750, at which figure it was withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 September 1905.

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

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 September 1905.

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

Mr. Robert Hunt applied for the temporary endorsement of the licence of the Rose Hotel from the present holder, Mr. P. Venner. Mr. Hunt gave the usual formal evidence, and said that it was his intention to apply for the full transfer at the next Licensing Sessions in due course. Granted.

 

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 Herald 16 September 1905.

Felix.

The Rose Hotel, I suppose, is generally known amongst commercial men throughout the country. Its reputation has stood high for many years – dating back to the time when the late Mr. Medhurst was the proprietor. Mr. Fred Ralph followed in that gentleman's footsteps, and made the Rose a home from home. Mr. Venner, the last proprietor, who has just retired to Marten Road, has also been very jealous of the reputation of the famous hostelry. He has proved a model host in every way, and earned the respect and esteem of one and all. Mr. and Mrs. Venner leave the Rose with the best wishes of their numerous friends. Mr. Hunt, who has taken over the destinies of the Rose, comes to Folkestone with a good reputation, and he, too, has the good wishes of his wide circle of acquaintances.

 

Folkestone Daily News 21 September 1905.

Thursday, September 21st: Before Ald. Herbert and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Frederick Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a half sovereign, the property of his master, Robert Hunt, proprietor of the Rose Hotel. Mr. Haines defended.

Robert George Hunt, son of the prosecutor, deposed: I assist my father in the business. Money has recently been missing from a desk in the hotel. Last night I placed two half sovereigns, a florin and a shilling in the desk. All the coins were marked and the desk locked. About 7.25 this morning I went to the desk in the office and found one of the half sovereigns missing. The desk was closed but not locked. In consequence of what I was told I went to the Rendezvous Hotel and received from the landlord the half sovereign (produced). I at once informed the police. The prisoner has been in my father's employ two weeks.

By Mr. Haines: I put the marked money in the desk on Tuesday night as well. My father kept the key of the desk, and it is my duty to look after the office. The lock appeared to have been forced. The prisoner and other servants had access to the office and could help themselves to food that was kept there. The prisoner slept out last night.

A waiter named Emery said he was in the commercial room this morning at 7.25 and saw the prisoner go in the direction of the office, but did not see him go in. Prisoner shortly afterwards left the hotel, and on returning said he had been in next door (meaning the Rendezvous Hotel).

George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said prisoner came into his bar about 7.20 this morning and asked for some whisky and gave half a sovereign to pay for it. Witness gave him 8s. 5d. change. Prisoner was the first customer that morning. The half sovereign was put on a shelf at the back of the bar. After prisoner left Mr. Hunt came to the hotel, and witness handed him the half sovereign he had taken from prisoner.

Inspector Lilley said at 8 o'clock this morning he went to the Rose Hotel and saw Mr. Hunt, who handed him the half sovereign (produced). Witness examined the desk, and found the lock could be easily forced with a thin knife. He saw the prisoner at 8.30 in the kitchen of the hotel, and said to him “You will be charged with stealing a half sovereign from the desk in the office this morning”. Prisoner replied “I have not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. Witness took him to the police station and read the charge over to him, and he said “I only had the half sovereign the governor paid to me”. Witness searched him and found 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze.

Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel said the prisoner was employed as chef. Last Saturday he paid him 30s., but could not say whether it was all in gold or not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: I have never marked any coin before in my life.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he was perfectly innocent. The half sovereign he changed was paid to him by Mr. Hunt on Saturday night.

Prisoner was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 September 1905.

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

Frederick Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a marked half sovereign, the property of his employer, Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel. The accused was defended by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Mr. Robert George Hunt, the son of the landlord, said that prisoner was employed by his father as chef. His father, when taking over the hotel, took over the old employees of Mr. Venner, among whom was the accused. In consequence of money having been missed from a roll-top desk, witness on Wednesday night placed a marked half sovereign and other marked coins in the desk. In the morning the half sovereign was missing, and from that which subsequently transpired the police were communicated with.

In cross-examination witness said that other persons had access to the room in the morning. The key of the room was taken to his father each night, and fetched again in the morning.

Walter Emery, waiter at the Rose Hotel, said: About seven o'clock this morning I saw prisoner in the kitchen. About 7.15 I was in the commercial room, when I saw the prisoner pass with an empty dish in the direction of the office. A few minutes later he returned with a dish of eggs. The eggs are kept in the office. A little later in the morning I saw him leave the hotel. He was absent about five minutes. When he returned I was in the kitchen. He said he was in next door (I presume the Rendezvous), when someone came in and changed half a sovereign, spent 1s. 4d., and George, the landlord, gave him 9s. 10d. change in mistake.

Cross-examined: Witness said that he and the chambermaid had access to the office. It was not unusual for accuse to go out in the morning and have a drink. He could assign no reason for accused telling him about the change episode.

Mr. George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous, said: I know the prisoner. About 7.20 this morning he came into the bar and asked for a drop of whisky, and paid me with half a sovereign. The drink was 3d. of Johnny Walker. Independent of that he had a quarter to take away with him in a bottle. I gave him 8s. 6d. change. Accused was the first customer this morning. After receiving the half sovereign I placed it on the shelf at the back of the bar. There were no other half sovereigns on the shelf. After accused left, Mr. Hunt came to the bar, and in consequence of something he said, I handed him the half sovereign I had received from the prisoner.

Cross-examined: Prisoner came in about 7.20, stayed about half a minute, and immediately after his leaving Mr. Hunt came in.

Inspector Lilley said: About eight o'clock this morning, from information received, I went to the Rose Hotel, where the first witness, Mr. Hunt, handed me the half sovereign (produced). From what he said, I examined a desk in the office. It is a roller-top desk, and I found that the lock was easily forced with a thin-bladed knife. I interviewed Emery and Godfrey, and subsequently saw the landlord. About 8.30 I saw the prisoner in the kitchen at the hotel. I said to him “You will be charged with stealing half a sovereign from the desk in the office this morning”. He replied “I have not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. At the police office I read the charge over to him, and he said “I only had the half sovereign I changed in the Rendezvous, and that the Governor paid me”. I searched him, and found on him 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze, a watch and chain, comb, pipe, pouch, and a small knife.

Cross-examined: You don't suggest that the knife (produced) would open the desk?

Witness: No, not for a moment.

Mr. Haines: Is the lock in a defective condition?

Witness: Yes, it certainly is.

Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said: I took over the hotel a fortnight today, and took over the prisoner as chef. During the fortnight I paid the prisoner a few shillings on the first Saturday to make up the balance from Mr. Venner's account. Last Saturday I paid him 30s; 25s. wages, and 5s. bonus, as paid by Mr. Venner. When I paid him, I paid in silver and gold. In consequence of missing money I marked a number of coins, including a half sovereign. I marked them with a triangle, and took the dates at the same time, all on Tuesday night. The marked half sovereign is the only coin missing.

Mr. Haines: Are you quite sure that you had not marked any coins before?

Witness: Quite sure. I never marked a coin before in my life.

Mr. Haines: Had you made any statement before to anyone that money had been missed?

Witness: Yes, to the young lady in the office, but not to Emery.

The Chairman said that the Bench had decided to commit accused to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

After the usual caution had been given, accused made the following statement: All I can say is that I am perfectly innocent. The half sovereign I changed this morning is the one paid me on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

Prisoner was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was offered, himself in 20, and one surety in a like amount, or two in 10 each.

 

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 Herald 23 September 1905.

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

Fredk. Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a half sovereign from the Rose Hotel that morning. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Robert George Hunt deposed that he was assistant to his father, who was the licensed owner of the Rose Hotel. The office was just inside the door as one went into the hotel, on the left hand side. On Wednesday, about midnight, he placed two half sovereigns, with some silver coins, in the desk in the office. He locked the desk. At 7.25 that morning he went to the desk, which he found closed, but unlocked. One of the half sovereigns was missing. In consequence of something that the waiter told him he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, next door, and received from the landlord there, Mr. Godfrey, the half sovereign produced. It was one of the coins which he placed in the desk the night before. He identified it by a triangle scratched underneath the Queen's face, and the date “1892”. He sent for the police at about half past eight, and prisoner was taken into custody.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there was a safe in the office. He would take the key up to his father's room every night. On Tuesday night he put the marked money in the desk. It would be the prisoner's duty to go into the office every morning for stores; the waiter would also go there for a similar purpose. Prisoner sometimes slept out at night. This particular night was one of those occasions.

A waiter named Emery, in the employ of Mr. Hunt, stated that at 7 o'clock that morning he saw prisoner in the kitchen. About a quarter past seven he was in the commercial room, and whilst there he saw prisoner go by with a dish in his hand in the direction of the office. A minute or two afterwards he saw him return. Later in the morning he saw him leave the hotel. He was absent for about five minutes, and on returning said he was in next door (he presumed the Rendezvous) when someone came in and changed half a sovereign. He spent 1s. 4d. and the landlord gave him 9s. 10d. in mistake.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness admitted that it was not an unusual thing for prisoner to go out of a morning. He did not see him go to the office.

George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said he knew accused, who came into his bar at 7.20 that morning, and asked for some whisky. Witness served him and gave him 8s. 2d. change from the half sovereign he tendered in payment. The first witness then came into the bar, and to him he gave the half sovereign.

Inspector Lilley gave evidence as to having arrested prisoner that morning in the kitchen of the Rose Hotel. He (witness) examined the lock, and found that it could be easily forced with a knife. He took prisoner to the police station, and on searching him found 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze, a watch and chain, and other articles in his possession.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness admitted that the lock on the desk was in a defective condition.

Robert Hunt, landlord of the Rose Hotel, said he took over the premises two weeks ago. He employed prisoner as the chef. He (witness) marked the money produced.

Prisoner said all he could say was that he was perfectly innocent, and that the half sovereign that he changed that morning was one that was paid to him on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

Accused was committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions for the borough, to be held on Monday, October 9th, bail being allowed in the sum of 40, himself in 20, and a further surety of a like amount.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 October 1905.

Quarter Sessions.

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

Frederick Charles Horlick, 38, hotel chef, was charged with stealing 10s., the property of Robert Hunt, on the 21st September, 1905, at the Rose Hotel. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Wiegall prosecuted.

Robert George Hunt stated that he was the son of the landlord of the Rose Hotel. There was a desk in the office close to the door. His father marked two half sovereigns and some silver on the 19th Sept., and placed them in the desk on the following day. The desk was then locked. At 7.20 on the following morning witness found the desk shut but unlocked. He missed one half sovereign (marked). From certain information witness visited the Rendezvous Hotel at 7.25, and was handed the marked half sovereign (produced) by the landlord. It was one of the coins marked by his father in witness's presence. Prisoner was his father's chef.

Prisoner did not wish to ask any questions.

Walter Emery, waiter at the Rose Hotel, said he saw the prisoner pass the commercial room in the direction of Rendezvous Street at 7.30 a.m. on September 21st. When he returned he told witness that he had been in the Rendezvous, and while there a man had changed half a sovereign, and having spent 1s. 4d., had received 9s. 8d. change. He made a joke of it.

In reply to the prisoner, the witness said he did not say that it was himself (the prisoner) who changed the half sovereign.

George Alma Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said he knew Horlick. On the morning of the 21st September prisoner came into the bar and had some whisky, handing a half sovereign in payment, which was placed on a shelf at the back of the box. It was the only half sovereign there. Mr. Hunt jun. came in almost immediately, and witness handed him the half sovereign.

Inspector Lilley said that at about a quarter to eight on September 21st he visited the Rose Hotel, and saw an American roller desk. He found that the lock could be pushed back with a knife very easily. Witness charged the prisoner. At the police station 8s. 5d. was found on him, also a knife, but it would not open the desk.

Prisoner declined to give evidence, but read a statement from the dock. He said that at 7.30 he went to the Rendezvous Hotel to get a drink, taking a half sovereign of his own from a drawer. He paid with that for his drinks. He did not know how the marked half sovereign got into his drawer.

The Recorder briefly summed up, describing the case as a painful one.

The prisoner was found Guilty.

Mr. Hunt (re-called) said his suspicions were aroused by the prisoner having been seen going and trying the desk.

The Recorder said Mr. Hunt had only acted as he should have expected him to do.

The Chief Constable said prisoner was a married man. He had been in the town some years, and there was nothing against him.

The Recorder said he concurred in the verdict, and the prisoner would be imprisoned with hard labour for six calendar months.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 October 1905.

Wednesday, September 11th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from P. Venner to Mr. Robert Hunt. Temporary authority had already been given.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1905.

Quarter Sessions.

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

Frederick Charles Horlick, an hotel chef, aged 38, was indicted and pleaded Not Guilty to a charge that, being the servant of Mr. Robert Hunt, he feloniously did steal one half sovereign, the money of his said master on the 21st of September.

Mr. Weigall prosecuted, and after explaining the case to the jury, called Robert George Hunt, son of Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel. Witness said that in consequence of entertaining suspicion, certain coins were marked on Tuesday, Sept. 19th. The coins were all right on Wednesday night at 11 o'clock, and locked in a desk. In the morning of Thursday, the 21st, the desk was closed, but had been unlocked – forced, and the half sovereign missing. Another half sovereign, also marked, and other coins had not been taken from the desk. Prisoner was employed by witness's father as chef.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the Rose, said on Thursday, 21st Sept., he saw prisoner in the kitchen. At 7.15 he passed the commercial room from the direction of the office. About 7.20, prisoner went out in the direction of the Rendezvous. When prisoner returned he laughed, and said that he had seen the landlord give a man wrong change for half a sovereign.

By prisoner: Witness was sure that he said a man had too much change, and that he did not say too much change had been given to him.

George Harmer Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous, said on the 21st Sept. prisoner came into his bar about 7.25. Witness served him with a drop of Scotch and a half quartern in a bottle, receiving a half sovereign in payment. The half sovereign was put on a shelf at the back of the bar. That was the only half sovereign there. Mr. Horlick left, and a minute after Mr. Hunt came into the bar, and was handed the half sovereign (produced), which he identified by the mark, a triangle scratch under the Queen's chin.

Robert Hunt, the landlord, said he took over the Rose on the 8th Sept., and the staff, including prisoner as chef, at 25s. per week and a 5s. bonus.

Inspector Lilley proved the arrest, and said that the lock of the desk in which the marked money was deposited could be easily forced open with a table knife. A knife, with which witness had opened the lock, was lying close to the desk when he examined the room.

Prisoner preferred to give his statement from the dock, rather than be sworn. He then read a statement to the effect that the half sovereign he changed was one which Mr. Hunt paid him on the previous Saturday. He gave his wife the sovereign, and kept the half.

The jury found accused Guilty.

The Recorder re-called Mr. Hunt and asked what had aroused his suspicions in this case.

Mr. Hunt: The head waiter told me something and a watch was kept. I have never marked coins before in my life.

The Recorder: You acted very properly, Mr. Hunt. Suspicion might have been thrown on others.

Chief Constable Reeve said accused was a married man with two children. There was nothing previous against him.

The Recorder: Frederick Charles Horlick, the jury have found you Guilty, and in their verdict I entirely concur. They could have arrived at no other decision. It is idle of you to stand there and say “I am innocent”. This Court will always entertain a severe view and visit with the utmost penalty any case in which suspicion may be thrown upon innocent people. The sentence of the Court is six months' hard labour.

We are informed that after the Court the wife made an earnest appeal, which, coming to the knowledge of the Recorder, he reduced the sentence to one of three months' hard labour.

Local News.

The Licensing Bench sat at the Police Court on Wednesday in special sessions for the transfer of ale house licences.

The Rose.

Temporary authority having previously been granted, the final transfer of the Rose Hotel was granted to Mr. Robert Hunt, from the late tenant, Mr. Percy Venner.

 

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 Herald 14 October 1905.

Quarter Sessions.

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

Frederick Charles Horlick, a hotel chef, was indicted for stealing a half sovereign, the property of his employer, Robert Hunt. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Robert George Hunt, son of the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said that he assisted his father. There was a desk inside the office. Witness saw his father, in consequence of money being missed, mark two half sovereigns and some silver. The coins were on the Wednesday night put in the desk. About twenty minutes past seven the following morning the desk was unlocked, but shut down. A half sovereign was missing from the marked money. Witness obtained some information, and went straight along to the Rendezvous Hotel, where he received the marked half sovereign from the landlord. The coin (produced) was that which was missing.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the Rose Hotel, remembered the morning in question, when he saw the prisoner go past the commercial room from the direction of the office. Witness saw him later, when he made a joke that he had been in the Rendezvous Hotel, when a man had come in and spent 1s. 4d. and had received 9s. 10d. change out of half a sovereign.

Mr. George Alma Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he knew the prisoner. On the 21st September, about 7.25 a.m., the prisoner entered the bar and called for a drop of Scotch, and for some in a bottle, for which he tendered half a sovereign. Witness placed that on a shelf at the back of the bar. Mr. Hunt entered the room about a minute after the prisoner had left, and he pointed out the mark on the coin.

Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said that the prisoner's wages were 25s. per week, and his meals. Witness paid him his wages on the Saturday. Having lost some money, he marked two half sovereigns and some silver. They were placed in a desk, and the next morning one was missing.

Inspector Lilley proved the arrest. He examined the desk in which the money was deposited. He found that it could easily be opened.

Prisoner, from the dock, read a statement in which he said that on the Thursday morning he arrived at the hotel about five minutes to seven, and changed his outdoor clothes for his working clothes. About five minutes past seven the chambermaid came downstairs with the keys of the larder, office, and desk. After preparing some breakfast, he thought he would like a drink, so he took a half sovereign from the kitchen drawer, which he had placed there with some coppers when he drew his money on the Saturday. How it came to be the marked half sovereign he did not know.

Prisoner was found Guilty.

Mr. Hunt, re-called by the Recorder, said that a waiter had seen the prisoner go to the desk, and his (witness's) son had seen him the following morning at the desk, but he ad not taken anything then. Money had been missed, and to prevent the slur being cast upon other employees the money was marked.

The Recorder: A very proper act, and one which I should expect an employer to take.

The Recorder, in sentencing the prisoner, said that it was idle for him to stand there and say he was not guilty. Those cases of the betrayal of a master's confidence would always be dealt with with the utmost severity. There need be no mistake about that. Prisoner would be sent to prison for six months with hard labour.

Subsequently, however, the Recorder remitted three months of the sentence.

Wednesday, October 11th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

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

 

Folkestone Daily News 29 December 1908.

Local News.

It is with regret and sorrow that we have to announce that Mr. Robert Hunt, the well-known and much respected proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, was buried today, the deceased gentleman having suddenly expired in High Street on Christmas Day. The news came as a shock to all who knew him, and cast quite a gloom over the Christmas. Although he had only resided in Folkestone for a period of three years, he had made numerous friends by his kindness, gentlemanly bearing, and courtesy to all.

Previous to his taking the Rose Hotel he was proprietor of the Salisbury Hotel, London, and for very many years of the old Ship Hotel, Brighton, so that although he had not lived in Folkestone long he was by no means a stranger. He was 52 years of age, and had been under special treatment for some time, on account of which his friends felt great anxiety. He leaves a widow, three sons, and two daughters, and to them we, with others, offer our tenderest sympathy.

 

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 Herald 2 January 1909.

Local News.

It is with regret that we record the death of Mr. Robert Hunt, of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, who expired suddenly on Christmas Day. Although Mr. Hunt had been a resident for only three or four years, he was well known, and many mourn the loss of a good friend. On Christmas afternoon he was proceeding up High Street with three friends, when he dropped down. Those accompanying him, noticing his sudden collapse, rendered every assistance possible, and carried Mr. Hunt in a chair into the hotel, where he succumbed, the cause of death being heart failure. The Borough Coroner (Mr. Haines) was informed of the unhappy circumstance of Mr. Hunt's death, but an inquest was deemed unnecessary.

Mr. Hunt was 52 years of age, having been born in London on February 16th, 1856. He was a member of the Folkestone Rowing Club, and also of the Folkestone Racing Club, in which he took considerable interest, likewise being an enthusiastic playing member of the Folkestone Bowling Club. He often played in contests against such teams as Ashford, Dover and Hythe, being a very good hand at the game. Prior to coming to Folkestone, he was at St. Leonards, where he carried on the Alexandra Hotel. He was there about two years. Previously he was at the Salisbury Hotel, London for upwards of six years, while before this he was at Brighton at The Old Ship for many years. Wherever he went, Mr. Hunt made many friends by his genial and kindly nature, and his death is deeply and widely mourned.

The funeral took place on Thursday afternoon in a snow storm. Consequently few friends travelled on foot to the cemetery to witness the last rites.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 January 1909.

Wednesday, January 20th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, W.G. Herbert, and G. Boyd.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from the executors of the late Mr. R. Hunt to his son, Mr. R. Hunt.

 

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 Daily News 21 April 1909.

Wednesday, April 21st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Swoffer, Linton and Boyd.

Percy William John Hunt was summoned under Section 17 of the Gaming Act for allowing gaming to be carried on on his premises. Mr. W.A. Groser, of London, (instructed by Mr. J.E. Churchill) appeared for Mr. Hunt.

P.C. Sales deposed: At 12.30 on the 12th inst. I was in Rendezvous Street near the Rose Hotel when I heard voices and the rattle of money. I looked through the window of the commercial room of the hotel, the windows of which were open, but the blinds were drawn. I stood by the window and heard remarks passed “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 beside the blind I could see eight men seated round the table playing cards. There was a pile of money by the side of each of them on the table. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each. I saw money passed between them. I kept observation, and at 12.45 I heard one say “Who says a drink?”, and called the waiter. One said “I'll have a sloe gin”. Another, “Mine's a brandy and soda”. I saw the waiter come into the room. The drinks were ordered and they were brought in by the waiter. During the time the waiter was in the room card playing was going on. Shortly before one o'clock, P.C. Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. I signalled to him, and he came over. I called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he looked through the window. About one o'clock I rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter. Johnson and I slipped past him, and went into the commercial room, where I saw the eight men sitting at the table playing cards, with money on the table beside each of them. Glasses were on the table, some of which contained liquor. I took their names and addresses and possession of the cards. I then saw the waiter and called Mr. Hunt, who came downstairs. I said to Mr. Hunt “Are you the landlord?” He replied “Yes”. I said “I shall report you for a summons for permitting gambling on your premises with cards”. I said, pointing to the gentlemen in the room “These men will also be reported”. He said “They are all staying here and the room is private, but I did not know they were gambling”. I said “Your waiter did, as he has been in the room with drinks”. He replied “He could not serve them, as I have the keys. Is there anything I can do for you?” I said “I shall submit a report”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Groser: Was there a notice on the commercial room door with the word “Private” on it? – There was.

It was the “Boots” you spoke to, wasn't it? – Yes.

Was it not a few minutes after twelve that “Boots” came into the room with drinks? – No, a quarter to one.

When “Boots” came in and served drinks, the gentlemen were not playing for money, were they? –Yes, they were.

Was it not after the drinks were served that they played farthing nap? – They were playing before.

Did Mr. Hunt say to “Boots” “Did you see them playing for money?” – No, sir.

The house has always borne a very good character up to the present time, has it not? – Yes.

P.C. Johnson corroborated the evidence of P.C. Sales in every particular.

In cross-examination he said he did not know how long Sales had been watching before he came up.

Mr. Groser, for the defence, said a number of hockey players arrived at the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday, and engaged a private room. As no other room was available, the commercial room was placed at their disposal, and the word “Private” placed on the door. His case was that it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the landlord connived at gambling, and that he knew that it was going on.

He then called Robert Hunt, who said he was the manager of the Rose Hotel for his brother. Prior to the visit of these hockey players no cards had been played in the house. His father, who died last Christmas, strongly objected to cards being played in the house. Fourteen hockey players came to the hotel at Easter, and the commercial room was allocated to them till Easter Monday. Witness retired to bed at 11.30 on Easter Sunday, and the “Boots” was the only person un besides the hockey players. About 12.30 he was called by the “Boots”, and on going downstairs the constables told him that gambling was going on, and that “Boots” knew it. “Boots”, however, denied this, and witness himself said he had no knowledge of it.

The Chief Constable: Who did you leave in charge when you went to bed? – The “Boots”.

Did you give him any instructions about allowing gambling? – No.

Could the “Boots” have served any drink if he was required? – Oh, yes.

He could get it from the bar? – Yes.

William Warman said he was “Boots” at the Rose Hotel. On the Sunday night in question he saw no indication of gambling. All had gone to bed except himself and the hockey players. He last went into the commercial room about 12 o'clock in answer to a ring, when drinks were ordered by the gentlemen there. He saw cards on the table, but no money, neither had he any suspicion that they were gambling. He returned to the kitchen, and did not leave it again until the constables arrived.

The Chief Constable: Do you say you did not know gambling was going on? – Yes.

But you knew they were playing cards? – Yes, but Mr. Hunt is opposed to gambling, and does not allow it on the premises.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Do you mean to say there was no money on the table when you went into the commercial room? – Yes.

Or didn't you see any? – Well, there may have been.

Edmund John O'Connell said he was one of the hockey party, and stayed at the Rose Hotel over the Easter. It was about a quarter past twelve when they ordered their last drinks, and they did not play for money until after the landlord had gone to bed. It was quite possible that the “Boots” did not see any money on the table, as the cards were scattered about. The cards belonged to the party.

Paul Broder, another member of the party, corroborated the evidence of the last witness, and said it certainly was not so late as the constables had stated when they said drinks were ordered as late as 12.45.

This concluded the evidence. The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said they were unanimously of opinion that the case had been proved, and defendant would be fined 5 and 14s. costs.

Notice of appeal was given.

 

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 Herald 24 April 1909.

Wednesday, April 21st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Percy William John Hunt was summoned under Section 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for suffering gaming on his licensed premises (the Rose Hotel). Mr. A.W. Groser (instructed by Mr. J.E. Churchill) appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Sales deposed that 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 of the hotel. The windows of the room were open, but the blinds were drawn. Witness stood by the window, and heard remarks passed, among which were “I'll go four on red”, “I will have 2d. on black”, “I'll have 3d. on red”, and other similar remarks. On looking through the window by the side of the blind witness could see some eight men seated round the table playing cards. There was a pile of money beside each of them on the table. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each. Witness saw money passed between them. He kept observation, and at 12.45 he heard one say “Who says drinks?” and the waiter was called. One said “I'll have a sloe gin”, and another “Mine's a brandy and soda”. Witness saw the waiter come into the room; the drinks were ordered, and they were brought in by the waiter. During the time the waiter was in the room the card playing was going on. Shortly before one o'clock P.C. Harry Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. Witnessed signalled to him, and he came over. Witness called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he also looked through the window. At about one o'clock witness rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter. Johnson and witness slipped past him, and went into the commercial room, where they saw eight men sitting by the table in the act of playing cards, and there was money on the table beside each of them. There were glasses on the table, some of which contained liquor. Witness took possession of the cards, and took the names and addresses of those playing. Witness then saw the waiter, and he called Mr. Hunt, who came downstairs. Witness asked Mr. Hunt if he was the landlord, and he replied “Yes”. Witness said “I shall report you for a summons for permitting gaming with cards on your licensed premises”, and at the same time he pointed to the gentlemen in the room, and said they would also be reported. Mr. Hunt replied “They are all staying here, and the room is private. I did not know that they were gambling”. Witness said “Your waiter did; he has been in the room with drinks”. Mr. Hunt replied “He could not serve them, as I have the keys. Is there anything I can do for you?” Witness replied that he would submit a report.

Cross-examined by Mr. Groser: There was a notice on the glass door of the commercial room with “Private” on it. The man witness spoke of as the waiter was “boots” Mr. Hunt was fetched down from upstairs. Witness was there a few minutes after midnight. It was just a quarter to one when he saw the “boots” come into the room with drinks. There was money on the table when the “boots” brought in the drinks. When Mr. Hunt came down he did not say to “boots” in witness's presence “Did you see them playing for money?” Mr. Hunt, who was at that time carrying on the business of the Rose Hotel, was the son of Mr. Hunt, who died suddenly on Christmas Day. Mr. Hunt carried on the business of the Rose Hotel for some three or four years, and prior to that Mr. Venner carried the business on. During the period that the house was conducted by Mr. Venner and Mr. Hunt, and until that complaint, the house had borne an exemplary character. There had been no complaints, so far as the witness knew. The licence of the hotel had just recently been transferred from the late Mr. Hunt to the defendant.

P.C. H. Johnson deposed that 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 could hear voices, and money rattle. On looking through the window he saw eight persons seated round a table, playing cards. Witness could hear them counting “1, 2 ,3”, and so on, and saw money passed. After waiting two or three minutes, P.C. Sales rang the bell. The door was answered by the “boots”. Witness and P.C. Sales walked past him into the commercial room. There they saw eight persons seated round the table. Some had cards in their hands, and others had theirs on the table. 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 he told the men that they would be reported. He then called the “boots”, and asked him to fetch Mr. Hunt. After a minute or so, Mr. Hunt came down the stairs. P.C. Sales told him he would be reported for permitting gambling on his licensed premises. Mr. Hunt replied that it was a private room, and he did not know that they were gambling. P.C. Sales said “Your waiter did; he has been in there with drinks”. Mr. Hunt asked if there was anything he could do for them, and they then left the premises.

Mr. Groser: Do you know how long the last witness had been watching the premises before you came?

Witness: No. I have no idea at all.

Mr. Groser then addressed the Bench. He said that a part of hockey players came to the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday. They had a number of matches to play in the neighbourhood, and some fourteen gentlemen arrived at the hotel. They engaged separate bedrooms at the house, and also a private sitting room. The coffee room upstairs could not be allocated to them, and therefore the commercial room was given up, and a placard, as they heard from the constable, was put on the door, indicating that the room was private. There was a piano in the room, and during the time that the gentlemen remained in the house the piano was used, and cards were played. It was not – and this was his case, and he would call gentlemen who were members of this visiting team – until shortly after 12 o'clock that “boots” had served them with drinks, the last drinks that day. He would say that during the time he was in the room serving these gentlemen they were not playing any card game for any stakes at all. As a matter of fact – although he (the speaker) did not say it in any mitigating way – what these gentlemen did play was farthing nap. What he wanted to impress upon the Magistrates was that it was not until after the service of the last lot of drink, after “boots” had left the room for the last time, that those gentlemen played cards for money at all. Mr. Hunt retired to rest on the Sunday night at 11.35. Just before going to bed he went into the room and asked if there was anything he could do, any orders, and they said “No”. He bade them “Goodnight” and went to bed, leaving “boots” to finish his night's work. “Boots” was in the kitchen. There were between the commercial room and the kitchen two small passages and two or three stairs, and he would prove to the Bench that no sound could be heard to indicate that anybody was playing any game, or certainly playing any game for money. The speaker readily admitted that those gentlemen did play on the Thursday night and on Saturday night. On the Sunday night “boots” was cleaning the boots and laying the kitchen fire, and he was for the last time on the Sunday night rung for by those gentlemen. He went in, and those eight gentlemen – for six of the team had already retired, worn out with the fatigues of the play – these gentlemen had asked for their final drinks, and these were paid for, as “boots” would tell them. He desired that every facility should be given to their Worships to ascertain the exact facts. “Boots” would tell them that when he went into the room to take their orders he saw nothing whatsoever to indicate that those gentlemen were playing for even so small stakes as those he had named, nor had Mr. Hunt the least suspicion that there was any infringement of the licensing regulations. “Boots” served the gentlemen with drinks, the door was shut, and he went back again to his duties, and it was a little earlier than the constable had indicated, namely between 12.30 and a quarter to one, that the police made an entrance. He did not complain of the action of the police. The police made their entrance, and went into the room, and undoubtedly they found those gentlemen playing for money. He was going to call gentlemen who would tell them that there was no indication given to “boots” that they were playing for money. That was the position. Mr. Hunt was called down from his bed. He said that he did not know. Then it was suggested that “boots” knew, but “boots” did not know. If those facts had been established to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, he asked them to remember in aid of his case the testimony that had been given by the constable as to the reputation of the persons who had been associated with that house. He would ask them to accept that testimony, and to say that under the circumstances, although cards were played that night for money, there was no connivance on the part either of Mr. Hunt, or of the man whom he had left in charge to finish up for the night, and if they found those facts, then the application of the law was perfectly clear. He readily admitted that it was not sufficient for him to say that Mr. Hunt did not know that they were gambling. That was not the law; that would not absolve him; but what must be established by the prosecution in that case was that Mr. Hunt knew, or ought to have known, or that if Mr. Hunt was not there and left a person in charge, that person knew, or ought to have known. Their learned Clerk would assent to the proposition of law that he had put to their Worships. Mr. Groser then proceeded to read extracts from the case of Somerset v Hart, which said that “where gaming had taken place upon licensed premises to the knowledge of a servant of the licensed person employed on the premises, but there was no evidence to show any connivance, or wilful blindness on the part of the licensed person, and it did not appear that the servant was in charge of the premises, the justices were right in refusing to convict the licensed person for suffering gaming on the premises under the Licensing Act”. The Chief Constable, in presenting his case did not suggest that there was anu connivance on the part of Mr. Hunt as to what was going on. With regard to “Boots”, he could hardly be called a person who was clothed with authority in that case. After hearing him, the Magistrates would find that “boots” did not think, nor was there anything to put him on suspicion that there was something going on, because that was the first time that cards has ever been played in the house. The late Mr. Hunt never would allow even commercial gentlemen to play in the house, and he had not any cards at all in the house, and these gentlemen were playing with their own cards. When they were playing on the Thursday night, or on the Saturday night previous, there was not the slightest indication, nor was there till past twelve o'clock on the morning of the Monday – not till between twelve and one was there playing of any sort or kind for money.

Mr. Robert Hunt said that he was the Manager of the Rose Hotel, under the direction of his brother, Mr. Percy Hunt, the sole executor of his father. He had been carrying on the management since his father's sudden death on Christmas Day, 1908. During his father's lifetime he had assisted him in the management. Prior to the visit of these gentlemen cards had never been played in witness's house. His father had a strong objection to their being played on licensed premises at all. On the Thursday before Good Friday he had a party of fourteen gentlemen to stay in his house. He allocated to them the commercial room as their sitting room for their exclusive use. The party remained at his house until Monday evening. There was a piano in the room. During the occupation of the room by these gentlemen witness went in there from time to time to see them, and to attend to their requirements. At no time was there any indication that card games of any sorts for stakes of any sort were going on. They had played cards previously to that. On the Sunday, or early morning of Monday he heard nothing to suggest to him that they were going to play for money. He went to bed on Sunday at about 11.35 p.m. Before going to bed he called in the commercial room. There was one gentleman playing at the piano, and the others were all playing cards. They were not playing for money. Only the “boots” was up when witness went to bed. He worked in the kitchen, cleaning the boots. He would have to get the boots ready for the next morning and lay the kitchen fire. He would also have to answer the bell. Between the kitchen and the door of the commercial room there were two passages, and also a few steps. It was an old house with thick walls. It was not possible to hear from the kitchen what was going on in the commercial room if the doors were shut. The piano might be heard, but conversation could not be heard. The next thing witness heard was “boots” calling him to come downstairs. He had been in bed half or three quarters of an hour. It was about half past twelve. Witness went down and saw the two police constables. They first of all said that they would report him for permitting gambling on licensed premises. They took him into the commercial room and pointed out the gentlemen who had been playing cards. Witness told them that he had no idea that they were gambling. One of the officers said “Your “boots” has been serving them with drinks”. Witness then asked “boots” in the presence of the officers if he had seen any gambling, and he replied in the negative. Witness did not say “”Boots” could not serve, as I have the key”.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness left “boots” in charge of the premises when he went to bed. He did not give him any special instructions with regard to the gambling. The door of the commercial room was about two yards from the door that led into the bar. Half of the door of the commercial room was wood. There was a bell in the commercial room. It rang just above the door of the room. There was also a bell on the front door of the hotel, and that rang close to the kitchen door, so that anyone in the kitchen would be more likely to hear the bell of the front door than that of the commercial room. “Boots” had no cleaning up in the bar to do when witness went to bed. If the gentlemen wanted drinks he had power to take their orders and supply the drinks from the bar. Witness left him the key for that purpose. There was drink on the table when he came down. They were their own cards that the gentlemen were playing with.

Re-examined by Mr. Groser: It was not possible for a man the height of “boots” to see into the commercial room through the glass door, as nearly to the top of the door was ground glass.

William Warman said that he was employed as “boots” at the Rose Hotel He had been there eighteen months. He remembered a party of gentlemen coming down for their Easter holiday. He also remembered Sunday night, when the constables came. Prior to Sunday night he had never seen any indication on the part of the gentlemen that they were playing cards for money. On the Sunday night Mr. Hunt went to bed at about twenty five minutes to twelve, and witness was left to attend to anybody who might require his services. There was no other servant up; everyone was in bed but himself. The last thing he did on Sunday night was to get the boots down from the bedroom doors and mark them, put down the calls for the next morning, and get the coals and wood for the fire. He marked the boots upstairs, and put the calls down in the kitchen. He had not anything to clean up in the bar. It was about twelve when he last went into the commercial room. When he was rung up he was in the kitchen. Witness answered the bell, and went in and took the orders. When he went in he stood by the corner of the table near the door. He could see the gentlemen playing cards, but could not see any money on the table. He could not see any indication that the gentlemen were playing cards for money. He was about five minutes getting the drinks. He went back again into the room with the drinks. When he went back again there was no money that he could see on the table. The gentlemen were not doing anything to lead him to suppose that they were playing for money. After serving the drinks witness went back to the kitchen. He did not go back to the room again for any purpose before the constable came. When the officer rang the front door bell he opened the door. The officers pushed past him and went straight into the commercial room. They afterwards asked witness where Mr. Hunt was, and he replied that he was in bed, and he was then requested to go and bring Mr. Hunt down. When Mr. Hunt did come down the constables asked him if he knew that gambling was going on in his premises, and he said that he did not. Then the constable took him into the room and showed him where the gentlemen had been playing. One of the officers told Mr. Hunt that they would have to summon him for allowing gambling on his premises. The policemen turned to witness and asked him if he knew that they were gambling. Witness said that he did not, but that he knew they were playing cards. The late Mr. Hunt and the present one were very particular as to gambling. Witness heard nothing to lead him to suspect that they were going to gamble when he went in. When one left the commercial room one turned to the right, then down rather a crooked passage, then again to the left, and then down two steps into the kitchen. The kitchen was on the lower level. When the commercial room door was shut it was not possible, when in the kitchen, to hear conversation, unless there were shouts, in the commercial room. Witness did not hear anything, except possibly the piano, when he was in the kitchen. When witness answered the ring for the drinks the door of the commercial room was shut.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness went upstairs for the boots after Mr. Hunt had gone to bed. He went upstairs about three times before police came. He went to the bar twice. To get to the bar one went past the door of the commercial room. When going upstairs he would be about a yard from the door of the commercial room. When he went into the commercial room to take the orders he did not notice any money on the table. He was quite sure about that. He did not think there could have been money there if he had not seen it. The cards were scattered all over the table, and the gentlemen were playing cards. Witness never saw any money on the table. The constables did not ring the bell before witness went into the room. If the players had money they had time to remove it from the table before witness went into the room. They went on playing cards while witness was taking the orders, and when he took in the drinks.

Mr. Edmund John O'Connell said that he was one of those composing the hockey team staying at the Rose Hotel for Easter. They had the commercial room entirely to themselves. It was about twelve o'clock on the Saturday night after their arrival that they first played a game of cards in the hotel. They were not playing for money when Mr. Hunt retired to rest on Sunday. He went to bed at about half past eleven. It was about a quarter past twelve when they called for their last drinks. It was not as late as 12.45 that they rang the waiter for the drinks. Witness remembered “boots” coming and taking the orders for the drinks. He stood by the door. He was four or five minutes out of the room. There were eight of them to be served. They were playing for money when they had their last drinks. There was nothing to indicate that they were playing for money. It was quite possible for “boots” not to see what was going on. They were playing a game similar to farthing nap when “boots” came in for the orders; the cards were scattered all over the table. Witness thought it quite possible that “boots” had no indication that they had altered their game and were playing for money. The cards were their own property. There were some tall palms standing on the centre of the table, and they were the other side of the palms from “boots”.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: With regard to the evidence of the constables witness agreed with it.

Re-examined by Mr. Groser: Witness did not hear the conversation between the constables and Mr. Hunt outside, nor did he hear the conversation between Warman and the constables.

The Chief Constable: You say “boots” stood at the far end of the table when he came and took the orders. What did he do when he brought the drinks?

Witness: He came half way up the table.

Mr. Paul Broder, another member of the hockey team, agreed that it was perfectly possible for Warman not to have any indication that they had changed their game, and were playing for money. There was nothing said before him in the way of reference to the stakes. He agreed with the last witness that Mr. Hunt had been out of the room for some considerable time, and had locked up for the night. It was not so late as a quarter to one that they called for the last drinks. Witness heard nothing of the conversation between the constables and Mr. Hunt and Warman.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness agreed with the evidence given by the constables.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and after a short deliberation the Chairman said: We are unanimously of opinion that the charge is proved, and Mr. Hunt will be fined 5, and 14s. costs, or one month's imprisonment.

The money was at once paid.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Hamilton, Stainer, and Leggett.

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

All the licences were renewed, except the Wellington, Chequers, and Rose Hotel. These were adjourned till the adjourned licensing sessions.

 

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 Herald 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Express)

The licences were then renewed, with the following exceptions, the consideration of which was referred to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions on March 7th next; The Chequers Inn, 3, Seagate Street; full licence; licensee Mr. Howlett; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy. The Wellington Tavern, 1, Beach Street; beer licence; licensee Mr. Skinner; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy.

The Rose Hotel, 24, Rendezvous Street, full licence, (licensee Mr. Hunt), was referred by the Bench to the adjourned sessions on account of the conviction recorded against the licensee during the year for permitting gaming on the premises.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Rose Hotel.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, and Boyd.

The licence of this hotel, which had been adjourned on account of a conviction for gambling, was now granted, Chief Constable Reeve offering no opposition.

The Mayor told the applicant to be careful in future.

 

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 Herald 12 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The Rose Hotel.

At the Annual Licensing Sessions the licence of the Rose Hotel, 24, Rendezvous Street, was referred on account of the fact that a conviction had been recorded against the licensee during the year for permitting gambling on the premises.

The Chief Constable now said that he offered no objection to the renewal of the licence.

The Mayor said that the licence would be granted, but the Bench hoped there would be no further trouble with regard to gambling or anything of that sort in the house.

Mr. Newman, representing the licensee, said that he would see to that.

 

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 Daily News 19 May 1910.

Wednesday, May 18th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Fynmore, Swoffer, Linton, Stainer, and Leggett.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. A.J. Cook, the receiver and manager appointed by the executors of the late Robert Hunt.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

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 Herald 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Col. G.P. Owen.

Plans for certain alterations at the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, were sanctioned.

 

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 Herald 21 August 1915.

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

Mr. A.R. Bowles, architect, submitted amended plans of alterations at the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street. He explained that the work had been delayed through difficulties arising out of the War, and the original plans had had to be modified. No increased facilities for drinking were being given.

The Bench approved the plans.

 

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 Herald 20 October 1923.

Felix.

Many of his old friends will offer their congratulations to Mr. Percy H.R. Venner, a former resident of Folkestone, who has been unanimously nominated by the Town Council of Margate for election as Mayor of that town for the ensuing year. Although a Councillor but a brief time Mr. Venner has already made his mark amongst his colleagues. This is not surprising to those who have enjoyed Mr. Venner's acquaintance or friendship. He possesses a keen, penetrative mind, and this he has used in a business sense with great advantage. At one time he was proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, and after he had disposed of it he went into semi-retirement. Whilst in Folkestone he was Chairman of the Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water Association. At the present time he is the proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel and the Paris Hotel in this town, besides having other local interests. He is uncle to Mr. Roy Smiles, of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton. Since he has resided at Shottendane House, Margate, he has indulged in his favourite hobby of cultivating flowers and rearing pedigree poultry. Mr. Venner is a man of real progressive and up-to-date ideas, and it is easy to predict that in the Mayoral chair of Margate he will not be an unworthy successor of those who have preceded him.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 October 1926.

Felix.

It will doubtless come as a surprise to many to learn that Folkestone's oldest hotel is about to be wiped off the business face of the town. I refer to the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, the site of which has recently been purchased by a tailoring firm, whose premises adjoin. The Rose Hotel and its associations would form an interesting chapter in the history of this town. For the moment I cannot say how many years the hotel (which has been altered from time to time) has occupied its present sire. However, I do know that it was in existence long before the railway linked up the then village of Folkestone with the Great City and the surrounding districts. Here before me as I write is a large-sized business card, yellow and speckled with age. It bears on one side a copperplate illustration of the hostelry, in which figures a four-horse mail just starting with passengers for London. There is also to be seen at the side a stable yard, with an ostler apparently waiting for a job.

The Rose as a commercial hotel was famous all over Kent and beyond. The late Mr. Richard Medhurst earned the reputation amongst that class of business men known as commercials for “doing the thing well”. Customers who travelled (often by road) from long distances knew that once they reached the Rose it would be a case of “home from home”. But the late Mr. Medhurst lived in comparatively modern days. Long years before his time the Rose was in existence. It stood there when Rendezvous Street (that was not its designation at that time) represented the western limits of the town. On part of the site on which the palatial premises of Messrs. Plummer Roddis Ltd. now stands stood a brewery. The land hereabouts reeks with history. This was at the time when the hostelry I refer to was “the” hotel, or perhaps I had better say one of them, for the simple reason that the Kings Arms Hotel stood for I don't know how many years on the site of the Queen's. The proprietor of this was the late Mr. William Medhurst, who also had a great reputation, similarly to his relative, for “doing the thing well”. Harking back to the Rose, many of us will recall the time when Mr. and Mrs. Fred Ralph presided over its destinies, to be followed at a later period by Mr. and Mrs. Percy Venner, who subsequently became Mayor and Mayoress of Margate. By the way, Mr. Venner is still a councillor of the Thanet watering place. The Rose at one period was famous for its billiards, and many a time oft in the good old days some of us sat on the cosy cushioned seats looking on with enjoyment at the achievements of the wielders of the cue.

 

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 Herald 4 December 1926.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, the licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. J.H. Kent.

At the Rose Hotel on Saturday evening an interesting presentation was made to Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lake, the retiring manager and manageress.

Mr. Charles Jenner handed to Mrs. Lake an illuminated album, bound in Morocco leather, bearing over 100 signatures of subscribers, together with a wallet containing a cheque. Mr. Jenner expressed the deep regret of all that the recipients were leaving the town, remarking that by their courtesy and kindness they had endeared themselves to one and all. He expressed the hope that Mr. and Mrs. Lake would ere long return to Folkestone, when he could promise they would be heartily welcomed by their old friends. (Applause)

Mr. Lake, in reply, said that he and his wife would always treasure the album as a reminder of so many friends and of the happy days they had spent in the beautiful town of Folkestone. They felt more than grateful for all the kindnesses bestowed upon them during the past eight years. (Applause)

Mrs. Lake, in response to a call, made a neat little speech, at the conclusion of which she was presented with a bouquet of carnations.

The album, which was supplied by Messrs. Hall and Pursey, was inscribed as follows: “Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lake, The Rose hotel, Folkestone. Dear Friends, We, the undersigned, deeply regret to hear that you are leaving our midst and beg your acceptance of this simple testimonial with the accompanying cheque, as out tribute to the uniform courtesy, good fellowship, attention, and civility in business that we have received at your hands for a period of eight years. These few words endeavour to express the sincere wish that prosperity and happiness will always follow you wherever you go. We gratefully remember that you always “listened in” to the great call of charity. Included in our kind thoughts are Ken and Basil. Folkestone, November, 1926”.

Music and other complimentary speeches followed, the proceedings concluding by the company singing Auld Lang Syne and the National Anthem.

 

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 Herald 8 January 1927.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. Alfred John Cope to Mr. James Henry 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 Herald 12 February 1927.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

Morehall Application.

An application was made by Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, for the transfer of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. A. Davis, barrister, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, appeared on behalf of the applicant, while Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, and also the licensee and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and the licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane. Mr. Scorer, of Ashford, appeared on behalf of the Rev. D. Kedward, the Rev. E. Uden, and several property owners in the district.

Mr. Davis said the application was for the removal of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, to proposed new premises at the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Kent, the licensee, wished to sell by retail at the new premises at Morehall either on or off the premises all intoxicating liquors, and under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel he would be able to do that. Mr. Kent, he imagined, was well-known to the Bench as a licensee of some standing in Folkestone, he having held a licence or various licences for the last seventeen years. At this juncture Mr. Davis asked if there was any opposition, and both Mr. Mowll and Mr. Scorer stated for whom they were appearing.

Mr. Davis (to Mr. Scorer): Is yours a Temperance opposition?

Mr. Scorer: I am opposing on the grounds that the need is not there.

Mr. Davis, continuing, said first of all he proposed to deal with the need of the district around the Morehall Wine Stores. From the map he produced it would be seen that the Morehall Wine Stores occupied a corner site which was regarded as being of some importance having regard to the opportunities such a site gave for police supervision. The Stores were situated right in the centre of a rapidly growing district. On the northern side of the railway there were no less than six hundred houses, besides works such as the Folkestone Electricity Works, and shops which were unprovided for at all in a quarter mile radius by any licensed premises. A half mile away was a fully licensed house known as the White Lion, but if they took half a mile radius from the Morehall Wine Stores on the northern side, they got something like eleven hundred houses without any fully licensed hotel accommodation. If anything was required to convince the Bench of the need for granting the application there was situated very near Morehall one of the finest sports grounds in the world. The mere fact that this fine sports ground was situated in the district was an assurance that the district would be developed rapidly within the next few years. If they took the south side of the half mile radius they got another hundred houses, making in all twelve hundred. There was one licensed house in that district, and that was the Railway Hotel, but access to these premises was only possible from the northern side by crossing the railway under an arch in Shorncliffe Road. Numerous workmen engaged at the Electric Light Works and other places came from long distances and they brought with them their midday meal, and they naturally desired something to drink with their meal, but they would not go this long way round to the Railway Hotel. What was the result? Instead they cut across the railway, which was most undesirable. Fully licensed premises at Morehall would obviate that. There were over a hundred men employed at the Electricity Works. Mr. Hesketh, the managing director of the Works, had given this matter much consideration and he would tell them that from the point of view of economy the men were happier, more content, and better able to do their work if means were provided whereby they could obtain refreshment. Mr. Davis, continuing, pointed out that there was no hotel accommodation in the district; there was no accommodation for travellers, visitors, or club meetings. Provision, it was proposed, would be made so that clubs, friendly societies, etc., could meet on the premises. Mr. Davis then referred to the petition asking the Magistrates to grant a full licence. The Petition, Mr. Davis stated, was signed by three hundred and twenty three persons, and Mr. Kent's instructions to the person taking the petition round was to see that only one person in each house signed. The petitioners represented one hundred and ninety nine occupiers, nearly a hundred owners of property, and some forty to fifty lodgers, and every one of the signatories resided on the northern side of the railway. In those roads nearest the Morehall Wine Stores a very large proportion of the householders had signed the petition for a licence. Continuing, Mr. Davis said that the nearest licensed house to the Morehall Wine Stores on the Folkestone side was the Bouverie Arms, which was a mile and a half away. His submission was that he made the application with some confidence because what was the opposition? There were various forms of opposition. Some they understood and some they did not; some opposition was entitled to respect, and some was not entitled to so much respect. It divided itself under two headings – trade opposition and what was regarded as temperance opposition. With regard to the trade opposition it was opposition for which one could not have much respect. Wasn't it self-destructive? If it was contended that a new house would take away a lot of trade from another house, it could not be said, having regard to the needs of the neighbourhood, that another fully licensed house was not required. He relied upon the opposition to support his case. He was told that twenty years ago Mr. Mowll was applying for a licence on that very spot. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll: I hope learned counsel does not mistake me for a retired publican. (Laughter)

Mr. Davis, continuing, said twenty years ago the owners of the White Lion Hotel applied for a licence on that very spot. They applied on the only grounds which he that day was making the application – that there was a need for such premises. What was a need twenty years ago was a want today. With regard to the other opposition he doubted whether he quite understood it, but he realised that the opposition was put forward on the highest motive and it was opposition for which they must have the greatest respect. He could not help feeling, however, that their opposition was opposition to the law rather than the application. It might be that they desired all licences should be done away with, but the law being what it was, it was laid down that a licence should be provided in a district where it was required, and therefore he did submit with the utmost confidence that the opposition of the Temperance party was not opposition which ought to weigh with them. Counsel next referred to the case for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel. Within a quarter mile radius, taking the Rose Hotel as the centre, he said, there were no less than fifty three licensed houses, fully licensed houses numbering forty three, and off licences eleven. The Magistrates had to decide whether the removal of a licence from such an area was likely to cause any inconvenience to the people in the area. He did not think it could be suggested that there could be any inconvenience. They were proposing to remove a licence from this congested area to an area where there was a great need for a fully licensed house.

Mr. W.B. MacGowan, of 7, Beachborough Villas, gave evidence of the posting and serving of notices. He said that he knew the district well and there was no licensed house between the White Lion, Cheriton and the Bouverie Arms, unless one went to the Railway Hotel. Personally he did not want a licensed house, but he had not the slightest objection to one. There was a very large area with no licensed house, and he had frequently heard it stated by members of the public that a licensed house was required in that area.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said he had not had any difficulty in letting houses in that neighbourhood because there were no licensed premises.

Mr. J.H. Kent said he was the applicant in the application and also the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores. He was also the licensee of the Rose Hotel, the licence having been transferred to him in January. He had over twenty years' experience as a licence holder. In his view there was undoubtedly a need for a licensed house at Morehall. There had been a great demand during the past ten or twelve years, and he frequently had applications to supply drink on the premises. There was no hotel accommodation in the area, or meeting place for friendly societies, clubs, etc. If the application was granted he intended making provision for those needs. He put in petitions signed by the residents in the neighbourhood in favour of the application. The signatures were obtained from persons living within a quarter mile radius of his present premises.

By Mr. Mowll: The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to him on January 5th. Mr. M. Burton, the owner of the Rose Hotel, had a shop next door, but he could not say whether he (Mr. Burton) acquired the Rose Hotel for the extension of his premises. He could not say that the licence of the Rose Hotel would be extinguished in any event. The owners of the Morehall Wines Stores were Messrs. Nalder and Collyer. He could not see how the public were going to get any monopoly value through the transfer.

Mr. Davis interposed here and said that he did not wish to hide anything. A copy of the agreement arrived at between the brewers (Messrs. Nalder and Collyer) and Mr. Burton had been put in. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had provisionally agreed to purchase the licence of the Rose Hotel from Mr. M. Burton if the transfer was granted.

Mr. Mowll: The suggestion is that this is going to put money into Mr. Burton's pocket and deprive the public of monopoly value.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Kent said he had been at the Morehall Wine stores since 1907. He had made two applications in the past for a full licence.

Mr. F.C. Hayward, an architect, said he had prepared an ordnance map dated 1907. Since 1907 the number of buildings erected at Morehall on the north side of the railway was a hundred and seventy, in a quarter mile circle. He was referring to residences, and the number did not include factories, garages, works, and a considerable number of shops. South of the line the number of new houses was seventy. There were a hundred and fifty new houses between the quarter mile circle and the half mile circle, making a total of 320 on the north side.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said it was proposed to construct one new bedroom at Morehall Wine Stores if the transfer was granted. The existing shop would become the public bar and the store and office would be turned into the lounge. The kitchen would be shifted to the back.

Mr. Thos. Hesketh, Managing Director of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Coy., said from one hundred to one hundred and fifty men were employed by the Company. He supported the application on the grounds that he considered it was necessary to meet the requirements of the working men in the district. Some of his own men came long distances and brought their meals with them, and, of course, wanted something to drink when they had their meals. Some of the men crossed the railway line and went to the Railway Hotel. Other workmen had also trespassed across the line, and through the Electricity Coy.'s works to get to their goal – the Railway Hotel.

By Mr. Mowll: He had supported the application on previous occasions.

Mr. Mowll said the Trade had its rights and one of the rights of the Trade was that they paid very heavy taxes, and they were also called upon to pay certain duties and so on. The law had laid down a provision whereby in the case of a new licence a monopoly value should be assured to the public. The application before them that day was a manoeuvre to get over that payment of that monopoly value. He had heard, although it had not been mentioned that day, that the monopoly value was said to be 3,000 some years ago. They had seen the document with regard to the purchase of the licence by Mr. Kent from Mr. Burton and they would see that not one penny of that 3,000 would go into the pockets of the public. It was equally certain that some of the money would go into the pockets of Mr. Montague Burton. If they did not grant the transfer of the licence, the Rose Hotel licence, he contended, would disappear in a short time and no compensation would have to be paid. There was no doubt that Mr. Burton had bought the Rose Hotel with the idea of extending his premises. They were offering this gentleman a very substantial sum if he had the good luck to secure a certain decision from the Magistrates that day. If they made themselves a party to this manoeuvre they established a permanent licence at Morehall, and by removing the licence they would grant to Morehall another licence which could only be extinguished by compensation. Continuing, Mr. Mowll said it was not everybody who wished to live next door to a public house. They also had this significant fact – although there were some eleven hundred houses in the neighbourhood of the Morehall ine Store only just over three hundred persons had signed the petition. He also represented the tenant and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton. That was a fully licensed and equipped house, and some years ago extensive alterations were carried out to meet the increased demands of the district. They looked upon this as an increase to the full licences because they knew that if the application that day failed the licence of the Rose Hotel would become extinct and they would get rid of that licence which Mr. Davis had said was not wanted.

Mr. Davis: I said no hardship would be occasioned by its transfer.

Mr. Mowll said he agreed with Mr. Davis that it was not wanted except by Mr. Burton, and he wanted to put into his pocket money which the public should get as monopoly value.

Mr. Scorer said he saw no connection between the Rose Hotel and Morehall. At Morehall Mr. Kent already had an off licence which, he understood, he had had ever since 1912. Since then the applicant that day had had many opportunities of asking for a full licence, but he had not done so until then. Now he asked for a full licence because he had a peg on which to hang his hat – that was the Rose Hotel. Would he have asked them for a full licence that day if he had not the chance of transferring the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall? The Bench's policy during the past few years had not been to increase the number of full licences, but to decrease them, and that policy had worked very satisfactorily. He asked the Magistrates to continue to adopt that policy by reducing the redundant houses. The demands of the particular locality were well enough served by the Railway Hotel although people might have to go under a railway bridge to get to it. With regard to being near the cricket ground, he understood during cricket weeks a special licence was obtained for selling intoxicating liquors on the ground. He submitted that it had not been proved that there was a big demand on the part of the public in that particular neighbourhood for another fully licensed premises.

The Magistrates retired and upon their return the Mayor said the application for the transfer had been very fully considered and he was instructed to say that the application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 February 1927.

Council Meeting.

A special meeting of the Folkestone Town council was held at the Town Hall on Thursday morning, the Mayor presiding. There were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks and C. Ed. Mumford, Councillors Commander H.F. Russell, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. E. Gore, J. Hanchard, C. Turnham, Mrs. M.I. Anness, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, W.B. Banks, J.W. Stainer, Colonel W. Swinhoe Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, Major General J.N. Younghusband, R. Forsyth, and A.N. Castle, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) and other Officers.

The Mayor said the meeting had been called on his instructions because something of great importance had happened since their last meeting and he thought if the members of the Council knew all the facts they would approve of his action in calling them together. They would hear from the Town clerk what had taken place since the last meeting. It would not have been possible to have waited for the next ordinary meeting, as the matter pressed.

Councillor Stainer asked if the Council had not already decided to defer the question of obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall.

The Town Clerk said that was so.

Councillor Stainer: And yet the matter is to be re-opened?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Stainer said he submitted that before anything in regard to that matter was considered by the Council it should first of all be considered by the Committee affected. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the matter had been before them so recently and deferred, that the Council hardly expected the matter to be re-opened within such a short time. It was an irregular proceeding and he did not think it commended itself.

The Mayor said he still maintained that he had not made a mistake in bringing the matter before the Council that morning. The matter, it was true, had been deferred, but not for any space of time.

The Town Clerk said the following letter, dated February 16th, had been received from Mr. J.H. Kent: Dear Sir, As the owner of the full licence at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, I beg to apply to the Council for the right to supply intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall and can make the necessary application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall at the adjournment of the general annual licensing meeting to be held on the 9th March next, if the Council agree thereto, subject to an agreement being made between the Council and myself on terms to be arranged to our mutual satisfaction.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said he thought the letter practically explained everything. The reason Mr. Kent was in this position was that an application by him for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall had been refused, and he was now willing to make use of that licence at the Leas Cliff Hall if they accepted him as caterer. If the application was made notices must be published in the local papers that weekend. Of course, if the notices were given and then they found they could not come to satisfactory terms with Mr. Kent, he would be able to withdraw the application when it came before the Magistrates, so the Council would have a free hand in that sense between then and March 9th, the date of the adjourned Licensing Sessions. If the removal of the licence was sanctioned by the Magistrates of the borough in regard to general licensing matters, except in regard to any application in reference to that particular building. There was also no question of any monopoly value.

Councillor Stainer said he took it that the acceptance of Mr. Kent's offer meant that they would be taking him on as caterer without throwing the position open to the public.

The Mayor said that was so if they took Mr. Kent's licence.

Councillor General Younghusband: I move that we go into Committee.

This was carried.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to utter a protest against the Council appointing a caterer without any competition. There were hosts of caterers up and down the country who could do the thing well.

Councillor Turnham: They have not got a licence.

Councillor Stainer: I don't know that Mr. Kent has any experience as a caterer; he is a wine merchant.

The Mayor said they could have two caterers – one to supply wines and spirits and the other food.

Councillor Saunders: Is there any monopoly value attached to a place of entertainment?

The Town Clerk: I have no doubt if we went for a new licence we should have to pay a monopoly value.

Councillor Saunders said he understood that for a place of public entertainment it was possible to get a licence on the payment of a yearly duty of 50. That seemed to him to be the licence that they required for the Leas Cliff Hall, and further he did not see why any Bench of Magistrates should refuse to grant an application for such a licence. That they should consider putting the licence in the power of one man right away without giving anyone a chance seemed to him to be grossly unfair. There was a lot of profit in this business and if it was properly run a good deal of revenue could be obtained for the ratepayers. They ought to consider the provision of bars and service rooms before making up their minds what kind of licence they should have. He thought the whole thing was being rushed, and he did not think it was fair. They had other very large ratepayers who were licensees and quite capable of doing the catering at the Leas Cliff Hall. He believed if the Town Clerk were to go into the question of obtaining a licence for a place of public entertainment, he would find that there was no monopoly value attached, and he thought that kind of licence would meet their requirements. Then they had the other hall at the other end of town. He thought they should take that place into consideration too. It was now closed and a big loss to the public. He did not think the public expected a full public house licence, and he did not think it was reasonable to expect them to discuss that matter that morning because they had not got sufficient data before them.

Councillor Turnham: Who is going to hold the licence you suggest, then?

Councillor Saunders: Either our own manager or some caterer who is appointed by the Corporation on terms to be made, and not on terms rushed on the Council.

The Mayor said there was no idea of rushing the matter through. They could send the matter to the Entertainments Committee, which could find out more about the whole matter and see Mr. Kent, and then bring up a scheme for their consideration at an early date.

Councillor Saunders: We have been told the advertisements must appear in the papers this weekend. If we pass a resolution here this morning we shall be tying ourselves down to a particular caterer and a particular form of licence. I am quite prepared, however, for the whole matter to be considered by the Entertainments Committee.

Councillor Russell: Is there anyone on the Council who can tell us something about Mr. Kent? Is he capable of doing this job? I would like to know something about him.

The Mayor: Of course the Entertainments Committee could interview Mr. Kent and find out what is his experience.

Councillor Russell: I submit that he has never done any general catering before.

Councillor Stainer: We decided in Committee that we did not want a full licence. I say the Council are taking a big step much too fast. This proposition will land us with a full licence.

Councillor Russell: That's what we want.

Councillor Broome-Giles suggested the Council should consider buying the licence from Mr. Kent. At the present time the value of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Mr. Kent was very small.

Councillor Saunders said he could not see why the Magistrates should refuse to grant a licence to a public body for a place of public entertainment. A neighbouring town had got a licence last week. They knew that if the licence in question lapsed it would be of no use to Mr. Burton or Mr. Kent, and they (the Council) were simply doing something which was ridiculous, because they were getting something they did not require, and at the same time putting money into the pockets of an outside firm and also tying themselves down to one particular man.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said that day she did see eye to eye with the Mayor. (Laughter) She thought he was working on the right lines. They were proposing shortly to open a very big hall which had cost an enormous amount, and they would never make it pay unless they got a full licence for it. She thought that was a wonderful opportunity and she wanted to see the Council take advantage of it.

Councillor Swinhoe Phelan said he thought they should decide first of all whether the Council wanted a full licence or another kind of licence. Personally, he thought they wanted a full licence.

The Mayor said the decision come to that morning would decide the question of a licence for years to come, as if they turned down the opportunity they now had Mr. Kent would not make an application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. If they did as he suggested that day their hands would not be tied. If they were of the opinion later that the arrangements proposed between Mr. Kent and the Council were not satisfactory, they could still turn them down and Mr. Kent would go to the Brewster Sessions, or write to the Magistrates' Clerk, withdrawing his application. He was not a public house man, and never would be, but he wanted to see the Leas Cliff Hall turn out a financial success in the interests of the town. (Hear, hear) Unless they got a licence they would not hold their own people. They wanted to keep their own people in this country and not let them have excuses for going abroad for their holidays. If they did not avail themselves of the opportunity it would be far more difficult to make a success of this new building. He was out to do what was the best, and the objective he had in view was to make this new hall such an attraction that it would bring people to Folkestone during the off season.

Councillor Russell: I am convinced that unless we have a full licence the catering part of the business is going to be a dismal failure. Cannot we have a vote now whether we go for a full licence or not?

The Mayor: You can only have a full licence by making terms with Mr. Kent.

Councillor Russell: Could we not purchase a full licence and hold it in the name of an official?

The Town Clerk said if an official of the Corporation held a licence he was of the opinion that local Magistrates would be disqualified from dealing with local licensing matters, except in the case of charges of drunkenness. With regard to the transfer of local licences, etc., they would have to get county Magistrates to adjudicate.

Councillor Saunders asked how it was possible for them as a Committee without any competition in the matter to fix terms with Mr. Kent. If they advertised for tenders for the catering, as they had done in the past in regard to the Warren tea houses, they would accept the highest tender. Now it was suggested that they should pass a resolution which would enable the Committee to meet Mr. Kent and they would be tying their hands. They would have no figures to work upon, no facts, or any knowledge as to the price they should ask Mr. Kent. If they were going to have a licence, and he was in favour of one, surely in common fairness they should give other people in the twon a chance. The catering rights and the licensing rights were worth thousands a year. They were being asked to come to a decision without anything to work upon.

The Mayor: I agree it is worth thousands a year and those thousands are going to be divided between the Corporation and the caterer.

Councillor Saunders: Supposing at the end of twelve months we decide to terminate Mr. Kent's agreement, would the licence then be the property of the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Mayor: I think Mr. Kent would either walk out with the licence or the money we paid him for it.

In reply to Councillor Forsyth, the Mayor said there had been no other offers from local caterers so far as he knew.

Councillor Forsyth said he honestly believed that if they were going to make a success of the building they must have a licence, and further, they must have a full licence. It was very awkward; they had no choice. They were in a position that day that a man came to them and to a certain extent he could dictate terms, but he was going to suggest that the Committee which met Mr. Kent should consist of the keenest businessmen they had on the Council. They should see that they got a fair share of the swag, or proceeds. They wanted a fair share, and if anything the biggest share, because they were providing the building. They had got to protect the town. A clause should be inserted whereby the Corporation should have an option to purchase the licence at the end of twelve months at a certain figure. He did not know whether it would not be possible even now, and between then and March 9th, to get some competitive prices from other caterers. They should not rush into the scheme unless they were going to get the biggest half of the profits. Whatever they did he appealed to them to be careful and to see that there was a clause giving them the right to purchase the licence at the end of a certain period at a certain figure.

Alderman Franks: Will the terms of the agreement be submitted to the Council before the matter goes before the Magistrates?

The Mayor: Certainly.

Councillor Stephens said if they did not get a full licence they would never make the place pay. He paid no attention to what Councillor Stainer had said because he was a rabid partisan. If they did not come to a decision at once they would be left in the lurch and lose money for months and months. Councillor Stephens then moved that the Council were willing to let the catering for the sale of intoxicating liquors to Mr. J.H. Kent, and agreed to support his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, subject to terms being agreed with the Council prior to the application being submitted to the Magistrates.

Councillor Barfoot seconded.

Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment that the Corporation apply for a licence for the Leas Cliff Hall for retailing liquor at a place of public entertainment, such licence to be held by an official of the Council or some appointed caterer. He believed that a licence held on those lines would be far more profitable to the ratepayers. The people of Folkestone were getting very cross at these quick decisions, and he did not think the action proposed that morning was fair. There were other people in Folkestone who paid big rates, and who at the same time were licensees and caterers, but they were not to have an opportunity of putting in a price.

Councillor Castle seconded.

Councillor Mrs. Anness: Do I understand that if the Council hold the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall it is going to tie the hands of local Magistrates so that they cannot adjudicate on local licensing matters in the future?

The Town Clerk: That is my opinion, and the opinion of others I have consulted. They could not deal with any question under the Licensing Act, except a “drunk”.

Councillor Saunders' amendment was lost, only Councillor Castle and he voting in favour.

The original proposition moved by Councillor Stephens was then put and carried by fourteen votes to one. Councillor Stainer voted against, and Alderman Mumford and Councillors Castle and Saunders did not vote.

It was eventually decided that the following Sub-Committee should negotiate with Mr. Kent: The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Pepper, Councillors Younghusband, Brett, Giles, Forsyth and Saunders. A resolution that the Entertainments Committee, with the addition of certain members, should enter into negotiations was defeated.

The meeting then went into Council again.

Councillor Saunders suggested the following addition to Councillor Stephens's resolution: “That we negotiate with Mr. Kent for the transfer of his licence to any person the Council should nominate”, and the Council agreed to this.

It was finally resolved “That the foregoing proceedings of the Council in Committee be approved, confirmed, and adopted, and that the Committee appointed by the Council in Committee be instructed to confer with Mr. Kent as to transferring his licence either to the Corporation or another caterer”.

 

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 12 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 7. (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 12 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 12 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 7 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 Herald 5 March 1927.

Editorial.

The question of the hour so far as Folkestone is concerned is that of a licence for the sale of alcoholic liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall. Since it was first before the public it has passed through a variety of phases, and this week one metamorphosis has been swiftly followed by another. On Wednesday the Town Council devoted some hours to the consideration of the subject, eventually rejecting the recommendation of the Special Committee that the Corporation should enter into an agreement with Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, and for catering there, on certain terms, which are set out on another page. We believe that this decision will be approved of by the large majority of the townspeople. But that is not the end of the matter. Previously Mr. Kent had definitely declined to accept to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee, but subsequently to the meeting of Wednesday a letter was received from his solicitors intimating that he would sell the licence for 1,500. To consider this offer a meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held yesterday morning, when it was decided to accept it, and to call a meeting of the Town Council for Wednesday next, at nine o'clock in the morning, to confirm recommendation prior to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions, which are fixed for eleven the same morning. There is just a possibility of those who are against accepting the offer to sell keeping the discussion going so long that a final decision is not arrived at before the hour at which the Licensing Justices take their seats, but it is hardly likely that there will be a repetition of the tactics for which the late Mr. Joseph Biggar earned notoriety as an obstructionist in the House of Commons. Presuming that the recommendation is adopted, the matter will then come before the Licensing Magistrates.

It would be scarcely proper on our part at this juncture to indulge in any speculation as to what thje decision at the Licensing Sessions may be, and we must restrict our brief comments to the action of the Town Council. Whilst, as we have already suggested, that body adopted the right course in declining to agree to the terms embodied in the report of the Special Committee, in our opinion there is a good deal to be said in support of the recommendation to purchase. The one proposal is a totally different thing from the other. In our view, if the Leas Cliff Hall is to possess the advantage of a licence, it should be under the full control of the municipal authority, and the whole of whatever profit may accrue from the business should go to the municipal exchequer. There will doubtless be some difference of opinion as to whether it is reasonable that the holder of the licence should make a profit of 500 or thereabouts on the proposed transaction, but it must be borne in mind that, supposing the Council acquired an absolutely new licence, it would have to pay a substantial amount for monopoly value, an amount probably far exceeding the 1,500 asked by Mr. Kent.

 

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 1 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 d. 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 Herald 12 March 1927.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday the application for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall was heard before the following Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional Division: Mr. H. Rigden, Mr. W.G. Tester, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. H.P. Jacques, and Brigadier-General Wm. Tylden.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) was present, supporting the application on behalf of the Corporation, and Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Trade Protection Association.

The Court was crowded, those present including the Mayor, many members of the Town Council, and a strong body of local ministers.

Mr. Haines said he appeared to support the application made by Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to the new building on The Leas known as the Leas Cliff Hall, which was the property of the Folkestone Corporation. The Magistrates no doubt knew the building. By an anomaly of the law, and by reason of the fact that the Magistrates usually sitting there to deal with applications, etc., were ratepayers, and therefore interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting that day to hear the application. As a result, a number of County Magistrates had been asked to hear the application, and they were very grateful to them for kindly sparing their time to consider the matter now before them. The Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application for a removal should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he proposed to commence by proving the preliminary steps that had had to be taken.

Mr. E. Hook, a clerk in Mr. Haines' office, gave evidence of serving and posting of the necessary notices.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) read a letter, dated March 7th, from Mr. Montague M. Burton, giving his consent, as the freeholder of the premises known as the Rose Hotel, to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said so far as the application was concerned, it was for the transfer of a full licence, but he understood under certain circumstances Mr. Mowll, who represented the local licensed victuallers, would object to the transfer. Mr. Kent was practically the nominee of the Town Council. He (Mr. Haines) was going to ask that the licence, if transferred, should be endorsed so that there could be no sale of intoxicating liquors off the premises, and that drinks should not be sold to persons on the premises other than those who paid for admission to the hall in the usual way. If those conditions were endorsed on the licence, he understood the Licensed Victuallers would have no further objection to the transfer.

Mr. Mowll said the suggested undertaking was in the following words: “Leas Cliff Hall. The following undertaking is given by the licensee as binding upon the licence and to be endorsed thereon: (1) No persons shall be served with intoxicating liquor on the said premises unless such person has previously paid the usual charge which for the time being is made for admission to the building. (That, Mr. Mowll said, was to prevent persons using the building as an ordinary public house). (2) No intoxicating liquor shall be served for consumption off the premises”.

The second clause, added Mr. Mowll, was to prevent the supplying of drink to persons not using the building in the ordinary way. He understood that Mr. Haines agreed to those conditions being endorsed on the licence, and therefore they would become binding. Further, if that was done, his clients would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines said if Mr. Mowll had not asked for those conditions to be endorsed on the licence, he (Mr. Haines) would himself have asked for the licence to be endorsed in such a manner.

Mr. Mowll: That means to say my presence is entirely unnecessary. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines said as they were probably aware Mr. Burton had purchased the premises known as the Rose Hotel, and Mr. Kent had purchased the licence from Mr. Burton. The licence was offered to the Corporation, and the Corporation had agreed to purchase the licence from Mr. Kent. The price to be paid was 1,000 to Mr. Burton, and Mr. Kent would be getting the balance - 500. They had nothing to conceal. He would like to point out that if an application for a new licence was made the monopoly value would be very considerable. With regard to the building itself, Mr. Dahl, the architect, would give them any particulars they required. The building was costing something like 60,000, and Folkestone was trying to provide something which would be an attraction to its visitors. They (the Corporation) felt that the ordinary amenities enjoyed by people at home should also be provided at this building. After many, should he say, vicissitudes, the Corporation had arrived at a decision by which they had resolved that the purchase of the licence should be agreed to subject to the transfer of the licence being granted. Any suggestions which the Magistrates would care to make, the Council, he felt sure, would be only too pleased to comply with an order to assist in conducting the building as it should be conducted. He did not know what opposition he might have.

Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about fifty residents and owners and occupiers on The Leas and the adjacent premises.

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

Mr. J.S. Dahl, the architect of the Leas Cliff Hall, then went into the witness box and produced plans. It was proposed, he stated, that two service bars should be provided in the building. Ample arrangements would be made for closing the bars during prohibited hours.

In answer to a question, the Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided yet as to the use to be made of the middle floor, but it would be used by the public. It had been suggested that it might be used for club purposes. It might be used as a reading and writing room, or a restaurant.

DR. Carlile: Can Mr. Dahl tell us whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, and whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Further, 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 there, surely application should be made for the serving of intoxicating liquor there with meals. If there is to be a club, surely they will need a licence for the club. If it is not clear what the licence is actually for, it is very difficult to oppose it.

Mr. Haines said Mr. Dahl could not answer those questions, but Dr. Carlile would have an opportunity of putting them to the Town Clerk.

The Town Clerk, in the witness box, said there had been a meeting of the Town Council that morning, and a resolution gad been passed and sealed. That resolution vested a new interest in Mr. J.H. Kent in regard to the new premises. It was the intention of the Council that no-one should be allowed into the building without payment, and it was the Council's wish that that condition should be endorsed on the licence in regard to the serving of drinks.

Dr. Carlile: Has the Town Council any power to bind its successors?

The Clerk: It is an undertaking by the licensee. If there is any breach of the undertaking given in connection with the licence there would be good grounds for refusing to renew the licence at some subsequent licensing meeting. Whether the Council agree or not, it seems utterly immaterial. If certain conditions are endorsed on the licence, they are binding.

Dr. Carlile: I would like to ask whether the Council has considered and come to any decision upon the position of giving these powers to the licensee. If the Council cannot bind its successors, surely it can hardly give authority to the licensee in regard to something which does not bind its successors.

The Town Clerk: I do not agree that the Council cannot bind its successors. The successors of the Council are already bound in respect of this building. The Corporation are constantly binding their successors. In some circumstances, I admit they cannot.

Dr. Carlile: Suppose in a year's time it is found that the Leas Cliff Hall does not attract the number of people it was hoped, and the price of admission is dropped to twopence or threepence, that will alter the whole complexion of this licence. The payment for admission would be so small that the building would be practically a public house.

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any definite charge for admission mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile: There was a statement made by the Mayor in Council as to the charges for admission, and the point I want to clear up is if the charges are reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would it not materially affect this licence?

The Town Clerk said if the charge for admission was dispensed with, of course they would be breaking the undertaking given.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Is there a possibility of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile: What would be done in the event of these premises being let for a conference or public service? Those people would obviously not pay for admission.

The Town Clerk: We must comply with the undertaking whatever it is.

Dr. Carlile: Is it the intention of the Council to shut the place entirely on conferences?

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates' Clerk: There will be no sales of liquor except under the terms of the undertaking.

Dr. Carlile: I am asking whether the effect of this would be to prevent the building being used for conferences and meetings such as I have mentioned.

The Town Clerk: I don't see any reason why it should have that effect. I do not see why we should not have conferences there. Those taking part in the conference would not pay for admission, but the Corporation would have no power to sell intoxicating liquors to the persons attending the conference.

Dr. Carlile: I should like to know whether these bars will be in a part of the building which will be specially licensed, or whether it is proposed that the whole of the premises shall be licensed. Will that part of the premises where intoxicants are sold be open to children under fourteen years of age?

The Town clerk said children would not be admitted to the bars.

Dr. Carlile: Does that mean that people will be compelled to leave their children outside?

The Magistrates' Clerk said the presence of children in the bars would be restricted.

Mr. Haines said the Corporation would have to conform with the ordinary licensing laws in regard to children.

Dr. Carlile: If children are shut out from a considerable part of these premises, it will be very detrimental to the prosperity of the building. If the premises where intoxicants are sold, however, are to be open to children then there would be an advantage which is not generally given to the trade.

The Town Clerk: I suggest that is not the effect of the Act of Parliament.

Dr. Carlile: Is Mr. Kidson aware of the numbers voting for this application?

The Town Clerk: Yes, fifteen in favour and eleven against.

Dr. Carlile: That means a majority of six.

Voices: Four. (Laughter)

Dr. Carlile: That is better still from my point of view.

Mr. J.H. Kent stated that he had purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel under agreement with Mr. Burton. He had agreed to be the Council's nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, Mr. Kent said he had agreed to surrender the off licence, and further, that no sales should be made to persons other than those paying for admission.

Dr. Carlile: Would you agree to surrender the licence in respect to Sundays?

Mr. Haines: Mr. Kent is under a contract with the Corporation.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The licence in existence is a full on licence without conditions, and the Magistrates cannot attach any undertaking as regards Sunday trading.

Dr. Carlile: Would the applicant for the removal of the licence surrender the Sunday licence?

Mr. Haines: He has no power to do so in view of the agreement entered into with the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Someone must have the power to answer that question.

Mr. Kent then stated that he was not prepared to surrender that part of the licence as suggested by Dr. Carlile.

Dr. Carlile, addressing the Magistrates, said he was exceedingly sorry that he should have to make any application to them that day. He was there with other gentlemen, who represented the Clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all denominations in the borough. They presented a memorial a week ago when certain proposals which were of a very different character to those before them that day 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 would not have been necessary for them to oppose the application that day. He would like to say that there was no personal feeling in the matter in opposing the Mayor or members of the Corporation. The matter involved a very considerable issue, and the ministers and ratepayers, who were deeply concerned for the future of the town, were very much concerned as to what would happen that day. The application before the Bench placed the Magistrates in a considerable difficulty, because there was considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed up to the present, the Town Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or what was to be done with certain rooms. They had not decided whether certain rooms should be covered by the licence or excluded. They were asking the Bench 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 ofr a seven days' licence. It sometimes happened in Folkestone that they had united services. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not always large enough to hold all the people who wished to come, and he was sure it would be the wish of some of the churches to apply for permission to hold occasional services at the Leas Cliff Hall. It would be a very objectionable feature, however, if drinking was going on in the building whilst those services were being held. They also had from time to time conferences held in the town. They had had the Church Congress at Folkestone, and other conferences. Those attending the conferences would not pay for admission to the building, and therefore it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That, he suggested, would be a very awkward thing, and it would be extremely difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid for admission to the hall and who gad not.

The first year in the history of the opening of the hall would be an experimental year. The Town Council did not yet know its own mind. A special meeting of the Council had been held only that morning, and if the matter had not been got through in the Council no application would have been made that day, and the matter would have had to be left over for a year. If the hall on the Leas was no more successful than the one in the Marine Gardens it would have to be closed for a part of the winter in the ordinary way. If the hall, however, was licensed it would have to be left open, and that meant the ratepayers would have to pay the staff to look after the building whilst it was open. They had heard that possibly a part of the premises would be used for a club. He submitted that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended that the building should be used as a West End club when agreeing to the spending of this large sum of money on the hall. They had also heard something about a restaurant, but there was nothing definite. They were being asked to grant a licence to a building the exact use of which had not been determined in many respects, and he thought the application before the Bench was at least premature.

A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them that that licence was necessary for putting Folkestone in the forefront. They did not admit Folkestone was in the background. They knew that a large number of places similar to Folkestone had not got licences for their halls. Their near neighbour, Margate, had not got a licence for its building. There were a number of other places which had not got a licence. A large number of people were also concerned as a matter of conscience. They did not want to be involved in any complicity with this trade. They conscientiously objected as ratepayers to being made parties to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Continuing, Dr. Carlile said the difficulties in regard to the licence were very considerable. No authority had been given to the Council by the ratepayers to apply for a licence of the kind before them that day. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as a matter of great importance. If the Magistrates agreed to grant the transfer, he urged, as a sort of deathbed repentance, that Mr. Haines should surrender that part of the licence permitting Sunday trading. The presence of little children on premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks was also a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record, and they did not want to see that record marred in any way.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that he knew the opposition were serious and conscientious in the objection they raised from a Temperance point of view. Perhaps it was just as well that they should be reminded that they should keep within the bounds of Temperance, although, in spite of what might be said, they had in Folkestone a splendid record – a great thing to be proud of – and they did not want to mar it. He thought that Folkestone was quite likely to hold that reputation. It showed that the Rev. Carlile did not know the ways of the world when he talked about Sunday afternoon.

Dr. Carlile: I did not restrict myself to Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Haines referred to a letter to the Press from Dr. Carlile, in which the writer referred to the licensed victuallers.

Dr. Carlile (to the Bench): I suggest that the whole thing has so changed since that paper was published that anything it contains is not worth your attention. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Haines referred to a statement by Dr. Carlile in his speech before the Council on Wednesday in last week, when Dr. Carlile said “There was just a possibility of any boy, accompanied by his young lady, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road. He suggested that they were facing a very serious moral problem, a moral problem which should make them pause before taking out a licence or consumption off the premises”. Mr. Haines said that it was a libel upon the young people, upon the town, upon the Judiciary, and upon the police who administered the law to say that such a thing could possibly happen. He thought their imagination ran away with their discretion, although they meant well.

The Magistrates retired for about ten minutes. On their return the Chairman said: “We have decided to grant this licence, but we make the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading”.

 

From the Folkestone Herald 26 March 1927.

ABOUT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

By Felix

GOING IN A FEW DAYS.

In a few days the old "Rose Hotel," which has stood on its present site for generations; will be only a memory. This hostelry, if it could tell the tale, could point to the times when the old stage coaches set out daily from the old building, to the Great City; could point also to that time before the building of the mighty viaduct that spans the Valley of Foord! It could boast too that the old site was the western boundary of the village of Folkestone. The "Rose" was known over England as being one of the finest commercial hotels in the country, cosy and comfortable, a home from home. Those commercials in other days were, indeed, missionaries of commerce. They were a wonderful class of men, and it was a treat to listen to them spinning their yarns and comparing notes with each other after perhaps a long absence. They were rightly regarded as a most intelligent class of men. Yes, the house breaker will soon be at his work on the "Rose," and it will be no more.

THE OLD AND THE NEW.

It is a somewhat remarkable fact that the licence of the oldest establishment of its sort in the town should be removed to Folkestone's newest hall. I take it that, bar unforeseen contingencies, the license will be removed. There is perhaps, a bit of sentiment about it, but, in spite of any controversy that may have raged around the matter of serving alcoholic drinks, in the new hall under certain condition, it is pleasant to think Folkestone's oldest hotel should on its demise hand over; as it were, something of a nature which should have the effect of heightening the town's, prosperity.

 

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.

 

From the Folkestone Herald 9 April 1927.

CLOSING OF THE ROSE HOTEL.

Tuesday was the last day in the life of the "Rose Hotel." For one hundred years the "Rose Hotel" has occupied its present site. For many years—generations—it marked the t western boundary of the then village of Folkestone. It was from here that, the four-horse stage coaches ran to and from London. It was here, too, that the "wise men of Folkestone" were wont to foregather and periodically settle the small town affairs. The "Rose" was the principal establishment in the then village. It was known all over the land by commercials of the old school. Although now a thing of the past, the license of the old house has not been extinguished, but transferred or removed to the magnificent "Cliff Hall." Thus a link with the past has been forged with the new.

Oh Tuesday night a number of townsmen gathered at the "Rose" to say farewell. A few speeches were made of a character suitable to the occasion, and Mr. J. H. Kent, the departing landlord, appropriately made acknowledgment. "Auld Lang Syne” was sung as the hour of closing arrived.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1928.

Local News.

The oldest hotel in Folkestone – The Rose – is now in the hands of the housebreakers, and will soon be a thing of the past. When the whole of the building is razed there will be exposed an entirely new view of one part of Folkestone. This view will only be visible for a short time as a new structure will arise on the site of the old.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 September 1928.

Extract from an article entitled The Old Order Changeth.

Often below a mill the water spreads itself out and forms what is called a bay. Thus it is likely that the neighbourhood of upper Tontine Street at one time was a great shallow pool, the Mill Bay, which name survives in an obscure thoroughfare to High Street. In the eighteenth century the low ground on the left of the stream had been drained, tan pits dug, and the tanner's house built partly over the stream. William Johncock was tanning there in 1782. His house faced a comparatively large brewery belonging to Ann Baker, who was also the owner of the recently demolished Rose Inn (hotel). Between the tannery and the brewery Mill Bay was entered.

Note: No mention of Ann Baker in More Bastions, but she may have been the owner and not the licensee of the Rose.

 

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 Herald 21 September 1929.

Obituary.

We regret to announce the death on Tuesday, at a London nursing home, of Mrs. Percy Venner, the wife of Alderman Percy Venner, of Devonshire Gardens, Margate. The deceased was widely known as a former Mayoress of Margate, where, through her amiable disposition, she endeared herself to all classes of the community.

The late Mrs. Venner was equally well-known in Folkestone, where, with her husband, she resided for many years.

Alderman Venner, it will be recalled, was the one-time proprietor of the old Rose Hotel at Folkestone. He is at the present time proprietor of the London and Paris Hotel (sic), Folkestone.

To Alderman Venner and his family much sympathy will be extended. The Funeral will take place at Margate today (Saturday).

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 January 1945.

Obituary.

The death of Mr. James Henry Kent, of “The Retreat”, Trimworth Road, Folkestone, which occurred on Tuesday, has caused widespread feeling of deep regret in Folkestone and the neighbourhood. Mr. Kent, who was 69, had suffered from a cold for about two months, but last weekend it was expected that a few days' rest would result in a complete recovery. He was admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital on Thursday, but he failed to respond to treatment and died from pneumonia and heart failure.

Mr. Kent, a native of Liverpool, had had business and municipal interests in this district for a period of well over 30 years. When a young man he joined the Merchant Navy, which he left at the age of 29 to marry Miss Annie Elizabeth Lord, whose home was near Abingdon, Berkshire. He afterwards entered the licensed trade, and for short periods held the licences of the Prince Albert, at Sydenham, and the Queen's Hotel, Abingdon.

He came to Folkestone several years before the outbreak of the last war and, apart from his other business activities, he quickly took a prominent interest in cinema undertakings. He was managing director of the first cinema built in Hythe, the old Hythe Picture Palace, which was opened in 1911, and was the forerunner of the much more up-to-date Grove Cinema, in Portland Road. He made similar interests in Maidstone, Reading and Banbury.

His career on Folkestone Town Council started more than 30 years ago when, in the summer of 1912, he was elected a member for the East Ward. His association, however, was quickly broken, and it was not until November, 1927, that he returned to the Corporation as a member for the Morehall Ward, in which he had important business interests. He was unopposed, filling the seat vacated by the late Councillor S. Kingsnorth. He was re-elected in 1930 and 1933, and then when the whole of the Council retired in 1934, prior to the Revision of the Boundaries Election, he went back again, serving until 1938, when he decided to retire from Municipal life. In July, 1941, however, he was persuaded again to offer his services and he was co-opted to the East Ward. Last summer he resigned his seat, a decision which in many quarters met with much regret. For a long period he was Chairman of the Parks Committee, and he was associated with a number of improvements carried out by the department in the pre-war years. The late Councillor Kent was one of the most progressive members of the Corporation and, coupled with his sound business judgement, this made him one of the most valuable members of the municipal body.

In 1927 he sold to the Corporation for 1,500 the licence of the old Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, which he had purchased, and despite strong opposition the licence was transferred in March of that year to the Leas Cliff Hall. Later on he played a big part in obtaining the transfer of a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.

At the election of Mayor last year he made an outspoken protest against the re-election year after year of one man to the Mayoralty.

For many years he was proprietor of the Morehall Wine Stores, an off licence business, and in March, 1939, after several previous unsuccessful applications he was granted an on licence for the premises, the conversion of which was held up by the outbreak of war.

Mr. Kent was a man of varied activities, of which sporting pastimes formed a considerable part. In Berkshire he was well-known as a keen huntsman and shot. He was a skilful bowls player, and for many years had been a member of the Folkestone Bowls Club and other clubs. As an angler he took part in many of the Folkestone Sea Angling festivals, and also, on a number of occasions, visited Ireland for fishing holidays. He was greatly interested in cricket and had been associated with the Folkestone Cricket Festival in pre-war days, as well as with the County fixtures played on the Sports Ground.

At one time he was a member of the Folkestone Rotary Club. He was a Freemason, being a member of the Temple Lodge of Freemasons, No. 558, Folkestone.

Mr. Kent suffered a severe and tragic loss in the summer of 1934, when his wife died during the annual outing of the staff of the Grove Cinema. Mrs. Kent collapsed during the homeward journey and died at New. Romney. There are no children.

The funeral will take place today. The interment will be preceded by a service at Folkestone Parish Church at 11 a.m.

 

Folkestone Gazette 16 September 1953.

Local News.

The days when goats and donkeys roamed the streets of Folkestone, and sea water (3d. a pail cold and 5d. hot) was delivered to hotels in the west end of the town, are recalled by the retirement of one of the town's oldest businessmen, 80-year-old Mr. Alfred Clement Lake, of Cheriton Road, Folkestone.

Since the last war Mr. Lake and his wife, Trixie, have run the Criterion Hotel and Restaurant in Cheriton Road, but on September 23rd their business comes under the auctioneer’s hammer. “People are hard to please these days,” said Mr. Lake, recalling an August Bank Holiday before 1914-18 war when he sold over 700 bottles of mineral water at his tea chalet adjoining the Warren Halt Station. Now Mr. Lake is going to take a well-earned rest after 70 years of working 12 and more hours a day. “Hard work never killed anybody”, says Trixie, who despite her 70 years is as sprightly as ever. “I am already looking for another job. Perhaps somebody would like a good cook. That is the sort of work that would suit me”.

Mr. Lake started his working life as a farmer's boy in the days when cattle roamed through the Warren. His employer was the late Mr. Edwin Burbidge, who farmed near the No. 3 Martello Tower on East Cliff, where he kept pigs. Farmer Burbidge’s bullocks and cows grazed on either side of the railway line through the Warren. And young Alfie Lake used to help drive them home to the cowsheds which once stood on the site now occupied by the Savoy Cinema. Next door, where a picture dealer now has premises, stood a shop where Mr. Burbidge sold milk.

They were the days of the old Prince Albert Hotel before it was modernised. Not only did young Alfred Lake have to drive the cows and bullocks to the Warren and to a meadow, known as Jenkins field on the site of Segrave Road, but he had to look after farmer Burbidge’s many donkeys and goats.

In the summer the donkeys hauled bathchairs up the Road of Remembrance from a stand adjoining the old toll house at the foot of the hill.

Small open carriages, drawn by one or two goats, were popular with children who were taken for rides along the sea front. Quite frequently the goats and the donkeys strayed from their stables into Rendezvous Street. The police (there were only five in Folkestone 70 years ago) often called on Mr. Burbidge to round up the straying animals, although they did not constitute a real danger because there was so little vehicular traffic in those days.

Very often the goats would stroll as far as The Rose Hotel on the site of Messrs. Burton’s shop. There some of the practical jokers of the day would ply the animals with beer until they were drunk. “One day”, said Mr. Lake, “they were not content just to get one of the old goats drunk. They painted it all the colours of the rainbow and then turned it loose to find its way back to our yard. Another favourite visiting place for the goats was the corn factor’s shop on the opposite side of the street. They had many a free meal before the indignant shopkeeper drove them away”.

Mr. Lake well remembers as a boy delivering milk to the notorious Warren Inn, where drinking out of hours was a special attraction, especially on a Sunday morning. “There were three large rooms at the inn”, said Mr. Lake, “and from an early hour they were crowded with people who walked miles for a drink. There was also a tea garden adjoining the premises”. The inn was closed over 60 years ago.

In the yard in Rendezvous Street Mr. Burbidge installed several big coppers in which he used to boil sea water. “We used to draw the water from the inner harbour”, said Mr. Lake, “carry it in big barrels on two wheels drawn by donkeys to our premises and boil it. Then we would set out for the west end of the town to fulfil orders from visitors and residents who liked to take sea water baths. Cold water sold at 3d. a pail and hot sea water at 5d. “When Mr. Burbidge gave up the sea water business it was taken over by the proprietors of the Bathing Establishment, who used an elaborate cart for their sea water round”.

True to the old story, the farmer’s boy married the farmer’s daughter but the first Mrs. Lake died in 1916. Before then Mr. Burbidge had moved to premises in Beach Street where he had a milk shop and continued to run his farm. He died a few years before the outbreak of war in 1914 and Mr. Lake carried on the business. For several years before the First World War he had a tea chalet close to the Warren Halt Station. In those days the Warren was a favourite spot with picnic parties. “People used to bring all their own food, tea, sugar and milk”, he said. “I used to supply the hot water, cups, saucers and plates. I always had milk on sale at 8d. a quart because so very often the visitors would slip on the steep paths and spill the milk they were carrying in their baskets. The Warren was a far prettier spot in those days than it is today”, mused Mr. Lake. “I knew every inch of the twisting paths, and so did my pack-ponies which carried supplies to the chalet. I often rode one of the ponies from the Warren Halt to the farm on East Cliff in five minutes. They knew every twist and turn of the undulating paths and could travel very fast”.

The outbreak of the 1914-18 war brought an end to the cattle grazing on the chalky slopes of the cliffs between Folkestone and Dover, although Mr. Lake well remembers the landslip at Eagle’s Nest when a complete house slid down the cliff. One of his cows was slightly injured by falling chalk. The War also brought an end to Mr. Lake's catering activities at the Warren Halt. In 1920 Mr. Lake married again. His bride was Miss Trixie Rush and it was not long before they were back in business beneath the tall white cliffs, this time at the Warren Tea Chalet, built by the Corporation after the Warren had been given to the town by Lord Radnor. They were there for three years, and then followed similar ventures on East Cliff. They had a small tea hut on the site of the East Cliff Pavilion and another at the Roman remains. For nine years before the outbreak of war in 1939 they carried on a business at the Zig-Zag Cafe on the Marine Promenade, but the coming of war saw them catering for thousands of troops and sailors at a cafe in Tontine Street. Nine years ago they took over the Criterion Resturant in Cheriton Road. When the East Cliff Pavilion was opened it was Mrs. Lake who organised the first whist drive and dance at the new building. To this day Trixie is well known in Folkestone as a whist drive M.C. Every week she runs a drive at Oxford House for the East Ward Conservative Association, of which she is Chairman, and for the past two years she has organised whist drives for the Catholic Church. Mrs. Lake also takes a great interest in the Guildhall Over 60 Club of which she is Chairman.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had STREDWICK Christopher 1717-41

FRANKLIN James 1741-79

OTTAWAY Saul 1779-92

STREDWICK Francis 1792-1794

STREDWICK Frances 1794-1812

KING James 1812-25 Pigot's Directory 1823

COLLINS William 1825-28 Pigot's Directory 1828-29

PAYNE Thomas 1832-38 Pigot's Directory 1839

COULTER John 1838-Apr/44 dec'd age 38 Pigot's Directory 1840

COULTER Jane 1841+ (age 36 in 1841Census)

VIGOR William 1844-52 (age 42 in 1851Census) Bagshaw's Directory 1847South Eastern Gazette

MEDHURST William 1852-59 Next pub licensee had

MEDHURST Ann & Son 1859-74+ (widow age 62 in 1861Census) Post Office Directory 1874

MEDHURST Richard 1872-79 Next pub licensee had

RALPH Frederick 1879-97 Next pub licensee had

HARGRAVE Leonard 1897

TERRY John Samuel 1897-99+ Kelly's 1899

VENNER Percy 1899-1905 Next pub licensee had

HUNT Robert 1905-09

HUNT Percy 1909-10

COOK A J 1910

COPE Alfred 1910-27

KENT James 1927 Next pub licensee had

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Pigot's Directory 1840From the Pigot's Directory 1840

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

South Eastern GazetteSouth Eastern Gazette

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room