From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 4 November, 1865. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE OFFENCES

Robert Smith, landlord of the "Royal Mail Inn," Strond Street, was summonsed for an infringement of his license; but the case was dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 15 February, 1867.

REFUSING TO ADMIT THE POLICE

Robert Smith, the keeper of the "Royal Mail," was summoned for refusing to admit Police-sergeant Barton to his house early on Sunday morning, although the light was burning brightly at the time and customers were in the house. Defendant was fined £2 and 10s. 6d. costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 August, 1876. Price 1d.

INFRINGEMENT OF THE LICENSING LAW

Robert Smith, landlord of the “Royal Mail,” was charged with having his house open, and George Gibbons, an artilleryman, with being on the premises during prohibited hours.

Both charges were withdrawn.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 5 February, 1886. 1d.

FOUND DEAD IN A TRENCH

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Sydenham Payn, Esq.) at the “Royal Mail Hotel,” Strond Street, on Saturday, on the body of Patrick Maloney, a private of the Munster Fusiliers, whose body was found on Friday morning in one of the trenches outside the Citadel. The following gentlemen were on the Jury:- Mr. Wilkinson (foreman), Messrs. A. Champion, C. G. Sherwood, G. Butcher, C. Hill, M. Oram, T. T. Webb, W. Edrupt, T. J. Virgo, H. Carter, F. G. Ealden, W. Powell, J. Erby, and G. Venner, and, after viewing the body, which was lying at the Military Hospital, the following evidence was taken:-

Colour-sergeant Michael Fleming, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, stationed at the Citadel Barracks said: The body the Jury have viewed is that of Patrick Maloney. He is a private in the Munster Fusiliers. He was about 23 years of age. He belonged to my company. He was employed as an orderly at the District Brigade Office, and was so up to the time of his death.

David Barry said: I am a private in the Munster Fusiliers. I know the deceased, he belonged to the same company. I last saw him about twenty minutes past nine o'clock on the 28th at the “White Hart” public-house. I had spent the evening with him. I left him standing at the door. I waited a few minutes, and finding he did not come, I went home. I left him company with a female. She had been with him during the latter part of the evening. Deceased was perfectly sober. There was about twenty soldiers in the same public-house.

Henry Lincoln, a private in the same company, said: I knew the deceased. In last saw him on Thursday night , about twenty minutes to ten o'clock, in the Military Road. He was going up the North Military Road. He was sober. I asked him what his hurry was, as he was walking very quickly. He said he was late. He walked in front of me. It was a very foggy night.

Robert Conley, a tailor in the Middlesex Regiment stationed at the Shaft Barracks, said: About 11.30 yesterday morning I was with some others on the ramparts of the Citadel at the far end. One of them saw the body of deceased lying in the trench. It was lying close to the wall on the rampart side. Deceased had his belt on, but three buttons of his tunic off. His cap and stick were lying by him. I went and reported.

Samuel Butterworth, surgeon of the medical staff stationed at Dover, said: I saw the deceased yesterday morning, about a quarter to twelve, at the trench. The body was taken to the dead-house. I examined it there, after having the body stripped. There were no bones broken, but two wounds on the scrotum, and the seams of his trousers were burst. There was a little blood from the nose. I am unable to say the cause of death. I have been told that a window of deceased's room looked into the trench.

Private Lincoln (recalled) said that he saw the deceased pass the guard at the top of the North entrance.

Some discussion took place as to the verdict that should be returned, and Mr. Butcher thought the hearing should be adjourned in order that some further evidence be obtained. He thought some of the Jurymen were treating the matter rather lightly. They had come there for the purpose of finding out the cause of death, and that they had failed to do so.

In his remarks to the Jury the Coroner stated the inquiry was held at the hotel for the convenience of the Jury, as it would be very inconvenient for them to go up to the Town Hall, but he always disapproved of such enquiries being held in public-houses, as it sometimes led to a display of levity on the part of the Jury. He thought they should be held at the Town Hall.

The Jury then decided to adjourn until the following Wednesday, in order that a post mortem examination might be made, and the evidence of the guard that was on duty at the Citadel, obtained.

ADJOURNED INQUEST

The adjourned inquest into the death of Private Maloney, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, was held at the “Royal Mail Hotel,” on Wednesday afternoon, at two o'clock. After calling the names of the Jury, the Coroner proposed proceeding with the evidence, but several Jurymen thought it better to go and view the spot where the unfortunate man had fallen into the trench. This they did, returning at twenty minutes past four. The Coroner then remarked that they had had a long walk, but he did not think it would be any waste of time. They could now surmise accurately how the man got into the trench. He then took the following additional evidence:-

Mr. Samuel Butterworth, of the Medical Staff, said that since the enquiry he had made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased. He found a clot of blood upon the brain, which was sufficient to cause death, and would be due to a rupture of the blood vessel caused by a fall. The skull was not fractured. Death would in this case be instantaneous.

By a Juror: the height of the wall where deceased fell would be about 15ft.

Colour-sergeant Michael Fleming, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, said that the acting orderly sergeant made a verbal report to him that the deceased was absent from barracks on Thursday night and also the next morning.

Private Barry, of the same regiment, who slept in the same room as deceased, gave evidence as to his being absent on the night in question. He had never heard deceased talk of getting into, or out of barracks by the windows.

Corporal Trebble, East Surrey Regiment, who was on guard at the North-entrance, Military Road, from nine till ten o'clock, stated that a number of soldiers passed into barracks during that time, but he could not say if deceased was amongst them.

Sergeant W, Hunt, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, in reply to the Coroner, said that he had heard some of the men of his regiment talk of getting in and out of barracks by the window into the trench below. The spikes on the walls had been there before the regiment came to Dover. He did not know if the spikes were used for the purpose of getting out of barracks.

The Coroner thought there was no doubt that the deceased did not go into the Citadel on the night in question. They had evidence to the effect that the deceased was going up the Military Road about twenty minutes to ten o'clock on Thursday night, but it might have been later. He might not have gone into the Citadel, but wandered in another direction. It is surmised that the deceased went down the steps into the trench for the purpose of getting into the barracks by the windows, and he thought this was very probable if the deceased was at all late. There was no doubt that he had fallen into the trench and received the injuries which caused death. It seemed a pity, he thought, that these spikes were allowed to remain in the wall so long, thus affording a temptation for the men to use them to get in or out of barracks. They had no direct evidence to show how deceased got into the trench, but there was no doubt he fell into it.

The Coroner and reporters then left the room for about twenty minutes, while the Jury considered their verdict.

The following verdict was then returned “That the deceased died from the effects of injuries, the result of a fall into the trench; but there was no evidence to show how he got there,” they also added a rider to the effect that the Coroner should write to the proper authorities to have the spikes in the wall removed, and the windows barricaded up with iron bars. Several of the Jury remarked that they had seen, that afternoon, the notches in the wall, where bricks had been removed for the purpose of climbing up, and also a number of the spikes, which were partly driven into the wall, showed signs of having been broken off since the enquiry commenced.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 2 April, 1886. 1d.

SAD DEATH OF A CHILD

The Borough Coroner (Sydenham Payn, Esq.), assisted with a Jury composed of the following gentlemen:- Mr. W. Lane (foreman), Messrs. G. A. Chard, J. U. Weidman, J. Parish, G. Butcher, C. Brown, W. Crump, J. Fox, J. Billman, G. Stilson, H. Harris, W. Paramor, and J. Randall, held an inquiry touching the death of Charles Jennings, at the “Royal Mail Hotel,” Strond Street, on Saturday afternoon, who met his death early on Friday morning, having been severely scalded.

After the Jury had viewed the body the following evidence was taken:-

James Jennings said: I am one of the crew of the Belgian boat, and live at No.8, Bulwark Street. The body the Jury have viewed is that of my son. His name was Charles Jennings, and he was two years old on the 19th of this month. I came home on Thursday morning about eight o'clock. I had been out all night on night duty. I found my wife with the deceased in her arms covered with a sheet. Some of my neighbours were also in the house. They said the deceased had been scalded. I went directly to Dr. Colbeck. I saw him, and as he was unable to come he gave me instructions what to do. Finding the child got no better I afterwards took it to the Dover Hospital in a fly. The deceased was attended to there and redressed. I then brought the child away in a cab. Mr. Wood, the surgeon to the Hospital, came down in the afternoon. The child was then in a low state. Deceased died on the following morning about twenty minutes to three o'clock.

In reply to a Juror witness stated that Dr. Colbeck was engaged at the time he went for him, but he called to see the child in the afternoon.

Elizabeth Jennings, sister to the deceased, said: On Thursday morning, shortly before eight o'clock, I was engaged preparing the breakfast. I placed the deceased in a chair by the fire, and gave him a piece of bread and butter to eat. I turned round to attend to the other children when I heard a noise against the grate of the fireplace. I turned round and found the deceased covered with tea and coffee. The coffee pot, which had a long handle, stood on a trivet by the fire. The deceased was scalded on his back. I took the child directly and ran upstairs to my mother with him. Some oil was obtained and the deceased was wrapped up in a sheet. The neighbours came and assisted us. The child did not scream much. We gave it some medicine which had been sent for. He remained conscious until the evening and then became unconscious. He died the next morning shortly before three o'clock. I think the child must have dropped the bread and butter and was trying to pick it up when the accident happened.

Mr. Charles Wood, house surgeon to the Dover Hospital, said: the deceased was brought to the Hospital about half-past nine on Thursday morning. He was suffering from scalds on the back and arms. The wounds were dressed by the burse and dispenser. The wounds were extensive on the back. I visited the child in the afternoon about three o'clock. It was suffering severely from shock, and I had very little hopes of its recovery. The shock was sufficient to cause death, and it is my opinion the deceased died from that effect.

Verdict in accordance with the medical evidence was returned.

One of the Jurors said that he should like to know why the inquest at the Pier district should always be held at the “Royal Mail.” He always understood that the inquest was held at the nearest public house to where the body of the deceased might by lying, but that afternoon they had passed several public houses which were much nearer than the “Royal Mail.” Although he was landlord of the public house by the Archliffe Fort he did not speak for himself. He saw a number of his fellow publicans upon the Jury, and he was sure that they would all be glad of a turn.

The Coroner stated that he was in the habit of holding inquests at places where he could be best accommodated and for the comfort of the Jury. He thought it would be too far for those at the Pier to go up to the Town Hall. He questioned whether the other public houses at the Pier had such large room accommodation.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 30 August, 1889. Price 1d.

A CHILD BURNT TO DEATH

An inquest was held at the “Royal Mail Hotel” on Monday, to enquire into the death of a child named J. Larkin, who had been severely burnt in one of the rooms of the South Front Barracks on Friday morning. The child was ten months old. It appears that the mother placed it on the floor near the fire and then went out to perform her duties. After a few minutes a woman, who lived in adjoining room, smelt something burning, and on going into Mrs. Larkin's room, found the child's clothes burning, and a poker, which was red hot, lying on it. A doctor was sent for , but the child was so severely burnt that it died the same evening.

The Jury returned a verdict accordingly, and adding a rider directed attention of the authorities to the fact that in these rooms, where over 150 children lived, there were no guards to the fires.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 1 May, 1931. Price 1½d.

ROYAL MAIL HOTEL TRANSFER

At the Dover police Court on Monday, the licence of the "Royal Mail Hotel," Strond Street, was transferred from Miss Austen to Noel Raymond Roy De Fleury, of "Sea View Hotel," Hythe.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that Miss Austen had held the licence since February, 1915, when she succeeded her mother who had had it for years.

Dover Express, Friday 10 February 1933.

Dover Brewster sessions.

Closing Three Public Houses.

The Magistrates considered the question of the closing, on the grounds of redundancy, of the "Royal Mail," Strond Street, "Star," Church Street, and the "Criterion," Last Lane.

Mr. Medicott appeared for the lessee of the "Royal Mail," to speak for the renewal of the licence. The lease was held from the Harbour Board, and had 35 years to run, at a rental of £8 a year. It was an hotel, and not really a public house. There were six letting bedrooms, and it was a very convenient place for those who came from the harbour, etc. The premises were in good repair, but it was a fact that at the moment there was very little trade being done. They had a new licensee in prospect. The present one with probably find a different type of house, more suitable to his talents. He asked that the matter should be deferred for a year in order that they might have a chance of pulling the place round. If referred, it would be a very hardly on Mr. Armstrong Payn, the mortgagee in possession.

Mr. De Fleury, the licensee, appeared and ask for the renewal of licence. He said that he had only been there about 2 years. The first week he was there he took only 2s., but at the end of the first year he had taken over £1,000. This year, he admitted, trade was bad and he had not taken so much. They produce audited accounts by Messrs. Rogers, Stevens & Co., of Rochester. He said that he was working up the hotel trade, and had permanent residents and pilots who came in for bed and breakfast. When he took over he had electric light and the fires installed, the place redecorated, and running hot and cold water installed. The Foreign Secretary of the Bank of England had stayed there. His lease for a period of 5 years, with an option to purchase for £1,500. He went in with a valuation of, roughly, £100, but after the sales of the effects by auction he received £6. He spent about £300 on new furniture, and, roughly, £500 on redecoration. He had no doubt that there was a good business to be done there, but it wanted building up.

Mr. Medicott said that it was substantiated what he had said that it was really an hotel trade.

Mr. Fleury said that was so. There was practically no bar trade. Where trade was done was in cocktails. He added that recently he provided a Chinese dinner, within 48 hours. He was open to provide a meal at any time of the day or night, and he did not think anyone else did that in Dover.

Inspector Leeming gave evidence of 10 visits to the "Royal Mail," and found a total of 10 customers. The present licensee had been there since June, 1931, and the previous one for 16 years before.

Mr. H. E. V. Shone, valuer, called for the lessee, said that he had known the hotel for 40 years, and had been professionally connected with it for more than 5 years. Up to two years ago it was in the Austen family. The last member fell on unhappy days and had not sufficient means to maintain it. The present tenant spent too much capital in re-establishing the hotel, with result that he had not had the means to keep it properly stocked for the trade which, undoubtedly, could be run. It was very suitable for letting, and has always been popular with pilots and others coming from the sea. If the Magistrates would refer the matter for twelve months alterations would be made there, and he had no doubt that the conditions of things would be such that when they would appreciate that that this house was required in the locality.

Mr. R. Mowll said that the Harbour Board would reserve the right to present to the compensation authorities there reasons for asking for the renewal. There had been several houses referred in the locality for redundancy, with the co-operation of the Harbour Board, but he had no instruction on the part of the Board to agree to this house being closed.

The Magistrates, after about five minutes consideration, announced that the licence would be referred.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 23 June, 1933. Price 1½d.

THE OBJECTION TO DOVER LICENCES

LICENSING AUTHORITIES REFUSES CLOSING ORDERS

The principle meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Authorities was held at the Session House, St. Augustine's, Canterbury, on Friday and dealt with the following cases:- The “Star Inn,” Church Street, Dover; the “Criterion Inn,” Last Lane, Dover; and the “Royal Mail,” Strond Street, Dover.

Mr. C. J. Burgess was in the chair.

Mr. S. L. Fletcher, for the licensee applied for the renewal of the licence of the “Royal Mail,” Dover. Mr. B. H. Waddy appeared on behalf of the Harbour Board, the freeholders.

Mr. H. J. Baxter stated that the “Royal Mail Hotel” was in Strond Street, Dover, which, at one time was a thoroughfare, but which now ended in a dead end save for a foot bridge by which people went to the Admiralty Pier. It was no longer used except by a few foot passengers. Trams passed the street and stopped a few yards beyond where the hotel was. The licensee was Mr. N. R. R. De Fleury and it was a free house; not tied to any brewer. The licence was granted to Mr. De Fleury in 1931. The rateable value was £35 gross and £26 net. The premises had been “done up” recently in order to fit it out as an hotel. The nearest public house was the “Green Dragon” which was 30 yards away and within a radius of 500 yards there were ten other licensed premises.

Mr. Hayward gave evidence that the house was in a very good state of repair and modernised for use as a small hotel.

Inspector Leeming spoke to visiting the premises on various days and at different times of the day in January and he said very little trade was done.

Mr. Fletcher: it has been modernised for use as an hotel?

Yes.

Did you hear a witness say all the bedrooms have lavatory basins and hot and cold water and electric light?

Yes.

I should not be insulting other hotels in Kent if I stated you would not find many with hot and cold water laid on in every room?

No sir.

Would you agree with me that the money which has been spent on modernising this house has been spent in the last two years?

Yes.

Mr. Waddy: You have a statement about the road being a dead end?

Yes.

There are a number of small roads leading through to it?

There is room for pedestrians but not for large traffic.

Four public houses and two hotels have been extinguished within the last four years?

Yes.

Last year the Southern Railway obtained powers to build a Channel Ferry. It will be in this part of Dover?

Yes.

Mr. Baxter: has there been a diminution of the population in that part of Dover?

Yes, the Pier district has almost disappeared. I must admit it was not the type of population which would have used a hotel.

Mr. Fletcher said that there had been no evidence put forward at all of differentiation.

Mr. Baxter stated that there was clear evidence of differentiation. It was not necessary for the Licensing Justices to place the house in order of merit.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 18 August, 1933. Price 1½d.

DOVER BANKRUPT'S EXAMINATION

Noel Raymond de Fleury, “Royal Mail Hotel,” Strond Street, Dover, Licensed Victualler, attended at Canterbury Bankruptcy Court, on Tuesday, for his public examination. His statement of affairs disclosed liabilities as £743 2s. 7d., and assets £165 1s. 6d., having a deficiency of £578 1s. 1d.

Under examination by the Deputy Official Receiver (Mr. C. S. Foulsham), debtor, aged 33, said he was now living at Laughing Waters, Cobham. Before commencing business he was a hotel manager at the “Sea View Hotel,” Seabrook, for three years, and previous to that he assisted his mother, who was a beauty specialist in London. He became licensee of the “Royal Mail” in April, 1931. The actual in-going was about £100 and the broker's fee £20. owing to the terrible condition of the premises he spent about £600 in fitting them up in the twelve months. He obtained £400, money on loan, within five years, at 5½ per cent interest, and a clause in the agreement provided that until the redemption of the money the hotel was to be run in the joint names of the borrower and lender, a Mrs. Wilson, and a joint banking account opened, and both entitled to draw upon the account. The business was never run in the joint names, but in October, Mrs. Wilson went to the hotel and stayed. He denied that she was in his employ from February, 1932, till August 1932, but assisted in the business. He never consulted Mrs. Wilson in any way as to the conduct of the business. Mrs. Wilson lent him a further £250, which included certain securities deposited at the bank. She was a creditor for £650. He had scheduled £180 as the estimated value of the tenancy agreement in her possession. It had three years to run at a renal of £60 a year.

One of the conditions of the agreement, said debtor, was that he should employ Mrs. Wilsons' brother, Mr. R. Curnock, and his wife in the business. He employed them as porter and general help, respectively.

The Deputy Official Receiver: You too a tenancy agreement for five years. What was the rent?

Debtor: That is rather a difficult question to answer, because the premises were in such a disgusting condition that they did not know how to base the rent at all.

I gather the rent was to be based on consumption?

Yes.

Did you ever pay any rent?

No.

Consumption did not reach the agreed figres?

No.

Did you agree to pay ground rent?

Yes, £8 a year.

Did you ever pay any?

I paid income tax only on that.

The other question the debtor said the hotel had been rather let down, and he undertook to effect improvement to the premises, and the landlord agreed when the rent became payable to allow half for the repairs. The total cost of the improvements was about £240, and he accepted £100 from the landlord in full discharge and settlement of his claim. Therefore, there was a loss of £140. The loss had not been shown in the statement of affairs. At the time he became licensee the average takings were nil, and that was admitted in the agreement. There were no takings at all, and he had to build up a connection. He was able to make a living, but only a very small one.

The Official Receiver: Remembering you started the business without free capital you personally had no risk to run. You had nothing to lose?

Debtor: No; strictly speaking.

You borrowed large sums for the purpose of this business?

Yes.

The Official Receiver: Are you an expert cocktail mixer?

Yes.

Did you mix cocktails?

Yes; that was one of my principal trades.

Was that a form of trade profit?

About 85 per cent. profit on turnover.

You did not sell much of that class of goods?

A fair amount.

Debtor said that during the first two years his stock sheets had shown a succession of deficiencies until a certain date of £184.

The Official Receiver: What steps did you take to discover the cause of the deficiencies?

Debtor: I asked the stock keeper if he would assist me to lay a trap. We tried various methods, but it was one thing to suspect and another to get proof.

So you did not discover the cause of the deficiency?

I discovered it in my own mind, but I have no proof of it.

Debtor said he discharged the man he suspected of alleged theft. Proof of the alleged pilfering was a signed statement from one man and a verbal statement from a Trinity House Pilot, who said he saw him put money in his pocket.

At whose suggestion was this letter written?

My solicitor's.

For what purpose was the letter written?

So I could have something definite, as it were.

With a view to take steps to prosecute this man?

That was the original idea, but we came to the conclusion that it would be throwing good money after bad.

You have shown in your statement loss of stock by pilfering at no less than £600?

Yes.

Do you say it is purported to have been taken by this man?

I have every reason to think so.

Despite the serious loss no further steps were taken. It does not speak very strongly for suspicion?

I was advised it was throwing good money after bad.

I should have thought you would have wanted some satisfaction for the purported heavy loss. What steps did you take to build up the business?

A lot of hard work.

Have not free drinks been supplied by you to customers?

Very few.

I have had it that you did that. Do you disagree?

Yes.

Debtor said that he gave some drinks away as a form of advertising. No one should do business without advertising.

The official Receiver suggested that debtor's wife caused a stoppage in the free beer and effected a certain economy in the house, but debtor did not agree, although the takings, while not increasing in amount showed more gross profit. Up to April, 1932 the percentage on the takings was 20 per cent, and between April and November, 1932, the gross profit was 47½. He did not attribute this to more efficient management, but to the dismissal of the employee. In June, 1932, a creditor levied execution for £44, which, with costs, came to £70, and the effects were sold by the Sheriff. They realised £105, and Mrs. Newton purchased certain goods and hired them to him (debtor) for £100. the landlord's agent advanced him £27, and this was not repaid. The agent eventually issued a bankruptcy notice and put a petition on the file. In April, 1933, he was offered, and accepted, a position as manager of a restaurant at Cobham. He was to receive 10 per cent commission on profits, with a minimum salary of £100 a year, jointly with his wife, and their keep. They were actually receiving £2 a week jointly.

It was suggested by the Official Receiver that the depression or dwindling away in the value of the effects was more the cause of debtor being there than the pilfering he had suggested.

Debtor agreed the figures knocking on the head the statement in the affairs that £600 was lost by pilfering, but he still maintained that it was about this figure that the loss came to.

The Official Receiver suggested another cause was inadequate supervision; that he had expended money freely without adequate compensation, and had spent money on the premises which really, in the circumstances he could not afford.

Debtor: If I had not done so there would have been no chance of doing any trade at all.

The official Receiver further suggested that debtor had rather big ideas regarding the manner in which the business should be conducted.

The examination was closed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 15 December, 1933. Price 1½d.

“ROYAL MAIL” HOTEL NEW LICENSEE

At the Dover Police Court on Monday, an application was made for the licence of the “Royal Mail,” to be transferred from Mr. Vernon Shone to Mrs. Singleton, late of the Curson Club, Curson Street, Mayfair. Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the applicant, said he thought he ought to tell the Bench that Mrs. Singleton did have a little trouble in her club. It was a proprietary club, and according to the rules, certain precautions had to be taken before a person was admitted as a member. It so happened that a certain gentleman applied for admission to the club and was refused as undesirable, and this very much angered him so he immediately went off to the Police and said that he knew there was betting taking place in the club. The London Police came and visited the place and found something of that sort. Mrs. Singleton herself was away at the time and knew nothing of it, and there was no prosecution. The Police merely said that nothing of the sort must happen again. There was no prosecution at all, but he thought it right to let the Bench know, because this was a circumstance which was known to the Police in London. It did not effect the right of the bench to grant a licence to Mrs. Singleton, who was very well fitted to take over the “Royal Mail” premises. Mr. Armstrong Payn, the proprietor on the house had taken very great pains to inquire into her suitability, and was satisfied that she was a suitable person to who to entrust the conduct of the business. He had such confidence in her that he was giving her a seven years' lease.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The place has been very much improved by the late man.

Mr. Mowll: Hot and cold water in every room. It has been improved out of all knowledge.

The Chief Constable said that there were no grounds on which he could oppose the transfer of the licence to the applicant and the Bench granted the transfer.