Folkestone Herald 19 December 1891.

Inquest.

Mr. John Minter (Borough Coroner) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Monday evening last, touching the death of Cordelia Grinstead, who died on Saturday last at the Royal Standard public house, Bridge Street.

The jury having viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:-

Henry Grinstead, plasterer, living at 88, Canterbury Road, said deceased was his wife. He last saw her alive on Saturday morning last, when she appeared in her usual health. Witness said he did not sleep in the same bedroom as deceased, on account of her drunken habits. She was drunk the night before her death. Deceased had been given to drinking about ten or twelve years. He had had no quarrel, nor did he strike deceased on Friday.

Jane Eliza Smith, wife of Robert Smith, landlord of the Sportsman's Inn, Sidney Street, said deceased came into her house on Saturday morning last at half past nine and asked for a drink, but she refused to serve her.

Ellen Murten, wife of William Murten, landlord of the Royal Standard, said deceased came to her house about 10.45 on Saturday morning. She was not indoors at the time, but on returning found deceased in a fit. Witness at once sent for a doctor, and on his arrival found she was quite dead.

Mrs. Halliday, wife of George Halliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf, said deceased came to their house between 10 and 11 a.m. and had some whisky. She complained of not feeling well, and soon after left the house. Witness afterwards saw her enter the Royal Standard.

Dr. William Peard Barrett, M.R.C.S., said he was called to deceased, and found her lying on a couch quite dead. He made a post mortem examination of the body. Deceased was suffering from an internal complaint, and in his opinion the immediate cause of death was syncope.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

Folkestone Herald 16 June 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday, Mr. F. Hall submitted plans for alterations at the Royal Standard Inn, Canterbury Road, the property of Messrs. Leney, the licensed holder being Mr. Summerfield.

The Bench stipulated that a dividing wall six feet high be built at the rear.

Folkestone Herald 16 November 1912.

Tuesday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

Application was made for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Red Cow Inn from Mrs. Savage to Mr. George Summerfield, at present the landlord of the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road. It was explained that arrangements were being made for Mr. Summerfield's son to take over the licence of the Royal Standard.

The application was granted on the understanding that Mr. Summerfield Jun. went into the Red Cow for the time being until his father could take over the business.

Folkestone Herald 30 November 1912.

Wednesday, November 27th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, and Councillor A. Stace.

The licence of the Red Cow, Foord Road, was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Savage to Mr. George Summerfield, and that of the Royal Standard was transferred from Mr. G. Summerfield to his son, Mr. John William Summerfield.

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1914.

Local News.

The question of the right of publicans to sell tobacco on Wednesday afternoon (early closing day), was discussed at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, four licence holders having been summoned for a breach of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on the 18th February after 1 p.m.

The Magistrates were Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G. Boyd and J.J. Giles, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The case against John Wm. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, for selling tobacco at 6.30 p.m. on the 18th February was first heard. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk said this was the first summons that had come before them under that particular Act, and he thought perhaps he should refer them to the various sections bearing upon the question. Mr. Kidson then went into many details concerning various sections of the Act. He mentioned that tobacconists were under one section exempt from the Act, but added that another section provided for this particular matter, and the local authority had power, if satisfied that they had at least two thirds majority of tobacconists to include them. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, which was confirmed by the Home Secretary. The Order provided “That the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, with respect to the closing of shops for the serving of customers in the afternoon of one weekday in every week, are hereby extended to the undermentioned shops in the urban district of Folkestone, to all shops except those in the Morehall district, and in High Street, Sandgate, wherein is carried on the trade or business of the sale of tobacco or smokers' requisites”. That Order was confirmed by the Home Secretary. In referring to many legal points in the case, Mr. Kidson alluded to Section 6, sub-section 3, which provided “As soon as the Secretary of State has confirmed any Order, the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament”. A complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing this Order. Therefore it became necessary to make inquiry. Inquiry was made, and the facts in this case were very simple, and he presumed could not be disputed. He thought it was hardly necessary to draw their attention to the fact that the Order provided that the day of the half holiday should be Wednesday for all the shops. They knew that this was a new Act of Parliament, and the Order was newer still. The Magistrates might like to know what steps had been taken to make known Orders and Acts of Parliament of the kind. If it would be of any assistance, he would explain what had been done.

The Chairman expressed the wish of the Bench to hear the particulars.

The Town Clerk then produced a circular (which, he said, was sent out to the defendant amongst others), in which he stated that he enclosed a copy of the Order which had been made extending the provisions of section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops, including tobacconists. Next Mr. Kidson touched upon a statement made by Mr. McKenna, in which he said he was to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State was advised that licensed houses in which the retail trade of tobacco was regularly carried on, were subject to the provisions of the Order, but did not apply to the casual sale of tobacco at hotels and inns in connection with meals and the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.

Mr. Holme pointed out that the opinion of the Home Secretary was not binding on the Bench.

The Town Clerk said it was an intimation of the view he would like the authorities to take.

Mr. Holme: It is an admission by the prosecution.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said that Mr. Pearson was appointed the Inspector under the Act for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, an assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, on the 18th February, a Wednesday, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the premises by the door at the bottom of Bridge Street, and asked the assistant for an ounce of shag tobacco. There was a small pigeon hole where customers were served. The assistant refused to serve him at first, saying it was Wednesday afternoon. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant then called him back, and this time served him, saying “I will oblige you this time,, but you must not tell anyone, or we shall get into trouble”. The assistant then served him, and witness paid him 4d. Witness saw no notice in reference to the Shops Act.

Mr. Holme said there was no dispute as to the facts. However, the case was not an important case. Mr. Kidson said it was the first case in the Borough; he (Mr. Holme) believed it was the first case anywhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness stated that the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house, and he did not know that it made any special effort to push the sale of tobacco any more than other public houses.

Mr. Holme pointed out that in hotels there were cabinets and counters for the sale of tobacco, and, turning to witness, asked “There was nothing of the kind here. Was there, in fact, any tobacco on the bars?”

Witness: I saw none.

Was anyone else buying tobacco when you were there? – Not in that department.

Did you see anyone else buy tobacco? – No.

Had you been in the house before? – No.

As far as your knowledge goes, it was the only case of an ounce of tobacco being sold? – Yes.

So far as you know, it was merely a casual sale? – Yes.

Mr. Holme pointed out that, under the Act, a register was to be kept, and in the register there were set out the different classes of shops affected. He asked witness to find the Royal Standard in the register.

Mr. Kidson said the Royal Standard was not in the register.

Mr. Holme asked if any public house was in the register.

Mr. Kidson: There are a few; some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme remarked that for some perfectly unexplained reason the Royal Standard was not in. No doubt there was a very good reason. Continuing, he asked witness if he could tell him if there was a provision under the Act by which a local authority might serve a notice on any shop occupier requiring him to say which he considered his principal trade, and could the witness tell him if that notice was served on the occupier of the Royal Standard?

Mr. Kidson submitted that it was not a proper question. It did not matter what notice was served. That was not the question for their consideration at all. The point was whether the Order was contravened.

Mr. Holme said the matter to be considered was fairly simple. They had the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. It might fairly be said that the question was “That in the district and at the time in question no shop might be kept open for the sale of tobacco”. Those were the words they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing those words. They might say that in the district and at the time in question it forbade the sale of tobacco without any exception whatsoever. That was one way of construing them, but he pointed out how ver far-reaching would be their decision if that course was adopted. It would affect all public houses and all hotels in the district. It would include the Metropole and the Grand. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette, not even after dinner. And it went even further than that. Mr. Kidson did not read the Order with regard to prohibiting shops being open for the sale of poultry, game, of perishable articles, fruit, vegetables and flowers. Under the Act it enabled him to include confectionery. If the Order applied at the Metropole, they would be able to sell no game; they would have no game at dinner on Wednesday afternoons, no vegetables, no fruit, no dessert. If they construed the words strictly, that was the result, and it would be absurd. He need not remind them that they had to construe the Act, and not the Home Secretary's circular. The circular was to the effect that some exception had to be made, and once they got inside and allowed an exception this case came within the exception and not within the rule. He (Mr. Holme) knew the Act from beginning to end, and not in one place did the word “meal” occur. It was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. What was a meal? There was not only the difficulty of the definition of the word “meal”, but there was also the question of how long after could a man be served. Some people smoked immediately, some hours afterwards. He agreed that the circular was founded on common sense, but he argued that Mr. McKenna meant that “a meal” was to be simply alluded to as an example, as a sort of exception, and they had to look deeper for the principle. He read Mr. McKenna's answer in the House of Commons, in which Mr. McKenna said he did not think the casual sales of cigars or cigarettes in hotels and restaurants for consumption on the premises, as for example, after dinner, or other meal, would amount to the carrying on of a retail trade so as to prevent such sales on the day of the half-holiday. Therefore he argued they had to consider, was it a casual and ancillary sale, or was it really the sale of tobacco or a regular trade going on in the same house? He quoted an extract from a paper called “Tobacco”, in which it was stated “Licensed victuallers are developing into miniature tobacco shops”. Had the Royal Standard developed into that? There was no counter, no separate place where cigars or tobacco were exposed for sale. Mr. Holme next referred to the steps necessary to be taken in the case of those wishing to be brought under the Order. A voting paper was to be sent out to each one, and a register of all the different shops affected was started. When one found that the Royal Standard was not in the register one wondered why they were brought to the Court.

Mr. Kidson asked the decision of the Magistrates as to the power to go into anything prior to the making of the Order. He suggested it was not within their power to do so.

After a considerable amount of legal argument Mr. Holme said he imagined nothing was more unfair than that the Order should have been made without the licensed victuallers being consulted. The licensed victuallers were not consulted, and he maintained that they were not in the Order at all. The scheme of the Act said that before they made an Order they must consult them in one of two ways. After describing the mode of procedure, he said no licensed victualler, so far as he knew, had received a voting paper. And why? Because he was not on the register. The alternative plan was to have an application signed by two thirds of the people affected. In this case no application was signed by the licensed victuallers, and certainly not by the Royal Standard. Mr. Holme pointed out a section dealing with mixed trades, but held that in this case it was not a mixed trade. It was in the power of the local authority to serve a notice on a man asking him which was his principal trade. Could anyone call an ordinary public house a shop for the sale of tobacco? It might as well be argued that if he went into a public house for a box of matches to light a lamp that it was a shop for the sale of matches.

Mr. Summerfield, the defendant, stated that he was the licensee of the Royal Standard. There was no separate counter for tobacco. He made no special effort to push the sale of tobacco. The sale to the witness of the prosecution was a solitary exception. He had sold tobacco to men who had been having something else at the same time. It was a casual sale. The proportion that tobacco bore to the rest of his trade was about 5 percent. No notice was served upon him as to what he considered to be his principal trade. A paper was not sent to him asking whether he wished the Order to be put into force.

The Magistrates' Clerk said Mr. Holme was not entitled to put these questions.

Mr. Holme argued that if the case was going to the High Court they were material facts that the High Court should know.

Mr. Summerfield, continuing, said no notice or voting paper was served on him, and he did not send in any application for the Order to be made. He did not approve of the Order. He did not think any licensed victualler had sent in an application, and they did not approve of it.

In answer to the Town Clerk, Mr. Summerfield said he considered 5 percent of his trade a very small, and not a substantial part, of his trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not have been entitled to vote.

Mr. Holme: That is a question of law.

Mr. Kidson argued that no injustice had been suffered by the licensed holders, because they were not entitled to vote, even if they had received notices.

Mr. Holme put another construction upon the case, to the effect that the whole sub-section depended on the notice being served first. He did not think Mr. Kidson had any application where any such notice was served.

Mr. Kidson said his point was that Mr. Summerfield had suffered no injustice, though he had not served him with the notice referred to under the sub-section. He quite agreed that the notice must be served, and Mr. Holme objected that it was not served, but even if the notice had been served Mr. Summerfield would not have been entitled to a vote.

Mr. Holme characterised the method as very extraordinary, and contended that the Corporation were absolutely outside their powers. They were bound to give these people a vote before they made the Order.

Mr. A.J. Hart, of the Bouverie Arms, said he had inspected the register and he did not fine the Royal Standard there, nor any other licensed victualler; There were no licensed victuallers in it at all. Tobacconists were in the register.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Was there any hotel proprietor?

Mr. Hart: I did not notice any.

Mr. Holme said that in hotels they had real counters, where they carried on the sale of tobacco, but in an ordinary public house they had nothing of the kind. It was for the Magistrates to say whether the Royal Standard was selling tobacco as a trade in itself, or whether the trade was merely casual or ancillary. The answer was obvious. There was no special trade. They were casual sales, and not a trade under the circumstances. If they did hold that licensed victuallers were within the scope of the Act, then the local authorities were in a tight dilemma in making the Order without consulting them.

Mr. Kidson submitted that Mr. Holme was wrong in his contentions. However, if he (Mr. Kidson) was wrong, the sooner it was put right the better for everyone concerned. It was almost impossible to get everyone within a class of trade who was entitled to vote to do so, but they did their best. They advertised according to the Act of Parliament, and they called attention to the Act that if anyone whose name was not in the register thought he should be on, he could find out by coming to the office, by making proper application for the same, and if in the opinion of the local authority he was entitled his name would be put on the register. They advertised in the local papers, and were only too wishful to get everyone on the register who felt he was entitled to be on. There was no intention to keep anyone off.

Mr. Holme suggested that another case should be heard before his case was decided, and this case was adopted.

Charles Henry Barker was summoned for a similar offence on the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the defence, asked Mr. Kidson various questions, which were replied to under protest.

The Town Clerk said Mr. Mowll's client was not on the register, and he did not ascertain by vote whether his client and other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. They were not included when ascertaining whether they got a majority of the shopkeepers of the class for the purpose of the Order.

Mr. Mowll: So they were entirely excluded.

Mr. Kidson pointed out that a bill was published in prominent parts of the town inviting those interested to see that their names were on the register.

Mr. Mowll asked whether the licensed victuallers were taken into consideration in arriving at whether they had a two thirds majority in favour of applying section 4 to the tobacconists' trade.

Mr. Kidson: No, because they were not on the register, and did not apply to be put on the register.

Mr. Summerfield, assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that on the 18th February, at 6.30 p.m., he went into the public bar of the Raglan Hotel. He asked Mr. Barker for a twopenny cigar, and he was served with it. He saw no notice with regard to the Shops Act in the bar.

Mr. Mowll asked witness if he treated himself to a little refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Summerfield replied that he had nothing to drink. There were other customers there. He did not hear anyone else ask for a cigar while he was there. There were two others in the bar at the time. He simply went in, bought his cigar, and walked out.

Mr. Mowll: How did you like your cigar? – I have not tried one. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether it was necessary whether it was necessary to call evidence with regard to the lad having a drink, but he did not dispute the sale of the cigar. He proceeded to ask the Bench to note how the matter worked out according to the Home Secretary's dictum, which, of course, was not a law. The Home Secretary agreed that a person going to the Metropole Hotel and having lunch was entitled to have a cigar. Strictly speaking, if the Order was properly enforced, he was not entitled to have it at all, but it was a casual sale, and therefore the Home Secretary said “It was a casual sale of a cigar”. If it was casual, why not in this case? This young man came into the bar and had a drink. Should not that sale be just as casual as the sale of a cigar in the Metropole, and therefore outside the Act? He saw no reason why one was outside the Act and the other within. A person who drove up to the Metropole and had his cigar after lunch committed no offence. The poor were just as much entitled to a cigar as the rich. The real difficulty arose because of the rather peculiar operation of those Orders. It was a casual sale, and he argued that a meal was not necessary to make it casual. If it was, look how absurd it would be? One man had a five course meal, one had a one course meal of biscuit and cheese, and perhaps another would not like the cheese, and would have a biscuit, or a glass of his clients' famous stout (laughter), or Wincarnis, or anything else. It would be hard indeed to apply such an Order to such a case as this. He said it was a condition precedent to the making of this Order that the Town Council should first be satisfied that the occupiers of two thirds of the shops of the class approved of the Order. They excluded the licensed victuallers in arriving at a decision. His point was this; that they could not have it both ways. If they were one of the classes to be prosecuted, then they were one of the classes who had the right to vote. The Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny them the privileges of the section. The Town Council, obviously motivated by the best motives – no-one questioned that – had not, in fact, taken reasonable steps to be satisfied that they had a two thirds majority, or if they had done so, then obviously they never intended to include public houses, because they had not been given an opportunity of having voted. If they included licensed victuallers, they had not a two thirds majority of the trade. They had been entirely ignored. They could not ignore people whom they held were responsible under the Act. Either they were responsible under the Act, or they were not responsible, in which case they were excluded and had no vote. In conclusion, he pointed out that the licensed victuallers were conducting a trade in which they were bound to keep open; they were under an obligation to the brewers to do so, and there was certainly no attempt on the part of the Corporation as a local authority to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on the weekly half-holiday. It was almost impossible, if they worked it out, to say that a man was to sell behind the counter beer and whisky, lemonade and ginger beer, and could not sell at the same time a cigarette, or, as in his case, a cigar. His (Mr. Mowll's) suggestion was this, and he did it on his own responsibility. That was a new Act. He could not help thinking that the local authority, when they made this Order, were under a misapprehension. Either they did not appreciate what the Order really was going to mean, or did not realise that licensed victuallers should be on the register and given an opportunity to vote. His suggestion was that instead of coming to a decision that day in deciding to convict or otherwise, they should postpone the matter for a short time, say three months, and give the licensed victuallers an opportunity of approaching the Corporation and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order which they had made. He alluded to the powers to revoke the Order, and said he thought that if the matter was put before the Corporation in the light he had suggested they would agree to revoke the Order, and so they would be saved the necessity of coming to a decision on rather a difficult point of law. Then there remained the question of whether they convicted or not. A conviction was always an objection to a licensed victualler, and he maintained that it would be the best course to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation to say whether this Order, which was really rather absurd, could not be revoked, and thereby put an end to the whole thing.

Mr. Kidson, in reply, said that even had the licensed victuallers had notices sent, they would not have been entitled to vote. Continuing, he said that if the matter was sent to the Council he raised no objection. He would only say this, that if an adjournment were made, there should be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Corporation to be unfair to the licensed victuallers.

Mr. Holme said he would prefer that they should have a decision that day.

After the Magistrates had returned from a lengthy consideration of the matter, Col. Fynmore said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case was proved, but inasmuch as the parties suggested a reconsideration by the Council of the position of the licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and dismissed both cases on payment of the costs (8s. 6d. in each case).

Mr. Holme said he begged to state a special case.

The Magistrates' Clerk pointed out that there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme expressed the opinion that it was very inconvenient. They would be no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The summonses against Mrs. Julia Willson and Mr. Edward Wm. James were withdrawn.

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1917.

Obituary.

Many will learn with regret that Mr. George Summerfield, of Canterbury Road, passed away on Sunday after a somewhat prolonged illness. Deceased was well-known as a licensed victualler. He was for many years landlord of the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, and latterly had carried on business at the Red Cow Inn, Foord Road. To meet his wish, his family had him removed to his old house (his son being licensee there now), where he died. The late Mr. Summerfield enjoyed the sincere esteem of a large circle. There was no keener supporter of football in Folkestone and he was an active member of the Radnor Park Bowls Club. In truth can it be said of him, whether in pastimes or other dealings with his fellows, he played a straight game. The Standard Sick and Dividend Club was his special pride, and his care for the Royal Victoria Hospital was well manifested in the many handsome collections which have been credited to the Royal Standard from time to time. To his widow and family there goes out a genuine sympathy. The funeral took place from the Royal Standard on Thursday.

Folkestone Herald 12 April 1930.

Local News.

In the King's Bench Division on Friday of last week Mr. Justice MacKinnon reviewed the hearing of the action by A. Lenet and Co. Ltd., of Dover, the owners of the Royal Standard Inn at Canterbury Road, Folkestone, Fremlin Bros. Ltd., of Maidstone, the lessees, and Mrs. A.E. Summerfield, the tenant and occupier of the Royal Standard, against A. Waddington and Son, contractors, of Sheffield, to recover damages for alleged injury to the inn by the laying of a sewer for the Corporation by the defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the work was followed by subsidence, causing cracks and injury to the inn.

Defendants denied negligence, and said the work was carried out in accordance with the powers and duties conferred on the Corporation and that the damage was not due to any work they did.

Mr. Schiller, K.C., appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Miller, K.C., for the defendants.

Mr. Stanley H. Page, architect and surveyor, of Ramsgate, called on behalf of the defendants, said in his opinion the cause of the whole trouble was the unstable condition of the topsoil, which was moving away from the sewer.

On Monday Mr. Justice MacKinnon delivered his judgement, finding for the defendants, with costs. He said he was satisfied that the whole of the timber used in connection with the tunnelling for the sewer was new, with the exception probably of the railway shares, which, however, served their purpose. He was satisfied there was no failure at all on the part of the defendants to put concrete properly into the places caused by the excavation. It was a significant fact that the tunnelling went under the viaduct of the main line of the Southern Railway and no adverse results had followed. Further, he was satisfied that the sewer had nothing to do with the cracks which occurred in the Royal Standard. Whilst it was not necessary to express an opinion on the subject, he thought that probably the true theory was that the upper stratum of the yellow clay, mixed with some sand above the blue gault, was slowly sliding to the south west, and that was the reason that the houses showed a tilt that way with cracks.

Folkestone Herald 28 September 1935.

Local News.

“It was an unprovoked and brutal assault, and we consider it a very bad case”, said the Chairman of the Folkestone Magistrates, Mr. R.G. Wood, on Friday last week, when Aubrey Newman appeared to answer a summons for assault taken out by Reginald Marks, of The Pantiles, Hawkinge.

Newman was fined 10s. and ordered to pay compensation amounting to 30s.

Complainant said about 8.50 p.m. on Saturday, September 14th, he had occasion to go into the Royal Standard public house to pay his dart and sick club subscriptions and also to get a drink. He tendered a £1 note for the drink, and after taking the change, called across to the Secretary, saying in a jocular manner, “Come along, Secretary, what do we pay you for? ” The Secretary told him not to be in such a hurry, and defendant said “I will see you outside afterwards”. Complainant went outside, defendant following, and Newman then hit him in the mouth and on the eye. The blow in the mouth broke his dentures and he swallowed his teeth. He was brought inside and attended to. Two doctors were sent for, but neither was at home. He was taken to the hospital and. treated. He attended hospital on Sunday and Monday for further treatment.

Newman: What started the trouble? - I don’t know.

You mean to say that I smacked you in the mouth for nothing? - Yes.

Do you mean to say I struck you for nothing? - Yes.

Defendant: You are a liar. Continuing, Newman said he was talking to the Secretary of the dart club and, as complainant knew, he had ceased to be a member of the club. He had 3s. in the club and he was asking the Secretary to let him have that back.

Putting further questions to Marks defendant asked “Did I walk out of the bar?”

Complainant: Yes.

Defendant: And you followed me? - Yes.

The Chairman: Why did you go after him (Newman)? - The man said he wanted to talk to me.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Did you say anything at all to Newman? - I never mentioned a word to him.

Defendant said he had been foolish, otherwise he would have been the complainant and Marks the defendant.

Frederick Prior, Hayes Place, Folkestone, the Secretary of the Dart Club, said at 8.45 that evening he was speaking to the defendant at the far end of the bar. The door opened and Marks walked in. Just after, Marks, in his usually jovial manner said: "Mr. Secretary, come up here and attend to your books, what do we pay you for?” Witness told Marks not to be in a hurry. The remarks appeared to upset defendant in some way, for he walked the whole length of the bar uttering one or two threats. He said to Marks “Come outside. I want to speak to you.” Marks replied “Why, what’s the matter?” Defendant walked to the door and Marks followed. The next thing witness knew was that complainant was being pushed up against the door. Afterwards Newman returned and threatened one other person. Defendant’s knuckles were bleeding.

Defendant: Liar.

Witness: Then there was blood on your hands.

The Chairman: Has there been trouble between these two men? - Not that I know of. They have been the best of pals.

John Joyce, Rita Place, Folkestone and Frederick Croucher, Linden Crescent, also gave evidence.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he called the Secretary on one side and asked him for the return of his 3s. on his resignation from the Dart Club. He (the Secretary) said the money had been absorbed in fines, which he (defendant) knew was not correct. Marks then shouted out “Don’t give him the 3s. He knows he’s lost it and does not like it”. He told complainant to keep quiet, and Marks replied “If you come outside I will shut your mouth up." Continuing, defendant said he would never have struck Marks if he had not struck him. Newman refuted the suggestion that he broke Marks’s dentures. They were broken in the bar, he said.

Recalled, Prior said Newman did not interfere until Marks made the remarks to him.

After the Chairman (Mr. Wood) had announced that the Magistrates considered it an unprovoked and brutal assault, Newman said: “I am sorry, but I did not start it”.

The Magistrates agreed to allow defendant a month to pay the fine and costs, or In default one month’s imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 22 January 1949.

Notice.

To: The Clerk to the Licensing Justices of the Borough of Folkestone
The Superintendent of Police Kent County Constabulary (Folkestone “J” Division)

The Clerk to the Rating Authority of the said Borough and To All whom it may concern.

I, Ellen Rhoda Tribe, now residing at the Royal Standard, Bridge Street, in the said Borough, Beerhouse Keeper, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the said Borough to be holden at The Town Hall in the said Borough on the 9th day of February 1949 for the grant to me of a Justices Licence authorising me to apply for and hold an Excise Licence to sell by retail any intoxicating liquor which may be sold under a publican’s licence for consumption either on or off the premises situate at Bridge Street in the said Borough and known by the sign of the Royal Standard and of which premises Messrs. Leney & Co. Ltd., of Dover are the owners and Messrs. Fremlins Ltd., of Maidstone are the Leaseholders of whom I rent them.

Given under my hand this 17th day of January, 1949.

E. R. TRIBE.

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1949.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Mr Mason applied for a new full licence in respect of the Royal Standard, Bridge Street.

Mrs. Tribe, the licensee, said the premises had been in the occupation of the family for some 50 years. When Mrs. Summerfield, the former licensee, died the customers asked the brewers to transfer the licence to her, which was done. In the summertime and at Christmas, particularly, people asked for spirits, and if they could not get them they either went without or went out. Mrs. Tribe said there were four clubs connected with the premises, and a considerable amount of money was paid in. The brewers told her that the amount paid in during the year was greater than in any similar house belonging to them in Folkestone. She had lost customers because she had no spirit licence.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Herald 5 May 1979.

Canterbury Crown Court.

Former carpet “General” Stanley Palmer met his Waterloo after a heavy drinking session. It started with a late-night mock wrestling match on a car bonnet and ended in a Folkestone police cell. On the way, Palmer, whose carpet firm was taken over by the Official Receiver, left behind a trail of damage, violence and obscene language, a court was told this week. He damaged the car during the wrestling bout with a friend, Mr. Gordon Murdock, he told Canterbury Crown Court.

When a policeman and policewoman approached Palmer on October 18, 1977, he began swearing and complained about being arrested. Put in the back of a police car, he began throwing “No Waiting” cones out of the window. Then, jumping out of the car, Palmer ran towards W.P.C. Jane Smallman, pinned her arms to her sides and shook her violently. P.C. Graham Steel and another officer tried to stop him, but Palmer punched P.C. Steel in the face before sitting on a low wall and trying to kick the officers. After another struggle and more bad language, Palmer was forced into the back of a police car. During the journey he grabbed W.P.C. Smallman's lapels and then got his legs over the front seat and kicked P.C. Steel in the head. When officers managed to quieten him down, they led him to Folkestone police station, where Palmer lashed out and smashed a pane of reinforced glass. In the charge room he started swearing again and threw his wristwatch at W.P.C. Smallman. It missed and smashed on the floor. He kept swearing and tried to assault other officers.

Palmer, aged 34, of 22, Beatty Road, Folkestone, denied two charges of assaulting police on October 18, 1977, and two criminal damage charges. The friend in the wrestling match, David Hollingsbee, aged 28, of 26, Broadmead Road, Folkestone, denied one criminal damage offence.

Palmer told the Court that he had been drinking and playing darts at the Royal Standard pub, and at closing time the landlord invited them to stay on drinking as guests. He was staying with a friend as he was too drunk to rive, he said. He and Hollingsbee were singing and laughing and started wrestling, but didn't roll onto a car bonnet. “When I was told I was being arrested I did get a little truculent, but I didn't use the strong language and filth the police claim I used. I thought if I kept calm and didn't strike out, nothing would happen”, he said. He said he did not hit P.C. Steel and did not shake W.P.C. Smallman, and during a struggle in the police car his legs did go over the front seat, but he did not kick anybody. “At the police station I was still struggling as we went towards the door and I felt a third pair of hands push me forward”. “I saw my head was going to hit the door”, Palmer said, “and put my foot out to stop myself. My leg went through the door. It was cut on the broken glass and bleeding profusely. My watch came off in Dover Road. I didn't take it off and throw it”. He alleged that policemen started to beat him up. “I was kicked in the stomach and head and dragged into the cell, where my clothes were forcibly ripped from me. There was a pool of blood on the floor. I never deliberately struck an officer. They are all lying when they say I did”.

Hollingsbee said he did not remember any singing or swearing and could not recall sitting on a wall. “I remember grappling with Palmer, but we were nowhere near any cars. We were just lighting up cigarettes when the police arrived and mentioned something about damage. Palmer made a joke and an officer grabbed his arm and told him to quieten down”. He said he took no part in the struggle, “and I never saw Palmer throw any punches at police. I saw him the next day, and he had been badly beaten. He had a black eye and his face was red”.

Folkestone Herald 5 November 1982.

Local News.

Police are investigating a spate of thefts and burglaries in the Folkestone area over the weekend. Thieves got away with £300 from the till when the Royal Standard pub in Canterbury Road was broken into on Sunday night.

Folkestone Herald 26 August 1983.

Local News.

Kent wicket-keeper Alan Knott stepped away from the crease to enjoy a pint and a game of darts at a Folkestone pub on Monday. Alan isn't giving up his fit, cricket-playing lifestyle for the pleasures of the local, however. This was a visit as part of the Whitbread Pub Sports contest. He met prize-winners at the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road Harry Tanton, of George Gurr Crescent, Folkestone, took the pub's prize for crib, while Bob Mabberley, of Greenfield Road, Folkestone, was the darts winner. A poll had shown Alan to be the Best of the Best when it came to wicket-keepers.

“Town centre pubs get a lot of attention”, said Reg. “It's nice to have a celebrity like Alan in a local pub, and we really do appreciate it”.

Pint mugs proclaiming Pub Champion were presented to Harry and Bob although they were not asked to display and cricketing prowess.

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1987.

Local News.

Mrs. Shirley Nightingale, landlady of the Royal Standard pub, had her handbag stolen between 9.30 – 11 a.m. It was later found in Canterbury Road with its contents all intact.

Folkestone Herald 27 August 1998.

Local News.

Three Folkestone watering holes have new owners after the sale of more than 250 pubs owned by brewing giant Whitbread.

The Royal Standard and the Two Bells, both on Canterbury Road, and the Brewery Tap at Tontine Street have been sold to Avebury Taverns.

Martin Foulkes, landlord of the Brewery tap, believes the new ownership could have positive effects. He said “No changes are going to be made to the pub for three months, but then Avebury Taverns are talking about introducing some new beers.