DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 06 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1855

Royal Standard

Closed Sept 2018

60 Canterbury Road

Folkestone

https://whatpub.com/royal-standard

Royal Standard on left 1976

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1976 showing the "Royal Standard" on the left and the "Two Bells" on the right.

Royal Standard, Folkestone 2009 Royal Standard sign, Folkestone 2009

Above photos taken by Paul Skelton 5 July 2009.

Royal Standard 2012

Above photo kindly sent by Phil Nicholson, 29 November, 2012.

 

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

 

Royal Standard licensees 1971

Above photo circa 1971, kindly sent by Ruth Daucsavage. Left to right:- Ronald Tidd (licensee 1952-1968), Eva McDonald, Doris Tidd (licensee 1968-1971) & Cecil Hatcher who became the Licensee (upon recommendation from my parents (Ron & Doris Tidd).

Royal Standard back yard 1960s

Above picture is of my aunt, uncle and cousins in our back yard as the Royal Standard was in the 60's. Kindly sent by Ruth Daucsavage.

Royal Standard bar

My Dad, Ronald Tidd front centre of picture, my mum in the middle and “auntie” Eva far left. The kids on the steps into the private quarters of the pub, me (Ruth Tidd) at the bottom of the steps. Eva's daughter Barbra in the middle and my brother Keith at the top of the steps (mostly obliterated by an optics bottle). By Ruth Daucsavage.

 

I am informed that the pub closed at the start of September 2018. It was rumoured that the building was going to be demolished, but latest news says it's being converted into flats.

 

Royal Standard 2020

Above photo kindly taken and sent by Jan Pedersen, June 2020.

Former Royal Standard 2020

Above photo kindly taken and sent by Jan Pedersen, June 2020.

Former Royal Standard 2020

Above photo kindly taken and sent by Jan Pedersen, June 2020.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 July 1868.

Advert.

Beer Shop To Let.

The Royal Standard, Bridge Street, Folkestone.

Apply to F. Sladden, Brewer, Sandgate.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 February 1869.

Friday, February 5th: Before Alderman Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Mr. Wightwick, on behalf on Mrs. Harriet Fox, of the Royal Standard, made application for an order for protection against her husband, Robert Fox, who deserted her on the 16th November, 1867, after being married over thirty years.

Applicant said she had a letter from her husband, who was in California, last August.

Order granted.

 

Folkestone Observer 6 February 1869.

Friday, February 5th: Before Alderman Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Harriett Mary Fox applied for a protection order against her husband, who had deserted her without cause since the 16th November, 1864.

Mr. Wightwick, who appeared for the applicant, said she was legally married to her husband at Elham on the 25th July, 1834, that they had since lived and cohabited together at Lyminge and Cheriton, and that on the 16th November, 1866, her husband, Robert Fox, unjustly, and without cause, deserted her. Since that time, however, the applicant had, by her own exertions, gained some property, consisting of household goods, stock in trade, &c.

Harriett Mary Fox, on being sworn, said she believed her husband was in the southern part of America. She received a letter from him in August last, and had been living in Folkestone since October. She was now living at the Royal Standard, Bridge Street. Her husband wrote from Yulo County, California. She was now keeping herself and children by her own exertion.

The magistrates granted the application.

 

Folkestone Express 6 February 1869.

Friday, February 5th: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Protection Order.

Mr. Wightwick made an application to the Bench to grant a Protection Order to Mrs. Harriett Mary Fox, of the Royal Standard, Bridge Street. She was married to Robert Fox on the 5th July, 1837 and co-habited with him for 30 years, and they had nine children. He deserted her on the 16th of November, 1867, and had remained absent since. She had now acquired some property, and asked the Bench to grant her protection.

Applicant deposed that she heard from her husband in August last. He was then in Yulo county, California. She now maintained herself and two children.

The Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 September 1869.

Beerhouse Licenses.

Wednesday, September 8th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt, A.M. Leith and W. Bateman Esqs.

License was granted to W. Murton, Royal Standard.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 March 1870.

Advertisement for Auction:

Lot 1: All that Freehold Brick-Built Corner Beerhouse, known at the Royal Standard, and situate at the corner of Bridge Street and Canterbury Road, and caontains bar, bar parlour, smoking room, kitchen and 4 bedrooms, having a frontage of 88 feet. Leased to Mr. F. Sladden for 7 years from 6th July, 1867, at the annual rent of 21.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 December 1891.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Monday evening before the Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) on the body of Cordelia Grinstead, who died suddenly in the Royal Standard Inn on Saturday morning.

Henry Grinstead, a plasterer, living in Canterbury Road, said the deceased was his wife, and her age was 51. She lived with him and died on Saturday, about a quarter past eleven, at the Royal Standard public house. He last saw her alive at eight o'clock on Saturday morning, going down the footpath leading to the road in front of his house. He was in his bedroom. She had not slept with him, but downstairs, on the same floor as his mother slept. His mother's age was 85, and was, considering her age, active, and did the housework. He went to bed on Friday night about 10.30, leaving his wife lying on the sofa, where she slept. He said to her “Don't you think it's time I slept upstairs and you there, as I'm sober and you're drunk”. He had been in the habit of sleeping on the sofa, as he would not sleep with her because she was drunk. She was drunk on Friday night. There was no quarrel between them, but they were in the habit of quarrelling, and that was the reason he did not sleep with her. The drunken habits of the deceased had been going on for ten or twelve years. As deceased was going down the path she appeared to be sober. She brushed her dress as she walked along.

Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Smith, wife of the landlord of the Sportsman's Tavern, Sidney Street, said on Saturday morning the deceased went to her house about 9.30 and asked for some beer, and witness refused her. She seemed all right, but looked very pale.

Mrs. Amy Merton, of the Royal Standard Tavern, said the deceased went to her house at about a quarter to eleven on Saturday morning. She was not indoors when deceased went in, but when she returned at about ten minutes to eleven she saw deceased in a fit in a chair. She sent for assistance, and Dr. Barrett came about twelve. Deceased was dead when he arrived.

Mrs. Sarah Holliday, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, said she saw the deceased between half past ten and eleven on Saturday morning. She asked for 4d. worth of whisky, and passed the remark that she was not feeling very well.

William Barrett, surgeon, said he was called to see deceased on Saturday at about a quarter to one. He went to the Royal Standard and found deceased lying on the couch dead. He had made a post mortem examination of the body and found she had a large and several small tumours on the liver. A small one had burst, causing syncope, from which she died.

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

 

Folkestone Express 19 December 1891.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Monday evening, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Cordelia Grinstead, who died suddenly in the Royal Standard Inn on Saturday morning.

Henry Grinstead, a plasterer, living in Canterbury Road, said the deceased was his wife, and her age was 51. She lived with him, and died on Saturday about a quarter past eleven in the Royal Standard public house. He last saw her alive at eight o'clock on Saturday morning, going down the footpath leading to the road in front of his house. She had not slept with him, but downstairs on the same floor as his mother slept. His mother's age was 85, and was, considering her age, active, and did the housework. He went to bed on Friday night about 10.30, leaving his wife lying on the sofa, where she slept. He said to her “Don't you think it's time I slept upstairs and you there, as I'm sober and you're drunk?” He had been in the habit of sleeping on the sofa, as he would not sleep with her because she was drunk. She was drunk on Friday night. There was no quarrel between them, but they were in the habit of quarrelling, and that was the reason he would not sleep with her. The drunken habits of the deceased had been going on for ten or twelve years. As deceased was going down the path she appeared to be sober, as she brushed her dress as she walked along.

Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Smith, wife of the landlord of the Sportsman's Tavern, Sidney Street, said on Saturday morning the deceased went to their house about 9.30 and asked for some beer, and witness refused her. She seemed all right, but looked very pale.

Mrs. Amy Merton, of the Royal Standard Tavern, said the deceased went to her house at about a quarter to eleven on Saturday morning. She was not indoors when deceased went in, but when she returned at about ten minutes to eleven she saw deceased in a fit in a chair. She sent for assistance, and Dr. Barrett came about twelve o'clock. Deceased was dead when he arrived.

Mrs. Sarah Holliday, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, said she saw the deceased between half past ten and eleven on Saturday morning. Deceased asked her to serve her with 4d. worth of whisky, and passed the remark that she was not feeling very well.

William Peard Barrett, M.R.C.S., said he was called to see the deceased on Saturday last at about a quarter to one. He went to the Royal Standard and found deceased lying on the couch dead. He had made a post mortem examination of the body, and found she had a large, and several small, tumours on the liver. A small one had burst, causing syncope, from which she died.

The jury found that the deceased died from natural causes.

 

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 Express 23 April 1892.

Transfer.

Wednesday, April 20th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Sherwood and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Holden, Geo. Spurgen and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Royal Standard was transferred to Mr. Summerfield.

 

Folkestone Express 24 June 1899.

County Court.

Tuesday, June 20th: Before Judge Selfe.

Chas. Willis v Arthur Robertson: This was a claim for 6s. for money paid into a beanfeast account.

Plaintiff said he found he could not continue his payments, and asked for his money back. He was told he could not have a penny. The fund was for an outing, and the members were supposed to have all the money back which they had paid over and above the cost of the dinner and fare, which would be 8s. There were rules, but he had not a copy.

Defendant put in a copy of the rules. It was called the “Royal Standard Summer Outing”. He said the rules were read to each man joining. It was the fifth year of the existence of the Association. If a member was sick his money was refunded. The defendant quite understood that. If he had been out of work his money would have been returned. It was only to provide a day's pleasure for working men, and what was paid over and above the amount of the cost of the dinner and drive was returned.

His Honour did not see how the plaintiff could recover. Judgement for defendant.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 June 1900.

Saturday, June 9th: Before Alderman Banks, Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. Wightwick, Salter, and Fitness.

Mr. Frederic Hall, solicitor, submitted to the Bench plans for a proposed alteration at the Royal Standard public house, Canterbury Road.

The Magistrates consented to the alteration on condition that a six foot wall be erected between the public house and a cottage adjoining.

 

Folkestone Express 16 June 1900.

Saturday, June 9th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and W. Salter Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. F. Hall submitted plans for alterations to the Standard Inn, Canterbury Road. Adjoining it, the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co., Dover, had purchased a cottage, and between the two houses it was proposed to build a wall about 6ft. high. The bar would be increased in size, but the external portion of the building would not be altered. The alteration was approved, subject to an amendment which Supt. Reeve asked for.

 

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 Daily News 28 May 1906.

Monday, May 28th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Hamilton, Swoffer, Linton, and Leggett.

Arthur Simpson, Robert Simpson, George Smith, and Edward Frost were charged with stealing 10s. 6d. from Thomas Keeler, a greengrocer at Hythe.

Keeler deposed that he came to see Robert Simpson about a cart that he was to bring home to Hythe on Saturday. He met him on the fair ground and they went to the Royal Standard and had some beer and ginger beer. He left at 11 o'clock. He had 10s. 6d. in silver and coppers when he left the house. The money was tied up in the handkerchief produced. When leaving the house he said he was going home to Hythe. Prisoners offered to show him a nearer way and conducted him through the brickfield. The prisoners all got round him and pulled him on to the ground and took the handkerchief and money from him. A man was coming across the field, and they scampered off towards the fair. He got up and told a man, and then went in search of a policeman and saw Sergeant Lawrence. He afterwards saw the two Simpsons at the police station.

G. Summerfield, landlord of the Royal Standard, said the prisoner and prosecutor came into his house at 10.15, and had 7d. worth of refreshment. He saw prosecutor take his money and tie it up in a handkerchief.

Sergeant Lawrence deposed that he was on duty near the Co-Operative Stores at 11.35 on Saturday night. He met Keeler, who was crying, and he complained that he had been robbed in the brickfield. From what prosecutor said, witness went to No. 4, Mill Bay with Detective Burniston and roused the inmates. He saw Arthur and Robert Simpson on the stairs, and took them to the police station and charged them with being concerned in the robbery of Keeler's money and handkerchief. After cautioning them, Robert Simpson said “Barton (meaning the prisoner Smith) had the money”. At 1.15 witness went to a caravan and found Smith, and charged him with being concerned with the two others in the robbery. He said he was not guilty. Witness handed him over to P.C. Wellard, and went to 49, Rossendale Road, and saw the prisoner Frost in bed. He arrested him on the charge of being concerned in the robbery. Frost said he did not take it. All the prisoners were subsequently formally charged. Frost said when he left work after ten he went to the Royal Standard with Keeler and the other prisoners. They left at 11 o'clock and went through the fields. Smith and Simpson took hold of Keeler and nearly threw him down. The prosecutor said he had lost his handkerchief. They then left. Smith said “I have got the handkerchief; there is only 3s. in it”. The prisoners then went down the Dover Road. Simpson went home, and Frost left Smith. Witness said at daybreak on Sunday morning he found the handkerchief.

Frost said that when they were going through the fields, Bob Simpson and Smith said “Do not let Frost come, as he will tell as he did at the fair”.

Arthur Simpson and Frost pleaded Guilty, and Robert Simpson and Smith Not Guilty. Both made a long statement in defence.

All the prisoners were sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

The prosecutor Keeler was called forward, and the Chief Constable informed him that if he was threatened by anyone for prosecuting he was to give information at once, and steps would be taken to protect him from any interference.

 

Folkestone Express 2 June 1906.

Monday, May 28th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Arthur Simpson, Robert Simpson, George Smith, and Edward Frost, all young men, were charged with larceny from the person on Saturday night.

Thomas Keeler said he lived at 6, Bartholomew Street, Hythe, and was a greengrocer. On Saturday night he came to Folkestone, about eight o'clock, to see about a cart. He came to see the prisoner Bob Simpson, who was to have brought the cart to him on that morning. He saw him up at the Fair, on the Brickfield in Canterbury Road. They afterwards fell in with the other prisoners, and all of them went to the Royal Standard beerhouse soon after ten. Witness had a shandy, Bob Simpson a ginger beer, and the others had beer. He treated Bob and George. They stayed there about half an hour, leaving at 10.30. He then had 10s. 6d. in silver and coppers, which he tied up in his handkerchief, which he placed in the top pocket of his coat. Witness told them he was going to Hythe, and all of them then said they would show him a nearer way. They then took him through the brickfields, where they all got round him. One got at the back of him, and he was thrown down. When he was on the ground, one of them pulled his handkerchief out of his pocket. When he got up he helloed out, because he heard a man coming across the field. The man's name was Scamp. The prisoners then ran away towards the Fair. He told the man about it, and he went in search of a policeman, and he saw P.S. Laurence and P.C. Weller. He made a complaint to them. He afterwards went to the police station, where he found the two Simpsons.

George Summerfield, the landlord of the Royal Standard beerhouse, said the four prisoners came into his house at twenty past ten on Saturday evening. The prosecutor was with them. He served them with shandy, ginger beer and beer. He saw the prosecutor take some money from his handkerchief, and, after paying for some of the drink, he tied the money up again in his handkerchief.

P.S. Laurence said at 11.35 on Saturday night he was in Canterbury Road in company with P.C. Weller, when they met the prosecutor, who was crying. He complained that he had been robbed of his money in the brickfield. From what he said he went to Mill Bay. On the way he met Detective Sergeant Burniston, who accompanied him. He went to No. 4, where he aroused the inmates, and a man named Simpson let him in. He there saw the two Simpsons on the stairs. He said to them “I shall take you to the police station, and charge you with being concerned together with two other men, not in custody, with stealing 10s. 6d. and a pocket handkerchief from the person of Thomas Keeler tonight”. He then cautioned them. Robert Simpson said “Not us. Barton (Smith) had the money”. He brought them to the police station. About a quarter past one he went to a caravan in the brickfield adjoining Canterbury Road. He there found Smith sleeping in the van. He woke him up and told him he should take him into custody for being concerned with the two others in custody in stealing the money and the handkerchief. He replied “All I can say is I am not guilty. All the money I had was 3s. 10d.”. Witness handed him over to P.C. Weller, and, in company with Detective Sergt. Burniston, went to 29, Rossendale Road, where he saw the prisoner Frost, who was sleeping on a bed in a back room. He woke him up and told him he should take him to the police station, where he would be charged with three other men for stealing the money and the handkerchief. He said “I did not take it. I had none of the money”. He brought him to the police station, where all four formally charged with being concerned together in stealing the money and handkerchief. The two Simpsons and Smith made no reply. Frost said “When I left work, shortly after ten, I went with Keeler and other men to the Royal Standard, where Keeler treated us to some drink. We all left together at eleven o'clock and came down together through the fields. When in the field below the brickfield, Bob Simpson and Smith took hold of Keeler and nearly threw him down. I heard Keeler say “I have lost my handkerchief”. We all four then left him and went back to the brickfield. Smith said “I have got his handkerchief. There is only 3s. in it”. We came away along Canterbury Road and Dover Road, when at the bottom Simpson and Penfold went down Mill Bay, and Smith and I went back again. I left Smith at the Swan and went home. When they left Keeler, Bob Simpson said “Don't let Frost come with us, or he'll tell of us like he did at the fair””. At daylight witness went to the field, where he found the handkerchief, which had been identified by Keeler, thrown over the fence.

Prisoners wished to be dealt with by the Magistrates.

Arthur Simpson and Frost pleaded Guilty, and the other two Not Guilty.

The prisoner Robert Simpson said when they left the public house, they went down through the Fair together, and when in the fields he said he had lost his handkerchief and money. They went back to look for it, but they could not find it, and he then said he thought some of them had got it, and if they did not give it to him he would tell a policeman. They eventually went home.

Smith made a similar statement.

On the prisoners being requested to sign their names to the statements made by them, the two Simpsons said they could not write, and the Chief Constable told them they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The Chairman said the Magistrates agreed that all the prisoners were Guilty, and they would have to go to prison for 21 days' hard labour.

The Chief Constable said an attempt had been made that morning to get the prosecutor not to appear in Court.

Keeler was then informed by the Chairman that if anyone attempted to molest him, he should at once report the matter to the Chief Constable.

 

Hythe Reporter 2 June 1906.

Folkestone Police Court.

Arthur Simpson, Robert Simpson, George Smith, and Robert Frost, all young men, were charged with larceny from the person on Saturday night.

Thomas Keeler said he lived at 6, Bartholomew Street, Hythe, and was a greengrocer. On Saturday evening he came to Folkestone, about 8 o'clock, to see about a cart. He came to see the prisoner Bob Simpson, who was to have brought the cart to him that morning. He saw him up at the Fair, on the Brickfield in Canterbury Road. They afterwards fell in with the other prisoners, and all of them went to the Royal Standard beerhouse soon after ten. Witness had a shandy, Bob Simpson had ginger beer, and others had beer. He treated Bob and George. They stayed there about half an hour, leaving at 10.30. He then had 10s. 6d. in silver and coppers, which he tied up in his handkerchief, which he placed in the top pocket of his coat. Witness told them he was going to Hythe, and all of them then said they would show him a nearer way. They then took him through the brickfields, where they all got round him. One got at the back of him, and he was thrown down. When he was on the ground, one of them pulled his handkerchief out of his pocket. When he got up he helloed out, because he heard a man coming across the field. The prisoners then ran away towards the Fair. He told the man about it, and he went in search of a policeman, and he saw P.S. Lawrence and P.C. Weller. He made a complaint to them. He afterwards went to the police station, where he found the twp Simpsons.

George Summerfield, the landlord of the Royal Standard beerhouse, said the four prisoners and prosecutor came into his house at twenty past ten on Saturday evening. He saw the prosecutor take some money from his handkerchief, and, after paying for some drink, he tied the money up again in his handkerchief.

P.S. Lawrence said at 11.35 on Saturday night he was in Canterbury Road, in company with P.C. Weller, when they met the prosecutor. He was perfectly sober. He complained that he had been robbed of his money in the brickfield. From what he said, he went to Mill Bay. On the way he met Detective Sergeant Burniston, who accompanied him. He went to No. 4, where he aroused the inmates, and a man named Simpson let him in. He there saw the two Simpsons on the stairs. He took them to the police station and charged them. About a quarter past one he went to a caravan in the brickfield adjoining Canterbury Road. He there found Smith sleeping in the van. He woke him and took him into custody. He then went to 29, Rossendale Road, where he arrested Frost, who was sleeping on a bed in a back room. He took them to the police station, where all four were formally charged with being concerned together with stealing the money and handkerchief. The two Simpsons and Smith made no reply. Frost said “I went with the other man and Keeler to the Royal Standard, which we left at eleven o'clock. When in the first field below the brickfield, Bob Simpson and Smith took hold of Keeler and nearly threw him down. I heard Keeler say “I have lost my handkerchief”. We all four left him and went back to the brickfield. Smith said “I have got his handkerchief. There is 3s. in it”. We came away along Canterbury Road and Dover Road. When they left Keeler, Bob Simpson said “Don't let Frost come with us, or else he will tell of us like he did at the Fair””. At daylight witness went to the field, where he found the handkerchief, which had been identified by Keeler, thrown over the fence.

Arthur Simpson and Frost pleaded Guilty, and the other two Not Guilty.

The prisoner Robert Simpson said when they left the public house they went down through the Fair together, and when in the fields Keeler said he had lost his handkerchief and money. They went back to look for it, but they could not find it, and he then said he thought some of them had got it, and if they did not give it to them he would tell a policeman. They eventually went home.

Smith made a similar statement.

On the prisoners being requested to sign their names to the statements made by them, the two Simpsons said they could not write, and the Chief Constable told them they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The Chairman said the Magistrates agreed that all the prisoners were Guilty, and they would have to go to prison for 21 days' hard labour.

The Chief Constable said an attempt had been made that morning to get the prosecutor not to appear in Court.

Keeler was then informed by the Chairman that if anyone attempted to molest him, he should at once report the matter to the Chief Constable.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 November 1912.

Tuesday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Boyd, Vaughan, Harrison, Stace, Linton, Ward, Stainer, Fynmore, Giles, Morrison and Wood.

A temporary transfer of the Red Cow was granted to Mr. George Summerfield from Mrs. Savage, it being understood that Mr. Summerfield's son was about to take over the licence of the Royal Standard.

 

Folkestone Express 16 November 1912.

Local News.

The licence of the Red Cow Inn, Foord Road, was temporarily transferred on Tuesday by the borough Magistrates from Mrs. Savage to Mr. G. Smallfield (sic) of the Royal Standard, who, however, had to make arrangements for his son to manage the house until the licence he then held could be transferred to his son.

 

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 Daily News 29 November 1912.

Wednesday, November 27th: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Stace, Swoffer, Linton, and Boyd.

The licence of the Red Cow, Foord, was transferred from Mrs. Savage to Mr. G. Summerfield, and the latter gentleman's licence, the Royal Standard, was transferred to his son, John William Summerfield.

 

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 Daily News 3 March 1914.

Local News.

Great consternation was caused this (Tuesday) morning at the Police Court when three licensed victuallers were summoned for selling cigarettes between 6 and 7 on a Wednesday evening.

The Bench consisted of Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. Giles, Fynmore, Jenner, Owen, and Boyd.

The defendants were Charles Henry Barker, John William Summerfield, Edward William James, and Julia Willson. Mr. Holme appeared for the defence, and the Town clerk prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence that the defendants had been asked to supply these goods, and were under the impression that they were exempt.

As everyone knows, the legislature never included licensed victuallers in the Act, and Folkestone would never have heard of this prosecution but for the action of a few bona fide tobacco dealers, who petitioned the Corporation to ask the Home Office.

The case of Mr. Summerfield was taken first. Mr. Holme, for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

The Town Clerk, in opening the case, said the summons was issued under the Shops Act, 1912, and this was the first case taken under the Act. He proceeded to deal with the provisions of the Act, and the adoption of the Order by the local authority in respect to tobacconists.

Harold Summerfield, and assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's Office, said on February 18th he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the bar parlour and asked the assistant for a packet of shag tobacco. At first the assistant refused to serve him, and said “It is Wednesday afternoon, and I cannot serve you”. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant called him back, and said “I'll oblige you this time. You must not tell anyone as we should be getting into trouble”. He was served and paid 4d. for the tobacco.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holmes: Witness did not know whether this public house had any different features as regards the sale of tobacco to any other house. So far as witness was concerned, it was a mere casual sale.

Mr. Holmes: A register is kept under the Act?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Holme: Is the Royal Standard in the register?

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Holmes: Are any public houses in the register?

The Town Clerk: A few; the large ones.

Mr. Holmes: There is a notice in the Act which requires that every person should be served with a notice.

The Town Clerk: I do not think the question should be put.

Mr. Holme: Very well, I'll get it from defendant that no such notice was served.

The Town Clerk combatted the right to put the question and Mr. Holme said for the present he would not press it.

The Town clerk: That closes my case.

Mr. Holme, opening the defence, dealt with the interpretation of the Act, which had to be construed as an Act, which had to be considered as the exception and not within the rule. He pointed out that if the Act was to be seriously considered, he would take the early closing of fruit shops. Why, absurd as the proposition was, it would equally apply to the Metropole Hotel, where they could not supply vegetables and dessert on Wednesday afternoons and evenings. Dealing with a circular from Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, which pointed out that distinction could be made between regular sale and casual sale, he said the prosecution had admitted that exceptions had to be made, and having made exceptions and got within the walls of the Act they must adopt a common-sense point of view. The Act exempted licensed victuallers, unless brought in.

The Town Clerk: Not only licensed victuallers, but other people.

Mr. Holme: Yes, but licensed victuallers are included, and I am here today for the licensed victuallers.

The Town clerk: I submit that it is not within the power of the Bench to go into anything subsequent to the Act. The section says that the Order is an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Holme: If the case goes to the High Court it is essential to get out all the points. I contend that the Order was never intended to include my clients.

Mr. Andrew advised the Bench to accept the Town Clerk's objection.

Mr. Holme: May I put my point? Can anything be more unfair than not to consult the licensed victuallers, and then making an Order including them in it? I do ask the Bench to consider the circumstances under which the Order was made. The scheme of the Order says that before you bring in an exempted class you must consult them. Voting papers must be sent out, or an an alternative a petition from two thirds of the people affected. The licensed victuallers were neither asked to vote, consulted, or asked to sign. Proceeding, he seriously suggested that if the local authority intended to make the Order, in all common sense the first thing that authority should have done was consult those who they brought within the Order.

The Town Clerk: Then not being a substantial part of the business, you would not be entitled to vote.

Mr. A.J. Hart, secretary to the Licensed Victuallers' Association, said he had inspected the register at the Town Clerk's office, and did not find the name of a licensed victualler.

By Mr. Andrew: He did not look for the names of hotel keepers, as that did not interest him.

Mr. Holme, the Town clerk, and Mr. Rutley Mowll discussed the legal position with Mr. Andrew.

The Bench retired, and on returning said they considered the case proved, but would not inflict any penalty on payment of costs.

The other cases were withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1914.

Local News.

On Tuesday a most important point with regard to the sale of tobacco by licensed victuallers on the weekly half holiday occupied the attention of the Folkestone Magistrates for close upon two hours and a half. The Magistrates consisted of Colonel Fynmore, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen, and three licensed victuallers had been summoned.

The first case held was that of John William Summerfield, the licensee of the Royal Standard, and he had been summoned for contravening Section 4 of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on Wednesday, February 18th, at 6.37 p.m., that being the weekly half holiday fixed by the Town Council. Defendant pleaded Not uilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme, of London, defended.

Mr. Kidson, in opening the case, said that was the first summons to come before the Bench under that particular Act. He, therefore, thought he ought to refer the Magistrates to the various Sections bearing on the question. He then read Section 4 of the Act, which dealt with the closing of shops on one half day of the week. He then pointed out that the schedule exempted various trades, amongst which were the tobacconists. He explained that sub-section 6 provided that the local authority might by Order extend the provisions of the Act to the shops of any class exempted if they were satisfied that at least two thirds of the occupiers of the class of shop approved of the Order. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, and it was confirmed by the Home Secretary. By sub-section 7 of Section 4 it was provided that in case of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions, the occupier of the shop would be guilty of an offence, and would be liable to a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding 1. That was the first case which had come before the Bench. By Section 6, sub-section 3, as soon as the Secretary of State had confirmed any Order that Order became final, and had the effect of an Act of Parliament. Complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing that Order, therefore it became necessary for the Inspector to make inquiry. They would hear what occurred from the evidence. To assist the Bench he would like to read a circular letter sent out by him, as follows: Shops Act, 1912. I enclose copy of an Order which has been made extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops. This Order is now in force, and must be complied with by the occupiers of the classes of shops therein referred to. With respect to the sale of tobacco, etc., at places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other refreshment places, the Home Secretary has made the following statement, and it is the intention of the Town Council to act in accordance with such statement.

Copy statement: “I am to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State is advised that licensed houses in which a retail trade in tobacco is regularly carried on are subject to the provisions of the Order, but that the Order would not apply to the occasional sale of tobacco in hotels and inns in connection with meals, e.g. the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.” A copy of that letter was sent to the defendant.

Mr. Kidson then gave evidence of the appointment of Mr. J. Pearson, the Sanitory Inspector, as Inspector under the Shops Act, 1912, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, assistant to the Sanitory Inspector, said he visited the Royal Standard public house at 6.37 on the 18th February, which was a Wednesday, and the half holiday. He entered the bottle and jug department, and asked the assistant behind the bar for an ounce of shag tobacco. The man replied “It is Wednesday afternoon. I cannot serve you”. He (witness) replied “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The man then called him back again, and said he would oblige him that time, and that he must not tell anyone, or he would get him into trouble. The man served him with an ounce of shag tobacco, and he (witness) paid 4d. for it. He did not see any notice whatever in the bar with reference to the Shops Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness said the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house. He did not think they pushed the sale of tobacco more than any ordinary public house did. There was no separate counter for the sale of tobacco, So far as he knew it was a casual sale of tobacco carried on at the house.

Mr. Holme, at this stage, asked for the register which had to be kept under the Shops Act, and when it was produced, he requested him to say whether the Royal Standard was to be found in the register.

Mr. Kidson said he admitted the Royal Standard was not entered in it. He believed there were a few public houses mentioned in it, but only some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme asked the witness if he knew whether the notice calling upon the defendant to say which was his principal trade had been served upon him.

Mr. Kidson argued that that was not a proper question to put. The point was, it seemed to him, had that Order and the Act authorising the Order been contravened?

Mr. Holme agreed to leave the matter until later. He then addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defence, and in the course of his remarks he said that was a very important case. The matter was fairly simple. They had before them the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing the words. Conceivably, they might say they meant they forbade in the district at the time in question the sale of tobacco without any exception whatever. If they were construed in that way, it would have a far reaching effect, not only on the public houses, but all the fine hotels in the district, including the Grand, the Pavilion, and the Metropole. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette after dinner in that case. If the Order was really carried out, they would not be able to have any game or vegetable for dinner at the Metropole or any other hotel. That would be absurd, and the prosecution would agree that would be absurd. The circular of the Home Secretary was, he contended, an admission that some exception was to be allowed to that general rule. By that circular a breach was made in the walls of the Act. They could not apply those words without some exception. The only exception the Home Secretary had allowed was if a cigar or cigarette was sold in connection with a meal. Not once in the regulations was the word “meal” used, and, therefore, that was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. It would be a difficult problem to say what a meal was. He suggested that the word “meal” could not be read into the Act. He agreed the circular was founded on common sense. They had to look deeper than that for a principle.

At this stage Mr. Holmes read several answers to questions put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and arguing on those answers he said the Magistrates really had to consider in that case whether that was a casual sale or was a regular trade or business carried on at the Royal Standard. The true principle they had to apply was whether that sale was casual and ancillary to what was going on in the establishment, or was it a sale in connection with the trade that was going on in the house. The Royal Standard had not developed into a miniature shop for the sale of tobacco. He was going to prove by the defendant that he had never sold any tobacco or cigarettes to a person except that it was a casual sale, and, therefore, it did not come within the words of the Act. It was an abuse of language to call the Royal Standard a shop for the sale of tobacco. That was his submission on the main point.

Mr. Kidson had mentioned Section 4 of the Act, which provided for the half holiday closing. Then Section 6 exempted licensed victuallers unless they were brought in by a special Order. Before an exempted trade could be included, certain formalities had to be gone through. By a sub-section and the regulations there had to be a two thirds majority of the shops before the trade could be brought in. A register was also to be prepared.

Mr. Kidson said it was not the Magistrates' duty to go into anything prior to the making of the Order.
Mr. Holme said he was not going to say the order was bad, but he wanted to try to find out whether the prosecution meant to bring in his client. Did the Order include his client? If he could show that the prosecution, when they made the Order, had no intention of brining in his client, surely that was relevant to the matter.

A good deal of argument ensued on this point, and Mr. Holmes said he could not imagine anything more unfair than that an Order should be made without consulting all the people whom it could affect.

The Magistrates' Clerk eventually said that Mr. Holme might raise the point should the question of inflicting a penalty arise.

Mr. Holme said he admitted for the sake of argument the Order was good, nevertheless he did ask the Bench to take into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Proceeding, he said no voting paper was sent to his client. He admitted that a notice was published asking tradesmen to go to the Town Clerk's office to see if they were on the register. He wished to point out there was a provision in the Act by which they might have got out of that dilemma. It was that sub-section which dealt with the case of a mixed trade. He submitted, however, that that was not a mixed trade, but that a publican's business was one trade, catering for the public. In the case of a mixed trade the Council had to inquire from the occupier which he considered to be his principal trade.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had not a separate counter for the sale of tobacco, and he made no special effort to push tobacco. If tobacco was sold to the Inspector in that case, it was the one solitary exception that he had sold tobacco to a man who had not purchased something else. His tobacco trade was about 5 percent of his trade. He had had no notice served on him requiring him to say what he considered to be his principal trade, and no voting paper was sent to him.

The Magistrates' Clerk held Mr. Holme was not entitled to put questions on that point.

Mr. Summerfield said he did not sign any application for the Order to be made.

Cross-examined, he said he would not call his tobacco trade his principal trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not be entitled to have your name entered on the register.

Mr. A. Hart gave evidence as to going to the Town Clerk's office and examining the register. He could not find the name of the Royal Standard entered in it, nor any other licensed house.

The case of Charles Henry Barker, the licensee of the Raglan, was next dealt with. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kidson put in the Order made by the Home Secretary, and produced the appointment of the Inspector of Nuisances as the Inspector. In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Barker's name was not entered in the register. The Council did not ascertain by vote whether the defendant or other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. The petition asking for the Order was received from the tobacconists.

Harry Summerfield said he visited the defendant's premises at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18th, and asked for a 2d. cigar. He was served with it, and paid 2d. for it.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask for any refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates at length on the matter. He urged that his client had committed no offence, as it was an occasional, casual sale. He pointed out also that bread and cheese, or even a biscuit, would be regarded as a meal, and he held that a man would be able to purchase a cigar or cigarette. According to the Home Secretary, that was a casual and occasional sale, and not within the meaning of the Act. It would be very hard indeed to apply the Order to such a case as that. In his opinion it was a condition precedent to the making of that Order that the Town Council should first have been satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class should approve of the Order. If his client was one of that class to be prosecuted, then he was also one of the class who had the right to vote for the Order. In other words, the Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny to them the privileges of the section. He contended that there was no provision in the Act which said that the Order for the weekly half holiday should have the operation of the Act of Parliament. It was only by closing order that might have the effect of an Act; the weekly half holiday Order did not have that effect, for they had to be made, and could be revoked. In conclusion, he suggested that instead of coming to a decision that day, they should postpone that matter for a short time, and give the licensed victuallers the opportunity of approaching the Corporation and putting before them their views, and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order. He thought the Council would agree to the revocation of the Order, for it would be saving the trouble of deciding a point of law. They must not forget that a conviction was a serious objection to a licensee. It seemed to him the best course would be to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation.

Mr. Kidson said if there was an adjournment there ought to be an undertaking given that there would be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Council to be unfair with the licensed victuallers. If the latter did approach them, he was certain they would consider the matter.

Mr. Holme said for his client he would prefer to have a definite decision.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case had been proved, but inasmuch as the parties had suggested a re-consideration by the Council of the position of licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and they dismissed the cases against Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Barker, on payment of the costs, 8/6.

Mr. Holme asked the Clerk if he would state a case.

The Clerk said there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme said that was very unfortunate. Nothing could be more inconvenient for his client, for they were no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The Clerk said if there had been a conviction he would not have stated a case. He would have left it to the defendants to apply for a mandamus.

Summonses against Mr. E.W. James, another licensed victualler, and Mrs. Julia Wilson, a shopkeeper, were withdrawn.

 

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 Express 12 July 1919.

Tuesday, July 8th: Before Messrs. G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, C.E. Mumford and W. Hollands, and Dr. Nuttall.

Emily Berry and Cecilia Ewens, both of Bridge Street, were summoned by Florence Edith Stanley for assault. Ewens pleaded Guilty, but Berry denied the offence.

Mrs. Berry said she only parted the other two women.

The Bench dismissed both cases, Mrs. Ewens being told that she had received provocation.

Mrs. Berry was then summoned for assaulting Violet Platt on July 3rd. She admitted the offence.

Complainant said when leaving the Standard public house, Bridge Street, defendant slapped her face and struck her five times, so complainant struck back. The trouble was all over defendant saying she (Mrs. Platt) screwed her nose up. She could not say she was quite sober at the time, for she had had a brother come home from India.

Fined 10s.

 

Folkestone Express 12 April 1930.

Local News.

Judgement was given in the King's Bench Division on Monday by Mr. Justice MacKinnon, who had been occupied for a week in hearing the action brought by Messrs. A. Leney and Co., Ltd., of Dover, the owners of the Royal Standard Inn, Canterbury Road, Folkestone, Fremlin Bros. Ltd., the lessees, of Maidstone, 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 injury to the inn by the laying of a sewer for the Corporation by the defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the work was not carried out in accordance, 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. Schillen, K.C., appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Mellor, K.C., for the defendants.

On Thursday Mr. A.T. Mellor said there was no suggestion made by the plaintiffs that the work had not been properly carried out to the advantage of the general public. The allegations that were made arose out of the tittle-tattle of neighbours, living in old houses which were built on shifting foundations. Several of the witnesses had come from Mayfield Terrace, where the contractors had sunk one of the shafts, and there had been an inflow of water from a burst main. It was then alleged that the contractors had burst the pipes, but the contractors said that it was water from the burst pipes which washed into his manhole, and not the result of some trivial subsidence. There was no negligence here on the part of his clients.

Mr. Zinn, resident engineer to the Folkestone Corporation, said he was in charge of the arrangements, and in his opinion the job was carried out in a perfectly efficient way. He had visited the tunnel during its excavation, and the correct line of direction had never been deviated from.

Mr. J.C. Waddington, of the defendant firm, said every precaution was taken to prevent subsidence. In his opinion the damage complained of by the plaintiffs was due to Army tanks and increased traffic along the road in question.

The further hearing was adjourned.

On Friday, when the case was resumed, 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.

Mr. Justice MacKinnon, in delivering his judgement, found for the defendants with costs. He said he was satisfied that the whole of the timber used in connection with the tunnelling of the sewer was new, with the exception probably of the railway shores, 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 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 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 Express 24 March 1934.

Local News.

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 28 September 1935.

Local News.

Aubrey Newman, a bricklayer, was summoned by Reginald Marks at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday. The complainant alleged that Newman struck him in the face on September 14th. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Reginald Marks, Hawkinge, said about 8.50 p.m. on September 14th he had occasion to go to the Royal Standard public house. He called across to the Secretary of the Dart Club in a jocular manner and asked him to attend to his business. The defendant then came across to him and said “I will speak to you outside”. As soon as they reached the door he was hit on the nose. His dentures were broken and he swallowed some of the teeth. His nose was broken, and two doctors were sent for. When it was discovered that they could not come he was taken to the Hospital, where he had an X-ray examination to find whether his nose was broken.

Defendant: Did I strike you for nothing?

Complainant: Yes.

Defendant: I had three shillings in the Dart Club, and I was asking the Secretary for the money.

Complainant: I was in the house only three minutes and did not know anything about it.

You're a liar. Was I drunk or was I sober? – I could not say what you were; you walked out as though you were perfectly sober.

What did you follow me out for? – I was quite uncertain what you wanted me for.

The Chairman: Why did you go out?

Witness: Because he wanted to talk to me.

The defendant: I did not ask him to come outside. He asked me, and I can prove it.

Frederick Prior, 5, Page Place, said he was at the Royal Standard, as he was Secretary of the Dart Club. About 8.45 p.m. he left his books and cash and spoke to the defendant at the far end of the bar. Marks walked in, and after a few minutes shouted out “Come on, Mr. Secretary. Come and attend to your books. What do we pay you for?” This remark appeared to upset the defendant, for he walked the whole length of the bar, uttering one or two threats as he went. He walked up to where Marks was standing and said “Come outside. I want to talk to you”. The complainant replied “Aubrey, what's the matter?” Newman walked to the door and closed it. The next thing he knew was that Marks was being thrown back against the door. The defendant returned to the house and threatened one other person there. The defendant's knuckles were bleeding.

Defendant: I have no marks on my hands at all.

Witness said at any rate there was blood on his hands.

The Chairman, addressing Prior: We thank you very much for the clear and lucid way you have given your evidence. It has been very helpful indeed.

John Joyce said he was in the bar when the complainant came in. The defendant appeared to him to be quite sober.

Frederick Croucher, 41, Linden Crescent, said he was in the bar and saw the defendant, who, he thought, was quite sober.

Defendant, on oath, said he had left the Royal Standard Dart Club and had 3/- in it, which he thought he might as well have. The Secretary said it had been absorbed in the fines, which he knew was different. He stood there arguing the matter, when Marks shouted out “Don't give him the three bob”. He told Marks to shut his mouth, and Marks then said “If you come outside I will shut yours”. With that he walked out of the bar and as he did so Marks punched him in the ribs. He therefore struck him back. He would not have struck Marks if he had not struck him.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): But you struck him more than once.

Defendant: I struck him twice.

The Clerk: His mouth was bleeding?

Defendant: Yes.

What about his teeth? – His teeth were broken before I hit him. I never broke his dentures.

Mr. Prior was re-called, and in answer to questions by the Magistrates he said Newman and he were leaning over the counter, and he was positive that Marks' remarks were not made to the defendant.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were inclined to take a serious view of what they regarded as an unprovoked and brutal assault. “It is a very bad case” he added.

Defendant said he did not strike first.

Complainant, in reply to the Chairman, said his dentures cost 5 10s.

The Chairman said the Bench considered that was a very serious assault. The defendant would be fined 10/- and he would also have to pay 30/- as compensation for the complainant's dentures, making 2 in all, or in default a month's imprisonment. A month would be allowed for payment.

The Clerk told him he could pay the money by weekly instalments of 10/-.

 

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 Gazette 28 July 1954.

Local News.

The licensees of the Two Bells and the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, Folkestone, were granted an extension from 10.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. from August 6th to 14th, with the exception of Sunday, at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court yesterday. The application was made because of the fair to be staged during the week on the Canterbury Road Recreation Ground. Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow said the extension was granted last year because of the Coronation and the two licensees found it so advantageous during the week of the fair that they had decided to make application this year. The police, he said, had no objection.

 

Folkestone Gazette 13 February 1963.

Local News.

Permits under the Betting and Gaming Act for amusements with prizes have been granted to the Martello Hotel, True Briton, Ship Inn, East Cliff Tavern, Raglan Hotel, Royal Pavilion Bars, Railway Tavern, and Royal Standard.

 

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”.

 

South Kent Gazette 1 July 1981.

Local News.

Two hundred pounds worth of damage was caused when a stone was thrown through a window at the Royal Standard public house in Canterbury Road, Folkestone, on Friday night.

 

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.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

NUTTLEY Thomas 1855-68

FOX Harriet 1868-70

MURTON William 1870-92

SUMMERFIELD George 1892-1912 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

SUMMERFIELD John 1912-20 Post Office Directory 1913

SUMMERFIELD Ethel 1920-47 Post Office Directory 1922Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

TRIBE Tribe 1947-50

READ Albert 1950-53

TIDD Ronald 1953-69

TIDD Doris 1969-71

HATCHER Harold Cecil 1971-79

GALLYER Lemuel 1979-81

SWEET Frederick 1981-82

NIGHTINGALE Reginald 1982-92

DRYSDALE Alan & Ann Drysdale 1992-94 (Also "Cheker")

DRYSDALE Ann 1994-95

FRANKLIN Andrew 1995-96 (Also "Two Bells")

GARRETT Kathleen 1996

McMAHON Victor & CUTLER Susan 1996

SCOTT Sidney 1996-97

BARRETT Malcolm 1997-98

PATIENCE Rose Marie & Jacqueline 1998

TIERNEY Malcolm & HALL Janice 1998-99

TIERNEY Malcolm, HALL Janice & TIERNEY Richard 1999 Next pub licensee had

TIERNEY Malcolm, HALL Janice & GARCIA Linda 1999-2002

GARCIA Linda & BUSUTTIL 2002-03

GARCIA Linda & SMART Lorraine 2003-04

GARCIA Linda, SMART Lorraine & SHAKESPEARE Kevin 2004+

 

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

 

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