DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 12 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1846

Shakespeare Hotel

Latest 1972

35 Guildhall Street

Cheriton Road Kelly's 1899

Folkestone

Shakespeare Hotel circa 1900

Above photo circa 1900.

Shakespeare Hotel 1900

Above photo showing the "Shakespeare Hotel" circa 1900 extreme right. From Alan Taylor.

Peggy Powell 1949

Above photo, showing Peggy Powell behind the bar in 1949, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

 

Built by Ham Tite of the Gun Brewery in 1846 after he had leased some ground from Lord Radnor of Folkestone.

 

Kentish Gazette 16 November 1847.

Marriage: At Margate, - Starkey Esq., of London, to Hannah, fourth daughter of Mr. William Larkin, of the "Shakespeare Inn, Folkestone.

 

Southeastern Gazette 15 August 1854.

Local News:

At the petty sessions, the following licence was transferred: The Shakespeare Inn, Folkestone, from Thos. Richards to John Blackman.

Note: Date is as variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 July 1865.

Shocking Death.

Yesterday a labouring man named Henry Stokes, from Brighton, but lately employed on the new buildings now erecting in Shellon's Terrace, came by his death in a most lamentable manner. From what we can learn the unfortunate man had been drinking rather freely for a day or two, and on Friday morning was in the Shakespeare Inn, where he had a large share of beer with some other of the labourers employed on the buildings. Ultimately he was induced to drink two half pints of gin, soon after which, about 11 a.m., he became insensible, but was unaccountably allowed to lie in that insensible state till about half past four when three or four surgeons were sent for. They found him in a state of collapse, with the pupils of his eyes dilated, and insensible to light or touch. They advised his immediate removal to the infirmary, where every means were resorted to for his recovery, but without avail, as he died a short time after his admission. We understand an inquest will be holden on the body today, Saturday, when we trust a searching enquiry will be made into this sad affair.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 July 1865.

Coroner's Inquest.

On Saturday, Mr. Minter, Coroner, and a respectable jury held an inquest at the Town Hall on the body of a bricklayer's labourer, George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half pints of gin in succession at the Shakespeare public house the pervious day. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half past nine o'clock on Friday morning till twelve, when, as one of the witnesses described him, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked someone to stand treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Head, then said to deceased “If you want anything to drink, I'll give you a glass. What will you drink?”. Deceased said “Some gin”. Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, calling on God to strike him blind if he could not drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan't give you a pint, but I'll give you a half pint if you like”. The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin, and wished God might strike him blind if he did not. After deceased had drunk the first half pint of gin, he asked Read if he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased) then said to William Tite, the landlord's son, “Give me another half pint”. William Tire drew the gin and put it on the counter, and Stokes took it in his right hand and drunk it up at once. No-one was sitting near him at the time; no-one interfered with him, but the deceased drank it down voluntarily in one draught. He never spoke a word afterwards, neither did he light up his pipe. About a quarter of an hour after he had drank the gin, the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser, and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for a quarter of an hour, when Read said “We'd better lay him down”, and they carried him in his chair into the tap room, where they laid him on the floor and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the Dispensary, where he died about seven the same evening. C.E. Fitzgerald, surgeon, said he was sent for to the Dispensary, and found deceased lying in a bed on one of the dormitories, attended by Mr. Tyson and Mr. Bowles. Deceased was in a state of insensibility and total collapse. Witness proceeded to have him undressed, to apply the stomach pump, and drew from his stomach three or four pints of a dark fluid, consisting entirely of beer and spirits. Deceased appeared somewhat relieved with this, and his pulse, which was almost imperceptible, grew somewhat stronger. Witness then had him placed in bed and hot water bottles applied to his feet, with blisters behind the ears. Witness remained with him till about a quarter before six; he then left deceased and returned in about half an hour, when he found deceased was dead. Witness had no doubt in his own mind but that deceased was poisoned by alcohol, the symptoms being such as would have arisen from excessive drinking. Other evidence having been called, the Coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

 

Folkestone Observer 29 July 1865.

On Saturday Mr. Coroner Minter held an inquest at the Town Hall on the body of a bricklayer's labourer named George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half pints of gin in succession, at the Shakespeare public house the previous day. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half past nine o'clock on Friday morning till 12, when, as one of the other witnesses described him, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked someone to treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Read, then said to deceased “If you want anything to drink, I'll give you a glass; what will you drink?”. Deceased said “Some gin”. Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, calling on God to strike him blind if he could not drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan't give you a pint. I'll give you half a pint if you like”. The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin and wished God might strike him blind if he didn't. After deceased had drunk his first half pint of gin he asked Read whether he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased) then said to William Tite, the landlord's son, “Give me another half pint”. William Tite drew the gin and put it on the counter, and Stokes took it in his right hand and drunk it up at once. No-one was sitting near him at the time: no-one interfered with him, but deceased drank it down voluntarily in one draught. He never spoke a word afterwards, neither did he light his pipe. About a quarter of an hour after he had drunk the gin the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for about quarter of an hour, when Read said “We had better lay him down”, and they carried him in his chair into the tap room, where they laid him on the floor, and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the dispensary, where he died at about seven o'clock in the evening. Mr. C.E. Fitzgerald, surgeon, said the symptoms presented by the deceased were those of poisoning by alcohol. Other evidence having been called, the Coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 August 1865.

Inquest.

On Saturday, Mr. Minter, borough coroner, held an inquest, at the Town Hall, on the body of a bricklayer’s labourer, named George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half-pints of gin in succession at the Shakespeare public house on the previous day.

It appeared that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half-past nine o’olock on Friday morning till twelve, when, as one of the witnesses described it, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked some one to stand treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Read, then said to deceased, “If you want anything to drink I’ll give you a glass; what will you drink?” Deceased said “Some gin.” Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, stating that he could drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan’t give you a pint, but I’ll give you a half-pint if you like.” The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin. After deceased had drunk the first half pint of gin, he asked Read whether he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased), then said to William Tite, the landlord’s son “Give me another half-pint.” William Tite drew the gin, and he drank it up. He never spoke a word afterwards. About a quarter of an hour after he had drunk the gin, the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser, and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for about a quarter of an hour, when Read said “We had better lay him down,” and they carried him in his chair into the tap-room, where they laid him on the floor and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any other drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the Dispensary, where he died about seven the same evening.

Mr. C.E. Fitzgerald said he had not doubt but that deceased was poisoned by alcohol, the symptoms being such as would have arisen from excessive drinking.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 August 1866.

Local News.

Wednesday last was the annual licensing day, when the magistrates on the bench were Capt. Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt and A. M. Leith Esqrs.

All the old licenses were renewed. There were seven applications for new licences namely, Mr. Hogben for the Rendezvous, in Broad Street, (lately opened as a luncheon bar); Mr. Spurrier, for the Alexandra, in Harbour Street; Mr. Lepper, for a new house, the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Road; Mr. J. B. Tolputt, for a house in Bouverie Square; Mr. Elliott for the Gun, Cheriton- Road; Mr. Tite, for the Shakespeare, Cheriton Row; and Mr. Mullett, for the Star, in Seagate Street. The Bench granted licences to the four first-named, and refused the other applications. Mr. J. Minter presented a petition signed by all the publicans in the town against new licences, and appeared specially to oppose the granting of licences to the Rendezvous and Star.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 January 1868.

County Court.

Monday January 20th: Before W.C. Scott.

Poole v Whybourne: Claim for 1 6d. for beer &c.

G.H. Tite v Poole: Claim for 1 5s. 7d. for dilapidations.

These cases arose out of the transfer of the Shakespeare Inn, in Broadmead Road from Poole to Whybourne. The former refused to hand over his licence to the latter when he left the house because he was not paid for the beer left there, and which the landlord, Mr. Tite, had sent in to his brewery to pay for dilapidations in the house. Mr. Tite was willing to pay for it if he was paid for the dilapidations, consisting of thirteen cracked glasses, a quart jug, a cellar door lock, a broken grate, several keys lost, and a sash removed.

Judgement was given for defendant in the first case, and for plaintiff in the second, on the understanding that Mr. Tite paid for the beer.

 

Folkestone Observer 25 January 1868.

County Court.

Monday, January 20th: Before J.C. Scott.

Poole v Wyborne: Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the defendant.

This was an action for a claim of 7s. 6d., plaintiff stating that he was the late landlord of the Shakespeare beershop, which house he had subsequently let to Mr. Wyborne, the 7s. 6d. being money spent by the plaintiff for a transfer of license, which defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff had also a further claim of 42 on the defendant for stock and fixtures. The defendant called his wife to corroborate his statement as to the transactions.

The defendant denied liability.

Mr. Minter stated that he would explain to His Honour that the defendant did not take the house from the plaintiff, and would call a witness to prove the fact. It appeared that Mr. Tite was the actual person who took the house from the plaintiff, and agreed to give 42 for stock, &c., but Mr. Tite found several articles broken as represented sound, and therefore wished to have 1 5s. deducted for breakage, &c. Was quite willing to pay if that sum were deducted.

Mr. Tite said he was landlord of the Shakespeare prior to Mr. Poole; Mr. Poole gave him 42 for the stock, fixtures, &c., and witness agreed to give plaintiff the same amount if he should leave the house at any future time. But witness could not obtain the license from the plaintiff, and he had therefore been obliged to go to the magistrates to obtain a certificate for selling beer. Witness found 13 glasses on a shelf, apparently sound, but they were all broken or cracked – a perfect deception on the part of the plaintiff. He also missed a spring lock from the cellar door, jugs were broken, &c. He was quite willing to pay the amount, minus 1 5s. for breakage &c.

Allowed accordingly.

 

Folkestone Observer 4 April 1868.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, Captain Leith, and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Transfer of license was granted to Mr. Wyborne, Shakespeare Tavern, Gun Terrace.

 

Folkestone Express 4 April 1868.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, Capt. Leith, and Alderman Boarer.

The Shakespeare, from Mr. Poole to Mr. Whybourne.

 

Folkestone Observer 16 October 1869.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before R.W. Boarer, John Gambrill, John Clark, and – Dashwood Esqs.

Mr. T. Taylor applied for a transfer of license granted to Mr. Wyman to sell excisable liquors at the Shakespeare Inn. The application was granted.

Note: Wyman appears to be a misprint for Whybourne according to information in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Shakespeare Tavern, from Edward Wyburn to Thomas F. Taylor.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 April 1871.

County Court.

This court was held at the Town Hall, on Saturday, before the Judge, W. C. Scott, Esq.

Win. Tite v. Henry Payne: A claim for 26 10s. 6d. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant.

Mr. Minter, in his opening statement, said plaintiff was a brewer of Folkestone, and defendant held a public-house called the Shakespeare Inn, and the action was brought to recover a sum of money due for beer, &c., supplied. Plaintiff had made a mistake of 7, and although the summons was issued for the above amount, only 19 10s. 6d. was due; against this defendant had paid into court 12 9s. 3d., leaving 7 1s. 3d., as a balance of amount in dispute. Against that another question arose. In settling up accounts last November the plaintiff allowed defendant, who is a carpenter, a sum of £6 5s. 3d. for some timber supplied to him by a man named Maycock, and which was used in the brewery. On enquiry plaintiff found that the timber had not been paid for by defendant; if he could satisfy plaintiff that this money had been paid Maycock, the sum then in dispute would be only 16s., which was for a half barrel of beer supplied on the 11th of January last.

Plaintiff and a man employed by him deposed positively to the delivery of the beer.

Mr. Towne in an able speech said the beer was not delivered, and produced a book in the handwriting of plaintiff with an entry dated 11th January, where 36 gallons were entered instead of a hogshead.

Defendant was called and in cross-examination by Mr. Minter he swore that according to his recollection he only received 18 gallons.

Mr. Maycock was called and said he considered that Payne ordered the timber and was responsible for the money.

This satisfied plaintiff with regard to the sum of £6 5s. 3d.

His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, as amended, with costs.

George Sam. Tite v. Henry Payne: This action was brought to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, of which plaintiff was the owner.

The plaintiff is the father of Wm. Tite of the Gun Brewery. On the 25th of March he let the Shakespeare Inn to his son for one year, at a rental of 40 per year. Subsequently the son sublet the premises in his father’s presence to defendant, at a rental of 24 on condition that he purchased his beer at the Gun Brewery. A quarrel bad taken place between Payne and plaintiff’s son, and as the former refused to have his beer from the Gun Brewery, the son threw up the premises, while Payne would only pay 24 per annum instead of 40.

His Honour thought that the father had, by his presence when the agreement was entered into, acquiesced in the agreement between his son and Payne. Judgment for the defendant.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 April 1871.

Saturday, 15th April: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Wm. Tite v Henry Payne: This was a claim for 26 10s. 6d. for liquor supplied to defendant (who is landlord of the Shakespeare Inn ), by the plaintiff.

Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the case had some peculiar features in it, but he thought the facts were so clear as to prevent His Honour having any difficulty in arriving at a decision favourable to his client. The summons had been issued for 26 10s. 6d., but that was a mistake, as only 19 10s. 6d. was due, and therefore 7 would be deducted from the amount for which defendant was summoned for that day. Defendant had paid into Court 12 9s. 3d., and 7 1s. 3d. was the balance they sought to secure. An arrangement was made between plaintiff and defendant last November, by which plaintiff permitted defendant, who is a carpenter, to pay 6 5s. 3d. for timber supplied to him by a man named Maycock. He was surprised on enquiry to learn that the money had not been paid by defendant, and if defendant could satisfy his client that the money had been paid, the amount would then be reduced to 16s. He believed defendant intended to dispute the amount of porter that had been delivered at his house, but Mr. Tite could prove that what he had charged for had been delivered, and received by defendant.

Mr. Tite said he was a brewer, carrying on business close to defendant's house, and which place was known by the name of The Gun Brewery. Defendant was his tenant, and was supplied with beer from his brewery. He made an entry of every cask as it went out from his place. He remembered defendant's little girl coming to him and giving him an order for 18 gallons of porter. Shortly afterwards defendant came to him and countermanded the order, and told him, if he thought it would keep, to send him 36 gallons instead.

Thomas Darrell, a porter in the employ of Mr. Tite, deposed to delivering the liquor, which was received by defendant.

Mr. Towne addressed His Honour for the defence, and said that there was a great discrepancy between the evidence of the plaintiff and his own book, as there was not in that a mention of a hogshead being supplied, and surely the book supplied by the brewer to his tenant, and duly receipted by him, should be most conclusive evidence. As for the promise to pay Mr. Maycock, that gentleman would tell them that he was quite satisfied about that, and considered that Payne ordered the timber and was responsible for the debt.

Mr. Maycock was called, and said that he always held Mr. Payne responsible, and he acknowledged the bill.

This satisfied plaintiff with respect to 6 5s. 3d., and His Honour gave judgement for 16s., the remainder of the sum for which defendant was summoned.

Geo. Ham Tite v Henry Payne: This was an action to recover possession.

Mr. Towne appeared for defendant, and Mr. Minter for plaintiff.

Mr. Minter said this was an action to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, as the lease or terms on which the defendant obtained this house had now expired, and he refused to give up possession. The Shakespeare was let by plaintiff to his son William Tite, from the 25th of March at a rental of 40 for one year, and the son afterwards sublet the premises to defendant for 24. A quarrel had taken place between the son and defendant about some matter or other that it was not the business of that court to enquire into, and defendant refused to have any more beer from Mr. William Tite, who immediately gave up the premises. Defendant's plea was that he was the tenant of Mr. Ham Tite, and not of the son, but the son would tell them that the agreement was made with him, and that defendant held himself responsible to him as his landlord.

Mr. George Ham Tite said he let the Shakespeare to Mr. Wm. Tite from the 25th of March for one year, and for 40 a year. There had been some dispute between his son and defendant, and his son gave him notice, but he said he had not received legal notice and would not go.

In cross-examination it was elicited that witness was present when the arrangements were made between his son and defendant.

Mr. Towne said plaintiff had practically put himself out of court by coming there on his own title. If he let the house to his son that was nothing to them, it was to the father they were responsible, as he was present at the time when the transaction took place, took part in it, and was, in the opinion of defendant, his landlord.

Henry Payne said that he paid 24 10s. a year, and entered the house with the understanding that he should pay for the fixtures, and there was no agreement about leaving it at the termination of a year. It was to the father he was responsible, as he looked upon him as his landlord. He was present when the arrangements were made, and acquiesced in all that passed.

His Honour said that as there was decided acquiescence on the part of plaintiff, defendant was entitled to look upon him as his landlord, and therefore he should nonsuit plaintiff.

 

Folkestone Express 22 April 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, April 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

William Tite, brewer v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover money due for beer supplied by plaintiff to defendant, who occupied the Shakespeare Inn. The summons was originally taken out for 26 10s. 6d. The total amount of the bill was 50 14. 9d., of that 24 4s. 3d. had been paid, leaving the amount mentioned in the summons. In addition there should have been cash credited, amounting to 7 paid on the 13th February last. This reduced the claim to 19 10s. 6d., which was the amount now sued for. Plaintiff had paid into Court 12 9s. 3d., leaving 7 1s. 3d. as the amount in dispute. Against that another question arose of 6 5s. 3d. In November, 1870, plaintiff applied to defendant for the settlement of a bill. Defendant asked him to allow him a sum of 6 5s. 3d., being the amount of a bill for timber, which plaintiff was indebted to a Mr. Maycock, because Maycock owed him a smaller amount. Plaintiff agreed to this if defendant paid the amount of the bill. He made out the bill and receipted it. A little time after Tite saw Maycock and asked him if he had been paid for the timber. He said he had not, and also said the amount charged was larger than that credited to Tite. In consequence of this, plaintiff wrote to Payne, who too no notice of the letter. The plaintiff was still responsible for this debt by Maycock, but if the defendant produced the receipt of payment to Maycock it would be as good as cash for the amount. Perhaps defendant's counsel would say what part of the account was disputed.

Mr. Towne: You charge us on the 11th of January 2 8s. for one hogshead of porter, which we have not had.

Mr. Minter: With regard to the question of 36 gallons of beer, he was fortunately in a position to prove the delivery of the articles.

He called Mr. William Henry Tite, who said: I am a brewer, of Folkestone, and have supplied defendant from time to time with beer. I always make an entry on my book from time to time of the number on the cask. I remember in January last defendant's little girl coming to the brewery and giving me an order for 18 gallons of porter. It was immediately put in his cellar. He came to me directly after and said “Why did you not put in the barrel the same as the little girl ordered?”. I said “I must have made a mistake, but I will send a barrel”. He said “If you think it will keep, you may put in a barrel and leave the eighteen there”. I sent in the barrel, and that made the hogshead, as charged. The number of the barrel was 2, and the 18 gallon, 501.

By Mr. Towne: I am in the habit of entering the beer in a book kept by defendant. (Book produced) That is my handwriting.

Thomas Darrell, a man employed by plaintiff, remembered delivering 18 galls, and afterward putting in 36 galls. I was in the brewhouse when Payne came in, and heard the conversation.

By Mr. Towne: I take the number of the casks and make an entry of them.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I took the number of each cask on this occasion.

Mr. Towne, for the defence, contended that the beer book of the defendant ought to be conclusive, and in that book the defendant was charged with one barrel, not one hogshead. The book was made up on the 27th on January by the plaintiff. If the book was not conclusive, the defendant was quite at the mercy of plaintiff.

His Honour thought the book ought to be relied on very strongly, but he could not admit it as positively conclusive.

Mr. Towne: The next point, the question of timber, was this: Tite employed Payne to buy him some timber. The price of the timber was 5 14s. 6d.., and Payne charged 9s. 10d. more for commission and working it up. It was no difference to plaintiff whether defendant had paid for the timber of not. Defendant did not certainly give Maycock the money for it because he had a counter charge against him of something like 10.

Mr. Payne, the defendant, was then called. He said: I have been in the habit of dealing with Tite. The book produced is the one kept between us, and it is in Mr. Tite's writing. On the 11th of January I was charged 1 12s; that charge is altered into 2 8s. in the bill for one hogshead. I recollect sending for a barrel; am certain no more came in that day. On the 11th of January I had a barrel. I have done about half a barrel of porter per week; that is my average all through the year. I did not have any bill prior to the summons. Tite gave me some work, to supply oak timber to a well. I bought the stuff of Maycock. When one of our accounts was balanced I put in a bill of 6 5s. 3d. That included my charge of 9s. 10d. Maycock owns that this is an account between him and me.

By Mr. Minter: I gave the dimensions for the timber. I ordered goods for myself too. I never received a barrel on the 11th of January. I told the child to go and order a barrel; he sent 18 gallons. I went to him and asked him how it was he did not execute the order. I said to him “If you think the porter will keep, you can send in the remainder in a few days”.

Mr. Minter: But your book says that he sent in 36 gallons on that day.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I do not remember receiving any more on that day. Should say from the book the beer came in a barrel. I know the book is right.

Mr. Maycock was called and deposed to receiving an order from Payne. It was his son's business. They had no claim against Mr. Tite for this timber.

Mr. Minter replied on the whole case, and showed that the evidence of the defendant entirely confirmed that of Mr. Tite.

His Honour believed that a mistake had occurred, and the mistake was on Payne's part. Judgement for 16s. beyond the money paid into Court, and costs.

George Ham Tite, gentleman v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, against the defendant, who neglected to give up possession. Plaintiff for many years had carried on the business of the Gun Brewery, and he also owned the Shakespeare Inn. He let the brewery to his son, and also the Shakespeare Inn from the 25th of March, 1870 to the 25th of March, 1871; the Inn was to be 40 per year. The son underlet to the defendant for a sum of about 24 per year, subject to some arrangement. A dispute arose between W. Tite and Payne, and although the present plaintiff did try to settle matters, he was unsuccessful, and Payne was informed that if he did not come to some terms he would have to leave the house at the end of the year (25th March). William Tite, the actual tenant, gave up possession at that date, but Henry Payne, the defendant, alleging that he had received no notice from W. Tite, refused to give up possession.

Mr. George Tite said he let the premises to his son for one year, at 40. He saw Mr. Payne, and told him he should require possession on the 25th of March. He demanded possession on that day, and Payne replied by saying there was no legal notice.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son as an ordinary tenant for one year. He was to try it for one year only; that and the brewery. I think I was present when my son let it to Payne. I did not make any objection at the time to Payne having it. My son would not have the Shakespeare any longer as Payne refused to have his beer of him.

Mr. Towne submitted that the plaintiff was out of Court, as he was here to recover on his own title. He said the property was his and he let it to his son, and he admits he was present at the time when the son let it to Payne. Payne was not the tenant of the plaintiff; he was the tenant of the plaintiff's son. Plaintiff came to Court on his own title, but he had not made out that title. Before he could proceed he must establish that title. Defendant never admitted him to be the landlord. Plaintiff ought to have told his son that he could not let Payne have it.

Mr. Payne said: I took the Shakespeare at a rental of 24 10s. per year, and 2 per year for the use of fixtures in the house. I took it as a yearly tenant. I know Tite's father; he was present at the time. He took the greater part in the letting; they wanted 65; this was afterwards reduced to 40. Nothing was said about the son letting it.

By Mr. Minter: He let me have it for 24 10s. per year, but he did not say what he was paying. He did not make a statement to anyone. Tite agreed to let the house without beer. Did not say I was to pay 40 per year and 30s. per barrel for beer, or 24 10s. per year and 32s. per barrel for beer. I refused to have any more of Tite's beer.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had any notice to quit.

Mr. Minter contended that the dispute was entirely the fault of the defendant. Plaintiff let the house for a year, and a year only, to his son. The son declined to go on with the tenancy after the year had expired. It was on the evidence that Mr. Tite jun. paid his father 40 and sub-let it at 24 10s. There must have been some reason for this, and that was that the defendant should have his beer of William Tite. A dispute had arisen about this beer, and defendant refused to have any more. What the plaintiff required was 40 per year for the premises, or possession.

His Honour thought in this case the house had been let to defendant with the acquiescence of the plaintiff. There must, therefore, be a judgement for the defendant. As to it's being a quarterly or yearly tenancy, that was another question.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 May 1871.

County Court.

Application for a new trial.

Saturday May 13th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Tite v Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant. This case was heard at the last sitting of the Court. It was brought by Mr. Tite to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn.

Mr. Minter detailed the facts of the case as given on the last occasion. The legal consequences of His Honour's decision would be that Mr. Tite could not recover his rent of 40 a year, and the question arose, Who is the landlord of defendant Payne? If Mr. G.H. Tite, then Mr. W. Itte had nothing to do with it. From the evidence given at that time, it was shown that the under-tenant, Payne, paid the plaintiff, and it came out in evidence that Mr. G.H. Tite was present at the time the agreement was made, and that fact, from his acquiescing in the agreement, precluded him from obtaining a favourable judgement. Mr. Minter commented on the ungenerous manner in which Mr. Towne had asked Mr. Tite if he was present when the agreement was made, but did not ask one word in reference to the terms of the agreement. The only question was “Was your son present when you let the house?”, and the plaintiff replied “I think I was”. The plaintiff now came forward, on the ground of a surprise, to claim a new trial, and two affidavits were put in, in which plaintiff and son swore that plaintiff was not present when the agreement was made between son and defendant, but he was present on a subsequent occasion when they agreed about the fixtures.

Mr. Towne stigmatised it as a most vague application, and it was made on the ground of surprise, and yet plaintiff had not ventured to bring in an affidavit of the fact.

The point was argued by both legal gentlemen, after which His Honour said he could not help thinking that the evidence given by defendant at the trial must have amounted to a surprise to the plaintiff. The terms of the two affidavits showed that the plaintiff could not have been present at the time when the agreement was made, and he thought there was sufficient grounds for granting a new trial.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George H. Tite v Henry Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. It will be remembered that at the last sitting of His Honour an action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, held by the defendant, which was decided in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Minter now rose to apply for a new trial and recapitulated the facts of the case. The plaintiff let the Shakespeare Inn on the 25th March, 1870 to his son, William Tite, at a rental of 40 per annum, and his son sub-let it to defendant. It was evident that an agreement was made between William Tite and the defendant to take the house as a yearly tenant at 24 10s. per annum. At the trial defendant said that Mr. George H. Tite stood by and heard this agreement made, therefore they contended that there was acquiescence on his part, which precluded him from bringing this action. This evidence took the plaintiff by surprise, and he now applied for a new trial. His friend, Mr. Towne, in a very ingenious manner asked the plaintiff the question – “Were you present when your son let the house to defendant?”. Mr. Tite answered “I think I was”. Mr. Towne went on cross-examining very ingeniously, but he did not ask one word as to the terms of the letting. Defendant was then brought before His Honour and swore that the house was let to him as a yearly tenant. These two pieces of evidence dovetailed together showed acquiescence on the part of plaintiff to the letting. Plaintiff did not know at the time such a defence would be set up. The affidavit of the defendant would show that.

Mr. Towne objected to the affidavit. It was filed only the previous night, and he was as surprised at the affidavit as his friend was at the evidence.

His Honour: The affidavits are very short.

Mr. Towne: But the rules of the Court say they should be filed before.

Mr. Minter, while admitting that the affidavit should have been filed before, said there was nothing in the rules of Court that they should be filed.

Mr. Minter said they were not applying for a rule nisi. It would be seen from paragraph 3 of the affidavit that plaintiff understood from plaintiff and his son that a quarterly tenancy had been entered into and he went to the Shakespeare Inn for the purpose of negotiating with the defendant for some fixtures. From the affidavit of William Tite he let the premises to defendant at 24 10s. per year on the condition that defendant paid 32s. per barrel for his beer, and he goes on further to say that no other person was present at the time the agreement was made. After it had been entered into defendant requested him to obtain the presence of his father to see about the fixtures, and they did meet the next evening, after the agreement had been entered into. If his friend had examined the plaintiff as to the terms of the agreement it would have enabled him (Mr. Minter) to have called Mr. William Tite, who would have explained the matter. If plaintiff is bound by the agreement between his son and defendant, how is he to recover 40 per year rent? Is he to be debarred from recovering his rent? Who is the landlord of the defendant Payne? Is Mr. George Ham Tite? If the defendant considered Mr. G.H. Tire his landlord he would have paid plaintiff the rent. Instead of that he pays the plaintiff's under-tenant, William Tite. And there was direct evidence of this, as in October last he paid him half a year's rent. If the plaintiff had been treating with Payne, why should he stand by and let it at less rent than he was actually paying himself, for he believed that George Ham Tite was only a yearly tenant of the premises at 40 per year? There must have been some motive actuating him to let it at a smaller rent.

His Honour: If the affidavits are true, then the evidence by which I came to my decision must be untrue.

Mr. Towne said this was one of the most vague applications he had ever heard. Although his friend said on the last occasion he was taken by surprise, he had not ventured to being on affidavit of that fact. The plaintiff now comes forward and swears distinctly the opposite to which he did before. A legal surprise was something that could not reasonably come into his head, but plaintiff swore distinctly that he was present at the time the agreement was made; if he had denied that he was present, they had witnesses present to prove that he was there.

Mr. Minter pointed out that the plaintiff could if he liked brought the action against Mr. W. Tite, and an order of ejection by default would have turned Payne out without any trouble whatever. But the plaintiff did not wish to act harshly, and he had done all he could to make up the dispute between Payne and his son. He had no desire to get rid of Payne; all he wanted was the rent of the house.

His Honour could not help thinking that the evidence given by the defendant Payne must have amounted to a surprise. The two affidavits showed that the plaintiff was not present at the time the agreement was made. He thought there was just sufficient to say there was surprise, and he therefore granted the application.

 

Southeastern Gazette 23 May 1871.

County Court.

At the last monthly sitting of this court, the only case that came before his Honour was William Tite v. Henry Payne. This was an application by the plaintiff for a new trial. Mr. Minter asked for a new trial on the ground of surprise at the evidence given for the defendant at the last occasion. Mr. Minter produced affidavits to show that he was not present when the agreement was made between defendant and his son, but on a subsequent occasion, when he called at the Shakespeare Inn in reference to the fixtures, plaintiff was willing to accept defendant as a tenant at 40 a year; but as at present situated he was in a difficult position, not knowing who was responsible for the rent. Mr, Towne, of Margate, appeared for defendant, and contended that there was no ground for a new trial. His Honour granted the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 June 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, June 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George Ham Tite v Henry Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for defendant.

Mr. Minter said this was an action brought to recover possession of a public house named the Shakespeare, of which defendant was the tenant, and plaintiff the landlord. Mr. Tite sen. let his house to his son for 40 a year, who underlet it to defendant, who was under notice to quit the premises. The time having expired, defendant did not leave, and an action was brought before His Honour in that Court to obtain possession, and a verdict in defendant's favour given. That verdict was given in consequence of His Honour being under the impression that Mr. Tite sen. was looked upon by Payne as his landlord, and that he actually filled that relation towards him. Since then, however, evidence of a different character had been brought forward, and a new trial had been granted. He should prove that Mr. Tite sen. was not present when the arrangement was made, nor was he in any way related towards, nor looked upon by defendant, as his landlord, and he thought when His Honour heard the evidence that would be brought forward he would reverse his previous decision.

George Ham Tite said he was a maltster, and kept the Gun Brewery, Folkestone. In 1870 he made an agreement with his son to let him the Shakespeare Inn from March 1870 to March 1871 for 40 a year. He was not present at the time when the house was underlet to defendant. There were some fixtures in the house, and he went there to sell them. He heard there was a dispute between his son and defendant. On the 25th of March he went to the house to demand possession, which was refused him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: The fixtures in the house were mine. Before Payne took the house I went there to settle about the fixtures. Payne went on the first occasion to meet me by appointment. He wanted to know what I wanted for the fixtures, and I asked 60 for them. I did not propose that he should pay 2 a year more rent instead of paying me for the fixtures. He agreed to pay me 2 a year for the fixtures, and I accepted this instead of the sum asked. I heard a certain conversation passing between my son and defendant in reference to the house, but was not present the whole of the time.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: Payne offered me 50 a year.

Witness was further cross-examined as to whether he took any part in the letting of the house, and said that he did not.

The Judge said that his decision on a previous occasion was based upon what was stated, viz., plaintiff was present and took part in the letting of the house. It was his impression that plaintiff said so on the first hearing of the case.

Mr. Towne said that that was the case.

Mr. Minter said that it certainly was a mistaken interpretation of what defendant said.

Mr. Towne replied that he had a paper, the Folkestone Chronicle, which reported the case, and in the evidence given plaintiff made that statement.

Mr. Minter: I object to you reading the Chronicle. That is only a remark of the reporter's. If you want the evidence you must look at the Folkestone Express.

(For the information of Mr. Minter we state that the report of the case given was in every particular, and plaintiff did make the statement ascribed to him by Mr. Towne.)

Mr. Towne said the would hear from further evidence whether that was the case or not.

In reply to the Judge, plaintiff denied taking any part in the transaction when the house was let by his son to defendant.

William Tite, son of plaintiff, said that he hired the Shakespeare of his father for 40 a year. He underlet it to Payne. He was present at the time, and had received money from Payne, which included the rent and the fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I let the house the Saturday after Good Friday. I did not let the fixtures; my father let them. The fixtures were let for 2 a year, and the house for 24 10s. I did not agree to let the house for 24 and 2 for the fixtures. I have received 13 as half a year's rent. The receipt produced includes half a year's payment for fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: My father let the fixtures.

Mr. Towne, in defence, said he could not see the advantage gained by plaintiff in again bringing the case into Court, as he had no new evidence to offer, and the features of the case presented no new phase, excepting as favourable to his client. The plaintiff, on this occasion, gave different evidence to what he had previously done, and said he was not present when the house was underlet to defendant. They had defendant's evidence that he was there, and the plaintiff himself said that he was present before the house was let to arrange about the fixtures. The son said the father had never made any arrangement about the letting, and they both made different statements. By some hocus pocus process between the father and son, they had agreed to come to that Court and make these arrangements for turning defendant out of the house before his time had expired. However, they had on this occasion stronger evidence, in favour of Payne, than that received on the first occasion when this case was brought into Court. There was a most respectable party present when the house was let to Payne, and he would swear that the father was the man who let the house, that he negotiated the proceedings, and that he was looked upon as the landlord. They met by an appointment expressly made to make these arrangements. In reply to Payne, Tite sen. said, in reference to the fixtures “I don't want money for them. Add the fixtures to the rent”. Accordingly an agreement to that effect was entered into, and he would produce a receipt for 13, which was a receipt for a half year's rent. That receipt admitted that the house was let by plaintiff. If plaintiff acquiesced in the letting of the house, as he would prove that he did, he had no reason now to complain. Payne's defence was confirmed on the previous trial, and on that occasion, by plaintiff's statement, by the receipt given, and by the evidence of the father and the son. This was a combination between Tite jun. and Tite sen. to get defendant out of the house, and he thought His Honour would not sanction such an object on the evidence produced by plaintiff that day.

Henry Payne said that he was the landlord of the Shakespeare Inn, and went into the house on Good Friday. He took the house on the Monday or Tuesday after. An appointment was made to meet old Mr. Tite, and he met him on the Monday, and Mr. Button, also Mr. Tite jun., and Mr. Tite sen. negotiated with him, and he agreed to take the house at 24 10s. a year. There was some conversation about fixtures, but ultimately it was agreed that he should pay 2 a year for them in addition to the rent. The receipt produced was for rent and fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The money, for which I have a receipt, was paid to Mr. Wm. Tite.

Mr. Minter: To your landlord.

Defendant: Yes, to Mr. Wm. Tite, my landlord. There was nothing said about purchasing beer. I have had beer from other people besides Mr. Tite. I have paid 30s. a barrel for beer, and I paid Mr. Tite 32s. a barrel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: Mr. Button was present when the terms were agreed on. Mr. Button drew up a bit of an agreement which, however, was not signed. He had had beer of Mr. Tite, but was obliged to leave off dealing with him as the beer was so bad that his customers could not drink it.

Mr. Button said that he was a carpenter and knew Mr. Ham Tite. Mr. Payne asked him to come up to the Shakespeare, as he thought about taking it. He went, and met Mr. Tite there. He observed that there were not many fixtures. There was some conversation about the value of the fixtures, and the house was let for 24 10s., and 2 a year for the fixtures. Mr. Tite jun. did not take part in the proceedings, but the father negotiated. He was asked by Mr. Tite sen. to draw up an agreement, and he did so, but it was not signed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I am not sure that I did not say “You had better have an agreement drawn up”. I will not swear that Mr. Tite sen. did not say “There is no occasion to have an agreement drawn up among honest men”. I do not remember handing the agreement to Mr. Wm. Tite, and his saying that it would not do, as it did not contain the price of beer.

Mr. Minter said that he thought the observations of Mr. Towne were not called for, certainly by the evidence, when he remarked that this was a combination between the father and son to turn defendant out of the house, and the evidence brought forward that day conclusively proved plaintiff's case, viz., that the son was the landlord of the house, that he let it to defendant, and that the father only took part in the transaction so far as the fixtures were concerned. They had been promised additional evidence from Mr. Button, who he must say had given his evidence in a most fair manner, but which had not altered the aspect of the case in one particular, but on the contrary rather strengthened and confirmed the truth of their statements. There were many things that took place which proved that plaintiff was the landlord and Mr. Button did not deny them. Whatever was done at the interview about which so much had been said, Mr. William Tite let the house, and defendant believed him to be his landlord. If there was a combination at all to do an injustice, it was certainly on the part of defendant. He was a tenant living in a 40 house, and Mr. Tite had let his brewery to his son, and was it likely that Mr. W. Tite would let the house, or the house be let at all, for 24, unless some conditions were attached to it? It was understood that defendant should purchase his beer of Mr. Tite, and that was the reason he had the house at a reduced rental. Was it consistent with good reason, or common sense, that the house would be let for such a rental, without some such understanding? Defendant left off dealing with Mr. Tite, and that created a difficulty, and said he refused the beer because he alleged it was so bad. If such an agreement was not made, how came it that defendant paid 32s. a barrel when he could have got it for 30s.? The fact was that if defendant had not left off dealing with Mr. Tite, quietude would have remained between them, and this would not have occurred. The evidence was such that he thought His Honour would see good reasons for reversing his former decision.

His Honour said he had given his decision on a former occasion on the understanding that there was an acquiescence on the part of plaintiff to the letting of the house, and that he took part in the transaction. There was no evidence before him on the present occasion to confirm that, and Mr. Tite sen. was not to be bound by any acts of his son. Upon the facts given he should give a verdict for plaintiff.

Mr. Towne asked for time to be given defendant to remove.

Mr. Minter said there was no disposition to deal harshly on the part of plaintiff, and His Honour might leave him to fix a time.

Mr. Towne said he would rather His Honour would fix a time.

His Honour said he would give seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 24 June 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, June 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

The Shakespeare Inn, George Ham Tite v Henry Payne: This action was brought to recover possession of the above inn. The case had been previously heard, when His Honour gave judgement for the defendant. The plaintiff applied for a new trial at the last Court; this application was granted by His Honour. As on the previous occasions Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. By the request of the last gentleman all witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Mr. Minter recapitulated the facts of the case – That the plaintiff let the house to his son on March 25th, 1870 for one year only; the latter sub-let it to the defendant in April of the same year. The tenancy between plaintiff and son expired on the 25th of March last and the defendant refused to give up possession. Whether the plaintiff was present or not at the time the agreement was made it would not have the effect of binding him to it's terms. If the defendant was aggrieved he would have his remedy against the plaintiff's son.

Plaintiff was then sworn, and said: I am a maltster, living at Folkestone, and I am the tenant of the Shakespeare Inn. In 1870 I made an agreement with my son and let the inn to him for one year, from the 25th of March, 1870, to the 25th of March, 1871, at 40 per year. I was not present when he let the premises to Payne, the defendant. I had some fixtures in the house. I went to the Shakespeare and saw Payne with reference to the fixtures. I heard there was a dispute between Payne and my son, and I tried to make peace between them. I went to the house and demanded possession. I found Payne there, but he refused to give it up.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son, William, at 40 per year. He was to take the house alone for 40; the fixtures were mine. I went to the house before Payne took it to settle about the fixtures. Payne met me there by appointment; he asked how much I wanted; the most I asked was 50, and the lowest 40. He did not buy them of me; he went home and consulted and came back again the next night. He did not propose to pay 2 a year more rent instead of paying for the fixtures. He agreed to pay 2 a year more for the use of the fixtures. He held them on those terms. I remember your asking me if I was present when the agreement was made. I heard certain conversation between them about it.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I made him an offer to accept 40. Afterwards I said I would be satisfied with 5 per cent of that amount.

His Honour said his judgement on the previous occasion was based on the plaintiff being present at the time the agreement for letting was made.

Mr. Towne said he had the shorthand writers' notes to prove that the plaintiff said at the previous trial that he was present. The Folkestone Chronicle said in cross-examination it was elicited that the plaintiff was present.

Mr. Minter: That is not a report of what he said, that is merely a reporter's observation. The Folkestone Express contains the correct report.

Mr. William Tite was here called, and Mr. Towne created a sensation in Court by asserting that he saw the witness listening at the door of the Court. This was emphatically denied both by the witness and the door keeper. Ultimately, as witnesses were about to be called in support of Mr. Tite's statement, Mr. Towne withdrew his accusation. The examination of the witness was then proceeded with. He said: I hired the Shakespeare from my father for one year, from March, 1870, to March, 1871, at 40 per year. My father was not present at the letting of the house to Payne. The fixtures belonged to my father. I have received rent from Payne for the house and for fixtures.

By Mr. Towne: I let the house to Payne the Saturday after Good Friday. I did not let the fixtures at the same time. My father let the fixtures. Payne could not afford to take them, and they were let at 5 per cent, or 2 per year. We agreed on a rent of 24 10s. per year and 2 for the fixtures. That receipt is mine. It is the only one he ever had of me. It says “Received 13 5s. for rent of Shakespeare Inn from April 22nd to October 22nd”. I did not let the Shakespeare at 26 10s. per year rent. He took possession and the rent commenced from the 22nd of April.

Mr. Minter: Does the receipt include rent for fixtures?

Witness: It includes 1 for the fixtures.

This concluded the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Towne said the plaintiff now utterly contradicted the evidence given by him on the previous occasion. It was excessively probable that the plaintiff was present at the time the agreement was made, and now by some “hocus pocus” he hoped to turn him out without notice to quit because the younger Tite has given up possession. He was fortunately in a position to place the matter beyond any doubt whatever as to the presence of the plaintiff. He was really the man who let the house and the fixtures; he arranged about the whole affair. It would be a cruel thing if the father and son were allowed to combine to turn him out.

The defendant was then called and said: I am the landlord of the Shakespeare Inn. I took it on the 22nd of April, 1870. I took the house on the Monday or Tuesday evening. I made an appointment to meet old Mr. Tite. I had not taken the house up to that time. I met him in the evening at the Shakespeare. Mr. Button was there, and Mr. Tite jun. was out in the room. Old Mr. Tite was particularly active in the letting; he negotiated about the letting of the house. We had a talk about the house, and after the rent was named at 24 10s. Mr. Tite went on to negotiate about the fixtures. He wanted 40 for them, and I said it was too much money; they were not worth it. He then said I should have them at 5 per cent on 40. It was then settled that I should take the business at 24 10s. rent and 2 for fixtures. (Receipt produced) This is a receipt I received from Tite; it says received for rent, but it was for rent and fixtures. Old Mr. Tite has never asked me anything for the fixtures.

By Mr. Minter: The half year's rent was paid to William Tite, my landlord. Nothing was said to William Tite on Good Friday about taking the house. Nothing was said until the following Monday or Tuesday by either one or the other of us. Nothing was said about the beer or anything of the kind. I was to have the house at that rent. I have beer from other people. I have paid 30s. a barrel for beer. I paid William Tite 32s. There was a dispute about the beer. Mr. G.H. Tite tried to reconcile the difference.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: Mr. Button was present when the terms were agreed upon. He was asked to draw up an agreement by Mr. George Ham Tite. He did draw up an agreement and I had a copy and they had one. It was never signed, as Mr. Tite said I could do as well without. I ceased to have the beer because I did not like it.

Mr. Button said: I am a carpenter. I know Mr. Ham Tite and Payne. I met Payne and he asked me to come and have a look at the Shakespeare as he had some thoughts of taking it. I said to Payne “There are not many fixtures”. We then went into the parlour. Mr. Ham Tite came in and he and Payne talked about the fittings and the rent. Mr. Tite said he considered the fittings were worth 40, but if he did not care to pay the money down he could pay 2 a year for the fixtures and 24 10s. as rent, making the rent altogether 26 10s. I am quite positive this took place. Young Tite was not present; he was about the bar. I don't think he said a word about the case. It was the father who negotiated about this house. I was asked to draw up a memorandum, and I drew up two copies. Mr. Tite sen. asked me to make the agreement. I wrote just as I heard them agree. (Agreement read) Those terms were agreed upon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Did you say that an agreement had better be drawn up?

Witness: I might have said so. I cannot tell the day I was there. Do not know the reply given when I took the agreement. I will not swear it was not signed.

Re-examined: It was Mr. Tite senior that proposed an agreement should be drawn up and I prepared one.

Mr. William Tite, re-called, said: When Mr. Button handed me the agreement I read it and told him it was of no use as it did not contain the price of the beer. He said “I will put anything you require on the back of it”.

Mr. Towne contended that the evidence of his witness had not been contradicted.

Mr. Minter, in reply, again contended that if the defendant was in any way injured by his eviction he would have his remedy against Mr. Tite jun.

His Honour said on the previous occasion he based his judgement on the one ground of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff in the letting; that had now been disproved, and there was no further evidence of his acquiescence with regard to the letting of the house. There was acquiescence with regard to the letting of the fixtures. Plaintiff was present at the time when the fixtures were let but not when the house was let. He was therefore entitled to what he asked. If defendant was aggrieved on that account, his remedy is against Tite jun. Possession to be given in seven days.

 

Southeastern Gazette 24 June 1871.

County Court.

This court was held at the Town Hall on Saturday last, before W.C. Scott Esq., judge.

The time was principally taken up by a rehearing of the case G.H. Tite v Henry Payne, an action brought for the recovery of possession of the Shakespeare Inn. His Honour on the previous trial gave judgement for the defendant, as the evidence showed there was an acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff, who is a superior landlord, to the letting of the house. Affidavits had since been filed in which the plaintiff denied his presence on that occasion, but he was present on a subsequent, occasion to treat for the fixtures.

Plaintiff was called and also his son gave evidence to the effect that he was not present when the house was let, and that he had an interest in the letting of the house to the defendant.

After hearing the whole of the evidence, his honour reversed his decision, and ordered possession of the house in seven days. He also remarked that if the defendant was in any way injured he could proceed against Wm. Tite, jun., the plaintiff’s son.


 

Folkestone Express 8 July 1871.

Transfer Of License.

At the Petty Sessions on Wednesday morning Louis Herwigg applied for a license for the Shakespeare, the late tenant, Mr. John Payne, having left without surrendering the old license. It was granted.

Note: It appears that the names at the Shakespeare are wrong, Herwigg being Henry Augustus, and Payne being Henry.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 July 1871.

County Court.

Saturday July 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Henry Payne v G.H. Tite: This was another action in reference to the Shakespeare Inn under the following circumstances: At the last Court Mr. G.H. Tite obtained an action for ejectment against Henry Payne. Before Payne had given up possession Mr. G.H. Tite distrained him for half a year's rent, 13 5s. Payne paid the money under protest, and the present action was brought to recover the sum thus paid.

Mr. Towne appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Towne, in the course of a long argumentative address, placed the position of plaintiff before His Honour, and read extracts from several Acts of Parliament bearing on the case, and in which he designed to show that in consequence of the defendant having taken such proceedings he had no longer any right to recover rent due.

Henry Paine was called, and said: I am the occupier of a house named the Shakespeare Inn, and after the last Court I was served with a summons to leave. I left the premises on the 24th of June, and before I did so a distress was levied on me by Mr. G.H. Tite. In reply to a telegraph which I sent to Mr. Towne, he advised me to pay under protest, which I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I took possession of the Shakespeare in 1870, at 26 per year, and my rent was due half-yearly. I paid the first half year's rent, and on the 22nd of April last I was in possession of the house, and offered the rent to G.H. Tite, which he refused. I have occupied the premises for eight months without paying any rent at all. Mr. Pledge distrained on the premises, and I gave him a cheque on the London and County Bank.

Mr. James Pledge said: I am agent for the defendant, and was called upon to make a distress on Payne. I gave the receipt produced to plaintiff. No-one made any objection that I know of concerning the right to distress. He might have protested against my doing so, but that is not an unusual thing. He gave me a cheque, and I paid Mr. Tite. The cheque has been paid into my account, and has not been returned.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The plaintiff forcibly ejected my men. He did not eject me, or attempt it (laughter), for I went out and he locked the door. In the evening he told me that he had a communication with his solicitor, and Mr. Towne had advised him to pay the money. He gave me a cheque for 18, and I gave him the difference on the cheque. I cannot say whether the cheque is paid or not.

Mr. Minter, in defence, said there was no case whatever for His Honour to decide on. The plaintiff had suffered no injury, as he owed the rent which was due on the 22nd of April last. The fact was the action had been taken on false grounds, as it should have been for trespass or replevin as provided by the Act of Parliament. He contended there was nothing for the Judge to decide on, as the action was brought in a wrong manner, and defendant had not offended the law.

Mr. Towne, in reply, reviewed the whole case, and submitted many quotations from Acts of Parliament bearing on the subject, which he said showed that he was in the right. He was quite sure that if the case was adjourned he could bring abundance of testimony to support his view of it.

His Honour said the law was plain on the point. That was not the proper way for Mr. Towne to bring an action, and the case could not, under the circumstances, be supported.

Mr. Towne asked for a case which His Honour refused. He then gave notice for a new trial.

 

Folkestone Express 22 July 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, July 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Henry Payne v George Ham Tite: This was a plaint out in for the recovery of 13 6s., which was paid by the plaintiff, under protest, to the defendant on the 20th June.

Mr. Towne, of Margate, appeared for the plaintiff, as on a former occasion when an action was brought against him by the defendant for the recovery of the Shakespeare Inn. Mr. Minter again appeared for Mr. Tite.

Mr. Towne opened the case in a lengthy speech, and stated that a distress had been taken out by the defendant against his client, and 13 6s. had been paid under protest. He thought there would be no difficulty with that as he held the receipt given for the money. He then proceeded to recapitulate the circumstances of the late action against the plaintiff, and denounced it as a conspiracy against him. On the 31st of arch a summons was issued against the plaintiff calling on him to quit possession of the Shakespeare Inn, the tenancy of the defendant's son having expired on the 25th. Mr. Towne contended that the very issue of that summons was an admission that the person was a mere trespasser, and that the tenancy between the father and son (Tites) had expired. And if that tenancy had expired, why, the, of course, the power to make a distraint had expired and the defendant had no right to make it.The question was whether the distress was issued on Henry Payne during the possession of George Ham Tite. The latter, having admitted the tenancy between his son and himself to have ceased on the 25th of March, and having issued a summons in the shape of an ejectment against the present plaintiff, and got possession under that summons, the question was whether Henry Payne was the tenant. He never was the tenant of George Ham Tite. The son of the latter was, and that tenancy having ceased, he had the audacity to do that, and they now simply wanted back the money. The right to make a distress was determined by the issue of the summons, which amounted to an eviction. He contended that after an eviction the landlord loses his power of a distress, that power existing only during the tenancy of the person from whom the arrears of rent become due. The rent does not become due from the sub-tenant, and here the sub-tenant was treated as a trespasser.

Mr. Towne quoted authorities on these points, and then called the plaintiff, who deposed to having been served with a summons from George Ham Tite to quit possession of the Shakespeare. At the last County Court he was ordered out of possession.

Mr. Minter said no oral testimony could be given as evidence of the acts of the Court.

Mr. Towne said he produced the order.

Mr. Minter said it was entered in the proper Court book – that was merely a minute from the book.

His Honour (to Mr. Minter): What do you want?

Mr. Minter: I want him to prove it in the proper way.

Mr. Towne said the minutes of the Registrar were the best evidence.

Mr. Minter said the proper way was by the office copy.

Mr. Towne said he could not submit to such ill-bound technicalities.

Mr. Minter said he was there on behalf of his clients and to make all the objections he could.

Mr. Towne: You must not take your objections for law.

Mr. Minter said it was not a proper thing for the Court to send for the copy.

Mr. Towne: We have been led away; the summons put in is evidence. (Summons put in)

Examination of the witness continued: I left the premises on the 24th of June. Before that day the distraint was made upon me by Mr. George Ham Tite. I paid, under protest, to his agent.

By Mr. Minter: I entered into possession on the 22nd April, 1870, at a yearly rental of 26 10s., payable half-yearly. I paid the first half year's rent. I have not paid the second half-year's rent. Kept possession from April till June without paying rent. Have been in for eight months without paying rent at all. I paid Mr. Pledge a cheque for 13 6s. under protest.

By Mr. Towne: The cheque is paid.

Mr. Minter: He can't tell that.

Witness: I have not had it back.

Mr. James Pledge deposed he was agent for the defendant. He was called upon to make a distress on the plaintiff. Acting for Mr. Tite he gave the plaintiff a receipt, and received from him a cheque, which he gave to Mr. Tite. He had not had the cheque back.

By Mr. Minter: I distrained on the Shakespeare. The plaintiff forcibly ejected my man from the house as soon as I had gone out, and then locked the door. The plaintiff afterwards told me he should see his solicitor to know if the distraint was right or not. He afterwards said he had communicated with Mr. Towne and should pay under protest. He then gave me a cheque for 18, and I gave him the difference.

Mr. Towne: If the Judge is satisfied that the protest was made, that is my case.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court. After alluding to the fact that the attorney for the plaintiff had used some harsh words, he submitted that the action had been brought in a wrong form, and that there was no case for His Honour. The illegality of the distress had not been proved, neither had the actual payment of the money. It might be the cheque had not been paid. No doubt ordinary businessmen would assume it had been, but that was not what they had got to decide there today.

Mr. Minter then made voluminous quotations in support of his case to which Mr. Towne objected in warm terms.

His Honour (to Mr. Towne): You bring books to show the illegality of the distress. He objects to your method of bringing forward the case.

Mr. Towne: Something in the shape of a distress was made, and without .......

His Honour: He has his remedy. An action could have been entered into for illegal distress.

Mr. Towne: Because we have not brought forward an action for illegal distress, we are not to bring this action for the recovery of money paid under protest?

His Honour: I have no doubt that was the proper way to recover this money. Whether the distress was good or bad, this is not the proper way to bring your claim.

Mr. Towne: I deny a man a right to enter my premises at all; he puts in a distraint, and we afterwards pay him under protest. The facts are before us in evidence. Under these circumstances I should like to have a case for a higher Court.

His Honour: I am not in the slightest doubt on this occasion, and therefore I do not think I ought to grant a case.

Mr. Towne said he would ask His Honour to adjourn the case until the next County Court, and give them an opportunity to satisfy His Honour.

His Honour: I am satisfied.

Mr. Towne: Then you would be more satisfied. I must trouble Your Honour seriously with a notice to apply for a new trial.

His Honour: I can't prevent you doing that.

Judgement was given for the defendant.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 February 1873.

Local News.

Court of Exchequer, Jan. 28th:

Payne v Tite: This was an action to recover damages for an alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentation of the right of the defendant to let to the plaintiff a certain dwelling house and beershop at Folkestone, whereby the plaintiff sustained the loss of profits. The defendant pleaded “Not Guilty.”Mr. Willis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Byron for the defendant.

The plaintiff was a carpenter, carrying on business at Folkestone, and the defendant was a brewer in the same town, who had formerly kept the Shakespeare Inn in that place, which he held under his father. According to the plaintiff’s case, in April, 1870, the defendant was anxious to let the Shakespeare Inn, and in order to induce the former to take it off his hands he represented to him that he had power to let the premises by the year. The plaintiff having entered into possession, and having incurred various expenses with the view of carrying on the trade of a beerhouse on the premises, was ultimately turned out without notice by the father of the defendant, on the ground that the latter had no right to let the premises to a yearly tenant, but only for the remainder of his term, which expired a few months after the plaintiff entered into possession. The plaintiff now sought to recover compensation for the loss he had thereby sustained.

The defence was that the plaintiff had notice when he took the premises that the defendant could only let them to him quarter by quarter.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 20.

 

Folkestone Express 16 August 1873.

Friday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Charles Lott, Bathchair man, was charged with being drunk and of indecent conduct in Guildhall Street.

Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, proved the case, and said prisoner was drunk in front of his house, and was guilty of indecent conduct in front of a number of children and ladies who were passing. As he would not go away, witness sent for the police, and prisoner was locked up.

A previous conviction for drunkenness in June was proved.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs for the first offence, of 14 days' hard labour. For the second offence, 14 days' hard labour without the option of a fine, and the addition of a few strokes of the lash would not have been out of place for such a besotted offender against morality and decency.

Note: This will actually be Shakespeare Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1873.

Erratum.

In the report of the Police Court on Friday 15th instant Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, was stated to have proved a case. It should have been Mr. Herwigg, Shakespeare Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 March 1874.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before The Mayor and J. Clarke Esq.

William Tite applied for a temporary license for the Shakespeare, under the license granted to Henry Herwigg. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 23 June 1877.

Monday, June 18th: Before J. Kelcey Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Thomas Hogan was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Sunday evening.

P.C. Knowles deposed that he was on duty in the police station on Sunday evening shortly before eight o'clock, when he was sent for from the Shakespeare Hotel, and on proceeding there he found the prisoner, who refused to leave. When he got the prisoner outside he commenced helloing and throwing a spade which he was carrying about in the street. Witness advised him to go away, but he refused. The prisoner was very drunk and caused a great disturbance.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner, who was an old offender, having often been before them on similar charges, to twenty one days' hard labour, and promised if he came before them again to send him for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Recorder being able to deal more severely with him than they could.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 November 1879.

Notice.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough.

I, William Thomas Allard, now residing at the Shakespeare Inn, Guildhall Street, in the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, the holder of a Strong Beer Licence, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the Special Sessions to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Third day of December next, for a licence to hold an additional Excise Licence, to sell by retail at a house situated at Cheriton Road, Folkestone, aforesaid, Beer, to be consumed off the premises in pursuance of the Act 62 and 27 Vict., cap. 33, sect. 1, of which premises John Tite, of Folkestone, aforesaid, is the owner of whom I rent them; and it it my intention to apply to the Justices to insert in such licence a condition that I shall keep the said premises closed during the whole of Sunday.

Given under my hand this Sixth day of November, One Thousand eight hundred and seventy nine.

William Thomas Allard.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 May 1882.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

John Scott v Heath: This was a peculiar case, Mr. Minter appearing for plaintiff, and Mr. Mowll for defendant.

Defendant is Clerk of the Works to a builder, and plaintiff a retired warrant officer and brewer's agent. According to the evidence of the latter, on the 13th March he called at the Shakespeare Inn. He was sitting in a compartment of the bar by himself, and did not know the defendant was there, until he went round and struck him (plaintiff) in the face, knocking him down, and he then kicked him in the side and threw his drink in his face. It was a very serious affair, and defendant might have killed him. He went to Dr. Parry, who ordered him to rest for some time. He was indoors three weeks from the effects of the assault. He had not given the defendant any provocation at the time. They were previously acquainted, and had had a dispute about three months before.

Supt. Taylor was called to prove the charge. On being called to visit plaintiff he found him very ill. On the other hand, Heath declared that plaintiff had insulted him, and when he demanded an explanation Scott struck the first blow.

His Honour considered the case proved against Heath, and gave judgement for 5 and costs.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1882.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

John Scott v Horace Heath: Claim, 50 damages for an assault in the Shakespeare on the 13th March.

Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mowll for defendant.

Mr. Minter said that the action was brought by Scott, a retired warrant officer and brewer's agent, who was at that time in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent in Folkestone, against the defendant, the clerk of the works at the new Grammar School, to recover damages for a most unjustifiable assault committed by defendant on the 13th March in the Shakespeare Hotel.

John Scott, the plaintiff, said he was a retired warrant officer, and at the time the assault was committed he was in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent at Folkestone. On the 13th March he was going to Dover, and on his way called in at the Shakespeare and asked for some refreshment. He was sitting in a compartment of the bar by himself, and did not know the defendant was there until he went round and struck him (plaintiff) in the face, knocking him down, and he then kicked him in the side, and threw his drink in his face. It was a very serious affair, and defendant might have killed him. He went to Dr. Perry, who ordered him to rest for some time. He was indoors for three weeks from the effects of the assault. He had not given the defendant any provocation at the time. They were previously acquainted, and had had a dispute about three months before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He never threatened to knock defendant's brains out at any time. He did not strike the first blow on the 13th March. Through that occurrence he partly lost his situation, which was worth about 4 a week to him.

Superintendent Taylor said that on the 13th March the plaintiff complained to him about the assault. He went to his house, and saw him lying on a sofa. He appeared to be very ill, as if suffering from violence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He had seen a number of persons after fighting, but they did not all show their marks the same. Plaintiff was an elderly man and appeared very much shaken.

Horece Heath, the defendant, who is clerk of the works at the Grammar School, in the employ of the Trustees, said that he had been in the town since the 18th August, 1881. On the 31st December the plaintiff insulted him, and he then told him that he would have to answer for it some day when he met him alone. On the day in question, he went round into the compartment where plaintiff was and asked him what he meant on the 31st December, and if he was prepared to defend himself. The plaintiff immediately struck out and hit him right and left. He did not strike the first blow. He had never heard anything about kicking the plaintiff until that morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He could not swear that the barmaid at the Shakespeare had never visited him at his lodgings. He was intimate with her. He had been trying for some time, but had never got hold of plaintiff.

Fanny Hewson, the barmaid at the Shakespeare, said that she remembered the assault taking place. Mr. Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself. Plaintiff then struck out and the defendant hit him back.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: When Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself, Scott put up his hand and pushed defendant, and he knocked over the form. She did not visit the defendant at his lodgings. She walked out with him.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said that there was no doubt but that the defendant nourished a deliberate intention to punish the plaintiff for the insult in December. The defendant was a man in the prime of life, while the plaintiff was much older, and certainly not competent to defend himself against a man like the defendant. It was perfectly immaterial who struck the first blow, as the defendant had expressed his intention to commit the assault. He would give judgement for the plaintiff, with 5 damages, and costs.

 

Folkestone Express 28 July 1883.

Saturday, July 21st: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., and Alderman Banks.

Henry Webb was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse, and George Sider with being drunk. Sider pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Knowles said on the 12th inst. he saw the two defendants in a pony and trap at the bottom of Shellons Street. They were both drunk. They drove on to Rendezvous Street and stopped opposite the Prince Albert. He followed them with Sergeant Pay. Sider either got out or fell out of the cart. He took him into custody, and afterwards went back to help Sergt. Pay bring Webb to the station. He had received complaints previously about them. They were both incapable of taking care of a horse and cart.

Sergt. Pay said he saw Sider come out of the Gun Inn, get into a cart, and drive up the Bouverie Road, and afterwards return. He stayed about five minutes, and then went to the Shakespeare Inn, leaving his cart outside the Gun. He saw the two defendants afterwards, about nine o'clock, in the cart, coming up Grace Hill. They were both drunk.

Sider was fined 5s. and 8s. costs, and Webb 10s. and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 July 1897.

Local News.

The Guildhall Street improvement has, it appears, been the means of another, which cannot but “lift up” the neighbourhood hereabouts. The corner house known as the Shakespeare Hotel is about to be rebuilt, under the auspices of the Army and Navy Brewery Company, and Mr. Thomas Dixon, the present proprietor, will give way to another boniface. Mr. Dixon, who has always held a high reputation in Folkestone as a worthy man and a useful Vice President of the local Licensed Victuallers' Association, will leave his well-conducted establishment with every respect, and the best of wishes for his future career.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 September 1897.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday – the Mayor presiding – transfer licence was granted to Mr. George Coles, Shakespeare Hotel, former tenant Mr. Thomas Dixon.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 16 April 1898.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Woolcott's application for a licence for the Shakespeare, Cheriton Road, was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 April 1898.

Local News.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel has been transferred to Mr. Woolcott, of Aldershot.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 April 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday a transfer was granted to Mr. Woolcott for the Shakespeare Inn.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 30 April 1898.

Swan.

Wednesday, April 27th: before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Licence was granted on the application of Mr. J.C. Woolcott, of the Shakespeare, corner of Guildhall Street and Cheriton Road.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 July 1898.

Saturday, June 25th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and W. Wightwick.

Mr. Charles Sparrow was granted temporary authority to sell at the Shakespeare Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Saturday last – the Mayor (Col. Penfold) presiding – a temporary authority was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow for the Shakespeare Hotel. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the applicant.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 2 July 1898.

Saturday, June 25th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

On the application of Mr. Hall, the necessary authority was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow, who formerly had the Globe, to carry on the Shakespeare Hotel, Cheriton Road, until next licensing day.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Charles Sparrow had the transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel granted him.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. C. Sparrow, Shakespeare Inn.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.

On the application of Mr. Hall, and a transfer was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow, Shakespeare Hotel.

 

Hythe Reporter 13 August 1898.

Folkestone Police Court.

At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following licence was transferred:

Mr. F. Hall applied on behalf of Mr. Charles Sparrow for a transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel; granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 June 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

Yesterday (Friday) Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates of the West Kent Militia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Frank Lawrence deposed that at half past one the previous day he saw the two defendants turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel in Guildhall Street, both being drunk. He followed them, and they stopped three gentlemen, taking hold of their coat sleeves. He cautioned them, but Reardon struck a civilian in front of the Town Hall. P.C. Simpson and witness asked them to go away, but Reardon commenced shouting and using obscene language. They fell to the ground. When they were on the ground he commenced obscene language. A good many people collected. Reardon was very violent the whole way to the station and they had to handcuff him.

One of the defendants said they were struck by two civilians, trying to take a rise out of them. He got his head cut open.

Witness further stated that the defendants went in, but were refused to be served. He had heard they got drunk at Cheriton, but could not say for certain.

An officer of the regiment gave Reardon a good character and Hall a fairly good one.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs in each case, or seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 10 June 1899.

Friday, June 9th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westrop.

Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates in the West Riding regiment, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on the previous day.

P.C. Frank Lawrence proved the charge.

The prisoners were turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel, were disorderly in the street, rude to a passer by, and violent when taken into custody, and were each fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, in default seven days'.

 

Folkestone Express 17 June 1899.

Friday, June 9th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates in the Royal West Kent Militia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Thursday.

P.C. Frank Lawrence said he saw the two defendants turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel, and the landlord complained to him of their conduct. He followed them and saw them go into Mr. Franklin's shop. He spoke to them, and Reardon struck a civilian and used very bad language. He was very violent all the way to the station. He thought Reardon was the vilest and foulest-mouthed man he had ever met. At the Shakespeare they were refused to be served. He requested them to go away several times.

Mr. Bradley: Do you know where they got drunk? – I have heard at Cheriton.

An officer of the regiment gave Reardon a good and Hall a fair character.

They were each fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' in default.

They had no goods, and the officer said he was instructed not to pay any fine.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 May 1900.

Monday, April 30th: Before Messrs. Banks, Pursey, Wightwick, and Fitness, and Colonel Hamilton.

Charles Sparrow, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted power to extend his licensed premises by adding a billiard room.

 

Folkestone Express 5 May 1900.

Saturday, April 28th: Before J. Pledge, J. Stainer, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Mr. Sparrow, landlord of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted, after a long discussion, permission to build a shed in his yard adjoining his licensed premises.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 May 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday Mr. Charles Sparrow submitted plans for alteration to the Shakespeare. Approved.

 

Folkestone Express 25 July 1903.

Saturday, July 18th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esq.

Joseph Griggs was summoned for causing an obstruction by means of an out-porter's truck.

P.C. Butter stated that on the 16th inst. he was in Guildhall Street, when he saw an out porter's truck standing outside the Shakespeare Hotel, and partly obstructing the crossing. Witness kept observation for 20 minutes, and on defendant coming out took his name and address.

Defendant admitted that the barrow was standing in the street for ten minutes.

Fined 2s. 6d., costs being remitted.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1903.

Saturday, August 22nd: Before Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thomas Sullivan was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Simpson deposed that the previous evening about 8 p.m. he was on duty outside the Town Hall when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, acting in a disorderly manner and flashing a bundle of song papers into people's faces. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, but was immediately ejected. Prisoner the commenced to use obscene language and witness arrested him. Several complaints had been received by the police respecting prisoner's conduct.

P.S. Dunster corroborated as to the prisoner's condition when brought to the police station.

The Bench imposed a fine of 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 2 December 1905.

Friday, November 24th: Before W.C. Carpenter Esq., and Major Leggatt.

John Brien was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous night. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Stevens said about 10.45 he was on duty in Guildhall Street, where he saw the prisoner outside the Shakespeare Hotel, fighting with a man named Waller. As he went towards them, Waller ran away, but he caught Brien, who had his shirt off. With the assistance of P.C. Bourn he brought the prisoner, who was drunk, to the police station.

Prisoner said he had a discussion with Waller and they had a dispute. Waller struck him, so he retaliated.

The Chief Constable said there were 10 or 12 convictions against the prisoner, but not for drunkenness, during the last five years.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour in default.

 

Folkestone Express 9 November 1907.

Friday, November 2nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and E.T. Ward Esq.

William John McElroy, a young man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street. He pleaded Guilty.

It appeared that shortly after ten his condition was such that he was asked to leave the Shakespeare Hotel. He refused to do so and P.C. Stiles had to be called to eject him. Shortly after he again went into the house, and the constable had again to see him out. When in the street he became very disorderly, and caused a large crowd to assemble. He was therefore taken into custody.

McElroy informed the Magistrates the reason that he went into the house the second time was to obtain some onions which he had left behind him.

There were two or three previous convictions against him, and he was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, a week being allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 April 1908.

Thursday, April 9th: Before Messrs. Spurgen and Wood.

Annie Ottaway was charged with being drunk and incapable last night. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales said he saw the defendant at 8.45 last night sitting in the doorway of the Shakespeare Hotel. On picking her up he found she was in a very bad state of intoxication, and had evidently sat down. She had not been inside the hotel.

She was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1909.

Felix.

A Folkestone gentleman home from Singapore has asked me the question as to the identity of the cannons which are to be seen outside the Shakespeare and Globe Hotels. There they stand, buried muzzle downwards. How long have they been there? Who placed them there? To what battery did they belong? My attention has often been called to these old cannon, but after all, there are many who pass them by practically unnoticed.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 February 1909.

Felix.

Those Guns.

Under this heading, a week or so back, I made an enquiry in regard to those guns which stand muzzle downwards outside the Shakespeare and Globe Hotels. I asked “Where did they come from? Who placed them there?” Those queries did not escape the eagle eye of our esteemed frien, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, of Sandgate, who writes me on the subject as follows:- “Dear Felix, As to the guns, we want an artillerist's opinion of them, then evidence of old inhabitants as to when they remember them being placed there (if within recollection). I should say that they have been placed where they are since the Crimean War. I have newspaper scraps dated 1881, 1899, and 1905 enquiring about them. What are the dates of the Gun Brewery and Gun Tavern? Of course, they would be named after the gun was put there. The matter should be elucidated. As I said, first we want an expert to say whether they are Waterloo or Crimean guns. If the latter, surely there would be a record in the Corporation books as to when they were given. After all, they may have been discarded from the old battery.” Now it is rather strange. On Sunday morning, during a short stroll over the hills, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Tite, the respected father in the partner of Tite and Roff. This gentleman mentioned that he had read my note about the guns, and added “I am now seventy eight, but they have stood in their places as long as I can remember”. Mr. Tite's relative, the late Alderman Ham Tite, I believe at one time owned the Gun Brewery, and that was many years ago. Perhaps some of my old Folkestone friends can throw a little light on these old pieces of ordnance.

 

Folkestone Daily News 16 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before Justices Ward, Spurgen, and Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was fined 25s. or 14 days' for being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police.

Stapley is what might be called a “safe cop”. He is a native of the town, and was a very respectable hard working man until his wife left him a few years since. He then gave way to drink, and seemed to be somewhat queer in the head. About four years since he was charged with being drunk. He alleged he had been cruelly knocked about by the police at the police station, and his condition certainly corroborated his statement. He has also been convicted with not complying with the Hackney carriage bye-laws when he owned a charabanc.

On Tuesday he got a little drop too much, and Constable Boorn followed him into the Guildhall Tavern and warned them not to serve him; he then followed him to the Shakespeare, and eventually locked him up.

Stapley became excited, and the constable alleged that he struck him in the eye, which Stapley denied.

The Justices fined him 25s. or 14 days'. He elected to go to Canterbury.

We think it would have been better if Constable Boorn had taken Stapley home than to have dogged him from public house to public house, which is very irritating to a half-drunken man.

 

Folkestone Express 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous evening. He was further charged with assaulting P.C. Bourne. He denied both charges.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes past seven he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, near the Town Hall, rolling from one side of the path to the other. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, and witness heard the barmaid refuse to serve him. She ordered him to leave, but he said he would not go until he had a drink. Witness also told him to get outside. When in the street Stapley commenced to shout, and said he would have some drink from somewhere. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody, when prisoner became very violent and struck him a severe blow on the right eye. With the assistance of P.C. Pittock he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. On the way Stapley kicked and struggled a great deal. Witness, previous to the prisoner going into the Shakespeare Hotel, followed him into the Guildhall Vaults and told the barmaid not to serve him.

P.C. Pittock said he saw P.C. Bourne follow the prisoner into the Shakespeare, and saw both of them come out. He then saw the prisoner strike Bourne in the eye. Witness went to the other constable's assistance, and when they took him into custody he struggled violently.

P.S. Sharpe said when Stapley was brought into the police station he was drunk and very violent.

Prisoner denied being drunk and assaulting the constable.

Inspt. Swift said there were eight convictions against the prisoner, but only two for being drunk and disorderly, the last being four years ago.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs was imposed for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour in default; and for the assault a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or a further seven days'.

Prisoner said he had no money, so the Magistrates ordered him below, the Chairman stating that the sentences would run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward Lieut Col. Fynmore, and Alderman G. Spurgen.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Bourne in the execution of his duty. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

P.C. Bourne deposed that at 7.05 the previous evening he saw the prisoner drunk in Guildhall Street. Stapley was rolling from one side of the pavement to the other. He went along the street and entered the public bar of the Shakespeare Hotel. The barmaid refused to serve him, and requested him to leave, but he refused. Witness then told him to leave, and he did so. When outside he commenced to shout and used bad language. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody. He then became very violent, and struck witness in the right eye with his fist. It was a severe blow. With the assistance of P.C. Piddock, he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. He was kicking and struggling the whole time. Witness added that at 7 o'clock accused went into the Guildhall Vaults, and he cautioned him.

Prisoner denied using bad language.

P.C. Piddock corroborated as to the prisoner shouting and using bad language, and also as to the assault.

Prisoner denied the assault.

P.S. Sharp, who was on duty at the police station when the prisoner was brought in, corroborated as to his drunken condition, and his violence in the station.

Prisoner denied being drunk. He said he never insulted anyone, and wherever he went they should not have refused him.

There were eight previous convictions against prisoner, two of which were for being drunk and disorderly.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days', for being drunk and disorderly, and 10s. and 4s. 6d., or 7 days', for the assault, the sentences to run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 February 1912.

Tuesday, February 13th: Before Messrs. Ward and Fynmore.

Arthur Fred Mather was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Monday afternoon.

P.C. Ashby deposed that he went into the Shakespeare. He was refused to be served. He then went into the saloon bar. Witness took him into custody.

He was fined 14s. 6d. including costs.

 

Folkestone Express 17 February 1912.

Tuesday, February 13th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Andrew Frederick Mather, a well dressed man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashley said about 7.15 the previous evening he was on duty in Guildhall Street, where he saw the defendant, who was drunk, cross the road and go into the Shakespeare Hotel. He (witness) heard him refused drink. The defendant came out into the street and went into the saloon bar, from which he was ejected. He tried to get the defendant to go home in a cab, but he refused, and as he continued to shout a crowd began to collect. He eventually had to take him into custody.

Defendant said he was not in the habit of taking too much to drink. He admitted he overstepped the traces and he regretted such an occurrence.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 February 1912.

Tuesday, February 13th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Alderman T.J. Vaughan.

Andrew Frederick Mather, on bail, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Cheriton Road the previous day.

P.C. Ashby said he was on duty in Guildhall Street at about 7.15 when he saw prisoner in a drunken condition. He saw him go across to the Shakespeare Hotel, where he was refused a drink. He then went into the saloon bar and was ejected. Witness told him to go away; he tried to get him into a cab, but Mather refused to go, so he took him into custody.

Defendant said he regretted that it had occurred. He admitted that he was the worse for drink, but he did not think he had been disorderly.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 11 January 1913.

Friday, January 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and Major Leggett.

Maud Thorne was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night in Guildhall Street. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Taylor said about 8.40 p.m. the previous evening he was near the Shakespeare Hotel, when he saw the defendant fighting, with a large crowd of people round her. She was drunk, so he took her into custody for being drunk and disorderly.

Prisoner said she was only defending herself from a woman who struck her.

The constable said the prisoner and another woman were ejected from the Shakespeare Hotel because they were having an altercation.

Mrs. Thorne expressed her sorrow.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Daily News 22 May 1913.

Wednesday, May 21st: Before Messrs Herbert, Vaughan, Leggett, Morrison, Fynmore, Linton and Boyd.

The transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Folkestone, was granted to Mr. Joseph Smiles, jun., of Cheriton, the outgoing tenant, Mr. Charles Sparrow, having occupied the house for a period extending over 14 years.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 24 May 1913.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Shakespeare Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. C. Sparrow to Mr. J.S. Smiles.

Note: NOT J.G. Smiles as listed in More Bastions, but his son.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 May 1913.

Wednesday, May 21st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, was transferred from Mr. C. Sparrow to Mr. J. Smiles, jun., of Cheriton.

Note: NOT J.G. Smiles as listed in More Bastions, but his son.

 

Folkestone Daily News 31 May 1913.

Local News.

The Cheriton people are humane, and have for the last few days felt great anxiety and sympathy for Mr. Joseph Smiles, jun., who has passed through a somewhat severe crisis.

About a fortnight since Mr. Smiles went to bed with that which the doctor pronounced as a chill on the liver. On Wednesday, the 21st of May, although very ill, he attended Court in connection with the licensing proceedings for the transfer of the Shakespeare Hotel, which he had just taken over. He was then apparently very ill when in court. We learned that he went home and his condition became so critical that several doctors and a specialist from London were attending the case.

We now learn with great pleasure that the danger is passed away and he is showing signs of recovery. He is a tall, well-built young man, a great athlete, and of course possesses a sound constitution, which has stood him in good stead. As he has had the management of the White Lion Hotel for a long time, he is personally known to nearly all Cheriton, as well as many from Folkestone. Mr. Smiles is courteous and has a gentlemanly bearing and urbane good nature, which has won the admiration of all. Hence the general anxiety for his recovery, and their joy at learning the good news is enthusiastically accepted.

 

Folkestone Express 21 June 1913.

Obituary.

The death took place early on Saturday morning of Mr. Joseph S. Smiles at the residence of his father, Mr. J.G. Smiles, of Briorlea, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton. The late Mr. Smiles, who until recently had assisted his father at the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, had been ill for several weeks. He had even left his bed of sickness a few weeks ago to attend a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates to apply for the transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. C. Sparrow. At the time of his death he was really the licence holder of that hotel. He died at the early age of 30 years, and his demise will be regretted by a large circle of friends. He was a thorough all-round sportsman. He frequently appeared for the Hockey Club in their matches, and he was an oarsman of much ability. He was also a member of the East Kent Yeomanry. Sympathy will be extended to Mr. J.G. and Mrs. Smiles in their sad bereavement.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 June 1913.

Obituary.

We greatly regret to record the death of Mr. Joseph Sidney Venner Smiles, eldest son of Mr. J.G. Smiles, Chairman of the Elham Board of Guardians, and a member of the Cheriton Urban District Council. The sad event occurred at Briar Lea, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton, early in Saturday morning. Mr. Smiles had been lying seriously ill for about five weeks. The news of his death was received with genuine sorrow by his many friends in Folkestone and the surrounding district.

The deceased, who was thirty years of age, had lived at Cheriton for some thirteen years. For ten years he had belonged to the Folkestone troop of the Royal East Kent Mounted Rifles, in which body he held the rank of corporal at the time of his death. He was a keen all-round sportsman, and excelled in most of the athletic pastimes in which he interested himself. He was formerly a member of the Folkestone Rowing Club. For many years he was a keen hockey player, appearing from time to time in the ranks of the Folkestone and Sandling clubs, his customary position being at centre half. Mr. Smiles was a clever football player, and was associated with various teams in the district at different times. He was also prominent in connection with All Souls and Bouverie Tennis Clubs. On several occasions he was one of those who formed the parties which went from Folkestone to take part in the winter sports in Switzerland.

Much sympathy is extended to Councillor and Mrs. Smiles, and the other members of the family in their heavy bereavement.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred, temporary authority having been sanctioned previously by the Magistrates: The Shakespeare Hotel, from Mr. C.L. Sparrow to Mr. J.G. Smiles.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 August 1913.

Wednesday, August 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Capt. Chamier, and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, was transferred from Mr. C.L. Sparrow to Mr. J.G. Smiles.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq. and Colonel Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Butcher said at 9.30 on Saturday evening he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner begging from customers at public houses and soldiers in the street. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, where he begged in the bar, and also went into the Guildhall Vaults, where he did the same thing. He (witness) went up to him and told him he should arrest him for begging. On being searched 11d. in bronze and two insurance cards were found upon him.

Prisoner, who spoke with a strong Scotch accent, said he only begged from soldiers who were countrymen of his own. One of them gave him sixpence. He was a fitter by trade, but he was 51 years of age and could not get any work as he was too old. He came to London to get a job in the East India Docks, but his eyesight failed him. He had done no work since last November.

The insurance cards, which were for sickness and unemployment, showed that prisoner last worked in November.

The prisoner, on promising to leave the town, he explaining that he would make his way north again, was discharged by the Magistrates.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Colonel G.P. Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson deposed that at about 9.30 p.m. on Saturday he was in Tontine Street, where he saw prisoner begging. Accused proceeded to Guildhall Street, entering the Shakespeare Hotel, and asked for money. When he came out witness stopped him, and took him to the police station. He had on him 11d. in bronze and an insurance card.

Prisoner said he was a mechanic, and had been looking for work. He was 31 years old, and had not had any regular work since November. He was born in Renfrew. He came down to London to get work at the East India Docks, but it was no good everywhere he went. He was a Scotchman, and only accosted the Seaforth Highlanders, one of whom gave him 6d.

The Bench discharged prisoner on his promising that he would leave the town.

 

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Monday, June 21st: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Rhoda Rowley was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday evening. She denied the offence.

P.C. Whitehead spoke to having to eject the prisoner from the Shakespeare Hotel at 7.50, and to seeing her twice again and cautioning her about her conduct. He told her to go home. At 8.50 he found her being ejected from a restaurant in Cheriton Road, so he took her into custody, as she was very noisy.

Special Constable Kearns gave evidence as to being called to the restaurant to eject the prisoner.

P.S. Prebble said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was very drunk.

Prisoner strenuously denied being drunk, and asked the Magistrates how she should be drunk on two cups of tea.

Inspector Simpson said Rowley had been convicted three times since April 15th, the last being at Hythe, when she was sentenced to seven days' hard labour on June 7th. The woman had been a pest since she had been there.

Rowley: I was very excitable, and was not drunk.

Sent to prison for 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 8 January 1916.

Saturday, January 1st: Before G.I. Swoffer Esq., Alderman Dunk, Councillor Stace, and Councillor G. Boyd.

John James Keith was charged with supplying whisky to a soldier.

Corpl. Burr, of the Military Foot Police said he was in Guildhall Street on the pervious evening when he saw the prisoner enter a wine and spirit stores, No. 5, and come out with what appeared to be a bottle of whisky. He went to a soldier, and they walked in the direction of the Playhouse. He then saw the accused hand the soldier the parcel. Witness went up and took it away, finding it to be a bottle of whisky.

Private G. Joyce, of the 6th Howitzer Brigade, said he met the man in the Shakespeare Hotel, and asked him if he could get him a bottle of whisky, giving him a 10s. note. Later prisoner gave him a bottle, and then the Corporal came up and took it away.

Mr. F.J.W. Harris, manager to Mr. Birch,, wine and spirit merchant, 5, Guildhall Street, said he believed the prisoner was the man to whom he sold two bottles of whisky on the previous evening. He asked him whether the spirit was for a soldier, and he said “No”. He had not known him previously as a customer.

Prisoner said he only came out of the infirmary a week ago. He had got consumption, having been laid up for two years He had two or three drinks, or he would not have done what he did.

The Chief Constable said the man had been several times before the Court, there being nine convictions, the last three years ago.

Asked by the Clerk why he elected to come out of the Infirmary, prisoner said because it was Christmas time.

In consideration of his state of health, the Magistrates sentenced prisoner to three months' imprisonment without hard labour, the Chairman remarking “You come out of the Union and extort money by buying liquor for soldiers. It is a very serious thing, and if it had not been for your health you would have had a very heavy sentence”.

To Mr. Harris, the Chairman said: The Magsitrates think that you ought to have taken more care.

Mr. Harris protested.

Councillor Boyd: The look of that man ought to have been sufficient for you.

The Bench congtaulated Corpl. Burr on the way he had given evidence, and also the manner in which he dealt with the case.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1916.

Saturday, January 1st: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor A. Stace, and Alderman W. Dunk.

John James Keith was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act. He pleaded Guilty.

Corpl. Bird, of the Military Foot Police, said on Friday evening, about 7.15, he was in Guildhall Street. He saw the accused go into Mr. H.G. Birch's wine shop. When he came out he was carrying a parcel wrapped in paper, which appeared to contain a bottle. A soldier had been standing outside the shop all the time. Accused, when he came out, went up to this soldier, and they started to walk along towards the Playhouse. Witness saw the prisoner give the parcel wrapped in paper to the soldier. He then went up to them and took the liquor from the soldier, asking “What is this? Is it whisky?” The soldier replied “Drink” Witness said to the soldier “Did you ask him to get it for you?”, and the soldier replied in the affirmative. The bottle of whisky produced was the one which prisoner gave to the soldier.

Pte. Joyce, of the 6th Howitzer Brigade (Canadians), stationed at St. Martin's Plain, said he asked the accused to get him a bottle of whisky, and he gave him a 10s. note. When prisoner came out of the shop he gave him the bottle of whisky.

Mr. F.J.W. Harris, manager for Mr. Birch, said he thought the man in the dock was the man to whom he had sold a bottle of Johnny Walker. He believed that he sold two bottles of whisky to the prisoner. He was paid with a 10s. note. Witness asked him if the whisky was for a soldier, and the accused replied “No”.

Prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had done. He had got consumption, so if they sent him to prison he would not be able to do anything. He had only just come out of the Infirmary. If he had known of the trouble it would have caused, he would not have got the whisky.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were nine convictions for small offences against the accused. He was last there three years ago.

The Bench, after some deliberation, sentenced the accused to three months' imprisonment, the Chairman remarking that it was a shameful thing that he should come out of the Infirmary and then extort money out of soldiers by buying liquor for them.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Harris, further said they were of opinion that he had not taken sufficient precaution. He ought to have known that the prisoner did not want the whisky for himself. If he did not take more care in the future he would get himself into serious trouble.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 February 1917.

Friday, February 16th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Joseph George Smiles was summoned as the holder of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, for permitting drunkenness there on February 3rd. Mr. Rutley Mowll represented defendant.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, officer in charge of the C.M.P., said on Saturday evening, about 7.45, he and Sergt. Major May visited the Shakespeare Hotel. The bar was very full of soldiers. In the middle of the bar witness saw one soldier, named Warman, very drunk, staggering and very noisy. Another, O'Connor, was leaning across the counter, also drunk. He heard Warman call for three “Gold Tops”, and saw O'Connor put some money on the counter and receive some change from the barmaid. Three glasses of beer were put before him, one of which he retained, the others being taken by other soldiers. Witness sent May out for the picket, which arrived in less than ten minutes, and the two men were taken in charge.

By the Chief Constable: P.C. Whitehead came into the bar at the same time as the picket.

By Mr. Mowll: He thought he remembered saying to the constable “These men are drunk”. The constable did not tell him that they were not drunk. Witness did not invite the constable to prefer a charge of drunkenness against the men. He did not hear the manageress ask Warman to leave the house. Warman could use his feet, and walked out of the house with the picket, but one of the picket had hold of him.

Sergt. Major May, of the A.P.M. staff, deposed that on entering the bar he saw two soldiers, both drunk. O'Connor was leaning against the counter, and Warman was staggering about. Warman called for three drinks, which were placed in front of O'Connor, who handed one to Warman and one to another man. Witness called to the barmaid and asked to see the landlord, but no notice was taken. Witness fetched the picket, and on his return called in P.C. Whitehead and drew his attention to Warman and O'Connor. Whitehead sent for the manageress, and drew her attention to the two soldiers, whom she ordered to leave the bar. Witness then arrested the two men and handed them over to the picket.

By Mr. Mowll: He was sure the barmaid heard him call her. Warman's speech was thick. Witness did not hear him ask for his pals to go out with him. Witness held him by the right arm as he went out, as Warman required his assistance to walk out of the bar. The constable said that Warman had not had enough to drink for him to prefer a charge of drunkenness in the case. Witness did not know that the constable had refused to charge the licensee with permitting drunkenness, but he knew the constable refused to sign the charge sheet against the two men.

By the Chief Constable: When men were charged by the military it was usual for the military to sign the sheet.

Mr. Mowll: Then I can't understand why the constable was asked to do it.

P.C. Whitehead said he noticed a crowd outside the bar of the Shakespeare, and May called him inside. May pointed out a soldier, who had been drinking, but was not drunk. Witness sent for the manageress, and advised her to get the man off the premises. She requested the man to go out. He went as far as the door and made an attempt to return, when she said “Don't be silly; go out”. He said “I want my pals that I came in with”. She said “Come along, you men that are with this man; he wants you to go out with him”, and they all walked out. May and Lieut. Holmes went outside, and in consequence of what he said witness told the manageress the lieutenant was going to report her for permitting drunkenness. She replied “I knew nothing was wrong till you sent for me”. Witness asked the barmaid if she had served the man before, and she replied “No, I have not seen him before).

By the Chief Constable: There would be about 25 people in the bar, which was fairly full. The man was “just on the swing”, and his speech appeared to be very clear.

In your opinion he was not in a fit state to be on licensed premises? – No, he was not.

Why? – Because I thought he had had enough, and if he went then it would save trouble.

Did you see another man in the bar under the influence of drink? – No.

By the Clerk: The man left the bar without assistance, and Sergt. Major May never touched him. Witness saw no second man taken from the bar by the picket.

Was this man drunk or not? – He was not drunk.

The Chief Constable: Was he sober? – He was quite capable of taking care of himself.

Sergt. W. Carpenter, R.C.D., stated that when called the picket stood outside the door of the Shakespeare Hotel, and the man Warman was placed under his charge. The man was handed out by the Sergt. Major, who had hold of his arm, and witness could see perfectly well that he was drunk.

Corpl. F. Glann, C.M.P., said he was on duty at the guard room when O'Connor and Warman were brought in. They were both obviously drunk.

By Mr. Mowll: The civilian constable would not sign the charge sheet.

By the Chief Constable: He only asked the constable to sign as a witness.

Sergt. Allen, who was in charge of the guard room, said both were very drunk when brought in.

Mr. Mowll remarked that P.C. Whitehead, the only witness who was trained to detect drunkenness, had said definitely that the man was not drunk. The fact that the effect of the fresh air might have made the men worse before they got to the guard room did not mean that the men were drunk on the premises. When one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution denied what the other witnesses had said, the prosecution could not turn and say his evidence was not to be believed. He submitted that there was no case to meet.

The Bench decided that the case must go on.

Lena Sharp, barmaid in charge of the private bar, said the bar was full on the evening in question. The first thing she could remember was being asked by the constable to call the manageress. Witness was asked if she had served a certain soldier, and she replied that she had not. The man was very quiet, and left the bar very quietly when the manageress asked him to do so. He could walk perfectly well, and was certainly not drunk.

By the Chief Constable: She did not serve three drinks at once to any soldier. The man was sober, and if he had called for a drink she would have served him.

Mrs. Herrington, manageress of the Shakespeare, said that the previous witness asked her to go into the private bar, where there was a number of soldiers. P.C. Whitehead was there, and an officer drew her attention to a soldier. To her mind the man was not drunk. He was far from being excited, and there was absolutely nothing in his appearance to indicate that he was drunk. When asked to leave, the man walked to the door, turned back for a light for his cigarette, and then went out with two chume.

By the Chief Constable: There was nothing to prevent a drunken man walking into the bar if he wished to. She considered the soldier to be in a fit condition to be served. When the officer said the soldier had had too much to drink, witness protested, and said he had not. Nothing was said about a second soldier.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: Sergt. Major May never touched the man while he was in the bar.

By Mr. Mowll: Mr. Smiles had given her instructions to be very strict as to permitting any drunken man to be in the house.

The Chief Constable: Has your employer authorised you to engage assistance to keep drunken men off the premises when you are busy? – No, the barman looks after that.

Gunner A.A. Pegden, C.F.A., said he saw a soldier requested to leave the bar. He did so, walking without assistance. In witness's opinion neither this man nor anyone in the bar was drunk.

Gunner J.S. Thompson, R.F.A., stated that when the soldier left the bar he walked as steadily as anyone could walk, and in witness's estimation was sober.

By the Chief Constable: He saw him walk about four yards. The man showed no signs of drink.

Driver Thomas Wallace, C.F.A., and Gunner Bernham, C.F.A., also said the soldier was not drunk.

Mr. Mowll said he had no hesitation in suggesting that this was a case that ought to be dismissed on the evidence. It was a singular case, inasmuch as there was a great conflict of evidence. P.C. Whitehead, a witness for the prosecution, had stated of his own accord that the man was not drunk. This statement was not bullied from him in the course of cross-examination, as he (Mr. Mowll) asked him no questions. The outside evidence had no bearing on the case, as a man might become very difficult out in the air to what he was within doors. With the exception of two witnesses, the whole of the evidence was in favour of the defence.

After retirement, the Chairman said the Bench were of opinion that the men were drunk, but as there was no evidence as to how long they were in the bar and what opportunity the barmaid had of observing their condition, the case would be dismissed. The Bench thought a house of this kind should be under the control of a resident manager.

Capt. Aylwin, A.P.M., said there was a great amount of drunkenness which had to be dealt with by the military authorities, and which ledt to other troubles of a serious nature. Men who had never had any drink before got drunk, and were mad when they came out. He and his officers were going to be out looking for trouble, and to take hold of it with both hands when they found it. If the publicans cared to work with him he would assist them to the utmost of his power, and he wanted to give them a square deal if they would do the same by him. He thought some check should be kept on the liquor sold for outside consumption and also that a man should be put in public houses to keep out drunken men.

 

Folkestone Express 24 February 1917.

Friday, 16th February: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. J.G. Smiles, proprietor of the Shakespeare Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defence and pleaded Not Guilty.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, of the Military Police, said on Saturday, February 3rd, at 7.40 p.m. he and Sergt. Major May visited the bar of the Shakespeare. The bar at the time was full of soldiers. One of the soldiers, Private Warman, was very drunk. He was staggering, and was very noisy. Another soldier, O'Connor, was leaning across the counter. Witness heard Private Warman call for three “Gold Tops” and saw Private O'Connor put down some money on the counter and receive change from the barmaid. Almost immediately three glasses of beer were put in front of O'Connor, one of which was passed to Warman. Witness sent Sergt. Major May for the picket, and the two men, Warman and O'Connor, were taken in charge, both of them being drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Witness thought he remembered saying to the constable “These two men are drunk”. Witness did not invite the civil police to prefer a charge of drunkenness against the men. He did not hear the manageress ask Warman to leave the house. Warman could use his feet. Nor did he remember calling the attention of the manageress to O'Connor.

Sergt. Major William May also declared that the two soldiers, Warman and O'Connor, were drunk. Warman called to the barmaid for three “Gold Tops”, and three glasses of ale were placed in front of O'Connor One was handed to Warman by O'Connor. O'Connor took the other, and a Corporal who was standing by had the third. Witness called the barmaid and asked to see the landlord, but no notice was taken. He was sure she heard him. Witness went for the picket, and on returning saw Warman with a glass of beer in his hand. He then called P.C. Whitehead, and drew his attention to O'Connor and Warman. The constable asked to see the landlady, and the manageress came behind the bar. Whitehead drew her attention to the condition of the soldiers, ho were ordered by the manageress to leave the bar. The men were then arrested by military police and picket and taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined: There were not above 30 soldiers in the bar. Warman's speech was very thick. Witness did not hear Warman ask for “his pals”. The police cinstable said to him “They have had sufficient”.

Did the constable say that Warman had not had enough to drink for him to prefer a charge of drunkenness against him? – That was afterwards.

But did the constable say that? – Yes.

Witness did not know that the constable refused to charge the landlord with permitting drunkenness.

P.C. Whitehead said at 7.50 p.m. on the 3rd he was on point duty at the Shakespeare, when he noticed a crowd outside one of the doors. He saw the witness May, who called him inside and pointed out to him a soldier who had been drinking, but was not drunk. Witness sent for the manageress, and said to her “I should advise you to get this man off the premises”. She requested him to go out, and he went as far as the door and then attempted to return. She said “Now, don't be silly”. The soldier then said “I want my pals I came in with”. The manageress said “Come along you men who are with this man, he wants you”. Five or six soldiers then went out. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May left, and in consequence of what he was told he returned to the manageress and said Lieut. Holmes was going to report her for permitting drunkenness. She said “I knew nothing was wrong till you sent for me”. Witness asked the barmaid, Lena Sharp, if she had served Warman, and she replied “No, I have not seen him before”.

By the Chief Constable: There were from 20 to 25 men in the bar, which was fairly full. The man was “just on the swing”. His speech appeared to be very clear. Witness saw the man drinking from a glass.

You did not think the man was in a fit state to be on licensed premises? – No, sir, he was not.
Why? – Because he had had sufficient to drink, and I considered if he was got off the premises it would prevent him getting into further trouble.

Although you saw him drinking, you did not think he was a fit person to be on licensed premises? – No, sir.

By the Clerk: Witness did not see a second man in the bar showing signs of drink. The man referred to walked without assistance.

Now, was this man drunk? – He was not drunk.

The Chief Constable: Was he sober? – The man was quite capable of taking care of himself.

Sergt. Carpenter, who was with the picket, said a soldier named Warman was placed in his charge. He came out of the door of the Shakespeare as though he was under the influence of drink.

A Corporal who was in the guard room said the two men, when brought in by the picket, were both obviously drunk.

Cross-examined: Later on the civil policeman came in and was asked to sign the charge sheet, as a witness, but he said he could not without the permission of the Chief Constable.

Sergt. Allen, who was in charge of the guard room, aid the two men were “very drunk”. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May preferred the charge. Warman had to be held while he was being searched.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, referred to the evidence of P.C. Whitehead and said if the Magistrates believed him there was nothing more to be said. What effect the fresh air had on the men after they came out of the house did not alter the point which the Bench had to decide – whether there was, in fact, drunkenness on these premises. His submission was that the prosecution had proved the defence.

The Bench held, however, that the case must go on.

Miss Lena Sharpe, barmaid in charge of the private bar at the Shakespeare, said on Saturday, February 3rd the bar was full. The first she knew about “this affair” was when the manageress (Mrs. Herrington) was asked for by P.C. Whitehead. Witness was asked if she had served the man in question, and she said she had not. The man was very quiet indeed; she did not knew he was in the bar until her attention was called to him. He had no difficulty in walking when asked by Mrs. Herrington to leave the bar. The man was not drunk.

Cross-examined: Her attention was not called to a second man in the bar. If the first man had a glass in his hand, it must have been handed to him. She did not serve three “Gold Tops” at once. The man was sober, and if he had called for a drink she would have served him.

Mrs. Maud Herrington, manageress of the Shakespeare, said her husband was manager until he was called up. On the evening of the 3rd the last witness asked her to go into the private bar, and there she saw P.C. Whitehead, who asked her to come to the public side of the bar. Here, Lieut. Holmes drew her attention to a man, and witness spoke to Miss Sharp about him. There was nothing wrong in the man's appearance to lead anyone to think he was drunk. Witness was requested to ask the man to leave, and she asked him if he would go for a walk. He walked to the door, but came back and lighted a cigarette against the cigarette of another soldier. The man asked for his chums, who went out at the same time. Witness's attention was not drawn to any other man.

Cross-examined: There was nothing to prevent a drunken person entering any of the bars. Most decidedly she thought the man was in a fit state to be served; she would have served him herself if he had asked.

You asked the man to leave? – Yes.

Why? – Because I was requested for the man to be removed off the premises.

Because he had had too much to drink? – So the officer said.

Did you protest? Did you tell the officer that in your opinion the man had not had too much to drink? – Yes.

By Mr. Mowll: Mr. Smiles, the proprietor, had given her and others instructions as to be very strict about the question of drunkenness.

By the Chief Constable: Mr. Smiles, her employer, had not authorised her to engage any extra assistance on busy evenings to see that no drunken person entered the house.

Gunner Pegden, C.F.A., who was in the bar at the time, said not one of the men was drunk.

Private John Salmon Thompson, who was also there, said the man was not assisted out of the bar; he walked as steadily as anyone could walk. The man, in his estimation, was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: The soldier was not showing the slightest sign of drink. He only saw him during the time it would take a man to walk four yards.

Driver Thomas Wallis, C.F.A., said he went into the bar about seven o'clock. He remembered the civil and military police coming in and the manageress being called. Witness saw nothing whatever to indicate that the man in question was drunk.

Cross-examined: Witness had him under observation about two minutes.

Gunner Charles Burnham, C.F.A., declared that the man walked out of the bar “perfectly alone and straight and sober”.

Cross-examined: Witness had the man in view about three minutes.

Mr. Mowll observed that the case was a somewhat singular one, owing to the conflict of evidence, and he was going to ask the Bench to dismiss the summons upon the evidence before them. He suggested, without hesitation, that the whole of the evidence for the defence would justify the Magistrates in forming the conclusion the constable did at the time – that this was not a case where there was drunkenness on the premises.

The Bench retired to consider the case in private. On their return the Chairman (Mr. Swoffer) said: We are unanimously of opinion that the men were drunk, but, in the absence of evidence as to the period of time they had been in the house, and the opportunity the barmaid had of observing their condition, we do not convict. We consider that a house of this character ought to be in the charge of a competent, responsible manager.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, following the decision in a case against a licensee (which is reported elsewhere), Captain G. Aylwen, the new A.P.M. said it was fair to let the publicans know that, although he was not here to make trouble, if he found trouble he would take it in both hands. As a result of his observations during the past week, he had found that there was a large amount of drunkenness which was never detected and which never came before the Magistrates, but with which the Military had to deal. And drunkenness led to other things which were recognised as being very serious. Men – quite decent fellows – came over here, never having had a drink before, and got into some public houses where there appeared to be absolutely no supervision. They came out mad drunk, were taken to the Guard Room, and time and time again his police had very great trouble in dealing with them. If the publicans were willing to cooperate with him he would always send military police; but what could he do unless the publicans applied to him? He would like to point out that under the Police Standing Orders, military policemen did not enter a public house unless they were sent for, and unless he or his assistant “looked for trouble” there was no supervision. His assistant, Lieut. Holmes, was looking for trouble on the occasion referred to in the case which had just been decided, and that was the line he (Captain Aylwen) would take up. He wanted to help the publicans in every way, but, in return, they must help him. In this town there were a certain number of troops every night, and it was difficult to deal with that number when so many had never been used to drinking. It was pretty obvious that the extent of drunkenness was large, and it also went to prove there was a large amount of drinking outside public houses. Therefore he would appeal to publicans to keep some sort of check on liquor which was taken out by people who kept houses and shops, because it often fell back on the publicans.

Councillor Boyd: That means other licences?

Captain Aylwen: It means any premises, such as cafes and places where liquor is consumed.

Continuing, the officer said he thought a man should be told off to supervise at each public house. The publicans were making money as they had never done before, and there was no increase of staff. It was up to the publicans to put someone in authority and see that the thing was carried out.

The Chairman of the Bench (Mr. G.I. Swoffer) said the Magistrates were pleased to hear Captain Aylwen's remarks, and the Bench were willing to support him in every way possible. The licensed victuallers, being sensible men, would do the same.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The following licence was transferred: the Shakespeare, from Mr. Smiles to Mr. F.C. Hatfield.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Councillor E. Stace, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The following transfer was confirmed:

The Shakespeare, from Mr. J.H. Smiles to Mr. Hatfield.

 

Folkestone Express 22 October 1921.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Police Court Mr. Hatfield, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted an occasional licence from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, on the occasion of the sale of Government stock in Cherry Garden Avenue Camp, for which there were 4,000 lots for disposal.

 

Folkestone Express 28 October 1922.

Local News.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel has been transferred from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Thomas Mason.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 October 1922.

Local News.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel has been transferred from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Thomas Mason.

 

Folkestone Express 25 November 1922.

Local News.

The following transfer of licence was granted at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday morning: Shakespeare Hotel, from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Edward Thomas Mason, master mariner, Gravesend.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1922.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday (Mr. G.I. Swoffer in the chair), the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel was transferred from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Edward Thomas Mason.

 

Folkestone Express 1 March 1924.

Local News.

On Wednesday a lorry owned by the Cambrian Coaching Co., driven by Mr. A.R. Miles, was proceeding along Cheriton Road when the driving chain broke. Owing to the slippery state of the road the vehicle ran backwards, mounted the pavement and collided with the wall of the Shakespeare Hotel, knocking down a portion of the brickwork at one of the entrances, and damaging the pavement.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 March 1924.

Local News.

On Wednesday morning a motor coach belonging to the Cambrian Coaching Company, and driven by Mr. Arthur Myles, was proceeding along Cheriton Road when the drive chain broke. Owing to the slippery state of the road the lorry ran back into the Shakespeare Hotel and collided with that building. A portion of the brickwork was knocked down, and the paving stones were damaged.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 February 1925.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday (before Colonel G.P. Owen, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt) various licensing matters were dealt with.

Mr. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the Drill Halls, Shellons Street, from 8 p.m. on February 20th until 1 a.m. on February 21st for the annual ball of the Territorial Buffs.

 

Folkestone Express 19 December 1925.

Local News.

The Magistrates on Tuesday at the Police Court granted an occasional licence to Mr. W.J. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, to sell at the Territorials' Ball, to be held in the Drill Halls this (Friday) evening from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m.

 

Folkestone Express 26 February 1927.

Tuesday, February 22nd: Before The Mayor and other Magistrates.

Mr. E.T. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted an extension from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. on the 25th-26th February, for the Drill Halls, on the occasion of the annual ball of the Buffs.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 February 1927.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, before The Mayor and other Magistrates, Mr. E.T. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, applied for an occasional licence to sell intoxicating liquor at the Drill Halls, Shellons Street, between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m. on February 25th, the occasion being the annual ball of the Territorials. The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 March 1927.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Friday an application was made by Mr. E.T. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, for an occasional licence to sell intoxicating liquor at the Marine Gardens Pavilion from eight o'clock on the evening of March 23rd until one o'clock the following morning, on the occasion of a dance in aid of the Folkestone Football Club.

The Chairman (Colonel G.P. Owen): Why do you want it so late as one o'clock?

Mr. Mason: Dancing continues until two o'clock. We close one hour before.

Mr. Mason added that the dance was in support of the Folkestone Football Club. The club had gone down and down and down, and they were trying to get some money to keep football in Folkestone. Everything which was taken from the place was going to the Folkestone Football Club.

The Chairman: I wish you all success. It is all right.

 

Folkestone Express 24 November 1928.

Thursday, November 22nd: Before Col. G. P. Owen, Miss A. M. Hunt, and Eng. Rear Admiral L. J. Stephens.

Ronald Rusk Cann, a youth of 18 years, was charged with stealing from the Shakespeare Hotel, two half-crowns, the property of Mr. Edward Thomas Mason. He pleaded guilty, and asked the magistrates to deal with the case.

Mr. E.T. Mason, the licensee, said the defendant lived in the Hotel. In consequence of something that had happened, he called in Det.-Sergt. Rowe on Tuesday, and the officer, in his presence, marked some coins, the two half-crowns (produced) being amongst them. On the sergeant’s instructions he (witness) placed the coins in the till at 3 o’clock on Wednesday. There were altogether 1 of half-crowns, and 1 of two shillings. At five o’clock he went to the till, and on examining the contents missed two of the marked half-crowns. He accompanied the officer up to the bedroom occupied by the defendant, and he saw the Detective-Sergeant produce the two coins from the top of the beading of the bedroom door. The defendant was in the house during the afternoon, but the doors of the bar were locked, and the key was in his pocket. He was unable to say how the defendant got into the bar, but possibly one of the doors, which was bolted, could be lifted up. The defendant had lived with him since 1915, as he was his stepson.

Det.-Sergt. Rowe said on Tuesday evening the defendant made a complaint to him, and, in consequence, he went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where he marked a number of coins, and gave Mr. Mason certain instructions. The two half- crowns produced were among those marked. On Wednesday afternoon Mr. Mason came to the Police Station, and in consequence he went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where he saw the prisoner and told him he was a police officer, and was making enquiries respecting five shillings missed from the till. He told him he believed he (the defendant) had been down to the bar, and with his permission he wished to search his property. He did so, and while searching the prisoner, he said “All right, I did take it.”. Defendant took him upstairs and pointed to the beading over the door of the bedroom, and said “It is up there”. He felt on the top of the beading, and found 9s., including the two marked half- crowns produced, which he identified as two amongst those which he had marked. He told him he would take him to the Police Station, and charged and cautioned him. Defendant made no reply. When formally charged at the Police Station defendant made no reply.

Defendant said he was out of work, and could not get unemployment benefit. That was why he took the money.

Mr. Mason, in reply to the Clerk, said the defendant had been practically brought up in his house, but he did not, pay him anything for his keep.

Defendant said when he was working he paid his mother what he could.

Mr. Mason said the boy’s mother gave him pocket-money. He did not want to press the case, but it would clear the atmosphere, and his staff who might have been accused.

Inspector Pittock said nothing was known against the defendant, who had worked as a barman in various places.

The Chairman said it was very unfortunate that a young man should be in that position. He would be bound over on probation for twelve months, to be under the supervision of Mr. Holmes. The Magistrates hoped that he would realise that his whole future depended upon him keeping straight.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 November 1928.

Thursday, November 22nd: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

Ronald Rusk Cann was charged with stealing 5s., the money of Edward Thomas Mason, licensee of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Mason said the prisoner was an inmate of the hotel. Witness called in Detective sergeant Rowe on Tuesday, November 20th, and in his presence Sergt. Rowe marked some coins, including the two half crowns produced. Acting on Sergt. Rowe's instructions, witness placed these coins in a till in the bar at about three o'clock the previous afternoon. Eight half crowns and ten florins were marked. Later, at just turned five, he visited the till and examined the money, and found two half crowns missing. He informed the police, and Sergeant Rowe came to the house at 5.30 and saw the prisoner.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Was the prisoner in the house yesterday afternoon from three to five? – Part of the time.

Would he have access to the bar? – No, sir. Both doors were locked. One door is locked by a key, the other is bolted by a sliding bolt. I slide the bolt of this door from the inside first, and then lock the other door from the outside.

Are you unable to say how anyone got into the bar yesterday afternoon? – Yes, sir.

Mr. Mason added that when he went to examine the money he found the doors locked and bolted respectively. Of course, it was an old building, and it might be possible to lift up the bolted door and open it, but he had been unable to do that.

Replying further to the Magistrates' Clerk, Mr. Mason said that prisoner had been an inmate of the hotel since 1915, and was his stepson.

Detective Sergeant Rowe corroborated Mr. Mason's evidence, and added that the previous afternoon he went to the Shakespeare Hotel and told the prisoner that he was making enquiries respecting 5s. that had been missed from the bar. He added that, with Cann's permission, he wished to search his property. While he was doing this the prisoner said “All right, I did take it”. He took witness upstairs and pointed to the beading in his bedroom, saying “It's up there”. Witness felt on top of the beading and found 9s., including the two marked half crowns. Witness told prisoner he would take him to the police station, where he would be charged, and cautioned him. He made no reply. Witness took prisoner to the police station, formally charged him, and cautioned him. He made no reply. Accused had been in custody all night.

“I was out of work and could get no unemployment benefit” was Cann's excuse to the Bench.

Mr. Mason, re-called, said that Cann had several times been in employment.

The Clerk: Used he to pay you for his boar? – No, sir.

You kept him? – Yes.

The Clerk (to prisoner): You have heard what Mr. Mason said – that he kept you. So your explanation to the Magistrates doesn't go very far.

Prisoner: When I was in work I paid my mother what I could.

The Chairman (to Mr. Mason): Used you to give this lad any pocket money? – His mother always gave him money when he wanted it.

Will you tell me how you kept your till; is it in an open drawer? – No, sir. It's an ordinary cash register.

Does any bell ring? – There's a little thing in this till – I have had it for six years and a half, and didn't know until yesterday – that if you press this little thing the till will open without ringing the bell.

Mr. Mason added: I didn't want to press this case. It has cleared the atmosphere, and it has cleared my staff, who may have been accused.

The Clerk: Yes, I quite understand; he wanted to clear his staff.

The Clerk: Is it a fact that you have been missing money for some time? – Yes, sir.

Inspector Pittock said that Cann was born at Harrow, Middlesex, in 1910, and was educated at Margate College and the Enfield Grammar School, Brighton. He had worked as a motor mechanic and an electrical engineer. He had never been before the Court before.

Saying that Cann would be placed on probation for 12 months, under the supervision of the Probation Officer (Mr. Holmes), the Chairman added that the case was one of those very unfortunate ones, and concerned a young man who had just got his chance in life, was 18 years of age, and had created an atmosphere of suspicion where he lived, making all the staff very uncomfortable, and then it was found that he had stolen this money.

“We most sincerely hope that you realise that your whole future depends on your keeping straight”, the Chairman concluded.

 

Folkestone Express 12 October 1929.

Local News.

A special transfer sessions was held at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when transfers in connection with several well-known licensed houses were made.

The following full licence was transferred: The Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. Mason to Mr. Pat Attwood.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 October 1929.

Local News.

The transfer of several licences was approved by the Folkestone Magistrates at the Folkestone transfer sessions on Wednesday. Mr. Attwood had the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel transferred to him from Mr. E.T. Mason.

 

Folkestone Express 26 April 1930.

Obituary.

The death took place on Monday of Mr. Charles Landey Sparrow, at his residence, Silverwood, Westenhanger, who had been in rather poor health for three years. He was 65 years of age.

The late Mr. Sparrow was a native of Folkestone and some years ago he was a well-known licence holder in the town, retiring about eight years ago. He was popularly known amongst a very large circle of friends as Charlie Sparrow. He held the licences, at various periods, of the Railway Tavern, in Dover Road, the Globe, on The Bayle, and the Shakespeare Hotel, which was the last hotel in which he carried on business. He then went to live at Westenhanger.

He was a well-known sportsman, and took a great interest in racing and shooting. He was one of the promoters and original directors of the Central Picture theatre until it was sold in July last. He was a member of the Folkestone Club for a great number of years. He married late in life and leaves a widow to mourn his loss.

The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday) at the Folkestone Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 April 1930.

Obituary.

It is with very deep regret that we have to record the death of Mr. Charles Landey Sparrow, who was well known to numerous Folkestone people, and who, at the age of 65, passed away at his residence, Silverwood, Westenhanger, on Easter Monday.

Mr Sparrow, who was born at Folkestone, was a gentleman of very unassuming character, but possessed many of the finest traits that ever man could lay claim to. He was always one to study the welfare of a person upon whom fortune had rarely smiled. His good deeds were never broadcast, but it is a fact that many of the older people of Folkestone will recollect with gratitude his beneficent concern at Christmastide, and quite a few will remember, with equal gratitude, the helping hand he extended them when things appeared at their darkest.

Mr. Sparrow was a good-living sportsman, and one who always “played the game”. He had hosts of friends in Folkestone, and there are some at Hythe and Sandgate who will remember him very well. He held the licences of a number of houses in Folkestone at different times, and was the licensee of the Shakespeare when he retired from business in 1913. From there he went to Westenhanger, where Silverwood can be numbered amongst the most charming residences in a delightfully unspoiled little village.

Sport with Mr. Sparrow was almost a fetish, and his prowess with the gun is well remembered. At the time of his death he was a director of the Central Cinema Company.

He never complained, but as the result of a motor accident several years ago, Mr. Sparrow had ever since been in very indifferent health, and at times he suffered very severe pain. His death will be mourned in many quarters, and there will be deep and sincere sympathy felt for his widow, who is left to bear an extremely heavy loss.

The funeral took place at the Folkestone Cemetery, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, on Thursday afternoon.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1930.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and J.H. Blamey, and Col. G.P. Owen.

Plans for alterations at the Shakespeare Hotel were submitted by Mr. Pat Attwood, and were approved by the Justices.

 

Folkestone Express 14 February 1931.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 11th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Colonel G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.

An application for the transfer of the off licence of the Gun Brewery to Mr. Pat Attwood, in order that he could sell on the premises, was adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 14 March 1931.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Adjourned Licensing Sessions, the music and dancing licences were again granted, after the question had been adjourned for a month, it being explained by Alderman Wood that the conditions of the licences allowed vocal and instrumental music to be given during certain hours on Sunday.

There was also another interesting decision in the case of an application for the transfer of the off licence in connection with the offices of the old Gun Brewery, it being decided that the licence was null and void owing to the fact that for 30 years it had been renewed in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney, who died in 1900.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

An adjourned application for the transfer of the off licence of the office attached to the old Gun Brewery came before the Justices, Mr. B.H. Bonniface appearing for the applicant, Mr. Pat Attwood, of the Shakespeare Hotel, and Mor. Rutlet Mowll, on behalf of Mrs. Luly, and Mr. J.E. Chapple, for Messrs. Prentis and Sons, two other off licence holders in the vicinity opposed the application.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes) said that application was before the Annual Licensing Sessions, when the Magistrates adjourned it in order that the licensed premises should be defined. Plans had now been produced showing that the off licence was in respect of the office in the front portion of what was known as the Gun Brewery.

Mr. Bonniface said the application was for the transfer of the existing off beer licence, which had been in existence probably since the year 1844. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition, but what that opposition was he did not know. Their worships would appreciate that it was an existing licence, and he was only asking for a transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said that he appeared to oppose the transfer of that licence. He represented Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar licence immediately opposite those premises. As he understood it, at the annual licensing meeting the Magistrates renewed all the existing licences and therefore those premises were then and there renewed with the others.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) pointed out that the matter was adjourned for further consideration.

The Chairman said his remarks with regard to the renewal of licences did not include that matter now under discussion.

Mr. Mowll:Then may I ask if we are dealing with a renewal of the licence of the transfer?

Mr. Bonniface: The transfer. Continuing, he said his point was the application for the transfer was made on the last occasion, when the Magistrates asked for a plan of the premises. He had complied with their request, so that from his point of view he had completed the application.

Mr. Rutley Mowll pointed out at the moment he could not tell the form in which the application was made. He would like to know if the application for transfer was made by the existing licensee or by the new tenant and occupier.

Mr. Chapple also said he did not know who was applying for the transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said the Clerk had handed him the form of application. He read the application, which stated that Mr. Attwood applied for the transfer of the licence granted to Alfred Leney. He also contended that they should have the outgoing and ingoing tenant present.

The Clerk said the applicant had already put his case before the Court.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: It is immaterial to me. I am having a careful note taken of these proceedings. If it is the right way of proceeding according to your opinion I must bow to your judgement.

The Chairman: We had it before us at the last meeting. You must proceed with your opposition.

Mr. Mowll said if that licence was granted it would be in direct competition with Mrs. Luly. He was going to oppose it on its merits. He would like to point out to the Magistrates some technical points in order that they might go into the whole matter. That licence, as it appeared on the face of it, stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney. An inspection of the licence register showed that it was granted in 1898. Mr. Alfred Leney died on the 4th November, 1900. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of the deceased person. If those were the facts, the licence was void. It was true that Mr. Alfred Leney had a son whose name was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know whether Mr. Bonniface was going to contend that Mr. Alfred Leney, the head of the firm, was by mistake entered in the register, and in some way confuse with his son, but knowing their late Clerk as they did, and what a very careful man he was, he thought it was a fair submission to make to the Bench that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register if he really meant Alfred Charles Leney, who was quite another person. Alfred Charles Leney was the son of the late Alfred Leney. The only way in which Mr. Bonniface could get over that difficulty was by making out that the Magistrates' late Clerk made a mistake and entered the licence in the name of Alfred Leney in mistake for Alfred Charles Leney. He did not think they wanted any authorities on that point, for he was sure Mr. Rootes would advise them that if in fact the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person that licence was void, and therefore it could not be transferred. His second proposition to make to the Bench was that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register, that if the licence had fallen into disuse, as that licence had done, then the Bench were not entitled to renew it, or to transfer it. It was not a case of compensation or redundancy, because it was an off licence. His third point was in regards to the merit of the case. That licence was used by Messrs. Leney. They took it over with the Gun Brewery property with different public houses. They had other premises in Folkestone from which they could conduct their retail business. The premises ceased to be occupied for any licensed purposes for some considerable time, consequently the licence became in fact, if not in law, a defunct licence. The property was used as a coal store, and no trade of any sort or kind had been conducted on the premises for many months past. Now the proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect that defunct licence and the applicant was Mr. Attwood, who was the holder of a full licence at premises adjoining. What did that mean? Mr. Attwood, at the Shakespeare Hotel, had a full licence covering all that that licence could confer. Why did he want to take a transfer of that off licence? He submitted that there could only be one real reason. He was seeking to transfer the licence to himself so that he could sell to someone else. He (Mr. Mowll) did not ask them to decide on any one point, but he asked them to decide the matter as a whole – whether it be the legal point or the meritorious point he did not mind which it was. He thought he ought to call his clerk to prove the search of the particulars in the register.

The Clerk: The register is there for itself. It has put something on Mr. Bonniface to prove.

Mr. Bonniface said he did not know that Mr. Mowll had put anything on him to prove. He was alleging that Mr. Alfred Leney died in 1900, and he assumed he was going to prove it.

The Clerk: That is not the position. I imagine you will call upon the applicant to go further than he has.

Mr. Chapple said he was quite in agreement with the terms of the able argument put forward by Mr. Mowll. He could only imagine that Mr. Bonniface would submit that the Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was in fact the Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted.

Mr. Bonniface said he quite agreed that their late Clerk was a most capable and thorough Clerk, and he could not in any way imagine that the late Mr. Andrew would have allowed the name of Mr. Alfred Leney to remain upon the register all those years unless it meant the acting Mr. Leney, Mr. Fred Leney, as he was known. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of that company, and, in fact, the eldest son of the late Mr. Alfred Leney, and he would tell them that there was not one licence that was held by the father at all. Mr. Alfred Leney was a retiring sort of a man, and therefore the licence holder was the son. For ten years before the formation of the company he was in partnership with his father. He was going to ask the Magistrates to say that the Mr. Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted in 1898 was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. The licensees, Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, also had the store in front. The licence had been renewed year by year, and they paid the excise licence down to June, 1930. Mr. Attwood had the tenancy of the shop and store at the back. From 1925 until 1929 Messrs. Leney let the front part to Messrs. Anderson as a coal office, but they used the premises at the back, and a lot of their beer was delivered from that store. It was unfair to say that Mr. Attwood was coming forward merely to get the licence and then to sell it. If that was the position was he not attempting to do away with some of his trade? That must be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, off licences in the town. Mrs. Luly's premises were opened subsequent to their premises being opened. She had built up her trade in opposition to them.

Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, Chairman of Messrs. Alfred Leney and Co., said the company took over those premises in 1898, when he was director. He had been connected with the business since 1887. In the last two years of his life, Mr. Alfred Leney, his father, did bery little in the business. He (witness) knew of no licence being held by his father. The licences were held by himself (witness) or the secretary. That licence had been continuously renewed in the name of Alfred Leney right down to the present time as he heard to his surprise, because he had always considered himself to be the licensed holder of those premises. He was never known by his name Charles, but as Fred. He had paid the excise duty until the lease was up in 1929, and the licence duty until June, 1930. The whole of the premises until 1925 were used by the Company. It was only then that the front office was let to Anderson's, and the Company used a small store at the back. They had other premises in Guildhall Street which Messrs. Prentis now had. The beer for those premises was kept in the store at the Gun Brewery. Beer was drawn from there until the 5th March, 1928.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, Mr. Leney said the store had not been in use so far as they were concerned since September, 1929. They had premises in Tontine Street from which they could supply their beer. They had got a rebate on the excise licence for the premises.

Mr. Mowll the referred to the articles of association of Messrs. Leney and Co. He pointed out that company was registered on November 26th, 1896, and Mr. Alfred Leney was to be the first director, and Mr. Alfred Charles Leney and Mr. Hugh Leney the other directors. He asked the witness who of the three directors held the licence.

Mr. Leney: To the best of my belief I have always understood it was in my name. I have taken great pains to get at the truth of this. I have tried to get the original papers, but they have been destroyed.

Mr. Mowll: You must know whether you came over and took the transfer of the licence.

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Have you no documents?

Mr. Leney: I have no documents at all, but I have a memory. To the best of my belief I was the holder of the licence.

Mr. Mowll: Your father held a strong position in the Company? He was not only by far the largest shareholder, and so long as he lived he was entitled to outvote all the other directors. You do not suggest that he was a back number when this Company was formed?

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Why, he was younger than you are now, Mr. Leney?

Mr. Leney: Yes.

Mr. George Wood said he had been in the employ of Messrs. Leney and Co. for 40 years. He occasionally took up licences, and always considered that he was taking up licences for Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. His brother was for some time secretary for the Company, and he held licences in his name.

By Mr. Chapple, witness said he practically certain that Mr. Alfred Leney never held a licence.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said over the door at the brewery at Dover the name of Alfred Leney, common brewer, was painted.

The Clerk pointed out to Mr. Bonniface that the position had changed since the annual sessions, and Mr. Attwood should be called.

Mr. Attwood was called, and said he intended to open the premises as an off licence shop. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel.

Mr. Mowll, examining the agreement between Mr. Attwood and the owner of the premises, said “Do you appreciate under this agreement between you and Mr. Tite he can turn you out by giving you three months' notice at any time?”

Mr. Attwood: Yes.

Does that not tell you something? You are not going to spend any money on these premises on a quarterly tenancy? – I am prepared to open them.

You are not going to spend money on them without more secured terms? – I am trying to buy these premises.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said with regard to the application the majority of the Magistrates were of opinion that when the licence was transferred it was transferred to Alfred Leney, senior, the Chairman of the Company. There was no evidence that it had been transferred to anyone else since, and in consequence of that, and in consequence of the oversight of the Company and in their (the Magistrates') office, it had not been transferred. The licence was therefore null and void, and it could not be transferred.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 March 1931.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

When an application was made at the adjourned licensing sessions on Wednesday at the Town Hall for the transfer of a beer licence it was successfully pleaded that the licensee was a dead man and therefore the licence was null and void.

Applicant for the transfer was Mr. P.W. Attwood, of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, and he asked that the off licence of the Gun Brewery should be transferred to him from Alfred Leney.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. F. Seager.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) stated that at the annual sessions last month the application was before them, and there was an adjournment so that the premises licensed should be defined. The premises licensed were said to be a store.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface, who appeared for Mr. Attwood, said this off beer licence had been in existence since 1844. In that year Lord Radnor granted a lease on these premises to a Mr. John Tite, and so far as could be ascertained the licence had been in existence for all those years. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition. It was en existing licence, and he was only asking for the transfer of it. What the opposition was he did not know.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to oppose the transfer of the licence on behalf of Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar licence immediately opposite the premises. An application was made at the last sessions to obtain the transfer of the licence, and that was what he was opposing.

The Clerk said at the last sessions the whole point was: What part of the premises is licensed?

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said according to his book the whole question was adjourned to March 11th.

The Chairman said his remarks at the annual sessions when he announced all licences would be renewed did not include this licence.

Mr. Mowll: Are you dealing with the renewal of the licence now or the transfer?

Mr. Bonniface: The transfer.

Mr. H. Chapple said he represented Messrs. Prentis and Sons Ltd., Guildhall Street, who opposed the application.

The Chairman asked Mr. Mowll to proceed with his case for the opposition.

Mr. Mowll said Mrs. Luly held a similar licence on the opposite side of the road. If the licence was granted it would be in direct competition with his client. The licence stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney, to whom it was granted in 1898. He died on November 4th, 1900, and his will was proved in January, 1901. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of Alfred Leney. If that be so the licence was void, because a licence renewed in the name of a deceased person was absolutely void. It was true that the late Mr. Alfred Leney had a son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know whether in the entering up of the licence register the names had been confused by a mistake, but, knowing the late Clerk of the Court as he did, he thought it was a fair submission that the late Clerk would not have written down the name Alfred Leney in the register if he had meant another person, Alfred Charles Leney. If, in fact, the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person the licence was void and therefore it could not be transferred. His second point was that if a licence had fallen into disuse, as this one had done, they were not entitled to transfer it; as it was in regard to the transfer of an off licence, the Magistrates were entitled to refuse it. The licence was used by Messrs. Leney, they taking it over with the licensed property, but the premises ceased to be occupied for any licensing purposes whatsoever some considerable time ago, and consequently the licence became in effect, if not in law, a defunct licence. The property had been used as a coal store, and no sort of licensed trade had been conducted on the premises for many months past. The proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect the defunct licence, and the applicant was the holder of fully licensed premises immediately adjoining. He submitted that the real reason for Mr. Attwood's application was that he should have a licence that he could sell to somebody else. He was put forward as the proposed licensee of this off licence, and he submitted he wanted the licence for the purpose of bartering, possibly to introduce another brewer. On these grounds he asked the Bench to refuse the application.

Mr. Chapple said he was in complete agreement with Mr. Mowll. He also wished to emphasise that the licence was void.

Mr. Bonniface said he agreed that the late Clerk was a most careful and thorough official and he could not imagine that he would have allowed the name of Alfred Leney to remain on the register for 33 years. In 1894 Messrs. Leney took a transfer of the premises, and in 1898 the licence was transferred to Messrs. Alfred Leney and Coy. Ltd; at that time Mr. Alfred Leney was 70 years of age. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of the company and he could tell them that there was not one licence of the licences held by the company that was held by his father. As a result the licences were held by his son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, who had always been known as Mr. Fred Leney. He submitted he was really the holder of the licence. The licence had been renewed for the past 30 years to Mr. Alfred Leney, meaning, he submitted, to Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, who were the licensees of the Shakespeare Hotel until September, 1929, also had three adjoining premises. Each year the company had paid the Excise duty to June, 1930. That was after their lease had expired. Messrs. Leney until 1925 continuously sold from these premises. From then until 1929, when they gave up the premises, they let the front part, but retained the back portion as a store. It was unfair to say that Mr. Attwood was doing this merely for the purpose suggested by Mr. Mowll. The licence was one of the oldest, if not the oldest in the town.

Alfred Charles Leney, the chairman of Alfred Leney and Coy., said they took over these premises in 1898, and he was then a director of the company. He had been connected with his fathers business before the company was formed, since 1887. During the last two years of his life his father was doing very little in regard to the business. He could not place one licence held by his father. To the best of his belief he had never held one, the licences being held by witness as the secretary of the company. The licence had been renewed right up to the present time in the name of Alfred Leney, to his surprise. He had been under the impression that the licence had been renewed to him. He had always been known as Fred Leney. His firm had paid the licence duties of the premises until June, 1930. When Messrs. Anderson's were granted a lease of part of the building, his company still used part of the premises as a store for beer.

By Mr. Mowll: Since the end of the lease they had not stored any beer there. He had no document to show that the licence was transferred to his father in 1898, but he had a memory, and to the best of his belief his father had never held a licence.

Mr. Mowll: You don't suggest your father was a back number when the company was formed, Mr. Leney?

Mr. Leney: No.

Mr. Mowll: He was younger then than you are now, Mr. Leney. (Applause)

George Wood, a brewer's agent, who stated that he had been in the employ of the company for 40 years, said he never heard of Mr. Alfred Leney holding a licence.

Mr. Attwood said he intended using the premises for the off sale of beer. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel. His premises did not quite adjoin, there being a store between.

The Bench retired. On their return the Chairman announced that the majority of the Magistrates were of the opinion that when the licence was transferred in 1898 it was transferred to the chairman of the company, Mr. Alfred Leney. There was no evidence that it had been transferred to anyone else, and in consequence of that oversight on both sides the licence today was null and void.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 January 1939.

Local News.

“You ought to be very much obliged to the police for taking care of you; you were hopelessly drunk”, said the Chairman (Alderman G. Spurgen) to James Stuart, 43, of no fixed abode, when he appeared at Folkestone Police Court on Saturday charged with being drunk and incapable the previous dat. Stuart pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Mitchell said at 4.50 p.m. the previous day he was patrolling Cheriton Road when he saw defendant lying on the ground outside the Shakespeare public house. His breath smelt strongly of drink and when he lifted him up he found him to be helplessly drunk With assistance he brought to the Police Station, but he was too drunk to make any reply when charged.

Stuart told the Magistrates that he was very sorry. He had met one or two pals that afternoon.

Discharging Stuart the Chairman told defendant not to do it again.

Local News.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, was transferred at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday from Mr. Pat Attwood to r. William A. Powell, formerly of the Fordwich Arms, Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Express 28 January 1939.

Local News.

On Tuesday the Folkestone magistrates granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. Pat Attwood to Mr. William Powell former licensee of the Fordwich Arms at Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Express 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

There was a decrease of six cases of drunkenness before the Magistrates during last year, the total number being 24 as against 30 in 1937. There were no proceedings against any licence holder during the twelve months. These were the main features presented by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) in the annual report he submitted to the Magistrates at the annual licensing sessions at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when the Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) offered congratulations upon such a satisfactory state of affairs.

The other magistrates on the Bench were Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman W. Hollands, Mr. S.B. Corser, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mr. P. Fuller.

The following licences were transferred: The Princess Royal from the executor of the late Mr. Tom Buddle to Mr. H. Robbins; the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. P. Attwood to Mr. W A. Powell.

Note: Executors not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Satisfaction was expressed by the Folkestone Licensing Justices at the report submitted by the Chief Constable at the annual Licensing Sessions held at the Town hall on Wednesday. The report showed that during 1938 there had been a decrease in the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness, and also that proceedings had not been taken against any licensee during the year.

The Magistrates were: Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Alderman W. Hollands, Dr. P. Wolverson, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Mr. S.B. Corser and Mr. P. Puller.

The licence of the Princess Royal was transferred from the executors of the late Mr. G. Buddle to Mr. H. Robins, the application being made by Mr. W.J. Mason. The Magistrates also confirmed the transfer of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. Pat Attwood to Mr. W.A. Powell.

Note: Executors not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 August 1942.

Local News.

The licence of ihr Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, was transferred from Mr W.A. Powell, now serving in the R.A.F., to his wife, at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 July 1951.

Local News.

Seven Folkestone public houses were granted an extension of licence on weekdays until 11 p.m. and on Sundays to 10.30 p.m. until September 30th at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mr. W.J. Mason, appearing for the applicants, said a similar application had been granted to a number of hotels for the summer season and Festival of Britain. At Eastbourne 44 applications of the same kind had been granted and 115 at Hastings. The extension had been granted to all those who desired it in the other two towns.

The application was granted in respect of the Star Inn, Bouverie Hotel, Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Prince Albert Hotel, Globe Inn, and George Inn.

 

Folkestone Gazette 22 October 1952.

Local News.

Licensee in Folkestone for nearly 50 years and a well-known sporting personality, Mr. P.W. (Pat) Attwood, of the London and Paris Hotel, is retiring shortly.

It was in 1904 that Mr. Attwood entered the licensed trade, helping his father in the management of the Castle Inn, Foord Road. Two years later he became mine host there and remained for 22 years. He left there to take over the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel in Guildhall Street.

“In January, 1939, I decided to retire and was looking forward to a restful time”, Mr. Attwood told the Gazette, “but the war upset my plans”.

But it was not back to the licensed trade that Mr. Attwood went. Instead, he joined the Auxiliary Fire Service, completing about a year’s service, when he was invited to accept the licence of the London and Paris.

They were grim days in Folkestone then, and grimmer ones were to follow, for within a short time of taking over the “L and P” the premises were not only damaged by air raid action but they came under repeated shellfire from the Nazis’ big guns on the other side of the Channel.

The tall building stood out very conspicuously in the vulnerable Harbour area and the military authorities had it camouflaged; possibly the only pub in the country to be dealt with in that way. The London and Paris remained open throughout the war except for one fortnight in March, 1943, when it was considerably damaged by a cross-Channel shell which fell just behind the premises. “It happened one evening about nine o'clock when there were about a dozen in the bars”, said Mr. Attwood. “No-one was hurt although we were pretty well shaken. We had to close for a time to get things straight again. Altogether the place was damaged 22 times as the result of enemy action”.

A Folkestonian - his father was one-time park keeper at Radnor Park - Mr. Attwood has also been closely associated with sport in the town.

In his younger days he was a very good oarsman; he won the Championship of Folkestone one year and the Championship of Folkestone and Dover combined on another occasion. About that time there were only four towns with rowing clubs - Folkestone, Dover, Herne Bay and Hastings. He was also a cricketer and footballer, playing for the old Wingate club on Park Farm. Mr. Attwood was one of the first members of the Folkestone Park Bowls Club. In his possession he has a group of bowlers who went to Chelsea to play a match. Mr. Attwood is the only one still living. His interest in Folkestone football clubs has extended over many years. He was a shareholder of the old Folkestone Football Club in the days when the club played on the Canterbury Road ground. He was a member of the committee, as he was of the Folkestone Football Club formed after World War 1. During the last war Mr. Attwood was also associated with Folkestone Wartime Football Club.

Mr. Attwood, who is 71, is still a very active man. Not infrequently he can be seen on his bicycle and although he says he is retiring, well, who knows what he will turn his hand to next?

He was a foreman plumber before he went into the licensed trade, and altogether had 10 years' experience in the building trade.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 October 1952.

Local News.

Mr. P.W. (Pat) Attwood, 71, of the London and Paris Hotel, one of the best known personalities of the licensed trade in Folkestone, will retire shortly. He has held the licences of the Castle Inn, Foord Road, and the Shakespeare, Guildhall Street. He has been in the trade for over 48 years.

During the war the London and Paris was damaged in air raids and by shellfire. It remained open throughout the war except for a fortnight in March, 1943, when it was considerably damaged by a cross-Channel shell which fell just behind the premises. “Altogether the place was damaged 22 times as the result of enemy action”, Mr. Attwood told the Herald.

A Folkestonian - his father was one-time park keeper at Radnor Park - Mr. Attwood has long been closely associated with sport in the town. In his younger days he was a very good oarsman; he won the Championship of Folkestone one year and the Championship of Folkestone and Dover combined on another occasion. He was also a cricketer and footballer, playing for the old Wingate club on Park Farm. Later he became one of the first members of the Folkestone Park Bowls Club. His interest in Folkestone football clubs has extended over many years.

 

Folkestone Gazette 29 February 1956.

Local News.

When an elderly woman admitted at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Friday that she stole a purse from a handbag in a public house, it was said that a lot of her trouble was caused by drink and heavy smoking.

Ivy Gwendoline Trott, 60- year-old widow, of 12, Victoria Grove, Folkestone, pleaded Guilty to stealing a purse containing 6 13/5 belonging to Helen May Mercer. She also admitted stealing, in a public house, 2 belonging to Emily Jane Smith.

The Chairman (Ald. W. Hollands), placing Trott on probation for two years, said she had admitted to a very nasty trick. “Get into your head that this sort of thing has got to stop,” he warned her. “If you are brought back here again, I can assure you that you will not get away as lightly as you have this morning”.

Inspector W. Floydd said at 9.45 p.m. on February 5th, Mrs. Mercer went with her husband to the private bar of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street. When Mrs. Mercer made a purchase at the bar she left her handbag on a chair next to defendant. She believed she closed the zip after returning her purse to the bag. Soon afterwards defendant left the bar, and a little later Mrs. Mercer found her handbag open. Her purse was missing. The Inspector said Mr. Mercer hurried out of the public house and caught up with defendant near the Catholic Church. He asked defendant about the purse and at the same time felt it in Trott’s coat pocket. Defendant told him that she saw it on the floor of the bar and thought it belonged to her.

D.C. Crane said when he saw Trott later the same night she said “I picked one up. I thought it was mine”. Two days later he saw her again and she said “I took it, I am sorry”. The detective said Trott resided in Ashford for 21 years, and when her husband died in 1952 she lived with her mother in Victoria Grove. Her mother died in December last. Trott, who had a son and daughter, was in receipt of allowances amounting to 3 1/- a week; she paid 14/6 rent.

The Probation Office (Miss M. Mayling) said a lot of Trott’s troubles was caused by drink and heavy smoking. The money she stole was spent on trivialities, probably smoking and drinking.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 November 1957.

Guildhall Street by “L.R.J.”

It was a quiet little lane, about 12ft. wide, with few buildings along its length and wide open spaces either side of it. Almost a country lane. Shellons Lane was that part of the Guildhall Street of today from the Town Hall to the Cheriton Road turning, and it is so shown on a street map of 1782 in the possession of Folkestone Public Library. The present Shellons Street was then Griggs Lane, and the part of Guildhall Street from the Cheriton turning onwards was called Broad Mead, Bottom Lane.

Why “Shellons” Lane? Shellons was the name of a large field on the west side of the lane, and the thoroughfare, such as it was, took its name from it, just as Copthall Gardens derived from the field called Copt Hall, to the north of Shellons Lane.

Both these fields belonged to the King's Arms Farm, which in all consisted of about 171 acres. An old map of 1698 lists the various fields that formed the farm. There were only one or two old buildings on the west side of Guildhall Street a century and a half ago, and very few on the east side. Shellons Lane was ..... just a lane.

On the site where the Town Hall now stands was the King’s Arms inn, with next to it two or three small buildings. Behind it was the town gaol, with stocks in which malefactors were placed. Lord Radnor was the hereditary gaoler. Some time after 1782 the King's Arms was moved across the road to part of the site on which now stands the Queen's Hotel. It was the corner building of Cow Street (now Sandgate Road) and Shellons Lane. The old King's Arms buildings were demolished, and a building known as “The Cistern House” was erected on the site. This too was pulled down in 1859, to make way for the present Town Hall, opened in 1861. The Town Hall had no portico until 18 years later.

The first houses on the eastern side of Guildhall Street were erected in 1844, approximately where the Guildhall Hotel and the shop next door now stand. The hotel itself was opened probably about 30 years later, for the first reference to it is in 1870, when the proud landlord, named Andrews, announced “Mine is the only house in Folkestone where there is a stand-up bar like the London style.”

By 1844 Guildhall Street - still Shellons Lane - was built up on the east side to about the present premises of Messrs. Halfords. Development went on until by 1870 there were houses and shops up to the corner of Griggs Lane (Shellons Street), though Messrs. Vickery's premises were built a little later. For nearly a century the comer building now occupied by Messrs. Olby was a baker's shop. The premises were built in 1856. It is interesting to note that a very old boundary wall still exists between the premises of Richmond’s dairy and Halfords, a wall more than 150 years old. Towards the end of the nineteenth century Guildhall Street developed with the expansion of the town and undoubtedly became a popular shopping centre, but it was still far removed from the Street of today.

The west side of the Street, as has already been stated, had very few buildings in 1782. The removal of the King’s Arms from the present Town Hall site to the comer opposite may have been one of the first developments on this side of Guildhall Street. The exact date is uncertain, but it was probably after 1782. The road junction at that time was small, the meeting place of four narrow lanes, and the building stood well out into what is now the roadway. It was not until 1882, and alter protracted litigation between the owners and the Corporation that the junction was widened to its present proportions. The Kings Arms was a small hostelry by modern standards, with a billiards room at the back and a skittle alley. One wall ran a short distance along Guildhall Street and appears to have been a popular place for posting notices of auction sales, meetings and so on. Later the hostelry was extended and improved. When all the litigation was ended (there is a sizeable volume of the proceedings in the Reference Library) the King’s Arms was pulled down, and on May 30th, 1885, the Queen’s Hotel was opened.

A large garden occupied most of the length of Guildhall Street from the King’s Arms, nearly to what is now Messrs. Andrews’ shop. It is possible that this garden, quite extensive in length and depth, may have belonged to a Mr. Solomon, who built Alexander Gardens.
On the site of Stace’s stood two small cottages, known as Pay’s cottages, and where Mr. Lummus’s cycle shop is now situated stood another building, called Gun cottage. In the course of years the open spaces were built over. On the site of the Playhouse cinema once stood a substantial property known as Ivy House, and behind it, approached by the alley-way which still exists, were stables. A little further along was Marlborough House, the residence of a veterinary surgeon.

Part of the Guildhall Street of days gone by was the Gun barn, shown on the 1782 map. About 1840 the Gun brewery occupied the site of Messrs. Walter’s furnishing store. There is reason to believe that a brewery originally stood on the site of Messrs. Plummer Roddis in Rendezvous Street and was transferred to the new site rather more than a century ago.

The Gun Tavern takes its name from an old gun of the Tudor period, upended, that had long been in position at the comer of Guildhall Street and Cheriton Road. It was removed to the western end of the Leas prior to the 1914-18 war, and about that period it disappeared. What became of it is a mystery to this day.

The Gun brewery - and breweries were small and many in those days - was owned by a man named Ham Tite. His beer may not always have been up to standard, for in a County Court case in 1871 a witness said the beer was so bad that his customers couldn’t drink it. The brewery continued until about 1880, but by 1882 part of it had become, of all things, a Chapel and coffee house. It was known as the Emanuel Mission Church, conducted by a Mr. Toke. The tinted windows of the church remain and there is still an “atmosphere” about the building, though it has long ceased to serve any religious purpose.

The Gun smithy is certainly a piece of old Folkestone, for the building itself has changed, there has been a smithy on this site for at least a century.

The Shakespeare Hotel at the comer of Guildhall Street and Cheriton Road is more than a century old, for all its up-to-date facade. It was refronted in 1897, when it belonged to the Army and Navy Brewery Company. In 1848 it was the Shakespeare Tavern, and a directory of a later date announces that tea and quoits were available. For some obscure reason it was stated to be “near the Viaduct”.

So the transformation of Guildhall Street from the virtually open fields of Shellons Lane into a modern, progressive and popularshopping centre has taken place in less than 150 years. The unpaved, narrow lane is no more, gone are some of the ”landmarks” of over 80 years ago, many of the old names have been lost. Changes and development have given to Folkestone a street of which the town can be proud, a street of many trades, a progressive street, a street of good and efficient service to the public, a street of shops where the customer is always right. Guildhall Street.

 

Folkestone Gazette 29 June 1960.

Obituary.

Well-known licensee and sportsman, Mr. Percy (Pat) Attwood, 44, Earls Avenue, Folkestone, died at his home on Monday after four weeks’ illness. He was 79.

Mr. Attwood was born in a cottage, now demolished, on the old Manor Farm. His father was park-keeper at Radnor Park. An old boy of North Council School in Black Bull Road, Mr. Attwood started in the plumbing business, and soon became a master plumber. On the death of his father, who had become the proprietor of the Castle Inn, Foord Road, Mr. Attwood, or Pat as he was affectionately known by his many friends in the district, commenced in 1904 his long association with the licensing business. He took over the Castle Inn, and remained for some 20 years, a popular and much respected licensed victualler. Later he took over the licence of the Shakespeare, at the corner of Guildhall Street and Bouverie Road East, and in 1942, under shell-fire, moved to the well-known harbour hostelry, The London and Paris. At this time Folkestone harbour was badly shelled and the hotel itself was damaged, but Mr. Attwood kept the business going. A great personality, Mr. Attwood had a large clientele and many famous people, especially actors and boxers, visited him to make The London and Paris their first port of call from the harbour. About eight years ago Mr. Attwood relinquished the hotel, and took a half interest in the Bristol Hotel, on The Leas. He retired about five years ago.

An enthusiastic sportsman, Mr. Attwood was an expert oarsman in his younger days and won many trophies while a member of Folkestone Rowing Club. He was Chairman of the Club for a number of years. He was also very interested in boxing, cricket and football, which he helped to promote in Folkestone during the last war, being a founder member of the Folkestone Wartime Football Club. He was a member of Folkestone and Hythe Licensed Victuallers’ Association for many years, and he was a prominent Freemason.

The funeral service will be held at Hawkinge on Thursday, followed by cremation.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1960.

Local News.

The funeral service of a well-known local Freemason, Mr. Percy (Pat) Attwood, of 44, Earls Avenue, Folkestone, who died on Monday, took place at Hawkinge on Thursday, followed by cremation. Mr. Attwood, who was 79, had been ill for the past four weeks.

Born in a cottage, now nonexistent, at the old Manor Farm, the son of a park-keeper at Radnor Park, Mr. Attwood was educated at the North Council School in Black Bull He started work as a plumber, and soon became a master man, but in 1904 succeeded his father, who had become the proprietor of the Castle Inn, Foord Road, and took over the premises to start his long association with the licensing trade. Mr. Attwood, or “Pat”, as he was affectionately known to his many friends in the district, remained at the Castle for about 20 years. He then moved to the Shakespeare at the corner of Guildhall Street and Bouverie Road East, and then in 1942 took the licence of the London and Paris under shell-fire. This well-known harbour hostelry was among the many buildings damaged in the area during the war period, but Mr. Attwood kept the business going. Many famous people, including actors and boxers, used to make the inn their first port of call when arriving at the harbour. About eight years ago he left the London and Paris and took a half interest in the Bristol Hotel, on The Leas, finally retiring about five years ago.

A keen sportsman, Mr. Attwood was an expert oarsman in his younger days. He won many trophies, and was club champion of Folkestone Rowing Club, of which he later became chairman for a number of years. He was closely interested in football and before the last war was a director of Folkestone Town. He was a founder member when Folkestone Wartime F.C. was formed in 1942, and continued to support the club.

As a young man he played cricket for Swingate C.C. and also supported the Folkestone team for many years. He was interested in boxing.

During World War I, Mr. Attwood served with the Royal East Kent Regiment (“The Buffs”). When he was stationed at Chatham at the beginning of the war the barrack room he was billeted in was hit by a shell, and some 30 soldiers were killed. At the outset of World War II he was a member of the National Fire Service for a time.

Always a very active man, Mr. Attwood could often be seen at the London and Paris golf course, where he played until 10 years ago. He rode a bicycle until four years ago, but his main hobby in recent years was gardening. Mr. Attwood was greatly interested in the Turf, and on the Saturday before he died he had a winner at Newbury.

Mr. Attwood’s wife died in March, 1950. He is survived by a daughter.

 

Folkestone Gazette 21 July 1965.

Local News.

A brick was thrown through a window of the Shakespeare Hotel in Guildhall Street, Folkestone, just before midnight on Wednesday. A man, who was seen in the vicinity, was chased but was not detained.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1971.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Police are keeping an extra careful eye on some pubs in Folkestone - particularly those popular among young people. This was revealed by Chief Superintendent W. Pullinger in his report to the annual meeting of the town’s Licensing Justices, on Wednesday.

He said that during 1970 licensed premises had been generally well-conducted, But he went on “As in most towns, certain premises require additional police supervision to ensure that the liquor licensing laws are not abused. This is sometimes due to slackness on the part of the licensee, or to popular premises attracting large numbers of young people”.

Mr. P.J. Baden-Fuller, the Chairman of the Justices, appreciated the difficulties licensees faced with young people. He said the Justices hoped that those licensees concerned would try to enforce the liquor laws, but added “It is so difficult to tell the ages of young people sometimes”.

Later, The Herald spoke to landlords of Folkestone pubs that are popular with youngsters – only to find they did not think they had a problem. Several of them agreed with Mr. Baden-Fuller that it was difficult to tell the ages of some young customers. The answer to a difficult situation was, they agreed, firmness and rigidly following the maxim “If in doubt, don’t serve”.

At the Shakespeare, in Guildhall Street, Mr. Ron Balsom, the landlord, said “I have spent many years in London as a licensee, and the young people here are a lot different. I find them very reasonable and very well behaved. They certainly do not cause me any headaches”.

Mr. Alan White, landlord of the Prince Albert in Rendezvous Street, said “There is an occasional problem caused by young soldiers from Shorncliffe wanting a drink. You know who they are and you just have to handle the situation firmly. Trouble is caused when youngsters unused to alcohol have a few drinks and get a bit het up. A landlord has a duty to regular customers, and must make sure that kind of situation does not arise”.

At the West Cliff Shades, Christ Church Road, a spokesman said there were no problems worth mentioning, though there had been occasional instances of vandalism.

At the British Lion, in The Bayle, Mr. Gerry Hourahane said “It is difficult to judge ages, particularly those of foreigners. But if you ask them what year they were born they usually answer correctly without thinking”.

Another aspect of Chief Superintendent Pullinger's report to the Justices was that hotels and restaurants are catering more for Continental visitors. The number of restricted licences granted to hotels, restaurants and other premises had increased, he reported. “This is no doubt due to more people requiring intoxicants for consumption with their meals, particularly in Folkestone, where the number of Continental visitors, especially day visitors from France and Belgium, continues to increase.

The report showed that 19 cases of drunkenness were dealt with by the police in 1970, compared with 16 in 1969, an increase “which does not reflect on licensed premises”. Fourteen cases of motorists unfit to drive through drink were also dealt with by the police – two fewer than in 1969. There are now 177 licensed premises in Folkestone. The police had no objections to any licences being renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

When 1,400 continentals visit Folkestone next Thursday the doors of local pubs will be open to them all afternoon. On Tuesday local Magistrates decided in favour of a second application to allow 17 pubs to remain open especially for the visitors. They had vetoed a previous application. The second made by publicans was amended to allow for a half-hour break at 5.30 p.m. before their premises opened for the evening session.

Mr. J. Medlicott, for the publicans, told the Magistrates that the visitors were delegates attending a conference in Bruges. One of its highlights was to be a visit to England. He referred to a letter received by Folkestone Corporation from the British Tourist Authority supporting the publicans' application. The visit – by Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and Germans – was a special occasion, not just a shopping expedition, said Mr. Medlicott. It had been arranged by a Bruges tourist organisation which had particularly asked that pubs should be open in the afternoon.

Police Inspector R. Sanders made no formal objection to the application – but doubted whether the visit was a special occasion.

The Chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, Mr. Alan Stephenson, said later “The cross-Channel visitors' committee of this Chamber is very pleased that this has been seen as a special occasion by the Justices. When one is reminded that this extension is no more than happens in many market towns every week of the year, it seems a fair request, especially as Folkestone’s image abroad could be much influenced by the original decision not to allow the pubs to open”.

The pubs which will stay open are; Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Royal George, London and Paris, True Briton, Harbour Inn, Princess Royal, Clarendon, Brewery Tap, Earl Grey, Prince Albert, George, Globe, East Kent Arms, Guildhall and Shakespeare.

 

Folkestone Gazette 23 June 1971.

Local News.

A former Folkestone licensee, Mr. William Powell, of 12, Julian Road, Folkestone, collapsed and died in the National Westminster Bank, Sandgate Road, on Thursday afternoon. Mr. Powell, who was licensee of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, for many years, served in the R.A.F. during the Second World War. He was 68. Following his retirement from the Shakespeare he was, for a number of years, manager of Walter and Sons secondhand furniture department in Cheriton Road.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1971.

Local News.

About 1,400 Germans successfully invaded Folkestone on Thursday to enjoy themselves. The visitors - members of the BMW enthusiasts’ club - strolled about the town shooting local scenes with their cine cameras and went shopping. Many bought driving gear, ranging from tyres to goggles and crash helmets - but fewer than expected went to the pubs. They were visiting Folkestone during an international convention of their club, held this week at Bruges, in Belgium. Local licensees had gained extensions of opening hours to cater for them. But it was the locals who patronised some of the 17 town centre and harbour area pubs that stayed open.

At the Shakespeare, in Guildhall Street, Mr. Ron Balsom, said “It was a complete waste of time staying open. I only had 13 Germans in all day”.

Mr. John Tobin, landlord of the East Kent Arms, in Sandgate Road, said most of his customers had been regulars.

The Oddfellows Arms, in The Stade, was closed by 3.15 p.m. A spokesman there said “It was a complete and utter waste of time”.

At the True Briton a spokesman said “We did very well - thanks largely to our regulars”.

The London and Paris, at the harbour, was busy, but a spokesman said the pub had not taken a great deal of money.

However, one very pleased landlady was Mrs. M.M. Lewis, at The Guildhall. “It has been absolutely fantastic”, she said, "We have teen completely packed out with both German visitors and regulars".

Folkestone's publicity officer, Mr. Charles McDougal, said “The original letter we received from Belgium about this visit gave the departure time as 6 p.m. It was not until two days before the visit that we learned otherwise".

Mr. Alan Stephenson, chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, said “These people wanted to come to Folkestone, and their visit gave them an opportunity to sample the pleasures of the town as a holiday resort rather than just a shopping centre”.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 February 1973.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

In his annual report, Superintendent Snelling said there were 18 cases of drunkenness during the year – two fewer than in 1971, but the 43 cases of unfitness to drive through drink was three more than in 1971. During the year the Shakespeare Hotel was placed in suspense and the Railway Tavern, which was in suspense, was not renewed. One licensee was cautioned for permitting persons under age to consume alcohol and another for allowing drinking after hours. As a general rule, licensees in the Folkestone area had conducted their premises in a proper manner.

Mr. Bristow said he sympathised with licensees who had to determine the age of young customers. He said “People of 13 look like 23, and I advise all licensees to take care". Renewing all licences, he congratulated the landlords on the way they had conducted their businesses during 1972.

 

From an email received 1 July 2014

Good day.

I have been doing some research on my family history and was aware that my grandparents were associated with the Shakespeare Hotel in Folkestone (I assume there was only one hotel there by that name a century ago!) and came across your web site.

Their names are Frederick Henry and Maud Herrington. Fred was the manager of the Shakespeare in 1916, or perhaps a bit earlier. When he was called into the Queen's (Royal West Surrey) Regiment in October 1916, Maud took over as manageress – presumably until Fred returned from active service in Iraq (1918?). The Folkestone Express for 24 Feb. 1917 mentions a court case related to drunkenness at the Shakespeare in which Maud testified. The article mentions that a J. G. Smiles was the proprietor at the time (1917) and in fact he may have held this position from 1914 to 1921 (the gap in your list of Licensees – I assume that Licensee was the same as Proprietor).

I'm not sure how long Fred and Maud were at this hotel but I believe they were associated with The White Lion Hotel in Cheriton (Fred was the barman there in 1911 and I think met Maud there that year – they were married in late 1911), before moving to the Shakespeare. In 1919 Fred became the licensee of The George in Lydd and remained there into 1931 (Maud had died in late 1930).

Unfortunately I don't have any old family photos of the hotels my grandparents were involved with.

Incidentally, both Fred and Maud performed in many local music halls through the 1920s and 1930s. By all accounts, she was an accomplished pianist & singer (she may have used a stage name) and apparently he sang some of the popular songs and did monologues. Wish I could find out more about their ‘hobby'!

Anyway, hope this has been of some value to your interesting Pub List. Good luck with documenting this history.

Regards,

Ross Herrington

Regina, Canada

 

LICENSEE LIST

LARKINS William 1847-49 Bagshaw's Directory 1847 (Shellons Lane)

FREE Ann 1849-53

RICHARDS Thomas 1853-56

BLACKMAN John 1856-58 Melville's 1858

ELLIOTT William 1858-66 (age 38 in 1861Census) Post Office Directory 1862

POOLE James Scott 1866-68

WHYBOURNE Edward 1869-69 Next pub licensee had

Last pub licensee had TAYLOR Thomas 1869-70

PAYNE Henry 1870-71 (also joiner age 29 in 1871Census)

ELLIOTT William 1871 (age 38 in 1871Census)

Last pub licensee had HERWIGG Henry Augustus 1871-74

TITE William 1874-77 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1874

MELLOWS 1877-79 Next pub licensee had

ALLARD William 1879-80

DIXON Thomas 1880-98 CensusPost Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891

COLES George 1897-98

WOOLCOTT Frederick 1898

Last pub licensee had SPARROW Charles L 1898-1913 (age 36 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1899Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Post Office Directory 1913

SMILES Joseph Sydney Venner 1912-13

Last pub licensee had SMILES Joseph George 1913-18

Last pub licensee had HATFIELD Frederick C 1918-22 Post Office Directory 1922

MASON Frederick 1922-29

Last pub licensee had ATTWOOD Percy William 1929-39 Next pub licensee had (age 57 in 1939) Post Office Directory 1930Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

POWELL William 1939-42

POWELL Daisy 1942-46

POWELL William 1946-59

HARRIS William 1959-61

WILLIAMS Richard 1964-68

BALSOM Ronald 1968-72

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

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

Post Office Directory 1930From the Post Office Directory 1930

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room