DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1717

Ship Inn

Open 2019+

23 Radnor Street, The Stade

38 Radnor Street Post Office Directory 1874Kelly's 1934

Folkestone

https://whatpub.com/ship-inn

Original Ship

Above postcard date unknown, with kind permission from Eric Hartland. Also showing the old "Oddfellows" on the left.

Ship Inn 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Ship Inn, Folkestone 2009

Above photo by Paul Skelton, 27 June 2009.  

Ship Inn, Folkestone 2009

Above photo by Paul Skelton, 27 June 2009.

Ship Inn sign 1987Ship Inn Sign, Folkestone 2009

Sign left, 1897 kindly sent by Brian Curtis, sign right by Paul Skelton, 27 June 2009.

 

Now operating under the banner of Enterprise Inns. 2010.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 20 August 1792.

Before David Puttee, Edward Andrews, John Harvey, Thomas Farley, Joseph Sladen and Robert Harvey.

Petitions were received from John Nutt and Matthew William Sankey, Brewers at Canterbury, to licence a house in Folkestone, in Fisherman's Row, late called the Ship.

Ordered that the said licence be granted, provided they apply for and take out the said licence on or before the next licensing day, being the last Monday in April next.

 

Kentish Gazette 9 October 1807.

Advertisement.

To be sold by Auction;

At the sign of the Ship, in Radnor Street, in the town of Folkestone, on Saturday, the 31st day of October instant, at three o'clock in the afternoon: All that Copyhold Messuage of Tenement, which hath been long a good-accustomed Bake-House, situate in Radnor Street, in the said town of Folkestone aforesaid, and late in the occupation of William Ball or his assigns, with the leasehold ground and appurtenances thereunto adjoining and belonging.

Immediate possession may be had.

For further particulars apply at the office of Messrs. Tournay, Solicitors, Hythe.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 25 April 1808.

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

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

Eastwick 1 quart 2/6.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 30 May 1809.

Before Joseph Sladen (Mayor), John Minter, Thomas Baker, John Castle and John Gill.

Ordered that the following persons be summoned to appear at the next adjournment of the Sessions, viz.: Wm. Rigden, Charles Stebbings, John Essex (sic) and John Burton.

Rigden, "British Lion." Stebbings, "Marquis of Granby." Eastwick, "Ship Inn." Burton, "Jolly Sailor."

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 27 June 1809.

Before Joseph Sladen (Mayor), John Minter, Thomas Baker, and John Castle.

John Eastwick was fined 10/- for having in his possession one ale pint pot for selling ale or beer.

 

Kentish Gazette 8 January 1811.

Died: January 1st, Mrs. Eastwick, wife of Mr. John Eastwick, Ship Inn, Folkestone.

 

Kentish Chronicle 4 January 1811.

Died: January 1st, Mrs. Eastwick, wife of Mr. John Eastwick, Ship Inn, Folkestone.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 11 April, 1835. Price 7d.

TO BREWERS, VICTUALLERS, AND OTHERS

To be disposed of, the SHIP INN, in Radnor-Street.

The above House is in excellent Repair and good Trade; the present Occupier and Owner, leaving the same on account of ill Health.

For Particulars, apply to W. M. Bushell, Auctioneer, Phoenix Fire Office, St. James's Street, Dover. - (If by letter, post paid.)

Dover, 10th April, 1835.

 

Kentish Chronicle 28 April 1835.

Death: April 18, at Folkestone, Mr. Richard Knight, landlord of the Ship public house, aged 33 years.

 

Kentish Gazette 5 May 1835.

Died last week, at Folkestone, Mr. Richard Knight, landlord of the Ship public house, aged 33.

 

Folkestone, 8th May, 1837.

Dover Telegraph 25 August 1838.

Advertisement: To be let, with immediate possession if required, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone.

Apply to Wm. M. Bushell, Auctioneer, Dover.

 

Dover Chronicle 23 August 1838.

Advertisement: To be let, with immediate possession if required, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone.

Apply to Wm. M. Bushell, Auctioneer, Dover.

 

Kentish Gazette 31 January 1843.

To Brewers and others: For sale by private contract, The Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, an old-established House, and doing a good rade. For further particulars, apply to W.M. Bushell, Auctioneer, Dover.

Jan. 30th, 1843.

 

Canterbury Journal 18 December 1847.

On Saturday last an inquest was held before Mr. Bateman, Coroner, on the body of George Hilton, late of Hythe, grocer.

William Davies, landlord of the "Ship," stated that the deceased came into his house on Thursday, and called for some gin and water; he retired to bed about ten o'clock, and in the morning called for a glass of ale in his bedroom. A short time after, on going into his room, he pointed to an open paper lying on the table, and said he had taken poison. Witness instantly sent for a medical man, who attended.

Silvester Eastes, surgeon, deposed that he was called in on Friday last to attend to the deceased, it having been stated to him that he had taken poison; he administered the usual remedies, but he gradually sank and died from its effects.

Thomas Hilton, of Sellindge, grocer, brother of the deceased, deposed that of late his brother had shown symptoms of insanity, and at times was very violent; he had no hesitation in saying that the deceased was of unsound mind at the time of taking the poison.

Edward Hammon, chemist, deposed that on Thursday evening the deceased called upon him and asked for an ounce of arsenic, saying that he wanted it for his father to destroy rats. Witness refused to let him have it unless he procured a competent witness. In about ten minutes afterwards the deceased returned, and asked if he could have a preparation that would have the same effect. Witness gave him a powder for killing vermin, and labelled “Poison”. He remained in the shop some time afterwards. He had known the deceased for some years, and thought him much addicted to drinking.

Verdict “Insanity”.

Note: More Bastions has Thomas Davis.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 October 1862.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Friday afternoon, at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, before John Minter, Esq., coroner, and a respectable jury, on the body of an old man, named Matthew Grey, a labourer, who came by his death in the manner detailed in the evidence,

Mr. W. Bateman, surgeon, said: On Wednesday evening, the 8th instant, about 7 p. m., I was sent for to the Radnor Inn, and found the deceased lying quite insensible on the floor m the back room. I found a wound on the hand, a slight wound on the face, and another of a more serious nature at the back of the head. He was suffering from compression of the brain, which was no doubt caused by the blow at the back of the head. He never rallied or became sensible, but died the next morning. The wound was such as might have been caused by a fall down some steps. Death ensued from an effusion of blood on the brain. The wounds on the hand and face no doubt were caused by the pail he was carrying.

Esther Rossiter, wife of the landlord of the Radnor Inn, said: The deceased was my servant. I have been at the Radnor three weeks. On Wednesday afternoon last, between one and two he came in from the beach, where he had been with some clothes. I gave him a glass of beer, as he seemed fatigued. He has not been well lately. I asked him to go into the cellar and empty some dirty water and fetch some clean water from the pump in theyard. I heard the pail fall, and on going to see I found him lying at the bottom of the steps leading to the kitchen. I saw him folded up, and he was bleeding at the nose, mouth and back of the head. We sent for Mr. Bateman No one else was about. Baker was in the kitchen, and I called him to assist me. Deceased was 70.

Henrv Baker said: I lodge at the Radnor. I had just come from work on Wednesday evening last when I heard deceased fail with the pail and Mrs. Rossiter call out, “Oh, dear, here's Matt down”. I assisted the last witness in getting him up, and laid him on a form in the kitchen. I saw he was wounded on the head and bleeding. He only spoke once, and said “Where's my cap?”

Verdict Accidental death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 May 1866.

Transfer of Licence.

At a special sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last, the following transfer was granted:—The Ship, Radnor Street, from Mr. Page to Mr. Bates.

Note: Date of transfer is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 May 1867.

Friday May 3rd: Before R.W. Boarer, A.M. Leith, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

George Aquilla Bates summoned for non-payment of 1 13s., for gas consumed and rent of meter up to December 21st. Defendant keeps the Ship Inn, Radnor Street.

Defendant said last quarter's gas was only 5s 11d, this quarter it was 1 11s 6d.

Mr. Hoile, of the Gas Company, proved that 6,300 feet of gas had been consumed by defendant between 1st October and 1st January last, which amounted to 1 11s 6d.

Order for payment in seven days, in default a distress, if no goods, one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Observer 4 May 1867.

Friday, May 3rd: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Aguilla Bates was sued for 1 11s. 6d.gas, and 1s. 6d. meter, used at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. Order for payment in seven days, in default a distress, if no goods, one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 May 1867.

Advertisement:

To be let, with immediate possession, The Ship Inn, Folkestone. Enquire of Mr. Thomas Marsh, Borstal House, Whitstable.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 July 1867.

Monday July 1st: Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

George Yates and John Wilson, travellers, were brought up, charged with stealing a white shirt, a plaid scarf, and a black waistcoat, value 5s., the property of Frederick Squire, a musician, on the 28th.

Prosecutor deposed that he slept at the Black Bull Inn on Friday night, and that on Saturday morning he missed a travelling bag containing three shirts, ten collars, twelve pocket handkerchiefs, six pairs cotton socks, two flannel shirts, a black vest, a plaid scarf, two music scores, hat brush, clothes brush, comb and hard brush, two parts of a cornet, and a piece of music. He went to the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, and found the prisoners there. Accompanied by a man named Burgess he went into a room, and under a bed occupied by the prisoners he found a bundle containing three shirts, a vest, pair of trousers, and two scarves; one shirt, the vest, and one scarf were his property. On charging the prisoners with stealing them, Yates said “It's no use making a bother and charging innocent people about your things. I took 'em. I did not know they were a traveller's, or I would not have done it”. The other prisoner was drunk. He found a policeman and gave them into custody. The value of the articles was 2 10s.

William Borough Darley, salesman for “Cheap Jack”, saw the prisoners and a tall man near the Black Bull on Friday evening. The tall man had a black leather bag and a bundle with him.

Louisa Bates, wife of the landlord of the Ship Inn, said prisoners slept at the house on Friday night. Three persons slept in one bed. There was another in the room, which was also occupied, and three other persons had to pass through the room.

James Penny, exhibitor of Purchase's waxwork, heard prosecutor charge prisoners with the robbery, and heard Yates say “I am the one that nailed them”.

After a brief deliberation Wilson was discharged, and Yates sent to Petworth for six weeks' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 6 July 1867.

Monday, July 1st: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

George Yates and John Wilson were charged with felony.

Frederick Squire, musician, said he occupied a bedroom at the Black Bull, and on Friday evening at 6 o'clock his bag was on the drawers in his room. On Saturday morning at 8 o'clock, he missed it from it's place. It contained three new linen shirts, one worn shirt, ten linen collars, twelve white pocket handkerchiefs, six small ones marked with the initial “N”, and six large ones not marked, six pair white cotton socks, two under flannels, one black waistcoat, one plaid winter scarf, two music scores, hat brush, clothes brush, comb and hair brush, two pieces of a cornet, and a pianoforte copy. He immediately went downstairs and made his loss known. Knew prisoners by sight. They were not lodging in the house. Came into the town, and found the prisoners in the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. One was sitting on one sode of the kitchen, and one on the other. Charged them with breaking into his bedroom and stealing the bag. The bedroom door was not locked, but fastened. Both denied it in foul language. Went upstairs with Mr. Purchase, and under the bed that he said they had occupied – between the mattress and the battens – found the bundle of articles produced, containing three shirts (only one of them belonging to witness), a black waistcoat, and a scarf, also belonging to him, and which were in the bag he had missed. Went for a policeman, and took him back with him and gave the prisoners into custody. After charging the prisoners, Yates said “It is of no use you making a bother and charging the whole of us. You have lost your things. They are gone. I took your things. I did not know they were a traveller's, or I would not have taken them”. The other man was drunk.

William Burrough Barber said he was a salesman for Mr. Levi, “Cheap Jack”, and he knew both prisoners by sight. About 8 o'clock on Friday evening, he was in the Black Bull field, about five yards from the inn, and saw prisoners and another man standing near the wagon from which he was selling. The other man, a tall man, had a black bag in his hand. Did not see where they went.

Louisa Bates, wife of George Aquilla Bates, landlord of the Ship Inn, said she knew the prisoners – Yates lodging at her house on Thursday and Friday nights, and Wilson on Friday night. The prisoners and another man occupied one bed together. They were in and out all day. Did not notice either of them bring anything into the house. They went to bed between eleven and twelve. Did not notice whether they took anything upstairs.

Cross-examined: There are two beds in the room, and access is had through that room to another bedroom, in which three persons also slept on Friday night.

James Penny, a traveller, went to the Ship Inn on Saturday morning with prosecutor, and charged prisoners with stealing his bag, with music and different things in it. They said they knew nothing about it. Afterwards, when some of the things were found, Yates said “I am the man that nailed them, and no-one else had anything to do with them”.

P.C. Smith (6) went with P.C. Hills and prosecutor to the Ship on Saturday morning, and prosecutor gave the prisoners into custody on a charge of stealing a bag from his bedroom at the Black Bull. On the way to the station, the prisoner Yates said he thought this job was well done with.

The Bench then discharged Wilson from custody, and he hastily left the court, but Superintendent Martin stepped after him, and gave order for him to be taken below.

Prisoner Yates elected to be tried by magistrates, and pleaded guilty to the things being found in the room in which he slept, but he was not guilty of stealing them. He slept in the house where a great many were stopping. Four slept in the room he slept in, and four in the room to which access was obtained by passing through his room. Prosecutor said that if the things were found nothing would have come of it, and that made him say to the policeman that he thought the case was done with. He did not say that he had nailed the things.

Prosecutor denied having said nothing would be done if the things were found.

The Mayor said “George Yates, the Bench sentence you to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour”.

Prisoner: My name is Hardman, not Yates.

The Mayor: You gave it wrong. You gave it first as Gates, then as Yates.

John Wilson was again placed in the dock.

James Penny, traveller, lodging at the Bull, said on Friday night, between eleven and twelve o'clock, he missed from his bedroom a bundle, containing a pair of trousers, two shirts, worsted socks, two linen collars, scarf, and pocket handkerchief. The bundle was safe between eight and nine of Friday morning. Told the landlord on Friday night of his loss, and he suggested that some of his companions had been having a lark with them and put them somewhere else. When Mr. Squire came down on Saturday morning and mentioned his loss, then he himself also thought his things had been stolen. Went with quire and Burrough Barber to the Ship Inn, and Barber, sitting down, said “Those persons over there had your things”. He referred to Yates, and the third man not there, who were sitting on one side. The third man got up, and lifting the poker swore he would knock Barber's head off. Wilson was sitting on the other side, very drunk. Squire brought downstairs a bundle in which were some things that had been stolen from him, and the two shirts he had missed. Witness said to those in the room he wanted also his plaid trousers, two collars, and scarf. Yates said to prisoner Wilson “You know you have the trousers in your basket”. Prisoner went to the basket, which was standing on the settle, and said “They are not here now. Somebody has taken them away”. Shortly after that, someone he did not know brought in the things he had asked for, and also Mr. Squire's scarf. That was while witness was in the kitchen, and Squire had gone for a policeman.

This being all the evidence, the prisoner was discharged.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 July 1867.

Harbouring Prostitutes.

Friday July 26th: Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

George Aquilla Bates, of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was fined 2 and costs, or two months' imprisonment for this offence, and as he professed himself unable to pay he was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Observer 27 July 1867.

Friday, 26th July: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

George Aquilla Bates was summoned for allowing prostitutes to assemble and continue in his house.

P.C. Reynolds said: On Tuesday last, the 23rd inst., I visited the house about half past seven in the evening. I saw in the back room fronting the harbour two or three soldiers and two girls. I have seen the girls out with soldiers, and I believe them to be common prostitutes. The soldiers were smoking and drinking, and one soldier had got his arm about one girl. I came out and saw the defendant and cautioned him about having the girls in his house. He said he would get rid of them, and that they had hired rooms in the house and he did not know they were prostitutes. I returned to the house at about nine o'clock. I saw one of the same girls in a room facing Radnor Street. There were no men. I left the house. There has been great complaint made by the neighbours about defendant's house. I cautioned him on the previous Sunday evening about keeping prostitutes. Defendant keeps the Ship Inn, in Radnor Street, and is a licensed victualler.

Elizabeth Ann Spearpoint said: We live in Radnor Street, opposite the Ship, the house defendant lives in. The night before last, a little before 12 o'clock, I heard a knocking at defendant's door. I got up and looked out and saw a man and a woman at the door. I believe the woman to be a lodger in defendant's house. The man went away about one, and the woman sat down on the step and slept and then knocked again. She was let into the house at about 5 o'clock in the morning. I have seen four girls in the house. Three girls live in the house. I have seen them in the bedrooms. I have seen them there several times. I have witnessed improper conduct between them. I have not stayed to watch them, but have walked from the window. I saw the girls and some soldiers in the passage on Sunday evening, and from what I have seen I believe the girls to be prostitutes.

Cross-examined: I have seen soldiers and girls in the bedrooms.

The Bench fined the defendant 2 and 11s. costs, and in default of payment two months' imprisonment.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 July 1867.

Local News.

George Aguila Bates, of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for harbouring loose characters in his house.

He was fined 2 and costs, or two months' imprisonment.

Defendant said he was unable to pay, and was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Express 19 February 1870.

Wednesday, February 16th: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Ann Bates applied for her property to be protected from her husband, who had deserted her for nearly two years. Mr. S. Pilcher, from the office of Mr. Minter, supported the application.

Applicant, being sworn, said she had three children now living. Her husband was in gaol at Canterbury. They formerly kept the Ship in Radnor Street.

The order was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 10 December 1881.

Saturday, December 3rd: Before General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Alderman Banks, R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs.

Charles Stone and Richard Reynolds were charged with assaulting Richard Hart on the 26th November.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendants.

The complainant is a seaman on board the S.E.R. Clementine. He stated that he was in Radnor Street just before eleven o'clock on Saturday night. He left the Star Inn to go on board his ship, and just outside met Stone, who knocked him down. Neither of them spoke. Complainant got up, and Stone and Reynolds both struck him again with their fists. They all three fell down, and he (the complainant) became insensible and was carried into some woman's house. He knew the defendants by sight and had worked with them. They belonged to the Flirt schooner. He had had no quarrel with them. He saw them in the day time working coals about 12 o'clock, but did not speak to them.

Complainant still bore the marks of the injuries he received at the hands of the defendants.

In cross-examination complainant said: I first saw the defendants about a quarter to 11 going into the Star. I saw Spearpoint in the Star. The defendants were not sitting down when I went in, nor did I or Spearpoint knock their beer off the table. I do not know if they went to the Ship. I went by the Star on my way to the harbour. I did not throw my oilskin and say “Where is the ----?”, and I only fought with them in self defence. We did not have a regular round, nor did a policeman separate us. Spearpoind did not, so far as I know, fight with Reynolds. I did not go into the Star, throw my oilskin off, and say “I'll fight the best b---- here”.

Jane May, of 31, Radnor Street, said she was in the street about 11 o'clock and saw the defendants there. Stone was on the top of Hart, punching him on the ground. She did not see the commencement of the affray. Reynolds had his coat off, going to fight, saying he was “the master piece of the street”. He appeared to be about to kick Hart, and witness pulled him back, tearing his shirt off. Stone and Hart were parted by her husband and another man. They picked Hart up and took him into witness's house. He was bleeding from the nose and ears, and could not see out of either eye. He was quite insensible. P.C. Knowles and Sergeant Butcher saw him in that condition. The defendants did not appear to be much the worse for drink.

Elizabeth Jeffrey, living at 7, Radnor Street, said she saw the two defendants. Stone had Hart on the ground, but she could not see what he was doing to him. She assisted to get Hart into Mrs. May's house.

Mr. Minter said the defence would be that there was a quarrel and a fight, the complainant being the actual aggressor. He got the worst of the fight, and had no right to come to the Bench for redress. He called Charles Reynolds as a witness, who said: I am mate of a cessel, and belong to Maidstone. On Saturday I was in company with Stone. We went to the Ship, and about twenty minutes past ten we went to the Star. We called for three pints of beer for three of us. Whilst we were sitting there William Spearpoint came in, but Hart did not. Spearpoint commenced to kick up a row with his father. Hart was in the passage at the bar. He would let no-one pass. He said “I'll fight the best man in the house”. I said to him “Dicky, let me come past”. He said “Yes, I don't want to have any row with you”. Stone was just outside. I and Stone then went to the Ship and remained there until eleven o'clock. We came out and saw Hart and William Spearpoint. Hart said “Where are the ----?” I don't recollect Stone saying anything. Hart threw down his oilskins and they commenced to fight. I did not interfere. Spearpoint was coming to hit me. He said “Where's that Charley?” I said “Here I am”, and I struck him first. Hart and Stone fought for about ten minutes. They fell several times. I did not see the finish of it as I was fighting with Spearpoint. I did not see who struck the first blow.

Robert Lepper, a bricklayer, who was in the Ship on Saturday night, said he saw Hart and Stone fighting together for ten minutes. They were falling about on the kerb stones. He could not say which struck the first blow.

Complainant was then re-called at the request of Mr. Minter, and the Bench asked him if he did not ask Mr. Ford to hold his coat. He admitted that he did so, but it was after he had been struck and knocked down by Stone. He fought to defend himself.

Stone was then called as a witness for Reynolds by Mr. Minter, but the Bench intimated that they were unanimously of opinion that the case against Reynolds should be dismissed.

The Bench took some time coming to a decision, and the chairman then stated that they were divided as to whether they ought not to commit Stone to prison without the option of a fine. It was a most gross case, the complainant having been unwarrantably attacked when proceeding on a rough night to make his vessel secure. Defendant would be fined 40s., and costs 13s., or one month's hard labour in default.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Tuesday evening on the body of Sarah Harold Baker, whose death was caused under the following circumstances:-

William baker said: I am a fisherman and the son of the deceased. She was 46 years of age. I identify the body just viewed as that of my mother. She lived at 36, Radnor Street, and was a widow. On Sunday night, the 4th instant I went out about ten to bale our boat out. I did not see my mother then and supposed she was at one of the neighbours. When I returned about eleven I was going down the cellar stairs, and saw her lying at the bottom. I thought she was in a fit or dead and called my uncle. I last saw her about seven, when I was going out. I did not look down the stairs when I came back at ten.

Richard May said: I am landlord of the Ship Inn. The deceased was my sister-in-law. About eleven o'clock on Sunday night William Baker called to me from the window and asked me to get up, as his mother was lying at the bottom of the stairs in a fit. I went in and found deceased lying on her stomach, as if she had pitched forward downstairs. We took her in our arms and laid her on the sofa upstairs, and I then sent for a doctor. I felt her pulse and it did not beat, but her body was slightly warm. In my opinion she was dead. I had seen her that evening between nine and ten o'clock in her own house. She was quite sober. For the last few years she had been very nervous. Dr. Mercer attended.

Mr. Richrds Mercer said: On Sunday night about half past twelve I was called to see the deceased at 36, Radnor Street. I found her lying on the sofa quite dead, and nearly cold. There was a slight oozing of blood from the nostrils and mouth, but no signs of bruises or abrasions. In my opinion death was caused by concussion and probably fracture of the base of the skull. I have not made a post mortem examination, therefore I could not say positively. I have known deceased seven or eight years. She was subject to giddiness and fainting.

A verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

 

Folkestone Express 11 February 1882.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before Colonel De Crespigny and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.

Dora Harris was summoned for assaulting Mrs. May, wife of the landlord of the Ship Inn, on the 3rd inst.

Complainant said the defendant went to her house and struck her, making her nose bleed. She had done nothing to provoke her.

Henry Baker, nephew of complainant, said he was in the house when Dora Harris came in to his aunt's. After using very bad language she struck his aunt on the forehead with her fist. He got up and defendant scratched him down the face. His aunt did not strike defendant at all.

In reply to defendant, witness denied striking her.

Elizabeth Baker said she was in the Ship Inn on Friday and saw defendant come in. She used very bad language and struck Mrs. May.

Richard Rodgers said he was called by Mrs. May's daughter to separate her and defendant, who were fighting in the passage. The defendant struck Mrs. May several times.

By defendant: I did not offer to fight you, and did not drag you along the passage by your hair.

Defendant called Mary Ann Luck, who said she accompanied Mrs. Harris to the Ship Inn. She was talking to Mrs. May in the passage when Henry Baker struck her on the side of the face. She heard Mr. May call out to Rodgers to go to her assistance.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 13s. costs, or 14 days' imprisonment in default.

Richard Harris was then charged with assaulting Richard Rodgers on the 3rd of February.

This case arose out of the previous one. Complainant stated that defendant went to the back of the Ship, where he accused him of thrashing his wife, and “pitched into” him, giving him a black eye. Defendant was misinformed, as he did not strike his wife, but only separated her and Harry Baker.

Richard May, the landlord of the Ship, said he saw Harris go towards Rodgers. He called out to him “Don't strike, Harris. You'll do wrong”. Harris struck the first blow and then they had a short “up and down row”.

William Spearpoint, who was called for the defence, said he saw Harris go and speak to Rodgers. He asked him why he had wound his wife's hair round the handle of the door. Rodgers replied that he did not do so, but that Harris's wife hit him. They had some further words, when Rodgers threw off his hat and struck at Harris, who in self defence returned the blow. They then fought for about two minutes. Rodgers then ran into the back way of the Ship. Harris went on doing his lines.

The defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, or 14 days.

When the parties left the court, Rodgers and his friends were followed by a crowd, hooting and casting flour at him, until they reached the bottom of High Street.

 

Folkestone Express 1 March 1884.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before Captain Crowe, Captain Fletcher, Alderman Hoad, and F. Boykett Esq.

Temporary authority was granted to George Warman to carry on business at the Ship.

 

Folkestone News 22 November 1884.

Saturday, November 15th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Richard Oliver was charged with stealing nine pairs of stockings, value 12s., from the shop of Stephen Petts, on the 14th inst.

Prosecutor said the stockings were hanging outside his shop on Friday morning. He identified the stockings produced as his property.

Charles Thew, a labourer, said he saw prisoner hawking some stockings for sale, at 3d. per pair, in the Fish Market, about half past eleven on Friday morning. Witness gave him 9d. for three pairs of them. Sergt. Ovenden subsequently came to his house and h gave them up.

Turner Court said he saw the prisoner selling stockings, and he went up to him, saying “What have you got?” Prisoner said “I will give you this pair”. As soon as witness heard they were stolen property he went to Mr. Petts's and gave them up. A few minutes afterwards Sergt. Ovenden came in.

Edward Paine, a seaman, said the prisoner was offering stockings for sale in the Railway Inn on Friday. Witness bought a pair for 6d.

Sergt. Ovenden said he found the prisoner in the bar of the Queen's Head public house about ten minutes after one. The man was apparently asleep, and the worse for drink. Witness took him to the police station. He made no reply on being charged with theft. Witness received the stockings produced from the above named witnesses.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. The stockings were handed to him by a person he had seen several times in the town, who asked him to dispose of them, as he might as well do that as stand about with his hands in his pockets. The person spoken of said he would be satisfied if prisoner brought back 1s. 9d., and appointed to meet him at the Queen's Head. Prisoner had no idea they were stolen property.

The Bench found prisoner Guilty and sentenced him to six weeks' hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with stealing three jugs, value 2s., from the shop of John Surrey on Thursday night.

Prosecutor identified the jugs produced.

Thomas Venner, a porter, said he saw prisoner at the Rendezvous. They left the house together, and went along as far as Mr. Surrey's, when witness saw prisoner take three jugs from the shop. Witness then turned back.

Mr. Bradley: Why didn't you go into Mr. Surrey's shop and tell him?

Witness: Well, I thought it was nothing at all to do with me, and I made no more to do but turned round and went back.

Mr. Bradley: Did you give information to the police?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bradley: You thought he had a right to the things?

Witness: No, sir.

The Mayor: Do you mean to say you saw this man steal these jugs and didn't think it was your duty to go and inform the police?

Witness: I could not say he stole them.

The Mayor: But you saw him take them?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Mayor: Then why did you not go and inform them?

Witness: I did not know whether he bought them or not.

The Mayor: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, said the defendant came in on Thursday night between half past nine and ten with three jugs. A fisherman named Hart bought them of him. Hart left them with the landlord to go to sea.

Prisoner (in reply to the usual question): To this charge I must plead Guilty.

The Bench gave him a month's hard labour, to follow the last sentence.

The Mayor: Venner, I wish just to speak to you. The Bench consider the way in which you have given your evidence is very unsatisfactory, and the fact is you have run a very good chance of being put in the same position as prisoner. You saw the man take the jugs and hadn't the honesty to inform Mr. Surrey of his loss. Such conduct is very reprehensible. You must be more careful.

Venner: Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Mayor: The Bench wish me to make a remark with regard to the exposing of goods for sale by tradesmen. Now and then it acts as an incentive to men out of employ to steal. We hope in future they will not expose more goods than it is necessary.

Supt. Taylor said goods were very much exposed outside of the shops in the town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 November 1886.

Advertisement.

Folkestone Bloaters. A REAL TREAT

30 for 1s., 100 for 4s.

Bloaters are now in their prime, and may be had of T. Hall, Ship Inn, Radnor Street.

Note: It made me smile that the “Special Offer” on bulk-buying would actually get you less!

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 May 1887.

Monday, May 23rd: Before J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Phillips, a tall, powerful navvy, was charged with refusing to quit licensed premises, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, said: On Saturday night about half past ten prisoner was in my house, and finding he was the worse for drink I refused to serve him. I asked him to leave, but he would not do so. I called P.C. Swift and gave him into custody. Prisoner had been in about eight o'clock the same evening, and had been refused. His language was very bad.

Cross-examined: You were going out when the constable took you into custody. You were not going out willingly, and if the constable had not been there, I expect you would have given me a “clout of the head”.

P.C. Swift said he was on duty in Radnor Street, and was called to the Ship Inn, where he found prisoner refusing to leave the premises and took him into custody.

Prisoner said he was leaving the house when the constable met him in the passage and the landlord gave him in charge. He owned he had been drinking, but considered he was improperly given into custody.

Fined 5s. with 5s. 6d., or in default seven days' imprisonment.

Prisoner said he would do the seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 28 May 1887.

Monday, May 23rd: Before J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Phillips, a tall, powerful-looking man, who said he was an excavator, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, on Saturday night.

George Warman, the landlord, said the prisoner went to his house about half past ten at night. Prisoner was the worse for drink, and therefore he refused to serve him with anything. He made a disturbance in the house and was requested to leave, but refused, and a policeman was called and he was given into custody.

P.C. Swift said he was on duty near the Ship Inn, and was called by Mr. Warman to eject the prisoner, who was making a great noise. Mr. Warman gave him into custody.

In answer to the prisoner, the witness said he went back to fetch Mr. Warman up to the police station, but it was not because he had made a mistake in taking him into custody. It was true that he told witness there was no offence.

The prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. or seven days, in default of payment a distress. He said he was travelling the country and had a good character, and he considered he had been cruelly treated and would have the seven days.

Supt. Taylor said the man was an ex-policeman, having been in the Metropolitan Police, which accounted for his acquaintance with the technical forms.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 August 1889.

Objection.

The Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, before Dr. Bateman and a full Bench.

The licence of the Ship, in the occupation of Mr. Warman, was objected to because the house had not been conducted properly. The licence was granted with a caution.

 

Folkestone Express 31 August 1889.

Wednesday, August 28th: Before Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole, J. Pledge and F. Boykett Esq.

The General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

All the old licenses were renewed without opposition or comment except the following:-

The Ship, Radnor Street: Mr. Warman was the applicant. Supt. Taylor said the police had been refused admission in this case also, and the Bench cautioned the applicant.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1890.

Annual Licensing Session.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Mr. Warman applied for a renewal of the licence of the Ship. Superintendent Taylor said on the 13th of January four persons were found on the premises at half past eleven. They were said to be friends, and he thought there was some truth in the assertion. In all other respects the conduct of the house was fairly good.

The renewal was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Ship.

Supt. Taylor said on the 18th January last several people were found in this house at half past eleven at night. It was claimed that they were friends of the landlord. In other respects the house was very well conducted.

The applicant said it was his wife's birthday, and two days before was his daughter's, and they had a few friends in.

Mr. Bradley: And you were celebrating the double event.

Applicant replied that they were, and added that he was up at the police station at 25 minutes to 12.

Superintendent Taylor said Mr. Warman was very indignant that the police should take the liberty of visiting his house after hours.

It appeared the constable was not in uniform, and the Bench granted the licence.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 19 November 1890.

Extract from Folkestone Then and Now/

As the day passed, the weather became gloomy, and in the afternoon a merry party of fishermen were enjoying themselves over a game of ninepins in the cellar of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. This was the ninepin alley, where the space was so restricted that every time the ball was thrown the spectators had to be on the look out and dodge it's course as it bounded off the faggots which stood around the cellar, answering the same purpose as the “cush” on a billiard table.

Sailors filled the place to overflowing, and the steps leading down the cellar from the quay were also crowded to watch the game. The herring season was at it's height, and had been fairly good thus far, and the boats had come in that morning each with a last or two of fish, and were ready for sea again, but the weather began to look squally and threatening, hence the congregating of the ninepin players, where the anxiety to see Jack Philpott “get the nine” conduced towards the consumption of an unknown quantity of beer from the straight quart and pint pots of the white and blue earthen pattern of the day.

The evening closed in, and gradually some of the party found their way up the crooked staircase to the sanded-floored parlour over the ninepin alley, where a “free and easy” was at once started, and Bobby Baker, Squashy Hall, Mopsey Spearpoint, old Jimmy Hopkins the cobbler, and others “favoured” the company till both singers and heares got tired of the “harmony”. A strong smell of herrings – fresh herrings – oily and pungent overpowered even the strength of the tobacco smoke that filled the room and almost hid the flickering lights of the tallow candles on the table, and seemed to forbid admission to the overcrowded, cabin-like apartment, where the fierce fire in the grate added to the insanitary conditions. Fishermen filled every corner of the room and puffed away at their long clay pipes behind their pots of beer as the wind began to howl outside and whistle through the closely-casemented windows, from whence the men occasionally glanced to see that their boats in the harbour were safe at their moorings.

A regular sou'-west gale blew as the night advanced, and it was evident that the boats must stay ashore for the evening. “Nanny Widdy” made a skirmish into the room, like an old hen after an erring chick, and fetched out her son “Squashy” for the night before he became hopelessly irremovable. Young “Bobby” heard outside the door the siren-like charms of an old wheezy accordion, which lured him away to his lady-love; while some of the most thirsty became silent under the combined somnolent surroundings, and others indulged in a quiet chat as if enjoying the most salubrious incitements to converse.

Discourse took a practical turn. All the herring “hangs” were said to be full of fish, although Court and Willis and Golder had done a roaring trade in bloaters. Spratters had got their nets ready and meant, if they could, to catch some sprats for the Lord Mayor's Dinner. The Harmbourmaster came in for an uncomplimentary share of the conversation, the steam boats were voted a nuisance, and the tan-copper wanted mending.

These and other subjects had been discussed when a newcomer entered the parlour with his hands deep in his nether garments, and smoking a long pipe, the bowl of which reached down to his waistcoat pockets. He seemed to come meandering in, like a vessel entering the harbour. He worked his way round the room into a berth and dropped anchor next to an old salt who wore a tall weather-beaten beaver hat pushed down on the back of his head over his ears as if the wearer was afraid of catching cold.

“You know what I told you Ant'ny?” he said as he seated himself.

“What say, Jack?” asked the other, who was deaf.

“Didn't I tell you Dick Hart was goin' to be Mayor?”

“You did, but I hope it ain't true”

“It's right, and I believe he'd make a good Mayor, too.”

“Do you? What about the rates?”

“Oh! Blow the rates; they won't hurt us”

“Won't they? You'll see; they'll go up like wild fire”

Thus, the gentlemen in Bennett's sail loft, and the fishermen in the Ship parlour both agreed about the upward rush of rates in the future if Mr. Richard Hart became Mayor. Nevertheless, on the 9th of November that event came to pass.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 17 May 1893.

Police Court Jottings.

Publicans have need to be very careful nowadays, seeing how stringently the law is interpreted against them, when, for instance a man's having been seen to enter and leave a house, according to the judges, is equivalent to his actually being found on the premises.

Mr. George Warman, of the Ship Inn, had rather a narrow escape. He was summoned for keeping his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours.

Sergeant Swift about half past eleven the previous Sunday morning saw a little girl leave the premises, after the defendant had previously come out and looked up and down the street, with a quart jug of beer in her hand. When the sergeant spoke to the defendant about it he said he had given it to the child for her mother. She, however, took it to the house of a Mrs. Hopkins.

Mr. Haines, who defended, said no money had been shown to have passed, and in fact it all arose out of acts of kindness. The wife of the defendant was very seriously ill, and the neighbours came in and did what cooking there was. Mrs. Hopkins had performed that charitable office that morning, and having a friend call upon her sent for the beer, which defendant made her a present of.

The little girl and the defendant were called and bore out the statement as to no money having been paid for the liquor.

Mr. Holden gave the decision of the Bench. He said they considered it a suspicious case, and they did not like the idea of beer being sent out on a Sunday morning during prohibited hours, but there was no evidence that a sale had been effected, and therefore the case would be dismissed. At the same time the constable was to be commended for having done his duty.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 May 1893.

Saturday, May 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, S.J. Penfold, J. Fitness and J. Holden.

George Warman, of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of beer on Sunday, the 7th instant.

It was stated that the beer was given away, and the Bench, after hearing the evidence, held there was no sale and dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1893.

Saturday, May 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood and Pledge, W.G. Herbert, S. Penfold, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

George Warman, of the Ship Inn, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday the 7th May. Mr. Haines defended.

Sergt. Swift said at a quarter past eleven on Sunday 7th May, he was near the Ship Inn and heard the door unbolted. It was opened by the defendant, who looked out in an opposite direction to where witness was standing, and then in the other direction. On seeing witness he put his arm across the doorway as if to prevent someone leaving. A girl named Haylor left with a jug of beer under her apron. He asked who served her with it, and she replied “Mr. Warman”. Defendant said “Yes. I gave it to her for her mother”. The girl took the beer to 67, Radnor Street – not her mother's. A Mrs. Hopkins lived there.

By Mr. Haines: Although defendant saw me he allowed the girl to run out.

Mr. Haines: How do you know what was in the jug? – I tasted it. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines: Sunday morning – very convenient. (Laughter)

The girl was called, and said she was sent to the Ship Inn by Mrs. Hopkins, between eleven and twelve, and asked Mr. Warman to let her have a little beer – a quart if he would. Mr. Warman drew some beer into the jug. She did not give him any money – she had none with her. She saw Sergt. Swift outside. He asked her what she had there, and she said “Some beer”. He put his finger in and tasted it. She took it to her mother's and she told her to take it to Mrs. Hopkins's.

Mr. Haines contended that there was no sale of beer, but it was given as an act of kindness. Mrs. Warman was ill, and the neighbours had done defendant's cooking for him. They did not care to take money payments. The defendant had no idea that he was doing anything wrong.

Defendant went into the box and gave evidence in support of this statement. It was only in acknowledgement of the services Mrs. Hopkins had rendered his wife that he sent the beer. He did not intend to charge anything for it.

The Bench dismissed the case, holding that there was no evidence of a sale. But Mr. Holden said they considered it was a suspicious case, and they did not like the idea of beer being sent out on a Sunday morning. They commended the sergeant for his action.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 20 May 1893.

Hall Of Justice.

The Magistrates sat on Saturday to administer justice and carry out those duties to which they are appointed by direct commission by Her Majesty.

Mr. George Warman, a licensed victualler, was charged, on the information of Sergeant Swift, with having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday last at 10.15 a.m.

Sergeant Swift deposed that he heard the bolt of the door move and saw Mr. Warman come out and look up and down the street, and then a little girl came out with a jug containing beer. He asked her, in the presence of Warman, what she had got there, and who served her. Mr. Warman said he had given it to her out of kindness for her mother.

Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defence, cross-examined Sergt. Swift, and asked him how he knew it was beer, to which he replied that he had tasted it. He further asked whether he saw any money pass. Sergt. Swift said he did not.

The next witness was a little girl, who deposed that she was sent to Mr. Warman's by a Mrs. Sanders for some beer. Mrs. Sanders did not give her any money, and did not tell her how much to fetch.

In answer to Mr. Haines, she said that Mr. Warman did not make any effort of concealment when he saw the policeman.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench for the defence, and he asked for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that there was no sale. He intimated that Mrs. Warman had been ill for a considerable time, and that they had been unable to do any cooking in the house, but that the neighbours, acting in kindness, had cooked many articles of food at their own homes for Mrs. Warman, for which they would not take any remuneration in the shape of money. That the lady who had sent the little girl for the beer had, on Sunday morning, cooked a sole and sent it in for Mrs. Warman. Mr. Warman had offered to pay for this act of kindness, but the lady would not take any money, but at 11 o'clock in the morning she sent the little girl, who was in the habit of minding her children, down to Mr. Warman's to ask him for a little beer. Mr. Haines said that he should establish his defence, by proving these facts, that it was no sale, but a neighbourly act of kindness in return for an act of kindness, and he would ask their Worships to consider the matter.

Mr. Holden, who presided, announced that the Bench considered it a very suspicious case, but they had decided to dismiss it for the want of evidence. He said that beer should not be carried about the streets at that time in the morning, and thought that great credit was due to Sergt. Swift for bringing the matter forward.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it's walls at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it's tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it's everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o'clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen's Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen's Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some 1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than 305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen's Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

The Ship.

Sergeant Swift said there were seven licensed houses within 100 paces of the Ship. On the 7th May he was present at the Police Court when George Warman was summoned for selling during prohibited hours.

Mr. Glyn: There is no notice given for any objection but that it was not required.

Mr. Taylor said the house was situated in Radnor Street, where there were eight other licensed houses.

Mr. Glyn said this was a very old established house, and the present tenant had been there since 1884.

Benjamin Henry Flint, of the firm Flint and Sons, the owners of the Ship, said the house was valued at 1,100. The tenant was doing a very steady business of seven barrels a week.

Warman, the tenant, went into the witness box and, in answer to Mr. Minter, said he was a fisherman and had a connection with that class. During the last five years the fishing boats at Folkestone had increased more than a third in number.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision.

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates' Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was 1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than 305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The Ship, Radnor Street.

The only ground here was that the house was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were seven licensed houses within 100 paces. On the 7th May, 1893, he was present in the Police Court, when George Warman was the tenant. (This was objected to as not in the notice).

Superintendent Taylor gave similar evidence in this case. In answer to Mr. Glyn he said he did not know what trade the house did.

Mr. Glyn said the house did six to seven barrels a week, and was most respectably conducted.

Benjamin Henry Flint, of the firm Flint and Sons, owners of the house, said they acquired it in 1856. It was valued at 1,100. The present tenant went in in 1884, and did a steady business.

George Warman said he had been a tenant of the house since 1884 and did a good trade. He was a fish buyer and had a good connection. During the last five years there were more boats in Folkestone than there used to be and a great deal of foreign trade came in.

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients' licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of 15. The lowest value was put at 800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices' predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices' Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing.

It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen's Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices' Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John's Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen's Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth 1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than 305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don't know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen's Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

The cases not eliminated by this decision were then proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were called.

Proceeding, the Bench considered the case in regard to the Ship.

The only ground of objection, said Mr. Glyn, was that it was not required.

Sergt. Swift's figures were again in evidence, and this time he found within 100 paces of the Ship 7 licensed houses existed. On the 7th of last May he was present at the police court when the tenant was summoned, but Mr. Glyn submitted that on this ground no objection could be lodged, as it was only on the ground that it was not required they had received notice.

The Magistrates upheld this view, and after Superintendent Taylor had repeated some statistics concerning Radnor Street, Mr. Glyn submitted that the tenant was a most respectable man, that a fair and steady trade was done, and that the house was properly conducted, notwithstanding it was suggested that the house was not required and that the Bench should deprive the owners of their property.

He called Mr. Benjamin Henry Flint, director of the firm Flint and Sons, and assistant manager, who deposed that the firm acquired the house in 1856, and it was now in their books as of the value of 1,100. The present tenant went in in 1884, and did a steady trade of some 6 to 7 barrels weekly.

George Warman, the tenant, also gave evidence, and in reply to Mr. Minter said he was a fisherman and had a connection among fishermen. During the last five years there was one third more fishing boats than there was before, and they were visited by one foreign fishing boat then. They had ten now. That increased the trade.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three? I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients' property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of 10 or 15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is 800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court.)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o'clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it's conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin's work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen's arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

Ship, Radnor Street: Seven houses within 100 paces only objection.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 November 1893.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday, George Warman, landlord of the Ship, Radnor Street, was charged with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6th November, and further with permitting drunkenness on his premises.

The defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll.

Sergeant Swift said that at 11.35 p.m. on the 6th instant he was in Radnor Street in company with Boat Inspector Brice. He saw the front door of the Ship standing ajar, and he went into the passage leading to the bar. He saw the defendant with two fisherman come into the bar from the back entrance, which opened on to The Stade. The names of the two men were Weatherhead and Cornish. The bar was lit up, and witness saw the defendant serve the men with two glasses of rum, which Weatherhead paid for. The defendant took two glasses containing liquor into the front room and then returned to the bar. Another fisherman named Hopkins came in by the back entrance and was served with some rum for which he paid. Witness then went into the bar and pointed out to the defendant that it was then about 20 or 25 minutes to 12. He said “Yes. These men have just come in from sea, and are travellers”. Witness knew that Hopkins and Cornish lived in Radnor Street, and Weatherhead also lived in the town. While witness was talking to the defendant another man came from the front room into the bar. He was drunk. He pushed against witness and said “All right. Don't trouble yourself. I will explain it. I am a lodger here”. Witness took the addresses of the three fishermen and they left. He then went into the front room, where he found the defendant's housekeeper and a woman, who was pointed out to witness as being the other man's wife. She was drunk, and there was a glass containing whisky on the table before her. When witness asked the man for his name and address he commenced to talk in a foreign language, and it was only when witness told him he should take him to the police station that he said his name was William Joseph Cloughton, while the defendant said he lived at Warren Road. Witness pointed out to Warman that they were drunk, and he said they had had nothing to drink since 11. He then called witness out of the room and said “I will explain it all to you. The three fishermen have just come in from the sea and they are travellers. The man and his wife came in during the evening, and they had been sitting talking together. They often come in and they are a nuisance to me. I wish you to get them out of my house before you go”. Witness requested them to leave and they did so. Brice entered the house with witness and was present the whole time.

By Mr. Mowll: Witness had never seen the man nor the woman before. He did not know that she was a professional singer in the town. He came to the conclusion that they were drunk by the man's general behaviour and by the woman's appearance and conversation. The landlord did not tell him they had come to see him about the purchase of a piano. Witness was he Sergeant in the previous case against the defendant which was dismissed by the Magistrates.

Boat Inspector Brice gave corroborative evidence.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he was not an expert French scholar, but he could understand the man Cloughton when he spoke in French, as well as in English. Witness knew most of the Folkestone smacks, but he could not say whether the one the three fisherman belonged to came in from sea that night.

Benjamin Harris, called by Mr. Mowll, said he was in the habit of calling the fishermen and ferrying them to their smacks in the harbour. The three men referred to went to sea in the smack Emily on Sunday night the 5th instant, and did not return until eleven o'clock the following night.

Henry May, owner of the smack Emily, gave similar evidence.

Emily Cloughton said she was a singer and dancer and lived at 5, Warren Road. On the 4th instant witness's husband wrote the note produced to Mr. Warman, asking if it would be convenient to see a piano on the following Monday night, and in consequence they went to the house on the 6th instant. Witness only had a “small lemonade” in the house, and was no drunk. They went to the house at half past 10 and left about half past 11.

William Joseph Cloughton, husband of the last witness, said he wrote the letter, and in consequence he and his wife went to the house. He was not drunk while there.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, said he ventured to submit that the fishermen were bona fide travellers, and whether they were so or not he certainly thought it was not a case in which the Bench could convict, as he understood it was the practice in every seaport town, when the men came in wet through from the sea, to serve them with rum. As to the other case he had shown that the two persons went to the house with reference to the piano mentioned in the letter he had put in. Mr. Mowll criticised the evidence given as to their condition, and said he did not think it was sufficient for the Bench to convict the defendant upon. He had never heard of a case in which a drunken man could speak not only his own language, but also French sufficiently fluidly to be understood by one who was not an expert linguist. It was generally difficult for a person in that condition to speak one language. (Laughter)

After a retirement the Mayor said, after a careful consideration the Bench had come to the conclusion that the charge of selling during prohibited hours was not proved to their satisfaction and it would therefore be dismissed. They, however, considered that the charge of permitting drunkenness was fully proved. They would inflict the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, and the licence would be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll asked the Bench to reconsider their decision as to the endorsement of the licence, but they declined to make any alteration.

 

Folkestone Express 18 November 1893.

Wednesday, November 15th: before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6th November, and also with permitting drunkenness on his premises at the same time. Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Swift said: On the 6th inst. I was on duty in Radnor Street, accompanied by Boat Inspector Brice. I saw the front door of the Ship standing open. I went into the passage which leads to the bar and saw the defendant there, and two fishermen came in at the back entrance. Defendant served them with rum. The men were named Cornish and Weatherhead. Weatherhead paid for the rum. Defendant took a light into the back room on the ground floor and was absent a few minutes. He then returned to the bar, by which time a third fisherman, named Hopkins, had come in by the back entrance. He said “I'll have a drop of rum, George” and paid for it. I then said to the defendant “It is now from twenty to twenty five minutes to twelve”, and he said “Yes. Those men have just come in from sea and are travellers”. There was a clock in the bar, but I looked at my own watch. I know the three men personally, and two of them live in Radnor Street. I do not know where Weatherhead lives, but he lives in the town. A fourth man came from the front room into the bar, and pushed against me. He said “All right, don't trouble yourself. I'll explain it. I am a lodger here”. Defendant said “No, you don't lodge here. Go away and leave the sergeant alone”. Defendant said to me “That man and his wife came in here this evening and sat talking together”. I took the names of the fishermen and they left. After they left I went into the front room and found there the defendant's housekeeper and a woman who was pointed out to me by the fourth man as being his wife. She had a glass in front of her which contained whisky. I asked the man for his correct name and address. He commenced to talk in some foreign language and refused to give his name and address, until I told him I would take him to the police station. Defendant said “I can tell you where he lives, but I don't know his name”. He then gave his name as William Joseph Cloughton. Defendant gave me his address and said he lived in Warren Road, but he could not give me the number. I pointed out to defendant that the man and the woman were drunk. He said “They have had nothing to drink here since eleven”. He then called me out of the room and said “I'll explain it all to you. These three fishermen had just come in from sea and were travellers. That man and his wife came in during the evening and sat talking together. I don't want them, I don't know them – in fact they are a ---- nuisance to me. I wish you would get them out of my house before you go”. I requested them to leave, and they left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: I don't know the name of the boat from which the men came. I don't know the names of the smacks that come to the harbour. The landlord did not tell me that Cloughton and his wife came to see him on business. Nothing was mentioned about a piano. I do not know that the three fishermen had come in from sea. I did not feel their clothes, but the appeared to be dry. I do not know the owner of the smack they belonged to. I do not know the owner of every smack in the harbour. There are 50 or 60 of them. I was the sergeant in the case when Warman was summoned before, and the case was dismissed.

William Brice, boat inspector, said he was with Sergeant Swift on the night in question, and he gave evidence generally corroborating what he had deposed to. He said he knew the three fishermen, and knew most of the smack owners of Folkestone. After they left the house he went with Swift into the front room. He saw the man referred to and the woman, who. He said, was his wife. The woman was sitting at the table with a glass in front of her. The glass contained whisky. Swift asked the man for his name and address. He refused his address, and then commenced talking in French, giving an address in Boulogne. Sergeant Swift said to him “I don't understand what you are talking about. Will you give me you address?” Warman said “I will give you his address, but I don't know the number of the house where he lives. It is in Warren Road”. The man ultimately gave his address in French and English. He said he had lived many years in Boulogne, and his wife was an actress. I heard Warman say to the sergeant “Come outside and I'll explain the whole matter to you”. The sergeant went outside, and Warman said “The three fishermen had been at sea four and twenty hours and had just come in. I am entitled to give them a drink. The other man and woman come here occasionally. I don't know who they are – in fact they are a ---- nuisance to me when they are here. I wish you would assist me to get them out”. Warman went in and spoke to them. They got up after a little while and went out. They were drunk, both of them.

By Mr. Mowll: I am not an expert in French, but I knew what the man was talking about in French. I mean to say that a gentleman who could talk French and English could be at the same time drunk. The lady did not talk in French and English. I know a few of the smack owners. I have been boat inspector about seven years. I know the smack these three fishermen belong to, but I cannot say if she had just come in from sea. I did not make any enquiry.

Mr. Mowll: Don't you think it would be only the fair and right thing to do to make enquiry whether their story was right? – (No answer) On the question being repeated, witness said he did not make any enquiries. The report was not made by him, but by Sergeant Swift.

By the Clerk: It was a rough night, and had been raining. The men have got oilskins on, and when they take them off it is not easy to see whther they have been to sea or not.

Benjamin Harris, examined by Mr. Mowll, said he was the ferryman, and it was his duty to call the fishermen and ferry them to their smacks. He knew the three fishermen in that case as belonging to the Emily. He remembered them starting out for sea on the night of the 5th November (Sunday) and they came back on Monday night about a quarter past eleven. He did not know Sergt. Swift.

Superintendent Taylor: It is mutual, you see.

Mr. Mowll expressed surprise. He thought the men would be well known to each other.

Henry May said he was the owner of the smack Emily, and Cornish was the captain. He was captain himself before he started as a licensed auctioneer in the fish market. The Emily went to sea on Sunday, the 5th, at eleven. His son was one of the crew. He went to sea in her, and returned at a quarter past eleven on Monday night. He was wet through, and his mother got up and made him some tea, and hung up his clothes before the fire to dry.

Emily Cloughton, wife of William Joseph Cloghton, said: I am an artiste, and have been for 18 years. I am a singer and dancer.

Mr. Mowll: I believe you were in this house on the occasion of the night of the 6th November? – I was, my lord (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll: I am not that yet. I may be by and by. (Laughter) It is no good having a compliment paid you like that if you don't take some notice of it. (Laughter)

Witness continued: I went down with my husband to this house. I have lived in Warren Road since the 7th of August. On the 4th November my husband wrote to Mr. Warman the letter produced. It has not been written since then for the purposes of this case. The letter ran: “Dear Sir, If it is convenient for me to see the piano on Monday night, as it is the only time my wife is disengaged, will you kindly give the bearer an answer. Yours truly, William Joseph Cloughton.” In consequence of that letter we went down. I was not in the least intoxicated. I only had a small lemon, and a glass of common ale I keep in my house.

By the Clerk: I went to the house about half past ten. My husband wrote the letter.

William Joseph Cloughton said he wrote the letter, and in consequence of the answer he received went down to the Ship about half past ten. He was no more drunk then than he was at that time.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench, urging that it was the custom to supply fishermen when they came in late on such a night, and he believed the Bench would say that the three fishermen in that case were bona fide travellers. Therefore the charge of selling liquor after closing time must fail. As to the second charge, it was not likely that a man who could speak in two languages could be drunk. As a rule, when a man was drunk, it was with difficulty he could speak in English. He expressed a strong hope that the Bench would dismiss both summonses.

Mr. Bradley called Mr. Mowll's attention to the statement of the man that he was a lodger, and the evidence of the constables that he was drunk.

Mr. Mowll explained that it was due to the fact of the police coming suddenly upon them. He did not think a statement hurriedly made under those circumstances would have any weight with the Magistrates. It was a great pity the letter was not mentioned in the first instance, but there was no doubt about it being a bone fide letter, and that it accounted for those people being there.

The Bench then retired to consider the case, and on their return the Mayor said: Mr. Warman, the Bench have very carefully considered these charges against you, and they are unanimously of opinion that in regard to the charge of selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, it is not proved to their satisfaction. We therefore dismiss that charge. The charge of permitting drunkenness is in the opinion of the Bench fully proved, and e therefore fine you in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, leviable by distress, and in default of sufficient distress, one month's imprisonment. The licence to be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll made an appeal to the Bench to alter their decision with regard to the endorsement of the licence. The defendant had held the licence for eleven years, and there was no conviction against him. It was not the tenant only who had to suffer, but the owner of the house. He therefore asked the Bench to reconsider their decision as to the endorsement of the licence.

The Bench declined to entertain the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge, at the Borough Petty Sessions on Wednesday, a case of exceptional interest was heard and decided.

Mr. George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, (for whom Mr. Worsfold Mowll, solicitor, appeared) was charged with two offences against the tenure of his licence – (1) with having sold intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6th November, and (2) with having permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises on the same date.

Police Sergeant James Swift, examined by the Justices' Clerk (mr. Bradley) said: On the 6th inst., at 11.35 p.m., I was on duty in Radnor Street, accompanied by P.C. Brice, the Boat Inspector. I saw the front door of the defendant's house standing open a little way, and I went into the passage that leads to the bar. I then saw the defendant and two fishermen coming from the back entrance into the bar. The back entrance opens into the fish market, or Stade. When I got to the bar I saw that it was lighted up, and I saw the defendant serve the two men with two glasses of rum, for which he was paid by Weatherhead, the other man being named Cornish. I could not tell how much money was paid to the landlord.

Mr. Bradley: It is not disputed.

P.S. Swift continued: Defendant then took a lighted lamp and went into the back room on the same floor. He returned immediately into the bar and then took two glasses containing liquor into a front room on the ground floor. I did not see him draw the liquor. When he returned to the bar a fisherman named Hopkins entered by the back entrance and came up to the bar. He said to the landlord “I shall have a drop of rum”. He was served with it and paid for it. I then went into the bar and said to the defendant “It is now between 20 and 25 minutes to twelve, Mr. Warman”. He said “Yes. These men have just come in from sea, and are travellers”. There was a clock in the bar, which then indicated a quarter to twelve, but the time I mentioned was that shown by my own watch. I knew Cornish and Hopkins, and that they lived in the same street. When I was speaking to the defendant a fourth man came from the front room into the bar. I did not know him. He was drunk. He pushed against me, and said “All right. Don't trouble yourself. I will explain it. I am a lodger here”. Defendant said “No, you don'ty lodge here. Go away and leave the Sergeant alone”. Defendant then said to me “That man's wife came in with him during the evening, and they have been sitting talking together”. This man had then gone into the front room, and I went there with the defendant, after having taken the names of Cornish and Hopkins. In the front room I found the defendant's housekeeper and a woman, who was pointed out to me by the man as being his wife. The woman was sitting down, and was drunk. There was standing before her on the table a glass containing whisky. I asked the man for his correct name and address. He commenced to talk in some foreign language, and refused to give his name and address until I told him I would take him t the police station. The landlord then said “I can tell you where he lives, but I don't know his name”. The man then gave his name as Wm. Joseph Cloughton. He said he was living in the Warren Road, but the number he forgot. I pointed out to the defendant that the man and woman were drunk. He replied “They have had nothing to drink here since 11”. The landlord then came out with me and said “I will explain all to you. Those three fishermen had just come in from sea. That man and his wife came in during the evening, and had been sitting and talking together. They often come in. I don't want them. I don't know them. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me. I wish you would get them out of my house before you go”. I requested the man and woman to leave, and they did so, the defendant being present at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Don't you know the man and woman pretty well? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you have never seen them before? – I have not.

Is not she a professional singer in the town? – I am not aware of it.

How long have you been here? – About 11 years.

You have said the man was drunk because he pushed against you. Was that the only reason? – No, sir.

What else? – His general behaviour, manner, and appearance.

How do you know that the woman was drunk? – By her appearance.

Had you any conversation with her? – Yes, sir.

You say from her appearance and conversation she was drunk? – Yes, sir.

Did the landlord tell you they came to see him on business? – No, sir.

Was anything said about a piano? – No sir.

You are quite sure of it? – Quite.

Didn't you know that the fishermen had come from sea? – No.

Didn't you feel their coats and find them wet? – They were dry. They had the appearance of going to sea, and not coming from it.

Do you know the owner of the smack these men belong to? – No, sir.

You know every smack in the harbour? – No.

Do you mean to say you have been here 11 years and don't know the 50 or 60 smacks in the harbour? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you don't know the crews of these smacks? – No, sir.

Were you the Sergeant in the previous case when this man was summoned before the Magistrates? – Yes.

And the Magistrates dismissed that case? – They did, sir.

Police Constable Brice, Boat Inspector, deposed: On the night of the 6th inst, at 11.35, I was going along Radnor Street and heard loud talking in the left hand room in front of the Ship Inn. I stopped a minute or two with Sergeant Swift, and we then walked to the front door, which we found open. Sergeant swift entered, and I was behind him. When we got inside the second door Sergeant swift said “There are some men coming in at the back; stand back”. I saw the defendant and two fishermen enter by the back door and come up to the bar, in which there was then a light. Defendant went into the bar and drew some liquor, with which he served the men. I could not see what it was, but it was brown, and I did not taste it. The men were Cornish and Weatherhead. The latter paid for it. I saw him put the money on the counter. Defendant then took up a lighted paraffin lamp and went from the bar to the back with it. He returned to the bar with two glasses containing drinks, and during that time Hopkins came in at the back door and said “A drop of rum, George”. He put something down and was served with rum by the defendant. Sergeant Swift went to the bar and said to the defendant “Do you know what time it is? It is nearly twenty minutes to twelve”. Defendant replied “These men have just come in from sea, and they are travellers”. While the Sergeant was taking the names and addresses a man who was in the front room came into the bar, went up to the Sergeant, and said to him “I will settle the matter. I am a lodger here”. Defendant replied “You are not. Don't interfere with the Sergeant, he is on duty”. The man then returned into the front room, and Hopkins and Cornish left the house by the back door. Swift and I then went into the front room, and found a woman sitting down, and standing by her side the man who had just left the bar. He said “That is my wife”. The woman had on the table in front of her a glass containing whisky. He then commenced talking in French, mentioning Boulogne, and the Sergeant said “I don't understand what you are talking about. Give me your address”. The defendant then said “I'll tell you where he lives, but I don't know the number. He lives in Warren Road”. The man said “I have been many years in Boulogne. My wife is an actress”.

The Clerk: Did you hear any conversation between the landlord and Swift outside the room?

Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Warman said “Come outside and I will explain the whole matter to you”. On going into the bar Mr. Warman said “These fishermen had been at sea 24 hours, and had just come in, and I thought I was entitled to give them a drink. As for the other man and woman, they come here occasionally, but I don't know who they are. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me when they are in the house, and I wish you would turn them out”. After a while, on being spoken to, they went out.

The Clerk: In what state were they?

Witness: They were drunk, both of them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: You are not an expert, but you are a bit of a French scholar? – No, sir.

Without being a French scholar you understood that this gentleman was talking French? – Yes, sir.

And he had talked English before? – Yes.

Could you make out his French? – I did, sir.

You understood what he said in French? – Yes, sir.

And what he said in English? – Yes.

And do you mean to say that a gentleman who talks French that you can understand, and English that you can understand is drunk? Do you meant to say that a gentleman talking these two languages is drunk? – Witness gave no reply.

You don't give me an answer. Did the lady talk in English and French? – No, sir.

You know all these smacks? – A few of them.

How many years have you been boat inspector? – About seven.

You know all these smacks, and smacksmen, for you have lived your live among them? – Yes, sir.

You know the smack these men belong to? – I know the one they went in.

Had it come in that night? – I don't know, sir.

Did you make any inquiry as to whether their story was true? – No, sir.

You are only here (as I am and the Magistrates are) in the interests of justice, and don't you think it would be only fair to make enquiries? – I did not make the report, the Sergeant did.

Is that your only answer? – That is all, sir.

By the Justices' Clerk: It had been raining that night, but as the men had not got their sea things on I could not tell whether they had been to sea or not.

This was the case for the prosecution, and evidence for the defence was called, as follows.

Benjamin Harris, ferryman at the Harbour, deposed: It is my duty to call the fishermen and ferry them to their smacks. Cornish, Hopkins, and Weatherhead form the crew of the smack Emily. I ferried them out to the smack on Sunday night, the 5th November, and they returned about 11 o'clock on Monday night, the 6th, having been to sea all that time.

Henry May, owner of the smack Emily, deposed: Cornish has been taking my place as Captain during the last three months while I have been acting as a licensed auctioneer on the fish market. The smack went to sea on the 5th at 11 o'clock, and my son was one of the crew. He returned home at 11.15 on Monday night, the 6th, and his clothes were so wet that my wife got up, made a fire, and hung them up to dry. The three men named by the police were members of the crew.

Mrs. Emily Cloughton, examined: What are you, Mrs. Cloughton? – I am an artist, and have been for 18 years.

What sort of artist? – A singer and dancer. I went with my husband to defendant's house on the night of the 6th inst. My husband and I lived in Warren Road since the 7th August, and on the 4th November my husband wrote (letter produced) to defendant, asking him to appoint Monday night, the 6th, for me to see a piano, that being the only night I was disengaged. In consequence of that letter my husband and I went to the house on the 6th.

This is a disagreeable question to put to a lady at any time, but I am bound to put it to you after the evidence of the Sergeant. Were you intoxicated? – Not that I am aware of, sir.

What did you have to drink in the house? – A small lemon and a glass of common ale I had at home.

You only had the lemon in defendant's house? – Only the lemonade. I never had a whisky in my lips.

There is no question that you were in the house? – I was in the private kitchen waiting to see the piano.

The Clerk: What time did you go to the house? – At half past ten.

What time did you leave? About half past eleven, as near as possible; after we were disturbed.

Did you write this letter? – No, my husband did.

How was it sent? – My little son, 13 years of age, took it down.

Wm. Joseph Cloughton, husband of the last witness, proved writing and sending the letter to defendant about the piano.

We hear that you answered the constable in French and English, as he understood you in both languages. Were you drunk at the house? – Certainly not. No more than I am now.

This concluded the evidence for the defence.

After hearing Mr. Mowll, the Justices retired to the Mayor's parlour and spent about a quarter of an hour in private consultation. On their return to Court, The Mayor said: George Warman, the Bench have very carefully considered these charges against you, and they are of the unanimous opinion that as regards the charge of selling intoxicating drink during prohibited hours the charge is not proved to our satisfaction, and we therefore dismiss it. The charge of permitting drunkenness is, in the opinion of the Bench, fully proved. We therefore fine you in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, to be levied by distress, and in default one month's imprisonment, and the licence is to be endorsed. (Sensation in Court)

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 22 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

A case in which a publican met with what most people will think rather “hard lines” came before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Fitness on Wednesday.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on the 6th of November, and also with permitting drunkenness on his premises on the same occasion. Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended.

The evidence of P.S. Swift and P.C. Brice was to the effect that on the night in question they went into the defendant's house and saw two fishermen come in, who were served with rum, which was paid for. These men, the defendant stated, had just come from sea, and he regarded them as travellers. While the police were in the house another man also put in an appearance, and he was the worse for liquor, but not so bad but that he had sense enough to say that he was all right and was a lodger. Defendant, however, very candidly told the man that he was not a lodger and that he must leave. In another room was a woman, the wife of this man, whom the police also described as having been drunk. At the request of the defendant Swift asked them to leave, which they did.

The defence, which was supported by several witnesses, was that the fishermen had only just come home, having been away at sea since the previous night; while as to the drunkenness, this was denied both by the woman and her husband, who explained their presence on the premises by asserting that they had gone to look at a piano, the woman being a professional singer. Mr. Mowll contended that it was a custom, honoured in the observance in every seaport town, of landlords supplying fishermen with rum on their return, wet and tired, at night from a trip to sea.

After a consultation in private the Bench found the charge of the unlawful sale of liquor not proven, but they considered that of permitting drunkenness had been fully proved, and fined the luckless landlord 50s. and 14s. costs, and ordered the licence to be endorsed. The severity of the decision created a considerable amount of surprise in court.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 November 1893.

Local News.

The Borough Police Court was crowded on Wednesday, when the Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and Mr. J. Fitness were engaged for some three hours in hearing a case which arose out of one which was before the court last week, when the landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was fined for permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 6th instant. The defendants were William Joseph Cloughton, who described himself as an engineer, and Emily Clouhgton, his wife, a singer and dancer, who were summoned for being drunk on the premises.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover, appeared for the defendants.

Sergeant Swift repeated his evidence as to visiting the Ship Inn at 25 minutes past 11 on the 6th instant, entering by the front door, which was standing ajar. While the witness was in conversation with the landlord the male defendant came into the bar from the front room. He was drunk, and he pushed against witness saying “All right. Don't trouble yourself. I will explain this. I am a lodger here”. The landlord said “No, you are not a lodger here. Go away and leave the Sergeant alone”. He went back into the room. Witness went with the landlord into the front room, where he saw a woman sitting beside the table. Cloughton said “This is my wife”. She was drunk and in a half-dazed condition. A glass containing whisky was standing before her on the table. Witness tasted it and handed it to Boat Inspector Brice, who accompanied him, to taste also. Witness asked the male defendant for his correct name and address. He commenced talking in some foreign language, and witness said he would take him to the police station. Witness then said to the woman “Perhaps you will give me your husband's name and address”. She murmured something he could not understand and afterwards said “My husband is an independent gentleman”. The male defendant ultimately gave him his name, but refused his address. Witness said to the landlord in the defendants' presence “That man and woman are drunk”, and after a few seconds the landlord replied “They have had nothing to drink since 11”. When the landlord requested the defendants to leave the house the man said to his wife “Come along” but it was some few seconds before she attempted to move. She then attempted to get up out of her seat by hanging on to the table with her hands. She dropped back into her seat, and it was not until she made a third attempt that she got on to her legs. While she was arranging her hat in front of the glass she swaggered to and fro. Her husband assisted her out into the street and they went off together arm in arm, walking very slowly and unsteadily.

By Mr. Glyn: Witness gave evidence at the hearing of the objection to the renewal of the licence of the Ship before the Licensing Justices, and he also gave evidence at the Quarter Sessions when the ruling of the Folkestone Magistrates was revoked. He had not been instructed to watch this house. He was not watching it on the night in question, but happened to be casually passing. Since he gave evidence on the last occasion, when the landlord of the house was charged, he had not made a statement to the Superintendent or to anybody about his evidence. He had not seen the Superintendent about it or discussed the subject with him. Before the last hearing he made a written report to the Superintendent.

Mr. Glyn: Is that here?

Sergeant Swift: I don't know.

Mr. Glyn: I call for it, please.

Supt. Taylor said he had not got it.

Mr. Fitness said they were re-hearing the case and he did not see what it had to do with it.

Mr. Glyn said at the last hearing he omitted nearly the whole of the evidence he had given that day.

Mr. Bradley: He was not asked about it.

Mr. Glyn: Mr. Bradley must either act as your adviser, or he can prosecute, but he cannot do both.

Mr. Bradley: I have only done what has always been done – interrogated the witnesses – and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Glyn: We shall see, Mr. Bradley. I wish to have a note taken on the depositions. Any observations you make will not have any effect.

Mr. Bradley replied “Nor will your observations have any effect”. Then, turning to Supt. Taylor, he remarked “You do not produce it?”

Mr. Glyn: I have a shorthand writer.

Mr. Bradley: Bother the shorthand writer.

Mr. Glyn: Shorthand writer, take a note of it. He says “Bother the shorthand writer”, and tells the Superintendent not to produce it.

Mr. Bradley: It is most untrue.

Mr. Glyn (to witness): Do you know whether the report you made to the Superintendent is in existence or not?

Witness: I do not know. I made it verbally and the Superintendent wrote it down.

Mr. Glyn: Do you suggest that you have given the same evidence today as you gave when you were heard on the last occasion?

Witness: I did not detail her state. I gave her general behaviour.

Why did you leave it out? – I was not pressed for it.

Did you say a word last time about having tasted what was in the glass, and finding it to be whisky? – I did not. I said the glass contained whisky.

Did you forget last time, or think that it was not material? – I was not cross-examined on it. I have given the details totay. Did anybody tell you to do that? – No.

In the statement you made to the Superintendent did you tell him the woman was in a half-dazed condition, and that you tasted what was in the glass? – I told him, but I don't know whether he took it down.

The witness was further cross-examined at length by Mr. Glyn, who, in the course of his questions, asked “Which was the more drunk of the two, the husband or the wife?”

Witness: I don't think there was any distinction between them. The one appeared to be ridiculously drunk and the other stupidly drunk.

As a policeman do you think it is a distinction without a difference? – There is a little difference, certainly.

The husband was sufficiently sober to give his wife his arm and conduct her into the street? – A drunken man could do that easily.

Do you think it evidence of drunkenness for a husband to give his wife his arm? – They did that to support each other.

Supt. Taylor: In the case last week you were giving evidence against the landlord? – Yes.

On that occasion did you go into details about the condition of the defendants? – No.

Boat Inspector Brice, who accompanied the last witness to the house, gave corroborative evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Glyn, the witness said at the last hearing he did not give certain details at to the defendants' condition which he had done in his evidence that day because he was not pressed for them. He was simply asked their condition, and he said they were drunk.

The case for the prosecution having been closed, Mr. Glyn said he proposed to call one or two witnesses, and then offer a few observations to the Bench.

William Joseph Cloughton said he was an engineer, but was not in occupation. He had lived at 5, Warren Road since the 7th August. Witness wrote a letter, dated 4th November, to Warman, the landlord of the Ship Inn, and in consequence he went to the Ship on the evening in question. He went there at half past ten for the purpose of examining Mr. Warman's piano, with the view of purchasing it. Witness left home about seven o'clock to see the carnival procession. He was accompanied by William Wilson, and his wife, and they went to the Harvey Hotel, where they each had a drink. Before leaving home witness had a glass of bitter. They had nothing else until they went to Warman's house. During the evening witness met a man named Brice and had some conversation with him. On arriving at the Ship, witness went into the kitchen. Mr. Warman was attending behind the bar, and he asked witness to wait a few moments. While there witness had a brandy and soda. They had nothing else to drink in the house that night. There was no whisky on the table there. The glass which the sergeant tasted contained lemonade – not whisky. Neither witness, his wife, nor his friend were the worse for liquor. The sergeant asked him his address and he gave it to him in French for a joke, but he afterwards gave it to him in English. Witness certainly did not refuse to give his name. He did not say he was a lodger. His wife was not in a half-dazed, stupid condition. He never heard her say witness was an independent gentleman. There was no truth in the statement that his wife had great difficulty in getting up from her seat. There was no truth in the statement that they could not get along without staggering when they left the house. Witness had never been charged with drunkenness before.

Emily Cloughton, the wife of the last witness, also gave evidence, describing herself as a singer and dancer. She stated that she had never been intoxicated in her life. Witness had an abscess in her knee for which she was attended by Dr. Ellis and it was difficult for her to rise from her seat.

John Taylor, the Superintendent of Police, called by Mr. Glyn, said on the same night as the occurrence happened at the Ship, Sergeant Swift made a statement to him which he took down shortly. He could not say whether it existed now. It was handed in to the Court at the last hearing.

Mr. Glyn then called for the report in question, and Mr. Bradley said he was informed by his clerk that he tore it up after the sitting at the last Court.

William Wilson, a fireman in the employ of the S.E. Company, and Herbert Price, fly proprietor, who were in company with the defendants on the evening in question both gave evidence to the effect that the defendants were perfectly sober when they left them. Wilson left them at th Ship at 10 minutes to 11.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper at the Ship Inn, said she had been out on the night in question, and returned at quarter to 11. The police came to the house half an hour afterwards. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Cloughton were the worse for liquor. When the sergeant tasted the contents of the glass belonging to defendant which was on the table and said it was whisky, witness informed him that it was lemonade.

Charles Marsh, who manages the bar at the Harvey Hotel for his mother, gave evidence as to the liquor with which the defendants were supplied at the house, and said when they left they were perfectly sober.

By Superintendent Taylor: There were three others serving in the bar, and it was possible they might have had other drink than that with which witness served them.

Mr. Glyn, in the course of a forcible summing up, said it was unfortunate that the case had already been investigated by the same Bench, because having come to the conclusion that the holder of the licence had permitted drunkenness by reason of the two persons having been drunk in the house, they would stultify themselves if they came to the conclusion that this case was not proved. Although he saw that difficulty, he was quite sure that the Bench would look at this case from an entirely impartial point of view, and so far as they could they would shut out from their eyes anything that had previously happened with reference to the house. He submitted without fear of contradiction that if the case was brought up for the first time that day no Bench would say the charge was made out against the two defendants. In the last case the point was as to whether or not the landlord permitted drunken persons to be on the premises, and the suggestion of Mr. Mowll, who conducted the case, was that the persons were not drunk, and that the reasons which were given by the witnesses for coming to the conclusion that these two persons were drunk were not sufficient for the Bench to act upon. It was a most extraordinary thing that the two policemen should have omitted all the strong points in their previous evidence and never said a word about them, although the matter was then fresh in their recollection. He ventured to say that the evidence would not be relied upon by any Court of Justice of a witness who omitted the most important part of the evidence to which his attention was directed and who afterwards put in a lot of extraordinary details for the purpose of affecting a decision then before the Bench. When he heard the constables endeavour to get out of it by telling them that they had made a statement to the Superintendent he thought it right to call on the Superintendent, without having the slightest knowledge as to where the memorandum was or anything of the kind. He had not had an opportunity of seeing it, but Sergeant Swift swore he made all these statements to the Superintendent of Police, a man of large experience, who must have known that all those statements were of the utmost importance to prove drunkenness against this house; and having regard to what had already taken place with reference to the house, he asked them whether it was human, if the statements were made, he should not have recorded them? The Superintendent's answer was that he took down general things. Mr. Bradley had seen the document and he would be able to tell them as to whether the statement produced at the last Court by the Superintendent contained all those details. He (Mr. Glyn) must ask them what a Judge of Assize, Mr. Justice Hawkins for instance, would say to a policeman, a Superintendent or anybody who had taken part in these prior proceedings and having this statement made to him omitted to take not of it? He ventured to submit that any Judge would say that such evidence when it was afterwards given was not reliable. He (Mr. Glyn) did not ask them to find that the evidence was untrue, but he asked them to say that they were not satisfied with it, and that his clients were entitled to be discharged.

The Magistrates retired for deliberation and on their return to Court the Mayor said: There is a decided conflict of evidence in this case and we are called upon to decide which set of witnesses we believe. We unanimously believe the evidence of the police constables, and we therefore fine each of the defendants in the sum of 5s. and 13s. costs, leviable by distress, or in default seven days' imprisonment.

Mr. Mowll: We shall, of course, have to consider the effect the decision given today will have upon the notice of appeal we have given in the other case. I must, therefore, ask the Superintendent of Police not to take any further steps in the matter until I communicate with him, because I may have to intimate to him that the matter will not proceed further.

 

Folkestone Express 25 November 1893.

Wednesday, November 22nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

William Joseph Cloughton and Emily Cloughton, man and wife, were charged with being drunk in the Ship Inn on the night of the 6th November. They pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Mr. Mowll, appeared for the defendants.

Sergeant Swift repeated the evidence he gave last week as to his visit to the Ship on the night in question. He added that when he went into the front room he saw a woman seated at the table. Cloughton said it was his wife. She was in a dazed and stupid condition. A glass containing whisky stood on the table before her. He knew it was whisky because he tasted it, and handed it to inspector Brice to taste it. The woman said “Yes, it is mine”. He said to the woman, after he had threatened to take the man to the station if he did not give his name and address, “Perhaps you can give me your husband's name and address and particulars”. She murmured something he could not understand. Afterwards she said “My husband is a gentleman”. He said to the landlord “That man and woman are drunk”. After a pause of two or three seconds the landlord said “They have had nothing to drink here since eleven”. After they were requested to leave, the woman sat for some few seconds before she attempted to move. Then she got up out of her seat by hanging on the table with her hands. She dropped back into her seat, and at the third attempt she succeeded and stood on her legs. She stood in front of the glass arranging her hat, swinging to and fro, quite intoxicated. While she was doing that the man said “Don't take any notice of my wife. She has been on the stage”. She then went to the front door. Her husband took her arm and assisted her into the street. They went up towards the railway, arm in arm together, walking very slowly indeed.

In answer to Mr. Glyn, witness said he was a witness in the case at the Quarter Sessions. He had had no conversation with the Superintendent or anyone else as to the evidence he was going to give that day. No-one instructed him to watch the Ship Inn. He went there casually. He admitted that on the last occasion he did not say the woman was in a half-dazed and stupid condition. On the last occasion he was not examined or cross-examined as to the details. He said nothing about the woman staggering or being assisted into the street by her husband and going off arm-in-arm with him. Asked as to which was the most drunk of the two he said there did not appear to be much difference – one appeared to be ridiculously drunk, and the other stupidly drunk.

Boat Inspector Brice repeated the evidence he gave on the last occasion, and also added somewhat to it. He said that when he went into the room where the defendants had been sitting, Swift took up a glass from the table and said “Taste that, Brice”. He tasted it and said “It's whisky”. The woman appeared to him to be drunk. Her hat was disarranged, and it took her some little time to get it right in front of the glass. After some few seconds the defendants went out together.

In cross-examination by Mr. Glyn, witness said he made no statement to the Superintendent, and he had had no conversation with anybody about it since. He said on the last occasion all he had said that day, to the best of his recollection. He wasn't asked about tasting the whisky last time. He never said anything then about the lady having two or three tries to get up and falling back in the chair again. He was asked their condition, and he said they were both drunk. The man could talk coherently, and they could both walk.

Mr. Glyn then called several witnesses for the defence. The first was William Joseph Cloughton, the male defendant. He said he was supposed to be an engineer, and lived at 5, Warren Road. He had received a communication from Mr. Warman about a piano, and arranged to see him on Monday night at the Ship Inn. He left home about seven o'clock on the night of the 6th, with his wife and a young man named Wilson. They all went together to the Harvey Hotel, where he had a half tankard of bitter, his wife a half tankard of stout, and Wilson two pennyworth of whisky. They stayed to see the torchlight procession, and then went to the Ship Inn, which they reached at half past ten. They had nothing to drink till they got there. On the way there they met a man named Price. That was about nine o'clock. They had some conversation with him. When they got to the Ship, Warman was busy and could not attend to them. He had a glass of brandy and soda, and his wife had lemonade. Wilson had soda. His wife had no whisky, and there was no glass containing whisky on the table. The glass the policeman took up contained lemonade. The policeman said it was whisky, and she replied that it was lemonade. Neither of them was the worse for wear. He first answered the policeman in French, and gave an address in Boulogne. He did not refuse to give his name, nor did he say he was a lodger. He did not hear his wife say he was an independent gentleman. There was no truth in the statement that his wife attempted to get up twice from her seat before she succeeded. He had never been charged with drunkenness before.

Emily Cloughton gave similar evidence, and said she had never been intoxicated in her life. It was not true to say she attempted twice to get up from her chair before she succeeded. She had an abscess on her knee, and had been attended by Dr. Ellis.

Superintendent Taylor was next called, and in reply to Mr. Glyn he said he took a note of the report made by Sergeant Swift. He could not say if it was in existence now.

Mr. Bradley explained that the report was the notes handed to him for the purpose of examining the witnesses. His Clerk informed him that after the case was over he destroyed it. It was on a half sheet of foolscap – he thought there were two.

William Wilson, a young man in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, who was in the company of the defendants on the evening in question, said they only had what the defendants said they had to drink. They were perfectly sober when he left them about ten minutes to eleven, so he saw nothing of what took place when the policeman came in.

Herbert Price, a fly proprietor, said he saw the defendants about nine o'clock, and they were talking to him about a fly they wanted on the following Saturday. He knew them very well and had often driven them about, but never saw them the worse for drink. He had known them since the middle of August.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper to Mr. Warman, said she was in the house during the time the policeman was there. The Cloughtons were sitting in the kitchen. The glass the sergeant took up from the table was hers and it contained aired lemonade. It was not true that Mrs. Cloughton made two unsuccessful attempts to get up. Mr. Cloughton gave the sergeant his name when he was asked for it. The sergeant took him by the collar and said he would take him to the police station. The house was closed at five minutes to eleven; only Mr. and Mrs. Cloghton remained.

Charles Marsh, assistant to his mother, landlady of the Harvey Hotel, corroborated the defendants' statements as to what they had to drink there. He served them.

In reply to Superintendent Taylor, he said there were two others serving in the bar, and he could not say whether they served defendants with anything or not.

Mr. Glyn then made an eloquent and long speech for the defendants, his main contention being that as the police evidence had been extended so much in detail compared to what it was on the first occasion it was the duty of the Magistrates to say not that it was untrue, but that it was unreliable.

The Magistrates then retired to consider their decision, and were absent for some time. On their return the Mayor said: The decision of the Bench is as follows. I will read it. There is a direct conflict of evidence in this case. We are called on to decide which set of witnesses we believe. We unanimously believe the evidence of the police constables, and we therefore fine each of the defendants in the sum of 5s. and 13s. costs, leviable by distress, and in default of payment seven days' imprisonment.

Mr. Mowll said they would consider the effect of the decision. They were ready then to enter into their recognisances with respect to the notice of appeal given in the other case. He would carefully consider the evidence given that day, because he might have to notify that the matter would not be proceeded with further.

Recognisances were then entered into to prosecute the appeal from the decision of the Bench in the case against Warman.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Last week we gave a full report of the prosecution instituted by the police authorities against the landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, on the charge of having permitted drunkenness on his premises upon the night of the 6th November inst. In the result the defendant landlord was convicted and the Justices directed that the conviction be endorsed upon the licence. It will also be recollected that the persons alleged to have been found drunk on the premises were William J. Cloughton and his wife Emily Cloughton, who were stated to be “artists”, and who were residing at No. 5, Warren Road, in this town. Since the hearing of that case, the decision in which is, we believe, about to be appealed from, Mr. and Mrs. Cloughton have been summoned for having been drunk upon the Ship Inn premises upon the night of the 6th instant. The case came on for hearing on Wednesday morning before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, of Mowll and Mowll, solicitors, Dover) was retained for the defence; the prosecution was conducted by Mr. John Taylor, the Superintendent of the Folkestone Police. Each of the defendants denied the charge of drunkenness, and the evidence for the prosecution was to a great extent a recapitulation of the testimony given on the hearing of the case against the landlord, though, of course directed more in detail to the specific charge now under investigation.

Police Sergeant Swift, in support of the case, said that he was accompanied on the night in question by Boat Inspector Brice, and on walking along Radnor Street they saw lights and heard voices in the bar of the house. Witness and Brice both entered, and found defendants drunk. The female defendant was half-dazed and in a stupid condition. A glass containing whisky stood before her. The landlord (Warman) said they had had nothing to drink since eleven. The woman was sitting down and tried to get up by hanging on to the table. On the third attempt she succeeded. Whilst she was arranging her hat, before a glass, the male defendant said “Don't take any notice of my wife. She has been on the stage”. Her husband ultimately assisted her out into the street, and they walked in a staggering state towards the railway.

Examined by Mr. Glyn, the constable said he gave evidence before the Justices, and also at the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury on the appeal in reference to the Tramway licence. No-one had instructed him to watch the house. Witness was casually passing. He had made no statement to the Superintendent or anyone else since the last hearing. Witness had made a verbal report to the Superintendent, which that official had written down.

Mr. Glyn: I call for that report.

Mr. Bradley: We do not produce it.

In further examination the witness said he did not know whether the report was in existence. He suggested that he gave the same evidence as he did in the other case. If he had not mentioned certain facts then it was because he was not pressed for them. The cross-examination of this witness was continued for a long time, but was mainly directed to the evidence given now for the first time by the witness, whose explanation throughout was that on the prosecution of Warman he had only given replies to the questions which had been put to him as being then considered the most material to the issue.

P.C. Brice, Boat Inspector, was also called, and gave corroborative evidence. He, likewise was submitted to a close cross-examination, but his evidence-in-chief remained unshaken.

The defendants, on being severally sworn, denied the accusation. The learned Counsel placed, through their evidence, a complete history of the defendants' movements that evening before the Court. It appeared that, as stated last week, they had made an appointment with Warman as to inspecting a piano which the latter had on sale. The procession of masqueraders took place the same evening, and both the defendants went out to see it, leaving home about seven o'clock. They were accompanied by William Wilson, a fireman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and living at 12, Warren Road. They walked about for a time, awaiting the procession, and called at Harvey's Hotel, where they had drinks. – Mr. Cloughton half a tankard of bitter, Mrs. Cloughton half a tankard of stout, and Wilson 2d. worth of whiskey. When the procession came by they followed it, and ultimately proceeded to the Ship Inn, which they reached at 10.30, and where Wilson remained with the defendants until 10.50. During the interval the drink had on the premises was – Mr. Cloughton a brandy and soda, Mrs. Cloughton a lemonade, and Mr. Wilson a small soda. Each of these three people swore in the most positive terms to their individual sobriety at the hour named, 10.50 p.m., and it was deposed also by the Cloughtons that neither of the latter had anything else to drink at the house that night. The difficulty which Mrs. Cloughton had in rising from the chair was caused by the fact that, owing to a fall on the stage, she has been suffering from an abscess in the knee, for which she had been under surgical treatment.

Herbert Price, a fly proprietor, who has frequently driven the Cloughtons about the town and neighbourhood, proved that he met them that night about nine o'clock in Tontine Street, that they were then perfectly sober, and that on all occasions when he had driven them out they had been distinguished for sobriety.

After a long address from the learned Counsel, who dealt exhaustively with the various aspects of the case, the Justices retired with their learned Clerk to consider the evidence. In the result, the defendants were convicted, and were ordered to pay, severally, a fine and costs amounting to 7s. 6d.

Great interest was taken in this prosecution, the little courtroom being crowded to it's utmost capacity.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 November 1893.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Town Hall, on Wednesday, before the Mayor, in the chair, Mrs. Emily Claughton, described as an actress, and Mr. William Claughton, of 5, Warren Road, were charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of the Ship Inn, on the 6th November. Mr. Glyn, barrister, defended.

According to the evidence of the prosecution, Mr. Claughton was found drunk in the bar of the Ship Inn by P.S. Swift and P.C. Brice. In the front room Mrs. Claughton was sitting at a table in a half-dazed condition. When leaving the house Mrs. Claughton had to make three attempts before she succeeded in standing up.

The defence was an absolute denial of the evidence of the constable, and several witnesses were called to prove the absolute sobriety of the defendants. Mrs. Claughton was said to have injured her knee by a fall on the stage, and that accounted for her being unable to rise readily from her chair.

The Bench convicted, and fined each defendant 5s. and 13s. costs, or seven days’ imprisonment in default. It was intimated that an appeal might be made.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 29 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Considerable interest was manifested in a case which came before The Mayor and Messrs. Fitness and Pledge on Wednesday, when Mr. William and Mrs. Emily Cloughton, of 5, Warren Road, were summoned for having been drunk on licensed premises, the Ship Inn.

The charge arose out of another which was heard at a previous sitting when the same Magistrates inflicted a fine of 50s. and costs on the landlord of the inn for permitting the drunkenness in question.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, appeared for the defence.

The case, as stated by Sergt. Swift and P.C. Brice, was that on the evening in question, about five minutes after eleven, the two constables went into the Ship Inn, and there found the two defendants. Mr. Cloughton said he was a lodger, which the landlord, however, denied. When asked for his address he gave it in French, and the police had to threaten to take him to the station before they could obtain it. Mrs. Cloughton they described as in such an advanced state of intoxication that they could not understand what she said, except that her husband was a gentleman, and she had to make three attempts before she could rise from her chair.

During the hearing of the case Mr. Glyn called for the original report made by the officers to the Superintendent. The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley) at that point interfered, and Mr. Glyn intimated that it would be as well for him either to act as adviser to the Bench, or prosecutor – he could not do both. Mr. Bradley said he had only done what had always been done and he should continue to do. Upon this Mr. Glyn told him his observations would not have much effect, and Mr. Bradley returned the compliment. Mr. Glyn stated that he could produce a shorthand writer to give evidence as to what the constables stated at the first hearing, but Mr. Bradley objected, remarking “Bother the shorthand writer”.

The defence was a total denial of the charge, both defendants flatly contradicting the story of the police. Mrs. Cloughton said she was an actress, and had been living at Boulogne until the middle of August, since when she had been living at Folkestone. She had injured her knee, and that prevented her rising readily from her seat. A Mr. Wilson and other witnesses also swore that all the female defendant had to drink was a glass of stout at the Harvey Hotel, and that at the Ship what she had was lemonade, which the police had declared to be whiskey. Mr. Cloughton had a soda and brandy at the Ship. Several witnesses testified to the fact that both were absolutely sober, while defendants explained their presence in the house by stating that they had gone to look at a piano.

Mr. Glyn, in addressing the Bench, said he would not ask the Magistrates to stultify their former decision by declining to believe the police, but to say that the evidence was not satisfactory, and with this end in view he very forcibly reviewed the case.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into court the Mayor said there was a decided conflict of evidence, and they were called upon to decide which they believed, and they unanimously believed the constables. Defendants would therefore be fined 5s. and 13s. costs each; in default seven days'.

Mr. Glyn intimated that very possibly the decision would be appealed against.

 

Folkestone Express 23 December 1893.

Wednesday, December 20th: Before J. Fitness and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Aldermen Dunk and Pledge.

Susannah Freeman was charged with assaulting Jane Hogben on December 18th.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper to Mr. Warman at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, said on Monday evening, between half past four and five, she was in the bar, when defendant, who is Mr. Warman's half-sister, came into the bar and tried to push her out. Witness told defendant to go out, but she said she would not, as everything in the place belonged to her. Defendant then knocked witness down and threatened to knock her brains out. She took a poker to defend herself, but did not strike defendant.

Esther Taylor, servant in the employ of Mr. Warman, said she saw the defendant come in on Monday, and asked her “where the thing was”, and went into the bar and threatened to knock plaintiff's brains out.

Thomas Warman, a fisherman, said he saw defendant try to turn Mrs. Hogben out of a chair, and heard her threaten to knock the plaintiff's brains out.

The Bench bound the defendant over in her own recognisance of 10 for the period of three months, and to pay 13s. costs.

 

From a local paper 1893.

George Warman, licensee, was fined 50s. and 14s. costs, for allowing drunkenness on his premises. He was also a fish buyer.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 April 1894.

Local News. Transfer.

The following transfer was granted at the Police Court on Wednesday: Ship, Radnor Street, to John G. Griggs.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 May 1896.

Kaleidoscope.

An interesting licensing application was made by Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, on Saturday to the Magistrates, but which was not sustained. The points raised by Mr. Haines are, however, worthy of consideration, and no doubt they are points that the Trade Association will consider sooner or later.

Mr. Haines' application was in respect of three houses in the vicinity of the harbour, and it was supported by two petitions, one bearing eighty five signatures, and another signed by 150 men, chiefly employees of the South Eastern railway Company. Mr. Haines pointed out that for the Folkestone fishing industry alone this application should be considered. The fishermen could not at all times enter the harbour at such an hour as to enable them to get any refreshment before the houses were opened at six o'clock.

But further, during the mackerel season there were some forty or fifty boats that came from Newhaven, Ramsgate, and other places, and when these boats entered Folkestone harbour at hours between two and six o'clock in the morning, they invariably knocked up his clients. The local fishermen could not be considered bona fide travellers, but with regard to the other fishermen, his clients had to be very careful whom they admitted, and had always to see the boats in order to justify admittance.

Very often those Newhaven fishermen put up at these houses, and though this application was made, it was not made so as to enable the landlords to sell drink entirely. They invariably supplied coffee and other refreshments. Put shortly, a local boat's crew, after being at sea all night, on arriving at the harbour at say two or three o'clock in the morning, have to wait until six o'clock, under the existing conditions, before they can secure any refreshment.

The teetotallers themselves will think this hard, and it would be equally hard on the mother of the household to be expected to have food or any kind of refreshment prepared at this early hour.

But then again, it is hard on the railway employees, who have to turn out of their homes at very early hours, to meet and work on the boats bringing cargoes of produce for the London markets. These men can get no refreshment or stimulants of any kind until the public houses open at the hour of six.

When we consider the industries concerned, the application was a reasonable one, and one which, in our opinion, the Bench should have given due consideration to. The matter will doubtless be taken up by the Licensed Victuallers Trade, whose duty it is not only to look after their own interests but those of the public.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 May 1896.

Saturday, May 16th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness.

Mr. Haines applied that early opening licences be granted to three public houses. He said there was not a single one in the borough, and he thought when the Bench had heard the evidence they would be prepared to grant some, especially considering that they could at any time revoke them.

In the first case he applied on behalf of John Grigg, of the Ship Inn, The Stade, that he might open his house at 3 o'clock to accommodate the fishermen. There were some 68 or 70 boats that, by reason of the harbour being a tidal one, sometimes had to come in at hours when the public houses were not open, and were unable to obtain any kind of refreshment, although they had been for hours battling with the wind and the weather. They were not bona fide travellers, although they had been out to sea. In the mackerel and herring seasons there were boats from Newhaven, Shoreham, etc., put in and the applicant was knocked up, but for fear of offending the law he had great difficulty in finding out if the men were really travellers. He did not intend to keep open for the purpose of drinking, but simply to accommodate these men. Grigg had been two years in the house and had conducted it properly.

In the case of the other two applicants, they only wanted to open at 5 a.m. instead of 6.

Mr. Haines called Grigg, who bore out the statement.

Superintendent Taylor said he was not aware that anything had arisen recently that showed any need of an alteration. He presumed it was because of the remarks that were made the previous Saturday as to Dover, but at Dover there was a great vegetable market, and men came long distances from their houses to attend it. Mr. Haines' arguments were illogical, for he might as well argue that because there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, Dover did not require them. If this application was granted, the applicant would be able to keep open continuously from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. If boats from Shoreham came in they could be served, and if the police prosecuted there would be a good defence, as they would be bona fide travellers.

The next application was by George Kirby, of the Chequers Inn, who desired to open at 5 a.m. to supply the workmen going to work at the Harbour, especially to the fruit boats.

The Chairman said they must decline all the applications, for if they granted one they would be obliged in justice to grant all. Mr. Haines had fought well, but had failed to show that the licences were needed.

 

Folkestone Express 23 May 1896.

Saturday, May 16th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Haines appeared before the Bench and made an application in respect of three exceptional licences for certain houses in the town. It will be remembered that a few days ago a publican was fined for opening his house a few minutes before six o'clock in the morning in order to supply the men who were going to work, and Mr. Mowll, who appeared for the defendant, expressed surprise that there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, there being no less than 33 in Dover. Mr. Haines said the Section under which he applied was 26 of the Licensing Act of 1872, which he read. The exception which he was about to ask the Bench to grant was in respect to three houses, and he pointed out that it was entirely in the discretion of the Bench. It was a matter entirely of evidence, and he thought the Magistrates would see that it was desirable to grant them. The matter was so much in their hands, that should they think proper at any time to revoke a licence so granted, they could make a revocation order.

The first case was that of Mr. J.G. Gregg, of the Ship Inn, and it was in respect of the fishing industry that the application was made. There were now 65 or 70 boats, and they could not come into the harbour at all times, as it was tidal. The boats went out at all hours of the day, and came in often at three or four in the morning, and the houses being closed, there was no means of the men getting refreshments if they required. As they resided in the town, they were not entitled to come under the definition of bona fide travellers. In the mackerel season 20 or 30 boats came in from other ports, and the crews often required refreshments from these houses. If the permission was granted, it was not intended to keep the house open, but merely to open when it was required. Mr. Gregg did not ask for the house to be allowed for the house to be open from one until three, but only from three till six. Mr. Haines then put in a memorial signed by the fishermen themselves to the number of 85, and said he had given notice of the application to Superintendent Taylor. There was nothing against Gregg, who had been two years in the house, and had conducted it in a proper manner.

Mr. Holden: You say there are two others.

Mr. Haines replied that there was only one application for an early opening licence, the others were different – applications to be allowed to open at five.

Mr. Bradley remarked that the memorial was in favour of what the Bench had no power to grant – a tidal licence. The signatures also were many of them in the same writing, and there were crosses to them.

Mr. Haines replied that many of the men could not write, and Mr. Gregg had permission to put their names, and they appended crosses.

John Galley Gregg was then called, and gave evidence as to his having been frequently asked to serve men at all hours of the night, and, under present circumstances, he had to go out and ascertain if their statements were correct. He said there were between 60 and 70 boats, and 250 fishermen. There were also a good many boats from other ports, and some of the crews stayed at his house.

Superintendent Taylor said there were no circumstances within his knowledge which rendered the licence necessary. It was a fact that there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, but there were in Dover, but the circumstances were very different. At Dover, market carts came in from the surrounding districts very early in the morning, and the drivers wanted refreshments. There were also at Dover large ships coming in, in addition to the fishermen. It might just as well be argued that no licences were wanted at Dover because there were none at Folkestone, as to argue that they were wanted at Folkestone because they had them at Dover. He urged that there was no necessity for the houses to be open, and it was very undesirable to make any change in the hours of opening.

Mr. Fitness: You have had no complaints from these fishermen that they cannot get what they want?

Mr. Haines said he believed in Dover there were something like 33.

Mr. Holden said he had sat on the Bench for many years, and he had never heard of a single case of hardship.

Mr. Haines said there was a memorial from the fishermen themselves.

Mr. Fitness said they would take that for what it was worth.

Mr. Haines said the men were often out all night, and there were occasions when they were out all day. It showed what a law abiding community they were, as they had not used the houses at forbidden hours.

Superintendent Taylor said he could not go so far as that, as there had been prosecutions.

Mr. Fitness said after the statement of the Superintendent they could not in all conscience go against it.

Mr. Haines then called Henry George Kirby, of the Chequers, who was an applicant for permission to open at five.

Mr. Holden asked Mr. Haines if it did not occur to him that if the Bench granted those applications, they must grant the same to other applicants. If they took from one end of Radnor Street to the other, there were about 20 houses.

Mr. Haines answered that the others had not applied. The Bench would try every one on it's own basis.

Mr. Holden said in all justice they were bound to give it to one as well as another.

Mr. Haines agreed that it would be so, if they applied for it.

Mr. Bradley said the application did not come from the public, but from the publicans.

Supt. Taylor said it came from the brewers.

Mr. Haines said there was a large body of men who were employed by the South Eastern company at the Harbour.

Mr. Bradley: I am sure the South Eastern Company would not support the application.

Mr. Haines: The men support it.

Mr. Holden: You have made a very eloquent application, but the police are against you.

Mr. Haines: Of course I must bow to the decision of the Bench.

Mr. Holden: You see where we are. If we give it to one we should have to give to another.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Haines has not satisfied you that the thing is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. Haines said he had a memorial signed by 130 workmen, many of them South Eastern Railway men, who had to go to work early in the morning to unload the fruit boats and so on. They could not get refreshments before they left their own homes.

The Bench decided not to grant the applications, although they complimented Mr. Haines on the manner in which he had made them.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1896.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday Mr. Haines made an application in respect of an exemption order, required by the Licensing Act, for certain houses in the town. It was made under Section 36 of the Act. He said he believed that on licensed houses in the town had this early opening, and the Bench would see by the evidence put before them as to the desirability of it. If the Bench should grant this order they would be able to revoke it at any time.

The first application was from the landlord of the Ship Inn, on The Stade. This was made in respect of the fishermen and the fishing industry. They had 70 or 65 boats. These men, after being out fishing, could not always get into the harbour, and after being out all day they came in at about 3 o'clock in the morning, and there was no means of getting the refreshment they desired, as they did not come under the definition of bona fide travellers. Then again in the mackerel season boats came in from Newhaven and other ports, and the landlord had numerous applications in the early morning, and it was with great difficulty that he could exercise his discretion as to who those men were. It was not the landlord's intention to keep the place open for drinking every night, but only when a boat came in. He asked that from 3 to 6 in the morning he should be exempt from closing. He put in a memorial bearing 85 signatures, signed, he believed, by the men themselves, for what it was worth. If the Bench thought the hours too long, he asked them to limit the hours to a shorter period. He did not think the police had anything against the landlord of the house, Grigg, who had been there for two years. He asked the Bench to give the matter consideration, as it had regard to one of the only industries of this town.

Mr. Grigg stated that he was the licence holder of the Ship Inn. The fishing industry was something considerable in Folkestone. There were about 65 boats belonging to that part of the town, and about 250 fishermen. A good many boats came in from neighbouring ports during the mackerel season. During the year he had many of these boats' crews knocking him up for refreshment. If the Bench granted this application it was not his intention to keep the house open always, but only when knocked up.

Superintendent Taylor said that he was not aware of any circumstances that made this early opening desirable. Reference was made in a case the previous week that Dover had early opening houses, but in addition to the ordinary fishing interest, they had a number of large ships coming in there. With regard to ships coming in early in the morning from ports, he had no doubt that if a case of this description was brought before the Bench, it would be argued that those crews were bona fide travellers. He did not think early opening necessary. He had received no complaints from these men about not being able to obtain refreshment. The section Mr. Haines quoted said that early opening could be granted where it was necessary and desirable. It had not been desirable hitherto, and it did not seem to be now.

Mr. Haines said he had another application to make with respect to the Chequers Inn at the bottom of Dover Street. This was for an opening order from 5 to 6 in the morning. He put in a memorial supporting the early opening of this inn, containing 250 signatures. Several of them were S.E.R. men.

The Chairman of the Bench said he believed there were about 20 public houses in this part. If they gave the early opening order to one, the would have in justice to give it to all.

Mr. Haines said the others had not applied for it.

The Chairman said they would be sure to do so. The application was not granted.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 23 May 1896.

Hall Of Justice.

May 16: Before Messrs. Holden, Vaughan, Pledge, and Fitness.

Mr. Haines applied for opening the Harbour Inn (sic) from 3 to 6 a.m. on behalf of the fishermen whose boats came into the harbour. Strongly opposed by Superintendent Taylor. Application refused.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Saturday last – the Mayor (Col. Penfold) presiding – Mr. R. Pay was granted a temporary authority for the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1898.

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

Mr. Pay was granted permission to sell at the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Pay, Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6 August 1898.

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

Transfer was sanctioned to Mr. Kay, Ship Inn.

 

Hythe Reporter 13 August 1898.

Folkestone Police Court.

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

Mr. Richard Pay was granted a transfer of the licence of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street.

 

Folkestone Express 11 November 1899.

Saturday, November 4th: Before The Mayor, Col. Westropp, J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, W. Medhurst, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Pope, architect, produced plans for alterations at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, which were approved.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 November 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last plans were submitted to the Bench for alterations to the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 January 1901.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before Mr. J. Fitness and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Richard Pay, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was charged with having opened his house during prohibited hours on the 6th of January. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Inspector Lilley said that on Sunday, the 6th, in company with P.C. Sales, he watched the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, and about 7.45 a.m. the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At 8 o'clock he again opened the door, looked up and down the street, and admitted a man. Four minutes later the door was opened and the man let out. At the same time a woman went in. At 8.06 the same procedure was gone through. The woman was let out, and another woman went in. Two minutes later she came out, and at 8.14 the door was opened by the landlord, and a fisherman named Boom went in. At 8.19 Boom was let out, but a minute previous to that another man, named White, had been let in by the landlord, and he came out at 8.22. At 8.27 another man, who he believed was the postman, was let in by the landlord, who remarked that he had been looking for him. At 8.36 two milkmen were let in by the landlord, and came out again in two minutes. The door was then opened by defendant's daughter, and a woman went in. She was let out at 8.45 by the daughter. At 8.50, two men, one of whom was the fisherman Boom, were let in by the landlord's son, and they came out again at 8.58. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by Pay's daughter, and came out at 9.28. At 9.32 another man, whom I had not seen go in, was let out by the landlord, and at 9.41 a woman was let in, and stayed two minutes. Two men, named Starling and Bliss, were let in by the landlord at 9.45, and at 10 a woman went in, but came out at 10.02. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by Pay, and the milkman Bailey went in for the second time. Before letting the men out, the landlord looked up and down the street. At 10.45 a man came along the street, tapped the window, and was let in by the landlord, and at 10.53, when the landlord opened the door, witness and P.C. Sales went in. Behind the landlord in a passage was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past, but was stopped. Witness asked the landlord what the man was doing on the premises, and the landlord replied “I asked him in to have some breakfast”. On the bar counter were a number of freshly cleaned glasses, and standing by itself was a glass with a quantity of froth in it. Witness said to the landlord “I shall report you for opening your house during prohibited hours”. Pay replied that he asked Warman to have a bit of breakfast and the beer he had himself. All the people, witness added, were let in in answer to a signal, either by a rap on the window or the door, or by walking past. He saw 13 men and 5 women enter and leave. Warman was the last.

P.C. Sales went into the box to give corroborative evidence, when Mr. Minter said he had been instructed to defend the case, and his defence would have been as to the man Warman having his breakfast there. But it was impossible, as he had just pointed out to defendant, that Inspector Lilley had deliberately perjured himself with regard to all the other people visiting the house. Defendant had committed the offence, and the only excuse he could urge was previous good character. Defendant had been in the house three or four years, and Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, for whom he also appeared, had recently rebuilt the house, and had spent a large sum of money on it, and he need hardly say, on their behalf, that they would only have a respectable tenant there. Defendant in this case was a publican and a sinner, but there was perhaps no reason why they should not temper justice with mercy to the publican. The brewers would be willing to get rid of the present landlord, but he appealed to the Magistrates not to endorse the licence, thereby giving Pay another chance, as by losing the house he would be practically turned into the street.

The Chairman said the Bench had paid due attention to Mr. Minter's eloquent appeal. They would not on this occasion be the means of turning defendant into the street, but they hoped this would be a warning to him. He would be fined 7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Express 19 January 1901.

By The Way.

They are thirsty souls in Radnor Street, and not less so on Sunday than on Saturday mornings, evidently. Quite a little army of ladies and gentlemen boarded the old “Ship” on Sunday morning, and when they took up a glassful of beer they must have “put it down at once”, so quickly did they reappear. I cannot understand a publican being so foolish as to run such a terrible risk. In this case again, if Mr. Minter had not pleaded so eloquently for his client he would certainly have got into a worse mess. “Go, and sin no more” was the virtual judgement, but the defendant had to pay 8 odd for his foolish kindness to his thirsty customers.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Richard Pay was summoned for opening his house, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, during prohibited hours for the sale of liquor on Sunday, the 6th Jan. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Supt. Reeve asked that all the witnesses should leave the Court, and his request was granted.

Police Inspector Lilley said: On Sunday the 6th I watched the Ship public house in company with P.C. Sales. About 7.45 the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At eight the landlord opened the door and looked up and down the street. A man went in. At four minutes past eight the landlord let the man out and a woman went in. Two minutes later the woman was let out and another woman went in. Two minutes later she was let out. At 8.14 the landlord admitted a man named Boorn, a fisherman. He remained five minutes and left. A minute previous a man named White was let in, and left at 8.22. At 8.27 another man was let in by the landlord, he believed a bona fide assistant of the landlord. At 8.36 two men named Ball and Bailey, milkmen, were let in by the landlord, and remained two minutes. At 8.39 the door was opened by a young woman and a woman was admitted, and she left at 8.41. At 8.50 two men were let in by the landlord, one of whom was Boorn, who had been in previously. They were let in by the landlord's son, and remained eight minutes. At 9.10 a man named Cook was let out. They had not seen him go in. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by the daughter, and let out at 9.28. At 9.32 a man left who they had not seen go in. At 9.41 a woman was let in by the landlord, and she left at 9.43. At 9.52 two men named Starling and Bliss were let in by the landlord. At 10.00 a woman went in who remained two minutes. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by the landlord, and at the same time the milkman Bailey again went in.

Mr. Minter: The second delivery of milk, I suppose.

Witness: He remained two minutes. At 10.45 a man tapped the window and was let in by the landlord.

Defendant: Ain't you afraid the house will drop in on you?

Witness: At 10.53 the landlord opened the door and I and the police constable went in. In the passage there was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past me to get out. I stopped him and said to the landlord “What is this man doing on the premises?” The landlord said “I asked him in to have some breakfast”. I walked through into the bar, and on the counter there was a quantity of freshly-cleaned glasses near the engine, and on the counter standing by itself was a glass which had recently contained freshly drawn beer, and there was froth reaching from the top of the glass to the bottom. Warman, the landlord, and P.C. Sales followed me into the bar. I told the landlord I should report him. He replied “I asked this man in (pointing to Warman) to have some breakfast, and the beer I had myself”. I asked Warman for his address, and he said he had none. All the people were let in in answer to some signal.

In answer to the Bench, witness said there were really three entrances, counting the cellar entrance.

Witness, in answer to the Superintendent, said they saw 13 men and five women enter and leave, and two men they found in the bar.

Mr. Minter asked no question.

P.C. Sales was called to corroborate Lilley's evidence, but Mr. Minter, having consulted with the defendant, said he would withdraw the plea of Not Guilty and plead Guilty. He urged in an eloquent address the defendant's previous food conduct, both as a master mariner and as the holder of a licence. He said he foolishly served the people as it was very inclement and cold weather, and gave an assurance that he would not offend again. Under all the circumstances he asked the Bench to deal leniently with the defendant, as it was his first offence.

The Bench imposed a fine of 7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, but did not endorse the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1901.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and W. Wightwick.

Richard Pay, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was charged with having opened his house during prohibited hours on the 6th January.

The Chief Constable asked that the witnesses be ordered out of Court, and this was done. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

Inspector Lilley said on Sunday, the 6th inst., in company with P.C. Sales, he watched the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. About 7.45 a.m. the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At 8 o'clock he again opened the door, looked up and down the street, and a man went in. About four minutes past the door was again opened by the landlord, and the man let out. At the same time a woman went in. Two minutes later the same procedure was gone through, the woman was let out, and another woman went in. Two minutes later she was let out. At 8.14 the door was again opened by the landlord, and a fisherman named Bourne went in. At 8.19 he was let out. A minute previous to that, another man, named White, had been let in by the landlord, and he was let out at 8.22. At 8.27 another man was let in by the landlord, who remarked that he had been looking for him. He believed the last man was the potman. At 8.36 two milkmen were let in by the landlord, and after two minutes came out. At 8.39 the door was opened by a young woman – defendant's daughter - and a woman went in, being let out by the daughter at 8.45. At 8.50 two men, one being Bourne, who had previously been in, were let in and out again at 8.58 by the landlord's son. At 9.10 a man named Cook was let out by the son. They had changed their position just previous, and it was possible they did not see the man go in. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by the daughter, and let out by her at 9.28. At 9.32 a man whom they had not seen go in was let out by the landlord. At 9.41 a woman was let in by the landlord, and left two minutes later. Two men, named Staling and Bliss, were let in by the landlord at 9.45, and at 10 o'clock a woman went in, coming out at 10.02. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by the landlord. The milkman Bailey again went in as they went out. At 10.45 a man came along the street, tapped the window, and was afterwards let in by the landlord, and at 10.63 the landlord opened the door and witness and P.C. Sales went in. Behind the landlord in the passage was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past witness to get out. He stopped him and said to the landlord “What is this man doing on the premises?” The landlord said he asked him in to have some breakfast. Witness walked into the bar, and on the counter were a large number of freshly-cleaned glasses in a lump near the engine, and standing by itself was a glass with a quantity of froth reaching from the top to the bottom. Warman, the landlord, and Sales followed him into the bar, and he told the landlord he would report him for opening his house during prohibited hours. He replied that he asked Warman to have a bit of breakfast, and the beer he had himself. Warman refused his address, saying he had not got one. He told Warman he would be reported. All the people were let in in answer to a signal, either a rap on the window or the door, or by walking past. He saw thirteen man and five women enter and leave. Warman was the last man he saw enter.

P.C. Sales was giving corroborative evidence, when Mr. Minter said he had been instructed to defend the case, and his defence would have been as to the man having his breakfast there. It was impossible, as he had just pointed out to defendant, to suggest that Inspector Lilley had gone into the box and deliberately perjured himself with regard to all those people being there. It was no use taking up their time. Defendant had committed that offence, and the only excuse he could urge was his previous good character. He had been in the house three or four years, and Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, for whom he also appeared, had recently rebuilt the house. They had spent a large sum of money on it, and he need hardly say, on their behalf, that they would only have a respectable tenant there. If the Magistrates decided that the man should be turned out, Messrs. Flint would fall in with their decision. There had been no previous complaints about the house. It was the dreadful snowy weather, and he dared say the people induced the landlord to let them have what was really a breach of the law. It was not worthwhile to go into the question of the truth of the statement as to Warman breakfasting there, although he could prove it. Here, although the defendant was a publican, he was a sinner, but there was perhaps no reason why they should not temper justice with mercy to the publican.

Superintendent Reeve said he could prove Warman had his breakfast at his son-in-law's house.

The Chairman said on this occasion they would not endorse the licence, or turn the man into the street. He would be fined 7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, and they hoped it would be a warning to him.



 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 June 1901.

Wednesday, June 12th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, and Pledge, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. George Prior, late landlord of the Warden Inn (sic) (actually Wonder), is going into fields and pastures new, the Ship Inn being his new venture.

 

Folkestone Express 15 June 1901.

Wednesday, June 12th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

Mr. John W. Prior, late of the Wonder Tavern, was granted temporary authority for the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Ship Inn to Mr. Fryer (sic).

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Mr. Fryer (sic) was granted a licence for the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 August 1901.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, Herbert, and Hamilton.

The Chief Constable said: I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences, the holders generally appearing desirous of conducting their houses in accordance with the law. I have received notice from four persons of their intention to apply for new licences.

Mr. Hoad (the Chairman) asked the Chief Constable if, in his opinion, any new licences were required.

The Chief Constable: I do not think so, sir. There are, in my opinion, already too many.

In the case of the licence of the Ship Inn, objection was taken to the renewal by the Temperance Council (represented by Mr. Bradley, of Dover), on the ground of a conviction against a former tenant, who was fined 7 for serving customers during prohibited hours. The present applicant (Mr. Prior) being a licence holder of some years' standing, being formerly landlord of the Wonder, and the police having no complaint of him, Mr. Haines made a formal application for the renewal. The objectors also took the ground that the locality was more than amply supplied with licensed houses.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners of the house, commented on the “audacity” of the attack of the Temperance Council.

The Chairman said that undoubtedly the former licence holder had been punished, and it was clearly not the intention of the Magistrates to take away the licence, or it would have been endorsed. The renewal of the licence would be granted. (Applause).

 

Folkestone Express 24 August 1901.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The existing licences were renewed, with the exception of that of the Ship Inn.

Mr. M. Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. James Walker opposed the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn to Mr. Prior. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the applicant.

The grounds of opposition were that there was a conviction against the house in the year just passed, and that the house was not required.

Mr. Wightwick: Was the licence endorsed?

Mr. Bradley said it was not, but the fact that a penalty of 7 10s. was imposed showed that it was not a trivial offence. It was true the licence had been transferred to a new holder, but that, he contended, did not remove the effect of the offence against the house at all. It was no injustice to the owners if they put in tenants who disobeyed the law. As to the allegations that the house was not required, he said there were eight licensed houses in Radnor Street, two in North Street, seven in Beach Street, and three in Seagate Street – in all about 20.

Formal evidence was then given of the notice.

Mr. Walker (in answer to Mr. Haines) said he should not mind if all the licensed houses were closed. It would be for the good of the town.

Mr. Haines then addressed the Bench on behalf of the applicant, urging that before the licence of that particular house was refused the Bench would require some further evidence. Had the convicting Magistrates felt it was a case which ought to have been dealt with by the Licensing Justices, the conviction would have been endorsed on the licence. The applicant was a man of good character, who had held a licence for 12 years, and had paid 250 to go into the Ship, upon which the owners had just expended 900. It was felt in the country that the number of licences should be decreased, but the method of doing so had not yet been arrived at. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he asked the Bench to renew the licence.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, denied most emphatically the false suggestion of Mr. Bradley that they got rid of the old tenant a few days before the licensing day in order that there might be a new tenant to make the application. As a fact, the new tenant took possession in June. He was a respectable tenant, who was entitled to the confidence of the Bench. If those whom Mr. Bradley represented had not been so bigoted in their view that no compensation should be given when a licence was taken away, it was probable the difficulty of too many houses being in existence would have been got over, He cited the case of the Tramway with a view to show that the appellate Court in East Kent had decided that it was not sufficient ground for refusing a licence that there were too many in existence.

The Chairman said the Bench had fully considered the matter. The former holder of the licence had been convicted and fined for what he did wrong. They saw no reason why the objectors should select that particular house. It was admitted that it was a subject that wanted dealing with. Everywhere there were too many licensed houses in certain localities – more than were required for the wants of the people – but unless they could bring a stronger case than that against the Ship Inn, they could not refuse a licence. To teh best of his belief, the Ship had always been a well conducted house, but the conviction referred to he knew nothing about. The man was punished, and it appeared the Magistrates did not think the conviction should be endorsed on the licence. The Committee considered they could not refuse the licence, and therefore they granted the renewal.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1901.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, C.J. Pursey, W. Wiightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Prior applied for the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, which was opposed by the Folkestone Temperance Council. Mr. Haines supported the application, and Mr. Montagu Bradley opposed.

Mr. Bradley said the grounds on which his clients opposed was that in January the then licence holder was convicted for having sold intoxicating liquors on a Sunday morning, and that the licence was not required. The Magistrates must have considered that the case against the previous licence holder was strong, or they would not have imposed such a heavy penalty. In the interests of other holders, it was necessary to take notice of such cases to encourage them to conduct their houses properly. The Superintendent had said there were too many licences in the town. In Radnor Street there were eight; North Street two; Beach Street seven; and Seagate Street three; making about twenty licences within a very narrow area.

Mr. Haines asked what evidence the Bench had before them that the house should be the one to be struck out if there were too many in the town. He thought it was a piece of impertinence, if they would pardon the word, asking the Magistrates to come to that decision. His client had held a licence in the town twelve years, and during that time had had no complaint against him.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said it was common knowledge that there were too many licensed houses in every town in the kingdom. It was not the rule in East Kent that because there were too many licences in the town one should be taken away. That was upheld by the Appellant Court at Canterbury.

The Chairman said they saw no reason why they should select that house to take away the licence. They were all aware that there were too many licensed premises in certain localities. As far as his memory served, the Ship had always been a well-conducted house, and the licence would be renewed.

 

Folkestone Programme 26 August 1901.

Local News.

The Folkestone Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

The report of the Chief Constable showed that at present there are in the borough 140 houses licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating drink, being an average of one licence for every 219 persons. Four licence holders had been convicted during the year for offences under the licensing acts, and eighteen licences had been transferred during the same period. 116 persons were convicted of drunkenness, and it is satisfactory to know that of this number only fifty four were residents in the borough. The Chief Constable stated that he did not intend to offer any opposition to the renewal of the existing licences, since the licensees showed a desire to conduct their houses according to law.

The Chairman stated that it was the opinion of the Bench that the report was altogether satisfactory. In reply to the Chairman (Mr. John Hoad), the Chief Constable gave it as his opinion that new licences were not necessary, and that there were already too many licences for the requirements of the town.

This was the opinion, too, of those who petitioned against the renewal of some of the existing licences. The Licensed Victuallers' Association protested against certain statements made with regard to the conduct of the houses in the town. The Bench merely received these petitions without comment.

Considerable discussion took place, however, with regard to the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn. It would appear that the last landlord had been convicted of an offence against the licensing law, but his licence was not endorsed. Since then the house had been well conducted, and, the Chief Constable having no objection, this licence was renewed.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1901.

Brewster Sessions.

The annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, before J. Hoad, Esq., and other Magistrates.

All the existing licences, with the exception of that of the Ship Inn, were renewed. Mr. M. Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. James Walker opposed the renewal of the licence to the Ship Inn to Mr. Prior. Mr. G. W. Haines appeared for the applicant. The grounds of opposition were shat there was a conviction against the house in the year just passed, and that the house was not required. The renewal was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 May 1903.

Saturday, May 16th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G. Peden, and Mr. J. Stainer.

James May, a mariner, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting another mariner, names Charles Taylor. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for May.

Complainant said he resided at 15, East Street. On Monday, the 11th inst., he went to the Ship Inn. Defendant came in after him, and brought up an argument about some rope, which he alleged complainant lost for him some 18 months ago. Witness denied losing the rope, and asked why that should be brought up after all that time. On going out into the street, defendant hit him in the eye and knocked him down. He was unconscious for a minute, and his eye remained closed until Thursday night. He had not been able to go to sea for a week, and reminded the Bench that he had a wife and three children to keep.

Cross- examined: Witness denied that the injury to his eye was caused as he fell down. He also denied annoying the defendant by arguing and pushing close up to him.

Fredk. Bayley, another mariner of the same address, corroborated the complainant, but in answer to Mr. Haines that they all left the Ship arguing about the rope. They were all perfectly sober, he added.

Mr. Haines said it was not denied that his client did push complainant, but defendant would go into the box and state that there was an argument about some lost rope. Complainant annoyed his client by becoming offensive and pushing up close to him. Defendant thereupon pushed him and complainant fell down. In that way his eye was injured.

May went into the box and bore out this version of the case, but added that it was only 12 months ago that the rope was lost.

This the Chairman cut short by saying the Bench considered the case proved, and defendant would be fined 5s. and 12s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 23 May 1903.

Saturday, May 16th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, G. Peden, J. Pledge, W.C. Carpenter and J. Stainer Esqs.

James May was summoned for assaulting Chas Taylor. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant.

Complainant stated that on Monday night he was in the bar of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, about 6.20. Shortly after, defendant came in and started an argument about some lines that were lost at sea about 18 months ago.

Complainant remarked that it was rather late to bring the matter up. Thereon defendant struck him a violent blow in the eye, which knocked him down. Defendant was about to strike complainant as he lay on the ground, when a man named Bailey said “Don't hit him while he is on the ground”. Defendant then struck Bailey.

Witness, who was examined at some length by Mr. Haines, denied that he insulted defendant.

Frederick Bailey corroborated.

Defendant then entered the witness box and stated that he met complainant and Bailey in the bar of the Ship Inn. A dispute arose about some nets which were lost some time previously. High words ensued, and witness pushed complainant, who fell down, and struck his eye on the ground.

The Bench considered the case proved, and inflicted a fine of 5s. and 12s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1903.

Saturday, May 16th: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor G. Peden, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Fynmore, Messrs. W.C. Carpenter, J. Pledge, and J. Stainer.

James May was summoned by Charles Taylor for assault. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines. Both parties are fishermen.

According to complainant's evidence, they were in the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, shortly after six o'clock the previous Monday night, when a dispute occurred between tem respecting “some belongings” which May alleged complainant had lost at sea. Taylor resented this, whereupon May struck him a blow in the eye with his fist, knocking him down. Owing to the occurrence he (Taylor) had not been able to go to sea.

Replying to Mr. Haines, witness said he did not make himself very offensive to defendant. There was a little bit of argument, but nothing to speak of.

Frederick Bailey, a fisherman, gave corroborative evidence.

On oath, defendant stated that as defendant kept sticking his nose in his face he pushed him away. Taylor fell to the ground, but got up again with the intention of striking, and he (defendant) only struck back in self defence.

The Bench considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of 5s. with 12s. costs, or, in default, seven days' imprisonment.

The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 June 1905.

Local News.

“It would take all the ---- policemen in Folkestone to lock me up” was the defiant remark of Thos. Riley, who hails from the Emerald Isle, when P.C. Simmonds asked him to go home quietly and not make such a noise. It did not require the whole force as Mr. Riley prophesied, but still a goodly number of stalwart constables found plenty of employment in conveying him to the cells.

On Friday Mr. Riley appeared before the Folkestone Bench, charged with being drunk and causing a disturbance, and had a little conversation with The Mayor.

The Mayor: Well, Riley, what have you to say for being drunk in the highway?

Prisoner: Nothing, sir. I am very sorry.

The Mayor: Well, you know, Riley, you have been found Guilty of being drunk, and under the circumstances you will have to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

Prisoner: Will you allow me time, sir?

The Mayor: Is there anything known about him?

The Chief Constable: He was here two years ago.

The Mayor: Are you a ratepayer?

The Chief Constable: He is a visitor at the Old Ship, Radnor Street. (Laughter) On the last occasion when he was allowed time it took him 18 months to pay.

The Mayor: You must go to Canterbury, and don't let us see you again.

The prisoner left the dock with a smile which seemed to say that he rather enjoyed the prospect.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 December 1908.

Friday, December 11th: Before Messrs. Banks, Leggett, Stainer, and Swoffer.

George S. Weatherhead was charged with wilfully damaging a plate glass window at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, doing damage to the extent of 7s. 6d.

Mr. Prior, landlord of the Ship Inn, said just before eleven last night the prisoner came into his house, and commenced to quarrel with a man inside. Witness ordered him to leave the house, and he refused, so witness ejected him. When prisoner got outside he stood on the doorstep and prevented witness from closing the door. Witness pushed him off the step and closed the door, whereupon prisoner put his fist through the plate glass panel of the door. The damage done amounted to 7s. 6d. A constable came along, and witness gave him into custody.

Prisoner said the window was broken accidentally, and he had offered to pay for it.

He was fined 5s., 4s. 6d. costs, and the damage 7s. 6d., or 14 days' hard labour.

Prisoner asked for time to pay, but was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 19 December 1908.

Friday, December 11th: Before Alderman Banks and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton.

George S. Weatherhead was charged with committing wilful damage by breaking a panel of glass in the door of the Ship Inn. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Prior, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, said shortly before eleven the previous night defendant came into the house. He began to quarrel with someone, so witness ordered him to leave the house. He would not go, so he ejected him. He prevented witness from closing the door, and when he asked him to go home he refused to go. Witness pushed him off the step and closed the door. The prisoner then put his fist through the glass panel, which would cost 7s. 6d. to replace. P.C. Simmons came up, and witness gave him into custody.

Prisoner said he broke it accidentally. He offered to pay for the damage done. He was sorry it had occurred, and he had not broken it for the purpose.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was a Folkestone man, and had eight convictions against him, the last being fifteen months ago.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and the damage, 7s. 6d., or fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 June 1930.

Inquest.

A party from the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, had a most distressing experience on Monday afternoon, when their charabanc, driven by Mr. Henry Freeman Sarjeant, of Oaks Road, Cheriton, came into collision with a motorcyclist at Willesborough. The cyclist, Mr. Cedric Alfred White, agent, of 18, North Street, Ashford, died before the ambulance reached the scene of the accident. It appears that the deceased was riding his motor bicycle down Lees Road, Willesborough, and turning into the main road from Lacton Hall to Kennington, came into collision with the charabanc.

An inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon, when evidence was given by deceased's son, Cedric Alfred Wright, 18, North Street, Ashford, who said his father was an experienced motorcyclist, and had ridden a motor bicycle for about five years.

George Charles Prior, Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, said he was a passenger in Mr. Sarjeant's charabanc, sitting next to the driver. He was looking round, and did not see the accident. He felt the bus swerve suddenly to the right, there was a crash, and the bus stopped. The bus was going very slowly at the time of the accident. He did not hear a horn sounded.

P.C. Legge said he found the charabanc standing in the road, and lying across, and partly under the charabanc, was a motor bicycle. A little in front of the bicycle was the body of the deceased, who was dead. Deceased's head was lying against the kerb. There was a skid mark 33ft. long from the point of impact to where the bus stopped. Twenty one feet from the point of impact there were marks where the charabanc had swerved across the road. There was a mark on the near side front dumb iron of the charabanc, and the starting handle was bent back. The front wheel of the motorcycle was jammed up under the front part of the frame of the charabanc. The view of the side road was obscured by a stone wall and a hedge. Mr. Sarjeant said to witness “I was coming down this street, and when I got practically on the corner a motorcyclist came out round the corner. I looked to see if he was coming up the road. As soon as I spotted him I served across the road to avoid him. The cyclist seemed to half turn and went across the front of my car and the car struck him. I sounded my horn”.

Dr. J.C. Hodgson, Ashford, said deceased had a fracture at the base of his skull, which caused death. Witness said he drove a car, and where the accident happened was a most dangerous corner.

Mr. Sarjeant intimated that he did not wish to give evidence.

The jury returned a verdict of death from misadventure, and recommended that the corner should be widened.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman T.S. Franks, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. S.B. Corser, and Councillor the Hon. Mrs. N.E. Howard.

The Bench granted music licences for the use of wireless concerts at the Ship Hotel and the Black Bull.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman T.S. Franks, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, the Hon. Mrs. N. Howard, Mr. F. Seager and Mr. S.B. Corser.

Music licences were granted to the Ship Hotel and the Black Bull Hotel so that wireless concerts might be given on the licensed premises.

 

Folkestone Express 7 October 1933.

Council Meeting Extract.

The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday approved of the Health Committee's recommendations concerning the scheme for dealing with the whole of Radnor Street as a slum clearance, and further progress will therefore be possible in connection with the rebuilding of the area. The scheme include the compulsory purchase of four licensed houses, lodging houses, a restaurant, stores, temporary buildings for amusement, and workshops.

The Health Committee's recommendations dealing with the matter were as follows: (extract)

Resolved: That Compulsory Purchase Orders be made for the purchase by the Council; that there shall be included in the above-mentioned Compulsory Purchase Orders the under-mentioned properties and such other properties which are surrounded by or adjoin the clearance area, including: Radnor Street, No. 59, public house (Packet Boat Inn); No. 24, public house (Jubilee Inn); No. 30, public house (Oddfellows Arms); No. 38, public house (Ship Inn)

Councillor Dallas Brett said with regard to the four public houses those were matters presenting somewhat of a difficulty. It was a difficulty which had not been got over at the present moment, because it had not been tackled, but he was informed at the Ministry in other schemes throughout the country, where public houses had existed and had to be got rid of, private arrangement with the brewers had been made, which had been more satisfactory than would have been thought possible He proposed to ask his Committee to give instructions to himself and the Town Clerk to see what arrangements could be made. Whatever they did, they had got to realise that the whole area had to be cleared, and that they included in their plans two very valuable sites for public house property, to take the place of one or two or more of the houses which were in existence in Radnor Street at the present time. It was a matter of negotiations.

Councillor Barfoot said he believed that the scheme would be materially reduced if the stores and two public houses on the Fish Market were left as they were, and if the houses which it was proposed to build on that site were built on what was now the amusement park.

The resolution confirming the adoption of the recommendations was almost unanimously carried.

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Town Council had before them the letter from the Ministry of Health in which they practically approved of the Council's scheme for making a slum clearance area. They made suggestions, however, for a few properties to be excluded in order to lessen the cost of the scheme.

The Health Committee, in consequence, in their minutes recommended the preparation of fresh plans in order to provide for forty houses on the site, and also that the three licensed houses, which were to be dealt with under the original scheme, should be allowed to remain. The Council, without any discussion, approved of the recommendations.

The Town Clerk submitted the following letter from the Ministry of Health (extract): Ministry of Health, Whitehall, S.W. 1. 30th August, 1934. “At the same time the Council will appreciate that when the inclusion of expensive properties is proposed it is necessary to consider carefully whether the cost of their acquisition does not outweigh their benefit to the scheme, and in this connection the estimated cost of acquiring the licensed premises in the area is of particular importance. The conclusion which the Minister has reached is that the properties reference Nos. 88, 91, and 97 should be excluded”.

Note: It is unclear which three properties this refers to, as originally there were to be four licensed houses cleared. I suspect that it means the Oddfellows, Ship, and Jubilee.

 

Folkestone Express 24 November 1934.

Council Meeting Extract.

A general scheme for the re-housing of the Radnor Street area was definitely approved by the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council at their meeting yesterday (Thursday).

The Borough Surveyor submitted a report and description of the proposed lay-out of the Radnor Street area.

The proposal assumes that the licensed houses will be moved to alternative and more commodious sites, and it is desirable that these premises should be moved, as only by these means can a symmetrical and generally accepted lay-out be obtained.

 

Folkestone Express 26 January 1935.

Editorial.

The Folkestone Council are making material progress with the scheme for the clearance of the slums in Radnor Street, and this will undoubtedly be pleasing to the majority of Folkestone people. Practically all opposition to the scheme in the Council Chamber has vanished, and it is clear that the members are determined that without any delay now the operations will be pushed forward to a successful conclusion. Yesterday the General Purposes Committee considered the Health Committee minutes in connection with the further development of the scheme, and the members were almost unanimous concerning the Committee's decisions. These were mainly concerned with the licensed houses in teh area. These might have provided a very knotty problem, for they were left out of the proposed scheme by the Health Minister's order. Unless something had been done in this direction three of the houses would have remained as they were, and would have undoubtedly proved an eyesore set amidst a modern and what will be a model housing estate. The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson) was instructed to negotiate with the owners of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn, and he is certainly to be complimented upon the able manner in which he carried out those negotiations, and which will certainly contribute towards the ultimate success of the scheme. The present three houses will, if the proposals go through as it is hoped, be demolished and will be re-built within the layout of the whole scheme. This will necessitate an exchange of land, and the owners will receive an added piece of land. Another licensed house in the area will disappear, but that will be a matter of purchase. The re-erection of modern licensed houses will certainly add to the effectiveness of the clearance of the whole of the area. The purchase of three houses in Radnor Street not included in the order will also give added scope for dealing with the whole of the area in a manner which will resound to the credit of Folkestone. In order that the re-housing of people from the area and other areas can be efficaciously carried out, the Committee yesterday also agreed to the erection of 32 additional houses on the Hill Road Housing Estate. Everyone who has consideration for those people who have had to live in houses not worthy of being called houses will assuredly agree with this extension of the Corporation estate. It looks like being full steam ahead now with regard to the Radnor Street slum clearance, and those who have regard for the fair name of Folkestone will be exceedingly pleased.

Council Meeting Extract.

Yesterday (Thursday) the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council had before them the recommendations of the Health Committee regarding the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, and by their approval considerable progress will be made in the proposals for the demolition of the property. The recommendations include the demolition of three of the licensed houses on the sit and their removal on to different sites, and the removal of one house altogether.

The Health Committee's recommendations were as follows:- Radnor Street Area: (a) Licensed Houses: The Town Clerk reported that, as instructed by the Committee, he had been in negotiation with the owners of the licensed houses excluded from the provisions of the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The result of the negotiations is as follows: Jubilee Inn: The owners of this house are prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council, subject to the cleared site being conveyed to them in exchange for the site of the existing Jubilee Inn. Oddfellows Arms: The owners of this house are also prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council. This proposal will also involve an exchange of lands, and is subject to the Corporation agreeing to compensate the tenant for his trade fixtures and fittings, such compensation to be fixed by a valuer to be agreed upon. Ship Inn: No definite decision has yet been received from the owners of this house, but it is likely that they will also agree to demolish and re-build this house on a site in the vicinity of the present house. The arrangement will also involve an exchange of lands. The whole of the above mentioned arrangements are, of course, subject to the approval of the Licensing Justices.

Resolved that the committee approve in principle of the above mentioned arrangements.

Councillor Lillie said that meeting was brought forward a week in order that the negotiations which the Town clerk had had in connection with the licensed houses could be considered. If the licence holders had to transfer their licence from the present house to the house it was proposed to build no time should be lost in considering the recommendations in order that the owners could be informed so that they could appear before the Justices at the Brewster Sessions and make application for their transfer. He would like the Committee to express their approval of those negotiations, and also to make any remarks they wished in regard to any items on those proceedings. He moved that the minutes be approved. Alderman Mrs. Gore seconded.

Councillor Barfoot: Do you not think as the public houses are to be pulled down an attempt should be made to reduce the number there? There certainly does not appear to be any need for three in teh area. Cannot an application be made to the licensing authorities to have the number reduced?

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: How many houses have to be sacrificed if the Ship Inn is to be given a plot?

The Town Clerk: If it remains as it is it will take the site of two houses.

Councillor Hart asked the Town Clerk whether the Ministry of Health did not state that the licensed houses should not be reduced.

The Town Clerk: They did not say that. The Ministry excluded the licensed houses under the Compulsory Purchase Order, which prevented you from acquiring the properties. The point raised by Councillor Barfoot is quite a different matter. I understand representations were made comparatively recently to have one removed.

Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.

The Town Clerk: And the licensing Justices decided not to refuse the licence.

Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.

The Mayor: In what respect?

The Town clerk: There is one house going. We are acquiring one of the four there at present.

Councillor Johnson: Have we any information about trade done by these houses – the barrelage?

Councillor Gadd: On a point of order. Is this not a question of slum clearance and not redundancy of licence? Have we any authority for dealing with redundancy this morning?

The Mayor: We have not. It will have to be brought up by an outside authority. At the present time it is not before us.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said they offered doubling the plot of land for the re-building of the public houses. Land constituted wealth, so they were offering something in the shape of wealth to the owners of the licensed houses. They were having to buy those new houses, and they had a number of deficiencies which were caused through having to give up that land.

The Town Clerk: It is not so.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said when they were in Committee the Town clerk asked the Borough Engineer why he could not squash the houses up a little more, and the Borough Engineer said it was impossible. It was then discussed that they should buy the three additional houses.

The Mayor: That was more from the point of view of giving a better approach to the houses.

Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.

The Town Clerk said he wished to explain that the Minister merely said that they were not to spend 20,000 to buy public houses.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said it was no use discussing that; the public houses were there. She was referring to the first meeting after the Ministry's decision was published.

The Town Clerk said the Minister's order excluded the public houses in order that the expense of acquiring them might be avoided. As, at any rate, two of them interfered with the lay-out it became incumbent upon them to arrange for their removal on some terms. The owners had agreed to remove them all to other sites on the terms of exchanging land. They, therefore, got the houses removed from their present sites as they desired, at no cost other than that the sites on which they were going were slightly larger than the sites on which the present houses stood. “I have”, he said “seen the Ministry of Health of those proposals. They think the proposals before you are extremely satisfactory”. They had got the removal of the three licensed places from their present lay-out at a very small cost indeed.

Councillor Davis said in four or five years' time the question of redundancy might come up again. Would it not then cost more than it would today to reduce the number? That was what he thought Councillor Barfoot was driving at.

The Town clerk: Why should it be suggested in five years that you would want to buy a new house?

Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.

The Town Clerk said the question of redundancy had nothing to do with the Council. If there was a wish to reduce them in five or six years' time there was the question of redundancy to consider, and that would have to be decided by the Compensation Authority.

The Mayor: This question does not come within the scope of this Council.

Councillor Barfoot: Was it not understood that on the site of Nos. 5, 7, and 9 a public house would be built on that corner?

Several members: No.

Councillor Kent said if that scheme was carried out they would have three modern public houses with adequate accommodation, which they did not possess now. The arrangements were, he considered, splendid.

The Mayor said he was present at the meeting of the Health Committee, and he thought they were all indebted to the Town Clerk for the very able manner in which he had carried out very delicate negotiations. He thought the Council had done exceedingly well, and he considered the best thing they could do was to agree to those recommendations unanimously.

The resolution approving the minutes was carried, only Mrs. Thiselton voting against it.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1935.

Council Meeting Extract.

The monthly meeting of the Town Council was held on Wednesday.

The Radnor Street Scheme.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said she would like to know if Nos. 5, 7, and 9, Radnor Street had been offered for the re-building of the Ship Inn.

Councillor Lillie said Councillor Mrs. Thiselton had learned there was a wish by the owners of one of the licensed houses in the area to build a new public house on the site of the three houses. The offer was still open and they could negotiate with the Council. He thought he could hold out no hope that they were likely to do so.

 

Folkestone Express 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday at the Folkestone Town Hall, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported that there had only been 15 convictions for drunkenness, the number being the same as the previous year. One licence, that of the Mechanics Arms, was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions, all the others being renewed. The licensing hours were extended for the whole of the summer time period by half an hour, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.

Mr. R.G. Wood presided, and a number of Magistrates were on the Bench.

Radnor Street Licensed Houses.

Several of the clergy and ministers and representatives of various religions and temperance bodies were present in Court, evidently with a view to watching the proceedings concerning the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area. Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, was also present.

The Chairman asked the Town Clerk if he had anything to say.

Mr. Nicholson said he really did not quite understand the position with regard to the licences in the Radnor Street area. Did they want him to explain what the Corporation's proposals would be?

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): These licences will be renewed today?

Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.

The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?

Mr. Nicholson: The Corporation do not own any of the licences for the moment. I did not anticipate I should have to explain anything today.

The Chairman: We are asked to renew four licences in the area. We have no official information. It is a question whether they should be renewed or referred to the adjourned sessions. We know something by newspapers. We can defer the renewal and in the meantime think over what action we shall take.

Mr. Nicholson: The owners of these houses are not represented this morning. Is it proper for me to say anything about it?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

Mr. Nicholson: I did not ask to be here.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: Is this an application now being made for the renewal of the four licences? If so, have the applications been made in order?

The Clerk, to Mr. Nicholson: Is there anything you have to officially mention? In the ordinary course there is an application for the renewal of all the licences, which does not affect what you are doing in the Radnor Street area.

Mr. Nicholson: I am not making any application this morning.

The Chairman: We would like to have some information of what is likely to happen.

Mr. Nicholson said as they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a compulsory purchase order. There were four licensed houses in the area. The Ministry declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of the houses and they were struck out of the order. The remaining house, the Packet Boat, would be acquired by the Corporation as a going concern. It so happened that the Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows Arms, where they now stood, interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses, and on instructions he entered into negotiations with the owners. Two of them, the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms, agreed to re-erect, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, on alternative sites that would enable the Corporation's lay-out scheme to be proceeded with. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners as to whether they were prepared to pull down and re-erect a new house. The terms of the arrangements with the Jubilee and the Oddfellows were subject to applications which would be made to them in due course. There was to be an exchange of land in connection with them. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than paying the tenant for the trade fixtures. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not obtained information whether they were prepared to pull down. That house did not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two. It would be much better for the scheme if that house was pulled down and re-erected, but the Corporation could not insist upon it. The other owners had done all they could to assist in their scheme. The Packet Boat would be definitely acquired. Notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. The Ministry confirmed the order which included that house.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, who stated he represented a number of residents in that area, said he would like to raise a question on the renewal of the houses.

The Clerk: I cannot see you have any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox asked if the matter for the removals would come up at the adjourned sessions. If so, he would be there to object. It seemed to him they would be able that day to only provisionally renew the licences for the time being, or mention that they would be referred on the ground of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said a very considerable number of residents were interested in those four licences. If there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of the licences they definitely asked that their views might be considered in reference to redundancy.

The Chairman enquired what the police view was.

The Chief Constable said at the Magistrates' primary meeting he received instructions to go into the question of redundancy and ascertain whether it would be possible to differentiate between the houses. He did so and he found some considerable difficulty in saying because it was an established fact that there were not too many licensed houses for the summer trade in the area. All the houses did extremely well. Whether they were structurally adapted or not was open to enquiry. The houses less structurally fitted were doing a better trade. More customers were in those pokey houses than in the better houses. There was, he supposed, a psychological reason for it. He had had a system of paying monthly visits and it gave him a line on the trade. He had selected a certain number of houses and they had put them into three groups.

The Chief Constable then described the groups and gave details of the numbers of customers in them at certain times. The first group consisted of the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. The second group included the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris Hotel, and the Princess Royal. The third group were the Alexandra Hotel, Royal George, South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak, and the Lifeboat.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter and on their return the Chairman said they had decided to renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which they renewed until the adjourned licensing sessions when it would be considered with regard to redundancy.

Dr. Carlile: Then no objection can be taken here and now, or in any other place, to the four licences involved in the scheme?

The Clerk: There will be applications for removals later and anyone can be heard at the time those applications are made. That is the position.

The Chairman: It will be better for the objections to be raised when the transfer comes along.

Dr. Carlile: It puts us at a very serious disadvantage. There will only be a question of renewal then.

The Chairman: It is a question of renewing them for one year now.

Dr. Carlile: It will be a question of the removal of licences that have already been granted.

The Chairman: That is the position.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Another year of sobriety was reported by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) to the Licensing Magistrates at the annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. All the licenses were renewed with the exception of that of the Mechanics’ Arms, which was referred to the adjourned annual Sessions with a view to the question of redundancy being considered. During the Sessions reference was made to the four licensed houses in the Radnor Street area, a statement being made by the Town Clerk.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Seager, Alderman W. Hollands and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

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

The Town Clerk (Mr. C. F. Nicholson) was present and it was suggested he should address the Magistrates. He said that he did not quite understand what they wanted him to tell them.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What is the position of the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area?

The Town Clerk: You want me to explain what the effect of the Corporation’s proposals in regard to the Radnor Street area will be?

The Clerk: These licences won’t be renewed, will they?

The Town Clerk: Certainly. The Corporation don’t own any of the licences at the moment.

The Clerk: They may.

The Town Clerk: Only one. If the Bench want me to explain what the position is likely to be I shall be pleased to do so.

The Chairman said they were asked to renew four licences in the area. They had no official information as to what would happen to them. The question arose whether they should be renewed that morning or put over to the adjourned Sessions.

The Town Clerk pointed out that the owners of the houses were not represented that morning. Was it proper for him to say anything about it in their absence?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.

The Clerk said he thought the Magistrates might like some information.

Dr. J.C. Carlile, who was present with other clergy and ministers, then asked if an application was now being made for the renewal of these licences in the Radnor Street area.

The Clerk (to the Town Clerk): Is there anything you have to mention this morning why the licences should not be renewed in the ordinary way?

The Town Clerk said it would not affect what the Corporation were doing in the Radnor Street area if the licences were renewed. He pointed out that he was making no application to the Magistrates that morning. As they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order for the acquisition of most of the properties in the Radnor Street area. Included in the order were four licensed houses, the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows’ Inn, the Ship Inn and the Packet Boat Inn. When the Minister came to consider the order he declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of those houses, the Jubilee, the Oddfellows’ and the Ship. They were struck out of the order on the ground of the expense which would be involved if the Corporation had to acquire them. The remaining house, the Packet Boat Inn, would be acquired by the Corporation. It so happened that the position of the Jubilee Inn and the Oddfellows’ Inn as they stood at the present time interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses. On the instructions of the Corporation he had entered into negotiations with the owners of the houses concerned and two of them, namely the Jubilee and the Oddfellows, had agreed, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, to pull down and build new houses on alternative sites. That would enable the Corporation’s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with, but with regard to the other house, the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners of that house as to whether they were prepared to pull down and erect a new house on a new site. These terms of the arrangements with the owners of the Jubilee and Oddfellows’ were subject to an application which would be made to the Magistrates in due course. The owners of the houses were conveying to the Corporation the sites of their existing houses in exchange for sites on which they would build new houses. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than certain compensation to the tenant. In spite of the fact that the houses were struck out of the order, the way in which the owners had met the Corporation would enable the lay-out scheme to be proceeded with as they desired.

The Chairman: That’s for two of the houses?

The Town Clerk replied that that was so. With regard to the Ship Inn, as he had stated, he had not yet obtained the decision of the owners of the house. If they decided to stay where they were, their house would not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two had done. It would mean that their house would abut in front of a line of cottages which were going to be built there.

The Chairman: It won’t seriously interfere with you?

The Town Clerk: No, but it would be much better if they would. We cannot insist on them doing so. The other owners have done all they can to meet the wishes of the Corporation. Continuing, the Town Clerk said the fourth house was the Packet Boat Inn which was to be acquired by the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Is it?

The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.

Continuing, the Town Clerk said notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. That house was being acquired because the site was definitely required in connection with the lay-out scheme, and the Ministry had confirmed an order which included that house but excluded the other three.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, a solicitor, then rose and asked permission to speak. He stated that he represented a number of residents in the area: He wanted to address the Bench on the question of the renewal of these licences.

The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox said when the matter did come before them again in connection with the removals of these houses he would be there to object on behalf of a number of residents. It did seem to him, however, that it would be more satisfactory if they only provisionally renewed those licences that day. Amongst the points he would make would be one on the grounds of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said if the Magistrates were going to discuss this matter he wished to point out that a considerable number of residents were interested in these four houses and if there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of these licences then they asked that their views might be considered in reference to the question of redundancy. If the Magistrates were going to refer them back no further word need be said now on the subject.

The Chief Constable said he received the Magistrates’ instructions at their preliminary meeting in regard to the question of redundancy. He had found some considerable difficulty in deciding. It was an established fact that there were not too many licences in the borough for the summer trade, for all houses did extremely well during the period, whether structurally adapted for the purpose or not. One found that houses the least structurally fitted were doing a better trade. They found more customers in these pokey houses. He supposed there was a psychological reason for it. He had had a system since he had been there of monthly visits and those visits gave him a line on what trade the houses were doing. He had selected a number of houses and grouped them into three groups.

The first group included the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. He had taken comparative figures for the year and these figures showed that the Honest Lawyer had an average of 19 customers on every occasion they were visited; the Harvey Hotel 16, and the Mechanics Arms six. They made a special series of visits between January 17th and February 3rd and they found that the Mechanics Arms had an average of five; the Harvey 10; and the Honest Lawyer 17. They would see from those figures that the figures were pretty well the same for the whole year. It would appear superficially that of these three the Mechanics Arms was the one to go.

He had another group made. It consisted of the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris and the Princess Royal. The figures for the year showed an average of 28.5 for the Harbour Hotel; 17.5 for the True Briton; 46.5 for the London and Paris; and 7 for the Princess Royal. The licensee of the Princess Royal had been there for 25 years and in spite of the figure he had mentioned they seemed to be making a living somehow or other.

The Chief Constable mentioned a third group which included the Alexandra, the Royal George' the South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak and the Lifeboat. The two which were doing the least trade, judged by' his figures, were the' Wonder with an average of 12 and the Lifeboat with an average of 14. The others were not doing very much better. It. was difficult to differentiate in that group. He was prepared to take directions from the Magistrates, but he was not prepared to give any.

The Magistrates then retired.

The Chairman stated on their return that with reference to Dr. Carlile’s question, the Bench had decided that later on he (the Chairman) should renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, the licence of which the Magistrates had decided not to renew that morning but refer to the adjourned Sessions to have evidence of redundancy or otherwise.

Dr. Carlile: That means ho objection can be taken here and now or at any other place to the four licences involved in the Radnor Street scheme?

The Chairman: I think now is the time for you to raise any objection.

The Clerk pointed out that there would be applications for the removals of these licences later on and then anyone could be heard.

The Chairman: That will be the better time, then.

Dr. Carlile said it put them at a very serious disadvantage because the licences would be granted again and there would only be the question of removal. It meant that when it came to the question of removal of the licences, it would be the removal of a licence which was already in being.

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is the position.

The Chairman then announced the renewal of all licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which he stated would be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1935.

Council Meeting Extract.

The Health Committee reported that the Town Clerk had been informed by the owners of the Ship Inn that it was not their intention to re-buiid the premises. They had asked whether the Corporation would be prepared to sell to them a piece of land in the area adjoining the existing inn to be utilised in the event of the owners deciding to re-build at some future date. The Committee recommended that the owners the Ship Inn be informed that the Corporation were not prepared to sell to them a piece of land fur this purpose.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 January 1939.

Local News.

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates on Wednesday granted the transfer of the licence of the Ship Inn, Folkestone, from Mr. G.W. Prior to his son, Mr. Albert John Prior.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 April 1939.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, the Magistrates approved alterations to the Ship Inn, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 February 1941.

Local News.

Albert John Prior, of the Ship Inn, The Stade, summoned at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday last week for having a chimney on fire, told the Magistrates it was a difficult chimney to sweep. He attributed the fire to the fact that a quantity of soot had been dislodged by a bomb explosion recently. The chimney had been swept last summer.

The Magistrates fined defendant 2s. 6d.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 January 1946.

Local News.

On Christmas day the death occurred of Mr. George William Prior, of 6, Bonsor Road, Folkestone, one of the oldest and best-known licensed victuallers in the district. He was 80. Mr. Prior was born on a farm at Preston, near Dumpton Park, Kent, and was only seven when he began work on a milk round.

He came to Folkestone 51 years ago, and opened a restaurant in Beach Street. Later he acquired the licence of the Wonder Tavern, which was demolished by a land mine in 1940. In 1901 he left the Wonder to take over the licence of the Ship Inn, which he held until 1938, when it was transferred to his son. Altogether Mr. Prior had been in the licensed trade for 42 years, and for some years was Chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. His hobbies included gardening and rough shooting. Mr. Prior, who had been a widower for 31 years, leaves two sons and two daughters.

The funeral took place at Folkestone Cemetery, Cheriton Road, last Friday.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1946.

Local News.

Pte. Joseph Henry Dimery (18) pleaded Not Guilty at Folkestone Magistrates' Court to stealing a doormat, valued 12/-, from the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone.

Albert J. Prior, licensee of the Ship Inn, said on Friday last after the premises were closed he found a doormat missing.

P.C. McFazdean said on Friday night he saw several soldiers boarding a bus. Defendant was carrying a doormat. He questioned Dimitry, who said “I have been down the Ship Inn in the Fishmarket and when I left I bought the mat from a bargeman for 3/-“.

Dimery told the court that he was drunk when he bought the mat.

An officer said defendant had a very good character.

Chief Insp. R.J. Butcher said Dimery was fined 5 in 1942 for stealing cases of corned beef.

The Magistrates fined Dimery 10/-.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 May 1948.

Local News.

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon on Albert John Prior, ager 49, licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone, who was found dead in the kitchen of the inn on Tuesday morning. His wife, who had only returned from a holiday in America a few days before, made the discovery.

Mr. Prior was a member of the Folkestone L.V. Association and followed his father as licensee of the Ship Inn before the war.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 May 1948.

Local News.

"I am certain the gas had not been turned on deliberately with the idea of taking his life”, said the Folkestone Coroner (Mr. B.H. Bonniface), returning a verdict of “Death by misadventure” at an inquest last Friday on Albert, John Prior, 49, licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, who was found dead in a gas-filled kitchen.

P.C. Seeker said when he saw Prior's body his head was as far away from the gas stove as it could be; if the man had taken his own life the position of the body would be extraordinary.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett said Prior was suffering from a disease of the heart and it might be possible that he turned on the gas and then collapsed.

George Charles Prior, cellarman, of 27, Stuart Road, Folkestone, said he last saw his brother about five weeks ago and he told him that Mrs. Prior was going to America.

Mrs. Dorothy Lilian M. Prior, the widow, said her husband’s health had not been good for a long time. She had left Folkestone for America on March 31st, making the trip by air. She went to see her two sisters.

The Coroner: You went with the approval of your husband?

Mrs. Prior: Yes.

The Coroner: I ask that because I understand there have been certain suggestions down the Fishmarket and I want to clear that up.

Mrs. Prior said she left America on April 22nd and arrived home about 6 p.m. the following day. When she returned her husband said “You have had your holiday and now I am going to have mine”, and he went off duty in the ordinary way, not because of his health. On April 27th she rose later than usual, at about 9.15 a.m., and went to the kitchen. The door was closed, and on opening it she smelt gas. At the same time she saw her husband lying across the room, head towards the pantry and right away from the gas stove. She could not say whether one or two taps of the gas stove were turned on. The kettle was not on the stove. The oven door was partly open, but as far as she could remember the oven taps were not on. Her husband was wearing pyjamas and dressing gown. She turned the tap or taps off and opened the windows, which were always closed at night. Her husband had never threatened to take his life and she knew of no reason why he should; she did not think he did.

The Coroner: Financially, everything is all right?

Mrs. Prior: Definitely.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett said the deceased had been, a patient of his, and knowing him for many years he did not think he was a man who would take his own life. Witness had carried out a post mortem examination and found there was heart disease, which might have caused deceased to collapse, especially after getting up early in the morning. Death was due to asphyxia from carbon monoxide poisoning.

The Coroner: Do you think it might be possible that he turned on the gas and then collapsed?

Witness: I think it is quite possible.

In your experience have you ever known a person turn on the gas and lie with their head as far away from the gas stove as possible? - All those I have seen have always been careful to put their heads in the oven.

The Coroner said having regard to what Dr. Barrett had told him, his own observation of the room and the position of the body he had no doubt what his verdict should be in that case. “The verdict I shall record, and I have no doubt about it, is that deceased died from carbon monoxide poisoning”, said the Coroner. “There is no evidence to show how the taps became to be turned on, and I am certain that the gas was not turned on deliberately with the intention of taking his life”.

The funeral took place at St. Peter's Church on Saturday. The interment was at Hawkinge.

A member of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. Prior took over the Ship Inn from his father, who had held the licence for over 40 years. His premises remained open throughout the war.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1948.

Local News.

Alleged to have concealed himself in the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone, on July 8th, and. stolen 15 from the till, Walter Henry Todd (29), a labourer, of 11, Invicta Road, Folkestone, was committed for trial by Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking into the premises and stealing the money.

Mrs. D.L.M. Prior, licensee of the Ship Inn, said she closed the bar at 2.30 p.m. on July 8th, locking and bolting the doors. She left the bar at 2.45 p.m. after cleaning up, and went upstairs to her private rooms. She went to the bar again at about 5.55 p.m. and found the till drawer open. One of the keys of each register had been pushed down to release the drawer and 15 in notes was missing. The back door of the premises had been unbolted. Witness said the prisoner, who was a customer had been in the house that morning.

D/C. Huddart said at 4 p.m. on August 24th he saw Todd detained at Margate police station. He told the prisoner he was making enquiries about the theft of 15 from the Ship Inn and that he had reason to believe he had concealed himself on the premises when the bar was closed. Todd replied: “I admit that. I have spent the money”.

The accused, who was committed to Folkestone Quarter Sessions to be held on October 9th, was remanded in custody.

 

Folkestone Gazette 7 August 1957.

Local News.

The licensees of three public houses on the Fishmarket – the Oddfellows Inn, the Ship Inn, and the Jubilee Inn – have placed their premises out of bounds to all troops at Shorncliffe Camp.

One of the licensees informed the Gazette yesterday that the behaviour of some troops was so bad that it injured their holiday trade. “People just walked out when soldiers came in”, stated the licensee. “We have shown great tolerance and tried to reason with these men, but tolerance has been interpreted as fear. Therefore, we have had no alternative but to take the decision we have. We have notified the military authorities of our decision”.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1957.

Local News.

Because they allege continuous bad behaviour by soldiers patronising their houses, the licensees of three public houses on the Folkestone fishmarket, at their own request, have had their premises placed out of bounds to all troops at Shorncliffe Camp. The licensees of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn discussed the position and on Friday each of them sent a telegram to the Adjutant at Shomcliffe informing him of their decision. Since the ban was announced, a fourth licensee, Mr. George Prior, of the Royal George, near the Fishmarket, has also placed his premises unofficially out of bounds.

Apparently the main trouble has been caused at the Jubilee Inn, where the landlord is Mr. Donald A. Mayne, who was formerly a Second Officer in the Merchant Navy. He has been at the house for three years. His wife, Mrs. Mary Mayne, told the Herald this week that the trouble had been caused by troops of a certain regiment who arrived back from Malaya about three months ago. “They are so badly behaved, brawling, fighting and shouting”, she said. “If we try to reason with them all they say is “You ought to have been where we have been”, and don't take any notice. Many times we have sent for the Military Police to deal with them. We have told them time and time again that if they do not behave themselves we would put the premises out of bounds. They just turn round and tell us we can't turn them away because they spend too much money here”, said Mrs. Mayne. “The fact is that we are losing money because when the troops come in, the holidaymakers walk out rather than sit and listen to continuous shouting and singing. Even our regulars have been keeping away from the premises”. Mrs. Mayne said the houses had to make their money at this time of year from the visitors, but their holiday trade had been greatly affected. She said there was a noticeable improvement in trade following the ban. “We have talked and talked, and tried to reason with these men, but it has only been interpreted as fear. They have been in Folkestone for some time and we have stood it long enough. We have got to put our foot down. We do not like this action, but we have been forced into it. We realise that the good ones must suffer because of the bad. We do not condemn them all by any manner of means”, she stated.

The other two licensees, Mrs. D. Bentley, who has been in charge of the Ship Inn for 25 years, and Mr. George Skinner, of the Oddfellows Arms, said they had not experienced any real trouble from troops, but they had heard them shouting and singing outside. Mr. Skinner and Mrs. Bentley decided to combine with Mr. Mayne and place their premises out of bounds. They said “We have got to do the same thing and stick together. We do not want to catch the overflow if only one of us bans the troops”.

A notice “Out of bounds to troops” is displayed on the doors of the three houses.

On Wednesday morning an officer from the Camp interviewed the licensees and took down details of alleged incidents of fighting and smashing glasses in the Fishmarket during the past few months.

Asked for his views, Major R. Smith, Garrison Adjutant, Shorncliffe, agreed there had been a little touble with one of the regiments on the Camp; he was doing his best to find out what it was all about. “As far as I can make out there has been some shouting, but there are no civil charges pending against any troops at Shorncliffe Camp”, he said. Major Smith said if the licensees wished to put their premises out of bounds it might possibly be a good thing. There had been complaints, but it was always difficult to trace specific instances. On Saturday night, he said, they had heard that troops were rioting in the town, but when patrols were sent out to investigate the matter they found absolutely nothing.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 July 1958.

Local News.

Two men, told by the landlord of a public house in Folkestone Fishmarket to leave the premises, thought they would have their revenge by emptying a drum of diesel oil they found outside the premises. But the oil belonged to a ship's chandler and had been left on the quayside for the crew of a fishing boat putting to sea early the next morning.

Stanley Beck (42) and John Gordon Farnell (28), both of no fixed address, pleaded Guilty at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Tuesday to stealing the oil, belonging to Mr. W.T.B. Saunders. Beck was fined 5 and Parnell 2.

Mr. T.H. Jones, prosecuting, said apparently Beck and Farnell had been told by the landlord of the Ship Inn to leave the premises. They thought they would have their revenge by pouring the oil over the wall of the public house. They were seen by the manager of the Ship Inn and when he shouted the two men ran off. They were later found at the back of premises in Marine Parade. Farnell told P.C. Lower “We have had a few drinks. What has it got to do with you?” Told they would be arrested, Beck replied “It will be a good night's kip”. Farnell said “I took the drum of oil away because the landlord told us to get outside”.

Beck denied to the Magistrates that he touched the oil and offered to make restitution of 7/4, its value.

“It was drink that made me do it”, said Farnell. “I am willing to pay the cost”.

Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow said Farnell had a good character, but Beck had eight previous convictions.

Both men were allowed 14 days to pay the fines, with 14 days' imprisonment in default.

 

Folkestone Gazette 13 February 1963.

Local News.

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

 

Folkestone Herald 20 September 1969.

Local News.

After 21 years as licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, the longest serving member of Folkestone Women's Auxiliary, Mrs. “Blossom” Bentley, will retire on Monday.

Mrs. Bentley, who is retiring on doctor's advice, will take a special holiday to celebrate her retirement. She will go to America to visit two of her 13 surviving brothers and sisters. Mrs. Bentley will arrive in America in time to see the marriage of her niece, Miss Margaret Hamfland, in October. After three weeks she hopes to return to Folkestone and search for a flat.

The licence of the Ship has been in the family for 68 years. It was first held by her father in 1901, and was later passed to her first husband, Mr. Albert Prior. On his death 21 years ago Mrs. Bentley took over the licence. The only time she has closed the Ship was during the war when police evacuated people from the harbour area - and when she ran out of beer.

Even though she is retiring from the trade she will keep in touch with her friends and remain active in the auxiliary of which she is a life member.

 

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 Herald 22 July 1988.

Local News.

Bed and breakfast took on a new meaning for a drunken visitor to Folkestone at the weekend. James McKenzie, 54, from Wakefield, fell asleep in the loo after an evening drinking session at the Ship Inn, in The Stade, last Friday. And when he woke up in the early hours of Saturday morning he found himself in a boozer's paradise – a bar empty of customers but full of drinks!

Owner of the Ship, Stan Dawkins, said “When the man was found in the morning he could hardly walk – he had to be carried out. I didn't notice the man when I checked the gents' toilets – he was in one of the cubicles. We've never had anything like this before and everyone has been having a laugh about it”.

 

From the Adscene, 14 November, 2002.

HENGIST CREW GET BACK TOGETHER FOR TV SHOW.

Hengist crew

Above shows the crew with presenter Julie Peasgood.

 

THE crew of former Folkestone ferry the Hengist have been re-united for the first time since the ship stopped running from the harbour.

Ten members of crew led by captain Sid Bridgewater hooked up at the "Ship Inn" at Folkestone harbour where they were being filmed for a new television series.

The Hengist and its sister ship the Horsa plied the Channel routes from Folkestone and Dover to France and Belgium. Party of your Life, presented by Julie Peasgood will air on Meridian from Thursday November 7 at 7.30pm.

The Folkestone show focuses on the great storm in 1987 when the crew were at sea. The order in which the seven-show series will run has yet to be confirmed.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

TIDDYMAN Elizabeth 1717+

SMITH John 1734+

Last pub licensee had BROWN Edward 1741+ Ex Blue Anchor

MANTELL Reginald 1765-68

TREVELLION Joseph 1768- 72 (Also "Crown" 1765-71)

TREVELLION Elizabeth 1772-93

GREGGS John 1793-94

Last pub licensee had EASTWICK John 1794-22

SMITH Jane 1822-25+ Pigot's Directory 1823

LOTT William 1825-30+ Pigot's Directory 1828-29

KNIGHT Richard 1830-35 Pigot's Directory 1832-34Pigot's Directory 1839

PHILPOTT John 1835-45+ Pigot's Directory 1840

PHILPOTT Elizabeth 1841 (age 25 in 1841Census)

HALL James Next pub licensee had to Aug/1845 South Eastern Gazette

HARRISON John Aug/1845+ South Eastern Gazette

DAVIS Thomas 1845-50+ Bagshaw's Directory 1847Dover Telegraph

HALL Harriet 1850-63 (age 43 in 1861Census) Melville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862

PAGE Charles 1863-66+

BATES George 1866-70+

POPE John ???? ???? (SE Gazette 4 July 1876 John Pope at Queen's Head “formerly of Ship Inn”)

MAY Richard 1870-84 Post Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882

WARMAN George 1884-94 Post Office Directory 1891

GRIGG John 1894-98 Next pub licensee had

PAY Richard 1898-1901+ (age 51 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1899 From Wonder Tavern

Last pub licensee had PRIOR George William 1901-39 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Post Office Directory 1913Post Office Directory 1922Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

PRIOR Albert 1939-48

BENTLEY Dorothy 1948-69

DAWKINS Stanley 1969-91

MITCHELL Alan 1991-92

WHITTLE Philip & Patricia 1992-94

DARLING Walter & FOREMAN Andrew 1994-96 Also Oddfellows Arms 1995

MALONE Alan & HUSSEY Margaret 1996-99

HOLLIS Gillian Hollis & ROBERTS Keith 1999-2000

HOLLIS Gillian & ELKINGTON Melanie 2000-04+

???? Alison (Manageress) ????

 

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

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

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

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

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

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

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

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Dover TelegraphFrom the Dover Telegraph

South Eastern GazetteSouth Eastern Gazette

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