Folkestone Herald 27 August 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

Two privates in the Cameronians made their appearance in the iron grating known as the “dock” on Tuesday before the Mayor and Messrs. Pledge, Banks, Herbert, and Wightwick, with having been concerned in obtaining a surreptitious smoke at the expense of Jno. Thos. Foreman, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern."

The evidence was very simple. The man, who were named John McKew and Wm. Fitzpatrick, went into the house the previous evening, and, having had some beer, left, the landlord, as they were drinking what they had ordered, having occasion to go out of the bar. On his return he missed four dozen of cigars, which he valued at 4s. Suspecting the prisoners, he followed them, and saw them talking to a couple of fair ones and smoking cigars similar in appearance to those he had lost. He invoked the aid of the police, and curiously found a representative of the law in the person of P.C. Smoker, with whom he went to the "Royal George," where they found the prisoners. Smoker asked for the “smokes” they had stolen, and McKew handed over a packet of twelve with the remark “It's all I've got, guvnor”. They were taken to the station, and on being searched, nothing except what was their own property was found upon them.

McKew now asserted that he had bought the cigars from a sailor, whilst Fizpatrick declared that he knew nothing about the matter, and as for himself, he was a non-smoker.

An officer of the Regiment, who was in Court, gave each of the men a good character, in consequence of which the Bench dismissed the charge against Fitzpatrick, and let McKew off with a fine of 10s.

Folkestone Herald 26 August 1893.

Police Court Notes.

On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J. Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H. W. Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.

The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr. Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance, inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application reported below, the question was postponed until the 13th September, and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that had been looked forward to by the resident community.

There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr. Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).

The Black List.

The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being given also:-

(1) "British Colours," 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley;

(2) "Cinque Ports," 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead;

(3) "Folkestone Cutter," 24, Dover Street, ---- Warman;

(4) "Granville," 63, Dover Street, F. G. Stickles;

(5) "Harbour Inn," South Street, S. Barker;

(6) "Jubilee Inn," 24, Radnor Street, J. L. Adams;

(7) "Oddfellows," The Stade, G. Whiddett;

(8) "Queen's Head," 11, Beach Street, W. Tame;

(9) "Royal George," 18, Beach Street, A. J. Tritton;

(10) "Ship Inn," 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman;

(11) "Tramway Tavern," 4, Radnor Street, J. Bayliss;

(12) "Victoria Inn," 26, South Street, J. Watson;

(13) "Wonder Tavern," 13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13th of September. No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.

The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench):- Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.

Mr. Mowll now brought forward the case of Mr. James Bayliss, of the "Tramway Inn," whose temporary authority to sell expired on this day. On the application of the learned advocate, the applicant giving evidence on oath, the Bench extended the temporary authority until the 13th September.

Superintendent's Report.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the "Queen's Head," "Royal George," "Victoria," "Jubilee," "British Colours," "Granville," "Harbour," "Tramway," "Cinque Ports," "Folkestone Cutter," "Ship," "Wonder" and "Oddfellows." With the exception of the "Harbour," "Jubilee," "Victoria" and "Ship" I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the "Jubilee," "Victoria," "Ship" or "Harbour." With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman:- Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett:- Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of the report, and the application was at once acceded to.

The remaining licenses were then renewed.

Folkestone Up To Date 14 September 1893.

Licensing.

The adjourned licensing meeting was held in the large hall before Justices Hoad, Pursey, Davey, Holden, Clark, Fitness, Poole, Herbert and Pledge.

Messrs. Glyn and Bodkin were the counsel for the owners, Mr. J. Minter for the tenants.

Superintendent Taylor conducted his own case.

Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, said he represented the Temperance party, but the Bench decided that he had no locus standi. (The right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.)

At the commencement Mr. Glyn handed in a written objection to the jurisdiction of certain Magistrates, and asked them to retire and consider it. They did so and returned minus Mr. J. Holden.

Mr. Glyn opened his case at great length, and asked “Where is the public complaint? Where is the Watch Committee?” He did not ask where Mr. Holden had gone.

The Bench eventually decided to close the "Tramway Tavern" only.

Of all the houses we should think this is the most insignificant, and any benefit that the Temperance cause may gain will be very trifling.

We shall give a fuller report in our next issue, with comments thereon.

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 latches 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 the 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 behalf 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.

Then the Bench proceeded to consider the objection to the "Tramway Tavern," a fully licensed house in Radnor Street, belonging to Messrs. Beer and Co., the tenant being Mr. Davis, at the rent of £14 a year, and doing business of about £4 weekly. The grounds of objection were (1) that the house was not required; (2) that it was kept disorderly.

After a few prefatory remarks from Mr. Glyn, Sergt. Swift was called, and said there were 13 licensed houses within 100 paces of the "Tramway."

Sergt. Harman said the character of the persons who resorted to this house was very indifferent. Recently his attention was called to disorderly conduct at the house, and P.C. Gosby was present. A man and two soldiers came out of the house and commenced fighting in the street. This was not an isolated case, and he had frequently found the house full of soldiers and women drinking, and he had been inside in consequence of disorderly conduct.

Sergt. Lilley was called to the "Tramway" to quell a disturbance on 29th or 30th August. The nature of the disturbance was a drunken man in the tap room, and the landlord called him to eject the man. The house was frequented by prostitutes and soldiers.

Corporal Lake, of the Military Foot Police, Shorncliffe, said the Tramway was frequented by soldiers and women, and he had been called there in the discharge of his duty in consequence of disturbances committed by the military, with whom he had especially to deal. He had been once during the tenancy of the present occupier; three times during the past 12 months.

By Mr. Bodkin:- The house was not placed out of bounds.

Corporals Harwood and Harris, Military Foot Police, gave corroborative evidence.

Superintendent Taylor said there had been 9 tenants since 1880.

Mr. Glyn: It is now suggested as to this house that there has been disorderly conduct, but there has been no conviction since 1883, and I put it to you that it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive the owner of that house of the licence for disorderly conduct, which is suggested, so far as he is concerned, for the first time when application is made for renewal, especially having regard to the fact that there is no record of any kind against this house for ten years. It has been suggested that there has been drunkenness permitted in the house. I am not sure that the Superintendent, if he had taken proceedings, could have secured a conviction against any of these houses. I am not at all sure of it as a matter of law, and in that belief I am corroborated by the fact that no proceedings of any kind have been taken by the Superintendent, which it would have been his duty to have done if he thought that such would be successful. I submit to you that it would be a monstrous thing under those circumstances to assume that the house has been conducted in a disorderly manner up to June, or is now so conducted. I submit it would be monstrous without any notice to the owners that their property should be taken away from them without having had notice of a particular charge made against them. Is it to be suggested that we are to be deprived of our property on the ground that certain soldiers have misconducted themselves, have taken part in drunken riots, or have been quarrelsome, matters in respect of which the police authorities have not thought it right to institute proceedings? I cannot help thinking that the Military Police have not thought this house so bad up to June, or it would have been put out of bounds. Speaking under the correction of your very able Clerk when he comes to discuss the question with you, I submit as a matter of law, as a matter of elementary justice, that without notice of any kind to the person who is owner of property of some value, it would be an unheard of proceeding to deprive him of that property.

Mr. James Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Geo. Beer and Co., who has supervision of the "Tramway Tavern," said the house was purchased by his firm in 1888. They gave £800 for it, and it has been kept in repair at a considerable expense in faith of the licence being renewed. Bayliss, the tenant, had been in the house since July, 1893, and there had been no complaint since the last renewal.

James Bayliss, the tenant, said he was doing a fair trade of four to five barrels weekly. He had been in the house since June, and had kept it far more respectable than it was when he went into it. On the occasion referred to, the constable did not eject the drunken man. Witness did so, but sent for the constable to witness no harm was done the man.

In answer to Superintendent Taylor: He had not been in the trade before. He paid 10s. 9d. for rent; he paid no goodwill when he went into the house, and only put £5 capital into the business. That was the whole stake he had in the house, excepting what he had put in since. He paid his rent quarterly. If he did anything to jeopardise the licence he would be liable to quit at once; otherwise he was entitled to three months notice.

William Austin, marine store dealer, attested that since Bayliss had been in the house it had been better conducted.

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).

Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal, notice of appeal served on the Justices' Clerk should be accepted by the Justices.

This was at once acceded to.

Mr. Glyn:- My clients all feel, sir, what the professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr. Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.

Folkestone Herald 21 October 1893.

Editorial.

The Court of Quarter Sessions for the district of East Kent has promptly reversed the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Justices in the matter of their refusal to renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern. It would be the idlest affectation to deny that the verdict of the appellant court is in harmony with the anticipations of the majority of the Folkestone community. All who have given an impartial consideration to the merits of this case must have felt that the refusal to renew the licence was somewhat arbitrary. Two main grounds for the refusal were relied upon by the Court below. One of these grounds was that the locality was more than adequately supplied with licensed houses; the other ground was that the business of the "Tramway Tavern" had been improperly carried on. As to the first of these reasons, it is one which applies with equal force in every old town in the country. If it be taken for granted that this multiplicity of licensed houses is a valid reason for refusing a renewal, we are landed in a very awkward complication. The congestion of liquor houses in that part of Folkestone is not a thing of today or yesterday. It has existed for a considerable time, and for the fact of it's existence the licensing Magistrates, and they alone, are to be held responsible. In past times the licensing Justices created the supply which is regarded as excessive, and they created it, be it remembered, at a period or periods when the requirements of the population were fewer and less important than they are now. If the house was required when the licence was granted, and we are bound to assume that it was, it is still more needed at the present time, in consequence of the increase in population, both resident and casual. If it was not originally needed, the licensing Justices of that day must have taken a very lax view of the duties they had to discharge and the responsibilities they had assumed. This is a very awkward dilemma, from which there is no reasonable method of escape. It's awkwardness is enhanced, however, by the further consideration that from year to year the licence has been renewed, down to the last annual licensing meeting. This circumstance must be accepted as a conclusive proof that, in the opinion of the licensing justices, the renewal of the licence was warranted by the needs of that particular locality. As a matter of fact, nothing has occurred since the Brewster Sessions of 1892 to call for or to justify the suppression of the licence. The congestion of licensed houses in that neighbourhood was quite as notorious in 1890 as it is in 1893, but the Justices, in the exercise of their discretion, made no attempt until this year to diminish the drinking facilities in the East End. The presumption is that in granting and in renewing the licence the Justices acted in the interests of the community, and therefore, to abolish the licence without due cause shown for so strong-handed a proceeding would be an arbitrary if not despotic exercise of discretionary power. Under these circumstances the upper Court held that it would be unfair to extinguish the licence on the ground that the district was sufficiently provided for in respect of drinking facilities. When we turn to the second ground on which the renewal was refused we are bound to concur in the opinion of the appellate Court, that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the house had been improperly conducted. A general allegation of disorderly conduct is too vague a charge on which to visit a tenant or owner with the pains and penalties of forfeiture. We are quite aware of the fact that it is quite difficult to bring home a charge of disorderly conduct in many cases of this kind. An unprincipled tenant may successfully baffle the police for a long time, but where there is a systematic violation of the law, the offender is almost certain to be made amenable to justice. How does it stand with regard to the present case? In other towns there is at every Brewster Sessions a list of incriminated licence holders, known as the “Black List”. A record is kept during the licence year of every case brought against a tenant, and the result is appended. When the licensing day comes round all these licence holders are called up to show cause why the licence should not be refused. If the cases are serious, the licence is in peril in each instance; if the cases are not serious, the landlord is solemnly warned against the consequences which may result in the event of a fresh complaint being brought against him before the Magistrates. In the case of the "Tramway Tavern" there was no conviction against the tenant, and of course there could be no endorsement of the licence, and it certainly does seem hard that a licence should be forfeited on a general allegation of disorderly conduct, unsupported by even a single conviction, or even by a prosecution before the Justices in petty sessions. That is the view which commended itself to the members of the appellate Court, the majority of whom, presided over by the distinguished County Court Judge of this Circuit, have held that there was not sufficient evidence to justify their saying that the house had been carried on in an improper manner. On due consideration of all the circumstances we cannot come to any other conclusion than that which has been arrived at by the Court of Quarter Sessions. Apart from the temperance question altogether, and viewing the matter from a legal and equitable standpoint, we think that the decision of the Court below was unfair, not to say oppressive. The Licensing Laws are about to be overhauled, the theory of Local Option has made considerable headway, and before many years there will probably be a fundamental change in the regulation of the liquor traffic. It is a time of transition, and therefore it is doubly inexpedient that the licensing Justices should so exercise their power as to be liable to the construction that they favoured a policy of confiscation. The net result of our Brewster Sessions this year is the refusal to grant a licence to the proposed "Metropole Hotel," a building which has thus been classified in the same category as the "Tramway Tavern."

East Kent Quarter Sessions.

The refusal of the Folkestone Licensing Justices to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, was the subject of an appeal to the East Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday last, before His Honour Judge Selfe.

The parties to the case were: Appellants; Mr. John Bayliss (Folkestone) and George Beer and Co. (Canterbury), the landlord and owners, respectively, of the "Tramway Tavern." Respondents: the Licensing Justices of Folkestone.

Counsel:- For appellants; Mr. H. F. Dickens, Q.C., and with him Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. A. M. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover. For the respondents; Mr. Lewis Coward (Recorder of Folkestone), and Mr. A. Tassell (instructed by Mr. H. B. Bradley, Clerk to the Folkestone Justices).

Mr. Coward, in opening, said the reason the Magistrates refused to renew the licence was firstly that the premises were not required, and secondly that they were conducted in a disorderly manner. The premises are situated in the east end of town. In Radnor Street there are 50 houses, eight of which are licensed. Since 1882 there had been a new tenant every twelve months.

Mr. John Taylor, Superintendent of the Folkestone Police, said he had held the position close on twelve years. There are altogether 101 licensed houses in Folkestone; the majority of them are situated in the eastern part of the town. The house belongs to Messrs. George Beer and Co., of Canterbury, and was principally patronised by soldiers and prostitutes. Since 1882 there had been ten fresh tenants; the premises had also been temporarily closed. There had, however, been an improvement in the conduct of the houses in the district lately. In 1883 the then tenant of the premises was convicted for selling beer during prohibited hours.

By Mr. Dickens: Of late the Magistrates had not been granting fresh licences. On the last occasion he opposed the renewal of licences to thirteen houses, and this was the only objection out of the lot sustained. He cautioned Foreman, who had the house up to April, 1893. He understood that Foreman was now a licensed victualler in Canterbury. When asked by Superintendent Farmery about Foreman he told him that there were no convictions against him, but did not say that he had conducted the business satisfactorily.

Sergeant Swift deposed that he had known the house since August, 1892. Foreman left the house in the spring of this year. The house, from that date to August, 1893, had been badly conducted, and frequented by prostitutes and disorderly soldiers. He knew that one of the women was living in the house, as she said so; that was before last Christmas. The house was situated in the fishing quarter, but was not used by the fishermen.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens: He did not agree with his Superintendent that there was an improvement in the house. He had not made any complaints since Bayliss' tenancy. This was the first time any suggestion had been made that one of the women lived in the house.

Sergeant Harman, of Folkestone, deposed that from August, 1892, to August, 1893, he had constantly visited the house, and it was of a bad character, there being constantly rows of soldiers and women. He visited the house on the 28th July through a fight between soldiers and civilians. He followed them inside and found that two or three soldiers and one civilian were there drunk. On the 1st October he visited the house; they were nearly all soldiers. In September a woman was living in the house. He also knew another woman who was there; she had been a housekeeper to several widowers.

Cross-examined:- He had seen rows there in the latter part of Foreman's time. He saw no improvement in the house. Since August, 1892, the character of the house had been bad. It had been frequented by prostitutes, and he had ejected drunken and disorderly persons from the house. He had cautioned Foreman as to the way he conducted his house. He had had frequent complaints from persons living in the neighbourhood. The fishermen did not use the house; the customers were of a very low sort.

Cross-examined: He did not think anyone was there who made complaints. He had seen prostitutes frequent the British Colours, and the licence had been renewed.

Lamce Corporal Lake, of the Military Foot Police, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, stated that they started out at seven o'clock at night and got back about half past twelve or one. He had patrolled the lower parts of Folkestone. He knew the "Tramway Tavern," and it had been a badly conducted house, it's customers consisting of all the roughest soldiers on the camp, costers, and prostitutes. He had been there three times this year, sometimes being called by the landlord. He had taken soldiers into custody for drunk and disorderly conduct twice this last year. He had seen a few civilian customers there. He had to go to the house twice in a fortnight in February, when he had to lock up five soldiers the first time and seven the second. In June he went to the house and found a soldier fighting with a civilian. He tried to arrest the soldier, but he was hustled out at the back by two or three men; the landlord was one of them.

Cross-examined:- This house has not been put out of bounds by the military authorities.

Lance Corporal Harris, Military Police, Shorncliffe, stated that he knew the "Tramway Tavern," it was a badly conducted house, and he had several times seen drunkenness there. He had been called to the house about three or four times to quell fights, by civilians who said they had been sent by the landlord. On the 4th of June he went to the house to arrest a drunken soldier. He had never seen many civilians in there.

Cross-examined:- On each occasion he went he was called by the landlord.

Lance Corporal Harwood deposed that the house had been conducted very badly. He should say it was the worst conducted house round that quarter.

Cross-examined:- He was called in twice to the house.

This concluded the evidence in support of the action taken by the Licensing Justices. Witnesses were then called, as follows, on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. James Bayliss deposed that he was the present tenant fo the "Tramway Tavern." Before then he was an out porter at the station. He entered the house in June, 1893, and he had done a fairly good trade since he had been there. On the evening when Sergeant Harman was called in the soldiers were fighting outside the house. He had declined to serve two civilians with drink. If he thought there was going to be a row he sent for the police. He fetched Sergeant Lilley to turn a man out after closing time. The military authorities had made no complaint about the way the house was conducted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coward: He had a warning from the police a month after he had been in the house.

He had been selling three to four barrels a week.

Re-examined:- He had done his best to keep the house orderly.

Mr. James Thomas Foreman deposed that he was the tenant of the "Princess Alexandra Inn," Northgate, Canterbury, and he was tenant from December, 1891, to April, 1893, of the Tramway. During that time no complaint of any sort was made by the police.

Cross-examined:- During the time he had the house two young ladies visited the house, and they only stopped ten minutes. While he was there the house was peacefully conducted.

Mr. Superintendent Farmery deposed that the last witness had kept the White Horse at Canterbury before he went to Folkestone. When he wanted to come back to Canterbury, he (witness) asked Superintendent Taylor how the man had conducted the house at Folkestone, and he said he conducted it satisfactorily, and had not been before the Magistrates. Witness had had no complaints of Foreman's present house.

Mr. W. C. N. Chapman deposed that he is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Beer and Co., brewers, of Canterbury. The house was purchased by them in 1888. Since then there had been an expenditure in regard to improvements to the house. He had had no complaints with regard to any of the tenants.

Mr. Dickens contended that the opposition had entirely broken down, the evidence being simply ridiculous. He pointed out that during the thirty years the house had been licensed not a single conviction had been obtained against it, nor had the licence been endorsed. Just before the time for the renewal of the licence the police gave notice that it would be opposed owing to the way in which the house had been conducted. The Superintendent told them that the house was improved. At the Licensing Court thirteen licences were opposed on the ground that they were not wanted, twelve were renewed, and they surely were not going to stop this one house. He then carefully went through the evidence, and stated that from first to last no notice had been given to the owners as to the way in which it was alleged the house was being carried on. He asked that the licence should be granted, pointing out the amount of money the owners had spent on the house and the loss it would mean if it were closed.

Mr. Coward, in reply, dealt with the objections raised by Mr. Dickens, and said the "Tramway Tavern" was one of the sort of houses that were a curse to a borough, and brought discredit on the trade, and he hoped the Court would uphold the decision of the Magistrates.

The Bench retired, and on returning into Court the Chairman said the case had been well considered by nearly a full Bench of Magistrates, and although they were not unanimous, the majority came to the conclusion that the licence should be renewed. They had had a new trial, and the evidence had been much fuller than when before the Magistrates, and although the Bench were of opinion that the number of licensed houses at Folkestone was considerably in excess of the number required, it would not be just to take away the licence of so old a house on that cause only, and the evidence was not sufficient to call upon the Court to say the house had been improperly conducted.

Folkestone Herald 8 May 1897.

Notes by Felix.

When I advocated that the disused Martello Towers might be put to some use, little did I think that “Burton” beer would be dispensed from within their walls to thirsty navvies. Just think of it! How are the mighty fallen! These isolated and obsolete fortifications were all part and parcel of a coast scheme of defence, erected in anticipation of an invasion of the hosts of the first Napoleon. The nation's hopes were fixed in this chain of forts, commencing at the Warren and ending at Sussex. Napoleon, however, did not visit us, although he massed an army and a flotilla on the opposite shore for the alleged purpose of visiting our sea-girt isle. Whether it was the knowledge that the Martello Towers, each armed with a single gun (and pop-guns they were, compared to the ordnance of the present day) were ready to receive him, caused him to think twice before he crossed the silver streak we do not know. If this should be the case, then, the towers have been of some use, but there they have stood for close upon one hundred years – monuments of departmental waste, and also of the ever-changing conditions of modern tactics. I have been told on high authority that these same towers – built at the expenditure of a vast sum of money – were condemned ten years after their erection as being practically useless for the purpose of repelling a possible invasion.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday – Mr. Herbert presiding – Joseph Henry Burton, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," was charged with selling by retail intoxicating liquors at a Martello Tower situated near the Warren while not being licensed to sell the same.

Mr. Hall appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented Messrs. George Beer and Co., brewers, who supplied the "Tramway Tavern," but not the liquor now in question. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Skinner, constable in the Dover Borough Police Force, said that on Saturday, May 1st, from instructions he received he went to work upon the tunnel works situated at the Warren, Folkestone. At 7 o'clock in the morning he, in company with a man named Roper, went into the Martello Tower situated near the works. He called for two pints of beer, which were served by the defendant Burton. In the tower there were the defendant and an assistant named Sparrow, and everything was erected conveniently for the purpose. He saw nine or ten barrels erected on a stage. He gave the man Roper 6d. to pay for the beer, and the defendant took the money, giving Roper 2d. change. Two other men came in while witness was there, and each was served with beer. Witness went to work again with Roper. He went in again at a quarter to 10 with the same man, and found only the defendant and his assistant there. Witness called for two pints of beer, the defendant served him, and he gave him 4d. to pay for it. During the time he was there, two or three men from the works came in, each paying for their beer. He did not know any of them. Witness, again accompanied by the same man, Roper, went in at half past ten and were served with beer, each paying for their own. He again went in at 11 o'clock with Roper and called for two pints of beer, for which he paid, and the defendant served him. During the time he was there, several more men came in, some being served with beer and some with porter, some by the defendant, and some by the assistant, Sparrow. While he was there he saw a brewer's dray standing at the door of the tower. He could not say how many barrel were put inside, but he saw the barrels had been shifted from the inside of the tower and carried outside, while the full ones were put inside. It was not particularly under his notice at the time. At the 10 o'clock time he heard the defendant say to the drayman “Never mind about putting in the taps, old chap. That will all be gone by 11 o'clock”. He returned again at 11.30, and called for two more pints of beer, which he paid for to the defendant. Witness stopped there until 12.45, when the police came. At 11.30 the defendant asked witness and Roper for their names and numbers, and all the other men besides, and he put the names and numbers on a big slate hanging upon the wall. Witness asked what the names and numbers were taken for, and the defendant said it was to bar the police if they came along. He did not give his own name. Between 11.30 and 12.45 between 50 and 60 people came in and were served. Mostly it was served by Sparrow, while the defendant was watching outside the tower. At a quarter to one the defendant came rushing in, saying “Here they come”. He left the tower in the charge of the police.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: The defendant was a stranger to witness, who at the time was not of course in police clothes. He posed as a navvy in the usual navvies' clothes. Roper was not a friend of his, and he had never seen him before. On the first occasion witness asked Roper if he would take a drink.

Mr. Hall: Being a navvy, you so effectively played the part that between 7 and 12.45 you had five pints of beer?

Witness:- I did not have it all.

Mr. Hall:- You were playing the part to perfection.

Witness said he suggested that everything was convenient for the purpose of accommodation. He did not see any bread there, but he saw some beef pasties, which were on the board near where the beer was. He did not see tea, cups and saucers, or plates. There were nine or ten barrels there, and you had to go all round the tower before finding the beer, which was in the far corner. He did not think it was put there because it was the coolest corner, for he considered it would have been as cool in the doorway. There were no chairs about, but there were forms and a table. There was a partition between the beer and the forms. He suggested that was the “secretest” place for the beer. There was nothing secret or unusual in a brewer's van standing before the door. On the first occasion Roper asked for the beer and paid, and on the next he stood. Only one man was refused drink by the defendant, and that was the ganger, who he asked for a pint of beer and offered to pay for it. The conversation between the defendant and the drayman was between themselves, but he was close to them. With regard to the slate on which the names and numbers were put down by defendant, its size was about 4ft. long and 2ft. wide. He first noticed it at 11.30, when there were three marks on it. The slate was not out before. He did not notice the name on the brewer's dray. The slate was opposite the barrels on a rack. Bteween 11.30 and 12.45 he said the sales were mostly by Sparrow, and the defendant was watching outside, and before that the defendant had been serving. The defendant was walking to and fro outside. He might have been taking fresh air as he had been so busy. He was at work during the day and was paid. He was served with five pints of beer.

Mr. Hall:- I suppose you would not mind another job of that description on the same terms.

P.S. Lilley then entered the witness box.

Mr. Hall said he did not think this evidence was necessary. He was not aware that evidence of this description would be brought before the Bench. He advised the defendant to plead Guilty.

The defendant pleaded Guilty.

Superintendent Taylor said he would prove the extent to which this had been carried on.

Mr. Hall said he thought the Bench had had sufficient evidence, and he had withdrawn the plea of Not Guilty to save the time of the Bench and the public.

Mr. Herbert:- The Bench is of opinion that we have heard quite enough.

Mr. Hall, in defence, said that it really read like the chapter of a romance to think that in the nineteenth century sales of beer could go on of the nature described by the constable under the very eyes of the police. It seemed most extraordinary. The Bench were perfectly well aware that certain works were in progress at the Warren, and there were 2, 3, or 400 men employed there. There was a "Warren Inn" there two or three years ago, but the Magistrates removed the licence, and there was no licensed house nearer than Radnor Street or North Street. The navvies were human, and they used their muscles and worked hard, so it was only natural that they should require beer. There was no facility for the navvies having beer. The defendant had been the licensed holder of the Tramway Inn for upwards of three years, and there was nothing of any description against his character. He had been led entirely from mistaken notions as to what the law allowed him to do, and had been under the impression until then that the licence he held justified him in doing the act for which he was now summoned. There was no concealment at all about the sales, and the defendant thought as a tradesman that he would be doing good to the navvies and to himself, and hired the Martello tower from the Government, paid a small rent, and utilised it as a store for the supply of goods to the navvies. The constable said there were beef patties, and undoubtedly there was bread, cheese, and ordinary eatables, in addition to the beer. There was absolutely no concealment on the defendant's part, or could they imagine a brewer's dray would stand there in broad daylight in front of unlicensed premises? After having quoted two cases from the “Law Times”, 1896, bearing on the question, Mr. Hall said that at the initial stage no beer was sent out unless it had been previously ordered and paid for. That was the origin of the whole transaction. The defendant thought he was justified in doing what he did.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll said he wished to say one or two words. That it was not Messrs. George Beer and Co.'s beer. The Magistrates might think it a very important thing for the brewers to deliver beer up at the Martello tower, but it was not Messrs. Beer and Co,'s beer. In confirmation of the appeal by Mr. Hall to let the man off with a small fine, the Superintendent of Police representing the owners had intimated to him that the man must leave the house, and therefore they must get him out as quickly as they could.

The Chairman (Mr.Herbert) said the Bench had listened very carefully to what Mr. Hall had said, but the offence to which the defendant had pleaded Guilty was very, very serious. They could not believe for a moment that he, a licence holder, could have been in ignorance, and the fact that he did not get the beer direct from his own brewers showed he knew what he was doing. The penalty was £50, but he would be fined £15, or one month's imprisonment. The Bench understood that there was a seizure of beer, which would be confiscated.

P.S. Lilley gave evidence that on May 1st he received the warrant produced, and in company with P.S. Swift, P.C. Burniston, P.C. Johnson, and P.C Lawrence, went to No. 1 Martello Tower, entering at 12.45 p.m. No. 1 was the further tower. He found a hole had been cut in at ground level, and inside there were a number of men drinking, and in a recess were seven barrels of beer, which he seized and conveyed to the police station. The barrels were marked “Chapman, Ashford”.

Cross-examined: There were a good number of navvies in the place, but they did not give any trouble, and the defendant did not say “Oh, leave the police alone”.

Mr. Hall asked the Bench to consider the circumstances of the defendant, and not confiscate the beer, as the man had been punished enough.

Mr. Fitness said they had considered the matter in the reduction of the penalty.

The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. H. B. Bradley) pointed out that the Bench had no alternative.

The defendant was detained until the fine was paid.

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1897.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.

The Army And Navy Co-operative Brewery Company Limited v J. H. Burton: This claim was for spirits supplied.

The defendant was out of business now, but he had been a publican – landlord of the "Tramway Tavern." He had notice to leave now as soon as the brewers could find another tenant. He was there yet, but might have to go the next day. He had no salary at all, merely the profits on what he sold, and this came to about 18s. the previous week.

A traveller for the company, named Richards, said that at the time when the goods were supplied the defendant said he was taking 15s. or 16s. a week by lodgers, and he employed four or five men.

His Honour made an order for 4s. a month.

Folkestone Herald 10 July 1897.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday – Mr. Holden presiding – Mr. Alfred Skinner made an application for a temporary authority to sell under a licence granted to Mr. John Henry Burton at the Tramway Tavern.

After a short discussion the Chairman said that it would be granted, but the house had a very shady reputation, and he would have to be very careful to keep it respectably, as the eyes of the police were upon it.

Folkestone Herald 7 August 1897.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday – Captain Willoughby Carter presiding – a transfer licence was granted to Mr. Alfred Skinner, "Tramway Inn," Radnor Street.

Folkestone Herald 27 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Monday – Alderman Banks presiding – two men, named Phillips and Cooper, were charged with stealing some mackintoshes and a coat.

P.S. Lilley deposed that on the previous Saturday, from information received, he went to a bedroom occupied by the defendants, 58, Dover Street. The landlord's name was Downey. Underneath the bed witness saw the mackintosh produced. Rolled up behind the door were two mackintoshes and a coat, one gentleman's and one ladies'. Since then witness had kept the defendants more or less under observation. On one occasion he saw the defendant Cooper leave the house with a gentleman's mackintosh rolled round him under his coat. Witness saw him go round the corner, and followed him. The defendant rolled up the mackintosh. He went into the Tramway public house in Radnor Street. After a few moments witness followed him. Witness said to him “Where is the mackintosh you brought in?” He said “What mackintosh? I have not had one”.

One of the defendants: That's a falsehood.

Witness, continuing, said that he then saw the mackintosh rolled up on a shelf behind the counter. Witness said to the manager “Where is the mackintosh this man brought in?” He said “I have seen no mackintosh, and I did not know the man was here”. Witness took the mackintosh and said “I am a police officer. Where did you get this from?” He said “I got it from a man outside to sell for him”. Witness said “Where is he?” He said “Up the hill. I will show you”. Witness brought him outside, and on coming through the Radnor Arches, witness saw the defendant Phillips coming down with the mackintosh produced under his arm. He was coming down Seagate Street. When opposite the Wonder Tavern, witness stopped him and said “We are police officers. (He meant P.C. Ashby, who joined him, and himself) Where did you get this mackintosh from?” Before Phillips could reply, Cooper said “What, has he given you one, old man? Here, I have been pinched”. After some hesitation, Phillips said “It was given to me by a man up the street to sell”. Witness then said to them “I shall charge you with being concerned together in stealing two gentlemen's and one ladies' mackintoshes, and a gentleman's covert coat, the property to some person or persons at present unknown”. Cooper said “I bought them last night”. Phillips made no reply. Witness brought them to the police station, and they were charged by P.S. Swift. On one of them was found a letter addressed to Mr. F. Howard.

Mrs. Ellen Downey deposed that she lived at 58, Dover Street. Defendants had lodged with her a week that day. They were strangers to her when they came. They said they had come to work at the Harbour. Defendants occupied one room, sleeping together. They brought nothing with them, but said their things would be sent down. In the evening they brought a coat, a grey mackintosh. One said they had no money, and asked if she would take the coat as a deposit. They were going to pay 3s. each for the lodgings. She gave information. During the week they had not left the house until between 11 and 12 in the morning.

P.S. Butcher asked for a remand until today (Saturday), that the police might try to ascertain where the goods came from.

One of the defendants said they were not guilty of stealing the clothes.

The Bench remanded the defendants accordingly.

Folkestone Herald 5 August 1899.

Wednesday, August 2nd:

The following transfer of licence was allowed: Frederick Skinner, "Victoria Inn," South Street.

(Frederick Skinner transferred to "Tramway Tavern.")

Folkestone Herald 13 January 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last the remand case in which a young man named Christian Olaf Palndan Stephenson was charged with stealing shoes was again before the Court.

The Chief Constable said that he had an additional witness to put in the box.

Mr. Skinner deposed that he was the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street. On the 19th December last, defendant came to his house about seven in the evening for the purpose of taking lodgings with him. Witness asked defendant where he came from. He told him that he came from Dover, and was just paid off from a ship there. He said he had nothing with him. He took lodgings in witness's house. On the 30th December he was still a lodger, and witness saw him between 11 and 12 o'clock in his wash-house. There were a pair of shoes to put on, similar to those produced. They were new shoes. Witness said “Oh, a new pair of boots this morning”. He replied that they were given to him by a friend of his at Sandgate.

The Chief Constable said that that closed the case for the prosecution.

Defendant, who did not speak English very well, pleaded Not Guilty, and was understood to say that he gave a ring for 6s. for the shoes to a German. When asked where he got them from, he had said “From a German waiter”.

The Clerk to the Justices asked where was the German waiter. Defendant had better call him.

Defendant said that he had been in a shop to try and sell, not far from there. He found him.

The Bench sentenced defendant to 21 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 13 April 1901.

Tuesday, April 9th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Swoffer, Pursey, Herbert, and Vaughan.

John Field, a shoeblack, was charged with having broken a plate glass window, valued at £2, the property of Alfred Skinner, landlord of the "Railway Tavern."

Prisoner said prosecutor ought to be doing time at Canterbury with him. There were three previous convictions against prisoner, who was fined 10s., 4s. 6d. costs, and the damages 40s., or to go to Canterbury for two months'.

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o'clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E. T. Ward, Mr. W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C. J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- "Providence" (Arthur F. East); "Marquis of Lorne" (William R. Heritage); "Granville" (Charles Partridge); "Victoria" (Alfred Skinner); "Tramway" (Frederick Skinner); "Hope" (Stephen J. Smith); "Star" (Ernest Tearall); "Bricklayers Arms" (Joseph A. Whiting); and "Blue Anchor" (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the "Victoria," "Hope," and "Blue Anchor," and to persist in the opposition to the following:- "Providence," Marquis of Lorne," "Granville," "Tramway," "Star," and "Bricklayers Arms." As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed, between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.

At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.

The Chairman:- We want to hear the cases first.

Mr. Glyn:- I think it would be fairer to the “trade” to postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.

The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.

Consideration of the applications for the renewal of licences to which objection was taken by the police was then proceeded with, the "Tramway Tavern" being the first case on the list.

On behalf of the brewers, Mr. Glyn supported the application for renewal, and the opposition was conducted by the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve).

Inspector Swift, the first witness called for the opposition, deposed that within 200 paces of the house in question there were 28 public houses.

In answer to the Chief Constable, the Inspector said that altogether there were 69 houses in Radnor Street, including eight fully licensed public houses.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that the "Tramway" was used as a common lodging house. There were two entrances.

Counsel asked witness to define the meaning of a “common lodging house”, to which he replied that it meant a place where tramps were admitted for the night.

Mr. Glyn:- Will you undertake to swear that any tramp has been admitted there, and only remained one night.

Witness:- On some occasions.

Counsel:- Within one year?

Witness:- Oh, yes.

Counsel: Now, understand what you are swearing. Do you mean to say that within a year a person has been allowed to come in there and remain for one night only?

Detective Sergeant Burniston:- I swear that. He disappeared the next morning.

Mr. Glyn:- Your only objection is on account of the lodging house?

Yes, sir.

Counsel the addressed the Justices. As far as he could make out, he said, the only objection to the licence was that because it had been used as a common lodging house. In this case he could at once state that the house, in future, providing the licence was renewed, would not be used as a common lodging house. But they claimed that it had not been so used. In the immediate neighbourhood there were a number of other houses, and he considered that it was not fair to single out this one house. Whatever alterations the Justices desired, they would undertake to carry out.

Mr. Wightwick here interposed with the remark that there was only one room for the public.

Proceeding, Counsel stated that in addition to this room for the public there was a large kitchen. As to the one room, he pointed out that the lodgers, who were all respectable men employed in Folkestone, were not allowed to remain in the room throughout the day. They went out to work in the morning, returned in the evening, had supper, and went to bed at nine o'clock. It was not suggested that the house was conducted in any other but the proper way. All sorts of objections, counsel said, were now being made against these unfortunate holders of licences, and the only objection against this man was because his only accommodation was a large kitchen, which Mr. lyn argued was more comfortable than even some of the men had at home.

In his evidence, Frederick Skinner, the licensee, said he never served any beer on Sunday morning. He had never had a tramp lodging with him, only working men, and he did not take them in unless they could guarantee to stop three or four nights. At present he had two or three men who had lodged with him three years, and two others who had been with him a year.

Chief Constable:- You say you do not sell anything on Sunday morning. Do you supply your lodgers on Sunday morning?

Well, I supply them with a pint, but if that is your objection, I won't do so.

With regard to your lodgers, you say they are all respectable men?

I should say so.

How many men have been convicted from your house during the last two or three years?

I can't say.

Have any?

I don't know. There has never been a man arrested in my house.

Do you know a man named Field?

Well, he got one month for doing wilful damage to my premises.

Questioned by Mr. J. Percival Hughes, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Haines), who appeared for the Licensed Victuallers, applicant said there were four bedrooms in the house, one of which contained six beds, two four, and the other three.

Mr. Glyn:- Are you prepared to divide the rooms or do anything the Bench say you have to do?

Witness:- I am prepared to do anything the Magistrates wish.

The Justices retired, and on returning into the Court in about five minutes, the Chairman, addressing Mr. Glyn, said: Are you prepared to give an undertaking that there will be a second public room provided, and are you also prepared to give each lodger a separate room?

On Mr. Glyn undertaking to do this, Mr. Wightwick intimated that on that condition the renewal would be granted.

This announcement was received with applause, which was, however, immediately suppressed.

Folkestone Herald 11 April 1903.

Wednesday, April 8th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, G. I. Swoffer, and E. T. Ward.

The licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his brother, Charles Skinner, the Chief Constable offering no objection

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1903.

Tuesday, May 19th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Councillor Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Messrs. W. C. Carpenter and J. Stainer.

Jane Featherbee, a married woman, living in Radnor Street, was charged under the new Licensing Act with being drunk when in charge of a child under the age of seven years, to wit, four years. She pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that at 8.15 on Monday evening he saw the prisoner drunk in Seagate Road, in charge of the child. When he attempted to take her into custody, she refused to let him bring her by the arm, and laid down in the road. With the assistance of P.C.s H. Johnson and Prebble, prisoner was conveyed in a trap to the police station. Here the child was handed over to prisoner's sister-in-law. Witness had previously, at the request of the landlord, ejected the woman from the "Tramway Tavern." The child was with her then, and he persuaded her to go home.

Similar evidence was also given by P.C. H. Johnson.

Prisoner denied being drunk, and said she had had only a few glasses of beer. There had been a little disturbance between her and her husband, and that was the reason she went out. She always took the child with her wherever she went, as she did not think it was doing anything wrong.

The Chairman, after consulting with his colleagues, reminded the prisoner that she had placed herself in a serious position. Under the new Act she was liable to a fine of 40s., or a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine, for being intoxicated whilst in charge of a child. The Bench, however, had decided to give her another chance. She would be fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment.

Musings of the Week.

No-one will accuse the Magistrates sitting at the Town Hall on Tuesday with having erred on the side of severity in fining a woman 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs for being intoxicated whilst having a child under seven years of age in her care. The prosecution was instituted under the new Licensing Act. There is a good deal of discussion with reference to the wisdom and practicability of some of the clauses in this measure, but there can be no question as to the desirability of making such an offence as that of Jane Featherbee was convicted as one punishable by the law, and the Chairman of the Bench did well to remind the accused that the Justices had the power to fine her as much as forty shillings, or even to send her to prison for a month without the option of a fine. There are few more pitiable spectacles than that of children of innocent and tender years in the company and charge of adults in a state of intoxication. In this case the poor little child was only four years old, and the mother stated that she “always took it with her, and it did not matter wherever she went”. It is often said that half the world knows not how the other half lives. Doubtless one half is saved a good deal of mental anguish by such ignorance.

Folkestone Herald 11 November 1905.

Saturday, November 4th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T. J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel R. J. Fynmore, and Mr. W. C. Carpenter.

Robert Jas. Smart, Patrick Maloney, and Robt. Richd. Fitzgerald were charged, on remand, with stealing a mackintosh, a coat, a scarf, and a pair of gloves from the residence of Major General W. Jackson, at 6, Castle Hill Avenue. The evidence previously given was read over and confirmed.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that at midnight on Wednesday, the 1st inst., he called on Alfred Howard, who handed him the coat produced, which was afterwards identified by Miss Hutter. The value of the mackintosh and overcoat was 30s.

Henry Boorman, the licensee of the Hope Inn, Great Fenchurch Street, said he recognised all the men except Fitzgerald. Smart and Maloney came to his house on Sunday and asked him to buy the coat produced. Maloney said a “man on the road” stopped him at the Radnor and asked him 4s. for it; he (Maloney) refused, but said if he had had the money he would have bought it. He went down Fenchurch Street, and about a minute afterwards Smart and a short man joined him.

Alfred Howard stated that he lived at the "Tramway Tavern." On the previous Sunday he saw the prisoner Smart in Tontine Street with a party with whom witness worked, opposite the Clarendon Hotel. He asked him to buy a coat which he was wearing, saying he could have it for 4s. On being asked if the coat belonged to him, he replied that it did, and that he had not had it long. He also said he was hard up, wanted to go to Canterbury, and wanted food. He (witness) said he would give him 3s. for it, but if, when the prisoner got to Canterbury, he could pull himself round, he could have the coat back for the same money. He (witness) felt pity for the man, seeing his two badges (meaning his medal ribbons), and the position he was in. On the 1st inst., he handed the coat to D.S. Burniston.

Prisoners elected to be dealt with summarily. Smart pleaded Guilty to helping to steal the articles. Maloney pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he met Smart, who asked him to sell a coat, and he requested witness Boorman to buy it. Fitzgerald pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Swift stated that nothing was known against Maloney and Smart, but Fitzgerald was believed to be a Wm. Murray, who had many previous convictions for larceny against him.

Prisoners were sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, Alderman Spurgen remarking that people should be more careful in buying articles offered them by strangers, as they might find themselves in a serious position. He cautioned the witness Howard.

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E. T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C. J. Pursey, Alderman W. G. Herbert, and Mr. R. J. Linton.

The Chief Constable presented his report.

It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions the licences of the "Blue Anchor," the "Providence," the "Welcome," the "Tramway," the "Channel," and the "Hope" would be opposed, on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood. The licence holders of those houses received this information as they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Mr. R. J. Linton, Mr. C. J. Pursey, and Mr. T. Ames.

The "Tramway Tavern."

Mr. Martin Mowll appeared for the owners in this case.

The Chief Constable said the "Tramway Tavern" was situated in Radnor Street. The present lessee was Charles Skinner, who obtained the transfer of the licence on the 8th April, 1903. The registered owners were Messrs. George Beer and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value was £22 10s. Radnor Street, from the arch to the end, was just 180 yards long. There were 63 houses in the street, and 6 of them were fully licensed public houses. There were three entrances to the house, two from Radnor Street, and a back entrance from The Stade behind the Fishmarket. The accommodation for the public consisted of a small front bar divided into two compartments, and a tap room behind. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 16 other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards 26; and within a radius of 200 yards there were 32. The trade was a small one, and he considered the licence was not necessary for the needs of the neighbourhood. This house was the lowest rateable value of any public house in the street. It was opposed in 1903 on the ground of redundancy. There had been four transfers in twelve years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He included in his statement as to the radius four houses that the Bench had sent to Quarter Sessions that day. The house that had had its licence refused last year did not appear on the plan. The houses in question were close to the Fishmarket and the Harbour.

Charles Skinner said he had been the tenant since April, 1905, when he took it from his brother, Frederick, who had taken it from another brother, Alfred, in 1899. The latter took the place in 1897. He (witness) was making a living from the house, and was satisfied with it. During his tenancy there had not been any complaint against the house.

Mr. Mowll said the Chief Constable had forgotten to draw attention to the proximity of all those houses to the Harbour and Fishmarket. The majority of the houses close by the Harbour did not depend upon the persons living in the locality, but upon the many persons using the Fishmarket and the Harbour.

The Chairman: The Bench have decided to refer this to Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R. J. Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C. J. Pursey, and R. J. Linton.

Mr. Charles Coppin Skinner applied to have the licence of the Wellington beerhouse transferred to him from John Marsh.

The Chief Constable mentioned that Mr. Skinner was now holding the licence of the "Tramway Tavern," which as cancelled at the Licensing Sessions, but he would be holding the two licences for a time if the Bench granted his application.

Mr. Cobay said the question of compensation to all the houses in the district whose licences had been refused at the Sessions had been settled the day before, and the "Tramway Tavern" would be closed on the 30th of the present month.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Herald 30 November 1946.

Local News.

The funeral took place at Holy Trinity Church, recently of Mr. Frederick Skinner, 77, of 8, Martello Road, Folkestone, who died after a long and painful illness. Mr. Skinner, who was born in Canterbury, came to Folke­stone as a young man. He entered the licensed victuallers’ trade and held the licences in succession of several premises.

A staunch member of the Borough of Hythe Conservative Association, he was an arduous worker in the East Ward. An active Freemason, his Mother Lodge was at Canterbury; he was also a member of Temple Lodge, Folkestone, and Castle Lodge, Sandgate. He is mourned by his widow.

The inter­ment was at Canterbury.