DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, July, 2022.

Page Updated:- Friday, 22 July, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1847-

Tramway Tavern

Latest 1907+

4 Radnor Street

Folkestone

Tramway Tavern 1928

Above photo showing former "Tramway Tavern", centre of picture, 1928, by Martin Easdown.

 

Kentish Gazette, 29 July 1851.

Folkestone. Serious accident.

On Sunday morning last, a young lad, 12 years of age, belonging to one of the colliers in the harbour, was getting ashore by means of a punt fastened to the harbour, and in climbing the chain fastened to the rocks, he slipped and fell on the boat-side, breaking his arm and two or three ribs, and receiving other serious injuries. He was conveyed to the "Tramway Arms Inn" Radnor Street, where he remains. It was said to be his first voyage in a vessel, and he was unused to climbing.

 

Kentish Gazette, 23 September 1851.

Folkestone. Serious Accident.

On Thursday last as a drayman, named John Wills, in the employ of Messrs. Kingsford and Co., brewers, of Buckland, was proceeding down Dover-street with his dray, the horse suddenly started, throwing a barrel of beer on to the driver, which broke his left leg, and inflicted other injuries, he was immediately conveyed to the "Tramway Tavern," and attended by Mr. Bateman, surgeon, of this town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 February 1857.

Local News.

The adjourned meeting of the boot and shoe trade of this town was held at the "Tramway Tavern" on Tuesday evening last, when the following resolutions were unanimously agreed to:- 1st, that an average advance of 10 to 17½ percent be at once made; 2nd, that this meeting deem it advisable not to follow the example of the trade in other towns, namely, that of advancing their prices 25 to 30 percent, but that to transact business at so low a rate for ready money would be much more beneficial to the public at large than to charge 15 percent more and give credit; 3rd, that this meeting views with abhorrence the present ruinous 12 month credit system, and that each person present pledges himself to use his utmost endeavours towards totally eradicating such a destructive system from the boot and shoe trade of Folkestone. Arrangements were made for a monthly meeting, the object of which is to promote a friendly feeling, and the interests of this trade in the town and neighbourhood. The meeting was numerously attended, and the greatest unanimity prevailed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle, 14 June 1862.

Saturday June 7th:- Before James Tolputt and A .M. Leith esqs.

Temporary authority was given to Thomazine Cope to sell excisable liquor at the "Tramway Tavern."

 

Folkestone Observer 19 July 1862.

Soldiers Robbing A Volunteer.

Wednesday July 16th:- Before W.F. Browell, A.M. Leith and W. Wightwick Esqs.

George Stewart and Edmond Brian, privates of the 96th Regiment now at Shorncliffe were charged with violently assaulting George Parker, and feloniously stealing certain articles from his person.

George Parker, moulder, and living in Shellons Terrace, Folkestone, private in the band of the 5th Cinque Ports Volunteer Rifles, had been to Dover on Tuesday last to drill, and having left his rifle and bayonet at the armoury, walked about, and fell in with the prisoners near the tramroad arch. He was himself in uniform. It was about half past 11 that he was at the railway arch. The prisoners accosted him, saying “Hello, comrade, how are you getting on? Are you going to have anything to drink?” Witness said “I don't mind”. They then went into the "Tramway Tavern." About 1 o'clock they all left the tavern together. They then went along to Radnor Street, where they met P.C. Reynolds, who called witness by name, and said the best thing he could do was to go home. Witness said he would do so, and started for home. He was then not drunk, though he had had a good drop of liquor. Brian came after him, and asked witness to wait a bit until he had found his chum, and he would go with him. He wanted witness to show him the nearest way to camp. After a while they all started up the town, and when they got to witness's lodgings he was going in, but they persuaded him, and he said he would go with them to Coolinge Farm. When they had got about halfway between Mr. Kingsnorth's Farm and Coolinge Farm, in the cart road through the fields, he said to Brian “I shall go back now” and wished him goodnight. Brian said persuadingly, “No, you shall not go back yet”, and at the same time put his hand on his (witness's) tunic and commenced pulling him down. Witness said “What are you up to? Leave go”, but he did not leave go, and said “Oh, all right”. Witness tussled with him, trying to get away, but was thrown down two or three times. At last Stewart got hold of his legs, and then both prisoners laid him on the ground, among the wheat, and Brian sat on his chest. Stewart then pulled witness's boots off, and both knelt on him, and rifled his trousers pockets, and took a knife and 2s. 7d. They then turned him over on his stomach, and took from his tunic pocket a handkerchief and a kid glove. They kept turning him about seeking for something else. They also opened his pouch. Then they got up and left him, taking with them the things they had taken from him. They also picked up his uniform cap, and carried it away. After they had left he shouted “Murder!”, on which an artilleryman came up. Witness looked about with the artilleryman for his boots and other things, and then on the advice of the artilleryman he went on with him to the camp, to the guardroom of the 96th Regiment. While he was waiting at the guardroom for the sergeant-major the two prisoners came in. He told the sergeant of the guard that the two men newly arrived were the men who had robbed him. The sergeant then searched them. During the struggle with the prisoners among the wheat his wrist received a severe cut, and his face was also injured while on the ground. Witness identified a volunteer cap and handkerchief produced, which was all that had been found.

Robert Gurney, sergeant, 96th Foot, was on duty as sergeant of the barrack guard on the night of Monday last, when the two prisoners were on pass. They came into the guardroom about 3 o'clock on the morning of Tuesday, and left their passes with the corporal. About 4 o'clock the prosecutor came into the guardroom and stated that two men of the 96th had robbed him. Suspecting the prisoners, he sent a corporal and file of men to the barrack room for them. As soon as prosecutor saw them he recognised them as the two men who had robbed him. The prisoners were then searched in witness's presence, and on the person of Brian was found the pocket handkerchief produced, which prosecutor immediately identified. Brian also claimed it as his own property. Nothing else was found upon them. Parker was certainly sober when he came, but he had had a glass of ale. Witness did not see the prisoners when they came into barracks. At half past four o'clock, when he sent for the prisoners, they were muddled with drink, and Stewart's trousers were very dirty – dirty to the thighs with mud as if he had been tussling with someone. His tunic was also dirty. Their passes only extended to 12 o'clock. Witness could swear that the prisoners did not leave their passes at the guard before two o'clock, when he himself lay down to sleep.

Sergeant Smith K.C.C. went on Tuesday afternoon to the wheat field where the struggle had taken place, and saw marks of the scuffle, and one or two spots of blood. Returning to Folkestone police station he told Stewart where he had been, and asked him if he should tell him where he would find the boots and cap. Stewart said he didn't know where witness would find them, but he might find them about three or four yards from where the scuffle took place. He found the boots and cap about four yards from the spot in the wheat.

P.C. Reynolds said he was passing the "Tramway" beerhouse, in Radnor Street, about half past 12 on Tuesday morning, and looked into the passage, where he saw the two prisoners, the prosecutor, and another man drinking at the bar. He saw them in company again at 5 minutes to one in Queen Square. They then went away towards High Street. Witness said he was certain of the identity as he had conversation with them. Stewart was not drunk, but Brian was, but he was not so drunk but he knew what he was about.

Stewart said that he had that night been in several public houses in the town, drinking, with several civilians, and the prosecutor might have been one, though he did not remember him. But as to injuring or robbing him, he knew nothing about it, and he did not go to Shorncliffe by any wheat field, but direct home by the carriage road. As to his telling the policeman he might find the boots and cap there, or four yards from where the scuffle took place, he said that because it was usual when soldiers got into any scuffle and lost their things, to send to the spot where the scuffle was, and to find the things close by.

Brian made a similar defence.

The prisoners were committed to the assizes for trial.

 

Folkestone Observer, 2 August 1862.

Kent Summer Assizes.

Friday July 25th: - Before Baron Bramwell.

George Stewart and Edmon Brian, soldiers, charged with assaulting and robbing George Parker, a volunteer in uniform, between Folkestone and the Camp, were found guilty and sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

 

Folkestone Chronicle, 15 August 1868.

Folkestone Express 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday August 10th: Before W. C. Scott.

Alfred Kingsford v Thomasin Cope: This was an undefended plaint to recover possession of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, and an order for a fortnight was granted.

 

Folkestone Observer 10 July 1869.

Wednesday, July 7th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

The magistrates granted the transfer of license of the "Tramway Tavern" to James Nevill.

 

Folkestone Express 10 July 1869.

Wednesday, July 7th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

James Nevill applied for a transfer of the license of the "Tramway Tavern" from Thomas Cope. A very respectable requisition was put in, and the police superintendent reported very favourably of the house. The Bench therefore granted the application.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 September 1869.

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

The following public house was granted a spirit license: "Tramway Tavern," John Rossiter.

 

Folkestone Express 11 September 1869.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

Wednesday, September 8th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Spirit license was granted to John Rossiter, of the "Tramway Tavern."

(It also appears that a John Rossiter was licensee of the "Radnor" in this year.)

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 6 September, 1872. Price 1d.

TO BE LET

The "Tramway Tavern," Public-house, Radnor Street, Folkestone. Capital boatman's house, and in close proximity to the Fish Market. Enquire on premises, or of Alfred Kingsford, Brewer, Dover.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 September 1869.

Local News.

On Wednesday last, the adjourned licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall, before W. Bateman, Esq., Captain Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt, Esq., and A.M. Leith, Esq.

Spirit licenses were granted in the cases of the "Wheatsheaf," Bridge Street; the "Albion Hotel," "London Stores," "Tramway Tavern," the "Radnor," and the "Mechanic’s Arms."

 

Folkestone Express 31 August 1872.

Monday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Edward James Neville, public house keeper, Radnor Street, was charged with assaulting Eleanor Ann Dalby on the 21st instant.

Complainant, whose tongue would outrival the most voluble Welshwoman, stated that she went to remonstrate with defendant from brutally ill-using her husband when he was in drink, and that Neville struck her with his fist several times.

Defendant said he put up his hands to protect himself from complainant, who said she would tear his eyes out, and he might have hit her and he might not.

Fined 10s. and 10s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour. Defendant chose the latter and asked the Bench to take care of his four little children which he had left at home.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 September 1872.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

Lloyd Thomas Kennett applied for a temporary license to sell excisable liquors under the license granted to William Herbert at the "Tramway Tavern."

Application granted.

 

Folkestone Express 21 September 1872.

Transfer.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

The license of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from Mr. H.J. Neville to Mr. Herbert.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 October 1872.

Folkestone Express 19 October 1872.

County Court.

Saturday, October 12th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Edward C. Tomalin, tailor, Hythe v E. Cope, late of the "Tramway Tavern." Claim, £9 17s. for clothes supplied.

Mr. Till appeared for plaintiff, and said defendant admitted the fourth, fifth, and seventh items in the bill, but denied owing others.

Mr. Tomalin said he made the clothes for defendant, who never disputed the bill before. He had applied to him about thirty times for payment. The son's clothes charged in the bill were ordered by defendant, who said he was a minor, but in order to protect plaintiff he would draw his son's money from the Customs' and pay him. He had received £5 12s. from the customs, but no other payments had been made. Defendant had never denied his liability, but asked him to wait, and as soon as he had left the "Tramway Tavern," and had settled his affairs, he would pay the bill.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, who appeared for defendant: I have given defendant credit for the Custom House clothes, and he said he would have private clothes instead of a uniform. On the 14th January, 1864, defendant's son had a pair of trousers and a vest, and I measured defendant at the same time in the bar. Defendant walked over to Hythe one morning, and called me out of bed to give him the clothes. I took a piece of cloth back which defendant had for his daughter's jacket, because she thought it was too thick.

Defendant said: I told plaintiff I admitted the three items, but I could not remember anything about the others, as it was so long ago – 1864. I know nothing about the cloth for my daughter's jacket – that was in 1866, and she is now 24 years of age. My son was about 14 then.

His Honour:- It is not likely that Mr. Thomalin would take an order from the son. There is no defence at all. Defendant only says he cannot recollect. Judgement must be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. I cannot allow expenses for loss of time, but will allow travelling expenses and attorney's fee.

Defendant:- I asked plaintiff for a settlement dozens of times.

His Honour:- That is what he wanted (laughter).

Plaintiff:- Defendant is in a good position; when is the money to be paid?

His Honour:- The judgement will issue, and you must take your own course.

 

Folkestone Express 24 April 1875.

Saturday, April 17th: Before J. Tolputt, J. Clark and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Mrs. Eliza Ann Kennett was granted a temporary authority to sell excisable liquor by retail at the "Tramway Tavern" under the license of her late husband, Lloyd Kennett.

 

Folkestone Express 19 June 1875.

Wednesday, June 16th: Before R.W. Boarer, Col. De Crespigny and J. Tolputt Esq.

The license of the "Tramway Tavern" was transferred from Lloyd Kennett, deceased, to his widow and administratrix, Mary Ann Kennett.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 December 1878.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Capt. Crowe, Gen. Armstrong C.B., Capt. Fletcher, R. W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Eliza Ann Kennett, landlady of the "Tramway," was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on Sunday.

The evidence was of the most trumpery character.

It appears that P.C. Ovenden had been hunting about the vicinity of the house, and that sagacious constable, hearing someone moving about the house, concluded that someone must have been inside, which was very likely, as landlords and their retainers are not famous for attendance at the morning services either of the Church of England or Dissenting chapels. This active and intelligent constable, pursuing his enquiries, stormed the house, and on arriving therein he concluded that he had procured the most damaging evidence, as he saw marks of beer stains on the table. Here was circumstantial evidence of the highest character! Eliza Ann, perhaps, would have had her business settled in no time, for of course on such testimony they would have immediately convicted, and in consequence there would have been a loss of profit for someone upon the beer barrels finding their way into the "Tramway" cellar.

The magistrates, however, did not take this view of the case, but listened to the tale of the landlady and immediately dismissed the case. Thereupon there was great applause in Court, which was very rightly instantly suppressed.

The general public, as they left the Court, gave reasons why they indulged in this applause, observing that it was shameful to drag a woman through the odium of appearing in Court, unless there was a probability of proving the case, and also remarking that the police, in displaying this new born zeal should at least have reasonable grounds of hoping to procure convictions before taking such extreme measures.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1878.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Captain Crowe, General Armstrong, Captain Fletcher, James Kelcey, and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Eliza Ann Kennett, landlady of the "Tramway Tavern," was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours.

A constable said on Sunday morning about eleven o'clock he met a man coming out of the back door of defendant's house with a glass in his hand. The back door was open. He went and demanded admission, and saw the landlady throw something out of a pot or glass she had in her hand. She was going to shut the door, when he asked who was there in the house. She said no-one but her lodger. The table was stained with fresh beer marks. He asked who the man was who had just left and she said he came to order some ice and salt of her lodger.

P.C. Ovenden said he entered by the front door. He saw beer marks on the table, and he heard people moving about before he was allowed to go in.

Defendant said the man came to order some ice of her lodger. He took her some herrings and she gave him a glass of beer, thinking there was no harm in it.

The Magistrates dismissed the summons, and there was loud applause in Court at the decision.

 

Southeastern Gazette 7 December 1878.

Local News.

Eliza Jane Kennett was summoned by Supt. Wilshere for opening her house, the "Tramway Tavern," during prohibited hours, on Sunday, December 1st. She pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Swain said on Sunday evening, at 11.15, he went to the back premises of defendant’s house, and met a man named Hall coming out of the back door, which was then open. He had a pint glass half full of beer. The landlady then threw something dark out of a glass or pot and was about to shut the door. Witness told her not to do so, as he wanted to come in. There was a man standing by the fire, whom the landlady said was a lodger. P.C. Ovenden at that moment knocked at the front door, and the landlady let him in. The table in the tap room was wet and marked with the rims of glasses and pots.

Defendant said the man Hall had been to order ice and salt.

The defendant called Charles Shrubsole, who said he lodged at the "Tramway Tavern," and was there on Sunday evening when the man Fall came to him for some salt. He did not come into the house but stood on the step of the back door. He had brought some herrings for Mrs. Kennett, who asked him whether he would have a glass of beer. He did not pay for it. The Bench dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 14 June 1879.

Wednesday, June 11th: Before Captain Carter, Alderman Caister, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Clark Esqs., and Colonel De Crespigny.

This being transfer day, some licensing business was transacted. In the case of Mr. Whiting, of the "Tramway Tavern," the applicant had omitted to give the requisite fourteen days' notice to the overseers of his intention to apply for a transfer. Mr. Mowll, who appeared for him, said thirteen days' had been given, and the overseers and the superintendent of police offered no objection, and the transfer was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1882.

Auction Advertisement.

Sale Next Monday.

"Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, Folkestone.

Mr. John Banks will sell by Auction, on the above premises, on Monday, September 18th, 1882, the whole of the Household Furniture.

Consisting of French Bedsteads, Feather Beds, Bolsters, Pillows, Palliases, Mattresses, Blankets, Counterpanes, Chests, Mahogany and Painted Drawers, Washstands, Tables, Towel Horses, Chamber Services, Dining, Loo and Pembroke Tables, Pianoforte, Chairs, Glass, China, Earthenware, Clocks, Kitchen Utensils and Other Effects.

On View the morning of Sale. Sale to commence precisely at One O'Clock.

 

Folkestone Express 17 March 1883.

Saturday, March 10th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, J. Holden and W. J. Jeffreason Esqs.

John Drury was summoned for having his house, the "Tramway Tavern," open on Sunday morning, the 4th inst., during prohibited hours, and William Martin and William Tumber for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours.

All three defendants pleaded Guilty, and the Bench fined Drury £2 10s., and costs 8s., or in default one month hard labour, and the other two defendants each 2s. 6d. and 8s. costs, or in default one week hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 February 1884.

Wednesday, January 30th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Crowe, Ald. Hoad, Gen. Armstrong C.B., and F. Boykett Esq.

Alfred Summers, for refusing to quit the "Tramway Tavern" when ordered to do so, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 2 February 1884.

Wednesday, January 30th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, General Armstrong, and F. Boykett Esq.

Alfred Summers was charged with refusing to quit the "Tramway Tavern."

John Hudson Drury, the landlord, said the defendant went to his house at half past ten. He was sober. He caused a quibble about a coin with which he paid for some beer, as to whether it was a threepenny or fourpenny piece, and afterwards created a great disturbance. Witness called in a policeman to eject the defendant, as he refused to go.

He was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone News 2 February 1884.

Wednesday, January 30th: Before The Mayor, Gen. Armstrong C.B., Capt. Crowe, Alderman Hoad, and F. Boykett Esq.

Alfred Summers was charged with refusing to quit licensed premises.

John Hudson Drury, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," said on Saturday night at 10.30 the defendant came to his house and called for some beer, and they had an altercation about some change, and he eventually struck at witness and witness's wife. He asked defendant to leave the house, but he refused to do so.

Defendant could not remember the circumstances as he had had some beer. He had been in the town nine years, and had not been before the Bench before.

Defendant was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days' imprisonment, and also cautioned not to annoy the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern" again.

 

Folkestone Express 3 May 1884.

To Let, with immediate possession, a fully licensed public house, the "Tramway Tavern," Folkestone. Has back entrance to Fish Market. Rent low, incoming by valuation, or arrangement, £50 to £60. Satisfactory reasons for leaving can be given by the present occupier. For further particulars apply to the Dover Brewery Company, Dover.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1885.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Fletcher, J. Fitness, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. G. Hambrook applied for temporary authority to carry on the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street.

Mr. Holden said the "Tramway Tavern" was notorious for Sunday trading, and he thought the applicant should know it. A previous tenant of the house had been convicted.

Supt. Taylor said he had heard these assertions made frequently, but the parties who made them could not be induced to come forward and substantiate them. No doubt there was some truth in the statement, but they could not be proved. He had offered to prosecute if those who complained would give evidence.

Mr. Holden said it was all truth.

Supt. Taylor said it was not all truth. But it was a very difficult matter to get at because there was a certain amount of freemasonry among the inhabitants of Radnor Street.

Mr. Bradley said that was true. The people there would scale walls at the back of the premises in order to get their wants supplied.

The applicant was cautioned by the Bench and told that a close watch would be kept upon the house.

 

Folkestone News 2 May 1885.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Monday, before The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Fitness, T. Caister, J. Clark, W. J. Jeffreason, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., on the application being made for temporary authority to open the "Tramway Tavern," Mr. Holden from the Bench said this house was notorious for it's Sunday trading, and desired the applicant should be cautioned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 July 1885.

Wednesday, July 22nd: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Frederick Hanoon was charged with causing an obstruction in Beach Street on the 12th of July.

Sergeant Pay said he saw defendant's horse and cart at 6.15 p.m., which was unattended till 7.05, when defendant came to it from the "Tramway Tavern." It was standing opposite the "Royal George Hotel."

Fined 2s. 6d., 9s. costs, or seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 25 July 1885.

Wednesday, July 22nd: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Frederick Hanson was summoned for obstructing Beach Street with a cart on the 12th inst.

Sergeant Pay said he was in Beach Street and saw a horse and cart there unattended from five minutes past six to a quarter past seven in the evening. Defendant came out of the "Tramway Tavern," and witness told him he should report him.

Defendant was fined 2s. 6d., and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 20 March 1886.

Tuesday, March 16th:- Before F. Boykett, A. M. Watkin and H. W. Poole Esqs.

Solomon Scamp, a young man, was charged with stealing a guernsey, value 9s., the property of Thomas Smith.

The prosecutor stated that he was in the "Tramway Tavern" with the prisoner and others. He was the worse for drink, and when he left he missed the guernsey, which he had seen the prisoner looking at.

Evidence was given that the prisoner had sold the guernsey at the shop of a second hand clothes dealer named Smith in Dover Street.

P.C. Reed apprehended the prisoner on the night of the 6th, but he then escaped from custody. Subsequently he enlisted in the Manchester Regiment, and on receiving information of his whereabouts P.C. Reed re-arrested him.

He was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone News 20 March 1886.

Tuesday, March 16th:- Before H. W. Poole, A. M. Watkin, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Solomon Scamp, a private in the Manchester Regiment, was charged with stealing a guernsey, value 9s., on the 6th inst.

Thomas Smith, mariner, said that he was with prisoner on the 6th in the "Tramway Tavern" in the evening, and saw him looking at the guernsey. Witness was the worse for drink at the time. The guernsey produced was his.

Mrs. Catherine Smith, second hand dealer, Dover Street, said prisoner brought the guensey to her and asked 3s. for it. She gave him 2s. for it. He was not dressed as a soldier.

P.C. Reed said on the night of Saturday, the 6th, he apprehended prisoner, and on his way to the station he escaped from witness's custody. On Monday he obtained a warrant and apprehended prisoner at Shorncliffe, where he had enlisted in the Manchester Regiment.

The Bench, in consideration of the youth of the prisoner, took a lenient view of the case, and prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 November 1886.

Saturday: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Holden Esqs.

Benjamin Freeman, a labourer, was charged with having stolen a bottle of cherry brandy, one of whisky, and one of cloves.

Henry Spillett, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern Inn," Radnor Street, said that on the previous day prisoner entered his house several times and had drink. One one occasion he went in about 5.30 while witness was having tea in a room behind the bar, and remained about ten minutes. He was in the bar alone during that time. A few minutes after prisoner left he missed two bottles, the one containing about a pint of Scotch whisky, and the other about the same quantity of cloves. He had also missed a bottle of cherry brandy after one of prisoner's visits in the afternoon. Prisoner could reach the bottle from where he stood in the bar.

William Henry Forbes, (sic. William Henry Paul) landlord of the "Marquis of Lorne," in Radnor Street, said that prisoner went into his house on the previous day, about two o'clock in the afternoon, and engaged lodgings. He then left, but came back in half an hour's time and, taking a bottle from his pockets, poured some of it's contents into a glass of beer which he had called for. Prisoner wanted him to taste it, which he did. It tasted like rum, and prisoner told him he had got it from a wreck at Romney. He then drew another bottle from his pocket, and offered it to him (Mr. Forbes) for 2s. He ultimately bought it. He thought it was home made cherry wine. Prisoner came back to his house again about six o'clock and offered him a bottle of whisky for 2s., which he declined to buy. Prisoner then called for a glass of beer and poured something into it from another bottle he had. He was asked by prisoner to smell it, and knew it to be cloves.

P.C. Lilley apprehended the prisoner, who, in answer to the charge, said “There is no charge. You can't find anything on me”. At the police station prisoner said nothing when the charge was read to him.

Prisoner, in defence, said he bought three bottles from a “chap” on the Leas, and three others he brought from a wreck at Romney. They might send him to gaol, but he should settle the matter with the “chap” who sold him the stuff when he got out.

He was sentenced to one month's hard labour, and the Mayor advised Mr. Spillett not to buy bottles of wine over his bar counter in this way.

 

Folkestone Express 20 November 1886.

Folkestone News 20 November 1886.

Saturday, November 13th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs.

Benjamin Freeman, a labourer, who said he came from Bexhill, was charged with stealing a quantity of whisky, cherry brandy, and cloves, the property of Henry Spillett.

Henry Spillett, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, said the prisoner was in his house several times during Friday, drinking. The last time was about half past five. He then remained about ten minutes. No-one else was in the bar whilst prisoner was there. Witness was in the bar parlour getting his tea when he heard the prisoner leave, and when he went back into the bar two or three minutes after prisoner had left, he missed two bottles from a shelf, one containing about a pint of Scotch whisky, and the other about a pint of cloves. Previous to that, about four o'clock in the afternoon, he missed two bottles – one of cherry brandy, and the other a show bottle.

William H. Paul, landlord of the "Marquis of Lorne," said the prisoner went to his house about two o'clock on Friday and took lodgings. He went away and returned about three. He had a pint of beer, and took a bottle from his pocket, and poured some of the contents into the beer. He asked witness to taste it. He did, and said “That is funny stuff. What do you call that?” He replied that he had a lot of it, brought from a shipwreck at Romney. Two other lodgers came in, and they tasted the liquor in the bottle, but none of them could say what it was. It tasted like a weak solution of rum, sugar, and water. After that prisoner pulled out a full bottle and offered to sell it for 2s. It had a capsule on it, but no label. He drew the cork from the bottle and tasted it, and gave the prisoner 2s. for it. He thought it was home made cherry wine. Prisoner went away, and returned a few minutes before six. He then pulled another bottle from his pocket, and witness found it was whisky. He told prisoner he did not want it. Prisoner had another half pint of beer, and poured something out of another bottle into it. He asked witness to taste that, but he declined. He smelt the glass afterwards, and it smelt strongly of cloves.

P.C. Lilley said he received information from the prosecutor that he had lost a quantity of spirits. In consequence of what was said he went with prosecutor to the "Queen's Head," where they found the prisoner, and prosecutor gave him into custody. Prisoner, in answer to the charge, said “There is no charge. You can't find anything on me”. He at first refused to go to the police station, but another constable came up, and with some difficulty they conveyed him to the station. He had the appearance of a man who had been drinking, but was not drunk. He had 6s. and some bronze in his possession.

Prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty," and said he bought three bottles of a man, to whom he gave 3s. 6d. for them, and the other bottles he brought from Romney. He was sentenced to one month's hard labour, and the Bench recommended Mr. Paul in future not to buy bottles of liquor in his bar.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 July 1887.

Wednesday, July 20th: Before Dr. Bateman, J. Fitness, W.J. Jeffreason, and E. Ward Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

James Johnson, a labourer, was charged with stealing from the "Tramway Tavern," on Saturday night, the 16th inst., a coat, two dusters, one towel, one pocket handkerchief and one shilling in bronze, the property of William Wright.

William Wright, a hawker, said he lodged at the "Tramway Tavern." The prisoner had also been lodging there, and on Saturday evening the prisoner was lying on a form in front of the fire in the kitchen. The landlord told prisoner it was time to go to bed, and he went upstairs. Witness did not see his face. Witness slept in the same bed as prisoner, and went to bed shortly after eleven o'clock. At that time the prisoner was fast asleep. That bed was the only double bed in the house. Witness got up at eight o'clock in the morning, and the prisoner was gone. Believed he went away about five o'clock. Witness missed his coat, two handkerchiefs, a towel, two dusters, a shilling in bronze, and other things. Witness valued his clothing at 2s. 6d. When witness went to bed he put his clothes under his pillow. Witness did not see the man's face at all, and therefore he could not identify him. When he found that his clothes had been stolen he gave information to the police.

Prisoner said the prosecutor had hung his coat over the foot of the bedstead over his coat, and when he went out in the morning he accidentally took the wrong coat.

Sergt. Pay said he apprehended the prisoner at the "Red Lion Inn," Paddlesworth, on Sunday last. Witness asked him if he had been to Folkestone last week, and he answered “No”. Witness asked him where he got the coat from which he was wearing, and he said he bought it at Canterbury eight months ago. Witness asked him to let him see what he had got in his pockets. He produced the dusters and handkerchief in Court that morning. Witness then told prisoner he should charge him with having stolen the articles from the "Tramway Tavern" on Saturday night. Prisoner replied “I might as well tell you the truth. I went to bed drunk and got up about five o'clock on the Sunday morning. When I went out I made a mistake and put on the wrong coat. I did not know it until I got to the top of the hill and then I felt ashamed to go back”. Witness brought him to the Folkestone Police Station, when he was charged by Sergeant Ovenden in witness's presence. In answer to the charge, prisoner said “There was not a shilling's worth of coppers in the coat. There was only 5½d.”

In answer to the Chairman, prisoner said he was guilty of taking the coat, but not with the intention of stealing. He took it by mistake.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the prisoner had not the money in his possession when he was arrested, and when he knew he had made a mistake he ought not to have spent it.

Dr. Bateman said the Bench did not consider it was a very serious offence, and the prisoner would be sent to prison for fourteen days, with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 July 1887.

Monday, July 25th: Before W. J. Jeffreason, J. Fitness and E. Ward Esqs.

Jane Cravener, a middle aged woman, whose face is somewhat familiar in the dock, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday afternoon on the Marine Parade.

William Price, boat inspector, said yesterday afternoon he was on duty on the beach opposite the Marine Parade when he saw the prisoner rolling about drunk and using very bad language.

Prisoner (interrupting):- You are a false-speaking man. I was not drunk. I was exhausted.

Witness, continuing:- Prisoner was bleeding very much from a wound in her wrist. A gentleman called witness's attention to her and said she ought to be taken away. There were not many people around her. Witness took her to the police station.

Prisoner, who was crying, said she had been badly treated by different people in Folkestone. She had lived here four years. The other day, the landlord of the "Tramway" nearly choked her.

The Magistrates' Clerk:- But that is no excuse for getting drunk.

Prisoner:- I was not drunk. I was lying on the beach with my hand in the water trying to stop my wrist from bleeding. I was almost exhausted. I had no money to buy drink with.

The Chairman said as it was not her first appearance the Bench had decided to fine her 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 September 1887.

Local News.

George Daice was charged at the Elham Petty Sessions on Monday with stealing a dog from William Aird, a cow keeper and proprietor of the "Valiant Sailor" at the top of Folkestone Hill. The value of the dog was £1. It appears that Percy Southern, in the employ of the prosecutor, was at the "Warren Inn" about six o'clock on Saturday morning, when he saw the prisoner there. He observed that he had a dog in a basket, and after a few words had passed between Southern and the prisoner, the former, thinking that it looked like his master's dog, went to the prosecutor and asked him if he had missed the animal. A search was made and it was found to be missing. Aird immediately sent information to the Folkestone police, with the result that enquiries were made, and the defendant was subsequently found by Police constable Scott at the Tramway Tavern in Folkestone. The prisoner had the animal, which was only two months old, in his arms. When questioned by the magistrates the prisoner said that he did not intend to steal the dog. When he saw it, it had evidently lost it's way and he picked it up. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the Bench entertained some doubt as to whether the prisoner really did mean to steal the dog, and he would therefore be given the benefit of the doubt, and the case would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 November 1887.

Tuesday, November 8th:- Before W. J. Jeffreason Esq. and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

James O'Brien, a suspicious looking fellow, was charged with having, on the 7th instant, stolen a coat from the "Tramway Tavern," value £1, the property of Henry Gardener.

The prosecutor stated that he was a labourer, and lived at the "Tramway Tavern." The prisoner lodged there also. Saw him there about nine o'clock yesterday morning. He went out several times during the day, but did not recollect seeing him after about two o'clock. Missed the coat (produced) about four o'clock. Identified the coat produced as his property. The landlord told him that his coat was gone. Witness valued it at £1.

By the prisoner:- Prisoner also had a coat in the same house, but he sold it in the bar during the day. Was not there when he sold it, but knew the man who bought it.

Henry Spillett, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," stated that the prisoner was in his house at four o'clock yesterday. Witness was going into his kitchen about 5.20 when the prisoner stopped him and shook hands with him, bidding him goodbye, as he was going home. Saw him with the coat on, and therefore informed Mr. Gardener.

Prisoner asked witness whether he did not have a coat, and whether he saw him sell it. The witness said prisoner did have a coat, but he saw him sell it in the bar.

Gardener, re-called, stated that he fetched a policeman to the prisoner and he was apprehended in the passage. He had the coat on at the time.

P.C. Smith deposed that he went with Gardener to the house and found the prisoner in the kitchen of the "Tramway Tavern." The prosecutor had the coat on.

Mr. Bradley:- Who had the coat on?

The prosecutor.

But the prosecutor says the prisoner had it on.

No, sir, he didn't. The prosecutor had it on.

Witness, continuing, said he charged him with stealing the coat, and he said “It has to be proved”. He made a similar reply at the police station.

Gardener was again called, and said he had had some drink and could not quite remember whether he had the coat on or not. The prisoner had been drinking with him.

Mr. Spillett, re-called, stated that the prisoner was the worse for drink. When witness missed the coat he followed the prisoner and found him near Mr. Davis' grocery shop. Witness asked him to take the coat off, as it did not belong to him. He said he should not. He had bought it, and if he liked to give him the same price as he gave for it he could have the coat. Witness got him to go back to the house. When he got back he asked Gardener if the coat was his, and he replied that it was. Prisoner then took the coat off and threw it on the floor, and Gardener put it on.

Prisoner said he did not steal the coat. He was the worse for drink, and no-one saw him take it. He might have taken it by mistake. He did not intend to steal it.

The prisoner called the landlord to testify to his character, of which the landlord spoke satisfactorily.

Mr. Jeffreason said the Bench could not believe that the prisoner did not intend to steal the coat, or that he took it by mistake. As to his being drunk, that was no excuse. He was not too drunk to sell his own coat. But, considering that he was a little the worse for drink, the Bench would take a lenient view of the case, and he would be sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 12 November 1887.

Tuesday, November 8th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne and W. J. Jeffreason Esq.

James O'Brien was charged with stealing a coat, value £1, the property of Henry Gardner.

Prosecutor said:- I am a labourer, and lodge at the "Tramway Tavern." I recognise the prisoner, who lodged at the same house. I saw him yesterday morning at nine o'clock, when he went out. I missed my jacket between four and five o'clock. The jacket produced is mine. In consequence of what the landlord told me I went to look for my coat. I value it at a sovereign.

By the prisoner:- You had a coat in the same house, but you sold it. I was not there when you sold it. The man who bought it told me you sold it.

Harry Spillett, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," said:- Prosecutor and prisoner lodged in my house. About twenty past four yesterday prisoner shook hands with me and said he was going home. I saw he had prosecutor's coat on. I went to Gardner and told him that his coat was gone.

By the prisoner:- You had a coat, but you sold it about three o'clock in the taproom.

Prosecutor was re-called, and said he went for a policeman and went after prisoner. They found him in the passage wearing the coat.

P.C. Swift said he went with prosecutor in search of the prisoner. They found him in the kitchen of the "Tramway Tavern." He was not then wearing the coat. When charged with stealing it, prisoner said “That is to be proved”.

Prosecutor said he had made a bit of a mistake. He thought the prisoner had the coat on when he got the policeman. He and the prisoner had been having a drop of drink together, and he did not quite remember what took place.

The landlord said Gardner was not sober when he told him the coat was gone. He followed the prisoner and told him to come back. He was wearing the coat. He went as far as the arch, and refused to go any further. He then told him he must take the coat off. He said he had bought it and should not pull it off unless he was paid the money he gave for it. He then went into the house and pulled the coat off, which Gardner picked up and put on. Prisoner was drunk, and prosecutor too. They had some drink in the house.

P.C. Swift said prisoner was the worse for drink when he apprehended him.

Prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty." He was drunk and took the coat in mistake for one he believed was his own.

The landlord of the house said prisoner had lodged there for a fortnight. He had conducted himself properly during that time. He did not know what he did for a living.

Prisoner was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 february 1888.

Wednesday, February 22nd: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Poole, Alderman Sherwood, S. Brooke, F. Boykett and W. Wightwick Esqs.

William Hadlow Paul, landlord of the "Marquis of Lorne," was summoned for keeping his house open for an unlawful purpose.

Sergeant Harman stated that he was on duty in Radnor Street on Sunday 15th inst. from seven till ten o'clock. At 7.45 he observed two women – Louisa Harris and Rose Flowers – whom he believed to be prostitutes, come from the "Tramway Tavern" and enter the "Marquis of Lorne." They went back to the "Tramway," and subsequently at ten minutes to eight returned to the "Marquis of Lorne." They spoke to two other women outside of this place and afterwards went inside, remaining there about 20 minutes. They came out again at half past eight with four soldiers and went to No. 20, Radnor Street, the house of Mrs. Spearpoint. One soldier came out of here at ten past nine and another went in. Then another soldier came out with Rose Flowers and went across to the "Marquis of Lorne," and was followed shortly afterwards by another soldier. The girl Harris next came out and went into the same place. She came out again at 9.10 with another soldier in the Oxfordshire Regiment and went across to Mrs. Spearpoint's, and returned again in 20 minutes with the same man to the "Marquis of Lorne." At that time Rose Flowers came out with a soldier in the Hussars' uniform and went in the direction of Mrs. Spearpoint's house, and came back again at quarter to ten. At ten minutes to ten witness visited the "Marquis of Lorne" and saw the two girls at the bar. There was a third woman, but witness did not know her name. She was a stranger to him. The bar was full of soldiers and some of them had their arms round the waists of the women. Defendant was behind the bar serving. Witness said to him “You see those women standing in front of the bar? They are prostitutes, and you know them to be such”. He answered “Yes, but I have never been spoken to about it”. Told him that he had had the house under his observation for two or three hours and should report the matter, and probably he would be summoned. When he had been in the house about five minutes he saw the woman Harris leave in company with a civilian, but could not say where she went to. Was on duty Friday and Saturday in Radnor Street, but did not see any of those women frequent the house then. Had frequently seen other women there. One's name he knew to be Lewis.

By Mr. Minter, who appeared for defendant:- On this particular occasion there were a great number of soldiers at the house. Did not go into the "Tramway Tavern" and caution the landlord not to serve the soldiers.

P.C. Lilley said he was on duty in Radnor Street on the 6th of Jan. and on the 5th of Feb. He kept the "Marquis of Lorne" under his observation. He had seen women there he had known to be prostitutes. Had seen them leave sometimes with soldiers, and sometimes alone. He had seen them go across to Mrs. Spearpoint's – 20, Radnor Street.

Mr. Minter said as far as the evidence went, it was clear that no offence for which they could convict the defendant had been committed on his premises. Defendant could not prevent prostitutes entering his house or soldiers bringing them there. The charge was that these women remained in the house longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshments. He did not know what was the length of time, for he had never heard it mentioned. The defendant wished him to impress upon the Bench the difficulties which a publican of that class had to prevent that kind of people coming in and out. There was nothing against the defendant's character, and he tried to keep his house respectable.

Mr. Bradley said it was a question whether these women were not there for the purpose of prostitution.

Mr. Minter said there was no evidence to show it. It was all against Mrs. Spearpoint.

The Mayor said although it was a suspicious case the Bench had decided to dismiss it.

 

Folkestone Express 25 February 1888.

Wednesday, February 22nd: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, F. Boykett, W. Wightwick, and J. Brooke Esqs.

Wm. Hadlow Paul was charged with allowing his house, the "Marquis of Lorne", to be used by immoral women.

Sergeant Harman said on the 5th he was on duty in Radnor Street from seven till ten o'clock. At 7.45 he saw two women, Louisa Harris and Rose Flowers, whom he believed to be prostitutes, go from the "Tramway Tavern" to the "Marquis of Lorne." At eight o'clock they came out, and went to the "Tramway Tavern." At ten minutes past eight they returned to the "Marquis of Lorne." Outside they spoke to two women, Mrs. Spearpoint and Mrs. Banks. They remained inside twenty minutes, and came out with four soldiers of the Oxford Regiment. Two of the soldiers remained on the pavement and the other two went into Mrs. Spearpoint's house with the two girls. At ten minutes past nine one soldier came out and another went in. At nine another soldier and Rose Flowers came out and went across to the "Marquis of Lorne." At five minutes past nine the other soldier came out of Mrs. Spearpoint's and went to the "Marquis of Lorne," and ten minutes after he was followed by the other girl. At twenty minutes past nine she came out and went with another soldier to Mrs. Spearpoint's. At half past nine she returned with the soldier to the "Marquis of Lorne." Rose Flowers came out with another soldier belonging to the Hussars and went across to Mrs. Spearpoint's. They returned to the "Marquis of Lorne" at 9.46. Five minutes after, he visited the "Marquis of Lorne," and saw the two girls and a third woman there. The bar was full of soldiers. Paul was behind the bar serving. He said to him “You see those women there in front of the bar. They are prostitutes, and you know them to be such”. He said “Yes, but I have never been spoken to about it”. He told him he should report the matter, and probably he would be summoned. About five minutes after he saw Harris accompany a civilian in the direction of Mrs. Spearpoint's. Both Flowers and the other woman left at ten o'clock.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said there were a great many soldiers in Radnor Street that night. He had not been into the "Tramway Tavern" to caution the landlord.

P.C. Lilley said he was on duty in Radnor Street between the 5th and 6th of January. He saw prostitutes go in and out of defendant's house with soldiers, and go to Mrs. Spearpoint's, No. 20.

Mr. Minter contended that the evidence went to show that no offence was committed. The women had a right to go in and stay a reasonable time. He had never heard it defined what was a reasonable time. No complaints had been made against the defendant. He suggested that instead of the defendant, Mrs. Spearpoint, of No. 20, should have been prosecuted, because it was clear that it was her house that was the resort of prostitutes. The defendant had carefully prevented any girls from going beyond the passage of his house.

The Bench dismissed the summons against the defendant, but cautioned him as to his future conduct.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 December 1888.

Saturday, December 1st: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden, E. T. Ward, J. Hoad, and J. Fitness Esqs.

The licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was temporarily transferred to Mr. Edward Paul Hill.

 

Folkestone Express 15 December 1888.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, December 12th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the "Tramway" was transferred to Edward Hill.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 May 1889.

Saturday, May 4th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett Esq., Alderman Sherwood, and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Henry Ratcliffe was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street on the 26th of January.

Mr. Hoad asked how it was that the summons had not been served before.

Supt. Taylor said the defendant had evaded it, and kept out of the way until the other day.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. He was not drunk, neither was he disorderly. He had not tried to evade the summons being served on him, for he had not been out of the town.

P.C. Osborne said he was on duty in Radnor Street on Saturday, the 26th January, when he saw the defendant outside of the "Tramway Tavern," fighting with another man. Witness parted them. The defendant was drunk. The other man had been summoned and convicted in January for the offence.

Defendant said the other man knocked a basin out of his hand. He was not drunk, and as soon as the constable told him to go home he did so.

The Chairman said as the defendant had evidently evaded the summons being served upon him he would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs. Allowed a week for payment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 June 1889.

Transfer.

Saturday, June 22nd: Before F. Boykett Esq., and Major H. W. Poole.

An applicant named Hogben applied for the transfer of the "Tramway Tavern."

Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant.

It was refused on the previous occasion on the grounds that the applicant did not bear a good character, the Superintendent of Police stating that a short time ago he left the town with another man's wife.

Mr. Minter put in several testimonials giving Hogben a good character. One was from Colonel Deedes; also one from Lord Chichester, who gave him a high character. He had also been in the employ of the South Eastern Railway, and Mr. Mitchell, the Station Master, wrote stating that he was employed under him for four years and always found him straightforward and everything that could have been desired. A testimonial was put in from the Army and Navy Co-operative Society, and signed by about twenty of the employees, stating that Hogben had been employed there for some time, and was always found to be sober, honest and industrious. Mr. J. G. Lauder, of the Folkestone Harbour Station, likewise gave him a good character.

In answer to the Bench, Superintendent Taylor said the application was refused on the last occasion in consequence of the circumstances under which the applicant left the town.

Mr. Minter said he did not think it was right to bring up private things against him which had taken place four or five years ago.

Mr. Boykett said on the strength of the testimonials, which the Bench considered were very excellent, they would grant the transfer.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1890.

Annual Licensing Session.

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

The "Tramway Tavern":- Superintendent Taylor said on the 13th of May some soldiers were found on the premises after closing time. They were absentees from the Camp. The general conduct of the house was bad.

The application was adjourned.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

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

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

The "Tramway."

Supt. Taylor said after closing time on the 18th May some soldiers were found in this house by the picquet, and taken to the Camp.

The applicant said they told him they were on pass, but even if they were they had no business in the house.

The application was adjourned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1890.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

The first case dealt with was the "Tramway Tavern" (Herbert Hogben).

Sergeant Butcher was called and stated that he visited the "Tramway" at quarter past eleven on the 13th of May, and found three soldiers belonging to the Royal Engineers and two civilians on the premises. The landlord told him that they were there for the night and that they had taken lodgings. The soldiers were drinking.

In reply to Mr. Martyn Mowll, who appeared for tenant and Messrs. Beer & Co., witness said he had visited the house on other occasions.

Mr. Mowll said it was a fact that the soldiers said they were on pass and that they had taken lodgings for the night. As to the civilians, no doubt the tenant had made a mistake, but he thought a caution from the Bench would be sufficient. He thought the fact that Sergeant Butcher had visited the house on several occasions without finding any other complaint to report would convey to the minds of the Bench that the house was well conducted.

The Mayor said the police had done their duty in bringing the case forward and he hoped they would continue to be as active. The Bench would give them every support. There was only one complaint against Hogben, and the licence would be granted, but he must be more careful in the future.

 

Folkestone Express 27 September 1890.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H. W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses.

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The "Tramway Tavern."

Herbert Hogben applied for a renewal of the licence of this house.

The Superintendent of Police opposed on the ground that soldiers had been found on the premises at quarter of an hour after closing time on the 15th May last.

Sergeant Butcher gave evidence that he found a civilian and two soldiers who were not on pass, and who were taken in custody to the Camp.

Mr. Martin Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the applicant, and also on behalf of Messrs. George Beer and Co, the owners. He said there was no doubt whatever, so far as they could get at the facts, that they were as stated in evidence, that two soldiers were in the house after closing time on the 15th May. The excuse was that the soldiers were on pass and had taken lodgings for the night. No doubt the applicant had made a little slip, but he did not think it was such a one as would lead the Bench to refuse a renewal of the licence.

The Bench said the considered the police had done their duty in bringing the matter to the knowledge of the licensing justices. They were very glad there was no other case against the house, and therefore they decided not to withhold the licence, although they cautioned the applicant as to the conduct of the house in future.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 December 1890.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Thursday before Mr. Fitness and Major Penfold, Thomas ryan was charged with assaulting William Marsh, of the "Lord Nelson Inn," Radnor Street.

Prosecutor said the prisoner, with several other soldiers of the Leinster Regiment, had some beer at his house, and ran out with a jug and a glass. He pursued them, and when the prisoner got to the "Tramway Tavern" he poured some of the beer into a bottle which a girl named Lily Hogben, who lived at the "Tramway," was holding. Witness asked him to give up the jug, when he “butted” him in the chest with his head, knocking him down.

Lily Hogben was called, but stated that prisoner was not the man at all. It was one of the prisoner's witness's, named Cunningham, who committed the assault. She could swear to it, as she knew him well.

The Magistrates discharged Bryan, and Cunningham was placed in the dock and ultimately fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 January 1891.

Saturday, December 27th: Before Captain Carter, Major Penfold, Aldermen Dunk and Sherwood, J. Holden, E. T. Ward, and J. Fitness Esqs.

James Murphy, a private, belonging to the Leinster Regiment, was charged with stealing one umbrella, one hat, and a purse containing 3s., the property of Lucy Spearpoint, a woman of loose character, on the night of the 26th of December.

Prosecutor stated that she was a widow, living at 3, Portland Place, Dover Road. She was going home about one o'clock in the morning when she was overtaken by the prisoner. He asked her to take him home with her, but she refused to do so, and he struck her a violent blow with his fists. The marks on her face were caused by the blow. The blow knocked her down. She screamed, and a policeman came up. He saw her bleeding. When she got up she discovered that the prisoner had stolen her purse, which contained 3s. It was wrapped up in her handkerchief. The prisoner must have taken it out of her pocket. He ran away immediately after he struck the blow. She also missed her umbrella and her hat. She told the policeman what had happened, and the prisoner was afterwards apprehended. She identified the man in the dock as the man who struck her. She had never seen him until the night in question, to her knowledge, and she did not wish to press the charge against him.

By the prisoner: Did not meet the prisoner by appointment. He followed her. She was not in the "Tramway Tavern" with him, and it was false that he had given her 2s. She did not ask him for money; the blow was struck because she refused to take him home.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, the prosecutrix further stated that she was in the "Tramway Tavern" during the evening, but left about half past nine. From that time up till about one o'clock she was walking the streets.

Sergeant Lilley stated that he was on duty at the Police Station about half past one on Saturday morning, when he saw the prosecutrix. She was bleeding from a cut on the left side of her nose, and her eye was also swollen and discoloured. In consequence of what the prosecutrix said he went in search of the prisoner, and overtook him beside the entrance to the lower end of Augusta Gardens, in Sandgate Road. Witness asked him if he were on pass, and then asked him to go to the police station with him. Prisoner turned back, and walked a short distance towards the station, when he asked what he was wanted for. Witness told him that a woman had been assaulted and robbed, and that he had reasons to believe that he did it. He further told him that he should take him to the station for the purpose of identification. Prisoner immediately turned and ran up Sandgate Road in the direction of the Camp. Witness pursued him, and eventually caught him in a field, about mid-way between Westbourne Gardens and Shorncliffe Railway Station. He took the prisoner to the police station, where he was identified by the prosecutrix.

In answer to the charge, prisoner said “I met this woman in a place – I think it was called the "Tramway" – where there were a lot of bad women. I stayed there awhile and then I said I wanted to go. She came out with me, and I gave her 2s. or 3s. She wanted some more money and I left her”.

Prosecutrix said she had not recovered her hat or umbrella.

Prisoner was remanded until Monday.

 

Monday, December 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk, Pledge, and Sherwood, Major Penfold, E. T. Ward, J. Fitnes, J. Clark, and J. Holden Esqs.

James Murphy was placed in the dock and charged, on remand, of having stolen one hat, one umbrella, and one purse containing 3s., the property of Mrs. Spearpoint.

The evidence given on Saturday was read over and confirmed. Mrs. Spearpoint said she did not believe she was in the prisoner's company more than ten minutes before the blow was struck.

William Thomason, a drummer, belonging to the Lincolnshire Regiment, stated that he was in Dover Road about one o'clock on Saturday morning. He saw a woman and a soldier talking at the corner of Bradstone Road. They were talking very loudly, but he could not hear what the conversation was about. He could neither identify the woman or the man, but he could distinguish that the man had dark facings – like the Leinster Regiment – and a scarlet tunic. Witness did not see him strike the woman, but he heard her scream, and when he looked round he saw her in the act of falling. The man was then standing by her, but ran away up Bradstone Road as soon as she fell. Witness told the policeman he thought he belonged to the Leinster Regiment, because he had black facings. He could not swear that the man did not have an umbrella when he ran away. So far as he could tell, he should say he had nothing in his hand.

Mr. Bradley enquired whether there were any witnesses present from the "Tramway Tavern."

Supt, Taylor said the landlord's daughter – Lily Hogben – was in the time that the prisoner and the prosecutrix were supposed to have been there, but she declined to come as a witness. She said she got into trouble the last time she gave evidence.

Mr. Bradley: Then you send for her at once and tell her if she does not come a warrant will be issued to compel her to come.

The girl eventually arrived, and stated that she lived at the "Tramway Tavern" with her father. She knew the prosecutrix, but she only knew the prisoner by sight. He had not been to their house very frequently. He was there on Friday evening. He came in about two minutes to eleven. Could not say whether he was alone or not. Several other soldiers came in at the same time. Should imagine he was alone. He remained in the house until “shut up time” – eleven o'clock. Witness called out “time” and they all left together. Did not recollect serving the prisoner with anything. The prosecutrix was in the house about the same time, and also remained until it closed. She had been in two or three times during the evening. Did not see her in conversation with the prisoner, neither could she say whether she was in company with anyone on the last occasion. They were all together.

By the prisoner: Did not remember whether the prosecutrix had a glass in her hand on the last occasion or not. She had to call “time” in two rooms.

The witness was very stubborn in giving her evidence, and gave Mr. Bradley a great deal of trouble.

The Chairman said the evidence with regard to stealing from the person was not sufficient to enable them to convict, and the charge would therefore be dismissed, but if the prosecutrix liked to proceed against the prisoner for assault, she would have a clearer case.

Prosecutrix said she did not wish to press either of the charges against the prisoner, and she would forgive him for the blow he gave her.

Prisoner was then discharged.

 

Folkestone Express 3 January 1891.

Saturday, December 27th: Before Captain Carter, Aldermen Sherwood and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Holden, E. T.Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

James Murphy, a private in the Leinster Regiment, was charged with stealing 3s. from the person of an unfortunate woman, named Lucy Spearpoint.

Prosecutrix said she was a widow, living at 3, Portland Place, Dover Road. About one o'clock that morning she was going home and met the prisoner, who asked her to let him go home with her. She told him she could not, and he then struck her with his fist. He knocked her down, and when she got up she found her purse, which contained 3s., was gone, and also she had, in the scuffle, lost her hat and umbrella. Prisoner ran away. The mark on her face was caused by the blow the prisoner gave her. Her purse was in her handkerchief in her pocket. A policeman came up and saw her bleeding. She told the policeman what had occurred, and the prisoner was afterwards apprehended. She had never seen the prisoner before, but she did not wish to press the charge against him.

In cross-examination by the prisoner, prosecutrix said she did not meet him anywhere. She was not in a public house called the Tram with him, nor did she ask him to go home with her. She did not ask him for money, and it was not true that he gave her two shillings. He struck her because she would not let him go home with her.

In reply to the Bench, the prosecutrix said she was in the "Tramway Tavern" during the evening. It was half past one in the morning when she met the prisoner. She had been walking about the streets all the evening, and she had just come from Tontine Street when she saw the prisoner. She had not been in any house in Tontine Street.

Sergt. Lilley said about 1.30 that morning he was in the police station, where he saw the prosecutrix, who was bleeding from a cut on the left side of the nose, and her eye was swollen and discoloured. From a statement she made to him he went in search of the prisoner, and overtook him in Sandgate Road, near the entrance into the lower end of Augusta Gardens. He asked if he was on pass, and he said “Yes”. He told prisoner he wanted him to go to the police station, and he at once turned and commenced to walk back with witness. Then he said “What for, Sergeant?” He replied “A woman has been assaulted and robbed, and I have reason to believe you are the man that did it. I shall take you to the police station for the purpose of identification”. Prisoner immediately turned and ran up Sandgate Road in the direction of the Camp. Witness chased him and caught him in the field about midway between Westbourne Gardens and Shorncliffe Railway Station, and brought him back to the police station, where he was immediately identified by the prosecutrix. The charge was read over to prisoner, who said “I met this woman in a place – I think it is called the "Tramway." I don't know where it is; where there are some more bad women. I stopped there a while and then I said I wanted to go. She came out with me and I gave her 2s. or 3s. She wanted some more and I left her”. When prisoner was searched, 4d. was found on him.

In answer to the Magistrates, the prosecutrix said she had not recovered her hat and umbrella.

Prisoner was remanded until Monday, prosecutrix again saying she did not wish to press the charge against him.

Monday, December 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, E.T. Ward, J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Clarke, and S. Penfold Esqs.

James Murphy was charged on remand with assaulting and robbing Lucy Spearpoint early on Saturday morning.

The prosecutrix, in reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, said she was not with the prisoner in the "Tramway Tavern" at all. She was sober. She was with him only about ten minutes before he struck her.

William Thomason, a drummer in the Lincoln Regiment, said about one o'clock on Saturday morning he was in Dover Road and saw a woman and a soldier standing near the corner of Bradstone Road. They were talking very loudly. He could not identify the man or the woman, but the man had a scarlet tunic with dark facings. He saw the woman fall down, but he could not say what caused her to fall. He heard her scream, and he saw the man run away up the Bradstone Road. A policeman came along, and he told him he thought the soldier belonged to the Leinster Regiment.

Superintendent Taylor said the girl from the "Tramway Tavern" would not come. She said she got into trouble on a previous occasion. A message was directed to be sent to tell her that if she did not attend, a warrant would be issued to compel her to attend.

Lily Hogben, daughter of Herbert Hogben, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," said she knew the woman and the soldier by sight. He had been to her father's house once, and that was on Friday night about ten minutes to eleven. There were Lincoln and Leinster men in at the same time. Prisoner went in alone and remained in the house until closing time, eleven o'clock. She did not recollect seeing him with anyone. All the people in the bar left together at eleven. When prisoner entered the bar, the woman was in the house, and remained there until the house closed. She did not see her in conversation with the soldier. She had been in the house previously two or three times. She could not say if she was in company with anyone. Did not see the prisoner treat the woman.

By the prisoner: I do not remember when I called out “time” that the woman who had a glass of beer in her hand took it out with her. I had to call “time” in two rooms.

The Magistrates considered there was not sufficient evidence of robbery to go to a jury, and discharged the prisoner, telling the prosecutrix she could proceed against him for the assault if she pleased. She replied that she did not wish to do so.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Very well. The black eye is your own affair.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1891.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before J. Clarke, J. Pledge, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H. W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

An objection was raised in the case of the "Tramway Tavern."

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of the brewers, said if the Bench would adjourn the case he would undertake to put a fresh tenant in the house.

The case was adjourned.

The adjourned Sessions will be held on the 23rd of September.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 September 1891.

Licensing Sessions.

The annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday, when objections were raised against the renewal of the licences for the "Globe Hotel," the "Bellevue Hotel." The "Bouverie Hotel," and the "Tramway Tavern." Mr. Rooke appeared on behalf of the council of the Folkestone Temperance Society, and the whole of the cases were eventually adjourned until Sept. 23.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1891.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions The Tramway.

The licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was transferred from Hogben to a new tenant named Tarper. (sic George Barber).

 

Folkestone Express 26 September 1891.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day. The Tramway Tavern.

The granting of this licence was postponed in order that the tenant might be changed. George Barber, of Canterbury, had succeeded Hogben, and now applied for the licence, which was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 March 1892.

Monday, February 29th: Before Major H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Thomas Davis, a labourer, was charged with stealing one pair of boots, valued at 6s. 6d., the property of Thomas Vickery.

P.C. Nash stated that from information he received on Saturday morning, he went to the "Tramway Tavern" at quarter to nine. He saw the prisoner there, and, noticing that his coat pockets appeared to be bulky, he called him outside and said “Where are those boots?” He replied “Here they are”, and produced them, taking one from each pocket. He said he won them in a raffle. Witness took him to the police station, where he was charged by Sergt. Butcher in his presence, and made no reply.

Thomas Vickery said he carried on business as a bootmaker at 54, Guildhall Street. On Saturday night he had some boots exposed for sale at the door of his shop. About half past six he missed the pair produced, and gave information to the police. The selling price of the boots was 6s. 6d.

Prisoner said he was Guilty of having the boots in his possession, but not of having stolen them. He did not know how he got them. He had been going from house to house all the evening and was stupefied with drink.

The Bench sentenced him to 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 5 March 1892.

Monday, February 29th: Before H. W. Poole and W. G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Davis, a sturdy looking man, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 6s. 6d., the property of Mr. Thomas Vickery, boot and shoe dealer, of Guildhall Street.

P.C. Nash said he received information from Mr. Vickery that the boots had been stolen, and went to the "Tramway Tavern," where he saw the prisoner. He noticed that his pockets were sticking out, and said to him “Where are those boots?” He said “Here they are”. He said he won them at a raffle.

Thomas Vickery said he had boots exposed, just at the doorway of his shop in Guildhall Street. About half past six on Saturday evening he missed a pair and gave information to the police. He could swear to the boots produced. They had his private mark upon them. The selling value was 6s. 6d.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to having the boots in his possession, but not to stealing them. He did not know how the boots came into his possession. He had been drinking from house to house, and did not know what he was doing.

Supt. Taylor said the man did not bear a good character and was regarded with suspicion.

It appeared there was a conviction against the prisoner prior to 1877, but it was not proved against him.

Prisoner was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892.

Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and Messrs. W. G. Herbert and W. Wightwick.

John McKew and William Fitzpatrick, Highlanders from the Camp, were severally charged with stealing, on the 22nd August, 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of John Thomas Warman, (sic John Thomas Forerman) landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street.

The prosecutor stated that the prisoners came to his house on Monday evening and had two glasses of ale. He left the bar shortly after serving them, and when he returned he missed the cigars from a case over the spirit jars at the rear of the bar. In order to reach them a person would have to stand on a seat in the bar. When he missed his property, he followed the prisoners into Tontine Street, where he found them talking to two young women, smoking cigars similar to those he had missed. He gave information to the police and P.C. Smoker followed the men into the "Royal George," where he asked them for the missing cigars, and one handed him the case produced.

P.C. Smoker deposed that he went to the "Royal George," and there found the prisoners smoking in the bar. Warman (sic.) said he would give them into custody for stealing his cigars, and in response to this McKew put his hand into his pocket and drew out one packet of cigars (produced), saying that was all he had.

McKew denied that he gave the police constable the cigars. He asserted that a corporal of Military Police put his hand into his pocket and withdrew the packet from it. He did not say “There you are, guv'nor”.

The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and both pleaded Not Guilty. McKew stated that he purchased the cigars of a sailor for 6d., and Fitzpatrick said he was not in the habit of smoking.

The Captain of the Company, who was present, said both men had extremely good characters.

The Bench considered the case proved against McKew, and fined him 10s., and in the case of Fitzpatrick, they gave him the benefit of the doubt and dismissed him.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Banks, W. G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John McHugh and William Fitzpatrick, Cameronian Highlanders, were charged with stealing 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of James Thomas Boorman. (sic. Foreman)

Prosecutor is the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street. He said the prisoners went in on Monday evening about a quarter past seven and called for two glasses of beer. He served them and left them there, and on his return they had two more glasses He left the bar again, and on his return, missed the cigars from a case on the shelf. The prisoners left the bar as he returned. He followed them, and saw them talking to two girls and smoking cigars similar to those produced. He spoke to P.C. Smoker, and together they followed the prisoners to the "Royal George," where McHugh handed him the packet of six cigars produced.

P.C. Smoker said on Monday night he was on duty at the bottom of High Street, when the prosecutor spoke to him and they went together to the "Royal George," where they found the prisoners with three other soldiers. Prosecutor gave them into custody for stealing four packets of cigars. McHugh took a packet of cigars from his pouch and handed them to witness.

They both pleaded Not Guilty. McHugh said he bought the cigars from a sailor for 6d.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoners bore an exceedingly good character, and one of them had eighteen months service.

The Bench considered the case proved against McHugh, and fined him 10s. Fitzpatrick was dismissed with a caution.

 

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 Chronicle 10 June 1893.

Wednesday, June 7th: Before Mr. J. Fitness, Major Poole and Mr. Wightwick

The licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was transferred to James Bayliss.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1893.

Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge, Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.

The Opposed Licenses.

Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police, he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the hearing of these cases – say the 15th of September. No doubt it would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on Saturday night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the mass of facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did not think there would be any objection to the adjournment.

The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and a special sitting would be held on the 13th September at 11 o'clock.

In the case of the "Tramway Tavern," one of the houses objected to, the temporary authority to sell was extended till the 13th September.

The Superintendent's Report.

Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: 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 give you the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1893.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H. Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad Esqs.

The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants were Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.

Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr. Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application to make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to prepare facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been objected to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is that you will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13th September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases. Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may at once state that the houses objected to are the "Jubilee," Radnor Street; the "Harbour Inn," Harbour Street; the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street; the "Granville," Dover Street; the "Queen's Head," Beach Street; the "Royal George," Beach Street; the "Victoria," South Street; the "Cinque Ports," Seagate Street; the "Wonder," Beach Street, the "British Colours," Beach Street; the "Ship," Radnor Street; the "Oddfellows," Radnor Street; and the "Folkestone Cutter," Dover Street. There are 13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the facts and statements connected with every case are different, and it is necessary that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench before they give their decision.

The Chairman:- Will the 13th be the adjournment?

Mr. Bradley:- No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will be on the 27th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll's application?

Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18th?

Mr. Mowll:- I am in the Bench's hands entirely as to the day. The 13th would be the most convenient day.

Mr. Boykett:- The 13th is on Wednesday.

Mr. Bradley:- This day three weeks.

The Chairman:- The Bench will grant your application, Mr. Mowll.

"Tramway Tavern."

Mr. Mowll:- there is another matter that had better stand over till the adjournment. I did not know till this morning that Bayliss had only got temporary authority. He must apply at the adjourned special session for a licence to be granted before a renewal can take place. I therefore ask the Bench to let the application stand over till the adjourned day.

The Chairman:- We see no objection to that.

Mr. Bradley:- But you want temporary authority in the meantime. You are selling without a licence at the present moment.

James Bayliss therefore made formal application for temporary authority, and it was granted till the 13th September.

The Superintendent's Report.

The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:- “Borough of Folkestone Police, 23rd August, 1893.

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 consist 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, in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

John Taylor, Supt.

 

To The Licensing Committee.

The Chairman:- Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Magistrates for that report.

You have only been acting on the directions of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken and the report you have presented.

Mr. Boykett:- Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll:- The Bench will not object to me having a copy of the report. I don't know whether the shorthand writers took it – the Superintendent read it very rapidly.

Mr. Bradley:- There is no objection to that at all.

The unopposed licenses were then granted.

Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting would be held in the large room.

 

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 Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

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

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn said this was a beer-house, situated in Radnor Street, rented at 10s. 9d. a week. The ground of objection were that it was not required, and secondly that it was kept disorderly. Messrs. Beer and Co., the owners, had never had any intimation whatever that the house was improperly conducted. If they had, they would have made enquiries, and, if necessary, have secured another tenant. There had been no conviction since 1883, and he asserted without fear of contradiction that it would be an unheard-of proceeding, even assuming that the Superintendent had got evidence that the tenant had not conducted the house properly, to deprive the owners of their property without any charge being brought before the Magistrates, or the owners having an opportunity of obtaining another tenant.

Mr. Minter said the present tenant only took the house last June.

Evidence was given to the effect that there were thirteen licensed houses within 100 paces of the "Tramway."

Evidence was given by Sergeant Harman, Sergeant Lilley, and several members of the Garrison Police as to the character of the house. It was stated that is was the resort of soldiers and persons of a very indifferent character. On several occasions disturbances had taken place there.

In answer to Mr. Bodkin, one of the witnesses stated that the house had not been placed out of bounds by the military authorities.

Mr. Taylor said there had been nine tenants since 1880.

Mr. Glyn said it had been suggested with regard to this house that there had been disorderly conduct. There had been no conviction since 1883, and he put it to the Bench that it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive the owner of the licence for disorderly conduct, which was suggested for the first time, so far as he was concerned, when the application was made for a renewal, especially having regard to the fact that there was no record against the house whatever. Was it right that the owners should be deprived of their property without any notice whatever, and without the police thinking it right to institute proceedings? He (Mr. Glyn) could not help thinking that the military authorities could not have thought the house was so bad, or they would have put it out of bounds.

Mr. Sandeford said the house was purchased by his firm in 1888, and it was valued at about £800. Bayliss entered in possession this year, and had increased the trade of the house. They had not received any complaint at all from the police authorities since the last renewal.

James Bayliss, the tenants of the house, said he had tried to keep the house respectably, and had made it better since he had been there.

By Mr. Taylor:- This was his first house. The capital he put into it was £5.

By Mr. Glyn:- The furniture in the house was his own.

William Austin, marine store dealer, was called in support of the application for the renewal, and gave evidence as to the way in which the house was conducted.

By Mr. Taylor:- He swore that he had not made complaints to Sergeant Harman within the last six months as to the disorderly conduct of the house.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

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

The Decision.

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

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

Mr. Bradley:- Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Tramway.

Mr. Glyn said this was a fully licensed house in Radnor Street belonging to Messrs. Beer. It was alleged that it was not required and that it was kept disorderly. He said the brewers never had any intimation that it was kept disorderly, and there had been no conviction since 1883, and it would be an unheard of proceeding to deprive the owners of their property without any opportunity of appearing before the Magistrates or to change their tenant.

Sergeant Swift said there were 13 other licensed houses within 100 paces.

Sergeant Harman said the character of the people who resorted to the house was very indifferent. He had cautioned the landlord of the disorderly conduct of two soldiers and two civilians, coming out and fighting in the streets. He had frequently visited the house and found it full of soldiers and women. They were drinking.

By Mr. Minter:- The offences were not sufficiently grave for me to take a summons out.

By Mr. Bodkin:- I did not then see the landlord, nor do I know whether he was there. I saw him after the row outside was over.

By Superintendent Taylor:- I believe there was a quarrel inside.

Sergeant Lilley said he had been called to a disturbance at the Tramway about the 29th or 30th of last month, caused by a drunken man in the taproom. The landlord called him to eject him. He assisted him. The house was frequented by prostitutes and soldiers. No proceedings were taken. He had frequently been called to the house.

Corporal James Lake, of the Military Police, said the Tramway Tavern was frequented by soldiers and women. He had had information about the house and been there in consequence of disturbances by soldiers. During the past twelve months he had been called about three times. He had brought the conduct of the soldiers to the notice of the officers on two occasions.

By Mr. Bodkin:- I was in charge of the military police. I was not subpoenaed, but had a notification that my presence would be required. It was in the month of June I was last called. The house has not been put out of bounds by the military police.

Corporal James Harwood, of the Military Police, said the "Tramway" was largely frequented by soldiers. The majority of the customers were soldiers. He had been called there to disturbances on several occasions during the past twelve months. He had never confined soldiers for misconduct there.

Mr. Glyn (to Supt. Taylor):- Don't lead him, please.

By Mr. Bodkin:- There was nothing serious about the disturbance. I and a couple of men quieted them. The house was not out of bounds. He had never reported the house to his superiors.

Corporal Albert Edward Harris, of the Military Police, gave similar evidence. He had confined one soldier for being drunk and absent, and he was punished by a Court Martial.

Superintendent Taylor:- Can you tell us the result?

Mr. Bradley:- You can't have that – there is a conviction.

Mr. Bodkin objected to the witness's statement.

Mr. Bradley said Superintendent Taylor was at a great disadvantage. He had conducted the case remarkably well.

Mr. Bodkin:- We quite admit that. But we have to adhere to the rules of evidence. We want to know what the man was charged with.

Witness:- The man was drunk.

Mr. Bodkin:- No proceedings were taken?

Superintendent Taylor:- We will accommodate you next year. There have been nine tenants since 1881.

Mr. Glyn said there had been no conviction since 1883, and it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive an owner of a licence on the suggestion that there had been drunkenness. He was not at all sure that the Superintendent could have secured a conviction. It would be monstrous, under those circumstances, without any notice to the owners, that their property should be taken away from them – as a matter of law and elementary justice, without notice of some kind, to give the owner an opportunity of defending himself.

Mr. Sandiford, manager for Messrs. Beer and Co., said the house was purchased in 1888 for £800, and a large sum had been spent last year. Bayliss had increased the trade, and was doing four barrels a week.

James Bayliss, the tenant, said he was doing between four and five barrels a week. He had done his best to keep the house respectable and had succeeded. In June he sent for a constable to put a man out. He tried three times to do it, and was afraid of hurting him. He therefore called a policeman, and whilst he stood there he ejected him.

By Superintendent Taylor:- I pay 10s. 9d. a week. I paid £5 when I went into the house. (The tenancy agreement was put in, and showed it was a yearly tenancy, the rent payable quarterly).

Witness:- If there was any complaint by the police, or he allowed disorderly conduct likely to forfeit his licence he would have to leave.

By Mr. Glyn:- The furniture in the house is my own.

William Austin, a marine store dealer, said the house was respectably conducted.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices' Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the 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.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 16 September 1893.

Local News.

The special sitting of the Folkestone Licensing Bench, for the consideration of thirteen cases in which notice of opposition to the renewal of the licences had been given by the Superintendent of Police, was held on Wednesday. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared on behalf of the licence holders and owners of houses, together with Mr. Minter, solicitor. The ground on which the licences were opposed were that they were not required for the accommodation of the public, and in some cases that the houses had not been conducted satisfactorily. Mr. Glyn pointed out that the whole of the opposed licences were granted a great many years ago, when the population of the borough was about half what it was now. No new licences had been granted for twelve years, and were the Bench to say now that licences which were required for a population of 13,000 persons were not necessary with a population of more than double that number? He further pointed out that in none of the cases had there been any conviction for improperly conducting the houses since the period of the last renewal. Mr. Bodkin cited the decision in the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, which he said was on all fours with the cases in question, and said the present was an inopportune time to take away the licences, as the only change that had taken place was in favour in continuing them, as proved by the absence of complaints or police proceedings. The cases were then gone into seriatim. The Bench stated that they had decided to renew all the licences with the exception of that of the "Tramway Tavern," the complaints against which were that it was frequented by soldiers and women of loose morals, and that disturbances took place there.

 

Southeastern Gazette 19 September 1893.

Local News.

Much interest was manifested in the Special Licensing Sessions held at the Folkestone Town Hall, on Wednesday, for the purpose of dealing with thirteen cases in which notice of objection to the renewal of the licences had been given by the Superintendent of Police. The opposition was conducted by Supt. Taylor, of the Borough police force, while Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, barristers, with Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the licence holders and owners of the houses. At the outset, Mr. Glyn objected to one of the Magistrates, Mr. J. Holden, who is one of the proprietors of a temperance hotel, and that gentleman retired, his place being taken by another Magistrate.

The general ground of objection to the licences was that they were not required for the accommodation of the public, and, further, in some of the cases, that the houses were not conducted in a satisfactory manner. It was shown that in one case there were eight houses in a street near the harbour, five of which were licensed, and several other instances where the proportion was unusually great were mentioned. In another case there were seventeen licensed houses within an area of 100 paces.

Mr. Glyn strongly commented upon the fact that the objections were brought forward by the police in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the licensing committee. He questioned whether the requirements of the section had been complied with, and whether the Superintendent, acting as agent for certain members of the committee, had any locus standi at all to oppose the licences. Dealing with the question whether the licences were required for the accommodation of the public, it was pointed out that they were granted a great many years ago, when the population of the town was about half its present number. Could it be suggested that, with a population of about 25,000, licences which were held to be required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary now? With regard to the way in which the houses had been conducted, Mr. Glyn remarked that there had not been a single conviction during the past year, and urged that any offence which might have taken place previously had been condoned by the renewal, and could not be taken into consideration now.

The Magistrates then considered the cases, and in those instances where disorderly conduct was alleged limited the complaints to occurrences during the last year. In the course of the inquiry it transpired that most of the licences had been in existence since 1810. In giving decision, the Chairman said the Bench had decided to renew all the licences, with the exception of the "Tramway Tavern," which was said to be frequented by persons of loose character, and was the scene of frequent disturbances.

It was intimated that an appeal might be made in this case.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Victoria," the "Oddfellows," the "Welcome," "British Colours," and "Granville" were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and the "Tramway" for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place, this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

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

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 September 1893.

Local News.

At the police court on Monday formal notice was given by the representatives of Messrs. Geo. Beer and Son, of Canterbury, to appeal against the decision of the Borough Justices in refusing to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern."

 

Folkestone Express 23 September 1893.

Local News.

Notices of appeal from the decision of the Licensing Committee were served on Monday morning. The appeal will be held at Canterbury on the 16th October.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 23 September 1893.

Local News.

Notices of appeal from the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Committee with reference to the "Tramway Tavern" were served on Monday morning. The appeal will be held at Canterbury on the 16th October.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 October 1893.

Editorial.

As will be seen by a report in another part of our journal, the East Kent Justices at Canterbury on Tuesday reversed the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Bench in the appeal against their refusal to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern." Commenting on the decision, the Kentish Observer says:- “This is the second time within a couple of years that the East Kent Quarter Sessions Court has declined to deprive a tenant of his licence and the owners of public houses of their just rights. In the interest of the licensed victuallers' trade the result of the last appeal has a most important bearing. It shows that there is justice still left for a much harassed and grossly maligned trade, and that, when he facts are fairly and properly put before the tribunal that has the power of reviewing the decision of the licensing justices, they will receive full and careful attention”.

Local News.

The appeal against the refusal of the Licensing Justices to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern" occupied for some hours the attention of Judge Selfe and a full bench of magistrates at the East Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday.

Mr. H. F. Dickens Q. C., with Mr. L. Glyn and Mr. L. H. Bodkin was for the appellants (Messrs. G. Beer and Co., the owners of the house), and Mr. Lewis Coward with Mr. Alec Tassell was for the respondent justices.

Addressing the Court in support of the decision of the Licensing Committee, Mr. Coward said that in the eastern part of Folkestone, where the house in question was situated, there were licenses in the proportion of one to every twenty houses. There were fifty houses in Radnor Street, and of these, including the "Tramway Arms," eight were licensed. The house in question was, moreover, conducted in a disorderly manner.

Superintendent Taylor said the house was principally frequented by soldiers and loose women. Since 1882 the house had changed tenants on no less than 10 occasions, and once it was temporarily closed. There had of late been an improvement in the conduct of houses in the district.

Cross-examined:- The only conviction against the house was in 1883. A man named Foreman occupied the house from December, 1891, to April, 1893. Witness did not tell Superintendent Farmery when applied to for Foreman's character that he had conducted the business satisfactorily.

Evidence as to the character of the house having been adduced by civil and military police, Mr. Dickens called rebutting evidence.

Mr. Dickens, for the appellants, pointed to the fact that there had only been one conviction against the house during the thirty years of the existence of the licence, and contended that it would be most unfair to pick out one of the oldest houses for condemnation.

The Magistrates retired for deliberation. On their return into Court, the Chairman said the case had been fully considered by nearly a full Bench, and though they were not unanimous, the majority had come to the conclusion that the licence should be renewed. They had had a new trial, and the evidence had been much fuller than when the case was before the local Magistrates. Although the Bench were of opinion that the number of licenses in 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 ground only, and the evidence was not sufficient to justify the Court in saying that the house had been improperly conducted.

 

Folkestone Express 21 October 1893.

The Tramway Tavern Appeal Case.

At the East Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday, the case in which James Bayliss, the holder of the licence of the "Tramway Tavern," appealed against the decision of the justices of Folkestone refusing to renew the licence. W. L. Selfe Esq. (County Court Judge) presided. The appellant was represented by Mr. H. F. Dickens, Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll of Dover, and the justices by Mr. J. C. Lewis Coward, and Mr. Tassell, instructed by Mr. H. B. Bradley.

Mr. Dickens, at the outset, suggested that it was for the other side to begin.

The Chairman said it did not seem to have been the practice of the sessions, but he understood it was stated on high authority to be usual.

Mr. Dickens said it was usual and convenient.

Mr. Coward then stated shortly the nature of the appeal, and the grounds, which were twofold – one, that the decision was against the weight of evidence, and two, that the said refusal to renew the licence was erroneous, and that there was not sufficient reason given to justify such refusal. Of course the justices in quarter sessions were not limited to the evidence that was given below, and he proposed to give evidence of a conviction in 1883 against a previous licensee, and also evidence of misconduct of the premises previous to the year 1892.

His Honour asked if there was no statute of limitations?

Mr. Glyn said “Yes”. He was going to object strongly. There had been a renewal every year.

Mr. Dickens said the Folkestone Bench had it put before them, and they said it was a most unfair thing to go into anything previous to the last renewal.

Mr. Coward said the evidence he should have to lay before them was to the point that the premises were not required for the public accommodation. It had been held that the justices might rightly refuse a licence. Nearly all the houses were at the east end of the town, but he added he was addressing the Chairman, who perhaps had local knowledge.

The Chairman was afraid he did not know much of the east end of Folkestone.

Mr. Coward said as a matter of fact there was not much affinity between the east and the west, but he would not pray the Chairman's local knowledge in aid again. Radnor Street had 50 houses, and of those 50, eight, including the "Tramway Tavern," had licenses. The population of Folkestone at the last Census was 23,900, and there were already in the borough 101 licensed houses, giving an average of one licensed house to every 237 inhabitants. But the majority of those licensed houses were situated in a very restricted area at the east end of the town. He should put in a map, which would explain more clearly. Of those 101 houses, no less than 57 were situated within a small circle, comprised by South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road and the Tram Road. That area was chiefly populated by working classes. Radnor Street was chiefly inhabited by fishermen. He mentioned that because it might afterwards be important, when they saw the nature of custom the appellant had. In the borough there were 4557 houses, and that gave to every 43 houses one licensed house. But in that restricted area there were only 1054 houses, and as he had told them, there were 57 licensed houses, it gave to every twenty houses one licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards from the "Tramway Tavern" there were no less than 14 public houses. Although the population of Folkestone had increased, the houses in which the people resided were increased at the west and northern portions of the town. Since 1882 the "Tramway Tavern" had had a new tenant every twelve months, and once or twice it had been temporarily closed. There had been repeated warnings to the various tenants, and repeated complaints were made to the civil police, and the military police had reported it to the military authorities.

Frank Newman was called first, and he put in a plan showing the position of the Tramway and the various other licensed houses, and was examined and cross-examined upon it.

Superintendent Taylor said he had been Superintendent of the Folkestone Police for just upon 12 years. He gave evidence as to the population of the borough and the number of licensed houses, as stated by Mr. Coward in his opening, and then described the situation of the "Tramway Tavern," which he said had an entrance from Radnor Street, and another from the Stade, making it difficult of supervision. The house consisted of a bar facing Radnor Street and a taproom beyond. A passageway led to the back entrance, and in the yard there was a detached building which consisted of one room. The house belonged to Messrs. George Beer and Co., of Canterbury. The rateable value of it was £22 10s. The customers were all of the rough class, consisting principally of soldiers and the class of women who usually associated with private soldiers. During the time he had been Superintendent of Police, or since 1882, there had been ten tenants, including the present one. He gave their names as Drury, Tournay, Hambrook, Spillett, Hill, Hogben, Barber, Foreman, Bailey (no other reference to Bailey as yet found) and Bayliss, who had held the licence since June last. That gave one tenant in 12 or 13 months, and once or twice the house had been temporarily closed. It was closed for about a fortnight after Hogben's tenancy. He knew the house was much frequented by soldiers, but had not been there himself. The disorderly and drunken soldiers were dealt with by the military police, and they were dealt with by the commanding officer. He had not proceeded against the "Tramway Inn," but from time to time had received reports from the police and the military police, and in consequence of those reports had warned the incoming tenants, and had told them of the character of the house. There had been an improvement in the conduct of the houses generally during the past three years. He had made representations to the authorities at the Camp as to the conduct of soldiers at the "Tramway." On the 10th of March, 1883, he prosecuted a tenant named Drury for having his house open during prohibited hours. There was no endorsement of the licence. In his opinion the house was not required.

The Chairman:- That is for us to decide.

Examination continued: He was acquainted with many of the 51 licence holders in the locality, and some of them followed other occupations.

Mr. Dickens:- What have we to do with other houses and the occupations of the licence holders? Ask him whether the tenant of this particular house does.

Mr. Coward:- It is a question of the want of accommodation, and supposing they did follow other occupations, it would go to show the business was not enough to keep them.

The Chairman thought it was very material to show the occupation of the tenant of the "Tramway," and whether the tenant gave the whole of the time to the management.

Superintendent Taylor said he could not say that the tenant followed any other definite occupation.

Mr. Coward then proposed to put questions as to the conduct of the house.

Mr. Dickens objected. He urged that the licensing justices decided, and rightly decided, not to go beyond the last licensing meeting, but after a brief argument he said he would raise the point again later on.

In cross-examination by Mr. Dickens witness said he was aware that within the last twenty years the population had practically doubled. The last full licence was granted twelve years ago. There was a beer licence granted in Westbourne Gardens. He opposed 13 licenses on the ground that they were not necessary. There were not many of them of the same character as the "Tramway." There were some respectable houses in the restricted area. Some of them had been licensed for 30 years. The "Tramway" had probably. It existed prior to 1872. He enumerated the houses he opposed in Radnor Street – the "Ship," the "Jubilee," and the "Oddfellows." In Dover Street they were the "Welcome" (or the "Cutter") and the "Granville." The "Tramway" was frequented mainly by soldiers, but not much by fishermen. The custom of soldiers was comparatively large. Other houses were more fishermen's houses. The conviction in 1883 was personal to the man for selling after hours. He remained till 1884, and there was no endorsement of the licence. Since that time there had been no prosecution. He had complained to Foreman, one of the tenants. He remained till April, 1893. He was now a licence holder at Canterbury. He did not give him a character to Superintendent Farmery. He replied to a question asked by Superintendent Farmery through the telephone. The enquiry was as to the manner in which the house had been conducted. His reply was that there had been no prosecution against the house. His reply was a guarded one. (Witness was closely questioned on this point, and adhered to his statement).

In cross-examination witness said the reason there had been no prosecution against the house was because of the difficulty of getting evidence in that neighbourhood, and the situation of the house made another difficulty.

In answer to Mr. Dickens witness said there had been prosecutions against the Cutter and the British Colours, and both licenses had been renewed.

Sergeant Swift, of the borough police, said he had had the "Tramway Tavern" under observation for some time.

Mr. Coward was about to examine him as to it's conduct prior to 1892.

Mr. Dicken objected, alleging the unfairness of it when they had come there to meet a specific case.

Mr. Coward replied, and quoted cases to show that such evidence as he proposed to give had been taken in similar appeals.

After considerable argument the Court considered the point and the Chairman said the Justices had considered the question raised, and though he was not prepared to say they were unanimous on the point, the decision of the justices was that the evidence ought not to be admitted on the ground that it did not come within the terms of the notice at the previous hearing. If the notice had been in another form, he thought it would have been admissible. Under the circumstances it would not be admitted.

Sergeant Swift's evidence was then continued. He said he knew the house in Foreman's time. From August, 1892 to August, 1893, the conduct of the house had been bad. It was frequented by prostitutes and disorderly soldiers. He gave them the names of several of the former. One woman, named Rye he was told, lived in the house. The house was not frequented at all by fishermen. The character of the house had not improved at all under Bayliss. He was examined before the Magistrates by Superintendent Taylor, who did not ask him any questions about prostitutes.

In reply to Mr. Dickens, he said he had complained to the Superintendent, who knew all about it. From first to last he did not think he had suggested that thieves had been seen in the house. Rye told him she was living there in Foreman's time.

Sergeant Harman, examined by Mr. Tassell, said he had frequently visited the house. There were constant rows there with soldiers and women. The general customers there were soldiers and women – all of a low class. He could not be certain he had been called in during the past twelve months. He gave evidence as to the general proceedings at the house, and said it was used by prostitutes. One of the ladies had been “housekeeper to several widowers”. (Laughter)

Mr. Dickens:- I hope there is nothing wrong in that? (Laughter)

Witness:- I might correct that, and say men who are living away from their wives. (Laughter).

In answer to Mr. Dickens he said he did not say anything before the Magistrates about a quarrel he had witnessed – he was not asked. He had seen disturbances in Foreman's time. The disturbance he spoke of in Bayliss's time was about a pincushion. He did not see the quarrel inside at all, but outside, and he prevented the men from fighting further. He saw no improvement in the conduct of the house lately, and did not agree with Superintendent Taylor on that point. There had not been any case strong enough to cause him to take out any summons.

Sergeant Lilley said he knew the house as the resort of thieves, prostitutes, and soldiers. (He corrected himself and withdrew “thieves”, although he said he had arrested a man there). He knew many of the women who frequented the house and he had seen them drinking with soldiers. He had once cautioned Bayliss, and many times Foreman. The man he arrested was charged with stealing a gold watch from the Alexandra. It was recovered from Foreman. On the 26th August last he was called by Bayliss to eject a drunken man named Bailey, said to be the husband of Ann Bailey. He knew Bailey, but he did not know anything against the wife.

Mr. Dickens:- That is a good character you know from the police. (Laughter).

Witness was cross-examined at considerable length.

James Lake, a lance corporal in the military police, Albert Edward Harris, another corporal in the military police, and a third soldier, named James Harman, gave evidence as to their experience in connection with soldiers who used the house, and this closed the case for the respondents.

James Bayliss, the tenant of the house, said he entered into possession on the 7th June, 1893. He first gave his version of the disturbance Sergeant Harman spoke about, which he said was a simple quarrel about a pincushion. The men went outside and set to fighting. They had not been long in the house. They were drunk and he declined to serve them – hence the quarrel. Sergeant Harman made no complaint whatever to him, except to say “You must be careful what you are doing”, and he replied that they had nothing to drink. Soldiers frequented the house, but had fallen off lately. He had turned some of them out. He had sometimes had as many as 50 or 70 and two or three civilians. People of all classes used the house. The soldiers belonged to different corps and frequently began to quarrel about their corps and very simple matters. One night, after closing time, Sergeant Lilley assisted him in ejecting a man who would not go out. Corporal Lake went in one evening when there was a disturbance caused by a fisher lad, about 18, striking a soldier, who knocked his cap off. The soldier was a young fellow, and he advised him to go out the back way, and he did so. He never had any complaint from the police, except on the occasion Sergeant Harman spoke to him.

In cross-examination by Mr. Coward he said he had had nothing to do with the trade before. He paid £28 a year rent – 10s. 9d. a week. He paid nothing for the goodwill, except £5. Then he had to furnish the house, and there were other things belonging to the landlord, for which he had paid altogether about £7. He was examined as to the women, and said two of them had been servants, to whom he paid wages, and he believed they were respectable women. He paid Bailey, whose husband was a soldier, 5s. a week. He had dismissed her since. The consumption of liquor was three or four barrels a week. There had never been any disturbance in the house out of the ordinary way – nothing beyond what they expected in houses of that class. He was a married man and his wife assisted him in the house. On only one occasion had he summoned the military police to quell a disturbance.

James Thomas Foreman, who now keeps the "Alexandra Inn," Northgate, Canterbury, gave evidence as to the conduct of the house during the time he kept it. He said Superintendent Taylor told the Superintendent of Canterbury that he had conducted it in a proper manner.

Mr. Howard cross-examined him as to the women who used the house. He said as far as he knew they were respectable.

Superintendent Farmey, of Canterbury, said he received a verbal message through the telephone from Superintendent Taylor that Foreman had conducted the "Tramway Tavern" at Folkestone in a proper manner, and he told the Magistrates that when Foreman applied for the transfer of the licence of the "Alexandra Inn."

Mr. Coward cross-examined the witness with a view to showing that Superintendent Taylor's evidence was correct, but he adhered to his statement, that it was a certificate that the house was conducted properly.

Mr. William Charles Chapman, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Beer and Co., said since 1883 they had received no complaints as to the conduct of the house. It was valued at £800.

In answer to Mr. Coward he said he believed it was true there had been a new tenant every 12 or 13 months, and it had been temporarily closed.

Mr. Dickens then addressed the Court, urging that upon the evidence it would be most unfair to deprive the owners of their property and that the case for the justices had hopelessly broken down. The house had had a licence for 30 years or more. It was true that the clientele were rough, but there must be houses where the rough classes could be supplied. He did not object at all to the conviction in 1883 being put in, but he had objected to the introduction of alleged offences since.

Mr. Coward, in his reply, referred first to the contradictory evidence of the police superintendents, to which Mr. Dickens had alluded, and also replied to that gentleman's remarks disparaging the police evidence for the respondents. He contended that the justices, as reasonable men, could not fairly come to any other conclusion or decision than they did. Having made an eloquent speech on behalf of the respondents, he asked the Bench not to grant the licence, and concluded by saying “This is a sort of house which is cancerous, one of the sort of houses that bring discredit to the trade, and one of the sort of houses the justices have exercised a proper judgement in putting down”

The Court then retired to consider the case.

The Chairman, in giving judgement, said: In the case of Bailey against the Justices of Folkestone, it is an appeal by way of a rehearing for a renewal of a licence for the "Tramway Tavern." The case has been considered by a somewhat full bench of Magistrates, and the bench is not unanimous, but a majority of them have come to the conclusion that the licence should be renewed. In expressing that, as the deputy or mouthpiece of the Court, it is, I think, usual to give the reasons of the justices for coming to this conclusion, and in doing so, I must refer briefly to the arguments addressed to the bench by the learned counsel for the justices, that the appeal was on the ground that the judgement of the Magistrates was against the weight of evidence, and he urged that I, as Chairman, would advise the Court that they could not reverse the decision of the Magistrates unless they came to the conclusion that the decision was one which, as reasonable men, they ought not have come to. I entirely agree with the proposition, that if it rested with the evidence before the Magistrates, their decision ought not to be interfered with. In that case, I think it would have been my duty certainly to have advised the sessions that the decision was certainly the only one which they, as reasonable men, could come to, and consequently this bench should not interfere with that decision. It must be admitted, however, that this is not only in the nature of an application for a new trial, but in point of fact there has been a new trial – not merely a consideration whether there should be a new trial, and not only has the evidence put before the Magistrates been put before us, but it has been amplified. We do not, therefore, interfere with the decision the Magistrates came to on the evidence presented to them, but the majority of this bench are of opinion that although no doubt the number of licensed houses in proportion to the population of the borough of Folkestone, and more especially in the restricted area, in which the evidence shows the houses are situated is very large, yet when a house has been licensed for so many years as this "Tramway" has been licensed, it would not be wise to take away the licence on the ground that there are more licensed houses than are required for the accommodation of the inhabitants, except on some evidence applicable especially to the house itself, namely, that the house has been improperly conducted, and therefore if any reduction were to be made, that house should be closed. The Magistrates have considered the question whether any evidence has been offered them as to improper conduct. That point has been taken into careful consideration, and also the evidence given as to the character of the frequenters of the house, which it was admitted was rough, and it was also admitted that this was a rough house. It was admitted of course that in licensed premises there must be differences of character. The justices, or a majority of them, are not satisfied that this house has been conducted by the late or the present licence holder in such a manner as to call on the bench to say that it has been improperly conducted by them, and therefore the licence should be refused, and taking that view of the question, the majority of the bench have decided that the licence shall be renewed.

Mr. Coward asked the Chairman to order that the costs of the justices should be paid out of the county rate.

The Chairman:- There will be no objection to that, I think.

Mr. Bodkin:- As to the order of the Court, it will be that the licence be granted to the appellant, James Bayliss?

The Chairman: That is the effect.

 

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.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 21 October 1893.

Local News.

At the East Kent Quarter Sessions, held at Canterbury on Tuesday, the appeal against the decision of the Folkestone Magistrates refusing to grant the licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was held. The case occupied some considerable time, and in the end the decision of the Magistrates was overruled and the licence granted.

The Bench said although they 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 24 October 1893.

East Kent Quarter Sessions.

John Bayliss, Folkestone, and George Beer and Co., Canterbury, v. the Licensing Justices of Folkestone:

This was an appeal against the refusal of the Folkestone Magistrates to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern" in that town, kept by John Bayliss and owned by Messrs. George Beer and Co., brewers, Canterbury.

Mr. H. F. Dickens, Q.C., with Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. A. M. Bodkin (instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover, Canterbury, and Ashford) appeared for the appellants, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Lewis Coward and Mr. Alick Tassell (instructed by Mr. Bradley, the Folkestone Magistrates’ Clerk).

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

Frank Newman, architect and surveyor, deposed that he prepared the plan produced.

John Taylor, Superintendent of the Police at Folkestone, said he had held the position close upon twelve years. There were altogether 101 licensed houses in Folkestone; the majority of them were situated in the eastern part of the town. The house in question was principally patronised by soldiers and women of ill-fame. Since 1882 there had been ten fresh tenants; the premises had also been temporarily closed. There had 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 Magistrates had not been granting fresh licences. On the last occasion he opposed the renewal of licences to 13 houses, and the objection in respect to the "Tramway Tavern" was the only one sustained. He cautioned Foreman, who occupied the house up to April, 1893. He understood that Foreman was now a licensed victualler in Canterbury. When asked by Supt. Farmery about Foreman, he replied 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 "Tramway Tavern" 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 women of bad character 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 against Bayliss since he had occupied the premises. 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 constantly visited the house, and it was of a bad character, there being constantly rows by soldiers and women. He visited the house on the 28th July through a fight between soldiers and civilians. He found two or three soldiers and one civilian drunk upon the premises. 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 at the house in the latter part of Foreman’s time. He saw no improvement in the house.

Sergt. Lilly deposed that from August, 1892, the character of the house had been bad. It had been frequented by women of bad character, 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 class.

Cross-examined:- He did not think there was anyone in Court who made complaints.

Lance-Corporal Lake, of the Military Police, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, stated that he had patrolled the lower parts of Folkestone. He knew the "Tramway Tavern;" which had been a badly conducted house, its customers consisting of all the roughest soldiers in the camp, costers, and women of low, character. He had been to the house three times this year, sometimes being called by the landlord. He had taken soldiers into custody for drunken and disorderly conduct twice within the last year. He had seen a few civilian customers on the premises. He had to go to the house twice in a fortnight in February, and had to lock up five soldiers on the first occasion, and seven the second. In June he went to the house arid 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.

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 June he went to the house to arrest a drunken soldier. He had never seen many civilians on the premises.

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

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

This concluded the evidence for the respondents and witnesses for the appellants were called.

James Bayliss deposed that he was the present tenant of the "Tramway Tavern." 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 Lilly 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.

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

Supt. Farmery deposed that the last witness kept the White Horse at Canterbury before he went to Folkestone. When he wanted to come back to Canterbury witness asked Supt. Taylor how the man had conducted the house at Folkestone, and the reply was that he had 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 was a partner in the firm of Messrs. George Beer and Co., brewers, of Canterbury. The "Tramway Tavern" was purchased by the firm 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 30 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 or 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 had to improve. 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 single out this one house. Mr. Dickens then went through the evidence, and stated that from first to last no notice had been given 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 to them 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 ground only, and the evidence was not sufficient to call upon the Court to say the house had been improperly conducted.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 25 October 1893.

Editorial.

Quarter Sessions quashed the refusal of the Folkestone Bench to renew the licence of the "Tramway Tavern" on two grounds, each of them a common sense one. First, they held that after a house had been in existence for over 30 years it was rather late in the day to discover that it was not needed; and secondly, the mere fact that it was patronised by a class of customers who would not be looked for in a West End hotel did not constitute bad management. “Rough” houses are a necessity in all large towns. Men and women whose language may not be the most polished have as much right to refreshments as their kid-gloved superiors, as long as they behave with proportionate decency; and to turn them from resorts which meet their standard of social pleasure would only be to drive them where their presence might hardly be held so unobjectionable. The court, however, in thus nullifying the decision of the Folkestone Bench, very kindly saved their amour propre by intimating through their genial chairman, Judge Selfe, that upon the evidence before them when the application for the licence was made, their decision was the only one which, as reasonable men, they could come to. The fresh evidence adduced on behalf of the tenant turned the scale, so that everyone ought to be satisfied.

 

Folkestone Express 5 May 1894.

Saturday, April 28th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. G. Herbert, H. W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and J. Brooke Esqs.

The "Tramway Tavern."

Temporary authority was granted to Joseph Henry Burton to sell at this house.

The applicant, in answer to Mr. Mowll, who represented the owners, said that he had paid the valuation and taken the premises at a yearly rent.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 February 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, February 19th: Before Judge Selfe.

C. J. Barr and Sons and Mrs. Law v C. H. Burton: Applications under judgement summonses. Defendant was examined by the Judge as follows:-

His Honour:- What are you, sir?

I am manager of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, under Beer, the brewers.

What salary do you receive?

I do not get any salary; I am paid by profits on the materials I sell.

Do you pay for what you have?

Yes.

What do you take per week?

I have taken about £50 since May.

What were you before you went there?

An upholsterer.

About how much do you take per week?

About 15s. or 16s.

Is it a fully licensed house?

Yes.

What do you pay for spirits?

You have the receipts there, sir.

Do Beer's supply you with spirits as well as with ale?

Yes.

Were you in business for yourself as an upholsterer?

Yes, in High Street.

For how long?

For about 18 months.

What were you before then?

Nothing in Folkestone, but I was in business in Euston Road, London, as an upholsterer.

Where did you contract these debts?

 In Folkestone.

Were you in debt in London?

No.

Then why did you come here?

Because I was not making money, for one thing; and because I had ill-health, and had been ordered to the seaside by my doctor.

What family have you?

I have none of my own, but my widowed sister and her four children live with me.

Whose is the furniture in the house?

I have none, it belongs to Beer.

Do you pay any rent?

No.

Who pays the taxes?

Beer has paid for everything up to now, as far as I know.

C. J. Barr:- Burton attends sales, as an upholsterer. He is a man who won't pay anything unless he is made.

His Honour (to defendant):- Do you attend sales?

Yes, on commission, but I have made nothing this year.

What are your total average earnings per week?

I have only earned 15s. this year altogether, for a little job I did at the Catholic Church.

What offer do you make as to payment?

I do not see how I can make any offer.

How much do you owe altogether?Between £40 and £50.

When did you have the goods?

About two years ago; I may tell Your Honour that the landlord at High Street came in and took all I possessed there. I do not see that I can offer to make any payment.

How much do you get paid per week by the brewer?

You can see, sir, I get 6s. in the £, and I have been paying them £2 or £3 per fortnight. Then I have myself and my sister and her children – six of us – to keep out of that. In fact, if it were not for a few friends I have in Folkestone – where I have made more friends than I have done in any other place in my life – I do not know what we should do. Mr. Barton, the auctioneer, only the other day lent me £1.

His Honour:- I do not think there is much prospect of either of these plaintiffs getting their money, but I will make a fresh order for payment at the rate of 4s. per month in each case.

 

Folkestone Express 23 February 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, February 19th: Before Judge Selfe.

C. J. Barr and Son v J. H. Burton, and Laws Bros. v Same: Defendant said he was manager of the "Tramway Tavern" for Messrs. Beer and Co., and was paid by commission. He had taken about £50 since May. Before going in he was an upholsterer. The takings at the house were now about 30s. a fortnight. Some time since he was in business in High Street as an upholsterer. He came from Euston Road, London, where he had a business. The debts were contracted in Folkestone. He had bad health in London, and the doctor ordered him to the seaside. He had no family of his own, but kept his widowed sister and her four children. He paid no rent to Messrs. Beer, who paid taxes and everything.

The plaintiff Barr said the defendant attended sales and did upholstery work.

Defendant admitted that he attended sales, but only on commission. He had only earned 15s. this year. His debts altogether were between £40 and £50. He had the goods of Barr two years ago. His landlord in High Street distrained and took everything he had, and the County Court bailiff had been “in” more than once.

Mr. Ward, for the other plaintiff, asked for a small instalment order against the defendant.

His Honour thought there was not much prospect of either of the plaintiffs getting their money. He made orders of 4s. a month in each case.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 May 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 21st: Before Judge Selfe.

Hyland v Burton: Defendant is the manager of the "Tramway Tavern." Committed for 10 days; order suspended for 28 days.

 

Folkestone Express 25 May 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 21st: Before Judge Selfe.

Hyland and Co. v Burton: Committed for 10 days; order suspended for 28 days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 August 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, August 20th: Before Judge Selfe.

Hyland and Co. v J. H. Burton: Amount due £1 0s 9d. Defendant lives at the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street.

His Honour:- Who keeps it?

Defendant:- The brewers.

What do you do?

I manage it.

At what salary?

None at all.

How are you paid?

On the profit on the goods I sell.

What does that come to?

Seven or eight shillings a week. I cannot pay this debt off at 5s. per month, as I owe other debts, but if Your Honour will make an order for 2s. 6d. per month I will meet it.

His Honour:- How long have you been at the "Tramway Tavern?"

Twelve months last May.

What were you doing before?

Working as an upholsterer.

Where?

At different houses. I had to give up because of the rheumatism, but I work for Mr. Barton when he has anything for me to do. My widowed sister, who lives with me, had to pawn her wedding ring to pay off one debt of 16s.

Fresh order at the rate of 4s. per month.

 

Folkestone Express 24 August 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, August 20th: Before Judge Selfe.

Hyland and Co. v J. H. Burton: Defendant is an upholsterer and manages the Tramway Tavern. He said his profits were only about 7s. or 8s. a week.

Fresh order for 4s. a month.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 24 August 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, August 22nd: Before Judge Selfe.

Hyland and Co. v J.H. Burton: Claim 19s 9d. Defendant is an upholsterer, and manages the "Tramway Tavern." He said his profits were only about 7s. or 8s. a week.

Fresh order for 4s. a month.

 

Folkestone Express 8 May 1897.

Wednesday, May 5th: Before W. G. Herbert Esq., General Gwyn, and J. Fitness Esq.

Joseph Henry Burton, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," was summoned for selling beer at No. 1 Martello Tower without having a licence for the same.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented the owners of the "Tramway Tavern" (Messrs. G. Beer and Co., Canterbury), and Mr. F. Hall appeared on behalf of the defendant.

P.C. Skinner, of the Dover Borough Police, said on Saturday, the 1st of May, in consequence of instructions received, he went to work on the tunnel works in the Warren, Folkestone. At seven o'clock in the morning, in company with a man named Roper, he went into No. 1 Martello Tower. The man Roper called for two pints of beer, which was served by the defendant Burton. Defendant and an assistant were there, and the place was fitted up conveniently for their purpose. There were nine or ten beer barrels there. He gave Roper sixpence to pay for the beer,, which defendant took, and gave 2d. change. There were two other men there at the time. He went back to work and returned again with Roper at a quarter to ten. There was no-one there but defendant and his assistant. He called for two pints of beer, which the defendant served them with. During the time he was there, two or three men from the works came in and were served with beer. Again, accompanied by some men. he went in at half past ten, and defendant served them with another two pints. Five or six more men came in, and were served with pints of beer, which they paid for. He went in again at eleven with Roper, and called for another two pints of beer, which were served by defendant. Several more men came in on this occasion, some of whom were served with beer, and others porter. During this last visit he saw a brewer's dray standing by the tower, and he saw that the barrels inside had been removed. He could not say how many barrel were taken into the tower. He also heard the defendant say to the drayman “Never mind about putting in the taps. That will all be gone by one o'clock”. They went out and returned at 11.30, and were served with another two pints of beer. They stopped there until the police came at 12.45. During the time he was there, defendant asked them their names and numbers, and all the others that were there. He afterwards put them on a big slate, which was hanging on the wall. He asked defendant what this was done for, and he said it was to bar the police of they came along. From half past eleven to 12.45, over 50 or 60 men went in and were supplied with beer, most of which was supplied by Sparrow, whilst defendant was watching outside the tower. About a quarter to one, defendant came rushing into the tower, saying “Here the b----s come”. Witness left when the police arrived.

Examined by Mr. Hall: Defendant was a stranger to him. On the occasion referred to, he passed as a navvy in navvy's clothes. Everything was convenient for the accommodation of men. He did not see any bread, but he did see some beef pies. He did not see any plates or cups and saucers. The men had to go all round the inside of the tower before they found the beer. There were forms there and a table. Durning the time he was there only one man was refused – the ganger. The slate was 4ft. long and 2ft. 6in. wide. It was not there before half past eleven. At that time there were three marks on it.

By Mr. Bradley: He did not notice the name on the brewer's dray.

P.S. Lilley was called, but Mr. Hall said he had no idea that evidence like that of last witness would be given, and he therefore, in order to save the time of the Bench, would advise his client to plead “Guilty”, and there would therefore be no need for any further police evidence. They had already got everything that as needed.

The plea of Not Guilty was withdrawn, and the Bench intimated that they did not require any further evidence from the police.

Mr. Hall then addressed the Bench for the defence.

The Chairman said the penalty was £50, but they would only inflict a fine of £15 and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment, the liquor seized on the premises to be confiscated.

Two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale and porter were ordered to be confiscated.

 

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 Up To Date 8 May 1897.

Police Court Proceedings.

Joseph Henry Burton, landlord of the "Tramway Tavern" was summoned for selling beer at No. 1 Martello Tower without having a licence for the same.

Mr. Hall addressed the Bench for the defence.

The Chairman said the penalty was £50, but they would only inflict a penalty of £15 and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment, the liquor seized on the premises to be confiscated.

Two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale and porter were ordered to be confiscated.

 

Folkestone Programme 10 May 1897.

Notes.

It is said that it is not wise to “make haste to be rich”. At any rate a gentleman, named Burton, has had his way to fortune rudely checked. Mr. Burton was the defendant in proceedings at the police court on Wednesday, the charge having been that he was selling beer without having a licence. The defendant is the proprietor of a tavern in the Tram Road (sic), but he had been granted leave to make use of No. 1 Martello Tower in order to provide refreshments for the navvies employed at the tunnel works in the Warren. No doubt the navvies found that when they could procure cooked foods and refreshing beverages, which do not inebriate, they found it very convenient, but whether Mr. Burton found it a paying concern is another question. Whether the serving out of bread and beef and tea and coffee paid or no, the defendant was no doubt desirous of developing his business. But he proceeded to work in an illegal manner, for he brought to No. 1 Tower a quantity of beer, and this he retailed to the navvies without having the necessary licence to enable him o do so in a legal manner.

On May Day a police constable was sent off for special duty at the tunnel works. He was not dressed in the well-known blue, with bright buttons, but as a navvy, and he worked with a will that made some of his fellow labourers think that were they all to work so cheerily as he, the job would not last long. This navvy-policeman and his mate had to pass No. 1 Tower at frequent intervals in the course of their work, and they never passed without entering the tower and having “a couple of pints of beer”; nor did they enter without giving a good look round, so that the “ganger” might not see them. About one o'clock in the day other policemen arrived, and the tower was cleared. Then it was that the men on the “job” knew that the “new hand” was a policeman.

At the police court the defendant was represented by Mr. Frederic Hall, and pleaded “not guilty”, but after hearing the evidence of the navvy-policeman he felt that it would be better for his client to plead “guilty”, which he eventually did. The Bench ordered the defendant to pay £15 with costs, or in default one month, and they also ordered the confiscation of two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale and porter. It was an unlucky day for Mr. Burton, last May Day.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 12 May 1897.

Editorial Quips.

The solicitors who defended in our Police Court last week the case of beerselling without a licence to navvies from one of the Martello Towers between Folkestone and Dover, very truly remarked that “the evidence reads like a chapter from a romance; seeing that large sales of beer can go on like this under the very eyes of the police”. I entirely agree with our popular solicitor and Town Councillor. And it is a remarkable fact that the offender was not “brought to book” until a police constable, disguised as a navvy, had partaken of five separate pints of beer in one morning.

It was not at all an inappropriate remark made by the same solicitor that the policeman effectively acted his part as a navvy, for it is a well-known fact that the “navvy”, whose work is very heavy and laborious, is generally recognised as a large consumer of beer, and it is thus obvious that our national and popular beverage of malt and hops has been proved by these hardy workers of the ground to be a good, strengthening “medicine”, so to speak. But one would hardly expect that this good old English drink would need sampling in quantities of pints on five occasions in one morning to “prove” a case. Not only that, our navvy-policeman could hardly have earned the money he was paid as a navvy while spending such an enjoyable morning in the consumption of “John Barleycorn”, whose “praises have been sung by old and young”.

It would be difficult to prove with what part of our population “John Barleycorn” is most popular; the Civilian, the “Bobby”, or “Tommy Atkins”. I have just heard of a funny incident which happened not many hundreds of yards from the Town Hall the other evening. It seem that at one of our large local places of business two of the maid-servants became increasingly enamoured of two strapping soldiers from the Camp, and to prove their love for these warriors, had been in the habit of handing up, from the basement of the house at a given hour on certain evenings, a jug of noble dimensions, belonging of course, to the master of the house.

This went on for some little time until the “master” began to have suspicions as to whether his beer barrels were “lasting out” long enough, and, on keeping watch, discovered the fact that a goodly proportion of his “nut brown ale” was being consumed at the evening hour on the pavement outside. He said nothing, but one evening, just as Messrs. “T. Atkins” and Co. were giving the old familiar signal to the maids “below stairs” to pass up the foaming jug from the basement window, down came a torrent of water from the room above them, ejected by the hands of the proprietor himself with an unerring aim, right over their heads and ears. This was sufficient for these warriors. They have not appeared at that particular window since!

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 May 1897.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.

The Army and Navy Breweries Co. Limited v J. H. Burton: Mr. Richards, traveller for the plaintiffs, stated that the defendant was formerly a publican and kept the "Tramway Tavern." He got notice and had left now, the brewers having found another tenant. He was not paid by salary, but merely received a percentage on the profits of the drink sold. The previous week he had drawn 18 shillings. At the time the spirits, for which the debt had been incurred, were supplied, defendant was getting 15 shillings weekly by letting lodgings, and had four or five men “snobbing” for him. He paid no rent. An order for 5s. a month was made.

 

Folkestone Express 22 May 1897.

County Court.

Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.

Army and Navy Co-Operative Brewery Company v J. H. Burton: Defendant is a publican at the "Tramway Tavern," and has notice to leave. He said he was paid by profit on what he sold. He took 18s. last week. An agent of the plaintiffs said defendant told him he took 14s. or 15s. a week for beds, and he had four or five men “snobbing”.

Defendant said the debt was for spirits, which ought to have been supplied by his own brewer.

Fresh order 5s. a month.

 

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 Chronicle 10 July 1897.

Wednesday, July 7th: Before Messrs. Holden, Fitness, and Salter.

Alfred Skinner applied for authority to supply customers with drink at the "Tramway Tavern" on the Warren, the licence of the house having previously been in the name of J. H. Burton.

Sergt. Butcher gave applicant a good character, and his previous testimonials being satisfactory, the Bench granted the application, the Chairman, however, remarking that he would have to be very careful, as the eyes of the police were on the place after the previous infringement.

 

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 Chronicle 27 August 1898.

Monday, August 22nd: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Holden, W.G. Herbert, and C. J. Pursey.

Two men, named Cooper and Phillips, were charged with stealing three mackintoshes and a covert coat, the property of someone unknown.

P.S. Lilley said that having received certain information he proceeded to 58, Dover Street, occupied by Robert Downey. Mrs. Downey showed him a bedroom in which were a lady's and gentleman's mackintosh under the bed, and a gentleman's mackintosh rolled up behind a door, and a gentleman's covert coat. Witness kept the prisoners under observation, and at 7.30 that morning he saw Cooper leave the house with a gentleman's mackintosh wound round him under his coat. In Dover Street he went into a passage and, unrolling the mackintosh, put it on his arm. Witness followed him into the "Tramway Tavern." Cooper was alone. In reply to a question, he said “What mackintosh? I haven't one”. Witness then saw it rolled up on a shelf behind the counter. The manager came in and, in reply to witness, said he had seen no mackintosh, only having just come in. Witness said “I am a police officer. Where did you get this mack?” He replied “I got it from a man outside to sell for him. He is up the hill. I'll show him to you”. They both went out and in Seagate Street they met Phillips with a gentleman's mackintosh on his arm. P.C. Ashby, who had Phillips under observation, then joined them, and witness said “We are police officers. Where did you get that mackintosh?” Cooper said to Phillips “Has he given you one, old man? They say it has been pinched”. Phillips said it was given to him by a man up the street to sell. Cooper said he bought his the previous night. They were taken to the station and charged by P.S. Swift, and made no reply. On Phillips was found one shilling and three farthings; a letter addressed to “Mr. Howard, care of Mrs. Downey, Dover Street, Folkestone”, one pair and two odd gloves.

Mrs. Ellen Downey said the prisoners had lodged with her for a week. They said they had come to work at the harbour. They brought no luggage, but said it would be sent down. In the evening Cooper brought in a mackintosh – one of those produced. He said he had no money, and asked her to take the coat as a deposit. She agreed to do so, as they said they were going to work in the morning. She saw the other coats on Friday morning in the prisoners' bedroom, and gave information to the police. She did not think they went to work, as they did not leave the house until eleven, and returned in the evening to wash.

On the application of P.S. Butcher a remand was granted.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 27 August 1898.

Monday, August 22nd: Before J. Banks, W. G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, C. J. Pursey, J. Pledge, and J. Holden Esqs.

George Cooper and a young man named Phillips were charged with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of some person unknown.

It appeared that one of the prisoners described himself as a fitter's mate and the other as a labourer. Inquiries were made into the matter on Saturday, and the prisoners were apprehended that (Monday) morning.

P.S. Lilley said that from information received he went to a bedroom occupied by the prisoners at a house of a Mr. Robt. Downey, No. 58, Dover Street. Underneath the bed he saw a gentleman's mackintosh rolled up, and behind the door were a gentleman's and lady's mackintosh, and a gentleman's coat. He afterwards saw the prisoner Cooper leave the house with a gentleman's black mackintosh rolled round his coat and he followed him down into a passage. He subsequently went into the Tramway public house, in Radnor Street, and saw Cooper and asked him about a mackintosh. Cooper said “What mackintosh? I have not had one”. Witness saw one wrapped up and placed behind the counter, and spoke to the landlord and said “Where is the mackintosh this man has brought in?” The landlord replied “I haven't seen the mackintosh, and did not know the man was here. A man has just been upstairs and told me that there was a man behind the bar”. Witness then took the mackintosh from a shelf behind the bar and asked the prisoner where he had got it from, and he replied “From a man named Phillips”. I asked him “Where?” and the prisoner said “Come this way and I'll show you”. Witness afterwards saw Phillips and asked him “Where did you get this from?” Phillips replied “It was given me by a man”. I then took both prisoners into custody on a charge of stealing coats, the property of some person unknown. The name on one of the mackintoshes is “H. Booth Esq”.

Ellen Downey said: I am the wife of Robert Downey, 58, Dover Street. The prisoners had been lodging with me for a week. When they came they said they were strangers come to work at the harbour. They occupied one bed and slept together, and informed me that their things would be sent down. I afterwards found a black mackintosh and other things under the bed. During the week they would leave the house about 11 or 12 a.m., and return in the evening to was about six o'clock. They afterwards went out and returned about 11 p.m., when they went to bed. I am not aware that they did any work. On the Monday they told me they were going I gave information to the police.

P.S. Butcher applied for a remand to make further inquiries.

The prisoners were then duly remanded.

 

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.

 

Hythe Reporter 27 August 1898.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday morning, at the Folkestone Police Court, before a full Bench of Magistrates, the Deputy Mayor being in the chair, two men named respectively Cooper and Phillips, were charged with stealing several articles of clothing, to wit two gentlemen's mackintoshes, one lady's mackintosh, and a gentleman's covert coat, the property of persons unknown.

P.S. Lilley deposed that “from information received” he went to a bedroom occupied by prisoners at 58, Dover Street. Mrs. Downey, the landlady, pointed out the room to him. Under the bed he found a mackintosh, and behind the door two more mackintoshes and a gentleman's coat. Since that time he had kept prisoners under observation, and on Monday morning at 7.30 he saw Cooper leave the house in Dover Street with a mackintosh wrapped around him under his jacket. He followed him down into a Dover Street passage, where he (Cooper) unrolled the mackintosh from about him, put it on his arm, and went into the Tramway public house. He followed him in, and asked him “Where is the mackintosh you brought in?” He said “I didn't have one”. (Here the prisoner interposed with the brief remark “That's a falsehood”.) He looked around and found the mackintosh on a shelf. He took it, and said to prisoner “I am a police officer. Where did you get that from?” The reply was to the effect that he had it to sell, on behalf of a friend. He took him outside to find his “friend”, and beheld Phillips coming down Dover Street with a mackintosh on his arm. The question “Where did you get this mackintosh from?” being put, equivocal answers were made, until he, with the assistance of a police constable, took him into custody, when Cooper said “I bought them from a gentleman last night” Phillips had on him a pair of kid gloves and two odd ones.

Mrs. Downey, the landlady of the house, 58, Dover Street, deposed that prisoners had lodged with her for a week. They were strangers and said they had come to work at the harbour. They occupied a top bedroom together. They brought no luggage, but the same evening when Cooper came in, he had one of the mackintoshes produced on his arm, and left it at the bedroom, saying he would leave that until they had paid the week's rent. On Friday last her suspicions were aroused as to their being workmen, as she found they did not get up until very late in the morning, and she found the additional coats in the bedroom.

After this evidence, Sergeant Butcher, representing Superintendent Taylor, asked for a remand until next Saturday morning, when additional evidence will be forthcoming. The Magistrates granted the remand, and the prisoners were removed in custody. The following is a description of the clothing which the prisoners are charged with having stolen from persons at present unknown: Two men's mackintoshes, 1 black, 1 grey; one lady's mackintosh, navy blue; and one gent's covert coat, fawn-coloured.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 September 1898.

Saturday, August 27th: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, C. J. Pursey, and W. G. Herbert.

George Cooper and John Phillips were charged on remand with stealing three mackintoshes and a covert coat, the property of some person unknown.

The Superintendent of Police said he had been unable to trace the mackintoshes. The owner of the covert coat had been found, and had telegraphed that he did not desire anything done in the matter.

The prisoner Cooper had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

The Bench discharged the prisoner, retaining the mackintoshes in the hope of finding the owner or owners.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 3 September 1898.

Saturday, August 27th: Before Ald. Banks, W. G. Herbert, J. Fitness, and C. J. Pursey Esqs.

Two young men, named George Cooper and John Phillips, were charged on remand at the instance of P.S. Lilley with stealing a number of mackintoshes and other coats, the property of some person unknown.

It appeared that a detective had traced the owner of one of the coats alleged to have been stolen, but as there was no prosecutor in Court to give evidence against the prisoners, they were discharged.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 September 1898.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday George Cooper and John Phillips were charged on remand with stealing mackintoshes and a coat.

Superintendent Taylor said that the coat referred to had the name of Booth upon it. He traced the owner of the coat and telegraphed to him. The reply was that Mr. Booth gave the coat to someone who had since been to Folkestone, and did not wish to take further steps. He also got a report saying that the man Cooper was a convicted thief.

A statement from Cooper was read to the Bench.

The Bench dismissed the case, but made no order as to the clothes.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 August 1899.

Police Court.

Alfred Skinner, of the "Tramway Tavern," applied for the licence of the Victoria, South Street, to be transferred to him from his brother, Frederick Skinner, and Frederick Skinner applied for the licence of the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street, to be transferred to him. The case was simply one of exchange of premises. Mr. Minter, solicitor to the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society, appeared for both applicants. The Bench would remember, he said, that a few months back both were fined for serving drink off the premises to the workmen at the Pavilion new works. The offence, however, was a purely technical one, arising out of a practice which had prevailed for a long time and had been carried on under a misunderstanding of the proper interpretation of the law. The prosecution had resulted in the misapprehension being removed, but had left no stigma upon the Skinners, and there had been no endorsement of the licence. The Chief Constable had no objection to the transfer, and the Magistrates granted the request of the applicants without raising any question.

 

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 11 November 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last plans were submitted to the Bench for alterations to the Tram Tavern (sic).

 

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 Chronicle 13 April 1901.

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

John Field was charged with breaking a plate glass panel of a window at the "Tramway Tavern," Radnor Street.

Frederick Skinner, the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern" in Radnor Street, said shortly after six o'clock the previous night prisoner came to his house drunk. He had been lodging at the house. He was refused drink, and was asked to leave the house. He did so, and then threw his boot brush (defendant is a shoeblack) through the glass panel of the door, the damage done being £2.

Prisoner admitted his guilt, and was fined 10s., 4s. 6d. costs, and 40s. damages, or one month's hard labour.

Prisoner signified his intention of doing the month, and then paying another visit to friend Skinner.

 

Folkestone Express 13 April 1901.

Tuesday, April 9th: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, C. J. Pursey, and G. I. Swoffer Esqs.

John Field, a shoeblack, pleaded Guilty to a charge of wilfully damaging a plate glass panel on the door of the "Tramway Tavern," to the value of £2.

Fredk. Skinner, the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," said about 6.50 p.m. on Monday the prisoner went in the worse for drink, and witness refused to serve him in consequence of his bad language. He then went outside, and taking a boot brush from the rack threw it through the glass panel, and it hit witness's wife. The amount of damage was £2, but he could not say if it was insured, as it was the property of the brewers. The prisoner had been lodging at his house for the past three weeks.

Defendant said he asked no mercy, and he was sorry he had hit the lady. He was willing to serve his sentence, but he thought the prosecutor ought to accompany him. (Laughter).

The Chief Constable said there were several offences recorded against the defendant, the chief being a sentence of nine months in October, 1900, and in February this year he was sent to imprisonment from Hythe for stealing watercress.

A fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and 40s. the amount of damage was inflicted, with the alternative of one month's hard labour.

The defendant:- I'll do the one month and stick there till I come out, and then I'll smash his window again.

 

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 Chronicle 7 March 1903.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W. G. Herbert, Mr. E. T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C. J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The "Providence," Mr. Arthur F. East; "Marquis Of Lorne," Wm. R. Heritage; "Granville," Charles Partridge; "Victoria," Alfred Skinner; "Tramway," Fredk. Skinner; "Hope," Stephen J. Smith; "Star," Ernest Tearall; "Bricklayers Arms," Joseph A. Whiting; and "Blue Anchor," Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the "Victoria," the "Hope," and the "Blue Anchor," and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the "Swan Hotel," as to her husband's conduct of the business. In the cases of the "London and Paris," the "Imperial Hotel," the "Mechanics Arms," and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the !Imperial Tap" (sic), the "Castle," and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man's living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel's observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

The "Tramway."

On the "Tramway Tavern" (Mr. Frederick Skinner) being called, Inspector Swift entered the box and was examined by the Chief Constable. His evidence was to the effect that there were 28 licensed houses within 200 paces of the "Tramway."

Detective Sergt. Burniston said the house was a common lodging house, used by people who tramped from town to town. There was only one public room, and the house had two entrances (one from Radnor Street).

Mr. Glyn:- What do you mean by common lodging house? Do you mean to say that it is used by tramps, or anybody?

Witness:- I did not say tramps. I said people tramping from town to town.

Mr. Glyn:- You said tramps. When was it used by tramps?

Witness hesitated.

Mr. Glyn:- I said “when”? You know the meaning of when?

Witness said that he had made observations, but had not noted any definite or individual instances. He was speaking from general knowledge.

Mr. Glyn:- The objection is to the common lodging house. I take it the tenant is a respectable man?

Witness:- The house is very clean indeed, and the tenant is a very respectable person.

Mr. Glyn said that with his friend, Mr. Percival Hughes, he appeared in support of the renewal of the licence, and he would ask the Bench to define what was a common lodging house. At Canterbury, the Chairman of the Bench, a gentleman of great experience, laid it down that where persons occupied separate rooms the house was not a common lodging house. If that definition were right, he would only have to address the Bench on this question: Was the house unnecessary? This also could be answered. Nine years ago, the Bench, in their discretion, refused the renewal of the house on that ground. An appeal was made to Quarter Sessions, and the decision was reversed, it being held that for no offence it was unfair to take away the licence of one house for the benefit of another.

Mr. Skinner was then examined by Mr. Percival Hughes. He said he only let to working men. Three of his lodgers had been with him three years and worked on the harbour; two others had been with him two years.

The Chief Constable:- Do you say that they are all respectable men who come to your house?

Witness:- Yes, I believe so.

The Chief Constable then read a list of names to witness, who said he believed they were all respectable men.

The Bench retired, and on returning to the Court asked Mr. Glyn whether an undertaking would be given for an additional public room to be supplied, and for each lodger to have a separate room?

Messrs. Glyn and Hughes consulted the tenant and brewer, and at once gave the required undertaking.

The Chairman:- On those conditions the licence will be renewed. (Applause)

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1903.

Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E. T. Ward, J. Pledge, W. G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the "Providence," the "Marquis of Lorne," the "Victoria," the "Tramway," the "Hope," the "Star," the "Bricklayers Arms," and the "Blue Anchor."

Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the "Victoria," the "Hope," and the "Blue Anchor" were afterwards, by direction of the Bench, withdrawn.

The flowing counsel were engaged:- Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G. W. Haines, representing the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the "Blue Anchor," which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for the two new licences.

The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would, by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the "Victoria," the "Hope," and the "Blue Anchor." The other objections would be proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain structural alterations were ordered to be made at the "Packet Boat," the "Brewery Tap," the "Castle Inn," the "Lifeboat," and the "Prince of Wales."

The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable spirit decide what reduction should then be made.

Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered, was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair, for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.

The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear all the evidence.

The "Tramway Tavern."

The Superintendent of Police conducted the opposition, and called evidence.

Inspector Swift said there were within a radius of 200 paces 28 public houses. There were altogether in Radnor Street 158 houses, including eight fully licensed houses.

The Superintendent said that was a mistake – there were only 69 houses in Radnor Street, including eight licensed houses.

Sergt. Burniston said the "Tramway Tavern" was a common lodging house. There was only one room for the general public, and adjoining that was a large kitchen. There were two entrances – one on to The Stade.

Mr. Glyn said there were three – two in front.

Witness said the place was used by tramps, who often stayed only one night. Persons of bad character had lodged at the house.

Mr. Glyn, in his address to the Bench, assured them that tramps were not taken in. There were bedrooms in which several people slept, but they were those who stayed for a considerable time. Some had been there for three years. The licensee had improved the business of the house, and he was quite willing to agree not to allow more than one person to sleep in one room.

Fredk. Skinner, the licence holder, said he took the house in 1899 at a valuation, and there was nothing against it. He was ready to accept any suggestion the Bench might make as to the sleeping arrangements.

He had never had a tramp in the house. His lodgers were of the working class men.

In answer to the Superintendent, witness said he did not know of any of the lodgers at his house who had been arrested and convicted. Two men who had been staying there at one time had been charged before the Magistrates, but only, he believed, for assaults. He occasionally supplied a pint or two of beer to his lodgers on Sunday mornings, but if the Magistrates wished he would not do so in future. All his lodgers, as far as he knew, were respectable men.

At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Glyn suggested that it would be more satisfactory to deal with each case separately, and the Bench accepted this suggestion and retired to consider this one case.

On returning into Court, the Chairman asked Mr. Glyn if he was prepared to give an undertaking that there should be another public room, and also whether h would provide separate bedrooms for each bed?

Mr. Glyn said he would give the undertaking. With regard to the second public room, they would provide that upstairs – the large room, if that would do?

The Chairman:- Probably.

Mr. Glyn said they would do that.

The Chairman:- On that condition we grant the licence.

 

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 Chronicle 11 April 1903.

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

The licence of the "Tramway Tavern" was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his brother Charles.

 

Folkestone Express 11 April 1903.

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

Fredk. Skinner made an application for the transfer of the licence of the "Railway Tavern" (sic.) to his brother, Charles Skinner.

The application was granted.

 

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 Chronicle 23 May 1903.

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

Jane Featherbee, the wife of a mariner living in Radnor Street, was charged under the new Act with being drunk while in charge of a child under 7 years (this being the first case under this Section of the Act heard in Folkestone).

P.C. Leonard Johnson said that at 8.15 on the previous evening, in Seagate Street, he saw prisoner drunk in charge of the child. He advised her to go home. She refused, and he took her into custody. She then lay down, and he had to have the help of P.C. Prebble and P.C. G. Johnston to place her upon a truck. Witness had previously been called by the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern," who had refused to serve the woman. He ejected her from the "Tavern," and tried to persuade her to go home, but she refused.

The Chairman asked prisoner if she had any questions to ask the constable.

Prisoner:- What I say is – speak the truth and shame anybody.

She then commenced a rambling statement, admitted that she had been “upset” and had a few glasses, but denied that she was drunk. Would not anybody lie down, she asked, if a policeman wanted to take them up? (In the meantime the constable had withdrawn from the box.)

The Chairman told prisoner she could make a statement later, but had she any questions to ask?

Prisoner (looking at the empty witness box):- What's the good? They have gone. (Laughter).

P.C. G. Johnston corroborated the last witness.

Prisoner: What did you say to me? Did not you tell me to go home and look after my dirty children? My children are at St. Peter's School. You go up there and see if they are dirty. (Laughter).

In defence, accused said there had been a little disturbance in Radnor Street. She had a difference with her husband, and took a few glasses.

The Bench were in some doubt – the child not being in Court – as to proving its age.

The voluble lady settled the question herself by blurting out “The child is four years of age, and always comes with me when I go out”.

The Chairman:- That settles it.

The Chairman then told the woman that she had placed herself in a very serious position. She was liable to a fine of 40s., or one month. She would be fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days.

Prisoner:- I've not got a farthing. I'll have to do the seven days.

The fine was paid later in the day.

 

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 Express 19 November 1904.

Saturday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Ald. Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, W. G. Herbert and G. I. Swoffer Esqs.

Dangerfield Pitcher was summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises of the "Brewery Tap" on November 7th. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales said about 10.30 a.m. on November 7th he had to eject defendant from the "Tramway Tavern." At 1 p.m. he saw defendant go into the "Brewery Tap" in company with another man. He was drunk, and witness drew the landlady's attention to him. She refused to serve the defendant and asked him to go out. He refused, so witness had to eject him.

Defendant said he “owned” being drunk, but he never caused any disturbance.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 November 1904.

Saturday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Spurgen, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Dangerfield Pitcher was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales stated that on the 7th inst. he was called to the Tramway public house by the landlord to eject the prisoner, who was drunk. Subsequently witness saw him go into another public house in Tontine Street. Witness requested the landlord not to serve him, as he was drunk. The prisoner was ejected, and when he got outside he became very abusive, and refused to go away, whereupon witness took him into custody.

Defendant, who had nothing to say, was fined 5s., and 9s. costs; in default 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Daily News 28 April 1905.

Friday, April 28th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Stainer, Pursey, Herbert, Hamilton, and Swoffer.

Thomas Wood was charged with stealing a shilling, the property of Messrs. Burley and Strange, of Tontine Street.

Norman Milliner, an assistant in the employ of Messrs. Burley and Strange, said the prisoner came into the shop and asked for a copper or two to help him on the road. Witness refused to give him anything, and prisoner then asked an apprentice in the shop, and was again refused. The accused then snatched up a shilling that was lying on the cash book on the counter and ran out of the shop. A customer ran after him, and shortly afterwards the prisoner was brought back to the shop by P.C. Sales.

P.C. Sales said that shortly after 11 yesterday morning, from information received, he went to the "Tramway" beerhouse, Radnor Street, and found the prisoner there. Witness told him he answered the description of a man who had stolen a shilling from a shop in Tontine Street, and that he should take him there for the purpose of identification. He took him there and the last witness identified him. Witness then took him into custody and charged him with stealing the shilling, and prisoner made no reply. On the way to the police station prisoner became so violent and kicked and bit the constable that it was necessary to take his boots off, handcuff him, and put him on a trolley.

Prisoner was asked whether he would be dealt with summarily or go before a jury at the next Quarter Sessions. He preferred to have the case dealt with at once.

Inspector Swift said the prisoner had a very bad record, upwards of 40 convictions having been proved against him.

He was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

Prisoner turned to leave the dock, but seemed somewhat surprised when he was told by the Mayor that the Magistrates had not quite finished with him, and he now be charged with assaulting the police.

P.C. Sales having given evidence to the effect that the prisoner bit and kicked him on the way to the police station, the Magistrates sentenced him to an extra month's hard labour for the assault.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 April 1905.

Friday, April 28th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Mr. C. J. Pursey, Mr. G. I. Swoffer, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Thomas Wood, who made his 41st appearance in the dock, was charged with stealing 1s., the property of Messrs. Burley and Strange, Tontine Street. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Norman Milliner, assistant to the prosecutors, stated that on the previous morning the prisoner came into the shop for the purposes of begging. A shilling was lying on the counter, and prisoner picked it up and ran out of the shop with it. A customer ran after him and caught him on the doorstep. Prisoner then threw the shilling into the road. Information was given to the police. Subsequently prisoner was brought back to the shop and witness gave him into custody.

P.C. Scale stated that from information he received he went to the "Tramway Tavern," where he saw the prisoner. Witness told him he answered to the description of the man who had stolen a shilling from a shop in Tontine Street. Prisoner made no reply. Witness took him to Mr. Burley's shop, where the previous witness identified him. When charged, prisoner made no reply. On the way to the police station, prisoner became very violent.

Prisoner had nothing to say in mitigation.

Inspector Lilley said the prisoner had a very bad record. He had been convicted 40 times since 1896.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to 21 days' hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with assaulting P.C. Scales whilst in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Scales stated that when he took the prisoner into custody on the other charge he became very violent, and kicked witness on the legs and also bit his finger. He was obliged to take off prisoner's boots and procure a hand truck to take him to the cells.

The Bench characterised the offence as very serious, and sentenced the prisoner to a further term of one month, the sentences to run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Express 4 November 1905.

Wednesday, November 1st: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W. C. Carpenter Esq.

Robert James Smart, Patrick Maloney, and Robert Richard Fitzgerald were charged with stealing a mackintosh, an overcoat, a woollen scarf, and a pair of woollen gloves, the property of General Jackson, from the hall of No. 6, Castle Hill Avenue, the previous Wednesday.

Kate Hunter, parlour-maid in the employ of General Jackson, of 6, Castle Hill Avenue, said she recognised Maloney as a man who went to the house on the previous Wednesday evening and asked for assistance. On Sunday she missed from the hall a mackintosh coat, and also a dark cloth overcoat. The cloth coat had silk facings, and had covered buttons. She also missed a white woollen knitted scarf, and also a pair of woollen gloves. The articles were missed from the lobby of the hall, the door of which was only closed at night. On Monday evening Det. Sergt. Burniston showed her the mackintosh, which she identified as the property of General Jackson.

In answer to Maloney, she said he went to the house about seven o'clock, and he was in the lobby.

Charles Dobbs, residing at 24, Athelstan Road, said he recognised the three men. At half past eight on Saturday night he saw Smart and Fitzgerald in Harbour Street. The former was wearing a dark overcoat and a white knitted scarf. The latter had the mackintosh produced on his arm, and was trying to sell it. Smart asked him if he could sell the mackintosh, but previous to that he asked witness to have a drink. He accepted the invitation, and they went into the Wellington public house, where he asked him to sell the overcoat. He said if witness sold it he would give him a shilling. Witness told him he would not, as he did not know where to sell it. They came out of the house together, and witness left him after directing him to the "Pavilion Shades" stables, where he said he might sell it. He remembered one day last week he saw Maloney and Smart going up Canterbury Road.

Frederick Charles Rigden, a licensed cab driver, residing at 5, East Cliff, said he recognised Smart and Fitzgerald. On Saturday night he was in the harness room at the Pavilion Shades when they came to him. Smart had the mackintosh, which he asked him to buy. He replied he did not want it, and the prisoner then said he could have it for 4s. Witness told him he did not want it, and he had better take it away. Prisoner then said he had been out of work several weeks and had got the coat from General Jackson, who had given it to him because he was going away. Witness eventually gave him 3s. for it. On Monday he handed the mackintosh to Sergt. Burniston.

In answer to Smart, witness said he told him that General Jackson had given him the overcoat.

Smart:- It is a lie.

Fitzgerald then said that Smart did tell the witness General Jackson gave him the mackintosh, but as he was drunk at the time he could not remember what he said.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said on Monday, from information he received respecting an overcoat and mackintosh missing from 6, Castle Hill Avenue, he made enquiries, and at 7 p.m. he called on Rigden, who handed him the mackintosh produced. Witness continued the enquiry, and the previous evening he went to Canterbury. At 10.20 p.m. he saw Maloney and Fitzgerald together. He said to them “I shall charge you with being concerned with a man named Smart, who is detained at Canterbury police station, in stealing from the hall of No. 6, Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, a mackintosh, an overcoat, a woollen scarf, and a pair of woollen gloves, the property of General Jackson”. Neither made any reply. Witness took them to the Canterbury police station, where Smart was brought forward, and he then charged the prisoners with being concerned in the theft. Later on he brought them to the Folkestone police station, where they were formally charged. Maloney replied “About 10 a.m. last Sunday I went in the "Tramway" public house to look for Smart. I waited half an hour, when I saw Smart and Fitzgerald. Smart said “Can you sell an overcoat for me?” I told him I would try, and Smart then handed me a dark mixture overcoat, which was silk lined. I took the coat and tried to sell it. I could not sell it, and later on I took the coat back to Smart”. Smart said “Maloney and myself kept a look out while Fitzgerald went to the house and stole the coats. When he sold the coat on Sunday, Maloney had a share in the money”. Fitzgerald said “I am not going to get the old sergeant into trouble”, no doubt referring to Maloney as the “old sergeant”.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning, and he should like the Magistrates to grant a remand, so that he could endeavour to trace the other coat.

Prisoners were the remanded until Saturday.

 

Folkestone Express 11 November 1905.

Saturday, November 4th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W. C. Carpenter Esq.

Robert James Smart, Patrick Maloney, and Robert Richard Fitzgerald, who were before the Magistrates on Wednesday, were brought up on remand and charged with stealing an overcoat, a mackintosh, a woollen scarf, and a pair of woollen gloves from the hall of No. 6, Castle Hill Avenue, the property of General Jackson.

The evidence given at the first appearance of the prisoners before the Magistrates was read over.

Miss Hunter, a parlour-maid in the employ of General Jackson, said she identified the overcoat produced as that of her employer.

Detective Sergeant Burniston further stated that at midday on Wednesday he called on Alfred Howard, who handed him the coat now produced, which was afterwards identified by Miss Hunter. The value of the coat and mackintosh was 30s.

Henry Boorman, the landlord of the "Hope Inn," said he recognised Smart and Maloney. On Sunday, just before two o'clock, Maloney went to his private bar and asked him if he wanted to buy the coat produced. He said the man was “on the road” and stopping at the Radnor, and wanted 4s. for it. Witness told him he had no use for the coat, and prisoner replied if he had the money he would buy it. When Maloney got outside, he was joined by Smart and another man and went off towards Dover Street.

Alfred Howard, living at the "Tramway Tavern," said on Sunday, about a quarter to two, he saw Smart in the Clarendon Hotel with a man with whom witness worked. Smart was wearing the coat, and he asked witness if he would buy the coat for 4s. Witness asked him if the coat belonged to him, and he said it did, but he had not had it long. He further said he was hard up and wanted to get to Canterbury and also wanted food. Witness told him he could only afford to give him 3s. for the coat, and also said that when the prisoner pulled himself round at Canterbury he could have the coat if he returned with the 3s. he gave for it. On Wednesday Detective Sergeant Burniston came to him and he handed the coat to him.

Smart pleaded Not Guilty to stealing the coat, but Guilty to selling it knowing it to have been stolen. Maloney did not steal the coat.

Maloney said he was Not Guilty. He met Smart on Sunday morning about ten o'clock, and he asked him if he could dispose of the coat. He (the speaker) took the coat, silly enough, because he thought the coat actually belonged to Smart.

Fitzgerald pleaded Guilty to stealing the coat.

Inspector Swift said he had not been able to find any convictions against Maloney and Smart. However, he identified Fitzgerald as William Murray, against whom there were nine convictions for larceny dating from 1887. One of the sentences was three years penal servitude for theft from a hall.

The prisoners were sentenced to six weeks' hard labour, and the Chairman said it would have been a serious thing for Fitzgerald if he had been sent to the Quarter Sessions with a record like he had.

Smart said that if the two others had spoken the truth they would have said that he did not steal the coat but that Maloney took it.

The Chairman further said that people ought to be more careful in buying anything from unknown men.

 

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 Daily News 7 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.

The Chief Constable presented his report.

Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases of drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police in carrying out their duties.

The Welcome public house was objected to on the ground of misconduct. The "Hope," the "Channel," the "Providence," the "Tramway" and the "Blue Anchor" were objected to on the ground that they were nor required.

All the other licences were granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E. T. Ward, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C. J. Pursey, Mr. C. Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.

On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:-

“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons.

Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons.

At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences were refused and two renewed,

The licences which were refuse were:- the "Victoria Inn," South Street; !Star Inn," Radnor Street; "Duke of Edinburgh," Tontine Street; and "Cinque Port Arms," Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the houses closed.

Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.

During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

During the year ended 31st December last 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.

Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred the licence and left the house.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested area, also the public houses within the area.

Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 109 persons.

There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”.

The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained.

The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then renewed. The six licences objected to were the "Welcome," Dover Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the houses opposed being the "Channel," High Street; "Hope," Fenchurch Street; "Blue Anchor," Beach Street; and "Tramway," Radnor Street.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. G. Herbert, C. J. Pursey, W. C. Carpenter, and R. J. Linton Esqs.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report.

The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their premises.

All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The "Channel Inn," High Street; the "Hope," Fenchurch Street; the "Providence," Beach Street; "Blue Anchor," Beach Street; and the "Tramway," Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices with regard to the "Welcome Inn" on the ground of misconduct.

The adjourned licensing sessions, when the six licences will be considered, were fixed for March 5th.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 February 1906.

Local News.

The annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held on Wednesday, before E. T. Ward Esq., in the chair.

The Chief Constable reported that there were 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz., full licenses 85, beer “on” 9, beer “off” 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 5, and confectioners' 3. This gave an average, according to the census of 1901, of one license to every 225 persons, or one “on” license to every 326 persons. Three of the “off” licenses (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist), would not be renewed, as the premises were no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons. During the year ended 31st December, 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were, convicted and 19 discharged. This was an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and 8, convicted as compared with the preceding year. Only one license holder had been convicted during the year. All the licenses were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following houses on the ground that they were not necessary: The "Channel Inn," High Street; the "Hope," Fenchurch Street; the "Providence," Beach Street; "Blue Anchor," Beach Street; and the "Tramway," Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notice with regard to the "Welcome Inn," on the ground of misconduct.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 5th: Before Messrs. E. T. Ward, W. G. Herbert, C. J. Pursey, R. J. Linton, T. Ames, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The "Tramway."

This licence was opposed on the grounds of its not being required, and the Bench decided to refer it to Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Martin Mowll appeared for the owners, and made an eloquent appeal to the Bench, but the licence was referred.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

The Adjourned Annual General Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Monday, when the Chief Constable opposed the renewal of five licences on the ground of redundancy, and one on the ground of misconduct. The evidence was of the usual technical order, where a whole host of police witnesses testified to an extraordinary state of things which had apparently gone on for years. The sitting lasted from 11 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., and was only relieved by one little light episode when Mr. Mercer on two occasions quoted the Folkestone Herald as bearing upon a case heard at the Court, and on each occasion the Chairman saying that the report was wrong, whereupon Mr. Mercer intimated that he should give up taking the Herald.

The Bench sitting on Monday morning were Mr. E. T. Ward, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C. J. Pursey, Mr. W. Linton, and Major Leggett.

The "Tramway Tavern."

This licence was also opposed on the ground of redundancy. Mr. Martin Mowll represented the tenant, Mr. Charles Skinner.

The Chief Constable said the present tenant obtained a transfer of the licence on the 8th April, 1903. The registered owners of the house were Messrs. George Beer and Co., of Canterbury. The rateable value was £22 10s. Radnor Street, where the house was situate, was 183 yards long; there were 63 houses in the street. Six fully licensed houses, five on one side, and one on the other. The house had three entrances, two from Radnor Street, and one from some stables behind the Fish Market. The accommodation for the public was a small front bar divided into two compartments, and a tap room behind. In a radius of 100 yards here were 16 licensed houses, 150 yards 26 licensed houses, and 200 yards 32 licensed houses. The trade he considered small, and the licence unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood. The house had the lowest rateable value of any of the licensed houses in the street. There had been four transfers in 12 years, three brothers having followed each other as licensees of the house.

Mr. Mowll said that after what had happened in respect to the other licences, he did not address the Magistrates with a very hopeful feeling. The beer trade, he said, averaged about 120 barrels, and the spirits about 30 gallons, a very moderate trade, with which the tenant was quite satisfied.

The Chairman: The Bench have decided to report to Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday, when the six licences which were adjourned from the Brewster Sessions were considered. On the Bench were E. T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. G. Herbert, C. J. Pursey, and R. J. Linton Esqs.

The "Tramway Tavern."

Mr. Mowll represented the owners and the tenant of the "Tramway Tavern."

The Chief Constable said he would first put in a plan on which he had marked the whole of the public houses in a congested area, which was formed by a line from the Harbour, up High Street, along the Dover Road to the "Raglan Hotel," and then over Radnor Bridge to the sea. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,500, five to a house. There were 42 on-licensed houses within the area, being 36 fully-licensed and six beer “on”, giving a proportion of one on licence to every 109 inhabitants within that area, whilst for the borough at large the number was one to every 326 inhabitants. There were also situate within the area six licences for the sale of beer, liquor, and spirits off the premises, one refreshment house with a licence, and one off licence, making a total of 50 houses for the sale of drink by retail, being one licence for every 92 persons within that area, against one to every 230 in the borough. There were also four registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a membership of 898, within the area. During the year 1905, out of 183 charges of drunkenness, 93 arose within that congested area. The Chief Constable said the objection against the licence was that it was not necessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood. The house was situate in Radnor Street. The present licensee was Charles Skinner, who obtained a transfer of the licence on April 8th, 1903. The registered owners were Messrs. George Beer and Company, Canterbury. The rateable value was £22 10s. Radnor Street was just 180 yards long. There were 63 houses in the street, six of which were fully licensed houses, five of them being situate on one side of the street. There were three entrances to the Tavern, two from Radnor Street, and a back entrance from The Stade. 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 150 yards there were 26, and within 200 yards there were 32. The trade he considered to be a small one, and the licence was unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood. The house was the lowest rateable value of any in the street. There were four transfers in twelve years, three of them being brothers, and following one another.

The tenant said he had been in the house since April, 1903. He took it from his brother Frederick, who had been tenant since 1899, and he, in turn, took it from another brother, who took the licence in 1897. He was making a living out of the house, and was satisfied with it. During his tenancy there had not been a scratch against it in any way.

Mr. Mowll said he hoped that the justices might see their way, in spite of what had been done, to allow the licence, and not report it. The licence had been objected to twice, but had been renewed.

The Chairman said it would have to be referred.

 

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 Daily News 1 October 1906.

Canterbury Licensing Sessions.

At the Canterbury Licensing Sessions today the question of the renewal of the licences of The "Hope," The "Tramway," The "Providence," and The "Blue Anchor" came up for hearing. Lord Harris presided. The Folkestone Licensing Justices were represented by Mr. T. Matthew, instructed by Mr. H. B. Bradley.

The case occupied some time, and eventually the justices unanimously decided not to grant the renewal of either of the licences, but to uphold and confirm the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Bench.

The question of compensation will come up for consideration at a later date.

 

From the Canterbury Journal and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 6 October, 1906.

On Tuesday the Committee settled the compensation to be paid to the owners and tenants of some of the houses, the licenses of which had been taken away. The following figures were agreed upon:-

"Tramway Tavern," Folkestone. £891.

To the owners (Messrs. George Beer, Canterbury). £745.

To the Tenant. (Charles Skinner). £140.

 

Folkestone Express 6 October 1906.

Local News.

On Monday last the East Kent Licensing Bench at Canterbury considered the question of renewing the licences of the "Providence," the "Hope," the "Tramway Tavern," and the "Blue Anchor," public houses referred to them by the Folkestone licensing justices. In each case they decided to refuse the granting of the licence, and the next matter for them to consider will be how much compensation is to be paid to the brewers and holders of the licences for the closing of the houses.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 October 1906.

Local News.

The Compensation Authority for East Kent sat at Canterbury on Monday and Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding.

Amongst the 31 houses scheduled, there were four from Folkestone. These were; The "Providence," "Blue Anchor," the "Hope," and the "Tramway."

In the cases of the "Blue Anchor" and the "Tramway," the owners and tenants did not seek for renewals, but the owners of the "Providence" and the "Hope" sought for renewals.

On Tuesday the Committee fixed the compensation of the "Tramway" at £894, the owners to have £745, and the tenant £149.

In the cases of the "Providence," "Blue Anchor" and the "Hope," the fixing of the compensation was adjourned to a subsequent meeting.

 

Southeastern Gazette 9 October 1906.

Local News.

A meeting of the licensing justices for East Kent was held at Canterbury on Tuesday. The magistrates recommended 31 licences for extinction, and it was announced that in 16 cases the persons interested did not press for a renewal. The Court proceeded to investigate those cases in which the justices’ recommendation was opposed. The renewals to which objection was taken were thus distributed: Boughton-under-Blean, 2; Whitstable, 6; Deal, 6; Dover, 6; Folkestone, 4; Walmer, 2; and one each from Hythe, Sandwich, Lyminge, Teynham and Throwley.

The authority decided that the whole of the licenses should be extinguished, with the exception, of the "Ark," Lyminge; the "Ship," Boughton; and the "Rose," Greenstreet.

The Court then proceeded to consider the question of compensation, and the following claims were settled by mutual agreement between the justices' valuer (Mr. H. Cobb) and the interested parties: "Tramway," Folkestone, £894, owners £745, tenant £149

 

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906.

Local News.

The amount of compensation to be paid to the owners and tenant of the Tramway Tavern, the licence of which is to be extinguished, is, to the owners £745; tenant £149. In the other cases the compensation was left over.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Messrs. W. J. Herbert, Fymore, Hamilton, Linton, Leggett, Ames, Stainer, and Pursey.

An application was made by Mr. Skinner, the landlord of the "Tramway Tavern" in Radnor Street, one of the houses ordered to be closed by the Justices, to transfer the licence of the "Wellington," now in the occupation of Mr. Marsh.

The Chief Constable reported that Mr. Skinner at present had the licence of the "Tramway."

Mr. J. Cobay, of Hythe, stepped forward and explained to the Bench that he had settled the compensation to be paid to Mr. Skinner, and the "Tramway Tavern" would be closed on the 30th of December.

The Bench then agreed to permit Mr. Skinner to have the Wellington on his promising to reside on the premises after the Tramway Tavern is closed.

 

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 Express 18 May 1907.

Auction Advertisement.

Banks and Son will sell by Auction at the "Queen's Hotel," Folkestone, on Thursday, 23rd May, 1907 at Three 'clock in the afternoon:

Lot 3: All those Freehold Business Premises, No. 4, Radnor Street, (Formerly the "Tramway Tavern"), Folkestone, with a one-storey building, brick built with tiled roof, used as shop and kitchen, yard, W.C., and passageway in the rear, abutting to The Stade. The house is brick, tiled, and cement built, with tiled roof, and contains:- Basement – Cellar; Ground Flood – Shop and parlour; First and Second Floors – Four bedrooms, one with embayed window, and W.C.

Possession of this lot will be given on completion of the purchase. Of the estimated yearly rental of £22.

Messrs. Mowll & Mowll, Dover, Ashford, and Canterbury, Vendor's Solicitors.

Particulars and Conditions of Sale may be had of the Auctioneers, 73, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, and of the Solicitors.

 

Folkestone Express 25 May 1907.

Local News.

At the Queen's Hotel on Thursday, Messrs. Banks and Son held an auction. No. 4, Radnor Street, which was not sold, can be treated for privately at the auctioneer's offices, Sandgate Road.

 

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.

 

LICENSEE LIST

IVERSON Edward 1847-62 (age 50 in 1861Census) Bagshaw's Directory 1847Melville's 1858Post Office Directory 1862

COPE Thomazine June/1862-July/69 Folkestone Chronicle

NEVILL James Edward July/1869-72 Bastions

ROSSITER John Sept/1869

HERBERT William 1872+ Bastions

KENNETT Lloyd Thomas Sept/1872-Apr/75 dec'd Post Office Directory 1874

KENNETT Mary Ann Elizabeth Apr/1875-June/79 Bastions

WHITING Edward June/1879-80 Bastions

MAWLE Frederick 1880-81+ (widower age 46 in 1881Census) Bastions

BULL Henry James 1881-82 Post Office Directory 1882

DRURY John  Hudson 1882-May/84 Bastions

TOWNAY Walter 1884-85 Bastions

HAMBROOK Duboyce May/1885 Bastions

SPILLETT Harry 1885-Dec/88 Next pub licensee had

HILL Edward Paul Dec/1888-June/89 Bastions

HOGBEN Herbert June/1889-Sept/91 (age 40 in 1891Census) Bastions

BARBER George Sept/1891 Bastions

FOREMAN James Thomas Dec/1891-June/93 Next pub licensee had Bastions

BAYLISS James June/1893-94 Bastions

BURTON Joseph May/1894-97 Bastions

SKINNER Alfred July/1897-Aug/1899 To Victoria (1)

Last pub licensee had SKINNER Frederick (brother) Aug/1899-Apr/1903 Next pub licensee had Kelly's 1903

Last pub licensee had SKINNER Charles (brother) Apr/1903-06 Next pub licensee had

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room