Folkestone Herald 1 December 1900.

Saturday, November 24th: Before Mr. Wightwick, Alderman Pledge, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. Swoffer and Salter.

Mary Pearson, landlady of the True Briton Inn, Harbour Street, was charged with having sold beer in an unstamped measure. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Haines defended.

Mr. Kidson asked the Bench to allow the information to be amended. He understood that the information was laid that the defendant herself served the beer, but that was wrong, as an assistant served it. The Act of Parliament provided that every person selling intoxicating liquor by retail should not sell more than half a pint in a measure which was not marked according to the Imperial Stamp, and the maximum penalty was £10. The facts were that on a certain date, the 15th November, Mr. Gosling was in the True Briton Inn, when a man came in and asked for a pint of ale. Gosling saw the ale served in the glass produced, and handed to the customer. He would prove that the glass only held something like three parts of a pint. The man who purchased the ale paid the usual price for a pint. There was no mark whatever on the glass.

W. Gosling, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said that at 5.30 in the evening of the 15th November he visited the True Briton Hotel. He was standing in the bar when a customer entered and asked for a pint of ale. He saw the barmaid fill the glass produced from the beer engine. She took it into the room and stood it on the table, and the man tendered a silver coin in payment. The glass had no stamp nor denominator. He followed the barmaid into the room, and tested the contents of the glass with a half pint and a gill measure, which he had in his pockets. Afterwards he put the glass in his pocket, telling her that he had spoken to her some time previously about selling more than half a pint in an unstamped measure.

By Mr. Haines: The man drunk the beer out of the two measures he had poured it into. There were several stamped measures.

John Delo, plasterer, of Saffron's Place, said that on the night in question he went into the True Briton and asked for a pint of ale. He paid 3d. for it. He saw the last witness measure the contents, and then take the glass away.

Mr. Haines said there was noting for the Magistrates to do but convict. Where the beer was served was a bar parlour, and if they had charged the same prices as in the ordinary bar, they would have everybody in there. It was arranged between a number of the customers and Miss Pearson that instead of being charged at a higher price they should have a smaller glass. She acted in ignorance.

The Chairman said that that being the first offence it would be a warning to Miss Pearson and others that they must not sell beer in unstamped measures. A fine of 10s. and 16s. costs would be imposed.

Folkestone Herald 26 January 1901.

Saturday, January 19th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Wightwick and Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mary Pearson, landlady of the True Briton public house, was charged with having permitted drunkenness.

Mr. Haines, who represented defendant, said they admitted the service. The landlady was away at the time under the hands of a doctor, and she was still in Tunbridge Wells.

P.C. G.W. Johnson said at 7.30 p.m. on the 12th inst., in company with P.C. Watson, he entered the public bar of the True Briton public house, Harbour Street, where he saw William Spearpoint, fisherman. He was very drunk, and had a pint glass three parts full of beer on the counter beside him. He drank nearly all the beer during the time witness was in the bar. Mrs. E.J. Pearson was behind the bar, and she said, in reply to a question, that she had served the man, but did not notice his drunken condition when he first went in, or she would not have served him. She said “They're really such funny people; you can't say when they are drunk. I thought he was a foreigner”. He refused to go outside, and Mrs. Pearson asked witness to see him out. Witness ejected him, and afterwards had to take him to the police station. When he went back and told Mrs. E.J. Pearson that the landlady would be reported, she said she did not understand much about the business, and Miss Pearson was away. Witness had seen Spearpoint earlier in the evening – just after 7 – ejected from the Queen's Head and Princess Royal Hotels. He was very drunk then.

By Mr. Haines: It was true that Mrs. Pearson asked him to eject Spearpoint. When Mrs. Pearson asked him to go out he said “Strikes me you blokes are following me about tonight”. He was very quiet in the house. There was only one man in the bar at the time. Mrs. Pearson did say she had had strict instructions from Miss Pearson not to serve drunken people.

By Chief Constable Reeve: His instructions were that if he saw a drunken man enter a public house to go in and warn the licensee. That was what he was doing in this case.

P.C. Watson corroborated, and added that he had seen Spearpoint ejected from the Providence, Beach Street. He was too drunk to stand when outside, and fell over. A friend picked him up, and Spearpoint went into the Wonder, where he was again ejected. After that he was sent home.

Sergt. Osborne stated that when prisoner was brought into the police station at 7.50 on Saturday, the 12th, he was very drunk.

Mr. Haines, in defence, said he was going to call evidence to prove that to all appearances the man was sober, and quoted several judgements where the licensee was not responsible, although it was admitted that the man served was drunk.

Mrs. Pearson said during the absence of her sister she had taken charge of the True Briton. Previous to leaving, Miss Pearson had given her strict instructions not to serve drunken men. When Spearpoint came in he appeared to be perfectly sober, and if she had not thought so she would not have served him. He had been in the house about five minutes when the constable came in. She never asked the policeman to eject the man. One of the constables said “Oh, you are here, are you?” She told the constables that she would never have served him if she had thought he was drunk. They then took him out.

By Superintendent Reeve: She preferred not to answer a question as to whether, from what she had heard that morning, she thought now he was perfectly sober.

Wm. Hy. Dunn, High Street, said he had been a coal checker on the Harbour for many years and was in the house when Spearpoint was served with a pint of beer. He thought Spearpoint was all right.

A man named Albert Wooderson, of 39, Mill Bay, bore out the statement of the last witness.

The Magistrates considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of 20s. and 19s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed.

Folkestone Herald 4 May 1901.

Saturday, April 27th: Before Alderman J. Pledge, Messrs. Vaughan and Fitness, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The licence of the True Briton Inn was transferred until the next licensing day from Mary Pearson to George M. Carter.

Felix.

It has generally been admitted that if there has been one licensed house well conducted in Folkestone these many years, it has been the True Briton in Harbour Street. The lady who has presided over its destinies – Miss Pearson – has always made it a great point that the old hostelry should be worthy of the admiration of every “true Briton” that entered its portals. That Miss Pearson has been successful in this endeavour is generally admitted. Let it be the collier-worker, mariner, or the more polished gentleman, all alike have a good word for this estimable lady. The sick, deserving poor, as I have pointed out in these columns, have always found a friend in Miss Pearson. Her acts prove this. For years she has made the largest individual collection for the Hospital Saturday funds, and has often put to shame similar and larger establishments of the twon. Never taking “No” for an answer, this lady's hospital subscription lists are standing records of what can be done if one puts their whole heart into any particular form of work. Miss Pearson has now laid aside the cares of business, and is living in retirement. Thither she is followed by the good wishes of us all, and I may here express a hope, on behalf of many Folkestone and other friends, that she may long be possessed of the priceless pearl of good health in which to enjoy that peace and rest she well deserves. Mr. Carter, who has taken over the reins of the True Briton, is a gentleman of the “Queen's steel” order. He was for several years in charge of Messrs. W.H. Smith and Sons' bookstall at the Harbour Station, and served for a long period in a similar position at Canterbury, where he is well known and respected. If those qualities which go towards the making of a real sort of man mean anything, then Mr. Carter is bound to succeed. He is, in fact “The True Briton” personified.

Folkestone Herald 21 October 1905.

Saturday, October 14th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Alderman W. Salter, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Mr. G.M. Carter, the licensee of the True Briton Hotel, applied for an occasional licence to sell refreshments at Flessati's Restaurant on Wednesday evening on the occasion of a dinner. The dinner was to commence at eight o'clock, and he applied for an extension until 12 o'clock. Permission was granted.

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1907.

Thursday, February 7th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and G. Hawkesley.

John Maney and John McInery were charged with stealing an automatic box and its contents from the True Briton Hotel.

Mr. George Carter, landlord of the True Briton, Harbour Street, said the prisoners entered the bar the previous afternoon about six o'clock. He served them with drinks, and having done so he returned to the smoke room. A few moments later he returned to the bar. The prisoners had then left. A portion of an automatic machine was part of one which was intact when the prisoners entered, but afterwards he saw that it had been wrenched off, and the whole machine taken away. He estimated that the machine would cost £2 10s., and there would probably be about 10s. or 15s. inside. It belonged to London firm, and he (witness) was the bailee of it.

Charles Webster, of 49, Greenfield Road, a labourer, deposed that McInery said “We have got to have this (the automatic machine) down; they were condemned today”. (Laughter) He then got hold of the top of it and pulled it down. Witness said “Don't be a fool, Jack. You are doing enough to get yourself six months. Leave it alone”. McInery then put his coat over the machine and said “Open the door”. Witness refused. Maney then opened the door, and followed the other prisoner out, saying that he was coming back. Witness called the landlord and told him about the affair. Together they went to a collier called the Doric in the harbour. They looked into the cabin, and saw a lot of coppers counted out on the table. Only McInery could be seen, and witness asked him where the machine was. He replied “I don't know nothing about it. Shut up”. Maney did not assist in taking the machine down, but when McInery was moving it, Maney said “I'll take the responsibility”. Before the landlord left the bar, McInery asked the landlord for a screwdriver to take the machine down for him, but the landlord answered “Never mind, I can do that for myself, as I have plenty of time”. McInery said “We want to earn a drink”.

P.S. Osborne deposed to visiting the barque Doric. In the cabin there was a fire burning, and on it were some pieces of wood that compared with the wood on the remainder of the machine. At the back of the stove he found the top of the machine. Two pennies were lying on the table. The prisoner Maney then entered the cabin, and witness took him into custody. He replied to the charge that he knew nothing about it. Returning to the Doric, in a basin, under a bunk, he found seven and tenpence in pennies. About half past eight witness arrested McInery at the Brewery Tap. He replied “I am just going to finish my beer, and then I was coming to the police station to give myself up”. In Maney's possession over fifteen shillings in silver was found, and on McInery there were eleven penny pieces and a sixpence. As he put the money on the counter, prisoner pointed out to the coppers, saying “That didn't come out of that”, meaning the machine.

The witness Webster, re-called, said that he was present when Sergt. Osborne found the money in the basin. He knew that Maney alone occupied that cabin.

The landlord, re-called, said Mcinery asked him for a screwdriver to take down the machine, as those machines were condemned, witness understanding that he referred to the action of the Licensing Justices that day. Witness replied that he was about to take them down himself. McInery then said that they thought they might earn a drink, and witness told him they could have a drink.

Maney pleaded Not Guilty, but McInery pleaded Guilty, saying that he was willing to repay Mr. Carter.

The Bench sentenced McInery to 21 days' imprisonment, and fined Maney 20s. or 14 days'.

Folkestone Herald 1 June 1907.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Messrs. C.J. Pursey, T. Ames, R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and Councillor G. Boyd.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the approval of certain alterations to the True Briton, Harbour Street. They would, he said, cost between £200 and £300. Mr. A. Bromley, the architect, produced the plans, and the application was granted.

Folkestone Herald 4 June 1910.

Wednesday, June 1st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

John Tappenden was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the previous day.

P.C. Styles said that he was called to the True Briton Hotel, in Harbour Street, to eject prisoner, who was drunk, and refused to leave the premises. He persuaded Tappenden to leave, but a few minutes afterwards he went back. Coming out, he began to be very disorderly, and caused a crowd to collect. Witness took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said there were five previous convictions against accused for drunkenness, the last of which was in September, 1909.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and allowed until Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Herald 30 July 1910.

Saturday, July 23rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Stainer, and G.I. Swoffer.

The licence of the True Briton was temporarily transferred from Mr. Carter to Mr. Hopkins.

Folkestone Herald 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. R.J. Linton and J. Stainer.

Mr. W. Hopkins, landlord of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, applied for sanction to a slight alteration to his premises.

With a slight alteration, the plans submitted were passed.

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1912.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor C. Jenner, and Col. G.P. Owen.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel was transferred from Mr. W. Hopkins to Mr. Herbert E. Butler (sic).

Folkestone Herald 4 January 1913.

Tuesday, December 31st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison and Councillor A. Stace.

Application was made for the transfer of the licence of the True Briton, Harbour Street, from Mr. Herbert Edwin Buckland to Mr. Edward William James. The tenant stated that he was applying for the transfer in consequence of ill health. The temporary transfer was granted.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 18 January 1913.

Local News.

At a special transfer sessions of the Folkestone Borough Bench, before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Mr. G. Boyd, the licence of the True Briton was transferred from Mr. H. Buckland to Mr. Edward W. James. Mr. Buckland, it was stated, was giving up the licence as his doctor advised him to leave the town.

Folkestone Herald 11 October 1913.

Friday, October 10th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales deposed that at about 8.45 p.m. on the 4th inst. he was in Harbour Street, where he saw the defendant in the bar of the True Briton. By his appearance witness formed the opinion that Tappenden was drunk. He went up to defendant, and said “What are you doing here, Tappenden? You are drunk”. Witness then drew the landlord's attention to Tappenden's condition, and he replied “Yes. I refused to serve him three times, and asked him to leave the premises, but he refused to leave the house”. Witness then advised defendant to leave, and told him he would report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He replied “I can't be drunk, Sergeant. I can't get any beer”. He then left the house.

Defendant: You say I am always drunk; I must have been born drunk. You watch me like a cat watching a mouse.

P.C. Fox corroborated P.S. Sales's evidence.

Defendant maintained that he could always drunk eight and twenty pints before he considered himself drunk.

The Chief Constable said there were nine conviction for drunkenness, the last being in June of this year.

Fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

The Chairman said that the Bench were strongly of opinion that the landlord should have taken the proper steps himself to have had the accused ejected after having refused to serve him three times, or the police should not have been called in. He (the landlord) did not do his proper duty.

Folkestone Herald 7 March 1914.

Local News.

The question of the right of publicans to sell tobacco on Wednesday afternoon (early closing day), was discussed at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, four licence holders having been summoned for a breach of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on the 18th February after 1 p.m.

The Magistrates were Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G. Boyd and J.J. Giles, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The case against John Wm. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, for selling tobacco at 6.30 p.m. on the 18th February was first heard. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk said this was the first summons that had come before them under that particular Act, and he thought perhaps he should refer them to the various sections bearing upon the question. Mr. Kidson then went into many details concerning various sections of the Act. He mentioned that tobacconists were under one section exempt from the Act, but added that another section provided for this particular matter, and the local authority had power, if satisfied that they had at least two thirds majority of tobacconists to include them. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, which was confirmed by the Home Secretary. The Order provided “That the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, with respect to the closing of shops for the serving of customers in the afternoon of one weekday in every week, are hereby extended to the undermentioned shops in the urban district of Folkestone, to all shops except those in the Morehall district, and in High Street, Sandgate, wherein is carried on the trade or business of the sale of tobacco or smokers' requisites”. That Order was confirmed by the Home Secretary. In referring to many legal points in the case, Mr. Kidson alluded to Section 6, sub-section 3, which provided “As soon as the Secretary of State has confirmed any Order, the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament”. A complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing this Order. Therefore it became necessary to make inquiry. Inquiry was made, and the facts in this case were very simple, and he presumed could not be disputed. He thought it was hardly necessary to draw their attention to the fact that the Order provided that the day of the half holiday should be Wednesday for all the shops. They knew that this was a new Act of Parliament, and the Order was newer still. The Magistrates might like to know what steps had been taken to make known Orders and Acts of Parliament of the kind. If it would be of any assistance, he would explain what had been done.

The Chairman expressed the wish of the Bench to hear the particulars.

The Town Clerk then produced a circular (which, he said, was sent out to the defendant amongst others), in which he stated that he enclosed a copy of the Order which had been made extending the provisions of section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops, including tobacconists. Next Mr. Kidson touched upon a statement made by Mr. McKenna, in which he said he was to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State was advised that licensed houses in which the retail trade of tobacco was regularly carried on, were subject to the provisions of the Order, but did not apply to the casual sale of tobacco at hotels and inns in connection with meals and the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.

Mr. Holme pointed out that the opinion of the Home Secretary was not binding on the Bench.

The Town Clerk said it was an intimation of the view he would like the authorities to take.

Mr. Holme: It is an admission by the prosecution.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said that Mr. Pearson was appointed the Inspector under the Act for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, an assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, on the 18th February, a Wednesday, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the premises by the door at the bottom of Bridge Street, and asked the assistant for an ounce of shag tobacco. There was a small pigeon hole where customers were served. The assistant refused to serve him at first, saying it was Wednesday afternoon. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant then called him back, and this time served him, saying “I will oblige you this time,, but you must not tell anyone, or we shall get into trouble”. The assistant then served him, and witness paid him 4d. Witness saw no notice in reference to the Shops Act.

Mr. Holme said there was no dispute as to the facts. However, the case was not an important case. Mr. Kidson said it was the first case in the Borough; he (Mr. Holme) believed it was the first case anywhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness stated that the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house, and he did not know that it made any special effort to push the sale of tobacco any more than other public houses.

Mr. Holme pointed out that in hotels there were cabinets and counters for the sale of tobacco, and, turning to witness, asked “There was nothing of the kind here. Was there, in fact, any tobacco on the bars?”

Witness: I saw none.

Was anyone else buying tobacco when you were there? – Not in that department.

Did you see anyone else buy tobacco? – No.

Had you been in the house before? – No.

As far as your knowledge goes, it was the only case of an ounce of tobacco being sold? – Yes.

So far as you know, it was merely a casual sale? – Yes.

Mr. Holme pointed out that, under the Act, a register was to be kept, and in the register there were set out the different classes of shops affected. He asked witness to find the Royal Standard in the register.

Mr. Kidson said the Royal Standard was not in the register.

Mr. Holme asked if any public house was in the register.

Mr. Kidson: There are a few; some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme remarked that for some perfectly unexplained reason the Royal Standard was not in. No doubt there was a very good reason. Continuing, he asked witness if he could tell him if there was a provision under the Act by which a local authority might serve a notice on any shop occupier requiring him to say which he considered his principal trade, and could the witness tell him if that notice was served on the occupier of the Royal Standard?

Mr. Kidson submitted that it was not a proper question. It did not matter what notice was served. That was not the question for their consideration at all. The point was whether the Order was contravened.

Mr. Holme said the matter to be considered was fairly simple. They had the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. It might fairly be said that the question was “That in the district and at the time in question no shop might be kept open for the sale of tobacco”. Those were the words they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing those words. They might say that in the district and at the time in question it forbade the sale of tobacco without any exception whatsoever. That was one way of construing them, but he pointed out how ver far-reaching would be their decision if that course was adopted. It would affect all public houses and all hotels in the district. It would include the Metropole and the Grand. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette, not even after dinner. And it went even further than that. Mr. Kidson did not read the Order with regard to prohibiting shops being open for the sale of poultry, game, of perishable articles, fruit, vegetables and flowers. Under the Act it enabled him to include confectionery. If the Order applied at the Metropole, they would be able to sell no game; they would have no game at dinner on Wednesday afternoons, no vegetables, no fruit, no dessert. If they construed the words strictly, that was the result, and it would be absurd. He need not remind them that they had to construe the Act, and not the Home Secretary's circular. The circular was to the effect that some exception had to be made, and once they got inside and allowed an exception this case came within the exception and not within the rule. He (Mr. Holme) knew the Act from beginning to end, and not in one place did the word “meal” occur. It was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. What was a meal? There was not only the difficulty of the definition of the word “meal”, but there was also the question of how long after could a man be served. Some people smoked immediately, some hours afterwards. He agreed that the circular was founded on common sense, but he argued that Mr. McKenna meant that “a meal” was to be simply alluded to as an example, as a sort of exception, and they had to look deeper for the principle. He read Mr. McKenna's answer in the House of Commons, in which Mr. McKenna said he did not think the casual sales of cigars or cigarettes in hotels and restaurants for consumption on the premises, as for example, after dinner, or other meal, would amount to the carrying on of a retail trade so as to prevent such sales on the day of the half-holiday. Therefore he argued they had to consider, was it a casual and ancillary sale, or was it really the sale of tobacco or a regular trade going on in the same house? He quoted an extract from a paper called “Tobacco”, in which it was stated “Licensed victuallers are developing into miniature tobacco shops”. Had the Royal Standard developed into that? There was no counter, no separate place where cigars or tobacco were exposed for sale. Mr. Holme next referred to the steps necessary to be taken in the case of those wishing to be brought under the Order. A voting paper was to be sent out to each one, and a register of all the different shops affected was started. When one found that the Royal Standard was not in the register one wondered why they were brought to the Court.

Mr. Kidson asked the decision of the Magistrates as to the power to go into anything prior to the making of the Order. He suggested it was not within their power to do so.

After a considerable amount of legal argument Mr. Holme said he imagined nothing was more unfair than that the Order should have been made without the licensed victuallers being consulted. The licensed victuallers were not consulted, and he maintained that they were not in the Order at all. The scheme of the Act said that before they made an Order they must consult them in one of two ways. After describing the mode of procedure, he said no licensed victualler, so far as he knew, had received a voting paper. And why? Because he was not on the register. The alternative plan was to have an application signed by two thirds of the people affected. In this case no application was signed by the licensed victuallers, and certainly not by the Royal Standard. Mr. Holme pointed out a section dealing with mixed trades, but held that in this case it was not a mixed trade. It was in the power of the local authority to serve a notice on a man asking him which was his principal trade. Could anyone call an ordinary public house a shop for the sale of tobacco? It might as well be argued that if he went into a public house for a box of matches to light a lamp that it was a shop for the sale of matches.

Mr. Summerfield, the defendant, stated that he was the licensee of the Royal Standard. There was no separate counter for tobacco. He made no special effort to push the sale of tobacco. The sale to the witness of the prosecution was a solitary exception. He had sold tobacco to men who had been having something else at the same time. It was a casual sale. The proportion that tobacco bore to the rest of his trade was about 5 percent. No notice was served upon him as to what he considered to be his principal trade. A paper was not sent to him asking whether he wished the Order to be put into force.

The Magistrates' Clerk said Mr. Holme was not entitled to put these questions.

Mr. Holme argued that if the case was going to the High Court they were material facts that the High Court should know.

Mr. Summerfield, continuing, said no notice or voting paper was served on him, and he did not send in any application for the Order to be made. He did not approve of the Order. He did not think any licensed victualler had sent in an application, and they did not approve of it.

In answer to the Town Clerk, Mr. Summerfield said he considered 5 percent of his trade a very small, and not a substantial part, of his trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not have been entitled to vote.

Mr. Holme: That is a question of law.

Mr. Kidson argued that no injustice had been suffered by the licensed holders, because they were not entitled to vote, even if they had received notices.

Mr. Holme put another construction upon the case, to the effect that the whole sub-section depended on the notice being served first. He did not think Mr. Kidson had any application where any such notice was served.

Mr. Kidson said his point was that Mr. Summerfield had suffered no injustice, though he had not served him with the notice referred to under the sub-section. He quite agreed that the notice must be served, and Mr. Holme objected that it was not served, but even if the notice had been served Mr. Summerfield would not have been entitled to a vote.

Mr. Holme characterised the method as very extraordinary, and contended that the Corporation were absolutely outside their powers. They were bound to give these people a vote before they made the Order.

Mr. A.J. Hart, of the Bouverie Arms, said he had inspected the register and he did not fine the Royal Standard there, nor any other licensed victualler; There were no licensed victuallers in it at all. Tobacconists were in the register.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Was there any hotel proprietor?

Mr. Hart: I did not notice any.

Mr. Holme said that in hotels they had real counters, where they carried on the sale of tobacco, but in an ordinary public house they had nothing of the kind. It was for the Magistrates to say whether the Royal Standard was selling tobacco as a trade in itself, or whether the trade was merely casual or ancillary. The answer was obvious. There was no special trade. They were casual sales, and not a trade under the circumstances. If they did hold that licensed victuallers were within the scope of the Act, then the local authorities were in a tight dilemma in making the Order without consulting them.

Mr. Kidson submitted that Mr. Holme was wrong in his contentions. However, if he (Mr. Kidson) was wrong, the sooner it was put right the better for everyone concerned. It was almost impossible to get everyone within a class of trade who was entitled to vote to do so, but they did their best. They advertised according to the Act of Parliament, and they called attention to the Act that if anyone whose name was not in the register thought he should be on, he could find out by coming to the office, by making proper application for the same, and if in the opinion of the local authority he was entitled his name would be put on the register. They advertised in the local papers, and were only too wishful to get everyone on the register who felt he was entitled to be on. There was no intention to keep anyone off.

Mr. Holme suggested that another case should be heard before his case was decided, and this case was adopted.

Charles Henry Barker was summoned for a similar offence on the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the defence, asked Mr. Kidson various questions, which were replied to under protest.

The Town Clerk said Mr. Mowll's client was not on the register, and he did not ascertain by vote whether his client and other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. They were not included when ascertaining whether they got a majority of the shopkeepers of the class for the purpose of the Order.

Mr. Mowll: So they were entirely excluded.

Mr. Kidson pointed out that a bill was published in prominent parts of the town inviting those interested to see that their names were on the register.

Mr. Mowll asked whether the licensed victuallers were taken into consideration in arriving at whether they had a two thirds majority in favour of applying section 4 to the tobacconists' trade.

Mr. Kidson: No, because they were not on the register, and did not apply to be put on the register.

Mr. Summerfield, assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's office, stated that on the 18th February, at 6.30 p.m., he went into the public bar of the Raglan Hotel. He asked Mr. Barker for a twopenny cigar, and he was served with it. He saw no notice with regard to the Shops Act in the bar.

Mr. Mowll asked witness if he treated himself to a little refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Summerfield replied that he had nothing to drink. There were other customers there. He did not hear anyone else ask for a cigar while he was there. There were two others in the bar at the time. He simply went in, bought his cigar, and walked out.

Mr. Mowll: How did you like your cigar? – I have not tried one. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether it was necessary whether it was necessary to call evidence with regard to the lad having a drink, but he did not dispute the sale of the cigar. He proceeded to ask the Bench to note how the matter worked out according to the Home Secretary's dictum, which, of course, was not a law. The Home Secretary agreed that a person going to the Metropole Hotel and having lunch was entitled to have a cigar. Strictly speaking, if the Order was properly enforced, he was not entitled to have it at all, but it was a casual sale, and therefore the Home Secretary said “It was a casual sale of a cigar”. If it was casual, why not in this case? This young man came into the bar and had a drink. Should not that sale be just as casual as the sale of a cigar in the Metropole, and therefore outside the Act? He saw no reason why one was outside the Act and the other within. A person who drove up to the Metropole and had his cigar after lunch committed no offence. The poor were just as much entitled to a cigar as the rich. The real difficulty arose because of the rather peculiar operation of those Orders. It was a casual sale, and he argued that a meal was not necessary to make it casual. If it was, look how absurd it would be? One man had a five course meal, one had a one course meal of biscuit and cheese, and perhaps another would not like the cheese, and would have a biscuit, or a glass of his clients' famous stout (laughter), or Wincarnis, or anything else. It would be hard indeed to apply such an Order to such a case as this. He said it was a condition precedent to the making of this Order that the Town Council should first be satisfied that the occupiers of two thirds of the shops of the class approved of the Order. They excluded the licensed victuallers in arriving at a decision. His point was this; that they could not have it both ways. If they were one of the classes to be prosecuted, then they were one of the classes who had the right to vote. The Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny them the privileges of the section. The Town Council, obviously motivated by the best motives – no-one questioned that – had not, in fact, taken reasonable steps to be satisfied that they had a two thirds majority, or if they had done so, then obviously they never intended to include public houses, because they had not been given an opportunity of having voted. If they included licensed victuallers, they had not a two thirds majority of the trade. They had been entirely ignored. They could not ignore people whom they held were responsible under the Act. Either they were responsible under the Act, or they were not responsible, in which case they were excluded and had no vote. In conclusion, he pointed out that the licensed victuallers were conducting a trade in which they were bound to keep open; they were under an obligation to the brewers to do so, and there was certainly no attempt on the part of the Corporation as a local authority to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on the weekly half-holiday. It was almost impossible, if they worked it out, to say that a man was to sell behind the counter beer and whisky, lemonade and ginger beer, and could not sell at the same time a cigarette, or, as in his case, a cigar. His (Mr. Mowll's) suggestion was this, and he did it on his own responsibility. That was a new Act. He could not help thinking that the local authority, when they made this Order, were under a misapprehension. Either they did not appreciate what the Order really was going to mean, or did not realise that licensed victuallers should be on the register and given an opportunity to vote. His suggestion was that instead of coming to a decision that day in deciding to convict or otherwise, they should postpone the matter for a short time, say three months, and give the licensed victuallers an opportunity of approaching the Corporation and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order which they had made. He alluded to the powers to revoke the Order, and said he thought that if the matter was put before the Corporation in the light he had suggested they would agree to revoke the Order, and so they would be saved the necessity of coming to a decision on rather a difficult point of law. Then there remained the question of whether they convicted or not. A conviction was always an objection to a licensed victualler, and he maintained that it would be the best course to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation to say whether this Order, which was really rather absurd, could not be revoked, and thereby put an end to the whole thing.

Mr. Kidson, in reply, said that even had the licensed victuallers had notices sent, they would not have been entitled to vote. Continuing, he said that if the matter was sent to the Council he raised no objection. He would only say this, that if an adjournment were made, there should be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Corporation to be unfair to the licensed victuallers.

Mr. Holme said he would prefer that they should have a decision that day.

After the Magistrates had returned from a lengthy consideration of the matter, Col. Fynmore said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case was proved, but inasmuch as the parties suggested a reconsideration by the Council of the position of the licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and dismissed both cases on payment of the costs (8s. 6d. in each case).

Mr. Holme said he begged to state a special case.

The Magistrates' Clerk pointed out that there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme expressed the opinion that it was very inconvenient. They would be no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The summonses against Mrs. Julia Willson and Mr. Edward Wm. James were withdrawn.

Folkestone Herald 7 November 1914.

Wednesday, November 4th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

William Woodrow, a soldier in the New Army, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Mr. Jesse Vickery, of 27, Tontine Street.

Albert Edward May, manager to the prosecutor, said he missed the boots from the doorway of the shop at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. Their selling value was 8s. 11d. They were on a hook in the doorway, and twisted round several times.

Harry Monk, a potman at the True Briton Inn, said he was in the bar between 8 and 8.30 p.m., when prisoner came in with a pair of boots similar to those produced. He was carrying them openly. He offered them for sale in the bar, asking 3s., then 2s. 6d., and then 1s. 6d. for them, but no-one would buy them, so he left the house with them.

P.C. Johnson said he saw the prisoner in Beach Street going in the direction of the Fishmarket, carrying a pair of boots under his arm. Witness stopped him and said “Where did you get those boots from?” He replied “I bought them of a man for 2s. down the street”. Witness took him to the police station. Next morning he made inquiries and charged him. Accused replied “I bought the boots for 2s. from a civilian whom I do not know”. Prisoner, when arrested, was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he was very sorry that it had happened. A man came to him the previous night, just as he was going into the True Briton Inn to get a drink, and asked him to purchase a pair of boots which he was carrying, as he said he wanted to get some food, and he had no money. He had pity on him, and took the boots into the inn and tried to sell them, but was not able to. He then went back to the man and told him he was unable to sell them. The man begged him hard to buy them, saying he had a wife and children to keep and he wanted to get them food. He believed his story, and although he did not want them, he bought the boots for 2s.

P.C. Johnson (re-called) said prisoner had only a few coppers in his possession when he was arrested.

An officer said prisoner had been in the Army some 3 months, and had nothing on his default sheet. He was paid on Friday.

The Chairman said prisoner had had a narrow escape. He would be bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months.

Folkestone Herald 24 July 1915.

Friday, July 23rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Co. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Edward William James, the licensee of the True Briton Inn, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on July 8th.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said there was a letter from Mr. G.W. Haines, the solicitor for the defence, asking for the summons to be adjourned to Tuesday, as he was away.

The case was adjourned accordingly.

Folkestone Herald 31 July 1915.

Tuesday, July 27th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Edward William James, the licensee of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on July 18th. The case had been adjourned on Friday, owing to defendant's solicitor being unable to appear. Mr. G.W. Haines now represented the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lawrence said that at 8.30 on Sunday, the 18th inst., in company with P.C. Whitehead, he visited the True Briton Hotel. He saw a soldier lying on a seat with his head towards the counter and his feet towards the window. There were several soldiers and civilians in the bar, which fronted Harbour Street. There were about 16 or 18 soldiers and three or four civilians. The bar was about half full. He pulled the soldier up and found he was almost helplessly drunk. Defendant's son-in-law and a young woman were serving at the back of the bar. Witness asked to see the defendant, who came through from the bar in South Street. Witness pointed out the condition of the man to defendant, who said he had not seen him before, and at once ejected the soldier. Witness said he would have to report the matter. As soon as the soldier got to the door he staggered across the pavement and fell down in the road, and was unable to get up. They brought him to the police tation and charged him with being drunk and incapable, and then returned to the True Briton, where witness saw defendant and his son-in-law, and told defendant he would have to report him for permitting drunkenness. He replied “I am very sorry. I hope you will look over it this time. I have always been very careful, and I had not seen him before”. The son-in-law said “I am almost sure I served this man a minute or two before, and he appeared sober then”. The son-in-law also said he was in charge of the bar.

Cross-examined, witness said there was nobody sitting between the counter and the soldier. He must have been seen from the bar. There were two soldiers standing against the counter in front of the man's head. A soldier said to witness “Oh, leave him alone; we'll take care of him”. The soldier did not say the man was more tired than drunk. The whole of the counter had men standing in front of it.

By the Bench: The seat ran right up to the bar, and no-one could stand between the counter and the seat.

By Mr. Haines: The persons behind the bar could not see the man's head, as it was right up against the counter.

P.C. Whitehead gave corroborative evidence.

John William Barkes, of 18a, Great Fenchurch Street, a mariner, said he was in the True Briton Hotel on the 18th inst., from 7 to 8 p.m. The bar was packed at that time, mostly with soldiers. He saw a soldier come into the bar from the street and sit down on the seat. He heard someone say “Sit up here”, and he thought it was Mr. James. Witness went out after that. He was gone about 15 minutes, and when he went back again a soldier was lying sideways on the seat. He could not say if it was the same man. He saw the police come in. The bar was full. Witness heard the Inspector speak to defendant's daughter behind the bar. Before that he had not seen anyone approach the soldier on the seat. He had not seen Mr. James at all before the police arrived. Witness was standing against the mantelpiece. He could not get near the counter. He would say the soldier had a little drop to drink when he entered the bar, from the way he pushed through the others.

Answering the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) witness said Inspector Lawrence had taken a statement from him, which he had signed.

Did you say to Inspector Lawrence, "The soldier lay down on the seat and after a few minutes the landlord came into the bar, and pulled him up and sat him on the seat?” - I don't know.

Oh, come. Remember you are on your oath. – I can't answer what I said a week ago.

But you have got to answer. Was the statement you made to Inspector Lawrence the truth or not? – I don't know, sir. I know I told him something.

Was it the truth or lies that you told him? – I don't know.

The Chairman: When you told him that was it the truth? – I don't know what I told him.

Witness persisted that he did not know whether Mr. James came into the bar and pulled the man up on the seat.

The Magistrates' Clerk, in reply to the Chairman, said the statement signed by witness was made on July 20th.

In cross-examination witness said he did not see the defendant come into the bar and take hold of the man and sit him up.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Why did you tell me a minute since that you did not remember whether he did or not? You had better stand down. Get out of the witness box. You are not fit to be here.

Mr. Haines, in his address on behalf of the defendant, urged that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness, and that he was not aware that the man was in the bar. He said no-one more than the publicans themselves knew what they had to put up with at present, and he thought they would sooner see the places closed on Sunday evenings, because the bars were packed like sardines with the soldiers, although, considering the number of men that were served he did not think there was any great complaint about the military, remembering also the great number there were in the town. There was always a great rush just before closing time, which was 8.30 down there, and in a small bar where customers were standing all round it was almost impossible to see everyone who came in at busy times. The conditions of the trade were abnormal at the present time.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had held the licence for three years. Of late there had been a very large business done with the soldiers, and he had all his work cut out to serve them. On the Sunday evening in question his son-in-law, Mr. Vaughan, his wife (defendant's daughter), and Mrs. James were assisting in the Harbour Street bar, and witness was going from one bar to another. Another daughter was serving in the South Street bar. A few minutes before the police came in defendant could not get into the Harbour Street bar from the counter, owing to the crush, so he had to go round. When he got round to the front of the bar he looked round and collected some glasses. There were people sitting on the seat, but nobody lying drunk there. The soldier in question was not there then. Defendant went away to the South Street bar. When the police drew his attention to the soldier he was sitting between two others. One of them said the man had not been served there, and added that he was tired, having been on parade. Defendant assisted the soldiers to put the man out, and when he reached the street witness could see that he was drunk from his walk. He had taken every step to prevent drunkenness on the premises. He would not have served the man if he had seen him standing at the counter. It was impossible to see the man on the seat from behind the bar, as the place was so crowded.

Mrs. Winifred James, defendant's wife, said she was continuously in the bar on the evening in question. It was packed full. She did not see the man until he was put out, as there were so many standing in the bar.

After the Bench had retired for a brief period the Chairman said they appreciated the very great difficulties that licensees had now, and they were perfectly willing to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. They quite understood the great difficulties he had, and thought he might not have seen the man. At the same time they considered that the police had acted perfectly rightly in bringing the case forward.

Folkestone Herald 16 October 1915.

Tuesday, October 12th: Before Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Mabel Collins was charged with giving a bottle of whisky to a soldier with intent to make him less capable of performing his duties. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal Ernest Allen, of the Canadian Military Police, said on Monday evening, about 7.15 p.m., he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner and a soldier named Charles Bale, of the 9th Canadian Infantry, outside the True Briton. While they were there the soldier asked defendant to get him a bottle of whisky. He gave her some money, and she went into the True Briton. She returned in a few minutes, asking for more money to meet the purchase. Bale gave it to her, and later she came out with a bottle of whisky (produced). She gave it to Bale, and witness followed them up the Parade Steps. In the meantime he called Corpl. Dawson, who accompanied him. The defendant and Bale sat together on the steps with three other girls. There were two other soldiers standing nearby. He went up to the woman and told her he had seen her give a bottle of whisky to Bale. She said she did, but she did not do it with any wrong intent. Witness handed Bale over to the military authorities, and then sent for a constable. When arrested Bale was in possession of the whisky. The cork had been drawn from the bottle, but he did not think any of the liquor had been drunk.

The Chief (Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had not been, able to communicate with the Town Commandant, as he was away, and therefore he had not got his authority to proceed summarily. He asked that accused be remanded till Wednesday. He had no objection to her having bail in her own recognisances.

The Bench remanded defendant till Wednesday in her own recognisances in the sum of £5.

At the hearing on Wednesday, before Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen and Mr. H. Kirke, accused did not surrender to her bail, and in view of her non-appearance the case was adjourned sine die.

Folkestone Herald 15 January 1916.

Local News.

An outbreak of fire occurred at the True Briton Inn, Harbour Street, on Monday afternoon. The Fire Brigade was called by telephone, and six firemen arrived. They found that the scene of the outbreak was a first floor bedroom. The blaze was soon quelled, but not before the window sash and frame burned, as well as the furniture, mat, and lumber, the cost of the damage being estimated at £2 10s. The outbreak is thought to have been caused by a match accidentally dropped on the floor.

Folkestone Herald 4 March 1916.

Friday, March 3rd: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Edward William James, the landlord of the True Briton, was summoned for permitting drunkenness.

The Chief Constable said he had had a letter from Mr. G.W. Haines, who was instructed to defend, asking for an adjournment, and the case was deferred till next Tuesday.

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1916.

Tuesday, March 7th: Before Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Edward William James, the landlord of the True Briton, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal Charles Baker, of the C.M.P., said on the 22nd February, about 7.40 p.m., when on duty with Corporal Blake, they were called to the True Briton. They found two soldiers in the public bar entered from Harbour Street drunk. One had his coat off, and they were fighting. The first man was Pte. Hockins. The people got in his way when he went to get the man out. Witness, however, got them out, and they fell into the picket. Corpl. Blake also got his man out. Both men were absolutely drunk, and they were taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined, witness said the men were charged with being drunk. The man did not walk. They were pushed and dragged together. They were very violent and bad-tempered.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said Corporal Blake and he went back to the bar and got the coat, tunic, and hat left there.

Corporal J. Blake, of the I.F.P., said he was called to the True Briton by the Corporal of the picket. He there found two soldiers inside, both drunk, with their arms round one another, and fighting. One was without his coat. Witness did not see anyone in charge of the premises. He saw a woman behind the bar. He did not speak to anyone. The men were taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not say who sent for the picket. The picket was near the house.

Sergt. L.G. Davis, of the C.M.P., said he was in charge of the guard room on the evening in question. The men were both drunk, and resisted. They were very violent indeed.

Cross-examined, witness said he based his opinion as to their being drunk upon their appearance and smell.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said the men were left in the guard room till the following morning.

Sergt. Sales deposed that on the 24th February he went to the True Briton and saw the defendant. He said to him “A report has been submitted to the Chief Constable by the military police respecting two soldiers, who, it is alleged, were drunk and fighting on your premises on the 22nd. A summons may be issued against you for permitting drunkenness”. Defendant replied “They were not drunk. They came in shortly after opening time, and only had two or three drinks. One of them got quarrelsome, and I refused to serve him with any more drink. He used bad language, so I sent for the picket and had them ejected. I have always done my best to conduct my premises properly”.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the law was that onus lay on the landlord to show that he and those under him did everything in their power to prevent drunkenness.

Mr. Haines said if his client was permitting drunkenness it was not likely that he would call in the military police. The men might have been drunk, but the defendant would tell them that he acted mainly because of their language and the temper they were exhibiting. They all knew the difficulties the licence holders had at the present time. The onus was on them to satisfy them that they had done everything to perform their duty.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held the licence for four years. He had two bars, one facing Harbour Street, and the other South Street. He went backwards and forwards supervising the business. During the evening of February 22nd he heard his daughter, who was in charge of the Harbour Street bar, say “I shan't serve you with any more”, and he went over to see what was the matter. He then heard a soldier using strong language. He had knocked a glass down, and his daughter told him he would have to pay for it. His friend went up to him (the soldier), who said he would serve himself. Witness then went to the man and spoke to him. The soldier had his overcoat off, but he was at no time in his shirt sleeves. The coat was on the bench. The man refused to go unless he had another drink, and witness told him if he did not go he would send for the picket. The man's friend advised him not to make a disturbance. A soldier went for the picket, who came and took the friend out first and then the other man. Directly witness heard a noise he came out from the other bar. He complained principally of their language. It was a very short time after he spoke to the man that the picket arrived. He was continually to and from between these tow bars.

Cross-examined, witness said he sent for the picket a little after 7.30 p.m. He admitted he told Sergt. Sales these men came in just after opening time. They had been served with two or three drinks. He did not serve these particular men himself. There were two others serving in this bar. The picket had great difficulty in getting the man out. It could not be said the man was drunk. He could not see any effect of drink on the man. The soldier might have been half and half. He first saw the man about 6.30. They remained in the bar till they were ejected.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said he could not see anything wrong with the men. He had heard no bad language previously.

Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Vaughan said she assisted her father at the True Briton. On February 22nd the bar was fairly well packed. She had not noticed the two men till they used abusive language. She served them with two or three drinks. They had some whisky. The man started swearing amongst the people in the bar. She cautioned him once, and when he asked for another drink she refused him, as he would not stop swearing. He threatened to come across and serve himself. She then went and called for her father. He knocked a glass off, and she told him he had better pay for it. Her father went and spoke to the man, and the picket was sent for.

Cross-examined, witness said the men were Canadians, and were drinking “double deckers”. That would be double quantity. If they were served with three “double deckers” they would have 1s. 6d. worth of whisky. She served these men three times, she thought. Witness did not think the man used bad language through the whisky.

In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said she did not think she served these men every time with double deckers. She may have only served them once with double deckers.

The Chairman said, after giving the case serious consideration, the Bench had their doubts as to whether they should convict. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the summons would be dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1918.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday the Bench granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, from Mr. James to Mrs. Lucas. It was stated that Mrs. Lucas' husband was a sergeant major in the Army, but was expecting his discharge at any moment. Meanwhile his brother would reside on the premises.

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The following transfer was confirmed:

True Briton, from Mr. James to Mrs. Lucas.

Folkestone Herald 1 June 1918.

Saturday, May 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and other Magistrates.

Private Arthur Newman Foote was charged on remand with obtaining sums of £3 10s. and £3 by means of worthless cheques.

Eliza Ann Chipperfield, boarding house keeper, 18 and 19, The Leas, said prisoner took a room at her house on May 16th, and left on the 20th. On Saturday, the 18th, he came to her and said that he had been to Lloyd's Bank and found that she banked there. He had told them he had lost his coat with his own bank book in it, and they told him to ask witness for a blank cheque, which would give them better information to find his own coat and bank book. He asked witness for a blank cheque, and she gave him the one produced.

Gertrude Florence Lucas, landlady of the Harbour Hotel (sic), said on Sunday evening, May 19th, defendant entered the saloon bar with another soldier named Byron, whom she knew as a customer. Prisoner was a stranger to her. Byron said “Will you cash this cheque for my friend?” Witness said she never cashed cheques, but Byron said it would be all right; she might take his pay book and number. Accused then handed her the cheque for £3 10s., and she changed it. It was signed in the name of Lewis, and the payee's name was Marriott. Prisoner said Marriott was his name, and that he was employed at the West Cliff Hospital. Both men had a drink, and then left the house. She cashed the cheque because Byron told her it was all right.

Annie Clara Featherstone, dealer in artists' materials, 55, High Street, said on Monday, May 13th, prisoner came to her shop and purchased some drawing paper, which he paid for. He then asked her if she could oblige him with a blank cheque, as he had a banking account with Lloyd's at Montreal, but his papers had not come through. He also said he had some pay due to him, but he could not get it till the end of the month. She gave him the cheque form produced.

Mr. J.W. Jefferson, Secretary to the Y.M.C.A. at the Luton Hut, said on Monday afternoon, May 13th, he saw prisoner in the Hut. Accused asked him to cash the cheque produced (for £3). Witness asked him if it was good, and he replied that it was. Witness asked him to endorse it with his name, number and present location. He endorsed it and witness cashed it. He went to pay it into the bank on May 15th, but it was refused. As far as he could remember, prisoner was in hospital clothes.

Mr. H.F. Carpenter, accountant at Lloyd's Bank, Folkestone, said one of the cheques was drawn by “C.F. Lewis” and the other by “Charles Lewis”. They had no such customer at the bank. Both had been presented, but payment was refused.

Detective Sergeant Johnson stated that when charged at the police station prisoner said “Yes” and smiled.

Accused admitted both charges, and said he was much ashamed of himself. He was quite in a position to pay the money back, as he was £60 in credit. He had been in hospital since December and had had no money from the Canadian Government during that time. He wanted money to go on leave, and this method of getting it had been suggested by two friends of his. He knew that he would be found out in a few days, but had hoped to be able to pay the money back before that time.

An officer stated that the prisoner had been in the Moore Barracks Hospital and had been sent to Warrington to be kept under observation as a suspected mental case, being later returned to Moore Barracks Hospital. He thought prisoner was a man who could not distinguish between right and wrong. Each hospital patient was allowed 10s. a month for smokes, stamps and other small things, and if they wanted money for a special purpose they could get it by applying to the Medical Officer. It was probable that prisoner's statement that he was £60 in credit was correct.

Prisoner was bound over for six months, the Chairman observing that he ought to reimburse those from whom he had had the money.

Folkestone Herald 8 June 1918.

Correction.

With regard to the case of a Canadian soldier passing worthless cheques, reported in our last issue, it should be stated that Mrs. Lucas, who changed one of the cheques, is the licensee of the True Briton Hotel. The Harbour Hotel was not associated with the case at all.

Folkestone Herald 27 July 1918.

County Court.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Judge Shortt.

Ash and Co. v Wm. Edward James; Claim of £46 3s. 9d., value of articles under agreement and goods sold.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, was for plaintiffs, and Mr. Douglas De Wet for defendant.

Mr. Percy George Brothers, Secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the defendant became tenant of the True Briton on January 1st, 1913, and entered into an agreement for the hire of the furniture. Tenants were supplied with beer in bottle and on draught. The bottles were booked against the tenants, and they were allowed credit for those returned. A balance was struck periodically, and the statement of the balance sent to the tenant. The balance against defendant at the time of leaving the house was £25 10s. 1d. All the returns of bottles were brought to them by the carman, who gave a receipt to the tenant for all bottles handed back. Defendant had paid for all the beer delivered. At the termination of the tenancy, an inventory was taken of the goods and furniture, and some were found to be missing, a certain amount being assessed for the missing articles.

By Mr. De Wet: Defendant for some time had the house free of rent and rates, and then he paid rates. They held a deposit of £100 from defendant. In some cases the firm had allowed the bottle account to run on for twenty years, but not in the case of a tied house. Occasionally they sent bottles out which were not marked with the firm's name. If the bottles were not marked another market could be found for them.

By His Honour: The bottles were charged at the present increased price. The firm had bought bottles at the increased price during the war. Since the restrictions they had bought no bottles.

Mr. Edgar Brett, haulage contractor, of Canterbury, said he had done work under contract for the plaintiffs since April, 1912. All haulage from the plaintiffs to Folkestone came under the contract. He had delivered all beer to the house since defendant had had it, except possibly on four occasions, when his man had made the delivery. He always counted the empties, and gave defendant a receipt for them.

Mr. Loftus Banks, valuer, said he checked the inventory of furniture and goods when the defendant went into the house. All the goods mentioned in the inventory were in the house when the defendant went in. On his leaving the inventory was again checked, and witness was not satisfied with it. He personally checked the inventory in the following week, and found some of the goods either missing or damaged beyond repair. He valued these goods at £27 3s. 8d., and that figure he sent to the plaintiffs. A copy of the claim was sent to defendant about February 21st, and he asked if he would like to meet him. Ultimately, on March 12th, they met on the premises, and found some of the goods which had been claimed for, and credit was given for these, making the claim £20 13s. 8d. There were some broken pieces of goods in the cellar. He allowed £9 6s. 6d. for bottles found on the premises. Witness settled up accounts with Mr. James with regard to the £100 deposit, leaving £18 2s. 10d. due from the defendant, which he paid. The receipt for the sum was marked “Disputed bottle account allowed to stand over for settlement”.

Mr. De Wet here said defendant had no receipt.

By Mr. De Wet: The inventory of July 23rd, 1912 was made for a former tenant, and was not signed either by the former tenant or by Mr. James when he went in. It was not till February 20th that he checked the inventory himself. His representative checked it on the night of the change in January, 1918, and he prepared a fresh inventory, which was a copy of the old inventory of 1912, which, however, Mrs. Lucas, the new tenant, refused to sign, as she could not see some of the goods mentioned as being in certain rooms. He admitted that this was the reason for his visit on February 20th.

Defendant stated that he had never signed any inventory, and that on January 18th, 1918, he gave Mr. Banks a cheque for over £20, and not for £18, which cheque he produced. Nothing was said to him about there being anything further owing. He did not receive any receipt, and considered the returned cheque sufficient receipt. There was some question about the bottle and crate account, and Mr. Banks a fortnight previously asked him to send his delivery receipt to the office, which he had refused to do. On the evening of the change he handed to Mr. Banks all these receipts and asked him to check them, when he would find nothing owing. This Mr. Banks refused to do.

Mrs. James said she went over the inventory with Mr. Banks' representative, and pointed out where articles had been moved. The inventory was passed, and nothing was said or claim made for anything missing or damaged.

His Honour said he was dissatisfied with the claim as to furniture, and would allow nothing on that heading. He would allow £25 10s. 1d. for the bottles and crates, with costs.

Folkestone Herald 18 December 1920.

Friday, November 17th: Before Dr. W.J. Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. W.J. Harrison and Miss E.I. Weston.

Albert Taylor, landlord of the Brewery Tap, was summoned for a breach of the Shops Order. Mr. A.F. Kidson prosecuted, and Mr. V.D. De Wet appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Arthur John Wort said at 6.10 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21st, he visited the defendant's house. He asked for a packet of cigarettes, and he was served by the defendant's son with a 6d. packet.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant's son and he had played football together. He did not know him personally as he did not speak to him in the street. (Laughter)

Mr. De Wet submitted that the Order did not apply to licensed victuallers. They were exempted under the schedule which exempted other trades. The licensed victuallers were never asked if they wished to be exempted from being allowed to open on Wednesday afternoons. Were 110 licensed victuallers, not consulted, to be bound by a three-fourths majority of the tobacconists?

Defendant was fined 10s.

Mr. De Wet said this was a trade affair, and he asked the Magistrates to state a case, which request was granted.

Gertrude Florence Lucas (True Briton Hotel) and Ernest Mainwood (Harbour Hotel) were each fined 10s. for similar offences.

Folkestone Herald 25 December 1920.

Editorial.

Bumble oracularly declared that “the law is a hass”. It is not unlikely that many people, after reading the reports of the cases in which three licensed victuallers were fined for the heinous crime of selling cigarettes on Wednesday afternoon, expressed themselves in a similar fashion. We make no reflection upon the Folkestone Magistrates who heard the prosecutions. The law being as it is, they probably felt they had no alternative but to fine the defendants. At the same time they would have shown a greater appreciation of the fitness of things by imposing a mere nominal penalty of one shilling. But the amount of the fine is not a very serious matter one way or the other. The material point is the state of things in which it is an offence for a publican to sell a cigar, cigarette or tobacco after one o'clock on Wednesday. One satisfactory result of the proceedings is that the Magistrates consented to state a case, and, as we understand, the licensed victuallers intend to take steps with a view to securing the removal of this gross anomaly. We are firm believers in law and order, but when the application of the law leads to such a pass as this we venture to suggest that it is time to enquire whether there is not some error either in the application or in the law itself.

The cases were the outcome of the operation of the Shop Hours Act, containing provision for the closing of shops one half day in every week. That measure allows a certain amount of latitude to tobacconists. They are set apart in a class distinct from shopkeepers generally; they are under no obligation to shut on the customary closing day unless a two-thirds majority petition the Town Council to make an order that they shall do so. That is what happened some years ago. The tobacconists wished to come within the scope of the general order, and the necessary majority memorialised the Corporation accordingly. But – and this is a big “but” – the licensed victuallers, who are also tobacconists, were not consulted in the matter at all. Yet they are expected to conform to an order in the making of which they had no voice! Could anything be more unfair? Simple justice and common sense alike dictate that either they should be regarded as “tobacconists”, and therefore consulted before the order is applied to them or they should not be affected by the order. Licensed victuallers are, indeed, provided for by legislation as a separate class, and they are hedged about and harassed by many restrictions from which other traders are immune. They have therefore the stronger claim to consideration in this matter.

Possibly the result of the case to be stated by the Justices will be a decision that they cannot be regarded as coming within the scope of the order. If not, then it must be hoped that the powers that be will rule that the publicans must be classed as “tobacconists” in so far as the matter of petitioning the local authority for an order is concerned. In justice to the tobacconists it must be said – so we are informed on good authority – that the majority of them are not opposed to licensed victuallers and cinemas selling cigars, cigarettes, or tobacco on Wednesday afternoon. But it is not merely the tobacconists or the licensed victuallers who have a claim to be heard on this subject. The public generally has a voice in the matter, and many people consider it is a serious grievance that they are debarred from purchasing their smoking materials at hotels and public houses on Wednesday afternoons when the ordinary tobacconists are closed. True, smokers living at Morehall, at Cheriton, at Sandgate, and at Hythe can get what they want that afternoon from the ordinary cigar stores, these being open for business as usual. Viewed in the light of this fact, the state of things at Folkestone is a still greater anomaly.

There is another aspect of the case. We are convinced that it is detrimental to the interests of Folkestone as a health and pleasure resort that the tobacconists as a body close on Wednesday afternoon, especially in the summer. If, however, they elect to close, they are free to do so. But let those who wish to meet the convenience of the public by supplying them with cigarettes and the like and also the public itself be likewise free to do as they wish. Let us have freedom all round.

Comment.

The recent prosecution of certain licensed victuallers and the Managing Director of a cinema, for selling cigarettes on Wednesday afternoon has been the subject of much comment since the cases were reported in last week's Herald. The state of affairs is anomalous in the extreme. Whilst an innocent cigarette is forbidden to freedom loving Britons in Folkestone on Wednesday afternoons, he can cross the border either to Sandgate or Cheriton and purchase all he desires in this respect. Surely it is time that steps should be taken to bring about some alteration.

With the object of securing the views of “The Trade” on this subject a Herald representative waited on the Chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association (Mr. Rivers) at the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane. Unfortunately he was confined to his room through indisposition, but he kindly sent a message through his daughter to the effect that it was a most absurd position that a body of about a dozen men (an insignificant minority) should be able to control a majority as was done in this case.

Mr. Albert Hart, the energetic Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, on being asked his opinion on the subject, emphatically replied “Absolutely rotten. In the first place I should think the Health Committee of the Town Council would be doing a good thing if they directed Inspector Pearson to get on with his duties as Sanitary Inspector, instead of hiding up behind walls and doors whilst a boy is utilised to trap honest traders. Here is the situation. Some time ago about fourteen members of the tobacco trade (if indeed there was such a number) asked the Council to apply the provision of the Shop Hours Act to the tobacco trade in the borough. Now the enforcement of the Act means that 300 licensed tobacco dealers in the town are prevented from selling tobacco in any form after one o'clock on Wednesday”.

In answer to another query, Mr. Hart said “Yes, it applies to hotels and restaurants. All liberty-loving Englishmen revolt at such a situation, and they revolt also at the methods employed in order to secure a paltry conviction. We as a trade – combined with other tobacco licensees – intend to take steps to secure the revocation of this absurd application of a law, which was never intended to apply to the tobacco trade”.

Our representative also interviewed the manageress of a large hotel, and she kindly showed him her written instructions that tobacco could not be sold in any licensed house after one on Wednesdays, nor after eight p.m. on other days, with the exception of Saturday, when the hour was extended till nine. It was possible if a chance bar customer ordered a meal to secure a cigarette or cigar, but as to what constituted a meal there was some doubt. Some men, she remarked, could make a good meal off a hunk of bread and cheese, whilst another would probably require several courses to make up a meal. Hotel guests cannot be served after the hours mentioned above unless they are sleeping in the house.

The Manager of the Leas Tobacco Company, Sandgate Road, said it was necessary in the interests, not only of the trade itself, but the public generally, that the vexatious restrictions should be swept away. It was intolerable that an insignificant minority should rule, as in this case.

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1922.

Folkestone Herald 21 July 1923.

Local News.

On Wednesday evening about 7 p.m., Mr. Reginald Baker, of 45, Chart Road, was walking along South Street when he was struck on the head by a length of guttering, which had become detached from the roof of the True Briton Hotel. P.C. Finn rendered first aid, and the injured man was taken to the Hospital on a motor ambulance. He was examined by the House Surgeon, and found to be suffering from a wound in the head and an injured left hand. After being treated he was taken home.

Folkestone Herald 22 December 1923.

County Court.

Tuesday, December 18th: Before Judge Henry Terrell.

Reginald Herbert Baker v W. Purbeck: Claim for £50 damages for personal injury. A jury had originally been called to deal with the case, but the parties agreed to the matter being settled by His Honour. Mr. C.T. Williams (instructed by Berry Tomkins and Co., London), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A.K. Mowll (Dover) for the defendant.

Mr. Williams stated that the parties had agreed to put the amount of the claim at £25. The question was simply one of liability.

Plaintiff stated that he lived at 45, Chart Road, Folkestone. On the 18th July he was passing the True Briton Hotel, South Street, when he felt a severe blow on the head. He was stunned, and was attended to in the Princess Royal Hotel. When he came out he saw a large piece of broken guttering lying on the pavement in front of the True Briton. The defendant rendered assistance when he was struck down. The weather was quite calm at the time. The piece of guttering measured about fourteen or fifteen feet.

By Mr. Mowll: He would imagine that the pieces of guttering he saw in the road were those which had struck him. There was no wind at all.

Mrs. Nellie Strode, of 24, South Street, nearly opposite the True Briton, said that at the time of the accident she was standing in the doorway of her house, when she saw a piece of guttering coming through the air. It struck the plaintiff, who fell into the bar opposite. The guttering broke into pieces in the roadway.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said that the guttering fell from a great height. It was a wonder that the man was not killed.

Wm. Henry Heritage, of the Princess Royal, South Street, said that on the day in question he was standing at his doorway, when he saw the guttering fall on the plaintiff's head. He staggered, and witness caught hold of him, and sent for the police. The guttering was splintered into pieces.

By Mr. Mowll: He would imagine that some of the guttering hit a coping before striking the plaintiff.

Defendant stated that the True Briton Hotel was three storeys high, and the height was thirty five to forty feet. Under the terms of his tenancy he had no exterior repairs to do. At the time of the accident the landlords were in liquidation. Some of the guttering may have struck the coping on the wall.

Frederick Parker, of Messrs. Cook and Parker, builders, said that he repaired the guttering at the True Briton. It was in a good condition. He could not account for the guttering falling.

By Mr. Williams: There should be no danger if the guttering were inspected.

His Honour held that the guttering had decayed, therefore it was a public nuisance, for which the tenant was responsible. He would give judgement for the plaintiff for the £25 claimed and costs.

Folkestone Herald 20 November 1926.

Wednesday, November 17th: Before The Mayor, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. A. Stace, and Mr. J.H. Blamey.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel, 26, Harbour Street, was transferred from Mr. Walter Hay Purbrick to Mr. Gladstone D. Martin.

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1929.

Local News.

Herbert Harold Green and Nellie Green, who were both well dressed, were remanded in custody for a week at Folkestone Police Court on Thursday.

Their names appeared in the charge sheet as Jack Dale and Joan Dale. They were charged in the first instance with attempting to steal 4,000 cigarettes from Messrs. Pain and Sons, wholesale tobacconists, but during the hearing the charge was amended to one of stealing. The value of the cigarettes was stated to be £8 2s. 4d.

Mr. Arthur Pain, wholesale tobacconist, a member of the firm trading as Pain and Sons, 8, Dover Street, Folkestone, said that at about noon yesterday he received a telephone call in a male voice which he did not recognise. The voice said “I am short of cigarettes. Cany you oblige me with a few?”, to which he replied “Who is speaking?” The voice replied “Mr. Martin, True Briton Hotel”. The voice continued “I will send one of my girls for them”. Witness replied “I will send a boy”. The voice then replied “I will send a girl as I am in a hurry”. Witness then asked “What would you like?”, and the reply came “1,000 Players cigarettes in tens, 1,000 Players cigarettes in twenties, 1,000 Gold Flake in tens, and 1,000 Gold Flake in twenties”. Witness rang off, and packed up the cigarettes himself. He had almost finished packing them when the woman prisoner came into the shop and said “I have come for the cigarettes for the True Briton Hotel”. He then said to her “I think the parcel is too heavy for you”, but she replied “I think I can manage it”, or words to that effect. He handed her the parcel and she left the shop with it. By then he had become suspicious and followed her from the shop. She went into Harbour Street and he there saw her met by the other prisoner, who took the parcel from her. They walked together towards the Harbour and the woman got in a red car bound for Cheriton. He then approached the man, who was carrying the parcel, and, taking the parcel from his hand, to which he made no exception, he said “Thank you, I will deliver this myself”. The man replied “I was just going to deliver the parcel but was seeing this lady on to the bus”. He went straight to the True Briton Hotel, and there interviewed Mr. Martin jun., and as a result communicated with the police. He himself went in search of the prisoners, and about 12.25 he saw them together in Cheriton Road. They walked down Coolinge Road, Guildhall Street, Bournemouth Road and Ship Street into Foord Road. He there saw P.C. Spain, who arrested the two. He identified the parcel of cigarettes as the property of his firm.

Mr. David Alfred Martin, son of the landlord of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, said that his father was confined to bed with a fractured ankle and he was managing the business. He had never seen either of the prisoners before and did not give them or any other person authority to obtain cigarettes on his father's behalf from Mr. Pain. He knew nothing whatever about the transaction until Mr. Pain called on him.

At this stage the charge was amended from one of attempting to steal to one of stealing the cigarettes.

P.C. Spain said that he was on duty in Foord Road at about 12.35 p.m. yesterday and Mr. Spain made a communication to him. In consequence he stopped the two defendants, who were together, and told them that upon information he had received he would take them both to the police station for enquiries to be made. The main prisoner said “Is it necessary for her (meaning his companion) to come?” He replied “Yes. Both must come”. He then brought them to the police station and both were charged in his presence by Detective Constable Southey with attempting to obtain the cigarettes by false pretences. They were cautioned and neither made any reply. The man gave his name as Jack Dale, and said the woman was his wife, Joan Dale.

Chief Constable A.S. Beesley said that was as far as he proposed to take the case and asked for a week's remand in order to make further enquiries.

The man asked if a statement he made last night could be brought forward, and Mr. Beesley said his reason for not bringing it forward was that it would not help prisoners at that stage.

The Clerk: Is there a probability that you may have other charges?

The Chief Constable: Yes.

Folkestone Herald 31 August 1929.

Local News.

When Herbert Harold Green and Nellie Harrow were charged on remand at Folkestone Police Court on Thursday with stealing 4,000 cigarettes from Messrs. Pain and Son, wholesale tobacconists, of Dover Street, a further charge of stealing a suitcase and contents, valued at £45, the property of the Southern Railway, was preferred against you. They were committed for trial at Folkestone Quarter Sessions in October on the two charges.

Miss Elsie Bacchus, nursing sister at the Royal Victoria Hospital, identified the suitcase in Court as her property. She had packed it with articles of clothing belonging to her and handed it over to a collector of Martin and Sons, carriers, of Southborough, at about 9.45 in the morning for despatch by passenger train to Folkestone.

Mr. Arthur Charles Gardner, of 175, Clarendon Road, Dover, a vanman employed by the Southern Railway, said that on the afternoon of the 20th at about 4.50 he was in Guildhall Street, Folkestone, delivering passengers' and other luggage in course of transit. He was near the back of the van when the male prisoner came to him and asked him if he had a case on the van for Miss Bacchus, of the Royal Victoria Hospital. He said “Yes”, and the prisoner asked him how long he thought he would be before he delivered it. He said he would be 20 minutes or more because he had four or five other places to deliver at. Prisoner said that would be rather a nuisance as the lady was not staying on and he wanted to despatch it to her. He (witness) believed that the man was authorised to receive it and asked him if he would like to take it. He said “Yes”. Witness gave it to him. He signed the delivery sheet and walked away with it. He signed the sheet with the name “Fred Terry, R.V.H.”. There was a label on the suitcase showing to the back of the van, which anybody could see as the suitcase rested in the van.

Mr. Alfred John Blake, proprietor of a boarding house at 6, Shorncliffe Road, said that on Saturday, August 17th, prisoners came to him for apartments as man and wife. They remained until arrested on the 21st. When they arrived they had two bags with them, but not the one now in Court. On the 20th the woman left the house just before 3 o'clock to take his little girl to the pictures in the afternoon. He himself saw the man bring the suitcase now produced into the house between 4 and 7 p.m., when the woman prisoner had not returned. The woman returned with his wife and little girl.

Detective Constable Southey said that at 2.45 p.m. on the 21st he went to 6, Shorncliffe Road, and was shown by Mr. Blake into a bedroom on the first floor. He there found the suitcase produced. It had been obviously forced by the leather being cut away from one lock. He saw the prisoners at the police station on the 21st shortly after they were brought in by P.C. Spain. Late in the afternoon, at about 5 p.m., he went to the man's cell in response to his request, and the prisoner said that he wished to make a statement with a view to clearing the girl.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) read the alleged statement, which was as follows:- “I wish to make this statement with a view of squaring matters and to assist Nellie Harlow (Joan Dale), who is implicated in the present charge. My name is Herbert Harold Green, native of Leeds, Yorkshire, though I have been living as Jack Dale for the past few weeks. I was discharged from H.M. Prison at Leeds on May 6th, and after registering at the Employment Exchange and signing on there for three weeks I was informed that I was not eligible for benefit, and being unable to obtain work in the district I left. I have received information since I left Leeds that there was an inquiry for me by the police. However I kept on moving, still in search of employment, but failed to obtain any. Some four weeks ago I met Miss Harlow, who is mentioned in this charge, and having become acquainted and taking a liking to each other, we decided to stick to each other with a view to being married at the first opportunity. We should have been married at once, but owing to thinking I might really be wanted at Leeds we did not register for marriage until I was certain. With regard to the present charge of attempting to obtain cigarettes by a trick I plead Guilty, but beg for leniency for Nellie Harlow, who is not in any way responsible, only in that she called at the shop for the parcel. This girl has never been in any trouble before, and although I had informed her of my previous downfall she decided to stick to me, and, when I got a situation, to settle down. Things have gradually got worse. I being unable to obtain anything honestly, I am sorry to admit that I turned my thoughts to getting something with which to pay my bill at the apartments and my railway fare back inland, and the present charge was the result. I did not stoop to obtain goods in this way because I did not like work; I did it because I could not get any work, or unemployment benefit, or anything else to allow me to be honest. I have no further defence to make than that but once again plead that you will be lenient towards Miss Harlow, who prior to this time has an unblemished character, and who really tried to help me to a better future”.

The Magistrates Clerk said that under the heading “Cases concerning myself only” the statement proceeded: “I plead Guilty to obtaining a lady's suitcase and contents from the Southern Railway in Folkestone, and would ask that this matter be taken into consideration at the same time as the other charge. But I would state here that Nellie Harlow has had nothing to do with this matter, or other matters of a similar nature at Hastings and Brighton, where I also obtained suitcases. I was driven to desperation at the time, and was unable to get any money to travel further in looking for something honest. I may say here that my object in coming to the coast was not that I could get a living crookedly, but because I thought a seaside resort would probably offer more chances of employment than an inland town at the present time. Trusting that my request for these cases to be taken into consideration is quite in order, I would ask that you may see my struggle for existence has really been my downfall. If I could obtain some form of employment, I can assure you that I would not stoop to the kind of things I have done.”

Prisoners were committed for trial as stated.

Folkestone Herald 9 November 1929.

Local News.

How a young woman had been lured from her home to a life of crime by a clever crook was told at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Saturday, before the Recorder (Mr. Roland Oliver), when Herbert Harold Green (30), a salesman, and Nellie Harlow (19), a machinist, were indicted together with stealing, at Folkestone, on August 21st, 4,000 cigarettes, valued at £8 2s. 4d., the property of Mr. A. Pain, a tobacconist, and further with stealing, also at Folkestone, on August 20th, a suitcase and its contents, valued at £45, the property of the Southern Railway Company.

Green pleaded Guilty to both charges, and also admitted having been convicted at Leeds Quarter Sessions in 1928 of fraudulent conversion. Harlow pleaded Guilty to the first charge, but Not Guilty to the second charge, the prosecution, on the advice of the Recorder, not offering any evidence against her.

Mr. L. Fletcher, who prosecuted, said the prisoners appeared to have arrived at Folkestone on August 17th, and then taken rooms at a boarding house in Shorncliffe Road, where they remained until they were arrested on August 22nd. In order of date the first charge related to a suitcase. It appeared that a nursing sister had been spending a holiday at Southborough. She returned to Folkestone by motor bus on August 20th, sending her suitcase by rail. Whilst a Southern Railway vanman was delivering luggage on August 20th in Guildhall Street, Green came up to him, and asked if he could have the case belonging to Miss Backhurst, of the Royal Victoria Hospital, as she wanted it in a hurry. The vanman handed over the case to the male prisoner, who signed the delivery sheet “Fred Terry”. That suitcase was taken by Green to his lodgings. That offence was no brought home at once to either of the two prisoners. It was only traced to them in consequence of a statement by Green after his arrest.

With regard to the 4,000 cigarettes, Mr. Pain, a tobacconist, was rung up at his shop by someone whose voice he did not know, but the person speaking said he was Mr. Martin, of the True Briton Hotel, and that he wanted 4,000 cigarettes, and these were packed up. The speaker on the telephone said he had run short, and as he wanted the cigarettes quickly would send a girl to fetch them. The female prisoner shortly after called for the cigarettes. Mr. Pain handed them over, but as he was a bit suspicious, he followed Harlow when she left the shop as far as Harbour Street, where she joined the male prisoner. Harlow boarded a bus for Cheriton, and Mr. Pain went to the True Briton Hotel, where he learnt there was no truth in the story of the cigarettes being required. Later he saw both the prisoners in Cheriton Road, and he followed them until he found a police officer, to whom he made a complaint, and the prisoners were arrested. At the police station the male prisoner made a statement, and it was as a result of that statement that the police became aware of the second offence (the theft of the suitcase). They went to the boarding house, where they recovered the suitcase. The only evidence against the girl in regard to the suitcase was that she had a portion of the underclothing from the suitcase in her drawer. Both prisoners had been in custody since August 21st, and the male prisoner took full blame for all that had occurred.

The Chief Constable said the girl seemed to have come under the spell of the man. She came of a very respectable family, living at Ilkeston, in Derbyshire. She met Green early in August, apparently through her sister, who was living with another man known to Green, and also a criminal. At the time apparently she did not know that Green was engaged in criminal pursuits, but undoubtedly later she did. The girl's mother was willing to take her back home and forgive her. She appeared to be very fond of the man, and had refused to break her association with him.

The Recorder: I have had a letter from the girl's parents, saying that she had been an excellent daughter up to the time she left home.

The Chief Constable said that Green was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour at Leeds on July 5th, 1928, for the fraudulent conversion of a cheque of £10. On November 23rd, 1925, at Leeds, Green was charged with stealing a diamond ring, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On September 22nd, 1927, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for embezzlement. Green was born at Leeds, and educated at a secondary school. After leaving school he was apprenticed to a chemist. During the war he served with the R.A.M.C. in France, his character being assessed as good when demobilised. On leaving the Army he was engaged by the Treasury Department of the Leeds Corporation from October, 1919, until September, 1924, when he was ordered to resign owing to dishonesty. For a time he was a partner in Theatre Publications Ltd., Leeds. Then from May, 1925, to November, 1925, he was at work at Liverpool. Whilst he had been in prison Green's wife had divorced him. Since his release from prison in May of this year Green had done no work. He was described by the Leeds Police as “an inveterate liar and fond of the company of women”. From May of this year until his arrest at Folkestone there was no doubt that he had gained a livelihood by crime. After committing a number of crimes in the North of England, prisoner then came to the South, and at Brighton on August 6th commenced a series of clever and systematic larcenies and frauds. Green asked for these cases, admitted by him, to be taken into consideration when sentenced. On May 27th, 1929, at Leeds, Green presented a cheque for £2. He received £1 11s. 10½d. change, and the cheque was returned “Account Closed”. On July 5th he presented another cheque for £4 10s. 6d., received change, and the cheque was again marked “No Account”. At Barnsley, on the 11th of the same month, Green was concerned, with another man, in stealing a gentleman's gold watch and chain, valued £16 16s., from lodgings. At Nottingham four days later Green stole parcels of shoes (valued £7), cotton (£6 1s. 6d.), and suits (£22). On August 6th, at Brighton Railway Station cloakroom, he stole a suitcase and contents, valued £35. Two days later at Brighton he stole a number of Treasury notes and a Mackintosh, valued £8 10s. Going to Eastbourne on the next day, he stole a suitcase and contents, valued £7. Three days later at Eastbourne he stole from a bedroom, at 3 Pevensey Road, a Post Office savings book, and on the same day received 30s. by the conversion of a certain forged document. On the same day at St. Leonards (Warrior Square) Station he stole a suitcase and its contents (£10). Two days later, at Hastings, he obtained another suitcase and contents (£10 4s. 6d.). Three days later, on August 15th, at Hastings, he stole 4,000 cigarettes (£8 5s.).

Green told the Recorder that he admitted all these charges.

The Recorder, after reading long statements made by the male prisoner, passed the sentence of three years' penal servitude. He (the Recorder) said he did not suppose it was much use talking to a man like him. He could hardly imagine a worse record than the one read out to him. Apart from three convictions during the past three years and the charges he had pleaded Guilty to that day, Green had asked him to take into consideration and include in his sentence 14 other cases of crime which he admitted having committed since he had been released from prison in May and arrested again in August. They were crimes of stealing, forgery, and a number of cases of false pretences. During that time he had been what one may call, in a strict sense, a habitual criminal. Morally he had done worse, for he had been guilty of taking away from her home this young girl, ruining her, and teaching her to be a criminal. He would not be punished by him for that; he could only punish him for offences against the law. The one redeeming feature was that he had asked for mercy for the girl, but he thought he would carry to the grave the recollection of what he had done to her.

The Recorder, addressing the girl, who sobbed after Green had been sentenced and removed from the dock, said he was sorry for her. She had come from a good home, and had been completely ruined by Green. She was quite young, and he wanted her to have a chance of doing better. Was she willing to go back to her parents?

Harlow: Yes.

The Recorder: Then I will bind you over for 12 months on condition you go back and live with your parents, and try and make a fresh start.

When the Recorder asked how the girl would get back to her home, the Probation Officer (Mr. A.D.Z. Holmes) said he would find the money for the fare, and see that she reached her home safely.

Folkestone Herald 19 April 1930.

Local News.

When Gladstone Martin, the licensee of the True Briton public house, and W. Surtees, the licensee of the Castle Inn, made applications at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday for music licences to enable them to give wireless entertainments in their houses, the Chief Constable (Mr. A. S. Beesley) said there were now 16 of these particular licences in the borough in respect of public houses.

The Magistrates granted the application, the hours being from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays.

Folkestone Herald 4 January 1941.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the licences of three public houses from the tenants to Mr. R. P. Rawlings, Managing Director of Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Ltd., Hythe Brewery.

The houses concerned were the South Foreland, licensee, Mr. F. Jordan; the Alexandra, licensee, Mr. F May; and the True Briton, licensee, Mr. D. Martin.

Agreeing to the transfer of his licence, Mr. Jordan said he was doing so providing that when it was renewed he would have an opportunity of taking possession again.

Mr May said the same, adding that under the present circumstances the Brewery were welcome to the licence. It was stated that Mr. May had been provided with another licensed house.

Mr. Hebden Phillips, of Hythe Brewery, told the Magistrates that all the applications would come before them again some time. The Brewery Company, he said, hoped to re-open all the houses and the tenants would be able to make application for the licences again. Everything was "all fair and Square"; it was done by arrangement with the tenants.

The Magistrates fixed Wednesday, February 12th as the date for the annual licensing sessions.

Note: These transfers are not listed in More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1953.

Local News.

The True Briton was an East Indiaman, a fine sailing ship of the old tradition, sleek of line, fast, and with a spread of canvas that rejoiced the hearts of mariners. She was built in 1790 at Deptford, an aristocrat of the sea and a worthy addition to the gallant ships who plied their trade and maintained Britain’s immense commerce between this country and the rich and productive land of India. Her life was not long. She completed seven voyages; on her eighth journey, outward bound, she disappeared with all hands.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, was ever heard of her again. We know what she looked like, for she followed the design of vessels specially built for the India trade; you will see a picture of her if you look at the sign, the new sign, over the entrance to a small hotel in Harbour Street, Folkestone. The True Briton hotel was named after the True Briton ship more than 150 years ago, and it has always been associated with seafaring men and the sea. Why what was then a small inn among Folkestone’s fishing folk should be named after an East Indiaman is not known and probably nobody now will ever know, but it happened fairly frequently that newly built inns were named after fine ships that for one reason or another had attracted popular admiration.

The inn was new in 1802, when Samuel Golder traded under the sign of the True Briton; it is almost certainly among the oldest licensed premises in the area, for when it was built Folkestone had no harbour, there were no buildings in the immediate vicinity at all, and the town itself was little more than a fishing village. The valuation of the first True Briton inn was only 4/10! There is little doubt that its customers were mainly fisher-folk and seafarers of one kind or another. The inn was rebuilt at some time in the 19th century, the thoroughfare then being known as Victoria Terrace. The new building was considerably larger than the old, but there is reason to believe that towards the end of the century it was enlarged still further, no doubt to meet increased custom as Folkestone expanded as a holiday resort.

About this time it became a hotel, or at least part became a hotel and the remainder an inn. At one period two separate rates were levied in respect of each of the sections. The tiled front of the hotel, which gives it a certain distinctiveness, was constructed in 1904. So it continued, in peace and war, until 1940. Came Dunkirk, the evacuation of the British Army, the exodus of Folkestone’s civilian population, the closure of many of the town’s businesses. The True Briton, like many licensed premises in the town, suffered severely from loss of business, and finally the licensee was forced to close. He moved to another part of the town. On March 2nd, 1943, a German shell hit the hotel - the nosecap of the missile was found in the bar parlour later. The whole of the back of the building was wrecked, only the public bar remained. If anyone had been living in the True Briton on that day they would almost certainly been killed. The years of war passed, Peace came again, and with it the return of Folkestone’s residents. In May, 1946, the True Briton, grievously damaged, re-opened its doors. The great gaping holes were sealed and what was left of the premises made usable. So the place remained until about six months ago, when complete reconstruction of the hotel from roof to cellar was undertaken. It is now a modern, well-designed hotel of modest proportions, with excellent layout of the bar serveries and spacious lounge. The True Briton has taken on a new lease of life.

Among licensees of the True Briton at least one is remembered by the older people in the Fishmarket area - Miss Pearson. She had the hotel at the turn of the century and was something of a character. She was part owner of schooners which sailed to and from Folkestone, the masters and crews of which used her house. The custom was for the crews to have their beer “put on the slate” for deduction from their wages, which were paid to them at the True Briton. There was a small room just off the public bar always called “The Captain’s Room”, where Miss Pearson and the masters of ships carried out their business.

The present licensee, Mr. D. A. (“Dave”) Martin, took over the hotel 27 years ago. He has been “in the trade” all his life. At the age of 25 he became licensee of the Red Lion, Covent Garden, and held the house for four years. He was a stage dancer at one time, appearing in vaudeville acts. He made friends with many variety artistes whose names have since become famous, including Max Miller, who never fails to visit the True Briton when he is performing in Folkestone. During the last war Mr. Martin was a Government Inspector at Tilling Stevens, Maidstone.

Not only has the True Briton always been a seafarers' house, it has had a strong association with sport. Channel swimmers meet there, and many well-known boxers have been among its customers. Larry Gains and Tancy Lee, both of whom were wartime P.T. instructors at Shorncliffe, were frequent visitors to the hotel, as also at other times were Dick Smith, Johnny Summers and others. An amateur boxer, the sixth Duke of Wellington (then the Earl of Mornington) often met his trainer, Shoeing Smith Davis, at the True Briton. Two members of the True Briton team were winner and runner-up of the News of the World individual darts champions for Folkestone and Dover in 1937.

Yesterday evening there was a housewarming at the hotel, when many friends and invited guests wished it a renewed lease of life and prosperity, and its licensee many years of success.

Folkestone Herald 14 November 1959.

Local News.

The licence of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was transferred from Mr. D.A. Martin to Mr. N.E. Thomsett, formerly of The Locomotive Inn, Ashford, at Folkestone Transfer Sessions on Wednesday.

Folkestone Herald 7 August 1965.

Local News.

In the presence of a most distinguished company, Mr. Douglas Thomson, ex-R.A.F. officer and Director of Whitbread's Ltd., unveiled the inn sign of the True Briton outside the No. 1 (F) Squadron headquarters at R.A.F. West Raynham, Norfolk. The sign was originally erected in Folkestone to pay tribute to fighter pilots who flew from Hawkinge and Lympne and whose off-duty hours were spent mainly in Folkestone during the 1939-45 war.

Some years ago the sign was changed to depict an old ship in accordance with the brewery's series of famous ships at their Kent establishments.

Mr. Leslie Hunt (who served at Hawkinge in No. 313 “Czech” Squadron) wrote to the brewers asking them to hang this sign at an inn near an R.A.F. base, but it proved impossible and Mr. Hunt was eventually offered the sign for the R.A.F. or R.A.F. Association. He, in turn, suggested to the Commanding Officer of No. 1 Squadron that it would be suitable for their museum and it was immediately accepted and hangs outside in style.

At the unveiling ceremony former members of the Squadron from the two world wars, with pilots like record-breaker Air Commodore Teddy Donaldson, were in attendance, and Wing Commander Wilkinson, M.B.E., D.F.M. and bar, who commanded No. 1 in 1941, drove from Sheerness for the occasion.

Thus a part of Folkestone lives on in Norfolk, thanks to Whitbread's generous act.

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1966.

Local News.

Seventy-year-old Mr. Dave Martin, publican at the Eagle in Guildhall Street, Folkestone, has been ordered to quit the premises within two weeks, so that demolition crews can move in and tear the building down. Kent Education Committee want the site to expand the playing fields of Christ Church Primary School.

So now Mr. Martin is to retire after a lifetime in the brewery trade. He says he is too old to find another pub, and anyway, a broken hip prevents him from moving about. His father was a licensee and so was his grandfather. He took up the trade 45 years ago in London, and after five years, moved to Folkestone, and the True Briton. Mr. Martin is a little bitter about having to go. “I have been told to quit, but no doubt this pub will still be standing 12 months after I have gone”, he said. “It was just the same when people were moved out of the cottages nearby. The occupants were told that their homes were to be demolished. That was five years ago, and they are still there”.

At the moment, his daughter is looking for a new home for her father. Mr. Martin does not know whether or not he will get compensation from the authorities.

Folkestone Herald 30 April 1966.

Local News.

Mr. Dave Martin, who retired recently as licensee of the Eagle, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, has received a cheque for £500 from Messrs. Mackeson & Co., Ltd., of Hythe, the owners of the public house. Cigar-smoking Mr. Martin, who is 70, has been in the licensed trade for 40 years. He was landlord of the True Briton, near the Harbour, for 34 years and of the Eagle for the last six years.

Dave, who was a close friend of the comedian Max Miller, was secretary of the former Whitbread Darts League from 1936 until it closed down some four years ago. For more than 30 years he has been local organiser of the News of the World darts competition. He will continue as Folkestone's representative.

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1971.

Local News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1982.

Local News.

Work of joining neighbouring pubs together in a £120,000 conversion to produce a building in keeping with the old harbour area of Folkestone has almost been completed. The Harbour Crab and Oyster House, formerly the Harbour Hotel and True Briton, in Harbour Street, reopens to the public next Friday, February 19.

Old customers may recognise the exterior, now clad in dark weatherboarding, but inside the design theme has captured the interior of a harbour warehouse and ships' chandlers at the turn of the 19th century.

Roy Pepperrell, Whitbread Fremlins design manager, who planned the alterations, said “The idea was to provide something to match the area, and it seems to have come through well. Folkestone's planners have congratulated us on the design and the Chamber of Commerce has expressed its appreciation of a development sympathetic to the old harbour area, which they feel has increased tourist potential”.

Bar customers will be able to purchase seafood snacks, and in the Fish Basket Grill, 54 customers can be seated for cooked fish meals with seafood salads and steak dishes. Fish will be bought daily from local catches, and lobsters crabs and oysters will be on the menu, with draught ale from handpumps and popular wines.