DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 12 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1741

(Name from)

True Briton

1981 (Name to)

2017 (Name to)

26 Harbour Street

South Street Pigot's Directory 1839

3 Kings Bridge Street Pigot's Directory 1840 1861Census

Folkestone

True Briton date unknown

"True Briton" and below the sign. Both dates unknown.

Swing Bridge 1925

Above postcard 1925, kindly sent by Graham Butterworth, showing the "True Briton" above the right half of the swing bridge and the "Royal George" on the right.

True Briton sign

I am informed by Robert Greenham that the above sign was possibly hanging there from between 1936 and 1955.

True Briton card 1955True Briton card 1955

Above card issued April 1955. Sign series 5 number 43. Kindly supplied by Robert Greenham.

True Briton cardTrue Briton card

The above signs, wasn't actually designed and released by Whitbread, but have been designed by Robert Greenham in the same style as the card sets they distributed as a representation of what the sign looked like. Robert says:- This was based on the image which appeared on Whitbread's metal map for East Kent which was painted by D. W. Burley in 1950, on commission from Whitbread.

Whitbread metal map 1950

The above metal map, kindly sent by Robert Greenham was released, in 1950 and painted by D. W. Burley, and was titled Inn-Signia of Whitbread Houses in East Kent, Whitbread & Co Ltd. The Inn Signs designed by:- M. C. Balston, Vena Chalker, Kathleen M Claxton, K. M. Doyle, Ralph Ellis, Marjorie Hutton, Harvey James, Prudence Rae-Martin, Violet Rutter, L. Toynbee and Kit Watson.

 

Formerly the "Cock" but by 1799 it had obtained the name of "True Briton."

 

Kentish Chronicle 15 May 1810.

Death: On Monday night, the 7th instant, Mr. Phineas Golder, aged 23 years. Mr. P. Golder, who was master of the Hebe lugger, of Folkestone, was detained by Lieut. Gedge, of the Locust gun-brig, and in endeavouring to make his escape from that brig, on the night above alluded to, by attempting to swim towards a merchant brig, off Harwich, was unfortunately drowned. Lieut. Gedge informed some of the friends of the deceased a short time since that he would send him to the East or West Indies on the first ship that went out; and it is presumed that he had made similar expressions to Golder, which induced him to make his escape. The deceased, as master of the Dispatch lugger, was a volunteer in the late expedition to Walcheren, and was stationed in the River Scheldt; he was deservedly respected by all who knew him, and was the son of Mrs. Ann Golder, widow, landlady of the "True Briton" public house, Folkestone.

 

Kentish Chronicle 6 November 1812.

On Monday night, Wm. Faley, a seaman belonging to the Perseverance sloop, now lying in Folkestone harbour, was unfortunately drowned. He, in company with the master and another seaman, had been on shore at the "True Briton" public house, which they left perfectly sober about ten o'clock in the evening, when the master hailed the vessel for the boy (whom they had previously left on board) to come on shore with the boat, but who not immediately answering, Faley pulled off his boots, &c., which the master did not observe until he passed him, and plunged into the water, with intent to swim to the vessel, in which act he was drowned. Although diligent search has been made for the body it has not yet been found, and is supposed to have drifted to sea. The unfortunate man was about 60 years of age, and has left a wife and family in London.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 19 April 1842.

ASHFORD, CANTERBURY, and FOLKESTONE, in KENT To brewers, Innkeepers, and Capitalists.

TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, By Messrs. BAYLEY and REEVE, ON WEDNESDAY, the 4th of May, 1842, at Two o’clock, at the "Royal Oak Inn," Ashford (by the direction of the Proprietor, who is leaving the county).

Lot 4:— All that COPYHOLD PUBLIC HOUSE, called the "True Briton," with the ground and appurtenances, desirably situated fronting the Harbour and South Street, in the Town of FOLKESTONE aforesaid, and now in the occupation of Mr. John Andrews.

The Purchaser of this Lot may have immediate possession.

Printed Particulars and Conditions may be had ten days preceding the sale, of Messrs. Robert and George Furley, Solicitors, and of the Auctioneers, Ashford.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 22 December 1846.

FOLKESTONE.

On Saturday last an inquest was held at the "True Briton," by J. J. Bond, Esq., coroner, upon the body of George Hoard, seaman, who died on board the Lovely Cruiser schooner, while on her passage from Torquay to Newcastle. William Squier, master of the schooner, deposed:— Yesterday morning, at about half past seven o'clock, the vessel was proceeding on her voyage, and when we were off the Owers, eastward of Plymouth, the wind blowing strong I sent the deceased and three other men aloft to take a reef in the topsail, and while they were so employed the deceased was thrown over the top-sail yard by the violence of the wind and heaving of the ship, and fell upon his back on the deck. The mate and a seamen brought him to me at the helm; he was quite dead. I continued my course until I reached Folkestone, which was the first port I made. The deceased was a fine young man, 17 years of age.

Mr. Bateman, surgeon, having examined the deceased gave it as his opinion that the deceased had died from concussion of the brain, caused by the violence of the fall on deck, a height of 60 feet.

Verdict "Accidental death."

 

Kentish Gazette 2 June 1857.

Ancient Order of Foresters: The thirteenth anniversary of Court Pride of the Cliff of this flourishing order was celebrated on Monday. The brethren assembled in the afternoon in a field near Folkestone to enjoy themselves by a variety of rural sports, which was unfortunately put a stop to by a severe thunder storm. The brethren afterwards adjourned to the "True Briton Inn" to partake of an excellent dinner. The evening was spent in an amicable manner. The society ranks second to none of a benevolent character in the town, consisting as it does of but about 70 members, and possessing an invested fund of above 450.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 13 April, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

DEFECTIVE COAL HOLE

Wednesday April 10th:- Before Captain Kennicott, James Tolputt, and A.M. Leith, Esqs.

Adam Keeler, of the "True Briton," was summoned for having a defective covering to his coal hole, whereby an officer of the 17th Regiment who was passing, slipped on the cover, and his leg passing through the aperture threw him across the pavement, hurting his leg very badly.

The case was clearly proved, and the magistrates fined defendant 1s. and 9s. costs, with an order from the magistrates to have the covering of the coal hole substantially repaired, which has since been done.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 13 April, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

UNSAFE COAL TRAP

Wednesday March 10th: - Before Captain Kennicott, A.M. Leith and James Tolputt. Esqs.

William Keeler, "True Briton inn," appeared on summons to answer a charge of leaving the trap of his coal cellar unopened, and thereby causing injury to the person of Paymaster Smith, 17th Regiment.

Norborn Smith, Paymaster, 17th Regiment, Shorncliffe, said that on Saturday last about three o'clock, he was passing along Harbour Street. At the corner opposite the "True Briton" he came to an iron trap that covered a coal cellar, and putting his foot on it the trap slipped away, and turning up let his left leg through the hole. On examining the cover, he found that though there was a short chain attached it was not fastened to anything. Both his legs were very badly cut. He spoke to a person who came out of the "True Briton," but whom he could not identify as the defendant, and he seemed to take it very colly, admitting that the cover was not fastened down; and he thereupon lodged a complaint.

Defendant said he did not previously know that the cover was not fastened; but he found that the stone in which it was laid was broken. He had not noticed that before, nor had he had a complaint about it. He did not know whose place it was to repair it, his or the Surveyor's.

The Bench cautioned him that so long as the place was in bad repair he was himself responsible for the repairs, and fined him 1s. with costs.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 25 July, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

DRUNK AND INCAPABLE

Monday July 20th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and W.F. Browell, Esqs.

John McCarthy was charged with being drunk in Harbour Street.

P.C. Hills said he yesterday afternoon, about half past two o'clock, found the prisoner lying in front of the "True Briton," drunk and incapable of taking care of himself; he therefore took him into custody and brought him to the station. When searched at the station 8s. 1 1/2d. was found on him.

Fined 5s.

 

From the Whitstable Times, 15 June, 1901.

The numerous friends of Mr. G. Carter, for many years chief clerk at Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son’s bookstall, at the London, Chatham, and Dover Station, Canterbury, and who was afterwards promoted to the charge of the Harbour Station bookstall, at Folkestone, will be interested to learn that he has just retired from that position, and taken a licensed house in Harbour Street, Folkestone, the "True Briton."

 

In 1981 the "True Britain" at 26 Harbour Street was closed and knocked through to the "Harbour Inn" next door, and lost its name. Eventually the extended pub was named the "Old Harbour Crab and Oyster." In 1898 it reverted back to the "Harbour Inn" again.

After that incarnation in May 2011 the premises became the "True Britain" once again.

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

 

True Briton, Folkestone, sign

 

The pub sign shown has been taken from a set of Whitbread Inn Sign cards released circa 1952.

From "Inns of Sport"; Whitbread & Co. Ltd.; 1949. This book is No.7 in The Whitbread Library series.

Even more of a boxers' inn is The True Briton at Folkestone, for there they have a long list of pugilistic patrons from the 6th Duke of Wellington, who was a well-known amateur boxer when he was Earl of Mornington, to Larry Gains, Tancy Lee, Dick Smith, Johnny Summers, Fred Davis, Fred Dyer and half a dozen others. Channel swimmers seem to like The True Briton; Derham was a regular customer while he was training for that great swim for which the "News of the World" awarded him 1,000, and the Egyptian swimmer, Fahmy Attalla, planned his second attempt on the Channel in the public bar in 1947. To crown it all, The True Briton produced both the winner and runner-up of the "News of the World" Individual Darts Championship for the Folkestone and Dover area in 1937.

 

True Britain 2012 True Britain 2012 True Britain 2012

Above photo kindly sent by Phil Nicholson, 29 November, 2012.

 

From an email received 18 December 2013.

I've always been told the tale of the African Grey parrot behind the bar in the war who was taught to say to the customers "Don't drink that, the landlord's pissed in it".

Is it true or a myth? This was during WW1, by the way, around when the battle of the Somme was taking part.

I should add my family are from the area and I was born in Folkestone but this is before my time.

Regards

Martin Roberts

 

In September 2017 the pub was sold for 500,000 to Ben and Lucy Cuthbert, previously of the "Pullman" and will be changing the name back to the "Harbour Inn," once again.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

Quarter Sessions 27 April 1801.

Stephen Golder was fined the sum of 3s. 4d. For having in his possession 5 pint pots short of legal measure.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 25 April 1808.

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

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

Anne Golder one quart, 3 pints 4/-

 

Kentish Gazette 18 May 1810.

Obituary.

May 7: Mr Phineas Golder, aged 23, son of Mrs. Ann Golder, landlady of the True Briton public house, Folkestone. The deceased was detained by Lieut. Gedge, of the Locust gun-brig, and in attempting to effect an escape from the Locust by swimming to a merchant vessel, off Harwich, he was unfortunately drowned.

 

Kentish Gazette 10 November 1812.

Monday se'nnight, Wm. Faley, a seaman belonging to the Perseverance sloop, now lying in Folkestone harbour, was unfortunately drowned. He, in company with the master and another seaman, had been on shore at the True Briton public house, which they left perfectly sober about ten o'clock in the evening, when the master hailed the vessel for the boy (whom they had previously left on board) to come on shore with the boat, but who not immediately answering, Faley pulled off his boots, &c., which the master did not observe until he passed him, and plunged into the water, with intent to swim to the vessel, in which act he was drowned. Although diligent search has been made for the body it has not yet been found, and is supposed to have drifted to sea. The unfortunate man was about 60 years of age, and has left a wife and family in London.

 

Kentish Gazette 19 April 1842.

Auction advertisement extract: To be sold by auction by Messrs. Bayley and Reeve, on Wednesday the 14th of May, 1842, at two o'clock, at the Royal Oak Inn, Ashford (by the direction of the proprietor, who is leaving the county).

Lot 4) All that copyhold public house, called the True Briton, with the ground and appurtanances, desirably situated fronting the Harbour and South Street, in the town of Folkestone aforesaid, and now in the occupation of Mr. John Andrews.

 

Kentish Gazette 22 December 1846.

On Saturday last an inquest was held at the True Briton, by J. J. Bond, Esq., coroner, upon the body of George Hoard, seaman, who died on board the Lovely Cruiser schooner, while on her passage from Torquay to Newcastle.

William Squier, master of the schooner, deposed “Yesterday morning, at about half past seven o’clock, the vessel was proceeding on her voyage, and when we were off the Owers, eastward of Plymouth, the wind blowing strong, I sent the deceased and three other men aloft to take a reef in the topsail, and while they were so employed the deceased was thrown over the top-sail yard by the violence of the wind and heaving of the ship, and fell upon his back on the deck. The mate and a seaman brought him to me at the helm; he was quite dead. I continued my course until 1 reached Folkestone, which was {the first port I made. The deceased was a fine young man, 17 years of age.

Mr. Bateman, surgeon, having examined the deceased, gave it as his opinion that the deceased had died from concussion of the brain, caused by the violence of the fall on deck, a height of 60 feet. Verdict “Accidental death.”

 

Southeastern Gazette 15 August 1854.

Local News:

At the petty sessions, the following licence was transferred: The True Briton, from John Andrews, deceased, to his widow.

Note: Date at variance with More Bastions. No mention of Mrs. Andrews.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1857.

Local News.

Folkestone Burial Society: The 18th anniversary of this useful institution was held yesterday evening at the True Briton, South Street, Mr. J. Jinkings, the president, in the chair. From the report as read by the secretary, it appeared that during the year the sum of 100 had been expended in payments to the friends of deceased members; it was also shown that since the establishment of the society in 1838, 127 deaths had occurred, in respect of which the large sum of 1,267 12s. had been expended. From the extension of the society to an unlimited number of members (which we believe is a feature peculiar to the Folkestone Burial Society), this favourable result has been obtained. Mr. Jinkings was unanimously re-elected president, Mr. D. Baker, treasurer, and Mr. Flaherty, secretary. We feel much pleasure in recording the continued prosperity of this useful society.

Our readers at a distance will learn with equal regret to that manifested in the town that the excellent proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. J.G. Breach,, is about to quit that establishment, which his superior management has rendered so universally celebrated. The uniform courtesy and kindness of this gentleman have gained for him the esteem of all his fellow townsmen, and his munificent contributions to all benevolent purposes, both public and private, will be greatly missed, unless we should be fortunate enough to include him among our permanent or temporary residents.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 October 1857.

Wednesday September 30th:- Before the Mayor, and T. Golder, W. Major, J. Tolputt, G. Kennicott, and J. Kelcey esqs.

This being the adjourned general annual licensing meeting, the following licence was renewed, viz.:- Ann Dryden, True Briton Inn.

Note: No mention of Dryden in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 April 1861.

Wednesday April 10th:- Before Captain Kennicott, James Tolputt, and A.m. Leith esqs.

Adam Keeler, of the True Briton, was summoned for having a defective covering to his coal hole, whereby an officer of the 17th Regiment who was passing, slipped on the cover, and his leg passing through the aperture threw him across the pavement, hurting his leg very badly.

The case was clearly proved, and the magistrates fined defendant 1s. and 9s. costs, with an order from the magistrates to have the covering of the coal hole substantially repaired, which has since been done.

 

Folkestone Observer 13 April 1861.

Unsafe Coal Trap.

Wednesday March 10th: - Before Captain Kennicott, A.M. Leith and James Tolputt esqs.

William Keeler, True Briton inn, appeared on summons to answer a charge of leaving the trap of his coal cellar unopened, and thereby causing injury to the person of Paymaster Smith, 17th Regiment.

Norborn Smith, Paymaster, 17th Regiment, Shorncliffe, said that on Saturday last about three o'clock, he was passing along Harbour Street. At the corner opposite the True Briton he came to an iron trap that covered a coal cellar, and putting his foot on it the trap slipped away, and turning up let his left leg through the hole. On examining the cover, he found that though there was a short chain attached it was not fastened to anything. Both his legs were very badly cut. He spoke to a person who came out of the True Briton, but whom he could not identify as the defendant, and he seemed to take it very coolly, admitting that the cover was not fastened down; and he thereupon lodged a complaint.

Defendant said he did not previously know that the cover was not fastened; but he found that the stone in which it was laid was broken. He had not noticed that before, nor had he had a complaint about it. He did not know whose place it was to repair it, his or the Surveyor's.

The Bench cautioned him that so long as the place was in bad repair he was himself responsible for the repairs, and fined him 1s. with costs.

 

Southeastern Gazette 16 April 1861.

Local News.

On Wednesday last, William Keeler, landlord of the True Briton, was summoned by Naborn Smith, Paymaster in the 17th Regt, for leaving the coal-trap in his pavement unsafe, whereby one of the complainant’s legs had slipped through and been injured.

The defendant said he was not aware it was unfastened.

He was cautioned by the magistrates, and ordered to pay 1s. fine and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Observer 25 July 1863.

Drunk And Incapable.

Monday July 20th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and W.F. Browell Esqs.

John McCarthy was charged with being drunk in Harbour Street.

P.C. Hills said he yesterday afternoon, about half past two o'clock, found the prisoner lying in front of the True Briton, drunk and incapable of taking care of himself; he therefore took him into custody and brought him to the station. When searched at the station 8s. 1d . was found on him.

Fined 5s.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 October 1872.

Saturday, October 5th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

Wm. Keeler, of the True Briton, was summoned for keeping his house open before the hour of 6 o'clock on Sunday evening.

P.C. Hogben, sworn, said that he was on duty on Sunday, the 29th inst., in Harbour Street, at quarter past five o'clock. He saw the True Briton opened. He went in and saw two men in the bar, with two glasses of beer standing on the counter, and he called Mr. Keeler's attention to it. He said he was not aware of any alteration in the time. The front door was open.

Defendant pleaded guilty to keeping his house open.

The Bench convicted the defendant, and fined him 20s. and 10s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Francis Mempes, for being in the True Briton during illegal hours, was fined 1s. and 9s. costs.

Charles Pink was charged with the same offence, but stated that he was a guest at the time, and called Frederick Dryden, who said he was lodging at the True Briton. On Sunday afternoon he went for a walk with defendant, and got back about 5 o'clock. He asked defendant in to tea with him, and he stayed. The defendant was a guest of his.

The Bench dismissed the case. In the course of a very able defence the defendant showed that it was not his intention to disobey the law, and if he was fined under the circumstances, he should look upon it as a hardship.

 

Folkestone Express 12 October 1872.

Saturday, October 5th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

William Keeler, True Briton Inn, Harbour Street, was summoned for having his house open during prohibited hours on Sunday, 29th September.

P.C. Hogben said he was on duty in Harbour Street at a quarter past five o'clock on Sunday afternoon, when he saw the True Briton open. He went in and saw two men in front of the bar and two glasses of beer standing before them on the counter. He called defendant's attention to the matter, and Mr. Keeler said that he was not aware that there had been any alteration in the hours for Sunday, and he had always opened at five.

Defendant said he had not any notice to close until six. He knew there had been a new Act passed, but he had no notice. He expected to hear from the police if he was doing wrong. The bill which had been issued by the magistrates said nothing about the hours for Sunday afternoons. He found it very hard to be summoned without first having had notice, and for doing things which he did not know were wrong. He had kept the house twenty years and had never had a complaint before. He did not read the newspapers. Nothing was said about Sunday afternoon when his license was renewed.

The Clerk: You are bound to find these things out for yourself.

Mr. Tolputt: The Magistrates cannot listen to the plea of ignorance. We will inflict the lowest penalty in our power, which is 1 and 10s. costs, and it might have been 10.

Frank Mempes was summoned for being in the True Briton during prohibited hours on the day above mentioned.

P.C. Hogben said he saw defendant in the True Briton at a quarter past five on the afternoon of the day in question, and there was a glass of beer on the counter. He said he was not aware that the time was altered, and seeing the house open he went in.

Defendant pleaded Guilty; he had not been out for several Sundays. He had been to Sandgate, and on coming back he saw the house open and went in for a glass of beer. He told the policeman he was very sorry if he had done wrong, drank his beer, and walked out, and the door was locked.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs.

Charles Pink was charged with a similar offence on the same day.

P.C. Hogben said he saw the defendant in the True Briton at a quarter past five on the afternoon of the day in question with a glass of beer before him.

Defendant: You did not know it was my beer; neither you, nor anyone else saw me drinking it. I went for a walk with Mr. Dryden and went into the house to get a light. I did not have any beer.

The Clerk: It is being in the house constitutes the offence.

Mr. F. Dryden was a witness for defendant. He said: My mother and father-in-law keep the True Briton and I am lodging there for a time. I asked defendant to go there to tea with me. He has been a walk with me many a hundred times before. We got back about five o'clock that afternoon. He was a guest in the house.

Case dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 20 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 17th: Before J. Tolputt Esq.

A dirty, unkempt fellow, who gave the convenient name of John Smith, and who appeared in the dock innocent of soap, shirt and vest, was charged with begging and also with being drunk.

P.C. Hogben gave an account of the fellow's proceedings, which were as follows: At half past eight on Tuesday night he saw prisoner coming down Dover Street, and accosted a Provost Corporal, telling him the “bobby” has been watching him all the evening, and that he was going to watch the “bobby”. He then went to the Royal George and laid a tract on the counter and asked someone to buy it, and refused to go away unless something was given to him, which was done. Thence he went to the True Briton and offered a coastguardsman a tract, and received a coin. Thence to the Alexandra Hotel, and then followed two gentlemen with a tract in his hand and rolled against them, and they told him they would punish him if he did not go away. He then followed some gentlemen coming from the Pavilion. Hogben, thinking the fellow had enjoyed his game long enough, asked him if he had a certificate for hawking, and he said a gentleman had given him the tracts to get a living with when he came out of a London hospital, and that he had a wife and two children. Prisoner was worse for drink, and he was run in.

Tenpence halfpenny and a bundle of religious tracts were found on prisoner, who begged hard to be let off, promising never to visit Folkestone again. He was sent to Dover for fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 11 September 1875.

Saturday, September 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, J. Clark, and T. Caister Esqs.

An occasional license was granted to Mr. William Keeler, of the True Briton, to sell excisable liquors till midnight on Monday on the occasion of a supper at his house.

 

Folkestone Express 31 March 1877.

Local News.

On Saturday at the Police Court the license of the True Briton, Harbour Street was provisionally transferred from William Keeler to Charles Rutter.

 

Folkestone Express 28 April 1877.

Tuesday, April 24th: Before Captain Crowe, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

The following provisional transfer of license was granted: The True Briton from William Keeler to Charles Rutter.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 22 June 1892.

Local News.

In the London Sheriff's Court, Red Lion Square, on Thursday last, before Mr. Under Sheriff Burchell, the case of Miss Marian Alexander of River View, Horsell Moor, Woking, Surrey v Harry Moore, of High Street, Folkestone, an action for breach of promise of marriage, which had been remitted from the High Court, came on for the assessment of damages. Mr. De Michele appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant was not professionally represented.

The learned counsel, in stating the facts of the case, said that the plaintiff was in service at the True Briton Hotel, Folkestone, from June to October of last year, and the defendant, Harry Poole, was the son of Mr. George Poole, a large furnishing ironmonger, of High Street, Folkestone. After the plaintiff had been at the hotel some little time Harry Poole began to pay his addresses to her, and certain correspondence took place after she left Folkestone. On one occasion the defendant took the plaintiff to London, when something happened which the jury would understand, and which, perhaps, needed no further explanation. The letters received by Miss Alexander from her lover were couched in the most affectionate terms, and many were adorned with cabalistic crosses, which, in the language of lovers, signified kisses. (Laughter) Those letters undoubtedly proved that there was an engagement between the parties, as he frequently signed as “Yours ever true and loving”, Yours ever true and devoted”, and he addressed the plaintiff as “My own dearest Marian” and “My dearest and loving Marian” &c. (Laughter) They were introduced to the plaintiff's brother and his wife at Woking as an affianced couple. In a letter from 41, High Street, Folkestone, dated the 21st of October, 1891, the defendant wrote “I am going to settle myself, so that what I told you will come true”. In another, dated the 26th of the same month, he said “With heartfelt joy I received your kind and fond letter, which I have to thank you most affectionately for, and am extremely sorry that I was not near to try and dry those dark eyes of yours. (Laughter) I felt very lonely, and could hardly contain myself yesterday, because I had no one to love me, or kiss and caress me, so I stayed indoors all day and went to bed. Oh, if I only had you near me to say “Never mind” I should have felt much better. (Laughter) I am longing for to see you and that pretty face, to impart a kiss once more on those ruby lips”. (Loud laughter) Showing his position in life, and that he was mixing in good company, on the 1st of November he wrote “I received your most kind and loving letter, and was very pleased with it. The elections are held here today for Town Councillors, and I think that old Dick Sanders will go in again for the East Ward at the top of the poll. Hoping this will; find you in a perfect state, as it leaves me, dear; you must not worry yourself, but take things more quiet, and you will feel all the better for it”. At this time the plaintiff was living with her married brother at Woking, and it appeared from a letter dated the 11th of November he had visited her, for he said “I never enjoyed myself better in all my excursions than this time, and you must heartily thank your dear sister and brother for their great kindness to me while I stayed with them. Hope that your dear self do not miss me. I thought when I woke up this morning if you were only near me I should have a cup of T; but no, had to be content till I got dressed and downstairs, which you can tell I very soon did. (Laughter) Father has been as cross today as can be. It has been all jaw today”. (Renewed laughter) On the 7th of December, defendant wrote “Your kind and loving letter to hand, and was very pleased to receive same. Did not say that I was tired of writing to you, dear, but sick and tired of making bills out for Christmas. Have got between four hundred and five hundred made out, but still have between one hundred and two hundred to make out, and it gives me the fair hump. (Laughter) Nothing else but write, write, write from morning until night”. In reply to a letter written by the plaintiff asking for a definite promise, the defendant wrote “I find in your fond and kind letter to me that you ask me to make you a promise, and that I most heartily do. I have started this year afresh. I hope to continue so until the time shall come when we shall meet to part no more (I mean, not in this world) until death shall sever us. Now, I shall know what to do in future, and, as long as you keep true to me, dear, I shall be doubly true to you”. The learned counsel went on to say that there could be no doubt of the engagement, and asked the jury to allow the plaintiff substantial damages for the heartless conduct to which she had been subjected.

The plaintiff, a good-looking brunette, attired in a lilac coloured dress, with yellow trimmings, was called, and stated that she was 25 years of age. The defendant managed his father's business, and used to spend a lot of money. He took her out for walks and drives each time she could get away. When she came to London with the defendant they stayed only one night together. The defendant had never assigned any reason for not carrying out his promise, but in April last, in reply to a communication from her solicitor, a note in a lady's handwriting was received simply addressed from Folkestone, and signed “St. Martin”, to the following effect – “I beg to inform you that Mr. H. Poole left here about three weeks ago. As we do not know his present whereabouts, we think it better to return your letter”.

The jury, after a short consultation, awarded the plaintiff 100 damages.

 

Southeastern Gazette 25 June 1892.

Local News.

On Thursday, in the Sheriff’s Court for the County of London, Red Lion Square, before Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell and a jury, the case of Miss Marian Alexander, described as of River View Cottage, Horsell Moor, Woking, Surrey, against Mr. Harry Poole, of 41, High Street, Folkestone, an action for breach of promise of marriage which had been allowed to go by default in the High Court, came on for the assessment of damages. Mr. de Michele was counsel for the plaintiff, while the defendant was not represented.

In his opening statement Mr. de Michele stated that the plaintiff from June to October last year was a barmaid at the True Briton Hotel, Folkestone, and the defendant was the son of a furnishing ironmonger in an extensive way of business in the same town. Shortly after she got her situation at the hotel the defendant began to pay marked attention to her, and frequently took her out for walks and drives. On one occasion they came to London for a day and night. The letters of the defendant to the plaintiff were all couched in the most affectionate language. He sometimes addressed the young lady as “My own dearest and loving Marian,” and he was in the habit of subscribing himself as “Yours, ever true and loving” and “Yours, ever true and devoted,” &c. After the plaintiff left the True Briton Hotel she went to live with relatives at Woking, where she was visited by the defendant, and received letters from him. The learned counsel remarked that the defendant must be in a good position, because in one letter he showed that he was in the habit of meeting with public men. By way of instructing the plaintiff in public affairs he thus wrote: “The elections are held here to-day for town councillors, and I think that old Dick Sanders will go in again for the East Ward at the top of the poll.” The correspondence, which suddenly ceased, was copiously embellished with crosses, which were supposed in amatory epistles to mean kisses [laughter]. Counsel added that while vindictive damages were not asked for, he hoped the jury would award the plaintiff such an amount as would in some degree recompense her for the heartless treatment to which she had been subjected.

The plaintiff—an attractive young person, attired in a lilac-coloured dress, with yellow facings—gave evidence in support of her learned counsel’s statement, and said that the defendant appeared to have ample command of money, and that he managed his father’s business.

In the result the jury gave a verdict for 100, with costs.


 

Hythe Reporter 25 June 1892.

The following account of a breach of promise case will be interesting reading to many Hythe people, inasmuch as the defendant was a member of the Hythe Company of Volunteers. The reference to old Dick Saunders is particularly amusing. We remind those who took such a deep interest in the launch of the canal barge last year that it was Mr. Councillor Saunders who superintended this work.

In the London Sheriff's Court, before under-Sheriff Burchell and a jury, the case of Miss Marian Alexander, of River View, Horsell Moor, Woking, Surrey, v Harry Poole, of High Street, Folkestone, Kent, an action for breach of promise of marriage, which had been remitted from the High Court, came on for the assessment of damages.

Mr. De Michelle, for the plaintiff, said his client was in service at the True Briton Hotel, Folkestone, from June to October of last year, and the defendant, Harry Poole, was the son of Mr. George Poole, a large furnishing ironmonger, of High Street, Folkestone. After plaintiff had been at the Hotel some little time Harry Poole began to pay his addresses to her, and certain correspondence took place after she had left Folkestone. On one occasion defendant took plaintiff to London, when something happened which the jury would understand, and which, perhaps, needed no further explanation. The letters received by Miss Alexander from her lover were couched in the most affectionate terms, and were adorned with cabalistic crosses, which, in the language of lovers, signified kisses. (Laughter) Those letters undoubtedly proved that there was an engagement between the parties, as he frequently signed as “Yours ever true and loving”, “Yours ever true and devoted”, and he addressed the plaintiff as “My own dearest Marian”, “My dearest and loving Marian” &c. (Laughter) They were introduced to the plaintiff's brother-in-law and his wife at Woking as an affianced couple. In a letter from 41, High Street, Folkestone, dated the 21st of October, 1891, the defendant wrote “I am going to settle myself, so that what I told you will come true”. In another, dated the 26th of the same month, he said “With heartfelt joy I received your kind and fond letter, which I have to thank you most affectionately for, and am extremely sorry that I was not near to try and dry those dark eyes of yours. (Laughter) I feel very lonely, and could hardly contain myself yesterday, because I had no-one to love me, or kiss and caress me, so I stayed indoors all day and went to bed. Oh, if only I had you near to me to say “Never mind” I should have felt much better. (Laughter) I am longing for to see you and that pretty face, to impart a kiss once more on those ruby cheeks.” (Loud laughter) Showing his position in life, and that he was mixing in good society, on the first of November he wrote “I received your most kind and loving letter, and was very pleased with it. The elections are held here today for town councillors, and I think that old Dick Saunders will go in again for the East Ward at the top of the poll. Hoping that this will find you in a perfect state, as it leaves me, dear; you must not worry, but take things more quiet, and you will feel all the better for it.” At this time the plaintiff was living with her married brother at Woking, and it appeared from a letter dated the 11th of November he had there visited her, for he said “I never enjoyed myself better in all my excursions than this time, and you must heartily thank your dear sister and brother for their great kindness to me while I stayed with them. Hope that your dear self do not miss me. I thought when I woke up this morning if you were only near me I should have a cup of T; but now had to be content till I got dressed and downstairs, which you can tell I very soon did. (Laughter) Father has been as cross today as can be. It has been all jaw today.” (Renewed laughter) On the 7th December the defendant wrote “Your kind and loving letter to had, and was very pleased to receive same. Did not say that I was tired of writing to you, dear, but sick and tired of making bills out for Christmas. Have got between four hundred and five hundred made out, but still have between one hundred and two hundred to make out, and it gives me the fair hump. (Laughter) Nothing else but write, write, write from morning to night.” In reply to a letter written by the plaintiff asking for a definite promise, the defendant wrote “I find in your fond and kind letter to me that you ask me to make you a promise, and that I will most heartily do. I have started this new year afresh. I hope to continue so until the time shall come when we shall meet to part no more (I mean not in this world) until death shall sever us. Now, I shall know what to do in future, and as long as you keep true to me, my dear, I shall be doubly true to you.” The learned counsel went on to say that there could be no doubt of the engagement, and he asked the jury to allow the plaintiff substantial damages for the heartless conduct to which she had been subjected.

The plaintiff, a good looking brunette, attired in a lilac coloured dress with yellow trimmings, was called, and stated that she was 25 years of age. The defendant managed his father's business, and used to spend a lot of money. He took her out for walks and drives each time she could get away. When she came to London with the defendant they stayed only one night together. The defendant had never assigned any reason for not carrying out his promise, but in April last, in reply to a communication from her solicitor, a note in lady's handwriting was received, simply addressed from Folkestone, and signed “St. Martin”, to the following effect:- I beg to inform you that Mr. H. Poole left here about three weeks ago. As we do not know his present whereabouts, we think it better to return your letter.”

The jury, after a short consultation, awarded the plaintiff 100 damages.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 December 1900.

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

Mary Pearson, of the True Briton, was summoned for selling beer contrary to the Act – to wit, more than half a pint in an unstamped measure. Mr. Kidson, the Town Clerk, appeared to prosecute, and the defendant was represented by Mr. G. Haines, who informed the Bench that his client was not present, as she was suffering from an attack of blood poisoning.

Mr. Kidson, in opening, said the summons was issued under a recent Act of Parliament, which provided that every person supplying a larger quantity that half a pint of beer should supply the same in a marked measure according to imperial standard. On the 15th of November Mr. Gosling visited the True Briton. A man came in and asked for a pint of ale. Mr. Gosling saw the ale drawn and handed to the customer in the glass produced.

W. Gosling said he saw the barmaid fill the glass from the beer engine. The beer was delivered to the customer, who tendered a silver coin and received change. The glass had no stamp upon it whatever. He tested the contents of the glass with a half pint and a gill measure which he had in his pocket; it did not quite fill these. The half pint and gill measure would be three quarters of a pint. He then saw Mrs. Pearson, and called her attention to the warning he had already given her about serving more than half a pint in unstamped glasses.

By Mr. Haines: I report these cases; the local authorities take action. The stamped glass produced did not come from Mrs. Pearson's; it came from the Prince Albert.

John Delo, plasterer, Saffrons Place, said he remembered on the night of the 15th of November being in the True Briton. He asked and paid for a pint of ale.

Mr. Kidson: Are you satisfied with the glass (produced) for a pint?

Witness: Yes, it's the rule of the room.

By Mr. Haines: I expected the glass that was served to me. It is a regular smoking room party which frequents this room. I was not disappointed in the measure.

Mr. Haines said he would only address a few observations to the Bench on behalf of the defendant – as he was afraid that under the Act they must convict – in mitigation of the penalty. Miss Pearson had acted in ignorance. A certain number of regular customers used the smoking room of the house, and they agreed, for this privilege, and to keep the party select, to pay threepence for the quantity of beer in the measure produced. Legally the defendant was wrong, but she thought that she was entitled to use such a measure as the customers agreed upon.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 10s. and 16s. costs, the Chairman remarking to Mr. Haines that he hoped it would be a warning in future to his client.

 

Folkestone Express 1 December 1900.

Saturday, November 24th: Before Aldermen J. Banks, W. Salter, and J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and G.I. Swoffer Esq.

Mary Pearson, the proprietress of the True Briton, was summoned for using a measure not stamped. The Town Clerk prosecuted, and the defendant was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

The Town Clerk said before he made his observations he wished to amend the information. He understood that the defendant served the liquor herself, but had since ascertained it was served by an assistant.

Mr. Haines said at first a fresh summons ought to be issued, but on the Bench deciding to proceed with the case he made no objection.

Mr. W.T. Gosling, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said on Thursday, the 15th November, he visited the True Briton public house in Harbour Street, about 9.30 o'clock in the evening. He was standing in the bar when a customer went in and called for a pint of ale. The barmaid took a glass unstamped, and filling it, took it into a smoking room, where the customer was sitting. He tendered her a silver coin, and she returned the change. He did not see what it was. As witness had a half pint measure and a gill measure in his pocket, he poured the contents into a standard measure, and it did not fill the two measured, which denoted the amount of liquor which was asked for. There was not three parts of a pint. Witness saw Miss Pearson and told her he had cautioned her before when he was instructed to visit every public house in the town as to deficient measure.

Questioned by Mr. Haines, he said the ale was ordered in the passage, and the customer was the only man sitting in the parlour.

John Delo, a plasterer, residing in Saffrons Place, said he was the customer referred to, and he ordered a pint of ale, for which he paid the usual price, 3d. It was served in a glass similar to that produced, which was not stamped. He saw the Inspector measure the contents, and take possession of the glass.

In reply to Mr. Haines, he said he had been a customer for some years, and he did not expect to have the full measure.

Mr. Haines, on behalf of the defendant, said there was no doubt it was a technical offence, which had been committed inadvertently in the absence of the defendant, who was ill, from the bar. She would take care in future that the Act was complied with.

The Bench fined her 10s. and 16s. costs.

 

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 Chronicle 26 January 1901.

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

Mary Pearson, landlady of the True Briton, was summoned for selling beer to an intoxicated person on her premises on the 12th January.

The intoxicated gentleman was “Seaweed”, the individual with the East end record for the most accommodating swallowing capacity.

Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty. He mentioned that he had a doctor's certificate giving the cause of defendant's non-appearance that morning, she being under the doctor's treatment at Tunbridge Wells.

P.C. Johnstone said at 7.30 p.m. on Saturday, the 12th, in company with P.C. Watson, he entered the bar of defendant's house, and saw William Spearpoint, of 20, Fenchurch Street, very drunk, with a pint glass of beer three parts full beside him. He drank the beer whilst witness was in the bar. Mrs. E.J. Pearson was behind the bar, and witness said to her “Did you serve this man?” She replied “Yes”. He said “Do you see the drunken condition he is in?” She replied that she did not notice him when he came in, or she would not have served him, adding “They are such funny people. You can't say when they are drunk”. She then said to Spearpoint “You had better go outside”. Spearpoint refused, and witness ejected him. When outside he became very disorderly. Afterwards witness went back to the house, and, seeing Mrs. E.J. Pearson, told he he should report the landlady. She replied “Well, I do not really understand much about the business. The landlady is away”. Witness added that earlier in the evening he saw Spearpoint ejected from the Queen's Head and later from the Princess Royal. He was very drunk.

P.C. Watson corroborated the last witness, and Sergt. Osborne, who entered the charge against Spearpoint, upheld the opinion as to his condition.

George Betts said that Spearpoint lodged at his house. Three times on Saturday, the 12th, he was drunk, and at 7 o'clock witness turned him out. The man was a fair nuisance.

The Chief Constable: So he has been to the police.

Mr. Haines, in defence, said that at the time of the alleged offence the landlady was away, and her sister-in-law Mrs. E.J. Pearson was in charge of the house. She had received particular instructions not to serve drunken persons, which instructions she had endeavoured to carry out. He should call evidence to prove that when Spearpoint was served there was no indication of his condition. Of course it was useless to contend that he was not drunk in the face of the police evidence, but he did contend that the police knew the man and the landlady did not, nor had she the opportunity of observing his condition. Mr. Haines quoted cases in favour of his argument that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground that Mrs. Pearson did not knowingly serve a drunken man.

Mrs. E.J. Pearson was then examined, and said that when Spearpoint entered the bar she had no reason to believe he had been drinking more than he ought. He drank part of his beer, sat down, and lit his pipe. She believed the constable, when he entered, said to Spearpoint “Oh, so you are here, are you?” She had no reason to ask the constable to remove the man, and did not ask him to.

By the Chief Constable: To me the man seemed perfectly sober. I may have said to the constable “Take him out”, but I do not remember doing so.

William Henry Dunn, an elderly man, who for many years was coal checker at the Harbour, said he saw Spearpoint come in on the 12th to the True Briton, and in his opinion the man seemed sober at the time.

A. Wooderson, a hobbler, living at 39, Mill Bay, gave evidence to the same effect.

The Bench, however, considered the case proved, and imposed the mitigated fine of 1 and 19s. costs. The licence was not endorsed.

 

Folkestone Express 26 January 1901.

By The Way.

It seems to be essential that public house attendants should qualify themselves to diagnose the condition of their customers with regard to their sobriety. So far as I can gather, the state of the law in this respect is most unsatisfactory. A man may be drunk and not have any outward sign to enable another person to recognise his condition, and if he is served in a public house with liquor the proprietor is liable to penalties. It is not a condition precedent to the offence that he shall know the man is drunk. The ability to light his pipe properly seems to be one test.

Of course I am referring to the charge against Miss Pearson of the True Briton Inn. I am sure everyone will sympathise with the lady, whose health is such that she is obliged to go away for rest and change of air. Her good nature, her generosity, and her charity are known to most people. To all appeals for help for the deserving people in distress she turns a ready ear. She has conducted her hotel in the most exemplary manner, but in her absence an offence has been quit unintentionally committed, and notwithstanding the eloquence with which extenuating circumstances were urged by her solicitor, a small fine was imposed. In assuring her of the sympathy of the townspeople I may express a hope that her health will be speedily restored.

Saturday, January 19th: before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mary Pearson, of the True Briton Inn, was summoned for supplying drink to a man when drunk. Mr. Haines said the defendant was ill at Tunbridge Wells and could not appear.

P.C. Johnson said at 7.30 p.m. on the 12th inst. he entered the public bar of the True Briton, kept by Mrs. Pearson. He saw Wm. Spearpoint, a fisherman, there very drunk. He had a pint glass three parts full of beer on the counter beside him. Spearpoint was sitting down and drank nearly all the beer while witness was in the bar. Mrs. E.J. Pearson was behind the bar. He asked her if she served the man, and she said “Yes”. He said “Do you see the drunken condition he is in?” He said “I didn't notice him when he first came in, or I should not have served him. They are really such funny people you can't say when they are drunk – in fact I thought he was a foreigner”. She said to Spearpoint “You had better go outside”. He refused to go, and witness said “If you don't go you are liable for refusing to quit licensed premises”. Miss Pearson said “Would you mind seeing him out for me”. He removed Spearpoint from the premises, and when outside he became very drunk and disorderly, and was charged for that offence. Afterwards he saw Mrs. Pearson and told her he should report Miss Pearson. She replied “Really I don't know much about the business, and Miss Pearson is away ill”. He had previously seen Spearpoint ejected from the Queen's Head by the landlord, and the Princess Royal. He was very drunk on both occasions.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Spearpoint was rolling about, and after he saw him leave the Queen's Head he followed him to the Princess Royal. The barmaid said she did not serve him. He advised Spearpoint to go home. He was very quiet. He could not find him in any of the other public houses, and so looked in the True Briton. Spearpoint was sitting down and smoking. P.C. Watson was with me all the time, and we were watching Spearpoint. Spearpoint said “It strikes me you blokes are following me about”. He was very quiet in the house. There was only one other man in the bar. Mrs. Pearson said she had strict instructions not to serve any drunken people. I knew Spearpoint had been drunk off and on for a month.

By Supt. Reeve: My instructions are, if I see a drunken man go into a public house, to go in and caution the licence holder not to serve him.

P.C. Watson gave corroborative evidence. He said he heard Mrs. Pearson request Spearpoint to go out, and he refused, and she asked him and Johnson to eject him, which they did. Previous to that, Pearson was ejected from the Providence, Beach Street, by the landlord. He was then too drunk to stand, and fell over, and was picked up by a friend and went as far as the Wonder, in Beach Street, and was ejected by the landlord almost immediately. An hour after, he entered the Queen's Head, and was ejected by the landlord. Afterwards he went to the Princess Royal, and was ejected. He was not disorderly in any of the houses. At 7.30 they found him in the True Briton.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Spearpoint was too drunk to stand. When a man is like that we generally caution him or get a friend to take him home. It did not strike us to go round all the houses and warn them that there was a drunken man about. I knew Spearpoint was a notorious character.

Sergt. Osborne was called to prove that Spearpoint was very drunk.

George Betts, living in Fenchurch Street, said Spearpoint was three times drunk that day. He hadn't been sober for about a fortnight. There were no convictions against him during that time.

Mr. Haines said that the actual licensee was away, and her sister had charge of the house. Spearpoint was a stranger to her, and in her opinion he was sober. He was quiet and sat there smoking. She did not ask the constables to eject him, but they said “Oh, you're here – come on”. Miss Pearson had conducted the house for 20 years, and no such offence had been preferred against he before. He did not pretend to say the man was not drunk, but he did not appear to be drunk to Mrs. Pearson, and he contended that the police should have warned the publicans, because a man might pull himself together and appear sober. He cited several cases in support of arguments he advanced, and urged that there was no knowledge on the part of the defendant that any offence was proved, and if “knowledge” were unnecessary no publican would be safe. At Bow Street, on January 17th, he said there was an exactly similar offence, before Mr. Marsham, who said there was no evidence that the barman knew the man was drunk and dismissed the case.

Elizabeth Jane Pearson, sister-in-law of the licensee, said Miss Pearson was away, and she was taking charge. Before she left, Miss Pearson gave her very strict injunctions not to serve a drunken man. The customers were strangers to her, and she had never seen Spearpoint before, and there was nothing to lead her to suppose the man was not perfectly sober. She thought he was sober, or would not have served him. He had been in the house five minutes when the police went in. They said “Oh, you are here, are you?”, and a constable took him out. She did not ask the police to see him out. She had no reason to ask them to do so. The man was perfectly still.

By Supt. Reeve: The man was perfectly sober as far as I could see. I thought he was a foreigner. If the constable had not put him out, I should have allowed him to remain.

William Henry Dunn said he was in the True Briton when Spearpoint went in. He did not know who he was. He asked for a pint of beer, and was served. He said nothing, but sat down and smoked his pipe.

Mr. Wightwick: Did you see him light his pipe? – Yes, sir.

Did he light it all right – at the proper end? – Yes.

Mr. Haines: Did you take particular notice of the man as he was lighting his pipe? – Yes, and he lit it all right.

Supt. Reeve: He didn't go to the pump to light his pipe, did he? (Laughter)

Witness: I thought he was a stranger belonging to one of the ships in the harbour. He didn't stumble or roll about.

Albert Wooderson, a hoveller, said he was in the house when Spearpoint entered. He knew him as an old school fellow, but he was not a friend of his. He said “Hello, Bill”, and he replied “Hello, Albert”. There was nothing in his walk or speech or manner to lead him to suppose he was not sober.

Mr. Wightwick: Did you see him light his pipe? – Yes.

How did he light it? – Just the same as we should (laughter) – got up and took a piece of paper from the box, and lit his pipe from the gas.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said they had given the matter their best consideration, and they thought the case was proved. The penalty would therefore be 20s. (mitigated from 20) and the costs 19s.

Mr. Haines: I take it there will be no record of conviction on the licence?

The Chairman: We said nothing about that. The licence will not be endorsed.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The Magistrates gave the fullest consideration to your eloquent address, Mr. Haines.

 

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 Express 4 May 1901.

Saturday, April 27th: Before J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Geo. M. Carter was granted a transfer of the licence of the True Briton, for many years held by Mary Pearson.

 

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.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 June 1901.

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 Chronicle 15 June 1901.

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

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. Carter takes over the Blue Anchor (sic) (actually True Briton) from Miss Pearson.

 

Folkestone Express 15 June 1901.

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

Mr. Carter was granted a transfer of the licence of the True Briton.

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 October 1905.

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

Mr. Carter, of the True Briton Hotel, applied for an occasional for a Masonic dinner to be held on Wednesday next at Flessati's Restaurant. Granted.

 

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 Daily News 7 February 1907.

Thursday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Leggett, Stainer, Swoffer, and Hawksley.

John Maney and John McInery were charged with stealing an automatic box and contents from the True Briton, Harbour Street.

George Carter said he was the landlord of the True Briton, and recognised the prisoners. They came into the bar about five minutes to six yesterday. He went and served them with drinks, and then returned to the smoke room. A few minutes afterwards he returned to the bar, but the prisoners had left. He had an automatic machine in the bar, which was fixed to the counter, when the prisoners came in. He afterwards found it had been wrenched off and taken away. He valued the machine at 2, and there was probably about 10s. to 15s. cash inside.

Charles Webster, 49, Greenfield Road, said he was in the bar of the True Briton with the two prisoners last evening, and the landlord served them with drink. They were the only ones in the bar, and McInery said “We'd better have this down”, meaning the automatic machine, and immediately took hold of the machine and wrenched it down. Witness said to him “Don't be a fool, Jack, you're doing something that will get you six months if you do”. Prisoner then put his coat over it, and asked witness to open the door, which he refused to do. The other prisoner then opened the door and let McInery out. Witness then told the landlord what he had seen, and went with him to the ship Doric in the harbour, where he saw the prisoner McInery coming out of the cabin. In the cabin he saw a lot of coppers in piles as if they had been counted out in shillings. He asked McInery where the box was, and he said he knew nothing about it and told witness to shut up. He advised him to take it back to the landlord.

McInery said witness broke his knife in trying to get the box off the counter, but this was denied by Webster.

Witness (continuing) said before the landlord left the bar the prisoner McInery asked for a screwdriver in order to take the box down for him, but the landlord said he could do it himself.

P.S. Osborne deposed at 6.15 last evening he went with the last witness to the ship Doric. On going into the cabin he found some pieces of wood burning, which appeared to belong to the box. At the back of the stove he found the top of the box, and two penny pieces were lying on the table. The prisoner Maney came into the cabin, and witness told him he should take him into custody for stealing an automatic machine. Prisoner said he knew nothing about it. Witness took him into custody, and afterwards returned to the ship Doric, where he found a basin, containing coppers, under a bunk. He afterwards apprehended McInery at the Brewery Tap, and in answer to the charge he said “I was just going to finish my beer and was then coming to the police station to give myself up”. Witness formally charged both the prisoners together with the theft.

Webster (re-called) said the bunk under which the sergeant found the money belonged to Maney.

Mr. Carter (re-called) said the prisoner McInery did ask him for a screwdriver, but he told him he could take the machine down by himself.

Prisoners had no questions to ask. Maney pleaded Not Guilty, and McInery Guilty, the latter stating that he was in drink at the time.

The Bench held a consultation for some time before they could come to a decision, and then the Chairman sentenced McInery to 21 days' hard labour, and fined Maney 20s. or 14 days'.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

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

John McInery and John Money were charged with stealing an automatic ticket machine, value 40s., and 10s. in money, the property of Mr. George M. Carter.

The men went into the True Briton Inn, and in the presence of George Webster forced the machine from its position in the bar, saying those machines were condemned. They took it on board the ship Doric.

McInery was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour, and Money was fined 20s. or 14 days'.

 

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 Daily News 29 May 1907.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Ames, Leggett, Fynmore, Linton, and Boyd.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied on behalf of the owners of the True Briton Hotel (Messrs. Ash and Co.) to be allowed to make certain alterations in accordance with plans produced. Mr. Bromley explained the plans, and the application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 1 June 1907.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggatt, C.J. Pursey, T. Ames, G. Boyd, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application with regard to some alterations at the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street. The alterations were extensive, involving an outlay of 200 or 300.

The Magistrates, having inspected the plans, approved them.

 

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 Express 11 September 1909.

Saturday, September 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

George Bumstead, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and incapable. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Styles said at about 9.40 the previous evening he was on duty in Harbour Street, when he saw the prisoner stagger out of the door of the True Briton Hotel. He fell in the passage way, and witness assisted him to his feet. He staggered off towards the Harbour wall, where he fell again. Witness then took him into custody, and with assistance brought him to the police station.

The Chairman enquired whether the prisoner had been served with drink at the True Briton.

Styles replied that the landlord had refused him.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Express 4 June 1910.

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

An old offender, named Tappenden, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Styles said the previous afternoon he was called to the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, to eject the prisoner, who was drunk. He went outside, but afterwards re-entered the premises. Witness told him he should report him. On going outside, prisoner behaved in a disorderly manner, which caused a number of people to assemble, and he took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said there were five previous convictions for drunkenness, the last one being in September last year.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, Tappenden being given until Saturday to pay.

 

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 Express 30 July 1910.

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

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

 

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 Express 27 August 1910.

Local News.

On Wednesday morning the licence of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Carter to Mr. Hopkins.

 

Folkestone Daily News 30 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Fynmore, and Linton.

Plans for the alteration of the True Briton were submitted.

 

Folkestone Express 3 December 1910.

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

Plans were submitted for proposed alterations to the bars of the True Briton Hotel, and the Magistrates approved of them, subject to certain amendments.

 

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 Daily News 18 May 1911.

Tuesday, May 16th: Before Messrs. Hamilton, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

James Patrick Eugene Reilly was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He said he was drunk, but had doubts as to whether he was disorderly.

P.C. Ashby proved the case, and said prisoner would not go away, but went to the True Briton, where they refused to serve him.

Fined 14s. 6d., including costs, and allowed 'til Friday to pay.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1911.

Tuesday, May 16th: Before Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

James Patrick Eugene O'Reilly was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner said he was drunk, but he did not think he was disorderly.

P.C. Ashby said at about 2 p.m. the previous day he was in Harbour Street when he saw Reilly very drunk. He was shouting and swearing so he (witness) requested him to desist and go away. He refused to do so, but followed him. Witness again cautioned him, and the prisoner went into the True Briton public house, where he was refused drink. He then took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was a local man, and had five convictions against him for drunkenness, the last being two years ago.

The Magistrates fined the prisoner 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' hard labour, but he was allowed until Friday evening for payment.

 

Folkestone Daily News 23 July 1912.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Fynmore, Owen and Giles.

The licence of the True Briton was transferred from Mr. Hopkins to Mr. Willis (sic).

 

Folkestone Express 27 July 1912.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J.J. Giles Esq., and Colonel Owen.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel was temporarily transferred to Mr. Herbert Edward Buckland.

 

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 Daily News 31 December 1912.

Tuesday, December 31st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Boyd, Linton, Stainer, Leggett, Harrison, and Stace.

An application for the transfer of the licence of the True Briton from the present occupier, who is giving up through ill health, was granted for a fortnight.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 4 January 1913.

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

The licence of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. H. Buckland, who had to leave owing to ill-health, to Mr. E.W. James.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

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 Express 18 January 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The True Briton, from Mr. H. Buckland to Mr. E.W. James.

 

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 Daily News 10 October 1913.

Friday, October 10th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Linton, Stainer, Swoffer, Harrison, Stace, Morrison, and Boyd.

John Tappenden pleaded Not Guilty to a summons charging him with being drunk on licensed premises (i.e. the True Briton Hotel).

Sergt. Sales and P.C. Fox gave evidence for the prosecution.

It transpired that the landlord of the house said he had refused to serve defendant three times, and had requested him to leave the premises. The landlord had admitted to the sergeant that defendant was drunk.

Defendant said he could always drink about 28 pints before he was drunk, and on this occasion he had only had three or four pints.

Twelve previous convictions were put in.

Fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

 

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 Express 18 October 1913.

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

John Tappenden, a labouring man, was charged with being drunk on licensed premises at the True Briton. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Sales said about 8.45 p.m. on the 4th inst. he was in Harbour Street, when he saw the defendant in the bar of the True Briton, Harbour Street. By his appearance he formed the opinion that the defendant was drunk. He said to Tappenden “What are you doing in here when you are drunk?” He replied “I have had no beer, sergeant. They won't serve me”. He (witness) said to the landlord, who was behind the bar “You see this man's condition, landlord. He is drunk”. The landlord replied “Yes, I have refused to serve him three times, and asked him to leave the premises, but he would not go”. He (witness) advised the defendant to leave, and at the same time told him he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He replied “I cannot be drunk, Sergeant, for I cannot get any beer”. He then left the house. Defendant's whole appearance showed that he was drunk. He also smelt very strongly of drink.

Defendant (to witness): You always say I am drunk. Always drunk; born drunk. They follow me about like a cat watching a mouse.

P.C. Fox, in corroborating P.S. Sales, said the defendant was standing in the house in a reeling condition.

Defendant said he could not be drunk for he had had only about three drinks. He could always drink eight-and-twenty pints before he considered himself drunk.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were twelve convictions against the defendant, nine for drunkenness, the last being in June of that year.

The Chairman said the defendant would be fined 5/- and 10/- costs. With regard to the landlord, the Magistrates considered that he should have ejected the defendant or sent for the police when he refused to go.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 March 1914.

Local News.

Great consternation was caused this (Tuesday) morning at the Police Court when three licensed victuallers were summoned for selling cigarettes between 6 and 7 on a Wednesday evening.

The Bench consisted of Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. Giles, Fynmore, Jenner, Owen, and Boyd.

The defendants were Charles Henry Barker, John William Summerfield, Edward William James, and Julia Willson. Mr. Holme appeared for the defence, and the Town clerk prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence that the defendants had been asked to supply these goods, and were under the impression that they were exempt.

As everyone knows, the legislature never included licensed victuallers in the Act, and Folkestone would never have heard of this prosecution but for the action of a few bona fide tobacco dealers, who petitioned the Corporation to ask the Home Office.

The case of Mr. Summerfield was taken first. Mr. Holme, for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

The Town Clerk, in opening the case, said the summons was issued under the Shops Act, 1912, and this was the first case taken under the Act. He proceeded to deal with the provisions of the Act, and the adoption of the Order by the local authority in respect to tobacconists.

Harold Summerfield, and assistant in the Sanitary Inspector's Office, said on February 18th he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the bar parlour and asked the assistant for a packet of shag tobacco. At first the assistant refused to serve him, and said “It is Wednesday afternoon, and I cannot serve you”. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant called him back, and said “I'll oblige you this time. You must not tell anyone as we should be getting into trouble”. He was served and paid 4d. for the tobacco.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holmes: Witness did not know whether this public house had any different features as regards the sale of tobacco to any other house. So far as witness was concerned, it was a mere casual sale.

Mr. Holmes: A register is kept under the Act?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Holme: Is the Royal Standard in the register?

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Holmes: Are any public houses in the register?

The Town Clerk: A few; the large ones.

Mr. Holmes: There is a notice in the Act which requires that every person should be served with a notice.

The Town Clerk: I do not think the question should be put.

Mr. Holme: Very well, I'll get it from defendant that no such notice was served.

The Town Clerk combatted the right to put the question and Mr. Holme said for the present he would not press it.

The Town clerk: That closes my case.

Mr. Holme, opening the defence, dealt with the interpretation of the Act, which had to be construed as an Act, which had to be considered as the exception and not within the rule. He pointed out that if the Act was to be seriously considered, he would take the early closing of fruit shops. Why, absurd as the proposition was, it would equally apply to the Metropole Hotel, where they could not supply vegetables and dessert on Wednesday afternoons and evenings. Dealing with a circular from Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, which pointed out that distinction could be made between regular sale and casual sale, he said the prosecution had admitted that exceptions had to be made, and having made exceptions and got within the walls of the Act they must adopt a common-sense point of view. The Act exempted licensed victuallers, unless brought in.

The Town Clerk: Not only licensed victuallers, but other people.

Mr. Holme: Yes, but licensed victuallers are included, and I am here today for the licensed victuallers.

The Town Clerk: I submit that it is not within the power of the Bench to go into anything subsequent to the Act. The section says that the Order is an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Holme: If the case goes to the High Court it is essential to get out all the points. I contend that the Order was never intended to include my clients.

Mr. Andrew advised the Bench to accept the Town Clerk's objection.

Mr. Holme: May I put my point? Can anything be more unfair than not to consult the licensed victuallers, and then making an Order including them in it? I do ask the Bench to consider the circumstances under which the Order was made. The scheme of the Order says that before you bring in an exempted class you must consult them. Voting papers must be sent out, or an an alternative a petition from two thirds of the people affected. The licensed victuallers were neither asked to vote, consulted, or asked to sign. Proceeding, he seriously suggested that if the local authority intended to make the Order, in all common sense the first thing that authority should have done was consult those who they brought within the Order.

The Town Clerk: Then not being a substantial part of the business, you would not be entitled to vote.

Mr. A.J. Hart, secretary to the Licensed Victuallers' Association, said he had inspected the register at the Town Clerk's office, and did not find the name of a licensed victualler.

By Mr. Andrew: He did not look for the names of hotel keepers, as that did not interest him.

Mr. Holme, the Town clerk, and Mr. Rutley Mowll discussed the legal position with Mr. Andrew.

The Bench retired, and on returning said they considered the case proved, but would not inflict any penalty on payment of costs.

The other cases were withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Express 7 March 1914.

Local News.

On Tuesday a most important point with regard to the sale of tobacco by licensed victuallers on the weekly half holiday occupied the attention of the Folkestone Magistrates for close upon two hours and a half. The Magistrates consisted of Colonel Fynmore, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen, and three licensed victuallers had been summoned.

The first case held was that of John William Summerfield, the licensee of the Royal Standard, and he had been summoned for contravening Section 4 of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on Wednesday, February 18th, at 6.37 p.m., that being the weekly half holiday fixed by the Town Council. Defendant pleaded Not uilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme, of London, defended.

Mr. Kidson, in opening the case, said that was the first summons to come before the Bench under that particular Act. He, therefore, thought he ought to refer the Magistrates to the various Sections bearing on the question. He then read Section 4 of the Act, which dealt with the closing of shops on one half day of the week. He then pointed out that the schedule exempted various trades, amongst which were the tobacconists. He explained that sub-section 6 provided that the local authority might by Order extend the provisions of the Act to the shops of any class exempted if they were satisfied that at least two thirds of the occupiers of the class of shop approved of the Order. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, and it was confirmed by the Home Secretary. By sub-section 7 of Section 4 it was provided that in case of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions, the occupier of the shop would be guilty of an offence, and would be liable to a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding 1. That was the first case which had come before the Bench. By Section 6, sub-section 3, as soon as the Secretary of State had confirmed any Order that Order became final, and had the effect of an Act of Parliament. Complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing that Order, therefore it became necessary for the Inspector to make inquiry. They would hear what occurred from the evidence. To assist the Bench he would like to read a circular letter sent out by him, as follows: Shops Act, 1912. I enclose copy of an Order which has been made extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops. This Order is now in force, and must be complied with by the occupiers of the classes of shops therein referred to. With respect to the sale of tobacco, etc., at places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other refreshment places, the Home Secretary has made the following statement, and it is the intention of the Town Council to act in accordance with such statement.

Copy statement: “I am to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State is advised that licensed houses in which a retail trade in tobacco is regularly carried on are subject to the provisions of the Order, but that the Order would not apply to the occasional sale of tobacco in hotels and inns in connection with meals, e.g. the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.” A copy of that letter was sent to the defendant.

Mr. Kidson then gave evidence of the appointment of Mr. J. Pearson, the Sanitory Inspector, as Inspector under the Shops Act, 1912, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, assistant to the Sanitory Inspector, said he visited the Royal Standard public house at 6.37 on the 18th February, which was a Wednesday, and the half holiday. He entered the bottle and jug department, and asked the assistant behind the bar for an ounce of shag tobacco. The man replied “It is Wednesday afternoon. I cannot serve you”. He (witness) replied “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The man then called him back again, and said he would oblige him that time, and that he must not tell anyone, or he would get him into trouble. The man served him with an ounce of shag tobacco, and he (witness) paid 4d. for it. He did not see any notice whatever in the bar with reference to the Shops Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness said the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house. He did not think they pushed the sale of tobacco more than any ordinary public house did. There was no separate counter for the sale of tobacco, So far as he knew it was a casual sale of tobacco carried on at the house.

Mr. Holme, at this stage, asked for the register which had to be kept under the Shops Act, and when it was produced, he requested him to say whether the Royal Standard was to be found in the register.

Mr. Kidson said he admitted the Royal Standard was not entered in it. He believed there were a few public houses mentioned in it, but only some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme asked the witness if he knew whether the notice calling upon the defendant to say which was his principal trade had been served upon him.

Mr. Kidson argued that that was not a proper question to put. The point was, it seemed to him, had that Order and the Act authorising the Order been contravened?

Mr. Holme agreed to leave the matter until later. He then addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defence, and in the course of his remarks he said that was a very important case. The matter was fairly simple. They had before them the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing the words. Conceivably, they might say they meant they forbade in the district at the time in question the sale of tobacco without any exception whatever. If they were construed in that way, it would have a far reaching effect, not only on the public houses, but all the fine hotels in the district, including the Grand, the Pavilion, and the Metropole. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette after dinner in that case. If the Order was really carried out, they would not be able to have any game or vegetable for dinner at the Metropole or any other hotel. That would be absurd, and the prosecution would agree that would be absurd. The circular of the Home Secretary was, he contended, an admission that some exception was to be allowed to that general rule. By that circular a breach was made in the walls of the Act. They could not apply those words without some exception. The only exception the Home Secretary had allowed was if a cigar or cigarette was sold in connection with a meal. Not once in the regulations was the word “meal” used, and, therefore, that was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. It would be a difficult problem to say what a meal was. He suggested that the word “meal” could not be read into the Act. He agreed the circular was founded on common sense. They had to look deeper than that for a principle.

At this stage Mr. Holmes read several answers to questions put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and arguing on those answers he said the Magistrates really had to consider in that case whether that was a casual sale or was a regular trade or business carried on at the Royal Standard. The true principle they had to apply was whether that sale was casual and ancillary to what was going on in the establishment, or was it a sale in connection with the trade that was going on in the house. The Royal Standard had not developed into a miniature shop for the sale of tobacco. He was going to prove by the defendant that he had never sold any tobacco or cigarettes to a person except that it was a casual sale, and, therefore, it did not come within the words of the Act. It was an abuse of language to call the Royal Standard a shop for the sale of tobacco. That was his submission on the main point.

Mr. Kidson had mentioned Section 4 of the Act, which provided for the half holiday closing. Then Section 6 exempted licensed victuallers unless they were brought in by a special Order. Before an exempted trade could be included, certain formalities had to be gone through. By a sub-section and the regulations there had to be a two thirds majority of the shops before the trade could be brought in. A register was also to be prepared.

Mr. Kidson said it was not the Magistrates' duty to go into anything prior to the making of the Order.

Mr. Holme said he was not going to say the order was bad, but he wanted to try to find out whether the prosecution meant to bring in his client. Did the Order include his client? If he could show that the prosecution, when they made the Order, had no intention of brining in his client, surely that was relevant to the matter.

A good deal of argument ensued on this point, and Mr. Holmes said he could not imagine anything more unfair than that an Order should be made without consulting all the people whom it could affect.

The Magistrates' Clerk eventually said that Mr. Holme might raise the point should the question of inflicting a penalty arise.

Mr. Holme said he admitted for the sake of argument the Order was good, nevertheless he did ask the Bench to take into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Proceeding, he said no voting paper was sent to his client. He admitted that a notice was published asking tradesmen to go to the Town Clerk's office to see if they were on the register. He wished to point out there was a provision in the Act by which they might have got out of that dilemma. It was that sub-section which dealt with the case of a mixed trade. He submitted, however, that that was not a mixed trade, but that a publican's business was one trade, catering for the public. In the case of a mixed trade the Council had to inquire from the occupier which he considered to be his principal trade.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had not a separate counter for the sale of tobacco, and he made no special effort to push tobacco. If tobacco was sold to the Inspector in that case, it was the one solitary exception that he had sold tobacco to a man who had not purchased something else. His tobacco trade was about 5 percent of his trade. He had had no notice served on him requiring him to say what he considered to be his principal trade, and no voting paper was sent to him.

The Magistrates' Clerk held Mr. Holme was not entitled to put questions on that point.

Mr. Summerfield said he did not sign any application for the Order to be made.

Cross-examined, he said he would not call his tobacco trade his principal trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not be entitled to have your name entered on the register.

Mr. A. Hart gave evidence as to going to the Town Clerk's office and examining the register. He could not find the name of the Royal Standard entered in it, nor any other licensed house.

The case of Charles Henry Barker, the licensee of the Raglan, was next dealt with. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kidson put in the Order made by the Home Secretary, and produced the appointment of the Inspector of Nuisances as the Inspector. In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Barker's name was not entered in the register. The Council did not ascertain by vote whether the defendant or other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. The petition asking for the Order was received from the tobacconists.

Harry Summerfield said he visited the defendant's premises at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18th, and asked for a 2d. cigar. He was served with it, and paid 2d. for it.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask for any refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates at length on the matter. He urged that his client had committed no offence, as it was an occasional, casual sale. He pointed out also that bread and cheese, or even a biscuit, would be regarded as a meal, and he held that a man would be able to purchase a cigar or cigarette. According to the Home Secretary, that was a casual and occasional sale, and not within the meaning of the Act. It would be very hard indeed to apply the Order to such a case as that. In his opinion it was a condition precedent to the making of that Order that the Town Council should first have been satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class should approve of the Order. If his client was one of that class to be prosecuted, then he was also one of the class who had the right to vote for the Order. In other words, the Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny to them the privileges of the section. He contended that there was no provision in the Act which said that the Order for the weekly half holiday should have the operation of the Act of Parliament. It was only by closing order that might have the effect of an Act; the weekly half holiday Order did not have that effect, for they had to be made, and could be revoked. In conclusion, he suggested that instead of coming to a decision that day, they should postpone that matter for a short time, and give the licensed victuallers the opportunity of approaching the Corporation and putting before them their views, and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order. He thought the Council would agree to the revocation of the Order, for it would be saving the trouble of deciding a point of law. They must not forget that a conviction was a serious objection to a licensee. It seemed to him the best course would be to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation.

Mr. Kidson said if there was an adjournment there ought to be an undertaking given that there would be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Council to be unfair with the licensed victuallers. If the latter did approach them, he was certain they would consider the matter.

Mr. Holme said for his client he would prefer to have a definite decision.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case had been proved, but inasmuch as the parties had suggested a re-consideration by the Council of the position of licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and they dismissed the cases against Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Barker, on payment of the costs, 8/6.

Mr. Holme asked the Clerk if he would state a case.

The Clerk said there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme said that was very unfortunate. Nothing could be more inconvenient for his client, for they were no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The Clerk said if there had been a conviction he would not have stated a case. He would have left it to the defendants to apply for a mandamus.

Summonses against Mr. E.W. James, another licensed victualler, and Mrs. Julia Wilson, a shopkeeper, were withdrawn.

 

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 Express 7 November 1914.

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

William Woodrow, a private in the Royal Fusiliers, stationed at the Camp, was charged with stealing a pair of boots from outside Mr. Vickery's shop the previous evening.

Alfred Edward May, manager for Mr. J. Vickery, boot dealer, of 27, Tontine Street, said the pair of boots (produced) were hung outside the front of the shop about nine o'clock. He saw them safe at five o'clock in the afternoon. At eight o'clock, when they were closing, he missed them. The boots were hung on a hook with the string twisted round three or four times.

Harry Monk said he was potman at the True Briton, Harbour Street. The previous evening, between eight and half past eight, the prisoner came into the bar with a pair of boots similar to those produced. He was carrying the boots openly in his hand, and offered them for sale to people in the bar. He asked 3/- for them at first, then 2/6 and 1/6. No-one would buy them, and the prisoner then went out, taking the boots with him.

P.C. Johnson said he was in Beach Street the previous evening about 8.30, when he saw the prisoner in the street, carrying the pair of boots produced under his arm. He stopped him and asked him where he had got the boots, and he replied “I bought them off a man for 2/- down the street”. He (witness) told him he was not satisfied with his statement, and should detain him for inquiries. He brought Woodrow to the police station, where he charged him with stealing the boots from some person unknown. He made no reply. That morning he made inquiries, and returned to the police station, and charged him with that offence. Prisoner replied “I bought them for 2/- off a civilian whom I did not know”. Prisoner, on Tuesday evening, was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he was very sorry to say that as he was passing through the street a man came up to him and asked him if he could help him. He (prisoner) was just going into a public house when the man, who appeared to be a very hard-working man, stopped him. He told him he was out of work. The man seemed very respectable, and he thought he was genuine. He told him he would help him, and asked him what he required done for him. The man told him he had a pair of boots to sell, as he wanted to get some food for his wife and children. He told the man he would go into the bar and try to sell them. He could not manage to sell them, so he went outside and told the man that he had done his best. The man begged so hard, and said his wife was starving, so he gave him 2/- for the boots. The man shook hands with him, and wished him good luck.

The constable, in reply to the Clerk, said Woodrow, when brought to the police station, had only coppers in his possession.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoner had a good character. He had been in the Army two or three months. There was nothing on his defaulter's sheet.

The Chairman said the prisoner had had a very narrow shave of a conviction. He would be bound over in the sum of 5 to be of good behaviour, and to come up for judgement, if called upon, within six months. The Magistrates warned him as to his future conduct.

 

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 Express 31 July 1915.

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

Edward William James, licensee of the True Briton Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises.

A letter was received from Mr. Haines, defendant's solicitor, saying he was unable to be present, and asking that the case be adjourned till Tuesday.

The request was granted.

 

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

Edward William James, licensee of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. The case was adjourned from Friday. Mr. G.W. Haines now appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lawrence said at half past eight on Sunday, July 18th, in company with P.C. Whitehead, he visited the True Briton Hotel, and there saw a soldier lying on a seat with his head towards the counter and his feet towards the window. There were sixteen or eighteen soldiers and three or four civilians in the bar. He went to the soldier and found he was almost helplessly drunk. Defendant's son-in-law was serving at the back of the bar, and witness asked to see the defendant. There was also a young woman behind the bar serving. Defendant came through from the South Street side, and witness said to him “You see the condition of this man?” He said “Yes, but I have not seen him before”. He at once got hold of him and ejected him. Witness said “I shall have to report this”. As soon as the soldier got through the door he staggered across the pavement, and, falling down, was unable to get up. He was brought to the police station, where he was charged with being drunk and incapable. Witness and P.c. Whitehead then returned to the True Briton, where he saw defendant and his son-in-law, Mr. S.G. Vaughan. To the defendant he said “I shall report you for permitting drunkenness on your licensed premises”. He replied “I am very sorry. I hope you will look over it this time. I have always been very careful. I have not seen him before”. Mr. Vaughan said “I am almost sure I served this man a minute or two before, and he appeared quite sober then”.

The Clerk: Who was in charge of the bar?

The Inspector: Vaughan said he was in charge of the bar.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Did you see defendant's wife there? – No.

She might have been there and you not notice her? – Yes, she might have been there.

Was there anybody sitting between the counter and the soldier? – No, sir.

There was nothing intervening? – No, sir.

Was there anybody standing round the counter? – Yes; two soldiers were standing against the counter by the man's head.

This is not a large bar? – A fairly decent sized one, I think.

It was fairly well packed? – I should say it was about half full.

Did any soldier who was sitting next to the man make any statement to you? – Yes. One said “Leave him alone; we will take care of him”.

Did the soldier say the man was more tired than drunk? – No, sir.

Did he say he had been on parade all day? – No, sir. The only thing he said was that if we left him alone they would take care of him.

Did anyone say about how long he had been there? – No, sir.

May I take it that the whole of the front of the counter was occupied? – It was, except where the seat was.

Did the landlord tell you that only a few minutes before he had been round collecting glasses, and did not see him? – No, sir. He said he had not seen him before we called his attention to him.

By the Chairman: the seat ran right up to the bar.

By Mr. Haines: To have seen the man's head, anyone behind the bar would have had to lean right over the counter.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated the evidence of the Inspector.

Cross-examined, witness said the landlord assisted in ejecting the man, and two soldiers also assisted.

John William Barker, a mariner, of 18a, Great Fenchurch Street, said he was in the True Briton on the evening in question. The bar at that time was packed, mostly with soldiers. A soldier came into the bar from the street, he “scrunched” through the other soldiers, and “whopped” down on a seat. He then heard someone say “Sit up here”. Witness then left the bar, and after being away about a quarter of an hour he returned and saw a soldier lying sideways on a seat.

The Clerk: Was it the same man?

Witness: I could not swear it was the same man. Continuing, he said he saw the police come in. He thought it was Mr. James who said “Sit up here”, but he did not see the defendant before the police arrived. Witness stood by the mantelpiece, because one could not get near the counter for soldiers.

What condition should you say the soldier was in when he came into the bar?

Witness: I should think he had had a little drop to drink by the way he pushed between the soldiers.

Is that as far as you go? – That is as far as I know.

Did you make a statement to Inspector Lawrence? – Yes.

Did you tell the Inspector this: “After sitting there he lay down on the seat”? Is that true? – I don't know.

Did you say that to the Inspector? - I don't know what I said. This is a week ago. I don't know. I cannot say.

Did you say “After about ten minutes the landlord came into the bar, pulled him up, and sat him on the seat”? – I don't know.

Come on! Did you make a statement or not? - I did. I cannot answer for what I said a week ago.

But you have got to answer for what you said a week ago. Did you make a statement to Inspector Lawrence, and did you sign it? – Yes.

Was the statement made to Inspector Lawrence true or not? – I don't know, sir. I don't know what I told him. I told him something.

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

You don't remember what you told him? – I don't, sir.

I will read to you what you told him. (Reading) “He lay down on the seat, and after about ten minutes the landlord came and pulled him up and sat him on the seat”. Is that true? – I don't know.

You don't know what? – Whether I told the policeman.

Is it true when you say Mr. James came into the bar, pulled the man up and put him on the seat? – I cannot say, because I don't know.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: You remember what happened on this Sunday? – Well, I say I was in there from 7 to 8 as near as I can tell.

I put it to you. Did you say that defendant, while you were there, came into the bar, took hold of the man and sat him up? – No, I did not.

The Clerk: Then why did you tell me a minute or so ago that you did not remember whether you saw him? Get out of the witness box. You are not fit to be there at all!

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench for the defence, quoted the law bearing on the case, and observed that no-one knew more than the publicans themselves in this part what they had to put up with. There was a great rush just before closing time, and in a small bar, where the people were packed like sardines, it was almost impossible to see everyone who came in. On this occasion defendant was going from bar to bar, clearing up glasses, and generally superintending, and he thought that after hearing the evidence the Justices would be satisfied that defendant took all reasonable precautions. These were abnormal times, and it was quite likely that anyone in the bar would not know a man was lying there in the condition alleged. Mr. James had held the licence for two or three years, and there was no complaint against the conduct of this house.

Defendant, in the witness box, said they had their work pretty well cut out to serve the customers. On this particular evening he had the assistance of his son-in-law and his wife (defendant's daughter), and witness's wife, and in the South Street bar was his other daughter. Witness was about, superintending. He had been in the bar collecting glasses about five minutes before the police came, and the soldier referred to was not there then. He did not see him until the police called his attention to him. Then one of the two soldiers said “He has not been served here. He is tired; he has been on parade”. Witness asked the two soldiers to assist in taking him out. The soldier got up, never said a word, and went out.

Mr. Haines: Have you taken every step to prevent drunkenness in your house? – Yes.

Supposing you had seen this man come in and ask to be served, would you have considered his condition such that he ought to be served? – No, we would not have served him. We are very careful.

Do you think he would have been noticeable, having regard to the counter and the number of men there? – No; it would be impossible to see him, especially of he was lying on the seat.

Supposing you had been behind the bar, do you think you would have been able to see him? – No.

By reason of the number of men in the bar? – Yes.

The Clerk: How long after you had gone round to collect the glasses did the police arrive? – In a few minutes; five or six minutes.

Before you came round to the Harbour Street front of the house had you been behind this particular bar? – Yes, I came through.

When you were behind, did you look over your customers? – Yes.

You didn't see this man? – No.

If a man was lying on the bench, would you expect to see him? – No. I could not very well see him from the bar. If he had been there when I went round I should have seen him, but he was not there then.

Mrs. James, wife of the defendant, gave similar evidence. She said she was in the bar continuously, but she did not see the man until he was going out after the police had arrived. If anyone had been lying on the seat on the right hand side she would not have been able to see him.

The Justices having retired, the Chairman, on their return into Court, addressed the defendant as follows: The Bench have considered this case, and they quite appreciate the very great difficulty licence holders have, and they are perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. We quite understand the great difficulty, and you might not have seen this man; but, at the same time, we consider the police have acted quite rightly in bringing this case forward.

The summons was therefore dismissed.

 

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 Express 16 October 1915.

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

Mabel Collins was charged with giving a bottle of whiskey to a soldier, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, with intent to render the soldier less capable of efficiently performing his duty. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Corpl. Ernest Allen, of the Canadian Military Police, said the previous evening at 7.15 he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner with Pte. Bale, of the 9th Canadian Infantry, standing outside the True Briton. He heard Bale ask Collins if she could get him a bottle of whiskey. She replied, and Bale handed her some money. The prisoner went into the Hotel, and a few minutes later she returned and said to Bale “I require 6d. more to complete the purchase”. He handed her a silver coin, and Collins went into the hotel again. She returned into the street with the bottle of whiskey (produced) and handed it to Pte. Bale. They went up the steps leading to the Bayle Parade, and he, together with Corpl. Dawson, followed them. He then saw them sitting on the steps with three other girls, and two soldiers who were standing nearby. He went up to the accused and said “You have just been and bought this bottle of whiskey for this soldier”. She replied “I did, but I did not do it with any wrong intent”. He gave Bale into the custody of a military picquet. He took charge of the prisoner, who was eventually handed over to the civil police. The cork of the bottle of whiskey had been drawn, but he did not know whether any had been drunk or not.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had not been able to communicate with the Town Commandant concerning the case, so he had not been able to get his permission to proceed summarily against the prisoner. He therefore asked for a remand so that he could communicate with the authorities.

The prisoner was therefore bound over until the next day.

On Wednesday morning the defendant failed to answer her name when called, and it was stated that she had left the town.

The case was adjourned sine die. (Without a day.)

 

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 Express 15 January 1916.

Local News.

On Monday afternoon six members of the Fire Brigade with horsed reel, responded to a call at the True Briton, Harbour Street, to an outbreak of fire in a bedroom on the first floor. Fortunately they were able by means of chemicals to extinguish the flames before much damage was done. The fire was caused by a match being accidentally dropped on the floor.

 

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 Express 11 March 1916.

Local News.

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

Corporal Charles Baker, of the C.M.P., said on February 22nd he was on duty with Corporal Blake, when they were called to the True Briton at 7.45 p.m. There they saw two soldiers, both of whom were drunk. They were fighting, one of them having his coat off. Witness took one of the men to the guard room, and Corporal Blake took the other.

Corporal Joseph Blake, of the Imperial Military Police, said they were called to the True Briton by a corporal of the picquet, and there he saw the two soldiers (who were drunk) fighting. The men were taken to the guard room and charged with drunkenness.

Cross-examined: He could not say who sent for the corporal of the picquet.

Sergeant Lawrence Davies, of the C.M.P. said he was in charge of the guard room when the two men were brought in. They were drunk, and one was in his shirt sleeves.

Cross-examined: He judged that the man was drunk by his actions and by his appearance, and he smelt of liquor. A sober man would know better than to make a disturbance.

But he had control of his muscles? – More. A man may have so much drink in him that he is stronger than when he is sober.

Sergt. Sales said on February 24th he called at the True Briton, and there saw the defendant, to whom he said “A report has been submitted to the Chief Constable by the military police respecting two soldiers who, it is alleged, were found drunk and fighting on your premises at 7.40 on February 22nd. A summons may be issued against you for permitting drunkenness”. Witness cautioned defendant, who then said “They were not drunk. They came in shortly after opening time and only had two or three drinks. One of them began to get quarrelsome, and I refused to serve him with any more drink. He also used bad language, so I sent for the picquet and had them ejected. I have always done my best to conduct my premises properly”.

The Chief Constable pointed out that the onus was on the defendant to prove that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Magistrates, said it was not likely, if defendant was permitting drunkenness, he would have invited the military police to the house to see the commission of an offence. The Bench knew the difficulties which licensed victuallers had to face, the short hours in which to carry on the business, and how the men came in. He would endeavour to prove that the defendant took all reasonable precautions it was possible to do, and he would further point out that “permitting” involved knowledge.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had held the licence of the True Briton for four years. There were two bars, one facing Harbour Street and the other facing South Street. There was someone in charge of each bar and witness himself kept going backwards and forwards supervising the business. On the evening in question he heard his daughter say “I shan't serve you any more” His daughter was in charge of the Harbour Street bar. He thought something was wrong and went to see. He noticed the soldier, the cause of the commotion, who was using rather bad language because witness's daughter said he would have to pay for a glass he had broken. Because she refused to serve him he became violent, and said he was coming across to help himself. Witness requested him to leave the premises. He said he would not go before he was served, and witness said “If you won't leave I shall have to send for the patrol to take you out”. Still he would not go, although his friend persuaded him “not to make a disturbance for nothing”. The more he was persuaded the worse he got. The man was not in his shirt sleeves when he left the house. The picquet were called, and the two men were ejected. Directly witness heard the voice he came to the bar. The man in question was not drunk.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He sent for the picquet about 7.40. He told the police sergeant that the men came in just after opening time and that they had two or three drinks. One of the men was violent, but his language was worse. He was not drunk; he was more “excited and mad”.

What do you think made him mad? – I do not know whether it was because my daughter refused to serve him.

Would you say he was sober? – I could not see any effects of drink on him. He was more mad.

Do you say he was sober? – I do not say he was sober.

Was he “half and half”? – He might have been.

By the Clerk: The men remained in the house from 6.20 until they were ejected.

Mrs. M.E. Vaughan, daughter of the defendant, said on the occasion in question the bar was fairly well packed. She had not noticed the two soldiers until one of them commenced to use abusive language to the people he was talking to. Witness cautioned him about it, but he took no notice. Next time he called for a drink she refused to serve him. He threatened to come over and get the drink himself. He also broke a glass, and witness said he had better pay for it. Witness informed her father, and the picquet was sent for.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Were they drinking “double deckers”? – Yes.

That is a double dose? – Yes, a double quantity.

How much is it? – Sixpennyworth.

So that if you served three “double deckers” they had 1s. 6d. worth of whisky? – Witness could not be positive that she served the men with three “double deckers”.

The Clerk: Let us get this right. Did you serve them with three “double deckers”? – They may have had a double first and then singles.

The Chief Constable: What did you serve these particular men with? – I do not know exactly what I served them with.

It might have been a “double decker” each time? – It might have been. I am sure the man was not drunk.

Mr. Haines: If a man was under the influence of drink, would you serve him with a “double decker”? – No! I should not!

The Bench, after having considered the case in retirement, dismissed the summons. They announced that they had very grave doubts as to whether they should not convict, but taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, they had decided to give defendant the benefit of the doubt.

 

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 Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The following licence was transferred: True Briton, from Mr. James to Mrs. G.F. Lucas.

 

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 Express 1 June 1918.

Friday, May 24th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Arthur Norman Foote, a Canadian soldier, was charged with obtaining money by false pretences with worthless cheques.

Mrs. A.E. Chipperfield, boarding house keeper, 18 and 19, The Leas, said the prisoner came to her house on the 16th May and left on the 20th. On Saturday morning he came to the breakfast room and said he had been to Lloyd's Bank and found that she banked there. He had told them at the bank that he had lost his overcoat with his bank book. They therefore advised him to get a blank cheque from the witness's book. She gave him the cheque (produced), which was blank. He put it in his pocket and went away.

Gertrude Florence Lucas, the licensee of the Harbour Hotel (sic), said the prisoner came to the hotel on Sunday about seven in the evening. He was in company with another soldier, who was a regular customer named Byron. The prisoner, who was a stranger to her, had the cheque in his hand. Byron said “Will you cash this cheque for my friend?” She replied “No, I never cash cheques”, and Byron said “It will be all right. You take my pay book and number”. The prisoner handed her the cheque, and Byron said the prisoner owed him 1, and wanted to pay him before he went. She cashed the cheque, which was for 3 10s., and made out in the name of M.C. Marriott, handing the money to the prisoner, but before doing so she asked him if it was his name, and he replied “Yes”. Foote told her he was employed at the West Cliff Hospital. Prisoner handed a 1 note to Byron, and put the remainder in his pocket. Byron told her that the cheque was all right, and if he had not been there she would not have cashed it. She actually cashed the cheque on Byron's word.

Miss A.C. Featherstone, dealer in artists' material, 55, High Street, said the prisoner came into her shop on May 13th and purchased some drawing paper, for which he paid. He then asked her if she could oblige him with a blank cheque, and said he had a banking account at Lloyd's, Montreal, but his papers had not come through. He further stated that he had some pay due to him, but he would not get it till the end of the month. She gave him the cheque (produced), which was blank. Prisoner then left the shop.

Mr. J.W. Jeafferson, Secretary to the Y.M.C.A. Luton Hut, said the prisoner was in the canteen of the hut on May 13th, and he asked him (witness) to cash the cheque (produced). He questioned him as to whether the cheque was good, and he replied it was. He asked him to endorse it with his name, number and present location. He endorsed it. He cashed the cheque, which was for 3. On the Wednesday following he took the cheque to the bank, but payment was refused. The prisoner was in hospital clothes at the time.

Mr. H.F. Carpenter, accountant at Lloyd's Bank, said the two cheques purported to be drawn by “C.F. Lewis” and “Charles Lewis”. They had no customer of that name on the books of the bank. Payment had been refused for the cheques.

Foote pleaded Guilty to both charges. He said he was much ashamed at his conduct. He was in a position to pay the money back, as he had 60 in credit. He had been in hospital since December, and they would not give him leave. He had no money, so he used that method in order to get some, as they had not given him any.

The case was remanded until the following day in order that an officer could attend.

Saturday, May 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Col. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Arthur Norman Foote, remanded from the previous day, was again placed in the dock.

An officer from Moore Barracks Hospital said the man had been under his care for two months, being a mental case. He had been sent to the Lord Derby Hospital at Warrington, where he was kept for ten days, and was then sent back to the West Cliff Hospital for treatment for his eyes. He was then returned to Moore Barracks Hospital, but broke away from there. His (witness's) opinion was that the prisoner would not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

The prisoner was bound over for three months to be of good behaviour. The Chairman also expressed the hope that Foote would reimburse the people with the money he had taken.

 

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 Express 27 July 1918.

County Court.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Judge Shortt.

Ash and Co. v Edward William James: This was a claim for 43 6s. 9d., agreement and goods sold. Mr. Arrowsmith, Canterbury, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Douglas De Wet represented the defendant.

Mr. G.P. Brothers, Secretary to the plaintiff firm, brewers, of Canterbury, said the defendant first became the tenant of their house, the True Briton, Folkestone, on January 1st, 1913. There was no claim for beer supplied, but for crates and empty bottles alleged not to have been returned. Every three or four months a statement was sent in to customers showing the deficit in the bottle account. When defendant left the True Briton in January last there was owing on the bottle account 25 10s., after allowing credit for bottles found on his premises. At the termination of the agreement an inventory was taken of goods, and certain goods were missing, the value of which had been assessed and would be proved.

Cross-examined: For some period the defendant paid neither rent nor rates, and afterwards he paid only rates. Witness had in certain cases known the bottle and crate account to run on for 20 years. As far as possible the bottles bore the name of the firm. They paid a commission of 2d. per gross to the carman on returned empty bottles. The prices on bottles and crates in January last year were: 3s. 9d. per dozen pints, 2s. 9d. per dozen half pints, and crates 2s. 4d. Previously the prices were: pints 2s. 6d. per dozen, half pints 2s. per dozen, crates 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d.

Re-examined: The price of bottles had increased since the war.

Mr. Edgar Brett, haulage contractor, of Canterbury, said he had been under contract with Messrs. Ash and Co. to cart beer to Folkestone since April, 1912. During the tenancy of Mr. James at the True Briton witness delivered the beer, having been absent only about four occasions. Then his man followed out the usual practice. It was the custom to give a receipt for the number of empty bottles and crates taken away.

Cross-examined: Sometimes, when the roads were very bad, the beer was sent by rail, witness or his man accompanying the consignment and seeing it duly delivered at the houses.

Mr. Loftus Banks, valuer and house agent, said he acted in this district for the plaintiff firm. He acted in the letting of the True Briton to the defendant in January, 1913. Witness witnessed the defendant's signature to the furniture agreement. When defendant entered into possession, the inventory mentioned in the agreement was gone through and checked, and brought up to date. Defendant left the True Briton in January, 1918, when the inventory was again checked, with the result that he found goods were either missing or damaged. He valued the missing or damaged goods at 27 3s. 8d. A copy of this claim was sent to Mr. James, who subsequently met witness on the premises in March. They then found certain goods which he had entered as missing, and, allowing credits, reduced the claim to 20 13s. 9d. He found on the premises bottles which he valued at 9 6s. 6d.

Mr. Edward W. James, in the witness box, said he entered into the possession of the True Briton on May 1st, 1913, and left there on January 18th, 1918. He never signed an inventory, and when he left he paid Messrs. Banks and Son a cheque for 20 odd, which was the amount due from him, and was in full settlement of everything. He did not receive a receipt for this 20, being satisfied with the cheque as the receipt. Mr. James and Messrs. Banks' representative went over the house and checked the inventory, and no complaint was made at the time of any missing or damaged articles. He later accompanied Mr. Banks himself to the cellars and pointed out a large wooden box in which was a lot of crockery that had been damaged in the big flood. There had been five floods, but the third was a very big one, and the Corporation workmen, in pumping out the cellars, had broken some of the crockery. He told Mr. Banks the cause of the crockery being broken, and Mr. Banks said “Oh! We will pass that”. These articles now formed part of the claim in this action. He received no claim at all until February 20th, although he left on January 18th, and he went and saw Mr. Banks on March 12th and repudiated the demand, pointing out that several of the things had been removed from one room to another, this being necessitated through the brewers making the kitchen in one of the bedrooms instead of the basement owing to the floods. With reference to the bottle and crate account, he did no “crate trade” and the crates never left his premises. Therefore it was wrong to say that 127 crates were missing. On the night of the change of tenancy there was a question of missing bottles and crates, and he took all his receipts for crates and bottles and handed them to Mr. Banks, and said if he checked them he would find the stock on the premises, for he owed nothing on this account. Mr. Banks refused to do this, but told defendant to bring the receipts to his office. He did not do this, as the proper place for receipts was on the premises and they were his property.

Mrs. James gave evidence that, on the night of the change, she accompanied Mr. Banks' representative over the house to go through the inventory. Everything was correct, and no complaint was made by Mr. Banks or his representative.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any part of their claim. As regarded the claim for missing and damaged articles specified in the inventory, it was made clear that the inventory had never been signed by the defendant, nor by the previous tenant, for whom it was prepared. It was also clear that exactly the same inventory, re-copied, was going to be used by the brewers for the new tenant. If the new tenant had not refused to sign this, the present action would not have been brought. As to the bottles and crates, Mr. De Wet submitted that had Mr. Banks checked the receipts (as he was requested to do) it would have been seen that the bottle and crate account would have been level. Moreover, the cheque which was given him by the defendant on the night of the change was in full settlement of everything owing by him to the brewers. It was unfortunate that the defendant did not collect his receipts for bottles and crates up again. He left them on the table, and they were destroyed with other papers which were thought to be no longer required.

His Honour said from the evidence before him he was quite satisfied that the bottles and crates had been delivered to the house. Therefore he gave judgement for the full amount of the claim. With regard to the claim under the inventory, he was not satisfied with the evidence, and would not give a verdict for anything under this heading.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiffs for 25 10s. 1d. and costs.

 

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 Express 25 December 1920.

Local News.

On Friday morning at the Police Court summonses were heard against three defendants for a breach of the Shops (Closing) Order, for having sold cigarettes on a Wednesday afternoon, which day is the recognised half day holiday for shops in Folkestone.

The Magistrates were Dr. Tyson, Mr. Swoffer, Councillors Miss Weston, Boyd, Mumford, and Harrison. Mr. A.F. Kidson (Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet defended.

Albert Taylor, licensee of the Brewery Tap, was concerned in the first case heard, and Mr. De Wet pleaded Not Guilty.

Arthur John Wort said he visited the Brewery Tap about 6.10 p.m. on the 24th November, and asked for a packet of cigarettes. He was served by the defendant's son, Albert George Taylor. He paid sixpence for the cigarettes.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: No-one was in the bar when he went in, and defendant's son was behind the bar, and he thought he took the cigarettes from a shelf. He used to play football in the school team with defendant's son. He did not know him personally – he did not speak to him in the street. Mr. Pearson went to the door, and he gave him the cigarettes.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the Order did not apply to licensed victuallers. They were a class which were exempted by the very schedule the Town Clerk had referred to. Licensed victuallers were not retailers of tobacco and smokers' requisites. Had all the 110 licence holders to be bound if they were not consulted for the purposes of securing a three-fourths majority of what they were not – retailers of smokers' requisites? He asked the Bench to hold that the case was not applicable to licence holders.

The Bench retired, and on their return to Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to convict, and the defendant would be fined 10s.

Mr. De Wet said it was a trade offence, and asked the Magistrates would agree to state a case.

Mrs. Lucas was summoned for the same offence.

Mr. De Wet said the case was similar to the other, and he must plead Guilty, with compunction.

A.J. Wort said he visited the True Briton, and was served by Mrs. Lucas with a packet of cigarettes.

Fined 10s.

Ernest Leonard Mainwood was similarly summoned, and A.J. Wort said he visited the Harbour Hotel about 6.15, and purchased a packet of cigarettes, for which he paid 6d.

Fined 10s.

Editorial Comment.

Probably we have not heard the last of the licence holders and their action concerning the sale of tobacco on the early half-closing day. The penalty inflicted on Friday last was not a severe one, but it shows they are breaking the law if they serve to their customers after the hours for the sale of tobacco. It, on the face, appears unjust, that when those hours were fixed by the Town Council, following a request by the tobacconists of the town, that the licensed victuallers were not consulted as to their wishes. If they had been the voting would doubtless have been different to what it was. It seems an anomaly that at Cheriton and Sandgate cigarettes and tobacco can be purchased on the early half-closing day, yet on the Folkestone side of the boundaries a smoker, if he has run out of his choice weed, will have to wait until the following day before he can enjoy his pipe or cigarette again. There are always officials ready to pounce on innocent offenders, but to the man in the street it seems strange that so much time can be devoted to pin-pricking tradesmen, who are endeavouring to make an honest living, yet at the same time such danger spots as that brought to the light of day by an inquest held last week are allowed to exist in a civilised community and in a fashionable town like Folkestone. It would be of interest to learn what action the Sanitary Department took in that particular matter.

 

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 Express 28 October 1922.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Tuesday the licence of the True Briton Inn was transferred from Mrs. G.G. Lucas to Mr. Walter Henry Purbrick, an ex-sergeant in the Metropolitan Police.

 

Folkestone Express 25 November 1922.

Local News.

The following transfer of licence was granted at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday morning: True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, from Mrs. Lucas to Mr. Walter Henry Purbrick.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1922.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday (Mr. G.I. Swoffer in the chair), the licence of the True Briton Hotel was transferred from Mrs. Lucas to Mr. Walter Henry Purbrick.

 

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 Express 22 December 1923.

County Court.

Tuesday, December 18th: Before Judge Terrell.

Reginald Herbert Baker v W. Purbrick: Claim for damage for personal injury, 50.

Mr. C.T. Williams (instructed by Messrs. Berry, Tomkins and Co., London) appeared for Baker, and Mr. A.K. Mowll defended.

The case was originally set down for trial by jury, but the parties agreed that the case should be tried by His Honour, who ordered plaintiff to pay 1s. each to eight members of the jury, who were drawn by ballot. After they had received the shilling they were discharged.

Mr. Williams said they had agreed that the amount should be 25 for damages, and the only point was one of liability. He would have thought that the case was hardly open to argument, having regard to authorities on the subject. He could not see that there was any defence in law.

Reginald Herbert Baker, 45, Chart Road, Folkestone, said that on the 18th July, at 7 o'clock in the evening, he was walking along South Street, and when passing the True Briton public house he felt a severe blow on the top of the head. He was taken into the Princess Royal, and when he came out, twenty minutes later, he saw the guttering lying on the floor. There would be thirteen or fourteen feet. He saw Mr. Purbrick, who gave him assistance. It was quite a calm evening.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He did not see anything fall; he would have got out of the way if he had seen it. He would imagine that it was the guttering that struck him. At the time of the accident he was alone. There was no wind that evening. He remembered falling forward.

Mrs. Strode, 24, South Street, said she saw the accident, when she was standing on the doorway of her house. She saw the guttering falling from the True Briton, and it struck the plaintiff on the head, knocking him forward. A large quantity of guttering came down, and it smashed on the road.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: She did not see the guttering strike any part of the wall. Everyone was surprised that the man was not killed.

William King Heritage, Princess Royal Hotel, said he was standing in the doorway of the hotel, and saw the accident. The man staggered after being struck by the guttering. He rendered assistance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He did not see the guttering strike the coping, but he would imagine that some of it did hit the coping.

That completed the plaintiff's case.

Defendant said the True Briton was three storeys high, and the guttering would fall 35ft. to 40ft. The agreement with the brewers for the tenancy did not call upon him to do any exterior repairs. The landlords were in liquidation at the time. The Receiver for the Brewery paid for the repairs to the guttering. Some of the guttering might have struck the coping and the wall, but he could not say as he did not see the accident.

Frederick William Parker, of Messrs. Cook and Parker, builders, Folkestone, said he repaired the guttering, which was in a very fair condition. The screw heads were rusty, but the fascia board was in good condition. It would not be possible to see the defects in the guttering from the road. It would require quite a minute inspection.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Guttering was liable to decay and fall if it was not attended to, but if attended to in time it would not fall.

His Honour held that an occupant of a house that was in a decayed state, either wholly or in part, was liable if by reason of the decay an injury was done to the public.

He gave judgement for 25 and costs.

 

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 Express 20 November 1926.

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

The following application for transfer of licence was granted: True Briton, from Mr. Walter Hay Purbrick to Mr. Gladstone D. Martin.

 

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 Express 24 August 1929.

Thursday, August 22nd: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. F. Seagar, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

Herbert Harold Green and Nellie Harwell were charged with having attempted to steal 4,000 cigarettes, of the value of 8 2s. 4d., the property of Mr. Arthur Pain.

Mr. Arthur Pain, a wholesale tobacconist, carrying on business as Messrs. Pain and Sons, at 8, Dover Street, said about twelve noon on the previous day he received a telephone call in a male voice, which he did not recognise. The voice said “I am short of cigarettes. Can you oblige me with a few?” He asked who was speaking and the voice replied “Mr. Martin, True Briton Hotel”. The voice, continuing, said “I will send one of my girls for them”. He replied “I will send them for you”. The voice then replied “I will send the girl as I am in a hurry for them”. He asked the man what he would like, and the reply came “One thousand Players cigarettes in tens, one thousand Players in twenties, one thousand Gold Flakes in tens and one thousand Gold Flakes in twenties”. He rang off and packed up the goods. He had almost finished packing them when the female 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”. He handed her the parcel and she left the shop. He had become suspicious by then and he followed her. She proceeded to Harbour Street, and there she was met by the male prisoner, who took the parcel from her. They walked together towards the Harbour and the young woman got into a Red car bound for Cheriton. He then approached the man, who was carrying the parcel, and taking it from his hand, to which he made no objection, he said “Thank you. I will deliver this myself”. He replied “I was just going to deliver the parcel, but was seeing this lady on to the bus”. He went to the True Briton Hotel and had an interview with Mr. Martin junr. As a result he communicated with the police. He went in search of the prisoners and about 12.25 he was in Cheriton Road and saw both of them together. They walked down Coolinge Road, Guildhall Street, Bournemouth Road and Ship Streeet into Foord Road, where he saw P.C. Spain and from what he said the constable arrested them. The cigarettes produced were his property and the value of them was 8 2s. 4d.

Mr. David Alfred Martin said he was the son of the proprietor of the True Briton Hotel, Radnor Street (sic). His father was confined to bed with a fractured ankle and he (witness) was managing the business. He had never seen the prisoners before and he did not give them or any other person authority to order four thousand cigarettes on his father's behalf from Mr. Pain. He knew nothing about that transaction until Mr. Pain called upon him shortly after noon on the previous day.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), at this stage, said from the evidence given the charge would be altered from attempting to steal to one of stealing.

P.C. Spain said at 12.35 p.m. the previous day he was in Foord Road, when the witness, Mr. Pain, made a communication to him. In consequence he stopped the two defendants and told them that from information he had received he should take them both to the police station for inquiries to be made. The man said “Is it necessary for her (meaning his companion) to come?”, and he replied “Yes, it is necessary”. He brought them to the police office where they were charged in his presence by Det. Constable Southey with attempting to obtain the cigarettes by false pretences. They were cautioned, but neither made any reply. The man gave his name as Jack Dale, and said the woman was his wife, Joan.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said that was as far as he proposed to take the case that morning. He asked for a week's remand in order that he could make further inquiries.

The Chairman said the prisoners would be remanded until Thursday next.

Green asked that the statement he made to the police the previous day might be put in.

The Clerk said the Chief Constable stated that he did not propose to put the statement in at that hearing. There was a strong prima facie case against the prisoner. It was a matter for the discretion of the Chief Constable. Mr. Andrew then asked if there was a probability that there might be further charges against the prisoners.

The Chief Constable said there was.

 

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 Express 31 August 1929.

Thursday, August 29th: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. F. Seager.

Harold Herbert Green, of Leeds, and Nellie Harlow, a young woman of 20, who comes from Ilkeston, appeared on remand charged with stealing 4,000 cigarettes, from Mr. A. Pain, tobacconist, of Dover Street. The evidence was heard on the last occasion.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said there was another charge against the prisoners, that of stealing a suitcase containing a quantity of wearing apparel valued at 45, from a van belonging to the Southern Railway while in course of transit.

Miss Elsie Bacchus, nursing sister at the Royal Victoria Hospital, said on the 20th she was on holiday at Southborough, and left there by bus which arrived at five minutes past eight in the evening. The suitcase (produced) was her property and previous to leaving she had packed it with various articles of wearing apparel. She handed it over to a collector of Messrs. Martin and Sons, carrier, about a quarter to ten in the morning for despatch to Folkestone by passenger train. When she arrived at the Hospital her suitcase had not got there. On the following evening she was called to the police station, where she was shown the suitcase. She examined the contents, and although they had been disturbed, practically all of them were there. The contents she valued at 45.

Alfred Charles Gardner, of 175, Clarendon Road, Dover, said he was employed as a van driver by the Southern Railway Company. About 4/50 p.m. on August 20th he was in Guildhall Street delivering passengers' and other luggage in transit. He was near the back of the van and he saw the male prisoner, who came to him and asked if he had a case on the van for Miss Bacchus, of the Royal Victoria Hospital. He said “Yes”, and then he asked how long he would be before he delivered it. He replied it would be about twenty minutes or more because he had four or five more places to deliver at. The prisoner said it would be rather a nuisance, as the lady was not staying on, and she wanted him to despatch it to her. He believed the man was authorised to receive it, and asked him if he would like to take it. He said “Yes”, and signed the delivery sheet (produced) in the name of “Fred Terry, R.V.H.”. The suitcase was standing halfway along the van on the top of a box, and there was a label showing to the back of the van, and anyone going to the back of the van could see it. The label bore the name and address “Miss Bacchus, Royal Victoria Hospital, Folkestone”.

Mr. Alfred John Blake, 6, Shorncliffe Road, said he was a boarding house proprietor. The prisoners came to his house on August 17th as man and wife, and remained there until the 21st, the day of their arrest. When they arrived they had not the bag produced, but they had another bag. He was present in the afternoon when Det. Con. Southey arrived, and showed him into the bedroom occupied by the prisoners. The officer took possession of the suitcase. He saw the male prisoner, who came in alone, bring the suitcase into the house the day before they were arrested. The female prisoner had taken his little girl to the pictures that afternoon previous to that, and they had not returned when the man came in with the suitcase. His wife was with them.

Det. Con. Southey said at 2.45 p.m. on the 21st August he went to 6, Shorncliffe Road, where he was shown by the last witness into a room on the first floor. He there found the leather suitcase produced. It was closed, but not locked. The case had been obviously forced by the leather being cut away from the lock. He examined the contents of the case, but some of the contents now in it were found by him in a chest of drawers in the room. The articles consisted principally of ladies' underclothing. There was no address label on the case at the time. He saw the prisoners at the police station on the 21st, shortly after they were brought in by P.C. Spain. About 5 p.m. he went into the cell occupied by the man, who said he wished to make a statement with a view to clearing the girl. He took him into the C.I.D. office and asked him if he wished to make a statement, and he replied that he preferred to write it himself. He cautioned the prisoner, who wrote out the statement.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew) read the statement out as follows: August 21st. 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 there 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 like to each other, we decided to stick to each other with a view to being married at the first opportunity. We would have been married, but owing to thinking that I may really be wanted at Leeds I did not register for marriage until I was certain. But now that I am in trouble I feel that I would like to settle up and so get a chance of making a new start in life with a view to undoing the harm that I was responsible for to Miss Harlow. With regard to the present charge of attempting to obtain cigarettes by a trick I plead Guilty, but I beg for leniency for Nellie Harlow, who was not, in any way, responsible, only in that she called at the shop for the parcel. This girl has never been in trouble before, and although I had informed her of my 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 to London, 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 any unemployment benefit, or anything else to allow me to be honest. I have no further defence to make than that to once again plead that you will be lenient towards Miss Harlow, who prior to this time has an unblemished character, and who has really tried to help me to a better future. I have received warning before making this statement, and declare that it is quite voluntary. Signed Herbert Harold Green. Cases concerning myself only. I also plead Guilty to obtaining a lady's suitcase and contents from the Southern Railway at Folkestone, and would ask that this matter be taken into consideration at the same time as the other charge, but I state here that Nellie Harlow has had nothing to do with this matter, or the matters of a similar nature at Hastings and Brighton, where I also obtained a suitcase. 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 chance 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. Signed, Herbert Harold Green.

Det. Con. Southey, continuing, said that morning he was present when the prisoners were charged with stealing the suitcase and contents by Det. Sergt. Rowe, and Green replied “She was not involved in it”. The woman made no comment.

The prisoners had nothing to say, and they were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, the man stating that he raised no objection to waiting until then for his trial, and the woman concurred with him.

 

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 Express 9 November 1929.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, November 2nd: Before Roland Oliver Esq.

On Saturday at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions, the Recorder (Mr. Roland Oliver K.C.) sentenced Harold Herbert Green, 30, described as a salesman, of Leeds, to three years' penal servitude, when he took into consideration fourteen other offences, excluding the two in Folkestone for which he was charged.

Green was accompanied in the dock by Nellie Harlow, aged 19, a machinist, of Ilkeston, and they were charged with stealing 4,000 cigarettes to the value of 8 2s. 4d., the property of Mr. Arthur Pain, tobacconist, of Dover Street, on August 21st, and also with stealing a suitcase and its contents, valued at 45, the property of the Southern Railway Company, on August 20th. They both pleaded Guilty to the theft of the cigarettes, and Green admitted stealing the suitcase.

The Recorder asked if anyone was representing the young woman.

Mr. L.S. Fletcher (instructed by Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk) said he did not think there was.

The Recorder said he thought that a plea of Not Guilty should be entered by her against that charge.

Mr. Fletcher said he would agree that should be done, and in view of a certain difficulty which might arise, he would say that the prosecution would offer no evidence against her in respect of that charge.

Green then admitted a previous conviction for a fraudulent conversion on July 5th, 1928, at the Leeds Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Fletcher said with regard to the young woman there was a scintilla of evidence against her in connection with stealing the bag and contents, but there was nothing on which counsel for the prosecution could hope to convict. The prisoners appeared to have arrived at Folkestone on August 17th, and took a room at a boarding house in Shorncliffe Road, where they remained until they were arrested in consequence of those charges on August 21st. In order of date the first charge was that of stealing the suitcase and contents. A nirse sent her suitcase containing clothing and other articles by train, and it was on a van belonging to the Southern Railway Company on its way to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where it was to be delivered. The suitcase had a label upon it, and anyone passing the back of the van could have read the label. When the man in charge of the van was delivering luggage in Guildhall Street, Green went up to him and asked him if he had got a case for a particular nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital. The man said he had, and after a conversation with Green he eventually handed over the case belonging to the nurse to the male prisoner, who signed the sheet in the name of “Fred Terry”. That offence was not brought home to either of the prisoners until Green made a statement on the following day after the other offence took place. The tobacconist concerned was rung up by a voice, which he did not recognise, on the telephone, but which stated that he was Mr. Martin of the True Briton Hotel, and that he wished to order some 4,000 cigarettes. The speaker stated he was in a hurry, and he would send a girl to fetch them. Mr. Pain packed the goods, and shortly after Harlow came and said she had come from the True Briton Hotel. Mr. Pain was suspicious, and he followed her when she took the cigarettes as far as the Harbour, where she was joined by the male prisoner. Mr. Pain went up to them and said “I will take those cigarettes”, and Green said “I was going to deliver the parcel and was seeing the young lady on the bus”. The young lady had got on the bus by then, and was followed by the man. Mr. Pain went to the True Briton and found the story of the man and the girl was not correct, and he went into the streets, and subsequently saw the prisoners together. He followed them until he found a police officer, and they were arrested. At the police station Green made a statement, which was before the Recorder. It was because of that statement that the police became aware of the other offence and recovered the suitcase. The scintilla of evidence to which he had previously referred was that a portion of the lady's underclothing was found in a chest of drawers in a room occupied by both the prisoners. They had both been in custody since August 21st, and the Recorder would see that Green took full blame for all that had occurred.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, said the girl came under the spell of the man some little time since. Her parents were very respectable people at Ilkeston. She met Green when her sister was cohabiting with another man. Both girls had come iuder the influence of men who had been convicted. At the time Harlow did not know Green was engaged in criminal pursuits. Undoubtedly later she did, because she apparently acquiesced in what he did. The mother was quite willing to take her back home and forgive her.

The Recorder: How old is she?

The Chief Constable: She was born in 1909. She seemed to be very fond of this man. Although reasons have been advanced to her why she should break her association with him, she would not listen to them.

The Recorder: When did they meet?

The Chief Constable: Only last August.

The Recorder: I have a letter from her parents stating that she was quite an excellent daughter until she left them.

The Chief Constable said there was nothing against the young woman at all previous to then. With regard to the man he produced the certificate of conviction on July 5th, 1928, for fraudulent conversion of a banker's cheque of 10, when he was sentenced at Leeds Quarter Sessions to twelve months' hard labour. He also submitted an abstract of offences which he states he has recently committed, and which he wishes to be taken into consideration. With regard to his convictions, his first was on November 3rd, 1925, at Leeds Assizes, for stealing a diamond ring, and he received six months, and also for fraudulent conversion six months concurrent. On the 22nd September, 1927, at Leeds City Police Court, for embezzlement, he was sentenced to six months. His third conviction was that to which reference had been previously made. Green was born at Leeds, and educated at a secondary school. On leaving school he was apprenticed to a chemist. He joined the R.A.M.C. in 1914, and served in that unit until he was demobilised in April, 1919. His military character was good. On leaving the Army he obtained a position in the City Treasurer's Office of the Leeds Corporation, but in September he was ordered to resign owing to his dishonesty. He had been in employment at Liverpool and at York. Since his third conviction in 1928 he did not appear to have done any work. He was released from prison in May last. Whilst in prison his wife divorced him, and she had the custody of the two children. He was described as an inveterate liar, and of being fond of the company of women. From May until he was arrested in August he was undoubtedly gaining a livelihood by crime. He had been associated with a man whom he met in prison, and in company with that man he committed a number of crimes between the time of his release and the time he met the prisoner. They then parted company, the other man going north, and the prisoner brought the girl south. At Brighton the couple lived together, and they commenced a series of systematic and clever thefts, and they committed a number of criminal offences in which they were concerned together. The offences which Green asked to be taken into consideration included the following, dated from May 27th: At Leeds for presenting a cheque and receiving 1 10s. 11d., the cheque being subsequently returned marked “No Account”; a similar offence in July; at Barnsley being concerned with the other man in stealing a man's gold watch and chain from their lodgings; at Nottingham intercepting a messenger with a parcel of shoes, valued at 7; on the next day intercepting a messenger with other articles, valued 6 1s. 6d.; two days after stole a number of suits, valued at 2 1s.; on August 6th stole from the Brighton railway station a suitcase and contents valued at 35; two days later stole five 1 notes and two 10s. notes, and clothing valued at 8 10s.; on the following day at Eastbourne, obtained by false pretences a leather suitcase and contents of the value of 7, the property of the Southern Railway Company; three days later stole from a bedroom a Post Office Savings Bank book, and on the same day, with intention to defraud, received 30s. by means of a forged document in connection with the stolen Post Office Savings book; on the same day at Hastings stole from the railway station a bag and contents valued at 10 0s. 3d.; two days later being concerned in stealing a suitcase and contents, valued at 10 4s.; on August 15th, at Hastings, stole 4,000 cigarettes, valued at 8 5s. In the last case, the man admitted stealing the cigarettes, and the woman stated that she knew that the theft had been committed.

A long statement written by the prisoner was handed up to the Recorder, who read it.

The Recorder (to Green): You have heard the Chief Constable read that long list of criminal offences which he states you admit. Do you admit them all?

Green: Yes.

The Recorder: Do you wish me to take them into consideration in considering sentence upon you?

Green: Yes.

The Recorder: Have you anything to say to me besides what you have written in your statement?

Green: No.

The Recorder: I do not think it is much use talking to a man like you. It is difficult to imagine a worse record than the one before me. Apart from your three convictions within three years, and the offences of which you have been convicted today, I am asked to take into consideration and to include in my sentence punishment for fourteen other cases of crime, which you admit having committed since your last release from prison last May and the time you were put into prison in August. These cases were a series of offences of stealing, in one case forgery, and a number of false pretences. I suppose no-one would doubt that during that time you would be called in the strict sense a habitual criminal. Morally, you have done nothing that taking this girl away from her home, ruining her and teaching her to be a criminal. You will not be punished for that by me, but you will be punished for the things you have done against the law. The one redeeming feature about it is that in your statement you ask me to extend mercy towards her. When you write to me “She is a good girl and nothing wrong with her”, I think you will carry to the grave the recollection of what you have done to her. I am sending you to penal servitude for three years.

When the Recorder announced the sentence the girl commenced to weep bitterly, and the warders quickly removed the man from the dock.

The Recorder, addressing the girl, said: I am sorry for you. You come from a good home. You have been completely ruined by this man. You are quite young. I want you to have a chance of doing better. Are you ready to go back to your parents?

Harlow: Yes.

The Recorder: I will not say any more to you than to say I bind you over to be of good behaviour for twelve months, and make it a condition that you live with your parents. Go and try and make a fresh start, will you?

Harlow: Yes.

The Recorder: Then you may go.

The Recorder said he would like to know if there were any means of the young woman being sent to her home.

Mr. A.D.Z. Holmes, the Police Court Missioner, in reply to the Recorder, said the Police Court Mission would see that the girl went back to her parents. They would be able to find the railway fare. If necessary they could keep her in Folkestone at the hostel, but they would see that she was sent back home.

 

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. 10d. 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 Gazette 13 February 1963.

Local News.

Permits under the Betting and Gaming Act for amusements with prizes have been granted to the Martello Hotel, True Briton, Ship Inn, East Cliff Tavern, Raglan Hotel, Royal Pavilion Bars, Railway Tavern, and Royal Standard.

 

Folkestone Herald 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 Gazette 22 June 1966.

Local News.

Torrential rain in the early hours of Friday morning caused havoc in Folkestone’s High Street. Thousands of gallons of surface water draining from the main shopping centre burst through an 18in. water-sewage drain under High Street flooding shops, public houses and other premises and blocking the lower end of Tontine Street with tons of sand, sludge and rubble. Gangs of Corporation workmen were on the scene by 6 a.m. clearing drains and opening the road to traffic. Eye witnesses said that at one time the road was flooded to a depth of two feet with a “sea of yellow filth”. A Corporation spokesman said the flooding was caused when the sewer pipe collapsed. “Drainage surface water, under pressure, must have leaked from the pipe, washing out a cavity under the road”, he said. “This caused the pipoe and the raod surface to collapse”. On Monday night High Street was still closed to traffic as workmen laid new pipes and filled in the cavities with weak concrete. “This is done to prevent a recurrence and to reduce any risk of damage to the foundations of nearby properties”, said the spokesman. In all, workmen cleared away five lorry loads of sand and rubble – about 20 tons – from Tontine Street.

At the Harbour Inn the licensee, Mr. V. Hood, said “This is the third time this has happened to me in 13 months. It is about time the Corporation did something about it. It would not be a big job. Fortunately it was rainwater and not sewage that flooded us out, otherwise all my stock would have had to be sent back”.

At the True Briton, licensee Mr. Steve Heron, said “This has happened three four times to me, but this was the worst. It was absolutely horrible. You could have sailed a boat outside. And it wasn’t just dirty surface water; it was a really disgusting, filthy mess, a sea of yellow filth. It’s about time the health authority did something about it”. Mr. Heron was up and about at the time the flood started, and while his cellar was flooded he managed to sluice most of the filth away with a hosepipe as the water receded. “This sort of thing makes you lose heart”, he said. “And it would cost so little to have it put right. For a few pounds the local authority could dig a decent sized drain and then let the water flow out into the harbour”.

 

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 Gazette 17 July 1974.

Obituary.

One of Folkestone's best-known former publicans, Mr. Dave Martin, died recently at the Royal Victoria Hospital. He was 78. From 1928 until 1954 he was licensee of the True Briton, at Folkestone harbour. During that time he was treasurer of the local branch of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. For nearly 20 years he organised the local heats of the News of the World championships. After leaving the True Briton, Mr. Martin took over the licence of the old Eagle Tavern in Guildhall Street, Folkestone. The pub has since been demolished.

The funeral service at Hawkinge Parish Church was attended by members of his family and a few friends. Mr. Martin lived at 24, Tontine Street, Folkestone, with his eldest daughter, Miss Eileen Martin. He left two other daughters, Mrs. Jean Chard, and Mrs. Thelma Haywood, and a son, Mr. David Martin.

 

South Kent Gazette 2 September 1981.

Local News.

Plans to knock together two pubs in a 100,000 facelift have been approved by Shepway District Council. Brewers Whitbread want to turn the True Briton and Harbour pubs in Folkestone into one, with a small bar and restaurant upstairs. Downstairs there will be a large open bar in fisherman style serving locally caught seafood. The scheme's designers have also got a pat on the back from Shepway’s design architect. Both pubs are of different ages, architectural styles and proportions. To combine the facades well was a “considerable problem” but has been achieved with some success. Building work on the pubs is expected to begin shortly and Whitbread hopes to have the new single pub open in December.

 

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.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GOLDER Stephen 1799-1806

GOLDER Ann 1806-11

GOLDER James 1811-15

SMITH Benjamin 1815-23

HODGES John 1823-39+ Pigot's Directory 1823Pigot's Directory 1828-29Pigot's Directory 1832-34Pigot's Directory 1839

ANDREWS John 1833-54 (age 44 in 1851Census) Pigot's Directory 1840

ANDREWS John & Alice 1847-54 (both age 44 in 1851Census) Bagshaw's Directory 1847Melville's 1858

ANDREWS Mrs. Andrews 1854-57

DRYDEN Ann Oct/1857 Folkestone Chronicle

KEELER William 1859-77 (age 45 in 1871Census) Post Office Directory 1862Post Office Directory 1874

BUTTER Charles 1877-80

WALLIS Frederick 1880-82 (age 34 in 1881Census)

PEARSON Miss Mary 1882-1901 (age 48 in 1891Census) Post Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891

CARTER George M 1901-10 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

Last pub licensee had HOPKINS William 1910-12

BUCKLAND Herbert 1912

JAMES Edward William 1912-18 Post Office Directory 1913

LUCAS Mrs Gertrude Florence 1918-22 Post Office Directory 1922

PURBRICK Walter 1922-26

MARTIN Gladstone David 1926-46 Next pub licensee had Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938

RAWLINGS R P 1941+

MARTIN David 1946-59 Next pub licensee had

THOMSETT Norman 1959-61

HERON Stephen 1961-66

OVERTON Frederick 1966-67

EVERLEY William 1967-75

BLOC Kevin 1975-81

Became part of "Old Harbour Crab And Oyster House."

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Pigot's Directory 1840From the Pigot's Directory 1840

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room