DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1893

(Name from)

Welcome Inn

Latest Mar 1906

24 Dover Street

Folkestone

 

Originally the "Folkestone Cutter" and changed name to this in 1893. Finally closed in March 1906.

I believe the street is now called Harbour Way.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Welcome, Dover Street.

This house, otherwise “The Cutter” belongs to Messrs Moxon, brewers. Mr. Glyn said it was a very old house, and doing a fair business.

Sergeant Swift said there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were about 150 houses in Dover Street, and four licensed houses. There had been four tenants since 1891.

Mr. Glyn: It has never been held that that is a ground for refusing a licence. I should like to see the case.

Richard Moxon, of the firm Ash and Co., said the house had belonged to the firm many years – it might be 150. (Laughter) It's value was close on 1,000. It had a very respectable tenant against whom there were no complaints.

By Superintendent Taylor: there have been four tenants.

Mr. Minter: Oh, Burgess was convicted, and they got him out. They wanted a respectable tenant.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The Welcome, or Folkestone Cutter.

The ground of objection to this house was the same as in the last case.

Sergeant Swift found eight other licensed houses in a radius of 100 paces, and of 130 houses approximately in Dover Street, four of them were licensed, said the Superintendent, but Counsel said this could not be held as evidence that the house was not required.

Mr. Richard Moxon, of the firm of Ash and Co., brewers, said his firm purchased the house many years ago, and it's value was 1,000. He admitted that since 1891 there had been four tenants, and he supposed they had been got rid of because they had been complained of. The present tenant was a very respectable man, and there was no complaint against him.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893.

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 June 1895.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the licence of the Welcome Inn was transferred to Mr. Jefford.

 

Folkestone Express 8 June 1895.

Wednesday, June 5th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was transferred to Mr. Shepherd (sic)

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 October 1896.

Wednesday, October 28th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. T.J. Vaughan, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, and W. Salter.

Thomas George Jacob was granted the transfer of the licence of the Welcome, Dover Street.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1896.

Wednesday, October 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Salter, and J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome was transferred to Mr. Thomas George Jacob.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 April 1898.

Local News.

Temporary authority to sell has been granted to Mr. Kropp at the Dorset Inn, Dover Street.

Note: A total mystery. No pub of this name is known. Further research, however, in Pike's Directory, lists Mr. Kropp at the Welcome Inn.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 30 April 1898.

Swan.

Wednesday, April 27th: before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Licence was granted on the application of Mr. Kropp, Welcome, Dover Street, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 25 February 1899.

Saturday, February 18th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and J. Hoad Esqs.

Mr. Joseph Jackson applied for temporary authority in respect of the Welcome, Dover Street. Adjourned for production of testimonials.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Fitness and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome Inn was transferred to Mr. Joseph Jackson.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Monday, transfer was granted Mr. Jackson (Welcome).

 

Folkestone Up To Date 11 March 1899.

Friday, March 10th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

he following licence was transferred:

Welcome Inn to Mr. Joseph Jackson.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 April 1899.

Local News.

William Nichols, Reuben Row, and John Kifford are Soldiers Three, all of the West Riding regiment, stationed at Dover. They have not the humour of Private Mulvaney, and we do not think Mr. Rudyard Kipling would have chosen them as models of heroes for his romance. They have only one similarity to his three pals – they fight for one another, but their virtue is sullied, inasmuch as they have a penchant for fighting for a bad cause. To get drunk, to smash a glass panel with the fist, to hit a policeman behind the ear, to try to throttle him with a grip on his windpipe, to break his fingers by turning them back while he's struggling on the ground, are not qualities which commend defenders of the Queen and country for promotion. Yet, by these last three little pleasantries the three young privates named endeavoured to prove their brotherhood.

The event was a Sunday evening diversion, and on Monday morning this week all three appeared before the Magistrates at Folkestone. Alderman Banks occupied the chair, and was supported by the Mayor (Alderman Salter), Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Herbert. As the prisoners three in turn stood in the dock and pleaded, one other dissimilarity to Kipling's three was emphasised. Though belonging to a Yorkshire regiment, they had none of the dialect of that county, and their facial formation was rather that of a section of the youth of Birmingham, than of the bright, merrily pathetic Cockney soldier of Mr. Kipling's depiction. They had, too, it is averred, displayed a trick peculiar to the Brummagem youth – they whipped off their belts and swung round the buckle end among those who attempted to defend the police sergeant they assailed. The hearing of the case on Monday caused the public part of the Court to be crowded by persons who had witnessed their savagery.

The first witness called was Mr. J. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who said that at about 6.40 on the previous night, Sunday, the three men, in uniform, entered the Welcome, and called for three glasses of beer. He saw they were all the worse for drink – they had already had more than enough – so he quietly advised them to have no more. This advice they resented, so he asked them to leave. Thereupon they became very abusive, refused to leave, and addressed him in language which was most obscene, and shocking to everyone else in the house. Witness ordered them out, and said he would send for the police if they did not go. Nichols declared that neither policemen nor landlord, nor anyone else would put him out, and the epiphets wtih which he coupled policemen and all other men generally were too disgusting to imagine the most filthy-minded person to have power to invent. Witness sent for the police, and meanwhile made an effort to put the men out. Row and Kifford went out on to the doorstep slowly, but Nichols resisted. Witness got an opportunity of pushing Nichols outwith the door, and succeeded in bolting the door on him. The moment he was outside, Nichols kicked furiously at the door, smashed the glass panel with his fist, and threatened to smash witness's face through the hole he had made in the panel. Police Sergeant Swift had been told of the disturbance, and was coming to the spot. The three men ran down Dover Street, followed by witness, and Nichols was seized by P.S. Swift just at the bottom of the Tram Road near the Pavilion Shades Inn. He resisted arrest in a rough manner, and the two other men assisted him.

P.S. Swift said he met the prisoner and the two other men and Mr. Jackson outside the Shades. Jackson made the charge against Nichols. Witness said to him “You hear what this gentleman says, you'll have to go to the station”. Prisoner replied “Not for you nor forty like you. I'll box you, you ----“, and struck witness a blow on the side of the head. Witness closed with him. They fell to the ground, and the prisoner fought and struggled like a demon. A seaman named Williams and two other seamen came to his assistance, and helped him to get the man to the police station.

An officer of the West Riding Regiment attended the court, and said the most he could say for Nichols was that he had only a moderate character in the regiment.

The sentence of the court was that Nichols be fined 7s. 6d. for the damage to the window panel, 10s. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for the offence of wilful damage, with the alternative of 14 days' hard labour. For the offence of resisting the police he was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour, without the option of a fine.

In passing sentence, Alderman Banks said: The Bench feels very much indebted to Mr. Jackson for the able action he took in this matter, and for having you arrested for being drunk on his premises, and for the part he has taken in bringing you to justice for having assaulted the police. A soldier's duty is to assist the police in every way he can, not to prevent him from maintaining the police. I hope you will take this lesson to heart and will eventually go back to your regiment a better man, with a proper sense of your duty as a soldier, a better man to yourself, and a higher feeling of your duty to your Queen and your country.

The case of the two men Row and Kifford was taken separately. They pleaded Guilty to both charges.

P.S. Swift described how these two men were with the last prisoner and were using most filthy language. Kifford caught him by the throat and nearly strangled him, while Row got hold of one of his fingers and bent it back, trying to break it. But for the assistance he had from the seaman Williams they would have released Nichols. They followed to the police station, where he gave them into custody.

Neither man had anything to say in defence of this conduct.

Their officer had not a good character to give of either. Row had been in trouble during the last twelve months, and Kifford previously.

The sentence upon these two was 5s. fine and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' imprisonment for using obscene language, and 1 and 4s. 6d. costs for resisting the police, with the alternative of 14 days' hard labour.

At a moment when everyone in court was intent on the prisoners and witnessed, a shaggy-haired sheepdog, well known in Folkestone as “Zulu”, trotted noiselessly into court, unobserved, until he had made a sniffing inspection of the Bench, and was turning his attention to the new Chief Constable. Then came the order “Take that dog out of Court!” Zulu was instantly arrested by P.S. Swift, by the collar, and proved a prisoner with a better respect for the majesty of the law than had been exhibited by the three young soldiers. He shook the hair from over one eye, looked round and saw his master in court, and offered no resistance. He did not refuse to leave when requested, but once outside the court he squatted on the bottom step and refused to budge until he saw his master come out in safety. During the court conversation, it was stated that Zulu, with similar quietude, has obtained initiation to the Druids, the Buffs, and even the Freemasons' Lodges of Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 29 April 1899.

Monday, April 24th: Before J. Banks and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

William Nichols (Private, W. Riding Regiment) stationed at Dover, was charged with breaking a plate glass panel in a door, belonging to Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome Inn, on Sunday evening. He pleaded Guilty. He was further charged with assaulting P.S. Swift.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the Welcome public house. The defendant entered the public bar with two others in a drunken state and asked to be served with three glasses of ale. Witness refused because all three of the man had had enough. Defendant commenced to use most vile language, and they were requested to leave. Defendant refused to leave and said witness could not put him out, nor could any police constable. Witness sent for a constable. Defendant was pushed out, and he then commenced to kick at the door, and finally thrust his fist through a glass panel of the door, and threatened to smash witness's face. The value of the panel was 7s. 6d. Witness went outside, and the three ran away, he following them till they got outside of the Pavilion Shades in the Tram Road. Sergt. Swift there stopped them, and defendant, who he had got hold of, struggled to get free. He did not see defendant strike the officer. The other two did their utmost to obstruct the officer. The struggle lasted five minutes.

Sergt. Swift said about 6.45 on Sunday evening he was called to the Tram Road, and saw the prisoner and two other soldiers of the same regiment. The complainant charged the prisoner with having broken a window. He told prisoner he must accompany him to the police station. Defendant replied “Not for you or forty like you. I'll corpse you, you ----“, and struck him a deliberate blow on the right side of his head. He closed with prisoner, and threw him on to the ground, when he kicked and fought “like a demon”. After two minutes three men came to his assistance, and prisoner was handcuffed and taken to the police station. The blow prisoner struck him was a violent one, and partially stunned him.

Prisoner had nothing to say. An officer of his regiment said he only bore a moderate character.

For the damage he was fined 10s., with 7s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days', and for the assault on the officer 14 days' hard labour.

The Bench commended the action of the complainant in declining to serve the men and causing them to be taken into custody.

Reuben Row and John Kifford, privates in the same regiment, were then charged with using obscene language and resisting the police. They pleaded Guilty to both charges.

Sergt. Swift repeated the evidence he gave in the case of the first prisoner. He said the defendants used most filthy language. Kifford caught him by the throat, and Row bent back his forefinger. They followed the last prisoner to the police station, and were then taken into custody.

They both bore indifferent characters in the regiment. The Bench fined each 5s. and 4s. 6d, costs for using obscene language, and for resisting the police 1 and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 29 April 1899.

Monday, April 24th: Before J. Banks, W. Salter, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

William Nicholls, a private in the West Riding regiment, was charged with wilful damage, and assaulting Police Sergeant Swift in the execution of his duty, and Reuben Rowe and John Kifford, two privates in the same regiment, were charged with using obscene language, and resisting the Sergeant in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome public house, in the neighbourhood of the harbour, deposed that on Sunday night Nicholls came into the public bar with two other men, and three glasses of beer were asked for. He refused to serve the beer because he thought they had had enough. Nicholls commenced to use impudent language, and was requested to leave the premises, but said he would not go, nor could the landlord, nor a constable, nor anyone else in the house put him out. The result was there was a scene, and Nicholls ultimately put his fist through a glass pane, doing damage to the amount of 7s. 6d. When all the mischief the three soldiers could achieve before the arrival of the police had been done, they ran away.

Sergeant Swift deposed to receiving information as to the prisoners, and apprehending Nicholls and the other prisoners. Nicholls refused to go quietly, and struck the sergeant a violent blow on the head and partly stunned him. A struggle then took place, in the course of which Nicholls kicked and fought – the sergeant said – like a demon. Some seaman then came to the sergeant's rescue, and the man was handcuffed ant taken to the police station.

The Chairman gave Nicholls a lecture on morality, and said the Bench had decided to fine him 10s., to order him to pay 7s. 6d., the amount of the damages, and 4s. 6d. costs, in default 14 days'. For the assault, the Court sentenced Nicholls to 14 days' hard labour, without the option of a fine.

The special evidence as to Rowe and Kifford showed that Police Sergeant Swift was seized by the throat, and one of his fingers bent, in the attempt to secure them.

The Chairman remarked that soldiers ought to protect the police rather than assault them. The two prisoners were each fined, Rowe 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days hard labour, and Kifford 1 and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1899.

Folkestone Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before Captain Carter, J. Hoad, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

The landlord of the Welcome, Dover Street, applied for a music and dancing licence.

The Chairman announced that the magistrates considered there were already a sufficient number of houses licensed for music, and refused the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 August 1899.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday last the Annual Licensing Meeting was held at the Court Room, Town Hall, the sitting justices being Capt. Carter, Mr. Fitness, Mr. Pursey, Mr. Hoad, Mr. Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Alderman Herbert.

Mr. Joseph Jackson, of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, applied for a music licence, but the application was refused, the Chairman stating that there were already sufficient houses for music and dancing.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 26 August 1899.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Licensing Day. Music Licence.

The application of Mr. Joseph Jackson for a music licence for the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1899.

Police Court.

The Welcome Inn.

The Magistrates refused to transfer the licence of this house in Dover Street to Mr. Frank Mansfield, who, they said, had rendered himself liable to a penalty for selling temporarily while waiting for a chance to apply for permission.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 October 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday, Frederick Mansfield applied for a licence for the Welcome, Dover Street.

Chief Constable Reeve said that he felt that he ought to explain that he did not agree with the procedure adopted in this case and others, that licences should transfer in this way without any intimation being given to him, and a man went in, took possession, commencing to sell. He did not think that that procedure ought to be allowed. This was the first intimation he had that the man was in the house selling.

The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that there was no legal obligation. They had no right to sell without a temporary authority. Defendant could not sell without his licence.

The applicant was requested to bring up more recent references.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 14 October 1899.

Saturday, October 7th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

An application was made by Frederick Mansfield for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street.

Chief Constable Reeve objected to applicants for transfers beginning to sell without due notices at places they had taken possession of. He believed they had no right to sell without consent.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley): The defendant has rendered himself liable to a penalty.

Mr. Mansfield: I did not know the rules.

The Chief Constable: I will not object to the transfer, as the applicant has produced testimonials.

The Bench decided that the applicant must produce more recent references.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 October 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday the Welcome Inn was transferred from Joseph Jackson to Fredk. Mansfield.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 January 1900.

Saturday, January 13th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Salter, and Herbert.

John Waugh, a diver, was charged with assaulting Annie Waugh, his wife.

Plaintiff, describing the assault, stated that her husband not coming in to dinner, she went in search o him and found him at the Welcome. He did not return with her, and on going back again for him she met him with the barmaid. Then he returned home and thrashed and kicked her, finishing by pushing her into the street. Later she returned for her baby and was served in a like manner. She wished for a separation order.

Defendant here ejaculated that it was the best thing she could have. He spoke in a more or less insolent manner throughout the proceedings.

Annie Pope, a neighbour's daughter, confirmed the complainant's statement as to the assault.

The Bench stigmatised Waugh's conduct as most cowardly, and bound him over in two sureties of 20 to keep the peace for six months.

 

Folkestone Express 20 January 1900.

Saturday, January 13th: Before J. Fitness and W.G. Herbert Esqs., Alderman Salter, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Elizabeth Waugh summoned her husband, John Waugh, a diver, for assaulting her on January 8th.

Complainant said: I am the wife of defendant, and live at No. 56, The Bayle. On the 8th of this month, about 2.15, I was waiting for him to come home to dinner, but he failed to come. I went to the Welcome, and saw him there. He refused to come home. Later on I saw him with a barmaid going for a walk. About eight o'clock he came home in a very bad temper. I asked him for the baby, and he refused. I asked him again, and he hit me on the nose and knocked me down. He then punched me when I was on the ground. I managed to get away, and went across the room, when he kicked me out. I then went and fetched a policeman.

Annie Florence Pope said that at eight o'clock p.m. she was in her mother's house, when she heard a woman scream “Murder!” She went outside and saw (as the door was open) Waugh punching his wife on the ground. She (Mrs. Waugh) managed to get away, and Waugh kicked her out of the room into the street. A policeman was afterwards fetched to guard the house.

The defendant had no defence, but kept on asking how could the witness see with the door shut.

Mr. Bradley told him he was a “great baby”.

Complainant said the home had been broken up three times, and her husband often deserted her. She applied for a separation order.

The Bench thought it was a very cowardly assault, and bound defendant over to keep the peace for six months in the sum of 20 and a surety of 20. He was ordered to pay the costs, 7s. 6d.; in default, one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 January 1901.

Wednesday, January 23rd: Before Messrs. Fitness, Pledge, Spurgen, Ward, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Temporary authority to sell intoxicants at the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was granted to Charles Gartner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 March 1901.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pledge, Pursey, Stainer, and Salter.

The licence of the Welcome was transferred to Mr. C. Gartner.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1901.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before W. Wightwick, W. Salter, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Licences

Mr. Chas. Gardner was granted a transfer of the licence of the Welcome public house, in Dover Street.

 

Folkestone Express 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, G. Peden and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

William Spearpoint was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales said about 3.55 on the afternoon of the 15th he saw defendant in the bar of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street. He had a small spirit flask in his pocket, and was drunk. Witness said to the landlord “Do you see this man's condition? He is drunk”. He replied “Yes, I have refused to serve him”. The proprietor's wife then came out and said “You know I refused to serve you this morning”. Witness told defendant he would be reported for being drunk on licensed premises. He replied “I know I have had a drop too much”. He then left the premises and went home.

A fine of 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs was imposed, the Chairman warning defendant to be careful or he would be put on the “Black List”.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Alderman Penfold, Alderman Spurgen, Councillor Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. Carpenter.

William Pierpoint was summoned for having been drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales said he went into the Welcome Inn at 3 p.m. on January 14th, and saw defendant, who had been refused drink, and who had been requested to leave the house.

The Chairman said defendant was placing himself in somewhat an awkward position. It was the second time he had been convicted that year, and if he came before them again he would be placed on the black list. He would be fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 February 1903.

Wednesday, February 18th: Before The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen and Mr. T.J. Vaughan.

Dorcas Ann Baker, who is no stranger to the Court, answered to the charge that on the 12th inst. she wilfully broke a plate glass window at the Welcome Tavern, the property of Charles Gartner, the landlord.

The latter proved the damage, which he assessed at 7s. 6d.

Mrs. Gartner said defendant was refused drink as being the worse for liquor. She then went out, and as she left the glass was broken.

Arthur Mullett, who was at the Welcome at the time, said that defendant slammed the door and put her fist through it.

Defendant said she was very sorry. She slammed the door, the wind caught it, and the window broke.

Ordered to pay 7s. 6d. damage, fine 2s. 6d., and 11s. costs (1 1s. in all), or 14 days.

 

Folkestone Express 21 February 1903.

Saturday, February 14th: Before The Mayor and Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan.

Dorcas Ann Baker was summoned for wilful damage.

Charles Gardener, residing at the Welcome Inn, said that when he went home on the 13th inst. he examined the window in the door of his house and found it broken. It was valued at 7s. 6d.

Sarah Ann Gardener said defendant came in on the 13th inst. about 10.20 p.m. She was drunk, and witness refused to serve her. Defendant then went out and put her fist through the window.

Arthur Mullett said he was in the house on the day in question. Defendant was drunk, and the landlady refused to serve her. Thereupon defendant went out, slammed the door, and turning round struck the window.

Fines 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, and 7s. 6d. damages; in default 14 days' hard labour.

Defendant was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 February 1903.

Wednesday, February 18th: Before The Mayor, Councillor F. Hall, and Aldermen Spurgen and aughan.

Dorcas Ann Baker was summoned for committing wilful damage to a glass door at the Welcome Inn, Dover Street.

Sarah Ann Gardner, wife of Charles Gardner, the landlord, deposed that on Thursday, the 12th inst., shortly after ten o'clock in the evening, defendant came into the house the worse for drink. She refused to serve her.

Arthur Mullett stated that on the night in question he was in the public house in company with a soldier, who fetched defendant into the house. She was drunk. The landlady refused to serve her, whereupon she went out, slammed the door behind her, and then turned round and put her fist through the window, smashing it. She then ran away.

Mr. Gardner assessed the damage at 7s. 6d.

Defendant expressed sorrow for the offence, but said that the door blew to accidentally.

In all, the woman was ordered to pay 1 1s. forthwith, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour. She chose the latter.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 13th: Before Lieut. Colonel Fynmore and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was temporarily transferred to Charles Brown from Charles Gardener.

 

Folkestone Express 16 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 13th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn from Chas. Gardner to Chas. Brown was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 13th: Before Lieut Colonels Fynmore and Westropp.

The following temporary transfer of licence was granted: The Welcome Inn from Charles Gardiner to Charles Brown.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 20th: Before Colonel Fynmore, Mr. J. Pledge, and Mr. C.W. Carpenter.

James Hart, fisherman, was charged with refusing to quit licensed premises when requested, and with being disorderly.

Charles Brown, of the Welcome Inn, said that prisoner came to his house on the 6th inst., and called for a glass of ale. Being sober, he was supplied. He sat down beside another man and knocked up a chat with him. Then he began to argue, and finally wanted to fight. He became so excited that witness requested him to quit, which he refused to do, therefore witness called a policeman, who ejected him.

Defendant said that the discussion arose with the other man about an old job. He admitted that he wished to fight the man.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 23 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 20th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter and J. Pledge Esqs.

James Hart was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises.

Charles Brown, landlord of the Welcome Inn, said that on the 16th inst. defendant came in and called for a glass of ale, which was served him. Afterwards he wanted to fight another man, and witness sent for a constable as he refused to quit the premises.

Defendant stated he had had a row with another man and got very excited.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 20th: Before Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Messrs. J. Pledge and W.C. Carpenter.

James Hart, a fisherman, was summoned for being disorderly and refusing to quit the Welcome Inn when requested.

Charles Brown, landlord of the houses, stated that the defendant, who was only served with one glass of beer in his house, became excited, and wanted to fight, with the result that a policeman had to be called to eject him.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, E.T. Ward, and T.J. Vaughan.

The licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was transferred from Chas. Gartner to Charles Brown.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonels Westropp, Fynmore and Hamilton, G.I. Swoffer, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The following transfer was granted: The Welcome Inn from Charles Gardner to Charles Brown.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 May 1903.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonels Westropp, Hamilton, and Fynmore, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and G.I. Swoffer.

The following temporary transfer was confirmed by the Bench: Welcome Inn, from Mr. P. Gardner to Mr. Charles Brown.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 March 1904.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Hamilton, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.

An application for the temporary transfer of the Welcome Inn from Mr. Chas. Brown to Mr. George Henry Jarvis was allowed.

 

Folkestone Express 12 March 1904.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp, W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The Welcome Inn.

The licence of the Welcome Inn was temporarily transferred from Mr. G. Brown to Mr. G.E. Jarvis.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1904.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Westropp.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Welcome Inn.

In the case of the Welcome Inn, the licence was temporarily transferred from Mr. Brown to Mr. Jarvis.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The Bench granted transfer of the licence of the following premises: The Welcome Inn, from Charles Brown to Charles Edward Jarvis.

 

Folkestone Express 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer Esqs.

The transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn from Charles Brown to Geo. Edward Jarvis was allowed.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before Ald. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Licence was transferred as follows:- The Welcome, from Charles Brown to George Edward Jarvis.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 May 1904.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

George Edward Jarvis, the landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was summoned to answer a charge of knowingly permitting his licensed premises to be used as an habitual resort of prostitutes. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. Drake, of Ashford and Hythe.

P.S. Lawrence said: On Friday night, the 13th inst., I was in Dover Street, near the Welcome Inn, a house kept by defendant. I saw several well-known prostitutes, in the company of seven or eight soldiers and three or four civilians, leave the premises. In consequence of that I went to Dover Street at five past ten on the night of the 14th. P.C. Ashby accompanied me, and we kept observation on the house. At 10.10 we saw a prostitute named Orchard go in. At 10.20 another named Godden went in with an Artilleryman. At 10.22, another named Herring with an Infantryman. At 10.30, another named Williams, alone. At 10.40, Caroline Norris with a bandsman of the South Lancashire Regt. At 10.45 another prostitute, whose name I do not know, with two soldiers and a civilian. In all there were six women known to me as common prostitutes. At 10.55, with P.C. Ashby, I visited the house. In the front bar we saw three prostitutes, named Webb, Baker and Norris. Norris was one of the six we saw go in. The women, with some soldiers, were standing at the counter drinking. We then went to the back bar, and, sitting on a seat, we saw three other prostitutes, Herring, Williams and Orchard, with soldiers sitting beside them, with their arms round the women; near the end of the seat Godden was standing with some soldiers, and another woman, who was at the end of the room. There were 13 soldiers in the bar, and seven or eight civilians. Defendant was serving in the bar with an elderly woman. I said to him “Do you know the character of these women you have in your house?” He said “Yes, I know some of them”. I said “Do you know them as prostitutes?” He replied “I know the tall one (pointing to Webb) and Nellie (pointing to Williams). They have not been in the house more than five minutes”. I said “I shall report you for harbouring prostitutes on your licensed premises”. Defendant said “I have not harboured them, and I do not want them here”. I then stepped back to the back of the bar, as defendant continued to serve and speak to his customers, and made no attempt to turn the women out.

The Chairman: What time was this?

Witness: Just before eleven. I went outside the house. Defendant followed me, and said “I hope you will look over it this time. I don't want them; they are no good to me”.

By the Chief Constable: During the time we were watching six women went into the house; we found eight on the premises. Baker and Webb could not have entered the house while we were watching.

Cross-examined by Mr. Drake: Defendant has held the licence of the house since the 9th of March last. I do not know if prior to that date he was a stranger to Folkestone.

Mr. Drake: You have been reading from a note book; may I look at it?

Witness: Certainly.

Mr. Drake: When did you make these notes.

Witness: As soon as I left the house I made them under a lamp post; it was all within a quarter of an hour.

Mr. Drake: On reading the notes through did you not find Williams's name left out?

Witness: No.

Mr. Drake: I do not want to trip you; look! Is not Williams' name inserted between a line?

Witness: It was written with the others; I was under a lamp post writing.

Mr. Drake: Very well. Did defendant admit knowing two of the women as prostitutes?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Drake: Could Webb have followed you in?

Witness: No. She was on the premises when I went in.

P.C. Ashby corroborated the last witness. Ashby also deposed to seeing the women mentioned visit the house on the 9th, 10th, and 12th inst.

Inspector Swift deposed that in consequence of seeing the class of women frequenting the house he thought it only fair to expressly caution Jarvis, which he did on the 7th inst. On that occasion Norris, Webb, Williams, and Orchard were on the premises.

P.C. Watson swore to visiting the Welcome on the 28th of March, and to finding Norris, Webb, Orchard, Williams, and Hering on the premises. Witness warned the landlord, who replied that he was not aware the women were prostitutes.

P.C. Leonard Johnson also deposed to visiting the Welcome on the 13th of April and cautioning the landlord as to the character of two women, Herring and Wood, who were then present.

The defendant Jarvis was then sworn, and stated that he formerly held the licence of the Exeter Arms, Dover,, which he gave up on the 22nd of June, 1902. He had never had any complaint at that house. In the interim between taking the Welcome he had been shoemaking. Witness, in the course of a long examination, denied that he knew the women were prostitutes, with the exception of two, and they only came in a minute or two before the police.

In cross-examination the Chief Constable assisted defendant's memory. He then admitted knowing the character of two other of the women, but did not know if they were present on the 14th.

Mr. Drake, addressing the Magistrates in defence of his client, said the police had given their evidence very fairly, and on most points prosecution and defence were practically agreed. The point on which they differed was as to two of the women, those known to defendant, entering the house. To succeed the prosecution had three facts to prove; (1) that defendant knew the women were prostitutes; (2) that the house was an habitual resort; (3) that the women were allowed to remain in the house for a longer time than was necessary for reasonable refreshment. He asked the Bench to say that his client did not know the character of all the women; he could not remember every face in his bar, and it must be remembered that he had only been in the house nine weeks before this case happened.

The Chairman said: The Bench think the police have carried out this work very creditably. The Bench have no doubt that defendant did harbour prostitutes. However, this being the first offence, the 10 fine will not be inflicted. Defendant must pay a fine of 5 and 14s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 28 May 1904.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

George Edward Jarvis, the landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for knowingly permitting his licensed premises to be the habitual resort of prostitutes. Mr. Drake represented the defendant.

P.S. Lawrence said on Friday night, the 13th inst., at 11 o'clock, he was in Dover Street, near the Welcome Inn, when he saw seven well-known prostitutes in company with seven or eight soldiers and three or four civilians leave the premises. In consequence of that he went, in company with P.C. Ashby, to Dover Street at five minutes past ten on the 14th inst., and kept observation on the house. At a quarter past ten a prostitute named Orchard went in. At 10.20 another, named Godden, went in with an Artilleryman. At 10.22 another, named Herring, went in with an infantryman, and they were followed at 10.30 by another, named Williams, who went in alone. At 10.40 another, named Norris, went in with a bandsman of the South Lancashire Regiment. At 10.42 another one went in with two soldiers and one civilian. At 10.55 he visited the house in company with P.C. Ashby. In the front bar he saw three prostitutes, named Webb, Baker, and Norris, standing at the counter with four soldiers drinking. He then went to the back bar, and on a seat sitting there were the three women. Herring, Williams, and Orchard. All had soldiers sitting by the side of them with their arms around them. Near the end of the seat the woman Godden was standing with some soldiers. There was another woman standing near a door leading to the back room. There were 13 soldiers and seven or eight civilians in the bar. He said to the defendant, who was serving in the bar, “Do you know the character of these women you have in your house?” He said he knew some of them. Witness asked him if he knew they were prostitutes. He said he knew Webb and Williams, but they had not been in his house more than three or four minutes. He further said he had not harboured them, and he did not want them there. As defendant made no effort to turn the women out, witness did so just before eleven. Witness then walked out of the house, and defendant followed them out. He said he hoped they would look over it. He did not want the women in his house, because they were no good to him. He saw six prostitutes enter the house during his observations, and eight when he visited the premises, so two of them must have been there at least 55 minutes.

P.C. Ashby corroborated what P.S. Lawrence had said with respect to the 14th of May. He further said that during the week ending 14th May he made observations, and frequently saw the women go in the house. On May 9th he saw Baker leave the house with two soldiers at 10.15, and go back with Webb at 10.40. On the 11th, at 10.10 p.m., he saw Herring leave the house with a soldier, and at 10.15 saw Williams and Orchard leave with four soldiers. At 10.50 Norris and Webb went in. On the 12th at ten p.m. he saw Webb and Godden standing in the bar. At 10.45 Orchard left with a soldier. On the 13th, at 10.10 p.m. Godden went in the house with a civilian, and Herring came out with a soldier.

Inspector Swift said on the 7th inst. he called upon the defendant and cautioned him as to the character of the women. Baker was in a little cubicle drinking, while Webb was in the back bar drinking with two soldiers. Williams and Orchard were standing talking to two civilians and three soldiers. Witness asked him if he knew the character of those four women. He said he did, but he did not harbour them. Witness advised him to be careful, or he would be prosecuted. Defendant said he would see that they did not go there. On the 14th inst. he saw Webb in the front bar at ten o'clock in the evening.

P.C. Watson said on March 28th he visited defendant's house, and found Norris, Webb, Williams, Orchard, and Herring there. He called the landlord's attention to them, and he said he was not aware they were prostitutes.

P.C. Johnson also spoke to warning the defendant on April 13th, with respect to Herring and Webb.

Defendant went into the witness box. He said he took over the house on March 9th. He had previously held a licence at Dover for more than six years. During that time he received no complaint. He knew Williams and a woman named Caroline were prostitutes, but believed the other women were respectable.

The Chairman said the Magistrates considered defendant harboured the women, knowing them to be prostitutes. He would be fined 5 and 14s. costs, or in default one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 May 1904.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

George Edward Jarvis was summoned for knowingly permitting licensed premises to be the habitual resort of prostitutes, and allowing them to remain in the house for a longer time than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. Drake, of Hythe.

P.S. Lawrence stated that at 11 o'clock on Friday night, the 13th inst., he was in Dover Street, near the Welcome Inn, kept by defendant, when he saw seven well-known prostitutes, in company with seven or eight soldiers and three or four civilians, leave the premises. In consequence of that he went to Dover Street at five minutes past ten on Saturday night, the 14th inst., in company with P.C. Ashby, and kept observation on the house. At 10.15 he saw a prostitute named Orchard go in, at 10.20 another one named Godden with an artilleryman, at 10.22 one named herring went in with an infantryman, at 10.30 another named Williams went in alone, at 10.40 one named Norris went in with a bandsman of the South Lancashire Regt., and at 10.42 one whose name he did not know went in with two soldiers and a civilian. At 10.55, in company with P.C. Ashby, he visited the house, and in the front bar he saw three prostitutes named Webb, Baker, and Norris, standing at the counter with four soldiers, drinking. There were also four civilians seated in the bar. In the back bar, on a seat against the wall, were seated three other prostitutes, viz., Herring, Williams, and Orchard; each had a soldier sitting beside her with his arms round her. Near the end of the seat the woman Godden was standing with some soldiers. There were thirteen soldiers in the bar and seven or eight civilians. He said to the defendant, who was serving in the bar with an elderly woman “Do you know the character of these woman you have in your house?” He said “Yes, I know some of them”. Witness said “Do you know them as prostitutes?” He said “I know the tall one (pointing to Webb) and Nellie (pointing to Williams)”. He added that they had not been in his house more than three minutes, and he did not harbour them. Witness said “I shall report you for harbouring prostitutes on your licensed premises”. Defendant said “I have not harboured them. I don't want them here”. Witness stepped back to the back of the bar as defendant continued serving his customers, and made no attempt to stop them or turn them out, and witness walked outside of the house. Defendant followed him out and said “I hope you will look over it this time. I don't want them in here, they're no good to me”.

P.C. Ashby corroborated the previous witness's evidence.

Inspector Swift deposed that at half past ten on the night of the 7th inst., in consequence of seeing prostitutes go in and out of the house in question, and knowing that defendant was practically a newcomer in the town, he thought it only fair to call his attention to the characters of his customers. He found Baker with two men drinking. Webb was in the back bar drinking with two soldiers, Williams and Orchard were standing talking to two civilians and three soldiers, one of whom had a glass of liquor in front of him. He called defendant out and asked him if he knew the characters of the four women then in the bar. He replied “Yes. But I don't harbour them here”. Witness advised him not to harbour them. He replied “Thank you. I will see that they don't come here”.

P.C. Watson said that on the 28th March he had occasion to visit the Welcome public house. He found Norris, Webb, Williams, Orchard, and Herring inside. He called the landlord's attention to them. Defendant said he was not aware that they were prostitutes.

P.C. Johnson stated that on the night of the 13th April he went to the Welcome Inn, where he saw two prostitutes (Herring and Woods) in company with two soldiers. He called the landlord and pointed the two women out to him.

Defendant, on oath, stated that he had held the licence since the 9th March, and previous to that he had kept a licensed house in Dover for six years. He had had no complaints made about the conduct of the house. Williams and Norris were the only two women known by him to be prostitutes. Williams entered the house at 10.45, and the Sergt. and constable came in about 10.50.

Mr. Drake addressed the Magistrates for the defence.

The Magistrates considered the case proved, and inflicted a penalty of 5 with 14s. costs, in default one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 10 September 1904.

Friday, September 2nd: Before Alderman Vaughan and J. Stainer Esq.

Louisa Care was summoned by Edith Rose Fagg for assaulting her on Monday evening in Fenchurch Street.

Complainant said the defendant was with six other persons when she went up to her (complainant) and said “You are a big woman and I am only a small one. I am going to hit you in the eye”. Before complainant had time to answer, defendant gave her a blow in the eye. A black eye was the result.

Defendant said Mrs. Fagg and all of them had been drinking together in the Welcome Inn. They were all in a fight. She knew she struck someone, but did not know who she hit. Fined 5s. and 9s. 6d. costs. Defendant asked for time to pay.

The Chief Constable said she had plenty of friends, and could pay that day if she wished.

Defendant, producing two half sovereigns, said she had better pay at once. (Laughter)

 

Folkestone Daily News 15 February 1905.

Wednesday, February 15th: Before Mr. E. Ward, Mr. W. Carpenter, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Luck, landlord of the Welcome Inn, was charged with permitting drunkenness on the premises.

Sergeant Osborne deposed that in company with P.C. Sharp he visited the house and found a man named French very drunk. He was in the sight of the landlord, and a man was offering him beer from a glass. On seeing me he said a policeman was looking at him. Witness called the attention of the defendant, who replied that he had not seen him or served him with anything. He wanted him to leave. French was too drunk to stand, so he took him into custody. He had been keeping observation on the house for a quarter of an hour. There was nothing to prevent the landlord seeing him. French could not have entered without witness seeing him. After taking French to the station, witness returned at 11 p.m. and saw a drunken prostitute leaving, and two soldiers also drunk. He had seen the prostitute there at 10.35. He told defendant two men were drunk, and he referred to French, saying that he never saw him. He (the Sergeant) went out and saw the soldiers, who were too drunk to walk, so the Military Police took them into custody.

The Bench fined defendant 5 and 15s. costs.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle. 18 February 1905.

Wednesday, February 15th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

John Luck, landlord of the “Welcome Inn,” Dover Street, was summoned on Wednesday morning for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. G. W. Haines, for the defence, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Police Sergt. Osborne said: At 10.35 on the night of the 8th inst., in company with P.C. Sharp, I visited the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street. I went into the bar, and found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat very drunk in full view of the landlord. A man was standing in front of France offering him drink from a pint glass, apparently containing beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man pushed him back, and said “Sit down, you ---- fool; there is a policeman looking at you.” I called the attention of the landlord to the man’s drunken condition, and he replied “I have not seen the man before; I have not served him. I want him to leave.” I then found France was too drunk to stand, and with the assistance of P.C. Sharp took him into custody and brought him to the police station, where he was charged with being drunk and incapable on licensed premises.

By Chief Constable Reeve: Before visiting the house I had been keeping observation for fifteen minutes, and it would not have been possible for France to have entered without my seeing him. Defendant was serving in the bar, and there was nothing to obstruct his view of the man France. After taking France into custody I returned to the house just before eleven. I saw a well-known prostitute named “Spratter” come out. She was drunk and fell over the steps.

Mr. Haines objected to the introduction of evidence not specific to the charge.

The Chairman held that the evidence was admissible, as the charge was that of permitting drunkenness.

Witness (continuing): This woman was in the bar at 10.35. I then went into the front bar and saw three soldiers, two of whom were drunk; one was drinking from a pint glass. The landlord followed me out, and I said “There are two men drunk in here,” and he made no reply. I told him that I should report him for permitting drunkenness. Subsequently I saw the drunken soldiers outside. One was leaning against a wall, and a lance corporal of the Military Police took him into custody for drunkenness.

Further corroborative evidence was given, and the witnesses cross-examined at great length by Mr. Haines, who also made a powerful appeal to the Bench. However, the case was held to conclusively proved, and defendant was fined 5 and 15s. 6d. costs.

 

From the Folkestone Express. 18 February 1905.

Wednesday, February 15th: Before E. T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and W. C. Carpenter Esq.

John Luck, landlord of the “Welcome Inn,” Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on February 8th. Mr. Haines, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Osborne said on February 8th, at 10.15 p.m., in company with P.C. Sharpe, he visited the "Welcome Inn." On going into the bar at the back of the house he found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat in full view of the landlord, who was serving in the bar at the time. A man stood in front of France offering him a glass of beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man pushed him down, and told him there was a policeman looking at him. Witness called the attention of the defendant to the man’s drunken condition, and he replied “I have not seen the man before. I have not served him with anything.” Witness then found French was too drunk to stand, so with the assistance of P.C. Sharpe he brought him to the police station and charged him with being drunk and incapable on licensed premises. Before visiting the house he had been keeping observation on the house for a quarter of an hour, and it was not possible for a man to enter without witness being able to see him go in. In the centre bar he saw two women and two men sitting. After locking France up they returned to the house just as the clock was striking eleven. He saw a well-known prostitute coming out of the house. She was drunk, and stumbled as she came out. She was one of the women he had previously seen in the house. In the front bar he saw three soldiers, two of whom were drunk. As he opened the door he saw one drinking what appeared to be beer. The landlord followed him into the bar, and witness said to him “There are two men drunk in here.” He made no answer, and witness told him he should report him for permitting drunkenness on his premises. The soldiers left the house during his conversation with the landlord. On finishing his conversation he went into Dover Street and saw one of the soldiers leaning against the wall, drunk. He appeared as though he could not get home. Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Police, took him into custody for drunkenness. The man gave his name as Michael O’Donnell.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know when he was keeping observation that France was inside.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated the last witness’s evidence.

Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Foot Police, said on February 8th he was in Dover Street a few minutes after eleven when he saw a soldier who was drunk and unable to take care of himself. Witness took him into custody. His name was Michael O’Donnell, of the South Lancashire Regiment.

P.C. Eason said he was on duty in the police cells on February 8th, when he received France from P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe at 10.45 p.m. He was drunk, and later a soldier named O’Donnell was brought in. He was drunk and incapable.

Defendant went into the box, and said he had been in the house since November 1st. That was the first licence he had held. On the evening of February 8th he was very busy. He did not see France come in the house. He did not serve him, and he could swear that the man had nothing to drink. He did not think the man had been in the bar above five minutes. In the one bar, where women were allowed, there were notices up saying that no females were allowed in the house above ten minutes. With regard to the soldiers, they came in a few minutes to eleven. Witness refused to serve them, and when the police sergeant came in one of the soldiers picked up a glass containing beer, which had been left on the counter by another customer. With regard to the woman, she had not been served.

In cross-examination by the Chief Constable, defendant said he wished he had never seen Folkestone. It was a difficult house to manage and had got a bad name.

Mr. Haines submitted that the defendant took reasonable precautions, and he was not aware of the man being drunk. With regard to the woman, there was no evidence that she was drunk, only that she tripped over the step. She had not been served by the defendant for half an hour at least. With reference to the three soldiers, the defendant said he did not serve them. He contended that the defendant had tried to keep the house in good order.

The Chairman said no doubt it was a very difficult house to manage. To the Magistrates’ mind the evidence was quite clear, and the defendant would be fined 5 and 15s. 6d. costs.

 

From the Folkestone Herald. 18 February 1905.

Monday, February 13th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

John Luck, licensee of the “Welcome Inn,” Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on the 8th inst. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defence.

P.S. Osborne deposed that at 10.35 on the night of the 8th inst., in company with P.C. Sharpe, he visited the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street. In going into the bar at the back of the house he found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat very drunk, in full view of the landlord, who was serving behind the bar at the time. A man was standing in front of France, and was offering him some beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man, on seeing him (witness), pushed him back on the seat and said “Sit down, you fool; there’s a policeman looking at you.” He called the attention of the landlord to the man’s condition, and defendant replied “I have not seen the man before. I have not served him with anything”. He then found that France was too drunk to stand, and with the assistance of P.C. Sharpe took him into custody.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said before he visited the house he kept it under observation for a quarter of an hour. It was quite impossible for France to have entered the house during that time. Defendant himself was serving in the bar at the time, and there was nothing to obstruct his view of France. Having removed France to the cells, he returned to the house with P.C. Sharpe just as the clock was striking eleven. He saw coming out a well-known prostitute.

Mr. Haines objected to this as having nothing to do with the present case, but the Magistrates disallowed the objection.

Witness, further examined by the Chief Constable, said the woman was drunk and stumbled over the steps as she went out. He had not the slightest doubt as to her condition. He went into the front bar, where he found three soldiers, two of whom were drunk. One was drinking what appeared to be some beer from a glass. As he opened the door the man reeled back against the counter. The landlord followed him (witness) into the bar. He (the sergeant) said “Why! Two men drunk in here?” The landlord made no reply. He told him he would report him for permitting drunkenness on his premises. He replied “That man (referring to France), I never saw him, never served him, and he could not have been there many minutes”. The soldiers left the house during the conversation with the landlord. He went out into Dover Street, and there saw one of the three soldiers leaning up against the wall of the house, drunk. He appeared to be unable to get home. It was the man who he saw drinking out of the glass. Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Foot Police, at that moment arrived and took the soldier into custody for being drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: While he was waiting outside he did not know that France was in the house, or that there was a man drunk in there at all. There was a notice in one of the compartments to the effect that women were not allowed.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

Lance Corporal F. Preston, of the Military Foot Police, stated that on the 8th inst., a few minutes after eleven o’clock, he was in Dover Street, where he saw a soldier leaning against the wall. Seeing he was drunk, and unable to take care of himself, he took him into custody.

P.C. Reason said he was on duty at the police cells on the night in question, when the man France was brought in by Sergt. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe. He was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. He afterwards received the prisoner brought in by the last witness, Corporal Preston. The soldier was drunk, and gave the name of Michael O’Donnell.

Defendant, on oath, said he had kept the house since the 1st of November. It was the first licence he had had. From where he was standing on the night in question he would not be able to see anyone coming in from the front door to the seat on which France sat, before the person got to the seat. He was very busy at the time, but was sure that if France had been sitting there for quarter of an hour he would have seen him. He could not have been there for longer than five minutes. He did not serve France, nor did the man have any drink in his house. He was sitting very quietly on a seat. He remembered that the three soldiers entered the bar about closing time, and he refused to serve them. He then went round to order them out, but when he got to the passageway he met Sergt. Osborne, who told him he should charge him with permitting drunkenness. The sergeant then referred to one of the three soldiers, and said “You have a drunken man here”. At that time the man was taking up some drink that was left on the counter. He was the only person serving in the bar at the time. He did not admit that the man was drunk. The house had a bad reputation when he took it, and he almost wished now that he had never seen Folkestone.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, pointed out that the house in question was in a very crowded neighbourhood, and very strict supervision was necessary. Formerly it used to be necessary for the police to show that the landlord was aware of the drunkenness, but under the Act of 1902 the onus was thrown upon the defendant, who had to show that he had taken reasonable and proper precautions to prevent it, and that it was not within his knowledge. He ventured to say that the defendant had endeavoured to conduct the house in good order. If they thought otherwise, however, he hoped they would temper justice with mercy.

The Chairman said the Bench had no doubt about the house not being an easy one to control, but they had also no doubt that the evidence clearly showed that there had been drunkenness.

Defendant was fined 5 and 14s. costs, in default, one month’s imprisonment.

 

From the Folkestone Daily News, 17 March 1905.

Friday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, and Ald. Vaughan.

A soldier was charged with being drunk and incapable in the "Welcome Tavern."

P.C. Prebble heard the scuffle and went in.

Mr. Andrews (Deputy Magistrates’ Clerk) advised the Bench that they could not convict under the circumstances. If the policeman had brought the man into the street he could have been convicted, but while he was in a private place no conviction could lie.

The case was dismissed.

 

From the Folkestone Express. 25 March 1905.

Friday, May 17th: Before The Mayor and Alderman Vaughan.

Charles Healey, a private in the South Lancashire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Prebble said about 10.40 p.m. the previous evening he was on duty in Dover Street outside the "Welcome Inn," when he heard a noise inside the house. On going inside, he found prisoner drunk and fighting with another soldier. Witness had to eject him from the house, and subsequently had to take him into custody, as he persisted in going back to the house.

Prisoner said it was the other man who was drunk.

John Luck, landlord of the "Welcome Inn," said prisoner did not seem drunk, but was very excited.#

Prisoner was discharged with a caution.

 

From the Folkestone Daily News. 30 August 1905.

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Ald. Herbert, Messrs. Carpenter, Salter, Fynmore, Vaughan, Westropp, and Hamilton.

Mr. Haines made an application on behalf of Mr. Luck for the transfer of the licence of the "Welcome Inn." Mr. Haines said his client was making this application on account of the condition of his wife, who was in a bad state of health.

Mr. Luck was then sworn and said he took the house last September, but was ignorant of public house business. His wife had recently become very strange, and he had sent her to Walthamstow with her friends. She did not drink, although her appearance might suggest that she did. It was for the purpose of being with her and going into a different business that he was making this application. He had called in a doctor to see her while she was in Folkestone, but she refused to see him.

Mr. Andrews (Deputy Magistrates’ Clerk) pointed out that a person could not apply for a transfer unless he had held the licence for twelve months, but the Magistrates could, under certain circumstances, grant the transfer if sufficient grounds were shown.

Mr. Haines said he thought good grounds had been shown why the application should be granted.

After brief consultation the Chairman said the application would be adjourned for a fortnight in order that Mr. Luck might produce a medical certificate of his wife’s health.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 2 September 1905.

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Aldermen Salter and Vaughan. Alderman Vaughan did not adjudicate.

Mr. G. W. Haines made an application for the temporary transfer of the Welcome from the licensee, Mr. Luck, to Mr. Edward Henry Tunstall, of London.

The usual notices, &c., having been admitted, Mr. Haines said there was one point upon which he would like to address the Bench. It was the clause in the Licensing Act which laid down that two transfers should not be granted under a period of 12 months, unless, as the proviso put it, the tenant could show good cause for such transfer. In this case he hoped to show good cause. Mr. Luck’s wife’s mind had to a certain extent become affected, and the tenant, as it were, losing his wife’s hand, wished to leave the trade. This, he thought, was good cause why the stipulation should be waived.

The Chairman: Is the register here?

The Clerk produced the register, and pointed out that Mr. Luck obtained his transfer on the 7th December last year. The previous tenant, Mr. Jarvis, had obtained a transfer in April, also of last year. For some reason the clause appeared to have been waived on that occasion. On the 27th May, 1903, the licence of the "Welcome" was granted to Charles Brown.

It was also stated that the previous tenant was convicted for permitting prostitutes to frequent the house, and the present tenant, on the 15th February this year, convicted for permitting drunkenness.

Mr. Haines pointed out to the Bench that when Mr. Luck was convicted he was quite new to the trade, but that since then he would invite the Chief Constable to say that the house had been well conducted.

The Clerk read the second sub-section of section 16 of the Act, which stipulated that two transfers should not be granted in one year, and also read the proviso, “except good cause be shown” etc.

The Chairman: Mr. Luck had better be sworn.

Mr. Luck (sworn) said: My wife is in London. She has been backward and forward now for some time on account of her ill health. She is suffering from rheumatic gout and general debility, but the most serious matter is she is going out of her mind. Sometimes one would think, by her manner, that she was a woman given to drink, but she does not drink. She condemns everyone as bad and wicked. She never used bad language, and always objected to it. Now nothing I could say would equal the bad words from her mouth. Her mother went out of her mind, and died in an imbecile home. I know that I made a mistake in bringing her to a public house.

The Chairman: Is your wife under restraint?

Witness: No; she is with her friends.

The Chairman: Have you any medical testimony?

Witness: No.

The Chairman: Have you had a doctor?

Witness: I called in a doctor, but she would not answer him, and he put on his hat and went out saying “What is the good of talking to a woman like that?”

The Chairman: Who was the doctor?

Witness: I do not know his name. He was visiting a patient opposite, and I called him in.

The Chairman (after a short consultation with his colleagues): The Bench are of opinion that at present Mr. Luck has not made out a sufficient case for the granting of the transfer. The case will be adjourned one week to enable him to obtain medical evidence.

Local News.

Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter, at the police court on Friday morning, a rough looking individual, apparently about 60 years of age, was placed in the dock to answer a serious charge. The prisoner, John Smith, was charged with entering a dwelling house on Thursday night, with intent to commit a felony.

Mrs. Jessie Hall, the wife of William Jas. Hall, a fisherman, residing at 26, Dover Street, said: Last night I locked up the house about midnight. I left one door at the side, opening into the yard, unlocked. The yard is a private yard, leading by another door into Dover Street. The window looking into the same yard was open about three inches. The other windows were all fastened. The yard door was only on the latch, not fastened. I went to bed as soon as I had locked up. My husband was at sea. In the bedroom with me were my five children. The oldest will be nine in October. When I went to bed the children were all asleep. I had a small tin lamp alight on the table close to my bed. About 20 minutes after I had gone to bed, I was dozing with the baby on my arm. I heard a slight noise, which I thought at the time was the cats, but when I opened my eyes I saw a man standing over me. There is a screen at the top of the bed, and the man (the prisoner) was looking round the screen at me. I saw the man’s face distinctly. That is the man, the prisoner in the dock. I put my hands together and said “My good man, you have made a mistake”, and with that he jumped out of the window into the yard. Both sashes were down, and the man got through the top portion of the window. I screamed, and ran to the side door of the room, opened it, and saw the prisoner getting over the "Welcome" wall, the adjoining premises. I called for assistance, and running to the front door called “Police”. P.C. Allen then came to the house. Shortly after P.C. Allen brought the prisoner to my house, and I identified him directly. In getting back into the yard prisoner smashed one of the panes of glass in the windows. By the way in which he stepped on my pram, I should say that he did not have any boots on.

P.C. Thomas Allen deposed: This morning at 12.45 I was on duty in Dover Street when I heard a cry of “Police! Police!”, and went in the direction of No. 26, Dover Street, a dwelling house occupied by W. J. Hall. I there saw the last witness, who was out in the street in front of her house. She was in her night attire, and made a communication to me, and in consequence I searched the yard of No. 26. I noticed that the window opening on the ground floor was open from the top sash, and that one pane of glass was broken. Finding no-one in the yard I got a ladder and placed it against a wall, about 11 ft. high, abutting the "Welcome Inn." In the yard of the "Welcome," I found prisoner in the corner. I said to him “What are you doing in this yard?” He replied “I’ve only got over here to have a sleep”. I then noticed that he was not wearing boots. I said to him “Where are your boots?” He said “I’ve got them under my head for a pillow”. I said “Stand up” and he did so, and I looked for his boots and could not find them under him. I then took him to No. 26, Dover Street, having called up the landlord of the "Welcome," who let me through the side door, which was locked and bolted. At 26, Dover Street the last witness identified him as the man she saw in her room. I took prisoner to the police station, and returned to No. 26, Dover Street, when I made a thorough search of the yard and found a pair of boots under the open broken window in the yard. I returned to the police station, showed prisoner the boots, and he said “They are mine; they are no good”. I then charged him with entering the house with intent to commit a felony. Prisoner made no reply. I searched him and found two candles, a knife, a key, and a spoon.

The Mayor: No lucifers upon him?

Witness: No, sir.

The Chief Constable asked the Bench to commit prisoner to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions under the 54th section of the Larceny Act.

The Clerk: What is your reason? Do you not wish to proceed under the Vagrancy Act?

The Chief Constable: Dear me, no. I have reason to believe this is not his first exploit.

The Mayor (to prisoner): Have you anything to say, or any statement to make?

Prisoner: No.

The Mayor: You will be committed to take your trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Haines, who was going on his vacation, asked for a fortnight, which was immediately granted.

 

From the Folkestone Express 2 September 1905.

Wednesday, August 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Salter, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Mr. G. W. Haines appeared on behalf of Mr. Luck, the licensee of the "Welcome Inn," for a temporary transfer from him to Edward Henry Turner, of Tufnell Park, London. A point that might be raised against the transfer was in reference to the regulations with regard to transfer. It stated in those regulations that twelve months should elapse before an application for the transfer of the licence could be granted after the licence was granted, except where there was good cause for the transfer. Since Mr. Luck took the house in December last, his wife had developed a thing which had been in the family. Her mind to a certain extent was giving way, and at present she was away in London suffering from rheumatic gout. She could not come back because the doctor advised her not to do so, and therefore Mr. Luck would like to give up the house so that he could go and look after her. He had made enquiries after a tenant, and one had come forward and was willing to take over the premises. He hoped the Magistrates would say that they had good cause for waiving that particular stipulation mentioned.

The Clerk produced the register, and said the previous holder of the licence was a Mr. Jarvis, who obtained the licence in April, 1904. In that instance the stipulation must have been waived. There was also a transfer of the licence on May 22nd, 1903, so that there had been three occupiers of the house since that time. The present tenant was convicted on February 15th for permitting drunkenness, and fined 5 and costs.

Mr. Luck gave evidence on oath, and said his wife was at present at Walthamstow. She had gone there on account of ill health, suffering from rheumatic gout and general debility. The most serious part was that her mind was giving way. Her mother went out of her mind also. He knew he had made a mistake in going in for a public house. He had no medical testimony to bring before them, but on account of her actions he could do nothing with her. He did not know the doctor’s name.

The Chairman said that Mr. Luck had not made out a sufficiently strong case to warrant them granting the temporary transfer. They would, however, adjourn the case for a fortnight in order to produce medical testimony with regard to his wife’s health.

 

From the Folkestone Herald 2 September 1905.

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Aldermen W. G. Herbert, W. Salter, and T. J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Westropp, and Mr. W. C. Carpenter.

Mr. G. W. Haines made an application on behalf of Mr. Luck, of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street, for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn to Henry Wm. Tunstone. He explained that last December the applicant took over the house. Since that his wife had developed a certain illness, which resulted in her being forbidden to stay in Folkestone. Under those circumstances Mr. Luck would like to give up the house. The speaker asked the Bench to waive a stipulation that they invariably enforced, viz., that no transfer should be effected in respect to any one house until the tenant had been in occupation twelve months.

The applicant, on oath, bore out Mr. Haines’s statements.

The Bench adjourned the case for a fortnight, in order that medical testimony could be adduced.

 

From the Folkestone Daily News. 13 September 1905.

Wednesday, September 13th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Westropp, Carpenter, Herbert, Hamilton, and Swoffer.

Mr. Haines applied for the transfer of the "Welcome Inn."

The case had been adjourned for a fortnight in order that a medical certificate might be produced of the landlord’s wife.

The Bench, after consulting, refused to grant the transfer.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1905.

Local News.

At the police court on Wednesday morning Mr. G. Haines renewed his application with reference to the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, from the present tenant, Mr. Luck, to Mr. Edward Henry Tunstall, of London. When the application was originally made, Mr. Luck gave as his reason for wishing to transfer the licence that the business had caused his wife to lose her mental balance, but as he did not produce medical testimony the case was adjourned for that purpose. At the original hearing it was also stated that a previous tenant had been convicted for permitting prostitution, and the present tenant for permitting drunkenness. There was also the difficulty that the Act of 1902 provides that there should not be more than one transfer in one year, unless good cause were shown. Against this Mr. Luck relied upon the good cause as the illness of his wife.

On Wednesday morning Mr. Haines produced the medical certificate, but the Bench, looking at all the facts, refused to grant the temporary transfer.

Mr. Luck (who was apparently much surprised) said: But may I address the Bench? This is a matter of life and death.

The Clerk: The decision of the Bench has been given.

 

From the Folkestone Express 16 September 1905.

Wednesday, September 13th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. G. Herbert, G. I. Swoffer, and W. C. Carpenter Esqs.

A fortnight ago Mr. Haines applied on behalf of Mr. Luck, the licensee of the "Welcome Inn," for a transfer of the licence. He asked the Magistrates to suspend one of their regulations, that no application should be considered until after the licence had been transferred twelve months, because of the illness of Mr. Luck’s wife. The application was adjourned, and he now produced a doctor’s certificate giving the condition of Mrs. Luck, which he asked the Bench to say was sufficient to warrant the licence being transferred.

The Chief Constable, when asked by the Magistrates for his opinion, said having regard to what took place at the last licensing meeting, he thought the Magistrates should consider the application carefully.

Mr. Herbert said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that they could not accede to the application.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1905.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 9th: Before J. C. Lewis Coward Esq.

John Smith, 64, described as a tailor, was indicted for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of William James Hall with intent to commit a felony therein, about the hour of half past 12, on the night of Sept. 1st. Prisoner at once pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Weigall, for the Crown, briefly described the events which led up to the charge. On the night in question, Mr. Hall was at sea and his wife retired to rest. Before retiring the lady, as was her custom, left the back door shut, but unbolted. Shortly after midnight she awoke, and saw prisoner standing by her bedside. Mrs. Hall raised an alarm, and prisoner jumped out of the window. P.C. Allen came to the scene, and in a few minutes found accused crouched in an adjoining yard, having dropped over a 12 ft. wall. The accused was bootless, and subsequently the boots were found under Mr. Hall’s window. Mr. Weigall concluded by mentioning that the Chief Constable had some information to give.

The Recorder: Is he indicted for a previous conviction?

Mr. Weigall said he understood not.

The Recorder: Why?

Mr. Wiegall (having consulted the instructing solicitor, Mr. J. Minter), said that the accused admitted the previous convictions, and as the witness had to be brought from a long distance, the course had been taken to save expense to the borough.

The Recorder: It is a very curious proceeding. Who gave such instructions? Still, let us hear what you have to say, Chief Constable.

Chief Constable Reeve produced and read a copy of a register obtained from the Habitual Criminals’ Office, Scotland Yard. From this it appeared that prisoner’s “previouses” were:- 12th March, 1897:- Three months hard labour at Marlborough Street; 20th September, 1898:- Six months for burglary at the North London Sessions; 5th April, 1899:- Three months at Bow Street as a suspected person; 25th March, 1901:- Two months at Marlborough Street; 22nd December, 1901:- Three months’ hard labour for larceny at Carlisle; 9th September, 1902:- Fifteen months for robbery with violence at the Central Criminal Court; 27th June, 1904:- Six months for attempted burglary at Brighton Quarter Sessions.

The Recorder: A bad record, Smith. What have you to say?

Prisoner: It is all through being out of employment.

The Recorder asked the Chief Constable if he had any details of the robbery with violence, and upon receiving a negative reply said he would like to hear the prisoner’s version.

Prisoner: It was not violence. The gentleman knew it was not. In getting his watch I pushed him. (Laughter) I did not mean to hurt him. It was in getting the watch off the chain. (Laughter).

The Recorder: What has his conduct been while awaiting trial?

A warder: His conduct in prison has been very good, sir.

The Recorder: Well, John Smith, many Courts would take a very serious view of this case. You will have to be very careful in the future. I am going to give you one more chance. Thee months’ hard labour.

Prisoner (gratefully): Thank you, sir, thank you.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 9 December 1905.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before Mr. E. T. Ward, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Maj. Leggatt, and Mr. Linton.

Mr. R. M. Mercer made an application for the transfer of the licence of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street, from Mr. J. Luck to Mr. John Foreman. Mr. Mercer referred briefly to a previous unsuccessful application made on the 30th of August, when the Bench decided that Mr. Luck had not shown sufficient cause to vary the regulations, i.e. forbidding five (sic) changes of tenant in one year, Mr. Luck only having been in possession a few months. The advocate now suggested that the circumstances he was about to put before the Bench were such as would warrant the granting of the application. The present tenant’s name was Luck, a word not borne out in his fortune. His wife was seriously ill, and the doctor advised that she must not live in Folkestone, or engage in the business conducted by her husband. Two medical certificates were put in. Both showed that it was impossible for her to continue in the business, as she was in a neurotic condition. When the last application was made, Mr. Luck had not been in possession one year, but now he had been in possession over that period. There was a further regulation that two changes should not be made in three years. With regard to that, the Bench were not bound by those regulations, but could dispense with them if the circumstances were sufficient to warrant their setting aside. It would be inflicting a great hardship to make Mr. Luck go on, both on public and private grounds. If the Bench insisted, it would mean his having to keep his wife in London and obtain assistance in Folkestone, and compel him to shut up his house, or go into the Bankruptcy Court. He could in a measure set the regulations at defiance by closing the house and sending the key to the brewery, when the licence would have to be dealt with under the old Ale Houses Act.

The Chief Constable offered no objection to the transfer.

Mr. Loftus Banks having proved the service of the usual notices upon the police and overseers, the Chairman said the Bench would suspend, under the circumstances, the regulations, and grant the application, but in doing so it would not tie their hands at a future period.

 

From the Folkestone Express 9 December 1905.

Wednesday, December 9th: Before E. T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggatt, W. G. Herbert and J. Linton Esqs.

At the special sessions for the transfer of ale-house licences the following transfer was made: The "Welcome Inn," from Mr. J. Luck to Mr. J. Forman.

 

From the Folkestone Herald 9 December 1905.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before Mr. E. T. Ward, Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggatt, and Mr. T. Ames.

Mr. R. M. Mercer, on behalf of Mr. John Luck, applied for a transfer of the licence of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street, to Mr. John Foreman. He stated that Mr. Luck’s wife was seriously ill, and it was quite impossible for her to live in Folkestone. She was at present residing in London under medical attendance. When an application was made before, they had not been in the house a year, and the Magistrates declined. Now they had been in the house over a year.

The application was granted, but the Chairman remarked that although they would let the transfer go through, it would not tie their hands on any future occasion.

 

From the Folkestone Daily News 3 February 1906.

Saturday, February 3rd: Before Messrs. W. G. Herbert, G. I. Swoffer, R. J. Linton, C. J. Pursey, J. Stainer, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Major Leggett.

Nellie Maud Williams appeared in answer to a summons charging her with refusing to quit the “Welcome Inn.”

John Foreman, the landlord, said defendant came into the bar on Thursday before nine o’clock and requested to be served. As she was an undesirable customer, she was refused. She went out.

The charge was dismissed.

Throughout the case, defendant behaved with her usual levity, and thanked the Bench most heartily as she left the Court on discharge.

 

From the Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:- “Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.

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

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

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

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

Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.
During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone Chronicle for details.)

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

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

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

Saturday, February 3rd: Before W. G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, C. J. Pursey, G. I. Swoffer and R. J. Linton Esqs.

Nellie Maud Williams was summoned for refusing to quit the licensed premises of the "Welcome Inn" on the previous Thursday.

John Foreman, the licence holder of the inn, said on Thursday morning defendant asked for a drink, but he refused to serve her as she was an undesirable customer. He asked her to leave several times but she refused, until witness went towards her, when she backed out the door. When she got outside she used such language as he had never heard from the biggest blackguard. She eventually went away, returning ten minutes later. She was going to enter again, but defendant kept out when she saw him.

Defendant said she never went into the witness’s house. He said to her “You are a candidate for the Black List. Instead of having two weeks in Canterbury, you ought to have two months”. That made her mad. She was sober at the time, and to show she was going on all right, the Chief Constable told her on Tuesday that he was pleased to see she was reforming. (Laughter)

The Chairman said the case against the defendant would be dismissed.

Defendant: Thank you. Good morning, sir.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Chronicle).

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

Saturday, February 3rd: Before Alderman W. G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major G. E. Leggett, Messrs. C. J. Pursey, J. Stainer, G. I. Swoffer, and R. J. Linton.

Nellie Maud Williams was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises.

John Foreman stated that he was the landlord of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street. Before 9 o’clock on Thursday morning, the defendant entered his house and asked for a drink. His experience was that defendant was an undesirable customer, and he had been told to be careful of her. She had never been served in his house but once, and then she obtained drink under false pretences. The defendant had been drinking, and he asked her to leave. On his coming towards her she backed out very reluctantly. In the street she used the vilest language he had ever heard anyone use. She went away and came back soon afterwards, using the most disgraceful language, and saying that as she had got a drink further up she did not see why he did not give her one.

Defendant (addressing witness): It’s a cross-summons, and you appear on Wednesday. (Laughter).

She further stated that witness had jeered her, and said she ought to have two months instead of two weeks.

The Chairman stated that the case would be dismissed, and defendant, saying “Good morning”, left the Court.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 February 1906.

Local News.

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

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

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

Mr. John Foreman applied for the licence of the "Welcome Inn," Dover Street.

Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of the owners and licensee, and concisely opened the case, asking that the licence, if opposed, be on the ground of redundancy, and not on that of misconduct.

Mr. Rook appeared in opposition to the licence. He could not assent to Mr. Mercer’s application.

His application was refused.

Mr. Rook said on December 4th, Mr. Luck, the previous tenant, applied for a transfer, and was refused owing to the fact that he had not held the licence for one year. When he had completed the twelvemonth the transfer was granted, but it was pointed out that that would not prejudice opposition to the licence, so he went into the house with his eyes open. During 16 years the licence had been transferred 16 times. In the last three or four years there had been three convictions, and during the past two years, two convictions – one for drunkenness, and one for harbouring prostitutes. He contended that the house had been badly conducted, and that the present tenant, until the last month, had not improved it, it being frequented by persons of the lowest character.

Inspector Lilley proved serving the notices. The house was formerly known as the "Folkestone Cutter." The house had been a general resort for prostitutes, with exceptions of short periods. In 1892 a conviction was obtained for keeping the house open during prohibited hours on Sunday. He had cautioned several different landlords. He kept observation on the house in 1905 from 27th March to 2nd April, principally during the last hour. The chief customers were soldiers and prostitutes, there being very few civilians. On the 27th March, from 10.45 till closing time, he saw three prostitutes leave with men, two of whom were drunk. On the following day, from 10.35 he saw a prostitute go in, and ....

Mr. Mercer objected to the evidence on the common ground of fairness. They were dealing with over a year ago, and the present tenant had no means of checking the evidence. If evidence of that character was permitted, then the publicans were at the mercy of the police.

The Bench said they should admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said the late tenant was warned and told no doubt he would be summoned, and he had been cautioned in February. On the 28th, at 10.45, two more prostitutes went in and came out later with two soldiers, at 10.55. Music and dancing was going on. On the 29th, at 10.35, a woman came out and went away with a soldier. At 10.50 two prostitutes came out and went away with several soldiers. At closing time two prostitutes left, who went away with soldiers, also one married woman and another woman. There were 20 or 30 soldiers came out, some under the influence of drink. On the 31st, at 10.40, a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute went away with a soldier. At 10.55 another woman went away with a soldier. At 10.45 some Hussars came out drunk. On the 1st April, at 10.25, a prostitute came out and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in a few minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and came back at 10.55. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all going away with soldiers. Four of the women must have been in the house all the time witness had it under observation.

Cross-examined: He had known the house 22 years. He made the entries in his notebook each night. He recollected the house being prosecuted once as the resort of prostitutes. He had reported the house to his chief verbally. In April, 1905, it was reported in writing, the first time in 21 years. There was no prosecution in consequence. He acted on his own initiative in observing the house. He did not arrest any of the drunken soldiers as they were capable of taking care of themselves.

Mr. Mercer protested against the Inspector refusing the names of constables who, he said, knew the house as harbouring prostitutes.

The Bench thought the names should be given, and he mentioned Inspector Swift and the two sergeants present – Osborne and Lawrence. They had had conversations on the subject, and they were told to observe, and, if necessary, to report. They did not do so in writing. Three or four constable had also reported verbally.

Re-examined: He made a special report at the time based on his notes.

Mr. Mercer brought to the notice of the Bench that a lot of constables were present, and they were not asked to withdraw.

P.S. Lawrence said he had known the "Welcome" 18 years. There was very little day trade. In the evening it was the habitual resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type, and soldiers. He produced a copy of the conviction on 25th May, 1904, for harbouring prostitutes. He had cautioned the previous tenant on the 6th and 7th December, 1905. In January, 1906, he went to the house and found several constables trying to disperse a crowd. Witness entered and saw Foreman. He said “At 20 past ten seven or eight soldiers came in. Neither of them had any drink, but went straight into the back room and said to a civilian “This is the bloke we are looking for.” A free fight ensued. There was a prostitute in the bar, and the attention of the landlord was called to her, and he said he did not want her in his house, and he asked her to leave, but she would not. He was told he knew his remedy.

Cross-examined: The landlord could not help the disturbance.

P.S. Osborne said he had known the "Welcome" 10 years. During the last few years it had been rather rowdy, with soldiers, prostitutes, and those who used the common lodging houses. On February 8th, 1905, at 10.35 he visited the house and saw a man there drunk, and he was arrested. He saw two prostitutes in the house. He visited the house again at 11 o’clock and saw a prostitute so drunk that she fell out of the house. Some soldiers were there, some of them drunk. One was arrested by the Military Police. He produced the conviction on February 5th. On 27th January witness saw Foreman turn out a prostitute. On the 29th he spoke to him as to a prostitute in the bar, and he said he thought she was a respectable woman. On January 13th, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the house.

Cross-examined: He agreed with Inspector Lilley’s description of the house to a great extent. He had reported the house several times to the late Superintendent. He had reported it three or four times during the past seven years. During Foreman’s time the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said he had known the house 13 years. He agreed with the previous witnesses as to the character of the trade done there. On Christmas Day, 1904 (a Sunday) witness visited the "Welcome" at 7.30 in the evening. The room was full of girls and soldiers, and some girls were sitting on the soldiers’ knees. They were all singing. The customers in the bar were all of a low class. In January, 1905 he kept observation and saw soldiers and prostitutes enter and leave the house. They did not enter together. On 27th January, 1905 he saw similar scenes. On the same date, 1906, he saw well known prostitutes enter and leave the house. He referred to the disturbance with the soldiers referred to by Sergeant Lawrence.

Cross-examined: He had never reported the house in writing, but had done so verbally.

P.C. Prebble said he was attracted by a noise on the 16th March, 1905. He found a number of women and soldiers there, all the worse for drink, the soldiers were fighting, and one was lying on the floor bleeding. One soldier was ejected, and afterwards was arrested.

Cross-examined: The landlord might have been to blame to some extent, but he was not prosecuted, or reported.

P.C. Sharp stated he had known the house 14 years. He agreed with previous evidence as to the character of the house, and corroborated the evidence as to prostitutes habitually using the house, adding some of a similar character as to his own observations on specific occasions.

Cross-examined: He reported the result of his observations in writing to the Chief Constable. No prosecution followed.

P.C. Butler said he observed the house in March and April, 1905, and saw prostitutes leave on the evening of each day between the 27th March and the 2nd April (omitting the 30th March and 1st April). He had seen men leave under the influence of drink. In December he saw prostitutes leave, and cautioned the landlord. He said he had been in business 21 years, and did not want to be taught his business.

Cross-examined: He did not compare his knowledge of licensing law to Mr. Mercer’s. He knew police offences under it. He thought ten minutes a reasonable time to obtain refreshments, but had seen prostitutes stay half an hour.

P.C. Bourne described the "Welcome" as being the resort of prostitutes and men who associated with them. When cautioned, Foreman replied that “his house was no worse than others”.

Thomas Henry Penn, 55, Penfold Road, pensioned staff-sergeant from the Army, said during the winter of last year he was employed as caretaker of the Albany Club, Tontine Street, and very often passed the "Welcome" on his way home. He saw the majority of the customers were soldiers and women of loose character. In February, 1905, about 10.45 one evening, he saw a man carried out and laid on the pavement. To all appearance he was senseless. He saw the landlord come out with a “long arm” and put out the lights. That would be about 10 to 11.

George Miller, 38, Dover Street, bootmaker, had known the "Welcome" ever since he could remember. Of late years it had borne a bad character. It was not used by the residents of Dover Street, but by loose women and disorderly men. Forty years ago it was a most respectable house.

Mr. Mercer protested against a question of Mr. Rook’s, and it was dismissed.

Thomas S. Franks, grocer, of 5, Dover Street, said he had lived there six years, and the only trade the house did was with soldiers and prostitutes, and had had cause to complain of their conduct. He had seen well-known prostitutes leave the "Welcome," and had seen them at the back of his premises with men. The respectable inhabitants of Dover Street did not use the house.

William Thomas Drury, bootmaker, Dover Street had known the house many years. It was a rough, rowdy house, with noise, bawling, shouting, and drunkenness.

Cross-examined: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness for the last 20 years near the "Welcome," but not since Christmas.

Harold McCrow, bootmaker, said he had a shop nearly opposite. The trade done at the "Welcome" in the evening was practically all soldiers and prostitutes.

That closed the case for the opposition.

Richard Moxon (managing director of Ash and Company), said he had been connected with the firm for 38 years, but had never received any complaint of the conduct of the house.

John Foreman, the licence holder, stated that he had been in occupation since December, 1905. It was a difficult house. He had prosecuted a woman for disorderly conduct, but did not obtain a conviction. On that occasion he did not receive any help from the police.

Mr. Herbert interposed and said Mr. Mercer was putting an entirely different complexion on the case to what took place in Court on the day mentioned. The woman was charged with refusing to quit, and as she had left at the request of the landlord, the case was dismissed.

Mr. Mercer apologised, saying he took the report from the Folkestone Herald. He had no wish to put an unfair complexion on the case.

Witness said he had plenty of experience in various houses in London and Bristol. He believed he could get a living if he was left alone.

Cross-examined: He believed he could get a living if he was not persecuted by the police. During the first week he was in Folkestone P.C. Butcher never left his door. The house was not a difficult one. (Witness had previously said it was) He took the house direct from Messrs. Ash, and paid 243 to go in.

The Chairman: We granted the licence under special conditions, and said that it would not tie our hands.

Mr. Mercer said he thought it was a hard case. He said he was again quoting from the Folkestone Herald, and perhaps it was wrong again. It stated that the licence would be opposed on the grounds of necessity.

The Chairman: Then the Folkestone Herald is wrong again.

Mr. Mercer: I shall not take the Folkestone Herald again.

In the course of a most powerful speech Mr. Mercer asked that the case might go to Quarter Sessions for compensation in the usual way. He thought the owners had been hardly used in not having been warned as to the conduct of the house by the police. The tenant had been hardly used. Houses of all classes must be provided, and he admitted the house was a rough one, and used by undesirable characters, and was a nuisance to the neighbourhood. If the case went to the Compensation Authority he would not fight it, and the police would gain their end.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return said the Bench were unanimous in deciding to refuse the licence on the ground of bad conduct.

Notice of appeal was given.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

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

 

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

Welcome Inn.

The first case of opposition heard had reference to the "Welcome Inn."

The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of this licence on the grounds of misconduct.

Mr. Herbert Rook supported the objection, while the tenant and owners were represented by Mr. Mercer, the County Coroner.

Mr. Rook, in opening the case, said the present tenant was a man named John Foreman, to whom the licence had been transferred in December of last year. In October the late tenant, Mr. Luck, had applied to transfer the licence to Foreman, but at that time there was a difficulty, as the licence had been previously transferred within a period of 12 months. What, said Mr. Rook, was the character of this house? In 16 years there had been 15 transfers of the licence; in the last three or four years there had been three convictions; in the last two years two convictions, one for harbouring prostitutes, and one for drunkenness. The house, he would prove, had been the habitual resort of persons of ill fame and of the lowest character.

At this stage Mr. Mercer pointed out that for six licences held over, five it was proposed to refer to Quarter Sessions on the grounds of redundancy, while his client had to face a charge of misconduct. The tenant had expended a considerable sum of money to go into the house, and it would be a great hardship if only this one house were refused without a chance of compensation. If the Bench would refer the licence to Quarter Sessions under the Compensation Act on the ground of redundancy, he would advise his clients not to further contest the application to close the house as a licensed premises.

The Chairman intimated that the Bench preferred to go on with the case on the grounds advanced by the Chief Constable.

Mr. Rook, having foreshadowed the evidence he intended to produce, called Inspector Lilley, who said: I served the notice of objection on Mr. Foreman. I have known those premises for the past 22 years well. They were formerly known as the "Cutter." The general character of the house during the whole time, with the exception of a very short period, has been the habitual resort of prostitutes. There have been one or two good landlords in. In 1892 I was in Court when a landlord of the house was fined 5 and costs for keeping the house open on Sunday. I have cautioned several different landlords as to the conduct of the house. Last year, from the 27th March to the 3rd April I kept observation of the house, especially during the late hours. A very great majority of the customers were soldiers and prostitutes; a very few civilian customers. At that time I made notes (produced). On the 27th March, 1905, I kept observation from 10.45 until closing time, and saw three prostitutes leave with men, two of the men being drunk. On the 28th I watched from 10.25. At 10.35 I saw a prostitute go in. At ....

At this point Mr. Mercer interrupted, and strongly objected to this class of evidence, dealing with a period of over a year ago. No warning had been given, and no-one could check police evidence. It was practically doing away with the liberty of the subject; and if such evidence was admitted, everyone would be at the liberty of the police.

The Chairman said the Bench must admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said that on this particular case warning was given to the tenant; further than that, he had warned the tenant. (Continuing): On this particular night I saw two prostitutes come out with soldiers; they had been there, but I do not know how long. They came out at 10.35. On this evening there was music and dancing, the dancing accompanied by a band. Again on the 29th I watched from 10.25; at 10.35 I saw a woman come out with a soldier. At 10.50 three women, two well-known prostitutes, a married woman and another woman. The two first women went away with soldiers. Five or six of those who left the house were under the influence of drink, and stumbled down the street. On the 31st I watched from 10.25. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier. At 10.50 a prostitute came out and went away with a man; at 10.55 another woman came out and went away with a soldier. At 10.45, ten minutes previous, three Hussars came out; one was drunk, and bolted up the street. On the 1st of April, at 10.16, I kept observation. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and returned to the house at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned again in about three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned again at 10.55. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all of them going away with soldiers. The prostitutes must have been in the house before I commenced to keep observation. Between 20 and 30 soldiers left the house while I was keeping observation.

By Mr. Mercer: The notes were made at the time I was keeping observation. The last note of observation in this year is made on the 23rd Feb.; the remainder of the book is absolutely blank, except another entry at the end of the book in reference to a larceny committed on January 10th, a reference to the Leas Hotel. The house during the last 22 years had been the habitual resort of prostitutes, except under two or three landlords. The house in 22 years had only been prosecuted once for prostitution. He had given a verbal report to his superior officer, but the first written report was made in April of last year.

Mr. Mercer: Have you reported the house a dozen times in 22 years?

Witness: No.

Mr. Mercer: Ten times?

Witness: No.

Mr. Mercer: How many times in this 22 years?

Witness: About four I should think.

In further cross-examination, witness said he watched the house as part of his duty, and not by the special instructions of the Chief Constable. Of the drunken people who had left the house he did not arrest any because they were not disorderly, and were capable of taking care of themselves. Information concerning this house would reach the police station in many other ways through other police officers. Among those who had conversations concerning the house he could mention Inspector Swift and two police sergeants. He could not say that either of these had reported to their superior officer. He, upon hearing these conversations, might have instructed the officers to keep observation on the house. In addition to the Inspector and sergeant, three or four of the private constables had reported the house to him.

Re-examined by Mr. Rook: It would depend upon circumstances who the sergeants reported to; if at night, and the witness was on duty, the report would be made to him; otherwise, to the Chief Constable.

Sergt. Frank Lawrence said he had known the "Welcome Inn" about 18 years. There was very little day trade. The character of the evening trade is the habitual resort of prostitutes, and men of the lowest types, who live in the common lodging houses, and soldiers. On the 25th May, 1904, I was present in Court when the then landlord was convicted for harbouring prostitutes. On the night of the 13th May, 1904, I saw a number of prostitutes leave the house. On the 5th and 6th of December, 1905, I cautioned the last tenant. I mean December, 1904. That was not Luck, but Jarvis. On the 27th of January this year, from what I heard, I went to the Welcome Inn. I found P.C.s Simpson, Chaney, and Boorn endeavouring to disperse a crowd in front of the house. I entered the house, and there saw the present applicant. I went with him to a room at the back of the bar. He said “About 20 minutes past 10 seven or eight soldiers came to the house; neither called for any drink, but walked straight into the back room, where seven or eight customers were seated. One of the soldiers said to a civilian “This is the bloke we are looking for” and went for him, and immediately about six couples were fighting”. Then I entered the house, one woman, a prostitute, was in front of the bar. I spoke to the landlord about her, and he said he “did not want her to come here”, and I said “You know your remedy if she refuses to leave”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: He could not see how Foreman was to blame for the soldiers fighting in the room, if the statement was true, and he had no reason to doubt that it was.

Sergt. Osborne said: I have known the "Welcome Inn" the last 19 years. During the last 19 years the trade has been rather rowdy, the customers being soldiers, prostitutes, and those who visit common lodging houses. On the 8th of February last year, with P.C. Sharp, I visited the house. In the bar I found a man named France. The man was drunk and incapable; I arrested him. At the time two prostitutes were in the bar. The same night I visited the house again, and saw one of the prostitutes coming out. She was drunk; in fact, she fell out. There were three soldiers in the front bar; two of them were drunk, and one was arrested by a corporal of the Military Police. I now produce the conviction of John Luck, on the 15th of February, 1905. On the 27th of January this year I was proceeding up Dover Street. I saw the present applicant turning out a prostitute. He said she use such bad language he could not stand it, and had turned her out. On the 29th of January I cautioned him in respect to a prostitute, and he said he thought she was a respectable woman. At a later date I arrested a prostitute in the house who had broken away from a constable by whom she had been arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: In a great measure he agreed with the description of the house given by Inspector Lilley. Practically the house had been the resort of prostitutes on and off for the past 19 years. During the last seven years he had reported the house, he should think, about four or five times. During Foreman’s time the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said: I have known the house during the last 13 years. There has been during my observation practically no day trade, and at night time a very rough trade. The house had been used by low characters and prostitutes, and disturbances had been frequent. On Christmas Day, 1904, with P.C. Sharp, I visited the house, and at 7.30 p.m. I found on the ground floor a room full of soldiers and girls. Some of the girls were sitting on soldiers’ knees, and one girl was playing “Blue Bell” on the piano. (Laughter) On the other side of the house there were several costermongers and rag and bone pickers humming to a tune played by an automatic machine. On the 19th of January I saw a prostitute leave the house with three soldiers. Shortly after two other prostitutes left with soldiers and civilians. On the 20th of January, 1905, I saw two prostitutes in the front bar. Shortly after these two left with another one and three soldiers. On the 27th of January this year I was in Dover Street, keeping observation on the "Welcome Inn." Between 6.30 and 8.30 I saw three prostitutes enter and leave, Jane Fraser, Minnie Smith, and Martha Williams. On the 17th of January, about 10.15 p.m., I was attracted to the "Welcome Inn" by a police whistle. I saw six soldiers of the Royal Scots come out. One had his face bleeding. I called the landlord’s attention to it, and he said the men had entered and made a row with some of his customers.

By Mr. Mercer: He had known the house about 13 years; had never reported the house in writing, but several times verbally. If six soldiers went into a house and fell upon six customers, witness would say that the landlord had done no harm.

P.C. William Prebble said: On the 11th of March, 1905, I was at the "Welcome Inn." I entered the house, and found several soldiers and women in the back of the house. Four of the soldiers were fighting, one was bleeding very much from the back of the head, all were the worse for drink. One soldier was ejected, and on his refusing to go away I arrested him, and he was convicted.

By Mr. Mercer: The landlord was not summoned for misconduct. He did not report the landlord, but reported the soldier. If he had thought the landlord had committed an offence under the licensing laws, he would have reported him.

P.C. Sharp said: I have known the "Welcome Inn" for about 14 years. The house has been the habitual resort of prostitutes, soldiers, and rough characters. On the 31st of March, and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of April last year, I kept observation on the house. On the 31st March at 10.05 I saw two prostitutes leave the house, and at 10.10 returned again. At 10.35 two prostitutes left; they had entered during the time I had been watching. At 10.50 Spearpoint again left the house, accompanied by a soldier. At 10.55 the soldier and Spearpoint returned. At 10.53 another prostitute left in company with a soldier. I had not seen that prostitute enter, and had been there since 9 p.m. On Sunday, the 23rd of April, I kept observation from 8.30 until closing time. At 8.40 two prostitutes and two soldiers came out. I had not seen them enter. At nine o’clock the same two returned to the house. At 9.05 a prostitute and a woman left in company with three soldiers, and all went up High Street. On the 3rd of April I kept observation from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. At 8.50 two prostitutes and two soldiers entered. At 9.20 two prostitutes left (not the same two) and returned at 9.30. At 9.48 one of them left, and returned at 9.50. At 10.25 two prostitutes left, followed by two men. One of the prostitutes and one man went to a passage at the back of Saffrons Place, and a few minutes later returned to the "Welcome."

By Mr. Mercer: After keeping observation for four days witness reported this evidence to his Chief Constable in writing. No action was taken; he could not say why. A prostitute was entitled to get refreshment. A publican would not be doing wrong in supplying a prostitute, but he would be doing wrong if he harboured a prostitute.

P.C. R. J. Butler said: I kept observation of the house in March and April of last year from the 22nd of March to the 2nd of April, from 10 p.m. On the evening of each of these days I saw prostitutes leave the house. I also saw soldiers and civilians leave the house. On the 27th I saw two civilians leave under the influence of drink. On the 12th of December in the same year I saw two prostitutes leave the house. On the 12thI saw five prostitutes leave the house at five minutes to 11. I then called the present landlord and cautioned him, by giving him the women’s names. He replied “he knew them; he had been in the business 21 years, and did not want telling”.

By Mr. Mercer: He knew that “harbouring” in the Licensing Law was a very serious offence. Ten minutes to 15 would be quite enough for obtaining refreshment. In March, 1905, witness submitted a report to the Chief Constable, but no proceedings were taken. When the two men came out on the 27th of March they were under the influence of drink, but not drunk; that was why he did not report them.

P.C. Robert J. Boorn said: The character of the "Welcome" from my observation has been the resort of prostitutes and a low class of character. In December, 1904, on the 5th, I visited the house at 10.25, and went into the public bar with Sergt. Lawrence. There were two prostitutes there, Herring and Allchin. The landlord said he knew Herring was a prostitute, but thought the other woman was the wife of a man in the bar. On the 6th of October, 1904, I kept observation on the house, and saw the same two women enter the house at 10.10 with two soldiers (cavalry), and left at 10.30 with two infantrymen. At 10.40 the women returned again alone. At 10.50 the woman and a man who went in at 10.40 came out. At 11 o’clock the first two came out with two other women, soldiers and civilians. On the 7th the house was quiet. On the 28th February, 1905, I saw the woman Herring with another prostitute, Williams, in the house. Williams left the house, but returned again. At closing time, Herring, Williams, and Sweeney (another prostitute) all left the house; I did not see Sweeney enter the house. On the 1st of arch I again kept observation, and saw a woman named Norris enter the house, and come out with Sweeney and another woman. At 10.40 I went with Inspector Lilley and cautioned the landlord that if the prostitutes were allowed to remain he would be reported for a summons, and he replied “his house was no worse than others, as he had seen other houses full of them”.

By Mr. Mercer: There was always to be found a rough place in every town, where one did not expect to find a high class house.

It was now 1.30, and the Court adjourned until 2.15.

On the resumption of the hearing, four civilian witnesses were called, and by a peculiar coincidence three who lived in Dover Street were all of one trade – bootmakers.

Mr. Rook called Thomas henry Penn, who said he was a pensioned army staff-sergeant. From his observation the majority of customers frequenting the "Welcome Inn" were loose characters. In February, 1905, he saw a man carried out of the "Welcome" by four other men and deposited on the pavement. The man, to all appearances, was senseless. On that occasion the light in front of the house was put out a quarter of an hour before time.

By Mr. Mercer: Witness did not make any special point about the light being put out.

George Henry Miller said he had known the "Welcome" as long as he could remember; first as the "Cutter." The character of the house was very low, mostly used by unfortunate women. Witness lived at 30, Dover Street. Forty years ago the house was a very respectable one.

By Mr. Mercer: Now unfortunate women and soldiers frequent the house.

Mr. Mercer: Have you ever heard of any prosecutions of this house?

Witness: I have wondered there have not been years ago.

Thomas Stokes Franks, a grocer, said: I have known the street and house practically all my life. I have lived in Dover Street for six years. The character of the customers is bad. The trade is with soldiers and prostitutes. I have had cause to complain of the conduct of the customers. I have seen well known prostitutes enter and leave the "Welcome," and I have seen the same well known prostitutes and men at the back of my house. I could not say that I had seen acts of indecency. I do not know of one of the respectable inhabitants of Dover Street who use this house.

By Mr. Mercer: I am personally interested in property in Dover Street.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, said: I have known the "Welcome Inn," and the "Cutter" before it, for some years. I should think it ought to be termed a very rough, rowdy place.

By Mr. Mercer: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness this 20 years past, but not so much since Christmas.

Harold Macrow said: I live at 49, Dover Street, and have a shop nearly opposite the "Welcome Inn." I am a bootmaker. From what I have seen of the "Welcome Inn," the trade done is practically with prostitutes and soldiers. I have heard and seen scenes of disorder at the house. My experience of the house extends over about 12 years.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Mercer at once put one of the managing directors of Messrs. Ash in the box for the defence.

Richard Moxton, a member of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Co., said he had been connected with the firm for 35 years, and during that time no complaint had been made to him from the police.

By Mr. Rook: Witness said he did not suggest that it was the duty of the police to make a complaint to the firm.

John Foreman said: The licence was transferred to me on December 7th. During the time I have been in the house I have exercised care to the best of my ability. I brought a woman here lately for abuse, but on that occasion I received no assistance from the police.

Mr. Herbert: You are putting an entirely false impression; the police did not arrive until the woman had left the house.

By Mr. Mercer: None of the civilian witnesses had written to him or warned him. He contended he could have done all right in the house if he had been left alone.

Mr. Rook: You say you would have done all right if left alone. What do you mean by that?

Witness: By being persecuted by the police, especially P.C. Butler, No. 6, who remained on my doorstep from the first week when I entered the house. I am not supposed to ask any woman her occupation when she enters my house, and they do not wear a brass breastplate with their occupation on it. I have had considerable experience in the licensing business, but have never held a house under Messrs. Ash before. When taking this house Messrs. Banks and Son acted for me and the brewers. I paid 214 valuation to take over the house.

Mr. Rook: You applied for the transfer in October, and did not get it until December. What were you doing in the meantime?

Witness: Am I bound to answer such a question?

The Chairman, after consulting his colleagues, said witness need not answer such a question.

Mr. Mercer protested against Mr. Rook having put the question. He had never heard an advocate wish to extract such information in such a case.

Mr. Mercer then at considerable length addressed the Bench again, asking the Justices to re-consider their decision, and to report the house to the compensation authority only. The case was a somewhat peculiar one, and he ventured to say one which inflicted great hardship on the owners and the tenant. The case was hard, inasmuch as, if the Bench decided to take away the licence, the tenant would have to leave the house without compensation. Messrs. Ash had since the passing of the Compensation Act, paid a very considerable amount into the fund, and yet they, too, would lose their house without compensation. In appealing to the Magistrates, he asked them to bear in mind that the general public did not contribute to the compensation fund, but the “Trade” themselves. The specific hardships which his clients would suffer were that, covering a period of 14 years, the police had only proved three convictions, and yet the charge was that the house was the habitual resort of prostitutes. He quite agreed, and could not confuse the evidence, that the house was a rough one, but they must all agree that there must be such class of houses. The gentlemen would not like to have to associate with this class at their hotels, etc. On the tenant, to lose the licence would be a gross hardship. He had paid 214 to take over the house in December, and now, if reference to the Compensation Court were refused, it simply meant that he could take his goods into the street, and not get as many shillings for them. If the house was so bad in 1905, as the police said it was, how was it that the licence did not go then, and not wait until 1906 before taking it away? He (Mr. Mercer) had to admit the whole of the facts, yet he would ask the Bench to consider the specific hardships upon both owners and tenant. It was only two years ago that the "Marquis of Lorne" (Messrs. Ash’s property) came before the Bench. That was before the clause of the Act was in operation, therefore, to lose their second house without compensation would be “blow upon blow”.

The Magistrates retired, and after an absence of seven minutes returned into Court, when the Chairman announced that the Magitrates were unanimous in refusing the renewal of the licence upon the grounds of misconduct.

Mr. Mercer: My instructions are to appeal; will the Bench fix the recognisances?

The Chairman: The recognisances will be the landlord in 100, and two sureties in 50 each.

We understand the "Welcome" appeal was duly entered on Wednesday morning.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1906.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The "Welcome."

The licence of the "Welcome Inn" was first considered. John Foreman is the licence holder, and the objection against the licence was that there had been a conviction against the house.

Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., the brewers. On the case being called, he said before going on with the case, he would like to mention that when it was put back, there was a verbal objection against the house that it was not required. He had, however, been served with a notice that it had not been well conducted. He asked that the objection should be taken on the ground that it was not required. Under the present objection the licence could be confiscated.

Mr. J. H. Rook, who appeared on behalf of the police in opposition to the licence being granted, objected to it being other than on account of ill-conduct.

The Magistrates stated they could not accede to Mr. Mercer’s application.

The register was handed in by the Magistrates’ Clerk.

Inspector Lilley said he had known the house twenty two years. It was formerly known as the Cutter. During the whole time, with the exception of a short period, the house had been the habitual resort of prostitutes. In 1892 he was present in Court when a conviction was made against the landlord for keeping the house open on Sunday during prohibited hours. He had cautioned several different landlords about the conduct of the house. From March 27th to April 3rd last year he kept observation on the house, and he saw that the customers were composed chiefly of soldiers and prostitutes. He made notes at the time, which he produced. On March 27th, from 10.45 p.m. to closing time he saw three prostitutes leave with men. On the 28th at 10.35 p.m. he saw a prostitute go in.

At this point Mr. Mercer objected to the evidence because the present licence holder was not in the house then. On the ground of common fairness he asked them that the evidence be not heard.

The Chairman said they would admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said on March 28th at 10.55 p.m. two prostitutes came out with soldiers. They had been in all the time he kept observations, as he did not see them enter. Music and dancing was going on. On the following day he watched from 10.35 p.m. to 10.55. He saw women, two of them well-known prostitutes, leave the house at 10.50. At closing time two known prostitutes left the house with soldiers. Two other women also left the house. They were all sober. Between ten and twenty soldiers came out, and several were under the influence of drink. There was also music and dancing on that occasion. On March 31st he kept observations from 10.35 p.m. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier. At 10.55 another woman came out with a soldier. At 10.45 three Hussars came out, and one of them was drunk. On April 1st he kept observation from 10.16 p.m. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned at 10.55. She had previously come out of the house at 10.25. At 10.53 a prostitute came out and went away with a soldier. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all of them going away with soldiers. He had not seen the prostitutes enter, so could not say what time they entered. From 20 to 30 soldiers also left.

Cross-examined, witness said he made the notes about the house during the time he was in the street. The first prosecution against the house he remembered was 1892. He had known the house prosecuted for being the resort of prostitutes only once during the twenty two years. The first time he had reported the house for being the resort of prostitutes was last April. He had reported it verbally four or five times during that time. There was no prosecution in respect of his report. He did not keep observations on the house in consequence of instruction from his chief, but did it in the performance of his duty. On April 3rd he warned Luck that he would be summoned, but that was not done. He could not say the reason of that. Inspector Swift knew of the character of the house, and had had conversations with him on the matter. Two sergeants had also verbally reported it to him. He told them to keep observations, and if anything happened to report it. They had reported verbally with regard to the conduct of the house. Three or four constables had spoken to him on the matter. There had been two convictions, one for drunkenness, and another for allowing the house to be the resort of prostitutes.

P.S. Laurence said he had known the house about eighteen years. There was very little day trade, while the character of the evening trade was that it was the resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type, who lived in the common lodging houses, and of soldiers. He was in Court on May 25th, 1904, when a conviction was made against the landlord for harbouring prostitutes. On December 5th and 6th, 1904, he cautioned Jarvis, the then tenant. On January 27th, 1906, at 10.35 p.m., he found P.C.s Simpson, Cheyney and Boorn endeavouring to disperse a crowd in front of the house. He entered the house and saw the applicant, with whom he went to the back of the bar. He also said about twenty past ten seven or eight soldiers entered the house and walked straight through to the back room, where several of the regular customers were seated. One of the soldiers said to one of the civilians “This is the bloke we are looking for”. Immediately there were six couples fighting in the room. He saw a well-known prostitute in the house and he called the landlord’s attention to her. He said he had ordered her to leave but she refused. The floor of the back room was flooded with liquor, and there was evidence of a disturbance having taken place.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not see how the landlord was to blame for the disturbance.

P.S. Osborne said he had known the "Welcome" for nineteen years. During the last few years the trade had been rowdy, with prostitutes, soldiers, and generally those using common lodging houses. On February 8th of last year, at 10.35 p.m., he entered the house with P.C. Sharpe, and found a man named France in the bar drunk and incapable. Witness arrested him. He also found two prostitutes there. At eleven o’clock the same night he went to the house again, and saw a prostitute named Spranklin come out. She was drunk and fell down. He found three soldiers in the bar, and they were drunk. One was afterwards arrested by the military police. He produced the conviction against Luck, the landlord, made on February 15th. On January 27th, 1906, he was going down the street at 9.30 p.m., when he saw the applicant turning a prostitute out of the house. On January 29th he called the landlord’s attention to a prostitute in the house, and the landlord said he thought she was a respectable woman. On January 13th, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the house. There were also three other prostitutes in the house at the time.

Cross-examined, he said he agreed in a great measure with Inspector Lilley’s description of the house. He spoke to the late Superintendent several times about the conduct of the house. During the last seven years he had verbally reported the house several times. During Foreman’s tenancy the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said he had known the "Welcome Inn" for thirteen years. Disturbances had been frequent at the house. On Christmas Day, 1904, P.C. Sharpe and himself went to the house at 7.30, and on the ground floor a room was full of soldiers and girls. Some of the girls were sitting on the soldiers’ knees. One girl was playing the piano. In the public bar there were several costermongers, flower sellers, and two prostitutes. In January, 1905, he kept observation on the house on the 19th and 20th. He saw on the 19th a prostitute leave with three soldiers, and shortly saw two other prostitutes enter and leave with men. On January 25th last year, at 9.15 p.m., he saw two prostitutes in the front bar, and shortly after they left in company with soldiers. On January 27th that year he kept observation, and between 6.30 p.m. and 8.30 he saw three prostitutes enter the house and remain there a quarter of an hour. Later he saw six soldiers of the Royal Scots come out, and one of them had a bleeding face, and the landlord told witness that they had picked a quarrel with some civilians. He saw a prostitute sitting in the house, and when he drew the landlord’s attention to her, he replied that the woman’s time was up, and he was just about to tell her to go.

P.C. W. Prebble said on March 6th, 1905, he went to the "Welcome Inn," and he found several soldiers and women there. Four of them were fighting. All were the worse for drink, and witness sent for a military picquet. He ejected one, and as he would not go away, witness took him into custody for being drunk and disorderly.

Cross-examined, he said he did not report the landlord.

P.C. Sharpe said he had known the Inn for fourteen years. It had been the resort of prostitutes, soldiers, and rough characters. From March 31st to April 3rd last year he kept observations on the house. On March 31st he saw two prostitutes leave at 10.05 p.m. He had not seen them enter as he had been there from 9.15. On April 1st he kept observation from nine o’clock until eleven o’clock. At 9.30 a prostitute entered the house, and left at 9.45. At 10.10 she returned again and left later. On each occasion she left with a man. At 10.35 two prostitutes left. They had not entered during the time he had been watching. At 10.53 a prostitute left with a soldier. He had not seen her enter. On April 2nd, a Sunday, he kept observation from 8.30 p.m. At 8.40 he saw two prostitutes come out with two soldiers. At 9 o’clock they returned to the house in company with the two soldiers. At 9.05 a prostitute and a woman left with three soldiers. On April 3rd he kept observation from 8 p.m. At 8.50 two prostitutes and two soldiers entered. At 9.20 two prostitutes left, and returned at 9.30. At 9.45 one left, and returned at 9.50. At 10.25 two prostitutes left followed by two men. After a short conversation one left with one of the men and went to a passage at the rear of the house. They returned to the "Welcome" at 10.48.

Cross-examined, witness said he reported in writing what he saw, but no action was taken. He could not say why.

P.C. Butler gave evidence of the house being the resort of prostitutes, and also of civilians and soldiers leaving it under the influence of drink.

Similar evidence was given by P.C. Boorn.

The Court then adjourned.

Mr. Thomas Henry Penn, 54, Penfold Road, a pensioner staff-sergeant in the Army, said during the winter of last year he had been employed at the Albany Club, in Tontine Street, as caretaker, and he used to go home at night by the route of Dover Street very often. The customers appeared to be soldiers and women of loose character. He remembered on a Saturday night in February of last year seeing a man being carried out of the "Welcome Inn" and placed opposite. The landlord followed the men out, and turned out the light and then closed the door.

Mr. George Miller, bootmaker, 38, Dover Street, said he had known the house ever since he could remember. The character of the house during the last twenty years was pretty low. The class of customers were mostly unfortunate women.

Cross-examined, he said he had wondered very much to hear of no prosecutions against the house.

Thomas Stokes Franks, a grocer and provision merchant, of 51, Dover Street, said he had lived there six years, and the character of the customers was bad. The only trade as far as he could see was with prostitutes and soldiers in general. He had had cause to complain of the conduct of the customers. He had seen well-known prostitutes enter and leave the "Welcome." He had also seen them leave with men at the back of his house.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, residing in Dover Street, also gave his experience of the house, and said it was a very rough and rowdy place as regarded men and women shouting, drunkenness, and bawling. He went on and minded his own business when he heard a noise.

Cross-examined, he said the amount of drunkenness had been scandalous on and off during the last twenty years.

Harold McCrow, also a bootmaker, residing at 49, Dover Street, said the trade done at the house was practically with prostitutes and soldiers. He had heard disorder in the house, and also seen scenes of disorder outside.

Mr. R. Moxon, a member of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Company, said he had been acting as manager for 35 years. No information had been received during that time that the house was conducted in any other manner than it ought to have been.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not suggest it was the duty of the police to send him such intimation. The present tenant had not been a tenant of the Company before.

The tenant, Foreman, said he came before the Court on December 7th. He was told at the time that it was a difficult house, and would require care to manage it. During the time he had been there he had exercised care to the best of his ability. He had brought a woman before the Magistrates for abusing him. He was unsuccessful in obtaining a conviction. He had no assistance from the police in that case. Although the house had been watched night and day, yet on that occasion when the woman was disorderly there was no policeman there.

Mr. Herbert said the witness was putting a different complexion on the affair to which he referred. When the landlord brought the woman before the Magistrates he charged her with refusing to quit licensed premises before the police came on the scene, and that the woman left the bar when she was requested.

Mr. Mercer told the justices that he obtained his information from what he considered would be the best authority he could get – the Folkestone Herald.

Mr. Foreman, continuing, said he ejected the woman, and when the constable arrived he told him to summon her. He did so. None of those gentlemen who had given evidence had made a complaint to him. In fact they were perfect strangers to him. He had not been summoned for any offence since he had been in the house. He paid 203 on entering, apart from the stock on valuation. When he was away his wife looked after the house. She had had twenty one years’ experience. His experience had been gained in various houses in Bristol and London, some houses being of a superior class, while others were very rough. It appeared to him that he got at the present time the same class of customers as every other licensed house in Folkestone. Comparing his house with the houses he had had elsewhere, he did not find it was more difficult to manage than the others. He thought he could manage his present house if he was only left alone.

Cross-examined, he meant by being left alone, if he had not been persecuted by the police. They had not prosecuted him up to the present. The way they had persecuted him was: P.C. Butler never left his door the first week he was there. P.C. Butler had called his attention to two or three women who came out of his house one day. He told the constable he was a stranger in Folkestone, and then asked him how he could expect him to know the occupation of those women, for they did not carry their characters on their breast. He kept his eyes open for respectability. He did not think it was a very difficult house to manage if he was left alone, but it was only through the persecution of the police that it was difficult to manage. He had never previously held a licence under Messrs. Ash and Co. He paid 243 to go into the house.

The Chairman: You went into this house with your eyes open?

The Applicant: Yes, sir.

Mr. Mercer, in addressing the justices, said the case was a somewhat peculiar one, as he ventured to say it was rather a hard one. The Magistrates at the general sessions, having come to the conclusion that there was a redundancy of licences, notified their desire that certain houses should be closed. He again ventured to refer to the Folkestone Herald, which might be wrong. According to the report it was intimated that at the adjourned sessions the six houses, including the "Welcome," would be opposed on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood.

The Chairman: The Folkestone Herald is wrong.

Mr. Mercer: I shall not take in the Folkestone Herald again. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Mercer asked the Magistrates to refer the licence to the Quarter Sessions on the ground that it was not required. If the Bench decided not to allow it then it would deprive the owners and the licence holder of any compensation from the fund to which they had been contributing. He appealed to the Magistrates to reconsider the matter from that point of view. The brewers had been forced to stick to the previous tenant owing to the rule that the licence could not be transferred within a year. Men, who resided near the house, had said the whole place was a beastly nuisance. He agreed it was not a house to be kept. If the Magistrates reported the house to the Compensation Authority, then he would give an undertaking that he would not object and fight it when it came up.

The justices retired, and on their return into Court the Chairman announced that they had decided to refuse the licence on the ground of misconduct.

Mr. Mercer said he was instructed to appeal, and he asked the Magistrates to fix the amount of recognisances.

The Chairman said the recognisances would be the landlord in 100 and two sureties of 50 each.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1906.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

 

The "Welcome Inn."

The case of the "Welcome Inn" (landlord Mr. John Foreman) was taken first.

Mr. Mercer, who appeared for the brewers (Messrs. Ash and Co.), said when the Magistrates put the case back at the former Licensing Sessions it was done on the ground of its not being required, but since that date he had been served with a notice stating the ground, not that the house was not required, but that it had not been conducted properly. He asked that the Bench would deal with the case not on the ground of which they had written notice, but on the ground on which they had had verbal notice.

Mr. J. Herbert Rook, who appeared in support of the withdrawal of the licence, objected to this application.

The Chairman: The Bench cannot consent to that.

Mr. Rook briefly addressed the Bench setting forth the main features of the evidence of the following witnesses.

Inspector Lilley, examined by Mr. Rook, said the house was formerly known by the name of the Cutter. It had been, since 1892, the habitual resort of prostitutes. In 1892 he was in Court when the conviction on the register was recorded. It was for keeping the house open beyond the specified hours on a Sunday night. He had several times cautioned the defendant, and during a period of last year kept watch on the house. A great majority of the customers were soldiers and prostitutes. He made notes at the time, and these he now produced. On the 27th March he saw, from 10.45 p.m. till closing time three prostitutes with men leave the house. Two of the latter were drunk. On the 28th of the same month he watched from 10.35 p.m. and saw a prostitute go in.

Mr. Mercer objected to this on the grounds of unfairness. It was impossible for the tenant to check the evidence in any way.

Mr. Rook said it was perfectly clear from a case which he quoted that such evidence was admissible.

The Bench decided to admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley (continuing) said previous warning was given to the late tenant of his conduct of the house. On the 28th two more prostitutes went out with soldiers. He started keeping observation at 10.35 p.m. There was dancing, with an automatic piano, going on in the house. At 10.35 p.m. on the next day a woman came out with a soldier. At 10.55 p.m. two well-known prostitutes came out with several soldiers. At closing time two more women left the house with soldiers. Several of the soldiers were under the influence of drink. There was the same noise of dancing and music and shouting in the house as on the previous day. On the 31st he watched from 10.25 p.m. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute came out and went away with a man, and a similar thing occurred at 10.55. At 10.45 three Hussars came out, one being drunk. On the 3rd April he kept observation from 10.10 p.m. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned at 10.55. She was the one who came out at 10.25 and returned at 10.30. At 10.53 a prostitute came out and went away with a soldier. Four of the women must have been in the house the whole of the time he had kept watch.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he made the notes in the street at the time of the occurrences. The last entry was on the 23rd February this year, and the remainder of the book was blank. The last entry had reference to a larceny. He had known the house for twenty two years, and during that time it had, with few exceptions, been the habitual resort of prostitutes. There had only been one prosecution on these grounds. He last reported it in writing last April. He had reported the house four or five times during the twenty one years. He did not arrest the drunken persons referred to because they were able to take care of themselves. They were not disorderly. When he went to the landlord in April, he (the landlord) was not summoned. Information concerning the house reached the police station in several ways. Inspector Swift and he had had conversation respecting the house, and also two of the sergeants had reported on it. Beyond the two sergeants, three or four other members of the force had reported the house, either verbally or in writing, as being the habitual resort of prostitutes. There had been three convictions.

Re-examined by Mr. Rook, witness said he made a special report at the time, founded on the notes in the notebook.

Sergt. Lawrence, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the Welcome Inn about eighteen years. There was very little day trade, and in the evening it was the habitual resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type. He was present in Court in May, 1904, when the then landlord was convicted. On the night of 5th and 6th December last year (1905), he cautioned the landlord (Mr. Jarvis). At 10.45 p.m. on the 27th January, 1906, from what he heard, he went to the Welcome Inn, where he found three policemen endeavouring to disperse the crowd in front of the house. He entered the house, and the landlord made a statement as to what had occurred, to the effect that about twenty past ten seven or eight soldiers came to the house, and, without calling for drinks, walked straight through to the back room. One of the soldiers said “This is the bloke we were looking for” and made for him, and immediately about six couples were fighting in the room. There was one prostitute in the house with a glass containing liquor. He called the landlord’s attention to her, and he said he had asked her to go out, but she had refused. He (witness) said “You know your remedy if she refuses to leave”. The floor of the back room was flowing with liquor.

Sergt. Osborne, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the "Welcome Inn" for 19 years. For the last few years the character of its trade had been rather rowdy. On the 8th February last year he visited the house at 10.35 p.m. P.C. Sharpe was with him. He found in the bar a man drunk and incapable. He arrested him and took him to the police station. He found also two prostitutes there. He went to the house again at 11 o’clock, and saw one of the women coming out, and she was drunk; in fact she fell out. He found three soldiers in the front bar; two were drunk, and one was subsequently arrested by the Military Police. He produced a conviction, dated February 15th, relating to the premises in question. On the 29th January, 1906, he spoke to the previous applicant outside the house, and cautioned him in regard to a prostitute standing by. On the 13th January, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the front bar of the house. There were three other prostitutes there at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: He agreed in part with the description of the house given by Inspector Lilley. He had spoken to the late tenant several times about the house. During Mr. Foreman’s tenancy of the house it had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the house for thirteen years. The night trade was very rough. Disturbances had been frequent. On Christmas Day, 1904 (Sunday), he went with P.C. Sharpe and found the ground floor in front full of soldiers and girls, the girls sitting on the soldiers’ knees, one girl playing the piano, and all singing “Bluebell”. In the front bar at the same time there were several flower sellers, costermongers, etc. In January, 1905, he kept observation on the house on the 19th and 20th. On the 19th he saw prostitutes leave with soldiers. They did not enter with the men they left with. On the 25th January, 1905, at 9.05 p.m. he saw two prostitutes in the front bar; they left with soldiers. On the 27th January, 1906, he was in Dover Street keeping observation on the Welcome Inn. He saw three prostitutes enter and leave. They remained for about fifteen minutes. At the top of Dover Street, on the 27th, he heard a police whistle blown, and spoke to the landlord, who told him there had been a general fight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he had reported several times casually. The case he had referred to on the 27th was identical with that referred to by Sergeant Lawrence.

P.C. Prebble, examined by Mr. Rook, said that on an evening of March, 1905, a noise attracted him to the "Welcome Inn." He found several soldiers there and some women. One was bleeding very much from the head; all were the worse for drink. He ejected one of the men who refused to leave, and subsequently arrested him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he did not report the landlord for this case. If he thought the landlord had committed an offence under the intoxicating liquor laws he would have summoned him.

P.C. Sharpe, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the Welcome Inn for fourteen years. He deposed to keeping observation on the house and seeing women of bad repute leave there.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness admitted that prostitutes were entitled to go to a house. There was no particular time limit in regard to their stopping. Ten minutes would be a reasonable time, but an hour would be unreasonable.

P.C. Butler, examined by Mr. Rook, deposed that he was keeping observation over the "Welcome Inn" in March and April last year. He saw prostitutes leave the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he would say from ten to fifteen minutes was a reasonable time for prostitutes to be in a house.

P.C. Bourne, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the house for six years. The night trade of the house had been low in character during that time. He spoke to having seen prostitutes enter and re-enter the house in February and March, 1905.

Thomas Henry Penn, of 55, Penfold Road, said he was a pensioned staff-sergeant from the Army. During the winter of last year he was employed at the Albany Club as caretaker, and whilst so employed went home by the Dover Street route. In doing so he would pass the Welcome Inn. With regard to the general character of the customers, they were soldiers and women of a loose character. On one Saturday in February, 1905, he was returning to his house about 10.45 p.m. when he saw a man carried out of the house in question by four men and placed on the opposite footway apparently senseless. Witness went about ten yards, and on turning round saw the landlord come out with a lamp extinguisher and put out the lights. He went in immediately and closed the door. It was then ten minutes to eleven.

George Miller, a bootmaker, of 38, Dover Street, stated that he had known the house for the last twenty years, and he considered it to be of a very low class, whilst the customers, for the most part, were unfortunate women. He lived about four houses away, and he had never seen any respectable people in the vicinity go in or come out. Forty years ago the Welcome Inn was a respectable house.

Cross-examined: In the days of Mr. Court, forty years ago, it was a good house. He had never heard of any prosecution, though he wondered there never had been.

Thomas Stokes Paine, a grocer and provision dealer, said he had lived in the vicinity for six years, and during that time the character of the house was bad. He had had cause to complain of the character of the customers, and had seen prostitutes there with men, and alone. They came up a passage which abutted upon his premises now and again to have a fight. He did not know of one respectable inhabitant of Dover Street who used the house.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, said that he had known the house for years. He thought it might very well be termed a very rough, rowdy house. By that he meant there was plenty of noise, drunkenness, and brawling. He could see the house from his place, but as soon as he heard the noise he went indoors and minded his own business.

Cross-examined: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness in the last twenty years, but he had not seen much of late.

Harold McCrow, also a bootmaker, living at 49, Dover Street, stated that he had a shop opposite the "Welcome Inn." The character of the trade done at the house was as described by the previous witnesses. He had heard scenes of disorder outside the premises, and had seen them inside.

Evidence in support of the licence was then taken.

Richard Moxom, manager of the firm of Ash and Co., declared that during the thirty eight years of his management he had received no news of the conduct of the house. The present applicant (Mr. Foreman) had not been in the house very long.

John Foreman, the tenant of the house, stated that he had been in occupation since November. He was warned when he took the house that it was a difficult one to control. He had conducted it to the best of his ability. He had proceeded against one woman for disorderly conduct, but he had been unable to obtain a conviction.

Mr. Herbert complained that Mr. Mercer was putting a wrong complexion on the case.

Witness, further examined, said that he did not find the house any more difficult to control than others, and he would manage if he was let alone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rook: When he said that he would manage all right if he was left alone, he meant if the police had let him alone.

Mr. Rook: If they have persecuted, they have not prosecuted you, have they?

Witness: When I was there the first week, No. 6 (Mr. Butler) did not leave my door. (Laughter)

Witness (continuing) added that in October he was negotiating directly for the house, and agreed to take it. He paid 243 to go into the place.

Mr. Mercer asked the Bench to reconsider this case. The fund from which the compensation was to be drawn was not provided by the Magistrates or the general public. It was a fund provided by the trade itself, and as had been said by a well-known Englishman occupying a high position, the Magistrates could afford to be generous. In that case the Magistrates could decide, if they believed the evidence, not to adopt the power they had of saying “No, this house is of such a character as to deprive you of the licence and we grant you no compensation”. He asked them to say that, upon certain conditions, they would report the licence to Quarter Sessions with other cases that they might have. It was a case of peculiar hardship, both to the brewers and the tenants. He asked the Bench, assuming the trade was bad and rough, that they would allow the case to go to Quarter Sessions, on a condition on which he would not have to oppose it. He agreed that he could not listen to the evidence that the Bench had heard and say it was a desirable house. He agreed that it was not a house to be kept, but he wanted, if it was referred to the Committee, to have the right to the full compensation that the property was worth. Only two years previously the Marquis of Lorne was extinguished without compensation, and the owners in that case were the same as in this.

The Bench having considered the matter in private, the Chairman announced that the Magistrates were unanimous in refusing to grant the licence on the ground that the house had been an ill-conducted one.

Mr. Mercer said he had been instructed to appeal, and asked the Magistrates to fix the amounts of the recognisances.

The amount was fixed, the landlord in 100, and two sureties of 50 each.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

WARMAN James 1893-95 (Also "Victoria")

Last pub licensee had JEFFORD Walter 1895+

Last pub licensee had BAILEY Edward 1895-96

JACOB Thomas 1896-98

KNOPP John 1898-99

JACKSON Joseph 1899

MANSFIELD Frederick 1899-1901

GATNER Charles 1901-03 Kelly's 1903

BROWN Charles 27/Mar1903-04

JARVIS George Apr-Nov/1904

LUCK John 1/Nov/1904-Dec/05

FOREMAN/FREEMAN John 9/Dec/1905-06

TUNSTALL Edward Henry Sept/1905+

 

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

 

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