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 Herald 11 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

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

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 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 Herald 28 October 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.