DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 15 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1893

(Name from)

Wellington

Latest 1940

1 Beach Street

Folkestone

 

I have only recently added Folkestone to this site. The information gathered so far is from "More Tales from the Tap Room" by Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney.

Originally called the "British Colours" and changed from that name in 1893.

 

Folkestone Express 9 June 1894.

Monday, June 4th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

John Rackley was charged with stealing a rabbit and two fowls, the property of Mr. Quested, of Coolinge.

P.C. Gardner said on Saturday last, from information received, he went to the Wellington beershop, at the bottom of Dover Street, at ten minutes past one. He saw prisoner there with a basket containing a live rabbit and a dead fowl, the latter plucked. He asked prisoner where he got them from. He replied “Where do you think? I bought them”. He charged prisoner with stealing them, and prisoner replied “All right”.

Edward Quested, landlord of the Shorncliffe Inn, said he kept fowls and rabbits at the back of his premises. He locked the yard up as usual about nine o'clock on Friday night, and on Saturday morning he missed a rabbit and two pullets. He gave information to the police. The fowl produced was the same breed as those he lost. The rabbit was a remarkable one – it had a “butterfly nose”, and he had no doubt whatever that it was his property. He valued it at 5s., and the chickens at 2s. 6d.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being in possession of the goods, bus said he received them from another man, but did not know his name. He gave 3s. for the chicken and rabbit.

P.C. Gardner said 2s. were found on prisoner and his discharge papers.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 June 1894.

John Rackley, aged 29, and of no settled abode, and formerly an Artillery soldier, was charged before the Folkestone Justices on Monday with stealing two chickens and a tame rabbit, altogether worth 11s., the property of Edward Quested, of the Shorncliffe Inn, Coolinge Road, on the night of the 1st inst.

He was sentenced to a month's hard labour.

The man, who was apprehended at the Wellington public house by P.C. Gardner, is to be charged with rabbit stealing in the county when his sentence expires.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 24 April 1895.

Police Court Jottings.

Before Capt. Carter on Saturday, James Cannon was charged with creating a disturbance at the Wellington beerhouse, and refusing to quit. He was ultimately ejected by force, and then he broke a window.

The prosecutor stated that the defendant “deliberately put his fist through the glass”.

The defendant denied this, and stated that he fell against the window when he was put out of the house.

The Bench thought, however, that the case was sufficiently proved against the defendant, who was fined 5s., with 5s. 6d. costs, and ordered to pay the damage, 9s. 6d., or go to gaol for fourteen days.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 April 1895.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Saturday an old offender named James Cannon was brought up in custody, charged with damaging property of the value of 9s., at the Wellington beerhouse.

Evidence was given showing that prisoner was turned out of the above house on the previous evening, and that he retaliated by breaking a couple of panes of glass in the door window.

A witness named Frederick Saunders corroborated the prosecutor's evidence, and prisoner was sent to gaol for 14 days with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 April 1895.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday last James Cannan appeared before the Borough Magistrates charged with wilfully breaking two squares of glass, value 9s. 6d., the property of Mr. C.E. Gatley, landlord of the Wellington public house, in Beach Street.

It seems that the defendant went into the public house, and, as he did not order anything, was told to leave. As he would not go, the landlord put him out. He returned, and being again ejected, he broke two panes of glass in the door with his fist.

Defendant said he slipped outside the door.

He was fined 20s. including costs, and value of the glass.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 January 1897.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Tuesday, by Mr. J. Minter, Borough Coroner, touching the death of Jakob Johannson, a Swede, able seaman of the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool, then lying in Folkestone harbour.

Franz Lammonns, ordinary seaman on the Charity, stated that deceased was a single man, aged 24, a native of north Sweden. The ship came into Folkestone harbour on Sunday with coals, which they started discharging on Wednesday. Deceased, in a sober condition, went ashore about six o'clock, and witness about half past seven. Witness saw him in the Wellington public house about eight o'clock. They left at nine o'clock, went and had some fried fish, returned in about quarter of an hour to the public house, and remained until about ten minutes to eleven. They had been drinking. Deceased drank enough to make him tipsy. Witness was drunk too, but he knew what he was about. They had some more drink at the Royal George after they left the Wellington, and left the Royal George with three soldiers who were “a bit drunk”. He and deceased accompanied the soldiers up High Street, and then returned to go on board. The brig was in the inner harbour, near the Clock House. Johannson let him by the corner of the Pavilion Hotel, and witness went on board. There had been no quarrelling.

Frederick Goodsell, a coastguardsmen stationed at Sandgate, said that on the previous night he was on duty at Folkestone. He came into Folkestone at 12 o'clock, and on arriving abreast of the Marine Crescent he observed deceased on the pavement lying on his back. On going to him, witness found he was unconscious, but breathing. He had a wound on the back of the neck. He got him into as comfortable position as possible and sent for the police. There was a spot of blood on the pavement, and he was bleeding slightly from the nose and mouth. The police arrived very promptly, and a doctor was sent for. They conveyed the deceased on a hand truck to the Rocket House. Just as they got to the House a constable returned and said Dr. Eastes suggested he should be conveyed to the hospital. As they got deceased near the fire he thought he breathed his last. Dr. Yunge Bateman was then sent for.

The Superintendent stated that Dr. Frederick Eastes was in a very bad state of health, and he was not fit to come out at night.

Dr. Marcus Yunge Bateman said he was called at 1 a.m. that morning to deceased at the Rocket House. He had been dead then a very short time. On examining the body he found a small punctured wound at the back of the head, probably caused by falling backwards on a pebble on the pavement. He noticed a good deal of blood oozing from the nose and mouth, and from the appearances he came to the conclusion that death was caused by suffocation from the blood running into the lungs. The blood was caused by fracture at the base of the skull. There were no other marks or bruises on the body.

P.C. Sales said that he saw the deceased at 10.45 on the previous evening in Tontine Street, by himself, drunk. He next saw him about ten minutes past eleven, in company with the first witness and three soldiers of the 11th Hussars. They went up Tontine Street. He saw him again at 11.25 near the Royal George, going in the direction of the harbour. He appeared then rather more the worse for drink. He was accompanied by the first witness, who was not so drunk as the deceased. Both appeared very jovial.

The Superintendent said he had made enquiries but could find out nothing. It was not proposed to make any further enquiries in view of the doctor's evidence.

The jury brought in a verdict that deceased died from suffocation, the effects of a fracture of the skull, but that there was no evidence to show how the fall occurred.

 

Folkestone Express 23 January 1897.

Inquest.

On Thursday afternoon, J. Minter Esq., the Borough Coroner, held an inquest on the body of Jakob Johannson, a Swede or Norwegain, an able seaman on board the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool.

Franz Lammons, a shipmate, said on Wednesday the deceased went ashore about six o'clock, and witness followed about 7.30. Deceased was alright. He saw him afterwards in the Wellington. They left there about nine to have some fried fish, and returned and stayed till ten minutes to eleven. They drank beer, and both got drunk, but witness knew what he was about. They had some more beer at the Royal George after they had left the Wellington. They left there with three soldiers who were “a bit drunk”. He and deceased walked up High Street, and returned to go on board ship. They got as far as the Pavilion Hotel. Witness went on board, but deceased did not. There had been no quarrelling.

Frederick Goodsell, a coastguard, said he and others found the deceased lying on his back in Lower Sandgate Road on the pavement in front of Marine Crescent. He was unconscious, and had a wound on the back of his head. They sent for the police. There was a spot of blood on the pavement as large as a crown piece. They removed the deceased to the rocket apparatus house and sent for a doctor, but witness believed he died just as they got him into the house.

Dr. Yunge Bateman said he saw the deceased at one o'clock that morning at the rocket house. He examined him and found he had been dead a short time. There was a small punctured wound at the back of the head, probably caused by falling on a pebble or other hard surface. There was a good deal of blood oozing from the mouth and nose, and he came to the conclusion that death was due to fracture of the base of the skull, and blood running into the lungs causing suffocation.

The jury returned a verdict of death from a fracture of the skull, caused by a fall, but there was no evidence to show how the fall occurred.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 January 1897.

Local News.

On Thursday an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) on the death of Jacob Johannson, an able seaman on the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool.

From the evidence it appeared that on Wednesday evening the deceased and a shipmate got drunk, the latter went on board, but the deceased did not. He was afterwards found lying on his back on the pavement in Marine Crescent. The medical evidence showed that death was due to fracture of the skull, and blood running into the lungs, causing suffocation.

The jury returned a verdict accordingly, adding that there was nothing to show what caused the fall.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 27 January 1897.

Inquest.

At the Coroner's Court, on Thursday afternoon, there was no evidence to show how the Norwegian seaman Jakob Johannson met with the fall which caused his death on that morning. The deceased, with his shipmates, left off work on Wednesday afternoon about half past four o'clock, and at six o'clock the deceased went ashore. An hour and a half later he was joined by one of his shipfellows, named Franz Lammofrans, and both had been drinking together from the time they met until they had expended something like a florin apiece. They left the particular house at which they had been partaking of “refreshments” and went to an eating-house, where they partook of “fried fish and potatoes”, but were absent for about twenty minutes only, and had some more beer on their return.

The deceased, Lammofrans stated, was “tipsy”, but “knew what he was about”, and witness himself added that he had drank “about enough to make him drunk”, considering no doubt what he had expended. But at about “ten to eleven” they had another pint at another public house, and left there in the company of three soldiers, who were also “a bit in drink”. They “all five” went up High Street, at the top corner of which street deceased and witness returned back with the intention of “going aboard”. They got as far as the Royal Pavilion Hotel when the deceased suggested that they should go along the Lower Sandgate Road, but Lammofrans “turned in”, and Johannson went his way.

There had been no quarrelling in the course of the evening, but the two sailors and the three soldiers were on the “best of terms”, and this was corroborated by P.C. Sales, who saw the men both before and after the “closing hour”, when they were very jovial, the deceased being particularly so.

Frederick Goodsell, of the Coastguards, stationed at Sandgate, stated that he with another coastguardsman were coming from Sandgate for duty at the Fish Market at “the hour of twelve” when the found a man lying across the footpath opposite Marine Crescent. The man was insensible, and there was a spot of blood on the pathway. The man was breathing, but was bleeding from the nose and mouth. A policeman was sent for, and in the meantime the man was lifted up in a sitting posture. The constable arrived in a very short time, and a doctor was next sent for.

While the doctor was being sent for, the man was removed in a hand truck to the rocket house, but by the time he had arrived there he had “breathed his last”. The doctor first called was himself ill, and suggested the man's removal to the Victoria Hospital, and, this being so, Dr. Yunge Bateman was called, who attended instantly.

Dr. Yunge Bateman saw the deceased about one o'clock on Thursday morning. The man was then dead, but the body was still warm. He examined it, and found a small punctured wound on the back of the head, probably caused by falling on a pebble or hard substance on the pavement. The base of the skull had been fractured, and he came to the conclusion that death was due to suffocation by blood running into the lungs. There was every appearance of death having been due to suffocation.

The Coroner having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict to the effect that death was due to a fracture of the skull caused by a fall, but that there was no evidence to show whether the fall was accidental or whether some person unknown had pushed him down.

 

Folkestone Express 23 October 1897.

Local News.

On Friday, before the Mayor and J. Brook Esq., James Coombes was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 14th October outside the Wellington public house. Prisoner, who had only been discharged from Canterbury gaol on the 6th inst., was fined 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday Michael Mannix, a soldier, who had been summoned under the name of Sarsfield, was charged with being found drunk on licensed premises, in the occupation of William Woodgate, on the 8th March.

P.S. Lilley deposed that about 25 past eight on the evening of the previous Wednesday, whilst in company with P.C. Watson in Dover Street, he saw the defendant, accompanied by another soldier, come down Dover Street. The defendant was very drunk. His cap was off. He could not keep upright, and had a narrow escape of going through Mr. Iverson's shop windows. They both turned round. He went into the Wellington. After waiting four or five minutes, witness went inside in a small bar. He had some difficulty in opening the door. When he had got in, the defendant's companion was holding him up. There were three glasses on the bar counter. Two contained ale, about half consumed. As he was speaking to the barmaid, the defendant took one glass up and drank the remainder. He was so drunk that he could scarcely stand in the bar. Witness called the barmaid's attention to it. She said she was aware of his condition now, but was not when defendant came in. Ultimately they left the premises. He followed them up High Street. He went to find the military provost. It was half past eight when he went in.

The Bench fined defendant 2s. 6d., 9s. costs, or 7 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 18 March 1899.

Saturday, March 11th: before J. Fitness Esq., Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

A soldier named Michael Mannix was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on the previous Wednesday.

The defendant, when accosted by the police at the time of the alleged offence, gave the name of Sarsfield.

Police Sergeant Lilley deposed: About 8.25 p.m. on Wednesday last I saw the defendant, with another soldier, come down Dover Street. The defendant was very drunk, so drunk that he nearly fell through Mr. Iverson's shop window. Afterwards he went into the Wellington, and drank off the contents of a glass which was lying on the table.

The defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, in default seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 March 1899.

Local News.

Before the Folkestone Bench on Thursday, William Woodgate, landlord of The Wellington Hotel, was summoned for selling liquor to a person who was drunk.

Sergeant Lilley said on Wednesday, the 8th March, at 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street, and saw two soldiers come down the street. One was “obviously” drunk, and rolling about. They both went into the Wellington public house in Beach Street. Witness and P.C. Watson went in there, and saw the two soldiers in a small side bar, one holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, two containing ale. No-one was in the bar besides the two men. He asked the barmaid who served the men, and she replied “I did”. He asked if she saw the condition of one of them, and she replied “Yes, but I did not notice it when he came in”. He took the names and addresses of the soldiers. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Saron, and while he was doing so he drank the remainder of the ale. He asked the barmaid to call the landlady, and she went upstairs and called a person named Mrs. Blake, who assisted the defendant in the house. Mrs. Blake asked the barmaid who served them, and she replied “I did”. Witness left the premises, and the soldiers went shortly after. He afterwards found out that the soldier's name was Michael Mannix.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said the soldier who was drunk was not interfering with anybody, and they did not take people into custody for simple drunkenness.

Mr. Minter: Why didn't you go and tell the people not to serve the soldier? – It is not my business to run a public house. I expected to be called in to expel him. I saw the woman come out of the house, but I didn't know who she was. I should not be at all surprised to hear that the man walked home to the Camp and passed the roll call as sober.

P.C. Watson gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire to break the law. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and there had been no complaint against him. Assuming that what the policeman said was true, there was no offence on the part of the landlord, because the barmaid said she did not notice the condition of the soldier. It was not because a mistake had been made that the landlord was to be convicted. He thought when the Bench heard his witnesses' evidence they would come to the conclusion that the constables were not telling the real truth. It was very strange to him that when the constables saw the drunken man go into the house they did not go in and warn the landlord of the man's condition. Instead they waited outside four minutes. The reason why was clear. The sober soldier went in first. The drunken one followed. The sober man called for two glasses of beer, and at that moment there was no second soldier in the house. There was no offence in serving a soldier who was sober. The barmaid would deny that she said in reply to Sergeant Lilley that she served the drunken man. On all the facts he asked the Bench to say there had been no offence committed.

Rebecca Barmers said she had been barmaid at the Wellington five weeks. When the soldier came in, the other side of the bar was full of working people. The soldier entered alone, and asked for two glasses of beer. At that time the other soldier had not come in. There was a woman in the little bar, and as she behaved in an improper manner witness opened the door and put her out. As she did so, the two policemen faced her. She did not see the second soldier come in, as she turned to serve two pots of beer. Then she saw the two soldiers now in court. When the policemen entered, Sergt. Lilley took the soldiers' names and asked if she served them with drink. She replied that she served the sober one. At that time the drunken one had not touched his glass. She fetched the landlady down. She did not tell the sergeant she had not served the drunken man. It was a very small bar, and two men were sitting down. After the sergeant had taken the man's name he said “If you call me drunk, I'll ---- well drink some to make me drunk”. Her orders were distinctly not to serve drunken people.

William McDermott, a driver in the R.A., corroborated what the barmaid had said. Mannix did not go in with him because his hat blew off, and he stayed to get it. Mannix then came in and sat down. There was a woman in the bar, who was turned out by the barmaid. It was not true that he was holding Mannix up. They both went home to barracks all right. Witness reached the barracks about 11.

Mr. Bradley said the whole question turned upon the fact whether the drunken man was in the bar or not when the beer was ordered.

Mr. Minter: Exactly, and the witness swears he wasn't. Lilley tells you that.

Chairman of Magistrates: We give you the benefit of the doubt. The case is dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 29 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 22nd: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, W. Medhurst and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

William Woodgate was summoned for selling to a person who was drunk.

Sergt. Lilley said on Wednesday, the 8th March, at 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street and saw two soldiers come down the street. One was “obviously” drunk and rolling about. They both went into the Wellington public house in Beach Street. Witness and P.C. Watson went in there and saw the two soldiers in a small side bar, one holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, two containing ale. No-one was in the bar besides the two men. He asked the barmaid who served the men, and she replied “I did”. He asked if she saw the condition of one of them, and she said “Yes, but I did not notice it when he came in”. He took the names and addresses of the soldiers. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Saron, and while he was doing so he drank the remainder of the ale. He asked the barmaid to call the landlady, and she went upstairs and called a person named Mrs. Blake, who assisted the defendant in the house. Mrs. Blake asked the barmaid who served them, and she replied “I did”. Witness left the premises, and the soldiers left shortly after. He afterwards found out that the soldier's name was Michael Mannix.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said the soldier who was drunk was not interfering with anybody, and they did not take people into custody for simple drunkenness.

Mr. Minter: Why didn't you go and tell the people not to serve the soldier? – It is not my business to run a public house. I expected to be called in to expel him. I saw the woman come out of the house, but I didn't know who she was. I should not be at all surprised to hear that the man walked home to the Camp and passed the roll-call as sober.

P.C. Watson gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire to break the law. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and there had been no complaint against him. Assuming that what the policeman said was true, there was no offence on the part of the landlord, because the barmaid said she did not notice the condition of the soldier. It was not because a mistake had been made that the landlord was to be convicted. He thought when the Bench heard his witness's evidence they would come to the conclusion that the constables were not telling the real truth. It was very strange to him that when the constables saw a drunken man go into the house he did not go in and warn the landlord of the man's condition. He did not do that. He waited outside four minutes. The reason why was clear. The sober soldier went in first, the drunken one followed. The sober man called for two glasses of beer, and at that moment there was no second soldier in the house. There was no offence in serving a soldier who was sober. The barmaid would deny that she said in reply to Sergt. Lilley that she served the drunken man. On all the facts he asked the Bench to say there had been no offence committed.

Rebecca Barmers said she had been barmaid at the Wellington five weeks. When the soldiers came in, the other side of the bar was full of working people. The soldier entered alone and asked for two glasses of beer. At that time the other soldier had not come in. There was a woman in the little bar, and as she behaved in an improper manner she opened the door and put her out. As she did so, the two policemen faced her. She did not see the second soldier come in as she turned to serve two pots of beer. Then she saw the two soldiers she saw in Court. When the policemen entered, Sergt. Lilley took the soldiers' names and asked her if she served them with drink. She replied that she served the sober one. At that time the drunken one had not touched his glass. She fetched the landlady down. She did not tell the Sergeant she had not served the drunken man. It was a very small bar, and the two men were sitting down. After the Sergeant had taken the man's name, he said “If you call me drunk, I'll ---- well drink some to make me drunk”. Her orders were distinctly not to serve drunken people.

William McDermott, a driver in the R.A., corroborated what the barmaid had said. Mannix did not go in with him, because his hat blew off, and he stayed to get it. Mannix then came in and sat down. There was a woman in the bar, who was turned out by the barmaid. It was not true that he was holding Mannix up. They both went home to barracks all right. Witness reached the barracks about eleven.

Mr. Bradley said the whole question turned upon the fact whether the drunken man was in the bar or not when the beer was ordered.

Mr. Minter: Exactly, and the witness swears he wasn't. Lilley tells you that.

The Magistrates dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

William Woodgate, landlord of the Wellington public house, Beach Street, was summoned for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Minter represented the defendant.

P.S. Lilley deposed that on Wednesday, the 8th inst., about 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.C. Watson. He saw two soldiers come down the street; one was drunk. He was rolling about all over the street, and was obviously drunk. They both went into the Wellington public house in Beach Street. Witness waited about three or four minutes. Accompanied by the police constable he went in. In a small side bar he saw the two soldiers, one of whom was holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, two containing a quantity of ale. No-one was in the bar besides these two men. Witness said to a barmaid “Who served this man?” She said “I did”. Witness said “You see this one's condition?” She said “Yes, but I did not notice it when he came in”. Witness took the names and addresses of the soldier. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Sarsfield, and whilst doing so he took up some ale. He consumed the portion remaining in the glass. He asked the barmaid for the landlady, being under the impression that the licence was held by a woman. She went upstairs and returned with a woman named Mrs. Blake. Witness said “You see this man's condition?” She said “Yes”, and turning to the barmaid, she said “Who served them?” The barmaid answered “I did”. Witness then told her she would be reported for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. He left the premises, and the soldiers followed soon after. He afterwards found out that the drunken man's name was Michael Mannix.

Cross-examined: The soldier in court was the sober one. The drunken soldier nearly fell into Mr. Iverson's window. The soldier was not interfering with anyone; he was simply drunk, creating no disturbance. Witness was out of sight of the public house. He, however, watched them go in. He did not interfere, because he did not consider it part of his business to conduct a public house. He expected to be called in to expel the soldier. He saw a woman come out. As to Mannix passing the military authorities, he said he did not take much notice of it.

P.C. Edward Robert Watson deposed that at 8.25 on Wednesday evening, 8th inst., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.S. Lilley. He saw two soldiers coming down there. One of them was very drunk, rolling about all over the place. They both went into the Wellington. A few minuts afterwards he went, with P.S. Lilley, to the small bar of the Wellington. He there saw the two soldiers. The sober one was holding up the drunken one. There were three glasses on the counter, two the contents of which were partly consumed, and one empty. P.S. Lilley asked the barmaid if she had served the drunken man. She said “Yes. I did not notice his condition until after he was served”. The barmaid said “I will go and fetch the landlady”. She brought a woman, who asked the barmaid if she had served the soldier. She said “Yes”. P.S. Lilley then told the woman she would be reported for serving a drunken soldier.

Cross-examined: The question put was “Did you serve that drunken soldier?” and that was repeated.

Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire, never had had, to break the law with regard to the conditions under which he held his licence. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and in this instance, if what the police constable had said was true, there was no case to convict the landlord of the offence with which he was charged. It was not because – although he was going to deny it if necessary – his barmaid had made a mistake, that he was to be convicted of an offence never intended to be committed. They contended the girl said that she had supplied this drunken soldier, but did not observe his condition. If that was true, there was no offence.

The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that the word “knowingly” was omitted from that section.

Mr. Minter said it was not intended a person should be convicted who served someone by mistake. He considered that there was no case here, supposing what the police constable said was true. He was in hopes that the Bench would at once say that was the view they took. It was an unpleasant duty for him to attack the veracity of the police. He was satisfied that the Bench would not accept the statement of the police if it was contradicted by credible witnesses, whom they could trust. The witnesses he would call were equally entitled to belief as Sergeant Lilley and the other policeman. It seemed to him to be a most extraordinary thing that a police constable, who saw a soldier coming down the street, did not prevent him from going into the public house, or follow him at once. One would have thought that would have been the duty of a police constable, seeing such a drunken man coming into the place. But he did nothing of the kind. He waited out there four minutes before he went in. He left the Bench to draw the inference as to why. To an ordinary person, the inference was perfectly plain. When the speaker cautioned him, he told the truth. The speaker asked him whether the sober one went in first. He admitted that. The speaker would show the Bench that independent of anything else, there was no offence committed by the landlord through the barmaid. The sober soldier went into the house, and there was a girl in the bar as well. He called for two glasses of beer and at the same time he ordered those two glasses the other man, the drunken soldier, was not in the house. There was no offence. She executed the order of the sober man. It was true that the other man came in afterwards. Then the police followed and complained about beer being supplied. The barmaid would tell the Bench that she was never asked whether she supplied the drunken soldier, and the landlady would inform them it was untrue that the girl said that she supplied this drunken soldier with the beer. The girl said she supplied the sober soldier with two glasses of beer, and the drunken soldier was in the house. That was confirmed by P.S. Lilley, who said that the drunken man did not go in until afterwards. There was no offence. Looking at the case as it stood, he asked the Bench to say, considering the character of the house, that there had been no offence committed, and that the landlord was entitled to the dismissal of the summons.

Rebecca Palmer, barmaid, deposed that on the occasion in question there were other people on the other side of the bar; it was full. McDermott, the sober soldier, came first in the little bar. She was busy. The soldier came in alone. He said “Two glasses of beer, please”. She drew it and put it on the counter. He paid her for it. The other soldier had not come in; she was sure of it. There was a woman in the little bar. On account of her conduct witness opened the door and put her out. The two policemen faced her. When she saw the drunken soldier, he was sitting down on a seat. She had not served him; she served McDermott. Both the policemen came in, and P.S. Lilley took their names. After that he asked witness if she had served this man with drink. She said “Yes I did. I served this man with two glasses”. The Sergeant was talking to the drunken soldier, who had not touched the glass. He had not had the chance. He said “Where is the landlady or the landlord?” The landlady was called. She did not notice that the so-called drunken man was drunk. There was no room for the man to stumble. He had been sitting down. After the Sergeant took his name, he said “Well, if you call me drunk, I will drink more to make me drunk”, and he drank the beer. Before, he had not touched it.

Driver McDermott, Royal Artillery, deposed that on the day in question he went into the public house first. Mannix's hat fell off, and he stayed outside to pick it up. Witness ordered two glasses of beer, and when he did so Mannix was not in the house. Witness paid for the beer. Mannix came in and sat on a seat. He saw the barmaid turn a woman out. The beer had not been touched. The police came in four or five minutes after they had been in. He asked the young woman if he was sober, and she said “Yes”. He told the policeman that he paid for the beer. She said “I served you. I did not know that he was behind”. It was untrue that witness held his comrade up because he was so helplessly drunk he could not stand. He had been with Mannix all the evening, but the latter had not had more than he. (Mr. Minter: You had a stronger head than he had”. Laughter) Mannix came and answered his name as a sober man. Witness reached the barracks about 11 o'clock. The barmaid had no means of knowing who the beer was for.

The Chairman said the Bench gave defendant the benefit of the doubt, and they dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 25 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 22nd: Before J. Hoad Esq., Col. Westropp, T.J. Vaughan, W. Medhurst, and J. Stainer Esq.

William Woodgate, landlord of the Wellington, Beach Street, was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act, by serving a drunken soldier with drink at his house on the 8th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Police Sergeant Lilley said: On Wednesday, the 8th inst., I saw two soldiers near the Wellington, Beach Street. They were obviously drunk. They both went into that house. I company with a police constable, I followed. At a small side bar I discovered two soldiers, one of whom was holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, and a quantity of ale. I said to a woman in attendance “Do you see this man's condition?” I took the name and address of the soldiers. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Sarsfield. I asked the barmaid the name of the landlady. When I saw the landlady I said “Do you see this man's condition?” She said “Yes”, and turning to the barmaid asked who served them. The barmaid replied “I did”. I said I should report the case. I left the premises, and the soldiers followed soon afterwards. Sarsfield's real name is Michael Mannix.

By Mr. Minter: I did not take the soldiers into custody, because we do not lock men up simply for being drunk. Soldiers do not take soldiers into custody for public offences; only policemen do so.

Police Constable 4 deposed to being on duty in Dover Street in company with Sergeant Lilley, and seeing two soldiers in the Wellington public house. One soldier was sober and was holding the other up.

Mr. Minter stated that the landlord had no desire to break the conditions under which he held his licence. When he called his witnesses it would be seen that there was sufficient discrepancy in the evidence to justify the Court in dismissing the defendant. The barmaid said that she had only served the sober man with beer while the drunken man was outside looking after his cap.

The barmaid said: I have been engaged at the defendant's house about five weeks. When the soldiers came in I only served the sober one. A woman, who had come into the house, behaved in an improper manner, and while I was turning her out I found myself faced by the policemen. I only saw the drunken soldier sitting down. I did not know he was inside when I served the sober soldier. When Sergeant Lilley came in he took the names and numbers of the two soldiers. The drunken soldier had not touched the glasses of beer. He had not had a chance. I did not know that either of the soldiers was drunk. Our orders are not to serve drunken people.

A driver in the Royal Artillery deposed: On the night in question I went into the defendant's public house with Mannix, who sat down on a seat. A woman came in, behaved improperly to one of us, and was turned out. It is not true that my companion was so drunk that he could not stand. He afterwards went to the barracks, and passed in as a sober man. The girl did not know who the beer was for when she served it. The second glass was for my mate, but she did not know that.

The Court gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 November 1900.

Inquest.

Mr. Coroner Minter and a jury were engaged on Tuesday in an enquiry touching the death of one John Holbrook, a fireman on the Opal steamship, trading between Flushing and Folkestone, who had been drowned in Folkestone Harbour on the previous evening.

The first witness called was deceased's brother fireman, who was brought up in custody, having been charged in the morning with being drunk and disorderly, and fined, with costs, 9s. 6d. Lee, who was with the deceased when the accident occurred, had actually been locked up, as, it was alleged, in his drunken state, he wished to jump after his comrade, and had the police not acted promptly, there would probably have been a double inquest.

Seeing Lee in custody, the Coroner kindly paid his fine, and by so doing avoided delay; otherwise, we are informed, a writ of habaeus corpus would have had to be served on those entrusted with the custody of Lee, to enable his evidence to be legally obtained.

Joseph Lee, on being sworn, said: I come from Galway, West Ireland, and am a fireman on the steamboat Opal, of Glasgow, trading between Flushing and Folkestone. I have known John Holbrook for about six or seven weeks. He was a fireman on the same boat as myself, the Opal. We came into Folkestone Harbour on Sunday evening from Flushing. The occurrence, the subject of this inquest, took place last night (Monday) about 9.45. Our boat went out at 8 o'clock, and the deceased and I should have been on board of her. We came ashore about 2 in the afternoon, intending to return, but, instead, got drunk in a public house – the Wellington, I think. We got some drink there, and some at another public house. P.C. Allen put us out of the Wellington about 5 o'clock. The body now viewed by the jury I identify as that of John Holbrook. He was an Irishman, 26 years of age, and was not married. About ten o'clock last night a man told us our boat had gone. We went to the Harbour, with the intention of going aboard the Maidstone steamboat, which also trades between Folkestone and Flushing. She was lying near the swing bridge, in the outer harbour, alongside the quay. It was high water. The Maidstone had a smaller tonnage than the Opal, and her deck was a little above the quay. To go aboard we had to pass over a gangway, formed of two boards, about 2 feet in width. There was no rail on either side. The space between the quayside and the Maidstone was about three or four feet. When we arrived at the quayside the deceased got on the gangway, and got half way across, when I saw him tumble on the right hand side. He was walking on his hands and feet as he was too tipsy to walk upright. Had he got safely on board I should have followed him. As soon as he slipped off I shouted to some men who were working near a railway truck, discharging cargo. No-one pushed the deceased to make him tumble. At that point I was taken up by the police for being drunk.

Arthur Gosbee said: I am a porter, in the employ od the S.E. and C.D. Railway, and work at the Folkestone Harbour. I was at work last night on the quayside, opposite the steamboat Maidstone, discharging cargo from her. The gangway was resting with one end on the bridge of the boat and the other on the quay. It was formed of two boards nailed together, about two feet in width, and was sloping upwards. There was plenty of light, and the gangway was safe for sober people to go over. The distance between the bridge and the shore was about 12 feet. The gangway was a little springy, but not if you walked up steadily. I saw Holbrook fall off when he was walking up. The witness Lee was just at the end of the gangway. He had one foot on the boards preparing to go up. The deceased gave a roll and attempted to grasp the railing of the bridge. He missed it, fell across the gangway, and rolled off into the harbour between the boat and the quay. No-one was near the deceased to interfere with him or to cause him to fall. I should say he fell because he was drunk. I would not say that for certain, as I did not see him walk. Lee tried to save him, but was too late. He shouted “Man overboard!” The electric searchlight was turned on and the grapnels used, but we could not see much for the steam coming from the ship.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed that at 9 on the previous night he saw deceased and the witness Lee in Harbour Street. They were both drunk and fighting. At 9.40 he was at the Harbour Station when he heard cries of “Man overboard!” He at once went to the quayside, where the steamship Maidstone was discharging her cargo. He saw the last witness Gosbee, with a man named Wood and the witness Lee, who was being held back by the crew. Harbour Constable May was sent for, and he and Captain Hammond came with the grapnels and dragged for the body. About 10.50 the body was recovered, and artificial respiration was at once resorted to by Inspector Lilley, Sergt. Lawrence, and other members of the police force, until Dr. Gilbert arrived and pronounced life to be extinct. The body was then removed to the mortuary.

P.C. Allen, questioned by the Coroner, said he was twice called to the Wellington to turn the witness Lee and the deceased out. They were not served at the Wellington.

Dr. W. Thornton Gilbert deposed that he found the deceased lying on the quayside. Inspector Lilley and the constables were performing artificial respiration. He examined the body and found life to be extinct. There were two wounds, above the left eyebrow and another on the back of the head, inclining to the right side; the hands were tightly clenched, and there was blood in both palms. The cause of death was suffocation by drowning; the wounds, which were superficial, indicated that deceased had struck something while in the act of falling.

The Coroner, in summing up, mentioned the enormous number of fatalities and accidents which occurred at unprotected quaysides. He had that week received statistics of such accidents for the past year, and found there had been 150 fatalities and between three and four thousand accidents. In this case there was no assumption of negligence on anybody's part; it was simply that the poor fellow met his death following an evening's drunk. He also mentioned the usefulness of the police force understanding ambulance work. Although in this case it was of no avail, still it was most satisfactory to find them competent in their work.

The jury at once found that deceased met his death from “Accidental drowning”.

 

Folkestone Express 10 November 1900.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Tuesday by the Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.), at the Town Hall, concerning the death of John Hulbrook, a fireman on the s.s. Opal. It appears he landed about two o'clock on Monday with another fireman, and both became intoxicated and missed the boat, which had departed for Flushing. He then attempted to board the s.s. Maidstone of the same service, and when halfway across the gangway he slipped and fell into the water. When found by Hatton and others, life was extinct. Joseph Lee said he was in custody, having been committed for seven days' imprisonment by the Bench that morning on a charge of being drunk and disorderly the same evening.

The Coroner asked Supt. Reeve if the prisoner had paid his fine, and was answered in the negative.

The Coroner then said he would pay the fine, and intimated to the witness that he was free, but in consequence his fee as a witness would be confiscated. He was then sworn, and said he was a native of Galway, West Ireland, and employed as a fireman on the s.s. Opal, of Glasgow. She was trading between Folkestone and Flushing. He knew deceased, who was a fireman on the same boat. The boat came from Flushing on Sunday evening. The s.s. Opal left the harbour about eight o'clock, and witness and deceased ought to have gone with her. They came together about two in the afternoon, intending to return, and instead they went drinking in public houses. They visited the Wellington, where they were ejected. He was too drunk to tell the time. The deceased was 26 years old, and by nationality an Irishman, and was a single man. About 10 o'clock they went on the quay to board the Maidstone, another steamship that trades to and from Flushing. She was lying alongside the quay in the outer harbour close to the swing bridge. It was high tide, and her deck came above the level of the quay. There was a gangway between the vessel and the quay, and a space of three or four feet. The gangway was about 2ft. wide. The deceased stepped on to the gangway, and when half way he slipped on the right hand side.

By Supt. Reeve: He was crawling on his hands and feet. He was standing when on the quay, but witness did not follow him. As soon as he slipped witness shouted to some men who were working on a railway wagon, who came. No-one pushed deceased over. Witness was the taken into custody and brought to the police station.

Arthur Gosbee, a porter, employed on the harbour, said on Monday night he was working on a truck near the S.S. Maidstone, close to the swing bridge, discharging cargo. The gangway rested with one end on the bridge and the other on the quay. It consisted of two boards nailed together, and was about two feet wide. It was tilted upwards. There was plenty of light supplied by a lamp, and in witness's opinion the gangway was quite safe. It was in length about 12ft., and it swung a little, but was firm enough if a person walked steady. Witness saw the deceased halfway, standing upright, and the other witness was on the end gangway and was prepared to go. He gave a roll and grasped at the railing of the bridge, but just missed, and losing his head, fell into the harbour between the boat and the quay. There was no-one near him at the time to cause him to fall, and the gangway did not slip. The last witness tried to save him by lying on the gangway and trying to grasp him, but just missed him. The Company's men used the grapple, and the electric light was switched on. As witness was called away, he did not know when the body was found.

Det. Sergt. A.W. Burniston deposed that about nine p.m. he saw the deceased and the witness Lee in Harbour Street, both being drunk, and they were causing a disturbance by fighting. He did not keep observation on them, but later on, about 9.40 p.m., he heard cries of “A man overboard”. He immediately went towards the quay, and when opposite the Custom House he saw the witness Lee disorderly, and several other persons among the crew of the s.s. Maidstone. There was a plank about 12ft. in length which formed the gangway, and immediately after the accident the Captain of the steamship moved the vessel further out into the harbour, and Capt. Hatton, P.C. May, and several others dragged for the body, which, about 10.50 p.m., they recovered alongside the quay. It was brought on shore, and Insp. Lilley, Sergt. Osborne, and several other officials tried artificial respiration, but met with no success. Dr. Gilbert arrived and pronounced life extinct. The Coroner's officer was sent for, and he ordered the body to be moved to the mortuary.

Dr. Gilbert said about 11.10 p.m. he was called, and saw the deceased lying on the quay. Some officials were trying artificial respiration. Life was extinct. He examined the body and found two wounds, which were superficial. One was over the left eyebrow, and the other at the back of the head, inclining towards the right. The hands were clenched, and mud was in both palms. One of the wounds was about a quarter of an inch in length. The cause of death was suffocation by drowning, and the wounds had no connection with the death.

The Coroner said he had received a report from the Home Office, which showed the result of enquiries made as to the number of deaths in docks. It stated the majority of the fatal accidents, of which there were about 150 in 1899, were through those gangways whilst discharging cargo. The number of accidents were computed at between five and six thousand. He remarked in that case it was principally deceased's own fault. He then summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death through drowning”.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 September 1901.

Thursday, September 5th: Before Alderman Spurgen, and Messrs. Westropp, Vaughan, and Stainer.

William Daly, a tramp, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Scott said he was called to the Wellington at 6.30, where prisoner was drunk and disorderly, with his coat off, and using obscene language. As he refused to go away and caused a crowd to assemble, it became necessary to lock him up. Prisoner then became very violent, and had to have his hands tied, and was with assistance conveyed to the station on a truck.

The Chairman: One month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 September 1901.

Saturday, September 7th: Before Messrs. Spurgen, Carpenter, Wstropp, Vaughan, and Stainer.

William Marsh was granted temporary authority to sell at the Wellington Inn, Tontine Street.

 

Folkestone Express 14 September 1901.

Saturday September 7th: Before Alderman Geo. Spurgen, W.C. Carpenter, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

The licence of the Wellington public house was temporarily transferred to John Marsh.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 September 1901.

Saturday, September 7th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Councillors Vaughan and Carpenter, Mr. Stainer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

John Marsh applied for and was granted the temporary transfer of the Wellington Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Wellington was transferred to John Marsh.

 

Folkestone Express 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Wellington Inn was transferred to John Marsh.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swofer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

John Marsh was granted the transfer of the Wellington Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 April 1903.

Monday, April 13th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. S. Penfold, E.T. Ward, G. Peden, J. Stainer, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, and W.C. Carpenter.

Charles MacCarthy was charged with being drunk and incapable in Beach Street at 4.15 on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Watson said prisoner was refused drink at the Wellington public house, and when he came outside he fell down incapable.

MacCarthy said he was very sorry, and the Bench dismissed him.

 

Folkestone Express 4 November 1905.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart: It is a lie.

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

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

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

Prisoners were the remanded until Saturday.

 

Folkestone Express 11 November 1905.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitzgerald pleaded Guilty to stealing the coat.

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 11 November 1905.

Saturday, November 4th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

Robert Jas. Smart, Patrick Maloney, and Robt. Richd. Fitzgerald were charged, on remand, with stealing a mackintosh, a coat, a scarf, and a pair of gloves from the residence of Major General W. Jackson, at 6, Castle Hill Avenue. The evidence previously given was read over and confirmed.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that at midnight on Wednesday, the 1st inst., he called on Alfred Howard, who handed him the coat produced, which was afterwards identified by Miss Hutter. The value of the mackintosh and overcoat was 30s.

Henry Boorman, the licensee of the Hope Inn, Great Fenchurch Street, said he recognised all the men except Fitzgerald. Smart and Maloney came to his house on Sunday and asked him to buy the coat produced. Maloney said a “man on the road” stopped him at the Radnor and asked him 4s. for it; he (Maloney) refused, but said if he had had the money he would have bought it. He went down Fenchurch Street, and about a minute afterwards Smart and a short man joined him.

Alfred Howard stated that he lived at the Tramway Tavern. On the previous Sunday he saw the prisoner Smart in Tontine Street with a party with whom witness worked, opposite the Clarendon Hotel. He asked him to buy a coat which he was wearing, saying he could have it for 4s. On being asked if the coat belonged to him, he replied that it did, and that he had not had it long. He also said he was hard up, wanted to go to Canterbury, and wanted food. He (witness) said he would give him 3s. for it, but if, when the prisoner got to Canterbury, he could pull himself round, he could have the coat back for the same money. He (witness) felt pity for the man, seeing his two badges (meaning his medal ribbons), and the position he was in. On the 1st inst., he handed the coat to D.S. Burniston.

Prisoners elected to be dealt with summarily. Smart pleaded Guilty to helping to steal the articles. Maloney pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he met Smart, who asked him to sell a coat, and he requested witness Boorman to buy it. Fitzgerald pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Swift stated that nothing was known against Maloney and Smart, but Fitzgerald was believed to be a Wm. Murray, who had many previous convictions for larceny against him.

Prisoners were sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, Alderman Spurgen remarking that people should be more careful in buying articles offered them by strangers, as they might find themselves in a serious position. He cautioned the witness Howard.

 

Folkestone Express 7 July 1906.

Local News.

On Tuesday evening a little girl, named Marsh, of the Wellington public house, Beach Street, was crossing Foord Road, when she ran into a horse which was drawing a cab, driven by William Harris. She was rather violently knocked to the ground, but happily escaped being run over. The driver placed the girl in his cab and immediately drove her to the Victoria Hospital, where she was attended by the House Surgeon. It was found that she was severely shaken, but after a time was allowed to be taken home.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 October 1906.

Saturday, October 13th: Before Messrs. Banks, Herbert, Fynmore, Ames, Swoffer, Hamilton, Linton, Stainer, and Leggett.

Charles Bradshaw, a soldier, was charged with stealing a pair of socks, value 4d.

Charles Craker deposed that he was a bricklayer, and saw the accused take a pair of socks from outside the shop of Godden and Addison, clothiers, in Harbour Street. There were two other soldiers with the accused, and they were laughing and talking. Prisoner walked towards Beach Street, but returned and went into the Wellington public house. Witness gave information to P.C. Johnson.

Mary Ann Marsh, landlady of the Wellington, stated that she found the socks in the bar.

Mr. Godden deposed that he carried on business with Mr. Addison in Harbour Street. On Friday afternoon he saw the prisoner and two other soldiers near the Wellington. He afterwards missed a pair of socks (those produced). He knew them by the mark. They were worth 4d.

P.C. Leonard Johnson deposed that he was on duty in Harbour Street, and from what Craker said he went to the Wellington and saw the prisoner in company with two other soldiers. Witness charged them with stealing the socks and took them to Mr. Godden's shop and searched them. Not finding the socks on them he let them go. Craker pointed out the prisoner to him. Witness afterwards had the socks handed to him, and he then took the prisoner into custody and charged him.

Defendant elected to be dealt with by the Magistrates. He pleaded Guilty, and said he had been in the Army two years.

An officer gave him a good character, and after a good lecture by the Chairman he was discharged.

Saturday, October 13th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Fynmore, Major Leggett, and T. Ames, J Stainer, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Charles Bradshaw, a private in the East Yorkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with stealing a pair of socks, value 4d. the previous day.

Frederick Craker, a brickmaker, residing in Greenfield Road, said at about half past five the previous evening he was standing in Harbour Street, opposite Mr. Godden's shop, when he saw the prisoner come out of the cookshop adjoining. Bradshaw then pulled off a packet of socks from a nail outside Mr. Godden's shop, took a pair from the packet, and put them under his serge coat. Two other soldiers were with prisoner, and while laughing and talking together Bradshaw took the socks. All three eventually went to a public house, and he gave information to P.C. L. Johnson.

Mary Ann Marsh, wife of John Marsh, the landlord of the Wellington beerhouse, said during the afternoon, in consequence of what her daughter told her, she searched the public bar, and on one seat found one of the socks. On the seat in the private bar she found the other sock.

Henry Godden said he was a clothier and outfitter, and was in partnership with a man named Addison in Harbour Street. In consequence of what was told to him, he went to the outside of the shop and saw the prisoner in company with two other soldiers. The pair of socks were his property, and the selling price was 4 d.

P.C. L. Johnson said about 5.45 the previous afternoon, from what Craker told him, he went to the Wellington public house, where he saw the prisoner, accompanied by two other soldiers, in the private bar. He told them he suspected them of stealing a pair of socks, and all three said they knew nothing about them. They then went with him to Mr. Godden's shop, but on searching them he could not find the socks. Witness allowed them to go, and Craker pointed out the prisoner as the man who took the socks. Shortly afterwards Mrs. Marsh handed him the socks. He therefore went after the prisoner and found him in Harbour Street. He told him he should charge him with stealing the socks, and brought him to the police station, where on being formally charged he made no reply. In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said the sock could have been thrown over the partition from the private to the public bar.

Prisoner admitted the offence and said he was very sorry. He had been in the regiment two years and had a good character.

An officer from the defendant's regiment said the prisoner had a very good character. He had been in the regiment for two years, and he had not had an entry against him at all.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had taken a very lenient view of the case. They were glad to hear that the prisoner had not a blemish against his character. He would be discharged under the First Offenders' Act.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 October 1906.

Saturday, October 13th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames.

Charles Bradshaw, a private in the 2nd Leicestershire Regiment, was charged with stealing a pair of socks.

Frederick Craker, a bricklayer, living in Greenfield Road, said he was standing opposite the shop belonging to Mr. Godden, the outfitter, on Saturday evening. Prisoner came out of a cookshop and was joined by two other soldiers. The three stood laughing and talking outside Mr. Godden's shop. Prisoner pulled down a bundle of sock that were hanging in the door and put one pair under his serge. He then walked away in the direction of Beach Street, but afterwards returned to the other two soldiers, and they all went into the Wellington public house together. Witness then gave information to P.C. Johnson.

Mrs. Marsh, the wife of Jno. Marsh, landlord of the Wellington beerhouse, said that during the previous afternoon, in consequence of what her daughter told her, she went into the bar, and found the socks produced.

Mr. Godden said he was in partnership with Mr. Horace Addison, and they carried on business as outfitters. The previous afternoon he saw prisoner and two other soldiers outside the Wellington, and on going out of his shop he found a bundle of socks lying on the footway. The pair produced was shown to him by P.C. Johnson, and he identified them as his property by the mark upon them. The value was 4d.

P.C. Johnson said at 5.45 p.m. the previous day from information received from the witness Craker, he went to the Wellington public house. He there saw the prisoner, accompanied by two other soldiers, and said to them “I suspect you of having stolen a pair of socks from the shop opposite”. They all three said “We don't know anything about any socks”. They then accompanied him across to Mr. Godden's shop. Witness there searched them, but could not find any socks on them, and accordingly allowed them to go. Craker pointed out prisoner to witness, and said “That is the man who took the socks”. Prisoner was within hearing. Shortly afterwards the socks produced were handed to witness by Mrs. Marsh. He then went after the prisoner, and found him in Harvey Street. He told him he should take him to the police station and charge him with stealing the socks from Mr. Godden's shop.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. He said he was very sorry; he had always borne a good character.

An officer said prisoner held a very good character. He had been with the regiment two years, and had no entries against him at all.

The Chairman, addressing Bradshaw, said the Bench had taken a very lenient view of the case. Prisoner had done a very stupid thing indeed. He was wearing His Majesty's clothes, and yet he stupidly went and took a pair of socks which were of no use to him whatever. He would be discharged.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 December 1906.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Express 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Fynmore, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, T. Ames, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Major Leggett.

The following licence was transferred: The Wellington public house, from Mr. J. Marsh to Mr. Skinner.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.

Mr. Charles Coppin Skinner applied to have the licence of the Wellington beerhouse transferred to him from John Marsh.

The Chief Constable mentioned that Mr. Skinner was now holding the licence of the Tramway Tavern, which was cancelled at the Licensing Sessions, but he would be holding the two licences for a time if the Bench granted his application.

Mr. Cobay said the question of compensation to all the houses in the district whose licences had been refused at the Sessions had been settled the day before, and the Tramway Tavern would be closed on the 30th of the present month.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 16 March 1907.

Tuesday, March 12th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.G. Wood Esq.

William George Goodbourne was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street the previous night. He admitted the offence.

P.S. Laurence said at 10.30 the previous night he saw the prisoner being led from the direction of Radnor Street by a soldier. He was drunk. He went into the Wellington public house, from which he was ejected by the landlord. Prisoner then made use of most filthy language, and as he would not go away he had to take him into custody.

Prisoner said he was very sorry and hoped the Magistrate would look over it, as it was the first time he had been before them.

The Mayor said the prisoner had put his money in the wrong place – he had put it down his throat instead of into his wife's hand. He would be fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour. A week was allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 July 1907.

Monday, July 1st: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Mr. T. Ames.

Chas. Fredk. Finn was charged, on warrant, with living wholly or partly on the earnings received from prostitution.

D.S. Burniston deposed that he had known the prisoner from the 20th May to the 12th June. He had resided with a woman named Kathleen Franklin, who was a prostitute. During that time prisoner had done no work, and witness had seen him standing morning, afternoon, and evening at the bottom of Tontine Street. He was frequently in the Wellington public house, and always dressed respectably, as he appeared there that day. On several occasions he had seen the woman Franklin in Harbour and South Streets in the afternoon, and had seen the prisoner meet her and receive something from her, and then go into the Wellington public house. He (witness) had seen prisoner late at night walking to 18, Fenchurch Street, where they lived. He last saw the accused on the 12th June at 11 a.m. in Tontine Street, and on the 13th, when a warrant was issued for his arrest, he left the borough. On the 12th the woman was arrested, and he disappeared the following morning.

Accused stated that he never received anything from the woman.

P.C. Sharpe stated that he, too, had known the accused since May, and during that time accused had lived with the woman Franklin at 18, Fenchurch Street. He kept observation on the woman, and had seen the man meet her and receive something from her. He used to go out of the Wellington, walk a few minutes, and sometimes went in the direction of Harbour or South Street, where he met the woman. They then went a little way up Dover Street, and he (witness) saw her hand something to the prisoner. The man afterwards returned to the public house, while the woman went in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. She was frequently in the Lower Sandgate Road. To his (witness's) knowledge the accused had done no work. On Saturday night last, he (witness) went to 18, Fenchurch Street at about 10 p.m., in company with Sergt. Dunster, and said to the accused “I have a warrant for your arrest”. He then charged the accused, who said that he was working now.

Mrs. Frances Jane Whiting, of 15, Fenchurch Street, deposed that she owned certain cottages, which she let out. She recognised the man, who came to her in May, and asked for a furnished room. He said that he was married, and was going to get some work at the brickfield. He took possession of the room, and the woman joined him. His tools came from Ashford, but she had never seen the man use them.

Defendant stated that he got his discharge from the Army about twelve months ago. He had always lived honestly, and had always paid his own way.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to six weeks' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 April 1908.

Wednesday, April 8th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Wood, and Leggett.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said he saw the defendant in Beach Street, very drunk. He went into the Wellington, and also into the Royal George. Witness followed him, and told him he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Styles corroborated.

Defendant said he never went into the Wellington, nor into the Princess Royal, and when he went into the Royal George they served him.

He was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Express 11 April 1908.

Wednesday, April 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, R.J. Linton and R.G. Wood Esqs.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly after ten o'clock on the 26th March, he saw the defendant, who was drunk, go into the Wellington public house. Immediately after he came out without being served. He cautioned him about going on licensed premises whilst he was drunk. About 10.20 he saw him go into the Royal George, so in company with P.C. Prebble, he went into the house and told the barmaid not to serve defendant. Mrs. Kirby, the landlady, came into the house and refused to serve him. At first defendant refused to go, but when they were going to eject him he left the premises.

P.C. Stiles said at 8 p.m. on the same day he went into the Princess Royal after the defendant and another man, who were drunk, and told the barmaid not to serve them.

Defendant, who said it was of no use him saying anything against the constables, was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, but he preferred to do seven days' hard labour in default.

The Chief Constable said he would like to say a few words with regard to the duty of the police. His instructions were to his men – and he had no reason to doubt that they were carried out – that at any time when they saw a drunken man enter a licensed house they were to follow him and warn the licensee or the person in charge. In the case referred to, when the man was seen drunk, he was practically on his own doorstep.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 April 1908.

Wednesday, May 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales deposed that shortly after 10 o'clock on the night of the 26th March he saw defendant drunk in Beach Street. He saw him go into the Wellington beerhouse, but immediately afterwards he came out without being served. Witness cautioned him about being drunk on licensed premises. At 10.20 he saw him go into the Royal George public house, and witness, in company with P.C. Prebble, went into the house and told the barmaid not to serve him, and she did not. Witness asked him to leave the premises. At first he refused to go, but afterwards he left.

P.C. Styles stated that at 8 p.m. on the 26th March he saw defendant, with another man, go into the Princess Royal. Clark was drunk. Witness went in and told the barmaid not to serve him. He came out, and went towards the harbour.

A fine of 5s. and 10s. costs was imposed, or 7 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Hamilton, Stainer, and Leggett.

The Chief Constable read his annual report (for details see Folkestone Express).

All the licences were renewed, except the Wellington, Chequers, and Rose Hotel. These were adjourned till the adjourned licensing sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) submitted his annual report as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 125 premises for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz: Full licences, 76; beer “on”, 7; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers, etc., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total, 125.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 245 persons, or one “on” licence to every 369 persons.

There are two other houses licensed by the Inland Revenue for the sale of beer, wine and spirits off the premises, under the provisions of the Excise Acts, for which no Magistrates' certificate is required.

Since the last annual licensing meeting ten of the licences have been transferred.

Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 45 extensions of the usual 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 93 persons (73 males and 20 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. Ninety were convicted and three discharged.

This, I am pleased to report, is a decrease of 14 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, and a decrease of 32 persons proceeded against when compared with 1907.

Of those proceeded against 38 were residents of the borough, 10 residents of other districts, 36 of no fixed abode, and 9 soldiers.

Since the last annual meeting two licence holders have been convicted, namely: One permitting gambling – fined 5 and costs; one permitting drunkenness – fined 40/- and costs. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given, and will be dealt with by the Recorder at the next Quarter Sessions.

Fourteen clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. These clubs have a total membership of 3,063, an increase of three clubs and an increase of 1,261 members, as compared with 1903, the year in which clubs were first registered.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

I am pleased to report that with very few exceptions the licensed houses during the past year have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

I have received notice of two applications to be made at these sessions to sell beer off the premises.

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant.

The licences were then renewed, with the exception of the Chequers Inn, Seagate Street (Walter Howlett), Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street (Percy William John Hunt), and the Wellington (Charles William Copping Skinner), which were deferred to the adjourned licensing sessions on March 7th.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. R.J. Linton, E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Express)

The licences were then renewed, with the following exceptions, the consideration of which was referred to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions on March 7th next; The Chequers Inn, 3, Seagate Street; full licence; licensee Mr. Howlett; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy. The Wellington Tavern, 1, Beach Street; beer licence; licensee Mr. Skinner; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy.

The Rose Hotel, 24, Rendezvous Street, full licence, (licensee Mr. Hunt), was referred by the Bench to the adjourned sessions on account of the conviction recorded against the licensee during the year for permitting gaming on the premises.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, and Boyd.

The Wellington.

This licence was objected to on the grounds of redundancy. The same figures were proved as in the previous case. There was no complaint against the house.

Mr. Warner, of Tonbridge, supported the renewal of the licence, first on the grounds that the licence was granted before 1869, secondly that it was only a beerhouse, and thirdly because it was the only house the owner had in the town. Competition was good and necessary.

Mr. Blemmer (sic), the licensee, said he took his house in 1906, and paid 130 to go in. He had been a licensed victualler before. There was a Cork Club of 65 members held at his house, and he had ten bedrooms, which were always let in the summer time. He had no record of his trade, only the brewers' books. He got a fair living, and had no desire to leave the house. He had two children, and the customers were the labouring class and tradesmen in the neighbourhood. Messrs. Bushell's was the best beer in Folkestone. His was the only house in the town that supplied it.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: There were off licensed houses that supplied Bushell's beer, so if the house was closed they could get Bushell's beer. If the whole 65 members of the Cork Club attended at one time, he would not have room to put them.

Arthur Newton, secretary to Bushell and Co., proved the trade as follows: 1903, 122 barrels; 1904,108; 1905, 100; 1906, 126; 1907, 189; 1908, 176; 1909, 222. The average for the last three years was four barrels per week. The house was in a good position, and the firm had only two off licensed houses in Folkestone. Ten years since 300 had been spent on the property, and they were anxious to retain the house. The compensation would not pay them. It was good sound beer they supplied, and much liked in Folkestone.

The licence was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 12 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

Three licences had been referred to the justices for consideration – the Rose Hotel, the Wellington public house, and the Chequers.

The Wellington.

The Wellington beerhouse was the last case for consideration. Mr. Warner (Tonbridge) represented the owners, Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, and the tenant, Mr. C.C. Skinner.

Det. Sergt. Burniston gave evidence of serving notice of opposition to the licence on the ground that it was unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Chief Constable Reeve said the Wellington Inn was situate in Beach Street. It was an ante 1869 beerhouse. He then put in the figures relative to the congested area. The present licensee was Charles Copping Skinner, who obtained the transfer of the licence on December 5th, 1906. The owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, Westerham, and the rateable value of the house was 32. There were two doors at the front of the house, one opening into the bar and the other to a small bottle and jug department, which also led into a tap room at the side. That was the only accommodation for the public. There was a side door which opened in Dover Street, and the licensee informed him it was only used by his family and people staying in the house. The Clarendon Hotel was 32 yards away in the other direction. The rateable value of the Clarendon Hotel was 120. In Beach Street there were 34 houses – four of them were “on” licensed houses – two full, and two beer. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 12 other “on” licensed houses, and within a radius of 150 yards there were 17, and within 200 yards 25. The trade of the house was rather low class – hawkers and so on, and soldiers in the evening. He had no complaint to make about the manner in which the house was conducted by Mr. Skinner.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said the Clarendon Hotel was a free house, and it belonged to Mr. Venner. The South Foreland was privately owned. He did not know who supplied them. In the congested area Messrs. Leney and Co. owned six, and probably they supplied others. He knew the Wellington let lodgings and he believed they had ten bedrooms to let. He thought both the Chequers and the Wellington could be spared. He had not served a notice on the South Foreland because he had had no instructions to do so. The licensing justices had inspected the congested area themselves.

Mr. Warner said the house, he believed, was granted a licence in the 17th century. He considered that the ante 1869 houses should have greater consideration than the houses granted licences after that date. He held that it should be granted a licence because of its utility for a certain class of customers. He also appealed for it to be continued because it was the only house belonging to Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, and he contended that healthy competition amongst brewers was necessary.

Mr. Skinner said he had been in the house since December, 1906. He had been in the trade previously. He paid a good valuation to go in - 120. There was a cork club in connection with the house, with a membership of 65. They had ten letting bedrooms in the house, and he found plenty of people to take them, especially in the summer. He had not kept a record of what his trade was. He did a fair living trade there. He had no desire to leave the house. The working class, the men from the Harbour and the Fish Market and the tradespeople visited the house.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, Mr. Skinner said all the members of the cork club did not attend at the same time. If they did have them all at once it would be a difficult thing to get them in the rooms. There were two “off” licensed houses selling Messrs. Bushell's beer.

Herbert Armstrong, of 33, Garden Road, said he was a postman. He frequently went to the house in the evening. The house was well attended. He signed the document (produced), which Mr. Warner said was a memorial asking the Bench to renew the licence. The witness, continuing, said he thought the house was required. It was in a prominent position, and it was a place where middle class visitors could go.

Mr. Frank Newton, the manager for the brewers, said he had control of the books, and the figures he would give were taken from the books. In 1903 they did 125 barrels and 40 dozen bottles; 1904, 108 barrels; 1905, 100 barrels; 1906, 120 barrels and 21 doz.; 1907, 189 barrels and 189 doz.; 1908, 176 and 237 doz.; 1909, 222 barrels and 217 doz., and 158 crates. The total barrelage for last year was 235. The average trade for the last three years was 205, or practically four barrels a week. The house was in a prominent position, and he should say it was a convenient house. They had no other “on” licence in Folkestone, but they had two “off” licences, one in Bridge Street and one in Bradstone Road. Ten years ago they spent 350 in making alterations to the premises. If compensation were paid to them it would not compensate for the loss.

The Bench decided to refer the licence to the Compensation Authority.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. C.J. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, T. Ames, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Wellington.

The renewal of the licence of the Wellington beerhouse, 1, Beach Street, had also been referred to these sessions. Mr. Warner appeared for the landlords, Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, of Westerham, and the licensee, Mr. Charles Copping Skinner.

The Chief Constable said that the Wellington Inn was situated in Beach Street, and was an ante 1869 beerhouse. He put in the figures as to the number of licences given in the last case. This house was situated in the congested area. The present tenant was Charles Copping Skinner, who obtained a transfer of the licence on December 5th, 1906. The registered owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, of Westerham. The rateable value of the house was 32. There were two doors at the front of the house, one leading to the bar, and the other to a small bottle and jug department, which also opened into a small tap room at the side. That was the only accommodation. There was a side door to the house, which opened to Dover Street, and which the licensee had assured him was only used by his family and persons staying at the house. The house was situated at the corner of Beach Street, South Street, and Harbour Street. The Clarendon Inn and the South Foreland were each only 32 yards away. The South Foreland was rated at 72, and the Clarendon at 120. The Chequers, just at the back was rated at 28. In Beach Street there were only 34 houses, of which four were on licensed houses, two full licences and two beer licences. Within a radius of 100 yards there were twelve other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards 17 others, and within a radius of 200 yards, 25 others. The trade of the house was rather a low class – chiefly hawkers and so on, and soldiers in the evening. He had no complaint to make, and no fault to find with the way in which the house was conducted by the present licensee.

In answer to Mr. Warner, the Chief Constable said that the Clarendon was a fully licensed house, and was a large place, belonging to Mr. Venner. The South Foreland was also a fully licensed house, and was also privately owned. He did not know who supplied the South Foreland, but very likely it was Messrs. Leney. In the congested area Messrs. Leney had six licensed houses, and they supplied others. He knew that there were rooms to let at the Wellington, and there might possibly be ten. The landlord had let lodgings there, and the rooms supplied a want so far as lodgings were concerned. He thought that both the Chequers and the Wellington could be spared from this district.

This concluded the case for the refusal of the licence, and in giving his reasons why it should be renewed, Mr. Warner said that the house was of value because it was situated at the corner of the street. It was a very old-established house, as the licence was originally granted in the seventeenth century. For some reason it was considered that a poor man should go to a beerhouse, and the better class man to a fully licensed house, so for that reason a beerhouse was necessary. He also thought that the licence should not be extinguished on the ground that it was the only on licence owned by Messrs. Bushell in Folkestone, and he considered that competition was good for trade.

Mr. Charles Copping Skinner said that he had been lessee of this house since December, 1906. He had been in the trade before, and paid a valuation of some 120 to go into these premises. There was a cork club, with 65 members, held on the premises. There were ten bedrooms in the house that could be let, and he found plenty of people to take them, especially in the summer time. There was a fair trade at the house, and he had no desire to leave it. They were working people who frequented the house, men from the Harbour and Fish Market, and the tradesmen around.

In answer to the Chief Constable, this witness said that the whole of the 65 members of the cork club did not go to the house at once, or there would be considerable difficulty in accommodating them. There were two off licences belonging to Messrs. Bushell in the town.

Mr. Herbert Armstrong said that he lived at 33, Garden Road, and was a postman. He frequently went to the Wellington Inn of an evening, and found that it was well attended. He identified his signature on a memorial signed by a number of people to the effect that the licence was required. (This document was put in) He considered that this house was required.

Mr. Warner was about to call other evidence from among the signatories to the petition to the effect that the house was necessary, but the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley) intimated that the Bench did not want to hear other witnesses on that point.

Mr. Frank Newton said he was the Secretary and Manager of Messrs. Bushell's brewery, and he gave figures from the books of the company of the trade of the house. This showed the trade in 1904 to have been 108 barrels; 1905, 100 barrels; 1906, 120 barrels and 21 dozen; 1907, 189barrels and 189 dozen; 1908, 176 barrels and 236 dozen; 1909, 222 barrels, 217 dozen, and 158 crates. That worked out at 235 barrels last year. 4 barrels a week were sold in 1909. His firm had no other on licences at Folkestone; there was one off licence at Bridge Street, and another in the Bradstone Road. In 1889 his firm spent 295 in improving these premises. His firm were most anxious to obtain the licence.

At the conclusion of the evidence the Bench decided, without retiring, that they would refer the house to the East Kent Compensation Committee.

 

Folkestone Daily News 19 July 1910.

Local News.

The Canterbury Justices at the Quarter Sessions today refused to accept the recommendation of the Folkestone Bench to deprive the Wellington Tavern of its licence. Thus the house will not be interfered with.

Considering the number of times that the County Bench has refused to close houses in Folkestone, it is high time that licensed victuallers should be left in peace to carry on their business without being harassed in the way they have been for some years past.

 

Folkestone Express 23 July 1910.

East Kent Licensing Committee.

On Monday, at a meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee, the application for the renewal of the Wellington public house, at the bottom of Dover Street, Folkestone, was heard. It had been referred to the Committee by the Folkestone Licensing Justices.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the Justices, and Mr. Travers Humphreys for the owners, Messrs. Bushell, Watkin, and Smith, of Westerham, and the tenant, Mr. C.C. Skinner.

Evidence was given by Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, as to the congested area in which the house was situated, and other evidence was given by Det. Sergt. Burniston.

For the appellants the amount of the trade was stated, and witnesses were called to say that the house was required for the needs of the neighbourhood.

The Committee, which was presided over by Lord Harris, decided to renew the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1910.

East Kent Licensing.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at Canterbury on Monday; Lord Harris presided.

Only one house in Folkestone was down for consideration, viz., the Wellington, Beach Street, an ante 1869 beerhouse, of which Mr. Charles Copping Skinner is the tenant, and Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith Ltd., Westerham, are the registered owners. Mr. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices, and Mr. Travers Humphrey for the owners.

Mr. Matthew said this house was situated in an area which, although there had been a large number of reductions made there, was still largely over-supplied with houses. There were 31 on licensed houses, of which 27 were filly licensed and 4 on-beer, and 3 off, making in all 38 (sic) licensed houses in the vicinity. These figures gave one licence to every 117 persons, or one on licence to every 144. In comparing this congested area with other parts, they had one in 117 as compared with one at 249 in other parts, or one on licence to every 144 as compared with one on licence to every 369 elsewhere. The accommodation of the Wellington was poor, and the class of trade done was also poor. Those who patronised the house were mainly hawkers and soldiers. Persons living in the locality did not seem to care for it, and there was ample other accommodation in Beach Street. Beach Street was a street of 24 houses, and of these four were licensed houses, including the Wellington. The other three were considerably larger than the Wellington. There were also three licensed houses in the adjoining street, all of considerably higher rateable value. Within 100 yards of the Wellington there were twelve licensed houses, within 150 yards, 17, and within 200 yards, 25. Therefore there could be no inconvenience to the public at large, or to the immediate neighbourhood, if this licence was taken away. Although he had said the trade was poor, it had no doubt of late years been increasing, and this was the result of closing a number of licensed houses in the district. In late years twelve licences altogether had been taken away. The figures of the trade which were placed before the justices were:- in 1903, 125 barrels; in 1904, 108; in 1905, 120; in 1906, 189; in 1907, 176; and last year 221 barrels. But if the matter was to rest entirely upon whether the trade was increasing or not in the congested area, then there could be no more taking away of licences. If they took away one house in the congested area, it would only have the effect of increasing the trade at the other houses. Therefore he asked the Committee not to rely on those figures, but to have regard to the ample accommodation there was without this licence.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable of Folkestone, in the course of his evidence, said the congested area also had two registered clubs in it. The charges of drunkenness for the year ending the 30th of December were 93 for the whole borough, and 37 of these came from the congested area. The rateable value of the Wellington was 32, and directly behind it was the Chequers, a fully licensed house, while the Clarendon was only 32 yards away, and the South Foreland also 32 yards in the other direction. The rateable value of the South Foreland was 72, and of the Clarendon 120. There were three other licensed houses in Beach Street besides the Wellington; the Royal George (rateable value 56), the Alexandra (76), and the Wonder Tavern (36). In the adjoining street, Harbour Street, there were three licensed houses; the Harbour (rateable value 56), the True Briton (60), and the London and Paris (60). All these houses were within 60 or 80 yards of the Wellington, with the exception of the London and Paris.

In reply to Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Reeve said although the Chequers was a fully licensed house, it was rated lower than the Wellington, which was in a very good position. There were no complaints against the tenant's character, or the way the place was conducted.

Mr. Humphreys: Is it your experience that since so many houses have been closed – no fewer than nine within a distance of 100 yards – that the trade has generally gone up at the others? – I should say that would be so, sir.

That would seem to be the result of the working of the Act? – In a small area like this, yes.

You know, of course, who are the brewers who supply most of the remaining houses? – Yes. Sir.

And I believe this is the only house which is supplied by Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith? – It is the only on licence.

And they supply two other places in Folkestone? – Yes, but not in this neighbourhood.

And of the remaining houses in this neighbourhood, five are supplied by one firm of brewers? – I would not go so far as to say that, sir. There are several brewers in this neighbourhood.

There are a number of bedrooms at the Wellington? – Nine or ten.

And they let well in the summer? – I think he does do well with his letting.

Therefore, so far as the bedrooms are concerned, they rather supply a need in the neighbourhood? – I don't say they are necessary to a licensed house.

But some people prefer to have their bedrooms at a public house? – Yes, there are some. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable further stated that the Chequers had a better class customer than the Wellington, and was used by the people employed in the Harbour, and who were always in regular employment.

Detective Sergt. Burniston gave corroborative evidence.

Lord Harris: Where are the hawkers going if this licence is taken away? – There are other houses, my Lord.

Are there other houses which would like the hawkers to come to them? – Yes, sir.

And you think that the incursion of the hawkers into those other houses would not frighten other customers away? – No, sir.

If the hawkers invade the Chequers, for instance, will the harbour hands still go there? – I think so, sir.

Has that been your experience – that where a house has been closed the customers of that house have distributed themselves among the other houses? – Yes, sir.

Without inconvenience to the regular customers of those other houses? – Yes, sir.

Mr. Humphreys, in support of the application for the renewal, said it was very desirable that there should be different classes of house – a house that catered for the tradesmen, and one for such a class as hawkers. These people would not go without their beer, and no-one would contend that they should. They might go somewhere where their presence would not be welcome, and he submitted that so long as the house they patronised was well conducted, there was the strongest possible argument for the retention of the licence. Another reason was that this was the only house where the special kind of beer sold there could be obtained in that part of town, and to close this house would therefore be hard upon those wishing to procure Messrs. Bushell's beer, and would also be a little hard upon the owners as well. Then again, the Committee might consider that sufficient houses had already been taken away from this particular neighbourhood. The result of closing some of the houses had been to increase the trade done by the other houses. Therefore it had not met the purposes for which the Act was passed, namely, to diminish drinking. The trade done at the Wellington was unquestionably a large one, and had gone up and up as there had been fewer and fewer competitors. Last year it had gone up to 235 barrels, including the bottle and crate trade, whereas it was only 100 to 120 in the year that the Act to diminish drinking was passed. It was still increasing, moreover, and this year would undoubtedly be larger than ever.

Mr. Skinner, the tenant, stated that he had been at the house since December, 1906. He paid 20 a year rent, and was assessed at 32. He had a benefit club at the house, with a membership of 65. He also had ten bedrooms, which let well in the season. He never at any time had any difficulty in controlling the hawkers, his usual class of customer. He was doing a good trade there, and it was increasing. There were also two or three restaurants in the vicinity, and they had the refreshments required by their customers from his house.

In reply to Mr. Matthew, witness said his usual charge for a bed was 1s. 6d., although he sometimes let beds for sixpence in the winter time.

Mr. Frank Baker Newton, secretary and manager to Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, stated that the Wellington was a very old-established house, and was said to date back to 1700. In 1889 his firm spent 300 on it, and it was the only on licence the firm had in Folkestone. They served two off licensed houses as well, but they were some distance away from the Wellington. Their barrelage for this year, if the increase went on in proportion, would be 282 barrels. This would mean an average of 5 barrels a week, which was a very good trade indeed. Three barrels a week for a public house was always regarded as a good trade.

Mr. Ernest Marwood, of 5, Harbour Street, stated that he lived close to the Wellington, and kept a restaurant. He had no licence for intoxicating liquors, and got his customers' requirements from the Wellington. But for the Wellington he would have to go up the Foord Road for this firm's beer, when asked for it, as he often was.

The Committee decided to renew the licence.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 July 1910.

East Kent Licensing.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Monday. Lord Harris presided.

Application for the renewal, of the license of the Wellington, Beach Street, Folkestone, was made by Mr. Travers Humphrey, barrister. Mr. Mathew, barrister, opposed on behalf of the local Licensing Justices. Evidence was given to show that the house, which, was supplied by Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Co., of Westerham, was doing an increasing trade, and the Committee decided to renew the license.

 

Folkestone Daily News 13 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Licensing Bench on Wednesday, February 12th, was constituted as follows: Messrs. Ward, Boyd, Leggett, Swoffer, Stainer, Herbert, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The Chief Constable read his report (for which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, but the Bench were still of opinion that there were too many licensed houses in a certain portion of the town. Therefore a number would have their licences withheld until the adjourned sessions on the ground of redundancy. Formal opposition to the renewals would be served so that full enquiries could be made into the trade of these houses, with a view of referring some of them to the Compensation Authority.

The following were the licences which were held over: The Raglan, Dover Street; Oddfellows, Dover Street; Royal Oak, North Street; Isle of Cyprus, Bayle; Lord Nelson, Radnor Street; Lifeboat, North Street; Wellington, Beach Street.

 

Folkestone Express 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Justices present were E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer Esqs. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Stainer did not take part in the licensing business, not being on the committee.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 119 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full Licences 73, Beer On 7, Beer Off 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers Off 15, Grocers, etc. Off 9, Confectioners' Wine On 3, Chemists Wine Off 5. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 281 persons, or one on licence to every 418 persons. As compared with the return submitted last year this is a decrease of two licences. At the general annual licensing meeting last year a new licence was granted for the sale of beer off the premises at Morehall, and two other off licences were discontinued.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of that Committee on the 7th August, 1912, the licence was refused, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on the 28th December last.

During the past year fifteen of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Six occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 34 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

In the preceding year 54 males and 31 females were proceeded against, of whom 66 were convicted and 19 discharged.

The number convicted of drunkenness last year, viz., 46 males and 18 females, is, I find, the smallest number convicted in any year since 1896.

Of those proceeded against, 31 were residents of the Borough, 34 were persons of no fixed abode, 13 residents of other districts and seven were soldiers.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken against the holder of an off licence for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

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

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, eight for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I have no complaint to make as to the conduct of any of the licensed houses, and offer no opposition to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

The Chairman said it was a very satisfactory report indeed, but they felt that there were still too many licensed houses, particularly in certain portions of the Borough, and the Justices would direct that a certain number of the applications for renewal should be deferred till the Adjourned Sessions, so that they might have evidence as to the trade those houses were doing, and decide whether any of them ought to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

The houses to be dealt with were seven in number, namely; the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, the Royal Oak, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington.

With those exceptions the existing licences were granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman remarked that the report was a very satisfactory one, but, in the opinion of the Bench, there were still too many public houses in certain portions of the town, and they would defer the renewal of certain of the licences to the adjourned sessions, so that they might have evidence as to what trade they were doing, and see if any of them were to be referred to the compensation authority.

The licensees of the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, Dover Street, the Royal Oak, North Street, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington were called forward.

The Chairman said the renewal of the licences of those public houses would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions, and notice of opposition would be served in the meantime on the ground of redundancy. The Chief Constable would be directed to serve the notices.

The licences of all the other houses were then renewed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 10 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 10th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Stainer, Herbert, Harrison, Morrison, Linton, Boyd, Stace, Jenner, and Giles.

There was again a large crowd in Court on Monday morning, when the fate of 7 licensed houses (referred for redundancy) hung in the balance.

At the commencement of the proceedings the Chief Constable said the Bench had to consider the seven licences adjourned from the annual sessions on the ground of redundancy. He invited the Bench to hear the evidence in regard to such houses separately and give a decision after hearing all the evidence.

The Wellington.

An ante-1869 beerhouse, formerly known as the British Colours. Licensee, C.C. Skinner. Brewers, Bushell, Watin & Co. Retail value 29.

Similar objections were urged, with the addition of a small lavatory.

Mr. Skinner, the licensee, said he had held the licence since December, 1906. He paid 112 14s. valuation and the stock. The rent was 20, and the assessment 29. He had ten letting bedrooms in the house, letting from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per night. The trade was a good middle class one, and he had all the trade of the surrounding restaurant keepers. He had a petition signed by 240 people in favour of the renewal of the licence. His takings averaged 2 10s. per day.

Mr. Newton (from the brewery) said the average beer sold for the last three years was 238 barrels per year, showing an increase on the previous 3 years. This was the brewers' only on licence in Folkestone.

Mr. Warner, solicitor, of Tonbridge, appeared to support the renewal of the licence.

The Bench retired at 4 p.m., and returned at 4.10, the Chairman announcing that the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to Canterbury and the other five licences would be renewed.

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Wellington.

The Wellington, Beach Street, was the next house to be considered. Mr. Warner (Tonbridge) appeared for the owner and the tenant.

The Chief Constable said that was an ante-1869 house, and was formerly known as the British Colours. It was situate in Beach Street, at the corner of Dover Street. The licensee was Mr. Charles Copping Skinner, who obtained the transfer on December 5th, 1906. The registered owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, of Westerham. The rateable value was 25. There were two doors from Beach Street, one opening into the front bar, and the other into a small bottle and jug department, which also led to a taproom on the right hand side. There was a side door, which opened into Dover Street. The licensee told him it was only used by himself, his family, and persons staying in the house. The urinal provided for the customers was in a very small back yard, and it was only approached from the kitchen of the licensee. The yard was so small that they could scarcely swing a cat round in it. The Chequers Inn, in Seagate Street had an entrance to the yard of that house directly by the side of the Wellington. The Clarendon Hotel, with a rateable value of 120, was only thirty two yards away. There were altogether twenty three houses in Beach Street, four of them on-licensed houses, two full licences and two beer licences. In the adjoining street, Harbour Street, there was the True Briton, the Harbour and the London and Paris Hotels. Then there were the Royal George and the Alexandra Hotels in Beach Street. All those houses would be ample to accommodate the customers using the Wellington. That house was really situate in the centre of the congested area. Within a radius of 100 yards there were twelve other on-licensed premises, within 150 yards seventeen, and within 200 yards twenty five licensed houses. He had no complaint to make as to the conduct of the house, but he certainly felt it was a house which could be spared.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said the house was referred three years ago, but the Quarter Sessions renewed the licence. The Chequers, the South Foreland, the Wonder and the Wellington were all in a row. The reason he differentiated between the Wellington and the others was that he considered that the Wellington should go first, because it was the least suitable. One of his objections would be done away with if the urinal accommodation was altered. That was the only house owned by Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, and on the other occasion it was before the Justices he believed it was treated as a ewe lamb.

The Chairman: Supposing this house was closed, would there be a similar house for the customers to go to?

Mr. Reeve: Yes, in Beach Street.

Mr. C.C. Skinner said he had held the house since December, 1906. He paid 112 14s. for valuation, and had the stock to pay for in addition. The rent was 20 and the assessment was 30 and 29. He had ten letting bedrooms with which he did a fair trade in the summer. He charged from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. for a room for a night. His trade was middle class, the South Eastern men using his house. The restaurant keepers did business with him. Opposite there was a place being altered for the use of Territorials. He had a petition signed by 247 people, customers and others, asking that the licence should be retained. He took about 2 10s. a day. In 1912, he paid over 24 for minerals. He sold three dozen meat pies a day. He took about 106 a year for meat pies, sandwiches and biscuits. His trade was increasing, and had increased since they were last there.

Cross-examined, witness said there was nothing to prevent him letting the bedrooms even if the licence was taken away.

Mr. F. Newton said the average for the last three years was 238 barrels a year. The last time they were there it was 205 barrels. The house dated back to 1700. They spent 300 on the house a few years back. He was satisfied with the trade of the house. The trade was more than double what it was from 1903 to 1906.

Mr. Warner said on a previous occasion that house was referred, but it was renewed by the Quarter Sessions. It faced five streets. They admitted the urinal was not such as it might be, but the Justices were not there to consider structural alterations. If it was their wish that there should be structural alterations, the owners' manager was prepared to take it into consideration. That house was the only one belonging to Messrs. Bushell and Watkins, and if that was done away with it would be doing them an injury. Competition was a very good thing among brewers, and if the licence was taken away, the other houses would have an increased trade. It would not reduce drunkenness in any way. He could not see any reason put forward by the Chief Constable why the licence should be referred to the Quarter Sessions. He handed in a petition signed by 243 persons.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licences of the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to the Quarter Sessions. For those there would be provisional licences. The five other licences would be renewed, but they thought that the owners of the Wellington and the Raglan should consider the question of the urinals.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Police Court on Monday, when the licences of the seven houses deferred at the Annual General Sessions came up for hearing. Mr. E.T. Ward was in the chair, and he was supported by Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel C.J. Hamilton, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Captain Chamier, Mr. J.J. Giles, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison and Councillor A. Stace.

The Wellington.

The licence of the Wellington was next considered. Mr. Warner, of Tonbridge, appeared for the owners.

The Chief Constable said that this was an ante-1869 beerhouse, formerly known as the British Colours, and situated in Beach Street, at the corner of Dover Street. The licensee was Charles Skinner, who had held the licence since December of 1906. The owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, of Westerham, and the rateable value was 29. Here were two front doors leading into the house from Beach Street, one opening into the front bar, and the other into a small bottle and jug department, which also led to a tap room on the right hand side. There was a side door which opened into Dover Street, but which the licensee had told him was only used by himself and his family and persons who might be staying in the house. The urinal provided was in a very small back yard, and was approached only through the kitchen of the licensee. The Chequers, in Seagate Street, had an entrance to the yard directly by the side of the Wellington. The Clarendon Hotel, with a rateable value of 120, was only thirty two yards away in Tontine Street. There were altogether twenty three houses in Beach Street. Four of them were on licensed houses, two full licensed, and two had beer licences. In the adjoining street there were the Harbour Inn, the True Briton, and the London and Paris Hotel. All these had large public bars, and ample accommodation for the customers using the Wellington. This house was really situated about the centre of the congested area, and within a radius of one hundred yards there were twelve other on-licensed premises. Within 150 yards there were 17 houses, and within 200 yards there were 25 houses. He had no complaint to make as to the conduct of the Wellington, but he certainly felt that it was one of the houses that could be spared, and the customers who used it could find ample accommodation elsewhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warner: The Clarendon was in some measure a house which would serve different people to the Wellington. The same applied to the South Foreland. The Chequers was next to the South Foreland on one side, and the Wonder was on the other. He considered these three houses in a row to be congestion. He thought that the Wellington should go first because it was the least suitable in his opinion, as the urinal accommodation was very bad, the public having to go through the licensee's kitchen. That, he admitted, was a question of structure, and had nothing to do with the question of redundancy. There was a congestion of public houses there, and he held that the Wellington was the least suitable for the purposes of licensed premises. He considered that it was inferior to the surrounding houses. In the case of the Chequers, they had a large open yard, but in that of the Wellington they had nothing of that sort behind. If the owners altered the urinal one of his objections would be done away with. He remembered something about plans being put in to alter this urinal. He knew that this was the only house which Messrs. Bushell had in Folkestone. It was treated as their ewe lamb. (Laughter) If it was taken away the customers would not be able to enjoy Bushell's beer. (Laughter) The house was well situated for police supervision.

The Chairman asked whether, supposing this house was closed, there would be a similar house for people to go to.

The Chief Constable: Yes. All the others in Dover Street.

Mr. Chas. Skinner, the licensee, said he paid as valuation when he went into the house the sum of 112 14s., and there was the stock in addition. The rent was 20, and the assessment 29. He had ten letting bedrooms, and had a good class letting trade. The trade of the house was middle class in character. Amongst their customers they had the restaurants in Beach Street. Directly opposite to this house there were premises being offered for the use of Territorials, and he hoped for custom from them. He had a petition signed by 247 people, some of whom were customers. His takings averaged 2 10s. a day. In 1912 he paid over 24 for minerals. He sold about three dozen meat pies a day. The takings for lunch biscuits, sandwiches and pies were about 2 a week - 106 a year. He was doing a good business, which had increased since the date of the previous hearing, and was still increasing.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: If the licence was taken away, there was nothing to prevent him still letting the bedrooms.

Mr. F. Newton said the average for the last three years was 238 barrels a year, whereas for the previous three years it was only 205 barrels. This was the only on-licensed house that Messrs. Bushell had in the town. They had spent 300 on the house a few years back. He was satisfied with the trade of this house. The trade was more than double than when Mr. Marsh had the house. He left in 1906. His average for 1903 to 1906 was 108 barrels a year.

Mr. Warner said that the house had been previously referred to the Quarter Sessions by the Bench, and the licence had been renewed at the Quarter Sessions. He admitted that the urinal accommodation was not as satisfactory as it might be, but when the Chief Constable made a point of that it became a matter of structural alteration, whereas the question before them was one of redundancy. They had had plans drawn up regarding this urinal, but they were unfortunately mislaid some time past in the Magistrates' Clerk's Office. This was his clients' only house in Folkestone, and if they were going to disallow the licence they would be doing his clients a serious injury. If they took a licence away the trade of other houses would increase. He did not suppose that any member of the Bench would think that by taking away this licence they would be doing anything to reduce drunkenness. If people could not go to this house, they would certainly go somewhere else. He could see no reason why this house should be chosen to be referred to Quarter Sessions. He produced a petition signed by 243 people.

The Magistrates retired for a period to consider their decisions. On their return the Chairman said that the licence of the Wellington would be renewed, but they thought it was as well that the question of the urinals should be considered, and the Bench suggested that plans in that connection should be submitted.

 

Folkestone Express 18 November 1916.

Local News.

On Monday at the Police Court the licence of the Wellington Tavern was transferred to Mr. J. Salmon, late licence holder of the Black Horse, Swingfield.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1917.

Friday, February 23rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Councillor A. Stace, Councillor C.Ed. Mumford, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Salmon, licensee of the Wellington public house, was summoned for serving beer to a soldier at Folkestone for embarkation on February 18th. Mr. H.J. Myers represented defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, in charge of the Canadian Military Police, said that at 7.45 on the evening of February 18th he went into the Wellington, in Beach Street, and saw a soldier of the King's Yorks Light Infantry, to whom defendant was handing a glass of beer. The soldier said, when questioned, that he was an overseas man, and had not been asked by the landlord as to whether he was an overseas man or not. Witness handed the soldier over to the picket, and told the landlord it would mean prosecution, and possibly his house being put out of bounds. Defendant said he had asked some troops if they were overseas, and if they said they were not, he could not help it. Witness told him there was no difficulty in telling an overseas man.

By Mr. Myers: There was a picket close to the Wellington. It was not possible for the picket to prevent overseas men going into bars. On this evening witness went into several hotels, probably a dozen, and when he found in the bar overseas men who said they had been questioned and not served by the publican, he did not report the publican. An overseas Imperial soldier would not look like a Canadian; his collar was different, his khaki was a different shade, and the badges were different.

Lieut. Crowther said the soldier was an overseas man.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held the licence since November 15th last year. He always asked soldiers if they were men for overseas, and, if so, they were not served. Owing to the shading of the lights he was not able to distinguish the uniform of soldiers from his own side of the bar. Witness could not exactly identify the man concerned in the summons, but he asked every soldier he served whether he was an overseas man.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: The only means he had of telling whether a man was overseas was that he asked them.

Mr. Andrew: And you are satisfied with that? – Yes.

Has any man ever told you he was an overseas man? – Yes, and I have refused to serve them.

Mrs. Lily Salmon, wife of the defendant, said on this evening she repeatedly told the men: If any of you are for overseas, I can't serve you.

Mr. Myers: Have any of the men told you they are overseas? – No, they don't do so if they want a drink. (Laughter)

Continuing, witness said the men were all in khaki, and she could not tell one from another. She knew a Canadian by his buttons and badges. She served the man in question with one pint, which he was drinking when Lieut. Holmes came in. The soldier told Lieut. Holmes that witness had asked him if he was overseas, and he had said “No”.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: She always took the men's words. An Englishman's word was his bond.

The Clerk: Oh, is it?

By the Chief Constable: Witness knew the soldier was not a Canadian, and that was why she asked him if he was an overseas man.

Jas. Small, a cutler, of New Bridge Street, said he was in the bar and heard the troops asked as they came in if they were overseas men. All the men said they were not.

Geo. Seymour, marine store dealer, 16, Radnor Street, gave similar evidence.

Mr. Myers submitted that defendant and his wife were not experienced in the licensed trade. If the Bench were satisfied that the defendant took precautions, and was told by the soldiers they were not for overseas, then the case should be dismissed.

Defendant was fined 5, the Chairman remarking that the Bench had very grave doubts whether defendant was a proper man to hold a licence.

 

Folkestone Express 3 March 1917.

Local News.

The licensees of Folkestone find themselves face to face with an exceedingly difficult problem.

Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, an Order made by the Competent Military Authority absolutely forbids the serving of intoxicating drink to “Overseas” troops. While the licensees are keenly anxious to carry out the law and to assist the Military in every possible way, it would appear that infractions of the Order occur without the knowledge, and certainly without the consent, of those engaged in the trade, through, it is feared, the duplicity of the soldiers themselves. To any such breach of the Regulation there seems to be no defence. It is no answer to say that inquiries were made of the men. Total prohibition so far as “Overseas” troops are concerned, reigns. Hence the difficulty.

Cases arising out of this matter engaged the attention of the Folkestone Justices on Friday. Mr. G.I. Swoffer presided, the other Magistrates present being Councillors Boyd, Stace and Harrison, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John Salmon, of the Wellington, Beach Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating drink to an “Overseas” soldier. Mr. H.J. Myers defended.

Lieut. Holmes said on the evening of February 18th, about 7.45, he went into the beerhouse and there saw a soldier being handed a glass of beer across the bar. On being questioned, the soldier said he was an “Overseas” man. Asked if he had been questioned on this point in the house, he replied “No”. Later, witness saw the defendant, and said it would probably mean prosecution and the house being placed “out of bounds”. He said he had asked some troops if they were “Overseas”, and further remarked that he could not help it if they said they were not; he could not tell them.

By Mr. Myers: It was not possible for the picket to prevent “Overseas” men going into the premises. He contended that it was easy for the licensees to tell the “Overseas” men by reason of them wearing a different shade of khaki, the double collar, and the badge. The lights in the bar were not particularly shaded, and the place was not crowded, there being eight or nine there.

Serrgt. Frank Muir, of the Military Police, who entered the Wellington with Lieut. Holmes, corroborated. He mentioned that the soldier said he had been served twice – once by the barmaid and once by the “publican”, and that he had not been asked whether he was “Overseas”.

Lieut. Crowther gave evidence showing that the soldier was an “Overseas” man.

Defendant, in the witness box, declared that they always asked soldiers if they were for “Overseas” because, if so, they could not be served. From behind the bar, witness was not able to distinguish the uniforms of the various men because it was too dark. He noticed no soldier wearing shoulder straps as described by the previous witnesses.

Mr. Myers: Now, if you had known this man was for “Overseas”, would you have served him with intoxicating drink or allow him to be served?

Defendant: No.

The Chief Constable: You don't deny this man was served?

Defendant: I don't deny it.

Mrs. Salmon, wife of the licensee, said she remarked to the soldiers “If any of you boys are for “Overseas” I cannot serve you.

Mr. Myers: Have you ever been told by a soldier that he was for “Overseas”?

Witness: They don't tell us that if they want a drink. (Laughter)

Did you refuse any “Overseas” men that night? – Ever so many went away. As soon as they saw the military police they were off.

She heard the soldier say to Lieut. Holmes “I was asked if I was for “Overseas” and I said “No””.

The Clerk: You ask them the question and take their word.

Witness: An Englishman's word is his bond.

By the Chief Constable: She knew the soldier was not a Canadian, and that was why she particularly asked if he was “Overseas”.

James Small, a cutler, declared that the landlord and his wife asked the men as they came in if they were “Overseas” troops.

George Seymour, marine store dealer, of Radnor Street, was another witness for the defence.

The Bench thought it was a bad case, and imposed a fine of 5.

 

Folkestone Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, read his annual report, as follows: I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 113 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences 70, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and spirit dealers 15, grocers, etc. off 6, confectioners wine on 3, chemists wine off 6, a total of 113. This gives an average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 296 persons, or one on licence to every 435 persons. As compared with last year this is a reduction of two licences, one full licence and one grocer's off licence, the former being the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, which was closed after the payment of compensation on 29th September last, and the other the grocer's wine and spirit off licence to the premises of Messrs. Lipton Ltd., which was not renewed at the last annual meeting. During the year 12 of the licences have been transferred. For the year ended 31st December last, 30 persons (19 males and 11 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 20 were convicted and 10 dismissed. Of those proceeded against, 13 were residents of the borough, 9 residents of other districts, 5 members of the Naval or Military forces, and 3 persons of no fixed abode. In the preceding year 55 persons (28 males and 27 females) were proceeded against, of whom 32 were convicted and 23 discharged. Nine summonses have been taken out against licence holders or their servants for offences on licensed premises. Six were convicted and three dismissed. Five of the convictions were for supplying intoxicating liquor to overseas members of His Majesty's Forces, contrary to Article 40 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The other conviction was for a breach of the No Treating Order made by the Liquor Control Board. Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 4 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing. The Order of the Liquor Control Board restricting the hours for sale and supply of intoxicating liquors to 4 hours each weekday and 4 hours on Sundays is still in force. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner.

The Chairman said the number of cases of drunkenness, 30, was a very small number.

The Chief Constable: It is the smallest on record.

Councillor Stace said it was probably owing to the restricted hours.

The Chief Constable: Probably so.

The Chairman said that report was very satisfactory. With regard to the convictions of licensed houses, he noticed that five convictions were in respect of supplying overseas soldiers. There was no doubt the licence holders had a great difficulty in regard to that matter, but those regulations had to be carried out, and the Magistrates hoped they would be strictly adhered to. All the licences would be renewed, with the exception of the Queen's Hotel and the Wellington, which would be adjourned until the adjourned sessions.

The adjourned sessions were fixed for Wednesday, March 6th.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

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

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

The Chairman observed that the number of cases of drunkenness was few compared with any previous year, a matter upon which all were to be congratulated. There were some offences against licence holders for supplying overseas soldiers, but there was no doubt whatever licensees had very great difficulty in the matter. Mr. Ward added that the whole of the licences would be renewed, with the exception of those of the Queen's Hotel and the Wellington, which would be considered at the adjourned sessions.

The adjourned licensing meeting was fixed for 6th March.

 

Folkestone Express 9 March 1918.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew) said there were several licences to come before the Magistrates for really automatic renewal. The Queen's Hotel and the Wellington beerhouse were referred from the annual sessions, since when the following licences had been transferred; The Price Albert, the Shakespeare, the True Briton, and the Harbour Inn. The licences were granted.

 

Folkestone Express 17 September 1921.

Obituary.

Mr. John Salmon, the licensee of the Wellington Inn, Beach Street, died on Monday evening at the age of 56 years. The deceased at one time was engaged at the Ashford Railway Works, and later became licensee of the Black Horse, Swingfield, subsequently taking charge of the Wellington Inn. The funeral takes place today (Friday).

 

Folkestone Express 8 October 1921.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates at the special transfer sessions had before them the question of hours for the sale of drink.

The Bench agreed to the following transfer: The Wellington, Beach Street, from the late Mr. J. Salmon to his widow.

 

Folkestone Express 3 October 1925.

Saturday, September 26th: Before G.I. Swoffer Esq., and other Magistrates.

Harry Andrews, a bricklayer, was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street on Friday night.

P.C. Simpson said at 2.05 p.m. he saw a crowd outside the Wellington public house, and saw the prisoner, who was very drunk, trying to get a pram away from his wife. He was using most filthy language. Halfway up Tontine Street defendant's wife left him, and defendant took possession of the pram, and zig-zagged all over the street. Defendant threatened to strike him with a trowel. He had 18s. 9d. in his possession.

Defendant said he was sorry. He had had a few half pints, and met a friend he had not seen in years.

Defendant was fined 5s.

While the Magistrates were sitting, a woman was creating a disturbance outside the police station, and was later charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and creating a disturbance.

P.C. Rowe proved the case.

Defendant: I came here to stick up for my husband. I was not doing any real harm, and if I have done it I am sorry.

The Chairman: You are a little excited about your husband, and he has been fined 5s., and he will pay that, and he has been released.

Defendant: I have been sitting in the street ever since three o'clock yesterday. What can I do? I don't want to be in the street until dinner time today.

The Chairman: I know what I shall do in a minute if you don't keep quiet.

Defendant: I want to be with my husband, and live with him, and be happy. We are going out of the town to Canterbury.

The woman kept up a constant talk, in spite of the fact that she was told she would be kept in the cells until Monday if she did not keep quiet.

She was eventually released.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1925.

Saturday, September 26th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

Harry Andrews was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?

Prisoner: I admit I had a few drinks.

The Magistrates' Clerk: What about being disorderly?

Prisoner: I was not. I could walk straight.

P.C. Simpson said at 2.05 p.m. on the previous afternoon he was on duty in Tontine Street when he noticed a large crowd near the Wellington Inn. On going there he saw the prisoner, who was very drunk, struggling with his wife for possession of a pram. Accused was using most filthy language. He cautioned him, and prisoner went up the street with his wife. About half way up the street his wife left him, and prisoner took possession of the pram, swerving from side to side of the street, and swearing at everyone who got in the way. Witness spoke to defendant, who used obscene language, and threatened to strike him with a trowel. He took him into custody. On searching him at the police station he found 18s. 7d. in his possession. There were various odds and ends in the pram.

Defendant said he had had a few half pints. He was very sorry. He met a few friends he had not seen for a long time and had a few drinks. He was a bricklayer. He did not use obscene language.

Inspector Pittock said prisoner had been in Folkestone about a month with his wife. They were staying at a common lodging house.

A fine of 5s. was imposed.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. G. I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. Broome-Giles.

The licence of the Wellington public house was transferred from Mrs. Lily Salmon to her son, Mr, James Salmon.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

The Magistrates sanctioned the transfer of the following licence: Wellington Inn, from Lily Salmon to James V. Salmon.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 September 1930.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. John Marsh, aged 71, for 25 years the licensee of the Alexandra Tavern, Bridge Street, which occurred at his residence on Sunday after a painful illness patiently borne. Mr. Marsh was a Folkestonian, having lived in the town practically all his life. Previous to taking the Alexandra Tavern, he held a licence at The Wellington, Harbour Street and at Alkham. He was a blacksmith by trade and had been employed in that capacity by the Earl of Radnor for about 30 years. Mr. Marsh was very well-known in the town although of a quiet disposition.

He leaves a widow, three sons, seven daughters, and 23 grandchildren. Early next year Mr. and Mrs. Marsh would have celebrated their golden wedding. Much sympathy will be felt for the relatives in their sad bereavement.

The funeral took place very quietly at the Folkestone Cemetery (Hawkinge).

 

Folkestone Express 5 August 1939.

Local News.

Percy Kershall, of no fixed abode, was charged at Folkestone Police Court on Friday with being drunk and incapable the previous evening. Prisoner, who came into Court leaning heavily on two walking sticks, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Seeker said at 10.35 p.m. on Thursday he was on duty in Beach Street, and saw the prisoner lying on his back outside the Wellington Hotel. He went over to assist him and found he was unable to stand. His breath smelt of alcohol, and he was muttering things incoherently, and he came to the conclusion he was drunk. He took the prisoner to the police station, where he was charged, and he replied “I cannot be drunk. I've only had a dollar's worth of beer”. Prisoner said he was on the road from Hastings. He was an ex-Service man, as they would see. He had not been to Folkestone since the South African War. Folkestone was a nice place, he liked its people, and he liked a drop of beer. He would like something from the poor box.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said the case would be dismissed if the prisoner got out of town quickly.

The prisoner was before the Justices again on Saturday morning, when it was alleged that he was found drunk and incapable in North Road, Shorncliffe Camp, on Friday afternoon.

P.C. Lewis said at 3.10 p.m. he went to Shorncliffe Camp, where he saw the prisoner lying on the pavement against the wall of the Wesleyan Soldiers' Home. He had his shoes off. When witness approached, Kershall shouted at the top of his voice. His breath smelt strongly of drink. With assistance witness got him to his feet, but he was unable to stand, even with the aid of his two walking sticks. He was too drunk to put his shoes on.

The prisoner, addressing the Court, said he wished to speak to the Magistrates as a man.

“I am a hero, and this is what heroes have to put up with”, he said. “I brought a family up and then they cannot keep me. I don't want them to keep me”. “I was making for Dover, and must have taken the wrong turning”, he added.

Inspector Rowe said the prisoner had a very bad record extending back to 1904. He had been convicted of larceny and had 73 convictions for drunkenness. His last conviction was on March 4th, 1939, for malicious damage and drunkenness. He was sentenced to three months and one month concurrently.

The Chairman of the Magistrates: We are getting tired of you. You will have to pay a fine of 10/- or seven days' hard labour.

An application by Kershall, who said he had only a little more than a shilling, for help from the poor box was refused.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1946.

Local News.

Demolition work by the Corporation has been started in the Beach Street area. Men were yesterday engaged in pulling down the badly damaged Wellington Hotel, at the bottom of Dover Street.

The Borough Engineer (Mr. E.L. Allman) told the Folkestone Herald yesterday “We are pulling down war damaged buildings which the War Damage Commission say can be demolished. After doing a few buildings in the Beach Street area we are going to deal with damaged property in the Brockman Road area, returning later to the Harbour area. We have made a complete clearance in the Bridge Street area”.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1956.

Notice.

In the County of Kent, Broough of Folkestone.

To: The Clerk to the Rating Authority for the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent.

The Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent,

The Chief Constable of Kent,

And to all whom it may concern.

 

I, Harry Frederick May, now residing at The Lifeboat Inn Folkestone in the County of Kent, Beerhouse Keeper, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the second session of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the said Borough, to be holden at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday the 29th day of February 1956 for the grant to me of a Justices Licence authorising me to apply for and hold an Excise Licence to sell by retail any intoxicating liquor which may be sold under a Spirit Retailers (or Publican's) Licence for consumption either on or off the premises situate at The Lifeboat Inn, North Street, Folkestone aforesaid of which premises Messrs. Mackeson & Company Limited of Brewery, Hythe, in the said County, are the owners of whom I rent them and it is my intention at the hearing of the application for the new licence to offer to surrender the following licences:-

(a) The licence now in suspense relating to the premises known as “The Wellington”, Beach Street, Folkestone, of which premises Messrs. Bushell Watkins & Smith Limited of The Black Eagle Brewery, Westerham is the registered owner.

(b) The licence now in suspense relating to the premises known as “The Wonder Tavern”, Beach Street, Folkestone, of which premises Messrs. Flint & Co. of 58, Castle Street, Dover is the registered owner.

Given under my hand this 2nd day of February, 1956.

H. F. May.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 March 1956.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The grant of a full licence to the Lifeboat Inn, North Street, and the surrender of the suspended licences of the Wonder Tavern and the Wellington, Beach Street, were agreed at the adjourned Folkestone Licensing Sessions on Wednesday.

Mr. P. Bracher, making the applications, said there appeared to be no objection. There was a beer licence at the Lifeboat Inn, but facilities were wanted to supply all types of alcohol. He said there was a definite demand for it because there were more people living in the area, and because of the summer trade. The matter had been before the Licensing Planning Committee, and no objection was raised by them to the application. Mr. Bracher said the present premises of the Lifeboat Inn were not what the brewers desired. The cottage next door was coming down, and it was the brewers' immediate intention to improve the Lifeboat Inn. Arrangements were made with the Corporation for the acquisition of the property and for the setting back of the road. Plans for the improvement of the premises would come before the Justices for approval in the very near future. He said the premises on the sea side, only partially protected from the weather, were going to be temporarily rebuilt at once. When the cottage came down a wall, with windows in it, would be erected. It would be a comparatively temporary arrangement while plans for the better siting of the house were being prepared. Something had to be done for the comfort of the tenant and the customers as soon as the adjoining cottage was demolished. Mr. Bracher went on to explain that it was proposed that two other licences in suspense should be surrendered. Arrangements and discussions had gone on with the Customs and Excise that the value of the licences should not be paid to the owners of the premises, but be taken by the Customs and Excise in consideration of the additional monopoly value which would be payable in respect of the Lifeboat Inn. The two licences which it was proposed to surrender were in respect of the Wellington and the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street. Dealing with the figure, Mr. Bracher said if no surrender had been made of any other licence, it was agreed with the Customs and Excise that it should be 600, the additional monopoly value payable on the grant of a full licence in respect of the Lifeboat Inn. After that had been settled the value of the two other licences was agreed at 250 and 350, a total of 600. There was no alteration in the monopoly value payable on the Lifeboat Inn simply because the two other licences were being surrendered to satisfy the payment. He said the owners and holders of the other two licences had authorised him to say they had consented to the surrender.

Harry Frederick May, the licensee of the Lifeboat Inn for eight years, said there was a demand for wines and spirits. Nearby was the W.T.A. Hostel, where there were 140 visitors in the summer. In addition a block of flats had been built in North Street and many visitors used the area in the summer. He said ladies' darts matches were held at the Lifeboat Inn, and the secretary of the team told him there was difficulty in arranging matches with other houses because wines and spirits were not obtainable.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GATLEY Charles 1893-96

WOODGATE William 1896-1901

Last pub licensee had MARSH John 1901-06

Last pub licensee had SKINNER Charles 1906-16+

SALMON John 1916-22+ beer retailer

SALMON Lily 1921-28

SALMON James 1928-39

WHYMAN Victor 1939-40+

 

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