DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, June, 2022.

Page Updated:- Sunday, 19 June, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1863

Wonder Tavern

Latest 1940

13 Beach Street

Folkestone

Wonder Tavern

Above a charabanc stands in front of the "Wonder Tavern" at Seagate Street, in 1912 while the rarely pictured "South Foreland" is behind it.

Wonder Tavern 1920s

Above photo, 1920s, also showing the former "Queen's Head" left.

 

Folkestone Observer 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

This was a special session for granting alehouse licenses, and the various licensed victuallers attended for the renewal of their licenses, the whole of which were granted, with one exception which was suspended for a fortnight, until the adjourned licensing day.

John W. Boorn, formerly of the Packet Boat Inn, applied for a license for the Little Wonder Tavern, situate in Beach Street. Mr Minter supported the application. Mr. Fox opposed on behalf of Charles Edward Jordan.

After hearing the evidence for and against the application the court was cleared, and on the re-admission of the public the Mayor said the Magistrates were unanimous in refusing the the application, inasmuch as there was no necessity for it. They did not wish to make free trade of this matter, and he thought the Bench would carry out this course in future, and not grant any licenses unless the houses were actually required.

 

Folkestone Express 29 August 1868.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman Tolputt.

The licensing day was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

Fresh Application:

John William Boorn applied for a license. Mr. Minter supported the application. He said that the applicant was formerly the keeper of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, and now keeps the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, Folkestone. The landlord had laid out 900 in converting the house for this purpose, and he hoped the Bench would not discourage gentlemen coming here and investing their money.

Mr. Fox said he was instructed by Mr. Jordan, of the South Foreland, to oppose the application. He thought the Bench ought to exercise their discretion and not grant a license without a house was wanted in this neighbourhood. That a man had laid out money was not a reasonable argument. He believed that in Folkestone there were 76 licensed houses, which would satisfy all the reasonable requirements of the place. He called Mr. Jordan, who deposed to the excessive number of licensed houses in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Minter called the attention of the Bench to the fact that at Liverpool the magistrates granted licenses to every respectable applicant, and the houses there were of a good class and character. He did not think this ought to be a question of necessity, but one of respectability.

After a short consultation, the Mayor stated that the magistrates were unanimous in refusing the application. They did not see any necessity in the application, and they wished it to be understood that they will not grant licenses without the necessity is shown.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 November 1868.

Monday November 23rd: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Robert Andrews was summoned for making a bonfire on the public street on the night of November 5th. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Sergeant Reynolds said he was on duty at the arches leading into Radnor Street on the 5th inst., about nine o'clock. Saw defendant take an active part in rolling a lighted tar barrel from Radnor Street into Queen Square. He was kicking it along. It was rolled to the door of the Wonder, put out, and rolled back again. Defendant came just through the arch, and there stopped. He did not follow the barrel across the street. A few minutes after he was kicking a tin of tar along the same way. He spoke to defendant.

By the Bench: After I cautioned defendant he desisted.

By Mr. Minter: I was standing opposite Cook's, the barber. Defendant, Reason, and Lott were close by. It was then I spoke to defendant. The tar barrel came along then, and defendant kicked it.

Mr. Minter called attention to the contradictory statement of the sergeant, who first said defendant desisted when spoken to, and after that he kicked the tin while the policeman was speaking. Was it reasonable to imagine that he would do so in prescence of the policeman? Defendant merely kicked the barrel in self defence, and the case must be dismissed. He called.......

George Reason, who said: I was with defendant on the night of 5th November, standing on the pavement close to Mrs. Andrews, in Radnor Street. Sergeant Reynolds was close by. Andrews had not then touched a barrel, but a mob of people with a lighted tar barrel came along Radnor Street, and as it passed, the barrel rolled towards us. Defendant put out his foot and kicked it away. He did not follow it. Reynolds then said “Don't you say tomorrow that you didn't kick that. You'll hear from me again”. Defendant did not kick any other barrel or can.

By P.S. Reynolds: It was not after the can came by that you spoke. I was not running after the barrel.

George Herbert Lott corroborated the evidence of last witness.

By the Bench: Defendant kicked the barrel in his own defence, not in fun.

The Bench, although fully believing the evidence of Sergeant Reynolds, could not dispute the evidence of defendant's witnesses and dismissed the case, remarking that the practice of rolling lighted tar barrels along the street was a very dangerous one, and must be stopped. They hoped to hear no more of it.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 February 1869.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1861.

John Whittingham Boorn, of the Wonder Tavern, Seagate Street, in the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, having been adjudged bankrupt on the twenty eighth day of January, 1869, is hereby required to surrender himself to Ralph Thomas Brockman, the Registrar of the County Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, at the first meeting of Creditors, to be held on the sixteenth day of February, 1869, to be held at three o'clock in the afternoon precisely, at the County Court Office, Folkestone.

John Minter, of Folkestone, is the Solicitor acting in the Bankruptcy. At the meeting the Registrar will receive the proofs of the debts of the Creditors, and the Creditors may choose an Assignee or Assignees of the Bankrupt's Estate and Effects.

All persons having in their possession any of the effects of the said Bankrupt, must deliver them to the Registrar, and all debts due to the Bankrupt must be paid to the Registrar.

Ralph Thomas Brockman.

egistrar and High Bailiff.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 March 1869.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1861.

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone.

In the matter of John Whittingham Boorn, of the Wonder Tavern, Seagate Street, in the town of Folkestone, in the county of Kent, beerhouse keeper, adjudged bankrupt on the 28th January, 1869.

An order of discharge will be delivered to the bankrupt after the expiration of thirty days from this date unless an appeal can be entered against the judgement of the Court, and notice thereof given to the Court.

Dated this 22nd day of March, 1869.

Ralph Thomas Brockman.

Registrar and High Bailiff.

 

County Court.

Monday, March 22nd: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

John Whittingham Boorn surrendered to pass his last examination and make an application for his discharge. Mr. Minter appeared to support the application, and Mr. John Banks appeared to oppose, but as he had not proved his debt, His Honour declined to hear him. Mr. Minter said the bankrupt owed 267. The court levied an execution on his goods, and paid out one execution, and the landlord, the balance, 27, having been paid into court. The usual order for discharge after the expiration of thirty days was granted.

 

Folkestone Observer 27 March 1869.

County Court.

Monday, March 22nd:

William Boorn, late of the Wonder Tavern, passed his last examination, and an order of discharge was granted, subject to thirty days' notice.

 

Folkestone Express 27 March 1869.

County Court.

Monday, March 22nd: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

John Whittingham Boorn came up for his last examination, and for his order of discharge. Mr. Minter supported the application, and Mr. Banks opposed, as he had a total claim of 17 4s. 8d. for goods.

Mr. John Banks said he wished to oppose. Mr. Minter objected to Mr. Banks being heard, as he had not proved his debt.

His Honour to Mr. Banks: Have you attended the meetings at the Registrar's Office?

Mr. Banks: Yes, Your Honour, but I did not prove my debt.

His Honour: I cannot hear you in opposition.

Mr. Minter said there was no reason why the Bankrupt should not pass. He had given up all his property to his Assignees, and the Broker of the Court had realised and paid the money into Court.

His Honour passed the Bankrupt, and ordered the discharge to go at the expiration of 30 days.

 

Folkestone Express 17 April 1869.

Advertisement.

The Wonder Beer Tavern.

Seagate Street, Folkestone.

Mr. I Dutt

Will sell by auction on Friday, April 30th, 1869, on the above premises, the Household Furniture, Six Motion Beer Engine, Pewter Top Counter, Gas Fittings, and Utensils in Trade, and other effects. The property of Mr. Stephen Croucher, taken under a Bill of Sale.

The Sale will commence at 12 o'clock. Catalogues may be had on the Premises, and of the Auctioneer and Valuer, West Malling. The effects must be cleared immediately after the Sale.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1870.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The Wonder Tavern: Henry Rhodes applied for a beer license. Mr. Minter supported the application, which was granted.

Note: This date differs from information in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1874.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before W. Wightwick Esq.

Brewster Session.

Mr. Till applied for a spirit license to the Wonder Tavern, kept by Mr. Carpenter, as a beerhouse without a complaint. The application was supported by a memorial signed by 400 persons. It was, however, opposed by Mr. Mowll.

Mr. John banks, one of the signatories to the memorial, was examined, who admitted that there were already forty licensed houses in the locality.

The application was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 26 September 1874.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

This being the day for hearing the adjourned applications for licenses, the following was disposed of:

The Wonder Tavern: Mr. Till appeared in support of an application by Mr. D.T. Carpenter for a spirit license for the Wonder Tavern. The application was backed by a memorial of about two yards in length and containing 400 signatures.

Applicant having been examined as to the value and accommodation of his house, Mr. John Banks was also called as a witness to it's value, and in cross-examination by Mr. Mowll, who opposed the granting of the license, said there were about 40 public houses “thereabouts”.

Mr. Mowll contended that with such a number of public houses in the neighbourhood another could not be required.

The Mayor remarked that Mr. Banks had signed the memorial, although he had admitted there were forty public houses in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Banks said he held with free trade in licenses.

The Mayor said the Bench could not think it was in evidence that another public house was required, and they were unanimous that they could not grant the license.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 September 1874.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

An application was made by Mr. D. T. Carpenter for a spirit licence to the Wonder Tavern, backed by a memorial two yards long, and containing 400 signatures. As it was shown that there were already 40 public houses in the immediate neighbourhood, the magistrates refused the licence.

 

Folkestone Express 27 February 1875.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court yesterday (Friday), before James Tolputt Esq., and John Clark Esq., William Dalby, a boy 12 years of age, who cried bitterly during the hearing of the case, was charged with stealing 1s. 2d. from the till of Mr. David John Carpenter, of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on the 25th inst. It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Carpenter, Christopher Wood, the barman, and Police Sergeant Reynolds that the boy took the money from the till, and accounted for it's possession by stating that a Frenchman gave him a franc at the harbour. The boy wished the Bench to try the case, and pleading Guilty, he was sentenced to receive twelve strokes with a birch rod.

 

Folkestone Express 7 August 1875.

Wednesday, August 4th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Crowe, J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

The license of the Wonder beerhouse, Queen's Square, was transferred from Daniel J. Carpenter to F.J. Bond.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1875.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick, J. Tolputt, W.J. Jeffreason, T. Caister Esqs., and Captain Crowe.

This was the annual licensing day.

The Wonder beerhouse; Mr. Minter applied for a license to sell excisable liquors for John Francis Bond, of the Wonder beerhouse, Beach Street. Mr. Minter stated his client held a good character, and that the house had been built as an hotel, but soon after the licensing act was passed the house was used as a beerhouse, but no complaints had been raised against it.

The applicant, in the course of examination, said that the house was suited for an hotel, being a corner house, and having frontage in three streets. The rent was 35 a year.

Mr. Mowll (who opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Peden, of the Pavilion Shades, Mrs. Jordan, of the South Foreland, and the City Of London Brewery Company) stated that the house was not worth 25 without the license and therefore, that being the value on which it must rest, the application must fail.

After evidence was given as to the number of houses in the immediate neighbourhood, Mr. Mowll presented a memorial against granting the license, stating that there were a dozen houses in the immediate neighbourhood.

The Bench declined to grant the license.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1875.

Wednesday August 25th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, W.J. Jeffreason and T. Caister Esqs., and Capt. Crowe.

Wednesday being the sessions for the hearing of applications for licenses and transacting licensing business, the Magistrates present sae as a licensing committee, and were occupied for three quarters of an hour in renewing the licenses.

The Wonder Beerhouse.

At the conclusion of the routine business, Mr. J. Minter applied that a full license to sell all excisable liquors might be granted to John Francis Bond, of the Wonder beerhouse, Beach Street. Mr. Minter said that his client was a person of undeniable character, formerly at the Pavilion Hotel in this town, and since proprietor of several hotels in London. During the past two or three months he had returned to Folkestone and had kept the Wonder as a beerhouse. The house was built as an hotel, at a large outlay, by Mr. Beane, of Wye, but soon after it was finished the Licensing Act was passed and the house had been used as a beerhouse, during which time no complaints had been made as to the manner in which it was conducted. He called Mr. Watts, one of Mr. Hart's clerks, to prove that the notices had been duly put up, and put in a memorial signed by many neighbours and some hotel keepers.

The applicant, J.F. Bond, was then called and examined by Mr. Minter. He said that the Wonder was well situated for an hotel, being a corner house, having frontages in three streets, a large room upstairs, and the usual accommodation below. The present rental was 35 a year.

By Mr. Mowll (who opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Peden, at the Pavilion Shades, Mr. Jordan, of the South Foreland, and the City of London Brewery Company, owners of the Royal George Hotel): I don't think it's fair to ask me if the house would let for 35 without the license. As a private house I would not give 30 for it.

Mr. Mowll argued that if the house was not worth 25 per year without the license, the application must fail, as that was the datum of value upon which it must rest.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: The Wonder would let as a shop, or as offices for customs, &c., at least at 35 a year.

Mr. Harrison, rate collector, said the Wonder was rented in the gross at 30, nett 24, on the old list.

After a consultation The Mayor said the Magistrates considered that they must take the evidence of the applicant on that point and consider it satisfactory.

Mr. Mowll then examined the applicant as to the number of houses in the immediate neighbourhood of the house. Mr. Bond admitted that the Queen's Head was next door to his premises, the Blue Anchor was next door to the Queen's Head, and the Providence next to that. The opposite his door, or nearly so, were the South Foreland, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Cinque Ports Arms, the Royal George, the Queen's Head and several other full licensed houses.

Mr. Mowll presented a counter memorial to that of the applicant's, praying that the application might not be granted, and addressed the Bench, dwelling on the fact that close by the house were at least a dozen full licensed houses, and that there could not therefore be any need to open another in the vicinity, which was already well supplied. On these grounds the Bench had already refused a license to the same house in a previous year, and he asked them to repeat that refusal to the present applicant.

Mr. Minter remarked that he had forgotten to say that since the last application one house had been closed in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll retorted that there were lots of things he could have remembered to add to his address, had he the privilege of speaking a second time. (Laughter)

The Mayor said the Magistrates forming the Licensing Committee had unanimously decided not to grant the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 November 1875.

Wednesday, November 3rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, J. Tolputt, T. Caister, W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., and General Cannon.

An application was made by Mr. Till on behalf of the landlord of the Wonder Tavern to be allowed to open his house a five every morning for the benefit of fishermen coming from the sea.

The Bench declined to accede to the request.

 

Folkestone Express 6 November 1875.

Wednesday, November 3rd: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, W. Bateman, J. Tolputt, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Mr. Bond, of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, applied for permission to open his house at five o'clock instead of six, in order to supply the fishermen with refreshments after their night's work. The application was refused.

 

Folkestone Express 17 June 1876.

County Court.

Saturday, June 10th: Before G. Russell Esq.

The Liverpool Commercial Investment Company v Frederick Graves, boat builder, and John Francis Bond, innkeeper, both of Folkestone.

This was an action by which the plaintiffs sought to recover 9 3s. 2d. as balance alleged to be due on a promissory note given by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Wightwick appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. Minter for the defendants.

Mr. Wightwick, having briefly opened the case, called Mr Thomas John Wightman, who said he lived at Dover, and was agent for the Company. In August, 1875 Mr. Graves applied for a loan of 20 from the Company, which was advanced on a promissory note, and 30s. was deducted for interest.

The Judge: What period of time was the load advanced for?

Witness: For three months. The whole was to be paid on the 24th November. The defendant Graves paid 12 on the 12th December, and on the 15th March, 8 was paid. The remainder is charged for defalcations, the amount not being paid when due.

By Mr. Minter: Mr. Graves signed the promissory note in the Market Place, and Mr. Bond afterwards signed it in a public house.

Mr. Minter: Did you tell them that in default of payment they would be charged at the rate of a halfpenny in the shilling per week?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Minter: What rate of interest did you tell them that they would have to pay?

Witness: I told them 10 percent was our rule if the payments were made quarterly.

Mr. Minter: I ask you on this particular loan.

Witness: I cannot say. I charged under 2 out of the loan of 20 for three months.

By Mr. Minter: I am an agent for the Company. I do not know the handwriting of the clerks. I cannot swear that the note you produce is in the handwriting of one of them. I should not like to say. I think I know the handwriting of the Secretary, but I have never seen him write.

By Mr. Wightwick: The parties were anxious for the money to be advanced.

Mr. Minter, for the defendants, contended that no debt was due. The witness was the agent for the Company at Dover, and he contended that there was no debt due which had not been settled either at Liverpool or Manchester. Truly speaking, the case was really one of fraud. The terms upon which the loan had been made were so inconsistent with right and reason that the document might be set aside, as had been done in cases where the sons of noblemen had had loans, and where an exhorbitant amount of interest had been charged. The Company were in the habit of advertising in the local papers, and His Honour was well aware needy people availed themselves of the opportunity offered. His client (Mr. Graves) was not one of that class, but he had seen the advertisement and applied for the loan, and was told that he could have it for three months upon the production of one surety. He gave the name of Mr. Bond, a most respected man, who could really have lent him the money. Mr. Graves signed a document, the real nature of which he was unacquainted with, and he (Mr. Minter) contended that his clients were not liable for the unconscionable terms named in the document. The Company dealt with needy people, and it appeared to him as if they worked upon such, and he felt sure they would not receive much sympathy at the hands of that Court. They demanded 6 13s. on account, as was alleged, of the non-payment of a sum of 20. He (Mr. Minter) must say that it was a very modest demand. He produced the document which was signed by Graves in the open market, being at the time ignorant of it's contents, and another fact which he (Mr. Minter) could not overlook, was that no book was supplied until two sums of money had been paid. Another point he must mention was that 30 percent was originally deducted from the loan. He would not take up the time of the Court further, but would at once call the defendant Graves, who would give His Honour the real statement of facts.

Frederick Graves said: I am a boat builder, carrying on business at Folkestone. I applied to the Company for a loan of 20 for three months, and I asked Mr. Bond to become surety for me. He consented to do so. I gave a note of hand to Mr. Wightman, the agent for the Company. He told me he could let me have the money cheaper than anybody else. He said that I should not be charged more than five or six percent. He produced a promissory note, and I signed it on a butcher's block in the market. I swear that I never read it before I signed it. Mr. Wightman never explained to me that I should be charged one halfpenny in the shilling per week if I did not pay on time. He gave me 18 and some odd shillings and said he had taken the other off for interest. On the 13th December I gave him 12, and he gave me a receipt. He said nothing to me about fines. On the 10th March I sent him by post a cheque for 8. I have had applications since for fines, and I am willing to pay a reasonable amount for having the money after the 20th November.

By Mr. Wightwick: I did not read the document I signed.

Mr. Wighwick contended that Mr. Minter had no right to bring such a charge against the Company as he had done. He was bound to acknowledge that the terms of the Company were heavy, but people ought to have their eyes open. There was no limit to the interest allowed to be charged by loan societies, the defendants agreed to the terms, and if the amount had been paid by the day named there would have been no further trouble. He did not agree with the amount of interest charged, but if there were men who did, they must abide by the consequence.

His Honour summed up the case at great length. He said that the terms of the Society were both onerous and oppressive. There was at present no usury laws existing, and consequently if a man made a bad bargain he was supposed to have to abide by it, but the terms of the note before him were so outrageous that he could not consent to give the plaintiffs a judgement for the amount claimed. A halfpenny in the shilling per week amounted to ne less than 200 percent. In conclusion he said he should hold that the amount which had been paid was sufficient to meet plaintiff's claim, and he should therefore give judgement for the defendants.

Mr. Minter: Will Your Honour allow costs?

The Judge: Most certainly.

The Court was crowded during the hearing of the case.

Note: Bond had the Wonder Tavern.

 

Folkestone Express 9 December 1876.

Saturday, December 2nd: Before The Mayor, General Cannon and Ald. Caister.

---- Flood, a labourer, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Queen's Square on December 1st.

P.C. Smith said: I was sent for to go to the Wonder Tavern, and I found the prisoner there drunk and using obscene language. I turned him out and told him if he did not go away I should lock him up. He said if I did so “I should not do any more police duty”. I then took him into custody, and had to get another man to help get him to the station. On the way to the station he tried several times to get his hand into his trousers pocket. When I got him to the old station I took the knife – a large butcher's knife – from him.

Mr. Bond, landlord of the Wonder, was next called, and said: The prisoner and two companions were in front of my bar on Friday and the prisoner began quarrelling with one of them and using the most filthy language. I asked him to leave the house, and as he would not do so I sent for a constable, who came at once.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 December 1876.

Saturday, December 9th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and T. Caister Esqs.

George Smith was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with breaking a pane of glass at the Wonder Tavern.

John Frederick Bond, the landlord, proved the charge, and prisoner was fined 10s., 50s. damages, and 8s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 16 December 1876.

Saturday, December 9th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Alderman Caister.

George Smith pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Queen's Square on the previous evening, but Not Guilty to a charge of wilfully breaking a window at the Wonder Tavern, and thus doing damage to the amount of 50s.

John Francis Bond, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, stated that the prisoner entered his house on the previous evening in company with another man, and in answer to his request, was served with a pint of beer. Prisoner after drinking it required some more, but witness refused to serve him as he thought he had had sufficient, and requested him to leave the premises. Prisoner then became very noisy and was consequently ejected by some other people in the bar. Prisoner immediately began hammering at the plate glass window of the door with his clenched hand, and finding he could not thus break the glass, he turned round and thrust his elbow through it, breaking the window in pieces. Prisoner then ran away, and witness followed him to the Star in Radnor Street, where he found him in the kitchen. Witness asked him his name, but he refused to tell him. He (Mr. Bond) left and returned to his house where, about a quarter of an hour after, the prisoner made his reappearance and asked for some beer, but was denied it by witness, who then sent for a constable, by whom prisoner was taken into custody.

Edward Jeffery, who was an outside spectator of the prisoner's violent conduct, corroborated as to the breakage of the window and the Bench fined Smith 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, or in default seven days' hard labour, and 50s. and 5s. costs for the wilful damage, the alternative being in this case one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 21 July 1877.

Monday, July 16th: Before General Armstrong and Captain Crowe.

Thomas Hogan, a frequent attendant at the Court, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Queen's Square, and with assaulting P.C. Hogben in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Hogben deposed that on Saturday afternoon about one o'clock he was sent for to the Wonder Tavern in Beach street, but when he got there he found that the prisoner had left. He went after him, and saw him in the fishmarket swearing and conducting himself in a very disorderly manner. The prisoner refused to go home, and used most filthy and disgraceful language. He was very drunk, and witness, with the assistance of Sergeant Reynolds, took him into custody. On the way to the police station prisoner kicked witness in the leg.

Prisoner asked the Magistrates to forgive him, and he would leave the town.

The Bench refused to grant his petition as he had been several time committed at that Court, and sentenced him to fourteen days' hard labour for being drunk and disorderly, and twenty one days' hard labour for assaulting the constable, one sentence to follow the other.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 August 1878.

Death.

On Tuesday, the 13th inst., at the Wonder Tavern, after a short illness, John Francis Bond, aged 56 years.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1879.

Tuesday, August 19th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

Thomas Bell, a bricklayer, charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Wonder Tavern, was fined 10s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and 20s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the second offence, or 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 13 October 1883.

Thursday, October 11th: Before Alderman Caister and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Mary Mason was charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Wonder Tavern on Wednesday, and also with breaking a glass, the property of the landlord, Mr. Laslett. She pleaded Guilty.

Mrs. Laslett said she refused to draw the prisoner beer, in consequence of her being drunk. She then struck at witness with her crutch, and broke a glass.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 3s. 6d. costs, and in default sent to prison for seven days.

 

Folkestone Express 3 May 1890.

Saturday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Alderman Pledge and J. Clarke Esq.

Charles Kosh was charged with stealing money from a till at the New Inn on the previous afternoon.

Susan Standing, barmaid at the inn, said the prisoner went in for a glass of ale. She served him and left him there alone. As she turned away she heard the money rattle. The till contained seven sixpences and a threepenny piece, and about 3s. in bronze. When the prisoner left she missed four sixpences and some coppers. Anyone on the outer side of the bar could reach the till, the key of which was left in the lock.

Sergeant Pay said he apprehended the prisoner at the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street. He was sitting in the smoking room. He was not drinking, and was sober. He charged him with stealing four sixpences and 2s. in coppers from a till at teh New Inn. He replied “You have made a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me to a glass of ale, and I came out with him”. At the police station he said he knew nothing about any till. He was searched and three sixpences and 3d. in bronze found upon him.

Prisoner said he was out of work, and had walked from London. He had been drinking and hardly knew what he was up to. He admitted that he had done wrong, and was sorry for it. He had work to go to, and would leave off drinking from that day. He had a wife and four children, and he knew he ought to know better.

The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Sessions, he having been previously convicted.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 9 July 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

At the Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall on Monday, there were only two prisoners for trial, but there were two indictments in one case and three in the other. The Recorder was unable to be present, and Mr. Abel John Rann acted as his deputy. It is an open secret that the Recorder is engaged in a case at present pending in the High Courts, in which the Victoria Pier sharehiolders are deeply interested.

A true bill having been returned against Charles Kosh, he was indicted for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, of the New Inn, on the 28th April.

Mr. Hume Williams appeared for the prosecution, and having briefly stated the facts, called Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn. She deposed that about five o'clock on the evening of 28th April prisoner came in and ordered a glass of beer. He tendered sixpence and she gave him the change. She went into a side room behind the bar, and heard the chink of coppers. Had counted the money just before, when there were six sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about 4s. worth of coppers. When she heard the noise she went at once to the till and again counted the money. There were only two sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about 2s. in coppers. The till could be reached from the front of the counter. No-one else was in the bar at the same time as the prisoner.

In reply to prisoner, witness admitted that she did not see him touch any money or the till. Mr. Gower sent Sergeant Pay after him at once, but he did not find him until about 6.40. Prisoner asked further questions as to the number of sixpences in the till, contending that if there were six at the time they were counted there must have been seven after he had paid another one. He had no recollection of having been in the house at all.

P.S. Pay proved apprehending Kosh at the Wonder, in Beach Street, about 6.40. Prisoner said he had made some mistake, but went quietly to the station. On being searched there were found on him three sixpences and threepence in bronze.

Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement which was virtually an admission of his guilt.

The jury expressed a desire to retire, on the ground that they were not satisfied as to the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder explained to them that if they were satisfied the prisoner took any money from the till their verdict must be one of Guilty.

After a brief consultation the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and prisoner was then charged with having been convicted of a felony before the borough Magistrates.

The Recorder: Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?

Prisoner: I don't know (Laughter)

The Recorder: But what did the magistrates say; did they find you guilty?

Prisoner: They fined me ten and sixpence (Laughter)

The Superintendent of Police said prisoner formerly belonged to the Engineers, and left with a good character. He had been in the town for some time, but except the two charges brought that day there was nothing against them.

The Deputy Recorder told prisoner he had been convicted on the clearest possible evidence, and that was not his first conviction. He would take into consideration the fact that prisoner had already been imprisoned more than two months, but warned him that if he came there, or before any court, again he would receive a long sentence of imprisonment, or else penal servitude. The sentence would be three months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 July 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.

Charles Kosh, described as a bricklayer, was charged with stealing 4s. from the till of the New Inn, Dover Road, the money of Henry Gower, on the 28th April.

Mr. Hume-Williams prosecuted, and the prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he did not remember going into the house.

Susan Stanley stated that she was barmaid at the New Inn, and on Monday, the 28th of April, she remembered prisoner being in the bar. He called for a glass of beer and put down a sixpence. Witness gave him the change and went out of the bar into a side room, leaving in the till six sixpences, four shillings, and some bronze money. After she had left the bar a few moments she heard a rattling of coin and went back to see what it was. She got there just in time to see the prisoner leaving the house. Witness examined the till and found that the prisoner had taken four sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about two shillings in coppers. There were two sixpences left. No-one but the prisoner was in the bar, and anyone standing in front of the bar could reach over to the till. Witness counted the money in the till a few minutes before the prisoner was served.

Prisoner remarked that he did not remember anything about the offence, but it seemed a strange thing that the witness should say she counted six sixpences before he was served, and that there were only two left when she missed the money, because she had admitted that he had paid her sixpence for the drink. He should have thought four from seven left three.

The witness appeared to be rather muddled as to the actual number of sixpences in the till and afterwards stated that there were three left.

Sergeant Pay said in consequence of information which he received he went in search of the prisoner on the evening of the 28th of April, and found him in the Wonder Tavern. He told him he would be charged with stealing the money, and he replied “You have made a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me and I came out with him”. On searching him he found three sixpences and some coppers.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrates was then read, in which he said he had been out of work for some time, and had been drunk ever since the previous Saturday night. He admitted that he had done wrong, and he was sorry for it. He ought to have known better, when he had a wife and four children at home.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury expressed a wish to retire, and in answer to The Recorder, Mr. Mercer stated that there was a difference amongst them as to the number of sixpences.

The Recorder pointed out that it was not exactly a question as to the number of sixpences. What they had to decide was whether the prisoner was guilty of taking any money at all.

After a little further consideration the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

Superintendent Taylor stated that the prisoner was convicted for felony at Folkestone on the 23rd of February, 1890.

The Recorder (to prisoner): Is that correct? Did the Magistrates find you Guilty?

Prisoner: No, sir; they fined me 10s. 6d. (Laughter)

Supt. Taylor said the prisoner formerly belonged to the Royal Engineers, and was discharged in 1882 with a good character. He had lived in the town for several years, but he knew nothing further against him.

Mr. Hume Williams said in fairness to the prisoner he would like to remind The Recorder that he had been in prison since April 28th.

The Recorder said he was sorry it was not the occasion on which the prisoner had been in trouble. There were two serious charges of felony against him. He had already been three months in prison, and under those circumstances he would deal lightly with him, but he would warn him that if he was ever taken before another court he would receive a term of imprisonment three times as long as he was about to pass upon him, and perhaps penal servitude. Drunkenness appeared to be his evil and he would recommend him to overcome it in the future. He would be sentenced to three months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 12 July 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.

Charles Kosh, a bricklayer, was indicted for stealing 4s., the money of Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on the 28th April. The prisoner said he did not remember going into the house. The facts of the case were very simple. The prisoner went into the bar and called for a glass of ale. He was served, and the barmaid went into the bar parlour, leaving the prisoner standing in front of the bar. She heard the money in the till rattle, and on going in missed 4s. Mr. Hume Williams prosecuted.

Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn, Dover Road, said on Monday, the 28th April, the prisoner went to the bar and asked for a glass of beer, and tendered 6d. She served him and gave him 4d. change. As she was leaving the bar to go into a side room she heard the money in the till rattle. There were six sixpences, four shillings, and some coppers. She went back and found two sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about 2s. in coppers in teh till. Anyone standing in front of the bar could reach over the counter and reach the till. No-one but prisoner was in the bar at the time. She had counted the contents of the till a few minutes before the prisoner went in.

In answer to the Deputy Recorder, the witness said there were three sixpences left in the till.

Sergt. Pay proved apprehending the prisoner at 6.40 p.m. at the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street. He told him the charge, and he replied “You have made a mistake. I went in with a man, who treated me to a glass of ale, and I came out with him”. On being searched there were found on him three sixpences and some coppers.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrates was read. He admitted in it that he had done wrong. He had been out of work and had been drinking about for several days.

The jury expressed a desire to retire and consider the point as to the number of sixpences.

The Recorder told them, however, that the number was immaterial. The only question was whether prisoner took any money. It was clear there were not so many sixpences when he left as there were when the young woman counted the money.

The jury consulted for some minutes in the box, and then returned a verdict of Guilty.

A previous conviction was proved against him of felony in February, 1890, when he was fined 10s. 6d.

Supt. Taylor said the prisoner was formerly in the Engineers. He had resided for several years in the town, and with the tow exceptions named he had borne a good character.

Mr. Hume Williams drew the Deputy Recorder's attention to the fact that the prisoner had been in custody for two months.

A sentence of three months' hard labour was passed upon the prisoner. The Deputy Recorder called the prosecutor and asked him as to the position of the till, which he was informed had been altered.

 

Folkestone News 12 July 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Charles Kosh, bricklayer, for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on the 28th April.

Mr. Hume Williams, barrister, briefly stated the case for the prosecution and called Susan Stanley, who said she was barmaid at the New Inn. At 5 o'clock on Monday, 28th April, the prisoner came into the bar and ordered a glass of beer. He gave her sixpence, and she gave him the change. As she was going into a room behind the bar she heard the rattle of coppers, and at once went out to the till and counted the money. She knew what was in the till, having counted it just before prisoner came in. When she counted it first there were six sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 4s. in coppers. At the second count there were only two sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 2s. in coppers. No-one else came into the bar while prisoner was there. The till could be reached from the outside of the counter. The coins were certainly taken while prisoner was in the bar.

In answer to the prisoner, witness said she found only two sixpences in the till after prisoner had left. Prisoner contended that if he had given a sixpence, as witness said, there must have been three, if there were six before, and he had only taken four.

P.S. Pay said he apprehended prisoner about 6.40 on the 28th April, at the Wonder, in Beach Street. Prisoner said he had made a mistake, as he only went in with a man who treated him to a glass of ale. On being searched at the station there were three sixpences and threepence in bronze found on him.

Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement before the Magistrates that he had walked from London in search of work and had been drinking about in Folkestone for several days. He admitted that he had done wrong and was sorry for it. He would leave off drinking for the future.

In reply to the Recorder, the prisoner said it was quite true he had been drinking about, and he did not know whether he was in the New Inn or not on the date in question. He hoped it would be taken into consideration that he had already been in prison more than two months.

The jury expressed a wish to retire, as they were not satisfied as to the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder said all they had to consider was whether prisoner took any money from the till. After a few minutes consultation a verdict of Guilty was returned. In sentencing the prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, the Deputy Recorder said he had taken into consideration the long time prisoner had been in gaol, but he warned him that if he came before any Court again on a similar charge he would receive a sentence of a long term of imprisonment or else of penal servitude. The Deputy Recorder called Mr. Gower forward and questioned him as to the till. It was very wrong of people to put temptation in the way of their fellow creatures. Mr. Gower said he had since had the till removed, and the Deputy Recorder expressed his satisfaction.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1890.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

In the case of the Wonder Tavern (Mrs. Laslett), police constable Lilley stated that on the morning of the 29th of December (Sunday), about twenty minutes past seven, he saw some people go into the Wonder Tavern. Witness went inside and saw two men in the bar and asked them their business. They made no reply. He saw Mrs. Laslett drop her apron over something, and when he asked her what they wanted she said they had come to pay some money.

Mr. Minter defended, and the licence was granted with a caution.

 

Folkestone Express 27 September 1890.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses.

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Wonder Tavern.

Mr. Laslett applied for a renewal of the licence of the Wonder Tavern.

The Supt. of Police opposed on the ground that on the 29th of December there were persons found on the premises during prohibited hours, on a Sunday morning.

P.C. Lilley said the two men he found on the premises said nothing in reply to the question as to why they were there. The landlord said they came to pay him a little money.

Mr. Minter said that was the real fact. Applicant would be very careful in future.

The Bench cautioned the applicant as to his future conduct of the house and granted the renewal.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 February 1892.

Saturday, January 30th: Before J. Holden Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

George Laslett, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned for allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises during prohibited hours on the 24th January.

P.S. Swift stated that he watched the defendant's house on Sunday morning, the 24th of January, in company with Sergeant Lilley. At half past seven the blinds were drawn up and the private door opened by the defendant. At 7.40 three men went to the private door, knocked, and were let in by the defendant. They remained in the house five minutes, and when they came out two men went in. They came out at 7.50, and two more men went in, being admitted by the defendant. They remained five minutes, came out, and one man went in. At five minutes past eight – four minutes later – two more men were admitted by the defendant, and witness then went to the private bar door. He saw the defendant there cleaning his kettle. Witness said “Do you know me?” He replied “Yes”. Whilst he was speaking to defendant he saw Mrs. Laslett walk from the direction of the bar engine to the other side and stand a pint of beer on the window ledge, and put some money into a man's hand. Witness then went to the passage, where the two men were. One man, named Nash, had a pint of beer in his hand. Witness said to defendant “What are these men doing here?” He replied “There is only one. I didn't know they were there”. Sergeant Lilley was then let in the private door by the defendant. He told defendant he should report him for keeping his house open, and he replied “All right”.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, and also for the brewers, Messrs. Flint, said the owners were a highly respectable firm and did all they possibly could to compel their tenants to conform with the licensing laws. They would not overlook any breach on the part of their tenants, and he thought Supt. Taylor would confirm what he said about the conduct of Messrs. Flint. The Licensed Victuallers Association, for whom he had appeared several times, tried to impress upon their members the necessity of obeying the law. He had also pointed out the folly to them. Pecunarily they were not benefitting themselves, because, for the sale o a paltry half a dozen pints of beer, they ran that great risk. The defendant had been fourteen years in the house and had never had a conviction, and probably, if there were some intimation from the Bench, the brewers would allow him to remain. The defendant was extremely sorry for what had happened. It was his living, and he had imperilled it; and, as the Bench were strong, he asked them to be merciful to him.

The Chairman said the Bench thought considerable praise was due to Sergeant Swift for the way he had brought the case under their notice. The police had had great difficulty in that neighbourhood. When he received the charge sheet he was very much surprised to see the defendant's name on it, because he had always known him as a respectable man. The case was as clear as daylight. The maximum fine was 10, but they would reduce it to 50s. The licence would not be endorsed.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 February 1892.

Editorial.

Prohibited Hours.

A subject that the Licensed Victuallers' Association of Folkestone should take in hand, and endeavour to enlighten their members upon, is the question of whether a publican has the right or not to keep his house open during what are called prohibited hours. It is a common and a fallacious belief that on the Sunday every house should be strictly closed with the exception of the respite allowed by law. This is a mistake, and it is one into which not the police, but the Magistrates themselves, fall. A reference to the Licensing Act proves this. The offence in keeping open does not consist in the mere fact that a landlord has left his doors unclosed, but that he has done so for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating liquors. Every door and window upon a publican's premises may be left open from the beginning of the week until the end, provided that the object is not to facilitate the sale of commodities which have to pay a certain duty to the Inland Revenue. For a like reason no-one has to fear the pains and penalties of the law if found upon licensed premises during prohibited hours provided he can prove he was not there for the purpose of purchasing liquor. Of course the law naturally presumes that de facto a man being found on licensed premises, he is there with that object in view. Publicans, any more than other tradesmen, do not as a rule make free gifts of what they vend to those who choose to favour them with their company. But when P.S. Swift told an erring landlord, as he did according to his evidence on Saturday, that he should report him for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, he was charging him with an offence that does not exist. And the Chairman of the Bench was equally abroad when he told the defendant that he had been found guilty of doing so. The offence did not lie in the mere fact that the doors of the house were open, and that men had been seen to enter and leave, but rather that the landlady was stated to have served some of them. Even, however, in that respect the offence was not brought home, for it was not shown there had been any sale, without which an infringement of the Act could not take place. On the face of such a transaction Magistrates would rule, as they are entitled to, that the case has been established, subject to the version which might be given on oath by the landlord and those found upon his premises. In the case to which we are alluding, the solicitor who defended did not attempt to upset that presented by the police – he could hardly do so – but he contented himself with an ad misercordiam plea, which was most ably and judiciously argued, and was not without it's effect. Our only reason for alluding to this case is that a great many people seem to fancy that during what are known as prohibited hours a publican has no right to admit even the fresh air of Heaven by opening his doors, and that the presence of a friend or a stranger upon his premises during them is sufficient to draw down upon him some of those pains and penalties which are held over his head. To show the foolishness of such an idea we have only to ask anyone to refer to the Act itself and see if they can find in it any section which expressly exempts any doctor or minister of the Gospel from the possible penalties which ordinary people risk in entering upon licensed premises during prohibited hours. They would fail to find anything of the kind. We remember a case tried a few years ago in an adjoining county where the landlord was charged with a breach of the licensing laws. He proved upon his oath, as did the guests themselves, that those whom he was entertaining were his own relations. The Bench admitted his plea, but were sorry that according to the Act (their own construction of it) they had no option but to inflict a fine. When their decision was appealed against they were speedily set right and the conviction was of course quashed.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Saturday before Mr. Holden, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, and Mr. Spurgen, George Laslett, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was charged with selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. The defendant was represented by Mr. Minter, who, on his behalf pleaded Guilty, and made a very powerful appeal, commending him to the tender mercies of their Worships, pointing out that if they so decreed it the firm by whom the defendant was engaged, Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, would have to give him notice to leave the house. This in itself would be a severe punishment, but he trusted the Bench, by their action, not to render it necessary. Representing the Licensed Victuallers as a body, he had endeavoured to point out to them all the necessity of completely obeying the law, and not opening their houses during prohibited hours. He had spoken to men in the position of the defendant of the folly of doing so. He had tried to make them understand that pecuniarily they were not benefitting themselves, for the money to be gained by selling half a dozen pints of beer was nothing in comparison with the risk they ran. In many instances the Society had prevailed upon it's members to take that view. With regard to the present case, it was a lamentable one, for the defendant was a respectable man, who had been getting an honest and comfortable living until, for the sake of a few paltry pence, he committed the egregious folly with which he was charged.

Sergeant Swift then proved the case, showing that on Sunday, the 24th of January, he saw a number of men admitted by the defendant into his premises, who (paper torn here), and upon one occasion, when he entered in company with P.S. Lilley, he saw the defendant's wife serve men with drinks.

Mr. Pledge asked if there was anything against the defendant.

Mr. Minter said he had never been before the Bench before. Not a single summons had been taken out against him.

The Superintendent added there had been no conviction, but in November, 1890, he was cautioned by the Bench as to the conduct of his house.

Mr. Minter said it was a very difficult house to keep in order on account of the neighbourhood, but they had always done the best they could, and he was quite sure the defendant would reform in the future.

The Bench, after consultation, decided to fine the defendant 50s. and 9s. costs, the licence not to be endorsed, a decision for which Mr. Minter, for the defendant, thanked them “very much”.

The Chairman also complimented P.S. Swift upon the manner in which he had brought the case before the Bench.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks. Major H.W. Poole, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Richard Nash, who did not appear, and Frederick Collins were charged with being found at the Wonder Tavern during prohibited hours on Sunday the 24th ult.

P.C. Swift proved the charge.

Collins was fined 1s. and 9s. costs, and Nash 1s. and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Richard Nash and Frederick Collins were summoned for being on licensed premises on Sunday, 24th January. Nash did not appear, but he had sent to the police saying he was going to sea, and was ready to pay any fine the Magistrates might inflict.

Sergt. Swift said he found the defendants at ten minutes past eight on Sunday morning in the Wonder Tavern, the landlord of which house was convicted the previous Saturday, and fined 50s. and 10s. costs.

Defendants were fined 1s. each, and 10s. in one case, and 11s. costs in the other.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1892.

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, Mr. Poole and Mr. Herbert.

Fred Collins and Richard Nash were summoned for having “been on licensed premises during prohibited hours”. They pleaded Guilty, and offered no explanation.

“Then you will have to pay for it” said Mr. Poole, and they were fined 1s. and 9s. costs in the case of Collins, and in that of Nash, 1s. and 10s. costs, the service of the summons having to be sworn to, as he did not appear.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before Mr. J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick.

Annual Licensing Session.

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that they might know the Society's views upon the subject, to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

Adjournments.

The Superintendent of Police having reported that convictions for offences against the Licensing Act had been obtained against the following in the course of the past year, the Bench decided to refer their applications for renewals to the Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28th: Chidwell Brice, Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren Inn; Laslett, Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday, Wheatsheaf Inn.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer's licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Adjourned Applications.

The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of September.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1892.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The Adjourned Licensing Session for the Borough was held at the police Court on Wednesday morning, on which occasion considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings by reason of the fact that the renewal of the licenses of several well known and old established houses in the town was opposed by the Superintendent of Police, acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee of the Bench.

The Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.

Mr. Martyn Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the objections of the police, and Mr. J. Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared on behalf of the claimants.

At the opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the business commenced he wished to make one announcement. It referred to something which had been done in other towns, and which the Committee thought it best to do in Folkestone. It was the opinion of the Committe that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they therefore suggested that the owners of the houses should talk the matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to which houses it would be best to close. If nothing was done before the next Licensing Session, the Committee would be obliged to suppress some of the licensed houses themselves. But if the owners would talk the matter over amongst themselves and agree upon the houses to be closed it would save a great difficulty.

The Wonder Tavern.

George Laslett applied for the renewal of the licence of this house.

Mr. Mowll said there were 20 licensed houses within a distance of 100 paces.

The Bench granted this application.

 

Folkestone Express 1 October 1892.

Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The Wonder.

Mr. Laslett, who had been convicted, applied for the renewal of the licence to this house. Mr. Mowll opposed, and Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant, who was convicted for Sunday trading on the 24th January, and was fined 50s. and costs, and the licence was not endorsed.

Sergeant Swift said he measured the distance of the licensed houses from the Wonder. There were two adjoining, and 20 within a distance of 100 paces.

Mr. Wightwick: How far from it is the Pavilion? (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said they limited the distance to 100 paces.

Mr. Minter then said the applicant was a most respectable man, and the house had been licensed 26 years ago. He produced a list of the earlier tenants, and said the applicant could only lose his licence on one of four grounds, as it was granted before 1869. He also said at the time of the conviction he offered to turn the man out if the Bench desired it, but on the intimation then conveyed Messrs. Flint allowed him to remain.

The licence was renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 October 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

Considerable interest was manifested on Wednesday in the proceedings at the adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing Committee had instructed the police to serve notices of six objections. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the police in their opposition by instruction of the Watch Committee.

The Chairman, Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been suggested that the same plan adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was the unanimous opinion of the Licensing Committee that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone and they would suggest that the owners of licensed houses should talk it over among themselves and agree, before the next annual meeting, which houses should be dropped out. The Licensing Committee felt compelled to suppress some of the houses in the town, and if the owners would carry out that suggestion it would do away with a great difficulty and relieve the Magistrates of an invidious task.

The licenses of the Wheatsheaf (Geo. Holliday), the Folkestone Cutter (Joseph Gatley, a new tenant), and the Wonder Tavern (Geo. Laslett), were renewed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1893.

Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge, Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.

The Opposed Licenses.

Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police, he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the hearing of these cases – say the 15th of September. No doubt it would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on Saturday night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the mass of facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did not think there would be any objection to the adjournment.

The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and a special sitting would be held on the 13th September at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Minter asked that the case of the Wonder, Beach Street, one of the houses to which objection had been made, might be dealt with that day. As he was instructed, it was licensed before 1869 and the Magistrates consequently had no power to refuse the licence except for certain things, which did not arise on the notice of objection. He understood from Mr. Andrews that he was under the impression that the licence was not granted until 1870.

Mr. Andrews: It was granted on the 1st May, 1869.

Mr. Minter said he thought there must be some mistake in the register. In the spring of 1869 he applied to the County Court Judge to restrain the then tenant from removing the beer fixtures and fittings, the licence having been granted in the year previous.

After some further remarks, Mr. Minter said as there seemed to be some doubt about the matter he would ask that it stand over, and that in the meantime the widow of the late tenant should be given temporary authority to sell.

This course was adopted.

The Superintendent's Report.

Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1893.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 23rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H. Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad Esqs.

The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants were Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.

Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr. Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application to make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to prepare facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been objected to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is that you will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13th September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases. Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may at once state that the houses objected to are the Jubilee, Radnor Street; the Harbour Inn, Harbour Street; the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; the Granville, Dover Street; the Queen's Head, Beach Street; the Royal George, Beach Street; the Victoria, South Street; the Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; the Wonder, Beach Street, the British Colours, Beach Street; the Ship, Radnor Street; the Oddfellows, Radnor Street; and the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street. There are 13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the facts and statements connected with every case are different, and it is necessary that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench before they give their decision.

The Chairman: Will the 13th be the adjournment?

Mr. Bradley: No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will be on the 27th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll's application?

Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18th?

Mr. Mowll: I am in the Bench's hands entirely as to the day. The 13th would be the most convenient day.

Mr. Boykett: The 13th is on Wednesday.

Mr. Bradley: This day three weeks.

The Chairman: The Bench will grant your application, Mr. Mowll.

Mr. Minter: Except as to the Wonder. I should like you to dispose of that today if you can, because it is a case in which the licence was granted before '69, and consequently the Magistrates have no power to refuse the licence except upon certain grounds which don't arise in the objection.

Mr. Bradley: You want to except that one?

Mr. Minter: Yes.

Mr. Bradley: My impression is that the licence was not granted till '70.

Mr. Minter: I think it was in September 1869 that I applied to the County Court Judge to restrain the tenant from taking away from the house certain fixtures, and I believe the licence was granted in the year previous. I have been up to the County Court office and applied to look over the register. I know I applied on behalf of Mr. Beaney to restrain the tenant from removing those fittings, engines, and things.

Mr. Bradley: We can ascertain it by looking at the minute book.

Mr. Minter: The register may say 1870, but I don't know which is right. But as there appears to be some doubt about it, it would be better to let it stand over. I simply now ask you to give the widow –the tenant is dead, and the notice was served on the widow – I ask you to give authority to the widow to sell until this day three weeks. I don't suppose there will be any objection to that.

The Chairman: There will be no objection to do that.

Mr. Minter: Then it stands adjourned with temporary authority to the widow to sell.

The Superintendent's Report.

The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:-

“Borough of Folkestone Police, 23rd August, 1893.

Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

John Taylor, Supt.
To The Licensing Committee”.

The Chairman: Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Magistrates for that report. You have only been acting on the directions of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken and the report you have presented.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll: The Bench will not object to me having a copy of the report. I don't know whether the shorthand writers took it – the Superintendent read it very rapidly.

Mr. Bradley: There is no objection to that at all.

The unopposed licenses were then granted.

Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting would be held in the large room.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 August 1893.

Police Court Notes.

On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J. Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H.W. Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.

The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr. Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance, inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application reported below, the question was postponed until the 13th September, and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that had been looked forward to by the resident community.

There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr. Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).

The Black List.

The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being given also:- (1) British Colours, 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley; (2) Cinque Ports, 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead; (3) Folkestone Cutter, 24, Dover Street, ---- Warman; (4) Granville, 63, Dover Street, F.G. Stickles; (5) Harbour Inn, South Street, S. Barker; (6) Jubilee Inn, 24, Radnor Street, J.L. Adams; (7) Oddfellows, The Stade, G. Whiddett; (8) Queen's Head, 11, Beach Street, W. Tame; (9) Royal George, 18, Beach Street, A.J. Tritton; (10) Ship Inn, 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman; (11) Tramway Tavern, 4, Radnor Street, J. Bayliss; (12) Victoria Inn, 26, South Street, J. Watson; (13) Wonder Tavern, 13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13th of September. No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.

The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench): Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.

Mr. Minter: Except as to the Wonder. I should like you to dispose of that today. The house was licensed before 1869, and the consequence is that the Magistrates have no power to refuse the licence except on certain grounds that do not arise on the notice of objection. In the Spring of 1869 I applied to the County Court Judge to restrain the then tenant from removing the fixtures, and the licence had been granted the year previous. Mr. Scott was then County Court Judge, and I applied before him, on the part of the brewer, for an injunction to restrain the then tenant from pulling out the fixtures. The house was occupied in 1868.

Mr. Bradley: My impression is that the licence was granted in 1870.

Mr. Minter: There appears to be some doubt about it, and therefore I will simply ask for temporary authority to the widow to sell. The tenant is dead, and the notice was served upon the widow.

The Chairman: There is no objection to the course you suggested.

Superintendent's Report.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers' licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen's Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of the report, and the application was at once acceded to.

The remaining licenses were then renewed.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 August 1893.

LICENSING SESSIONS.

The intention of the Folkestone Borough Magistrates to make a substantial reduction in the number of licensed houses within their jurisdiction has caused great excitement not only among the licensed victuallers and brewers connected with the borough, but among the trade generally throughout the kingdom. The question has been taken up by brewers representing many millions of capital, and it will be stubbornly fought out.

The annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, and the Town Hall was densely crowded. Gentlemen from London connected with the trade were present, and also representatives of the London Press; but their visit was fruitless, as it was arranged that the contentious business should be taken at an adjourned session. Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented various brewing firms: Mr. Minter, the proprietor of the Wonder Tavern ; Mr. Hall, solicitor, several applicants for licences ; Mr. Montagu Bradley, solicitor, Dover, the Licensing Committee of the borough; Mr. W. Clarke Hall, barrister, certain societies connected with the temperance cause.

OPPOSED RENEWALS ADJOURNED.

On the Court being opened Mr. Mowll stated that the Superintendent of the Police had served notice of objection to the renewal of 13 licences, on the ground that these licensed houses were not required for the accommodation of the public. It was impossible for him (Mr. Mowll) in the seven days which had elapsed since the service of the notices to prepare the facts necessary in each case to enable the justices to arrive at a right decision. He therefore asked them to adjourn the whole of the cases to the 13th September, when possibly not only the whole of that day, but of another day would have to be devoted to them, inasmuch as although no doubt the same principle was involved in regard to every house, yet the facts would differ widely, and it was necessary that those facts should be carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates.

Mr. Minter wished the case of the Wonder to be excepted from the adjournment. The house was licensed before 1869, and, as a consequence, the Bench had no power to refuse the licence except upon certain grounds which were not raised. He understood that Mr. Andrews (clerk to the justices’ Clerk) was of opinion that the licence was not granted until 1870. The reason he had for knowing that the Clerk was mistaken was that in the spring of 1869 he (Mr. Minter) applied to the Judge of the County Court (Mr. Scott), on behalf of the owner, Mr. Beaney, brewer, of Wye, for an injunction to restrain the then tenant, Mr. Bowen, from pulling out the fixtures. He had searched the County Court records in proof of his contention.

The Bench thought the documentary proof should be given, and the case was adjourned with the others; temporary authority being given to the widow of the late landlord, who had died since the service of the notice.

SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT.

Supt. Taylor then read the following report to the justices “In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licences granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist ot 82 full ale-house licences, 12 beer-house on-licences, and six beer-house off- licences; the remainder being wine licences to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licences, and grocers’ licences. The bulk of the public-house and beer-house licences are granted in respect of premises situated in the area bounded by South Street, High Street, and Dover Road, and the Sea Front. No full licences have been granted for many years. The last beer-house licence was granted in 1886 to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the licensing meeting in 1892, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licences of the Jubilee, Radnor Street; Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; Granville, Dover Street; Queen’s Head, Seagate Street; Royal George, Beach Street; Cutter, Dover Street; Victoria, South Street; Oddfellows, Radnor Street ; Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; Wonder, Beach Street; British Colours, Queen’s Square (Harbour) ; and the Ship, Radnor Street. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria, and Ship, I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licences to these houses. The general grounds of objection to the renewal of these licences are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public, being within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some years been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner; but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship, or Harbour. With reference to the necessity for these houses, it will be found that in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beerhouses; in Beach Street, seven; in Radnor Street, eight; in Dover Street, five; in South Street, two; in Seagate-street, three.”

The Chairman (Mr. Boykett) said he was requested to give the thanks of the Licensing Committee to Supt. Taylor for his report. Supt. Taylor had only been acting under the directions of the Licensing Committee, and they all felt obliged to him for his report.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893.

Local News.

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it's walls at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it's tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it's everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o'clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn's Opening.

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen's Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen's Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some 1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than 305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen's Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

Beer Houses.

With regard to the British Colours, Cinque Ports and the Wonder beer-houses, Mr. Glyn said they existed before 1869, and no objection could be made unless it was suggested that there had been impropriety. Evidence as to the dates of the existence of the licenses was given by Mr. F. Nops, Supervisor of the Inland Revenue, and the matter was not gone further into.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation.

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision.

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates' Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The British Colours.

Mr. Glyn said this was a house which had existed before 1869. There was nothing against it.

Francis Nops, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, said the British Colours, the Cinque Ports, and the Wonder were all licensed before 1869.

Superintendent Taylor said he proposed to give evidence as to disorderly conduct at the British Colours.

It was ruled that it could not be given.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893.

Editorial.

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

Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The British Colours.

Mr. Glyn said this was a beerhouse which existed before 1869, and therefore no objection could be taken to it, unless the Superintendent suggested that there had been any impropriety in the house.

Mr. Francis Knops, Superintendent of Inland Revenue proved that the licences of the British Colours, Cinque Ports, and Wonder existed before 1869.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 24 January 1894.

Police Court Notes.

Mr. G.W. Prior has obtained temporary authority to draw at the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street, the licence of which has been held by Jane Laslett.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 July 1897.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, before The Mayor and Messrs. Salter, Pledge, and Wightwick, Henry Ratcliffe was charged on remand with having assaulted his wife, Jane Ratcliffe, on Tuesday, the 20th inst. At the previous Court, prisoner had pleaded Guilty.

Jane Ratcliffe, the prosecutrix, who had been too ill as the result of the ill-treatment she had received to attend at the previous hearing, now gave her evidence. The prisoner, she said, was her husband, and she was in his company near the Wonder Tavern about five o'clock on the afternoon of July 20th. She could not remember anything beyond that prisoner ran up behind her and kicked her with a pair of heavy hob-nailed boots that he was wearing. He gave her one hard blow and she fell. She did not know what he did it for, as she had had no quarrel with him. He had had some drink. He had often kicked her before, and she had several other bruises on her body. The next thing she recollected was that two women assisted her into a cab and went with her to the hospital, and that the Relieving Officer afterwards accompanied her to the Union, in the infirmary of which she had been until that day, under the care of Dr. Fisher. She still felt the effects of the blow in her back and head. She had been married to prisoner about nine years, and had four children. They were in the habit of travelling about from town to town in Kent selling watercresses. Mrs. Brough, present in Court, was one of the persons who helped her into the cab.

In reply to prisoner, complainant said he had not seen her go into the Wonder Tavern just before the occurrence, nor did anybody give her “a pint” just as she was leaving, with the remark “Here's a pint for you, and I'll see you after the old man's gone”. Her husband never said to her “You ought to have asked that man what he meant by saying that to you”.

Dr. Percy Wheeler Kemp, house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital, spoke to complainant having been admitted to the Institution on the evening of the 20th inst., between half past four and five o'clock. She had lost a fair amount of blood. Her underclothes had bloodstains upon them and she had others upon her body. In her condition it would be necessary for either a blow or fall to produce the blood. It would not necessarily take a heavy blow, as she was enceinte. She appeared to be in pain, and was suffering from slight shock to the system. In answer to the prisoner, the witness said the injury might have been produced by a blow from a basket.

In defence, prisoner said he had been driven out of their good home by his wife's bad conduct. He was proceeding to make some irrelevant remarks respecting her conduct at Ramsgate, when the Clerk interrupted him and told him to confine himself to the present case, one of aggravated assault. The prisoner went on to say that he did not kick his wife, but swung round the basket of cresses which he was carrying and struck her with that. She had provoked him by her taunts. He alleged that she had deserted her children, and said it took him all his time running after her from town to town with them. He had previously been on a good farm, but her bad conduct had got him sent away.

In sentencing prisoner to four calendar months' hard labour, the Chairman said the Bench were satisfied, on Mrs. Brough's evidence, that he did brutally kick his wife, and if she had died, he might have been tried for murder. Instead of protecting his wife, he appeared to have systematically ill-treated her.

On hearing his sentence, the prisoner merely observed “Thank you, sir”, and was removed to the cells.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 November 1897.

Local News.

Yesterday Thomas Riley was remanded until Monday on a charge of stealing a rabbit, the property of Wm. Stone, 21, Mill Bay.

 

Folkestone Express 20 November 1897.

Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Reilly was charged with stealing from a hut on the 8th November a live tame rabbit, value 4s., the property of William Stone, of 21, Mill Bay.

Prosecutor, a labourer, said the rabbit produced was his, and it was kept at the back of his house in a hutch in Mill Bay in the yard. He saw it on Monday evening at seven o'clock. At nine o'clock he saw the door of the hutch was open, and on going to look for the rabbit found it was gone. He saw it again on Thursday in the possession of a man named Bell, at 38, Bradstone Road. Its value was 4s. The yard was open to several houses, and prisoner had been there several times.

William John Bell, of 38, Bradstone Road, a mariner, said he bought the rabbit of prisoner at the Blue Anchor about a quarter to nine on Monday night. Prisoner asked half a crown for it, and witness bought it for 2s. and a pint of beer. Prisoner said it was his rabbit, but he had no convenience for keeping it.

Sergeant Dunster apprehended the prisoner and charged him with the theft. He said “Yes. I bought the rabbit from a man they call “Chalky Harry””. Afterwards he said he bought it from a man called “Bricky Tom”. At the police station, when charged, he said he did not steal the rabbit – ho bought it from another man and gave 1s. for it.

Prisoner persisted that he bought it, but did not know whether he could find the man from whom he bought it. He was remanded till Monday.

Monday, November 15th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Reilly, who had been remanded on Friday, was charged with stealing a rabbit.

Joseph Compron, of 14, Radnor Street, said he was in the bar of the Wonder Tavern on Monday evening, when he saw “Navvy Tom” speaking to prisoner. Afterwards they went out, and when they came in prisoner was carrying a parcel. Prisoner gave Tom a shilling and called for a quart of beer.

Adelaide Warman, of the Providence Inn, said that “Navvy Tom” came into the bar one night, and asked her if she wanted to buy a tame rabbit. She said “No”.

The Chairman: Well, prisoner, although you have called these witnesses, there seems no doubt that you stole the rabbit. We might send you to prison, but we think a fine will answer the purpose. We shall fine you 1, and in default you will have to go to prison for 14 days.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 November 1897.

Police Court Record.

Thomas Riley was charged on remand with stealing a live, tame rabbit.

In addition to the evidence previously taken as to the rabbit being missed from a hutch in the back yard of William stone, 21, Mill Bay, labourer, Joseph Compton, a labourer, 14, Radnor Street, deposed that on the night of the 8th inst. he saw a man known as “Navvy Tom” speak to defendant in the Wonder Tavern and hand him a parcel. The defendant returned later and gave “Navvy Tom” a shilling, which “Tom” handed to another man, and called for a quart of beer.

The daughter of the landlady of the Providence deposed that one night a watercress seller (known as “Navvy Tom”) asked her if she wanted a tame rabbit, and she replied in the negative.

The defendant's defence at the first hearing of the case was that he got the rabbit from another man.

The Bench fined defendant 1, or 14 days' hard labour.

The man called “Navvy Tom” was then charged with stealing the rabbit from a hutch.

In view of the Bench's decision in the previous case, Superintendent Taylor asked that the charge might be withdrawn.

This was agreed to by the Bench.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 March 1899.

Local News.

Yesterday (Friday) at the Folkestone Borough Police Court, Messrs. Fitness, Pursey, Wightwick, and Herbert had before them two cases, which brought to the Court a large number of the public.

The first was a charge of stealing an overcoat from the Wonder Hotel, the property of Mr. George Prior. The accused was a man named Edward Benjamin Weston, who was one of the crew of the Brocklesby, and made himself conspicuous as an avowed American citizen.

George Prior, landlord of the Wonder, Beach Street, said he recognised the prisoner as a customer at his house for the last few days. On Thursday night he missed an overcoat from a row of pegs in the bar passage. He hung the coat up at nine o'clock, and at ten it was missing. He next saw the coat in the possession of Police Inspector Lilley.

Inspector Lilley said about half past ten on Thursday night, in company with P.C. Lyons, he went on board the ship Brocklesby in the outer harbour, and in the seamen's quarters were several men, among them the prisoner, who was sitting on the bench under his hammock. Folded up in the hammock was the coat produced. Weston said “I took it for a joke”. Lilley asked “Took what?” He replied “His coat. I only did it for a joke”. Lilley took Weston into the town and met Mr. Prior, who identified the coat. Prisoner asked Mr. Prior “Didn't I take it as a joke?” Mr. Prior replied “No, you had no right to joke with me. I know nothing of you”. So Lilley took Weston to the lock-up. There prisoner said “Oh well! I suppose I must put up with it for the time being”.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty, but said he was intoxicated and didn't intend to steal the coat. He meant to take it back.

He was sentenced to twenty one days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

Yesterday (Friday) Edward Benjamin Weston was charged with stealing a coat, value 3 10s., on the 9th March, the property of George William Prior.

The landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, deposed that he recognised the defendant, who had been a customer for a few days. He hung the overcoat on a peg in the bar, and he missed it the previous evening. He identified the coat. The value was 3 10s.

P.S. Lilley deposed that as a result of inquiries made, about half past ten, accompanied by P.C. Lawrence, he went on board the ship Brocklesby, which was to proceed to sea at six o'clock that morning. He went to the seamen's quarters, where there were several men, amongst them the defendant. He was sitting on a bench under his hammock, and folded up in the hammock witness saw a coat, which he produced. The following dialogue ensued: Witness; “Which is Weston?” Defendant; “I took it as a joke” Witness; “Took what?” Defendant; “His coat. I only took it for a joke” Witness: “You will have to see him with me about it”. Witness took him into Beach Street. The prosecutor identified the coat. Witness to defendant; “I shall charge you with stealing this coat from the inside of the Wonder Tavern”. He turned to the prosecutor and said “Didn't I take it as a joke?” Prosecutor said “No, you have no right to joke with me, I know nothing of you”. Witness brought him to the police station, where he was charged. In reply he said “I suppose I will have to put up with it for the time being”.

Defendant said he was guilty of taking it; he did not mean in any shape or form to steal and not return it; he had said “Well, I ill take it down for a skylark”.

A Magistrate: I think I should have taken it to the passage where it was found instead of taking it on the vessel.

Defendant said he knew he was a little intoxicated.

The Bench sentenced him to 21 days' hard labour. The Chairman said he thought they had come to a very lenient decision.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 11 March 1899.

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

Henry Benjamin Watson, a seaman, was charged with stealing an overcoat, valued 3 10s., the property of George William Prior, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street.

George William Prior, the first witness, said: I recognise the prisoner, who has been a customer at my house during the last three or four days. I missed an overcoat from my house at 8 - 10 last night. The coat hung on a peg by the bar, and I went for it at 9 p.m., when I missed it.

Police Sergeant Lilley deposed: About 10.30 last night, in company with Police Constable Lawrence, I went on board the vessel Brocklesby, lying at the outer harbour, which was to proceed to sea at six o'clock this morning. I found the prisoner in the seamen's quarters, and the coat was wrapped up in his hammock. The prisoner said “I only took his coat as a joke”. I replied “You will have to come with me to see him about it”. I took him into Beach Street, and told him I should charge him with stealing the coat. In reply, he said “I suppose I shall have to put up with it for the time being”.

The prisoner said he only took the coat as a “skylark”, while he was under the influence of drink. He took the coat too openly to intend to steal it.

He was sent to prison for 21 days.

 

Folkestone Express 12 May 1900.

Saturday, May 5th: Before J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

James O'Connor, who said he came from Manchester, was charged with stealing a pair of boots.

Septimus Holroyd Harrison, manager for Mr. Joseph Tyler, boot manufacturer, of 2, Harbour Street, said on Friday about noon he hung some boots outside the shop, and at 3.30 he examined them and missed a pair of brown bluchers, value 4s. 11d. He identified those produced as the same.

P.C. William Prebble said at 3.45 on Friday he went to the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street and saw the prisoner there. He had a pair of brown leather boots in a handkerchief under his arm. In reply to a question as to where he got the boots, prisoner said “What's that to do with you?” He then charged him with stealing them, and prisoner said “All right”. They went together to No. 2, Harbour Street, and prisoner then said he did not steal them, they were given to him to sell.

Prisoner pleaded uilty. Nothing was known as to his antecedents. The Superintendent said he was evidently a “bird of passage”.

Fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 21 July 1900.

Robert Duncan was charged on Thursday with stealing an Arabian cover, valued at 1s. 6d.

P.C. Thomas W. Allen deposed that about 10.20 p.m. on Wednesday he was standing near the Wonder Tavern in company with Sergt. Lawrence, when the prosecutor went up to him and said “I have had a cover stolen in the Royal George”. He pointed out to witness prisoner, who was leaving the Royal George, and when prisoner saw the constable he ran away, but witness followed, and near Beach Street he threw something away. He was caught and taken back, and witness saw the cushion cover produced. On the way to the police station prisoner told witness that “he only did it for a joke”. He was sober.

When prosecutor was asked if he wanted to press the charge, he answered “If you wish to give him a chance you can do as you like”.

The accused was discharged, and undertook to recompense the prosecutor.

 

Folkestone Express 16 February 1901.

Thursday, February 14th: Before W. Wightwick, G.I. Swoffer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

John Green was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Wednesday, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Weller said he was on duty at the bottom of the town on Wednesday evening about 5.40, and saw the prisoner drunk. He had had occasion to remove him from the Wonder public house. When in High Street the defendant became very disorderly, and threatened to kick witness.

Sergt. Dunster, who was in charge of the police station, said the prisoner, when brought in, was drunk. He did not swear until he was taken to the cell.

The Bench said there was no doubt defendant was drunk, and they inflicted a fine of 10s. and 6s. costs, but as he was unable to pay he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15 June 1901.

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

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. Boreland succeeds Mr. Prior at the Wonder.

 

Folkestone Express 15 June 1901.

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

Wm. Alexander Bourne (sic) applied for the transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern, which was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Wonder Tavern to Mr. Alexander Barland.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Alexander Boorland was granted a licence for the Wonder Tavern.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 October 1901.

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

Henry Chester was granted the transfer of the Wonder.

 

Folkestone Express 26 October 1901.

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

A temporary transfer of the Wonder Inn was granted to Henry Chester, formerly of Wye.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 October 1901.

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

Henry Chester was granted the temporary transfer of the Wonder.

 

Folkestone Express 11 October 1902.

Wednesday, October 8th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp and J. Stainer Esq.

Henry Jeffrey was granted a temporary licence for the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 July 1903.

Monday, June 29th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening.

P.C. Lemar said that at 7.20 p.m. he saw the prisoner drunk and with his coat off outside the Wonder public house, from which he had been ejected. Witness requested him to go away quickly. Instead of that, he went to the Railway Inn, and was ejected from there. He then returned to the Wonder, and challenged the people to come out and fight. With the assistance of P.C. Sharpe witness conveyed prisoner to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs (leviable by distress), or seven days'.

Inspector Lilley: Haven't you got any goods?

Prisoner: No, and I don't want any.

 

Folkestone Express 4 July 1903.

Monday, June 29th: Before Lieut Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Lemar stated that he was in Beach Street at 7.30 on the 27th inst., where he saw prisoner in a drunken condition outside the Wonder public house. He then went to the Railway Inn, but was ejected, and returned to the Wonder public house and wanted to fight. With the assistance of P.C. Ashby prisoner was conveyed to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 September 1903.

Saturday, August 29th: Before Aldermen Banks and Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

Frank Spicer, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening, August 22nd. In a loud voice he pleaded Guilty, ad seemed somewhat proud of his little exploit.

Inspector Lilley proved the case, and said that defendant came out of the Wonder public house.

The Chief Constable proved two previous convictions, the last in 1899.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days'.

John Toppenden then pleaded Not Guilty to being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Wonder Tavern. Mr. J. Minter appeared to defend.

Inspector Lilley said: At 10.35 on Saturday night, the 22nd inst., I saw defendant come out of the public bar of the Wonder. He was drunk and fell down two steps on to the pavement. He got up and went across to the convenience, about ten yards away, and returned to the bar of the Wonder. I kept observation until 10.55, when I went in, accompanied by Sergt. Osbourne and P.C. Sharpe. Defendant was then sitting on a seat near the door. I spoke to the landlord, and turning to Toppenden told him I thought it was time he got outside. Defendant went outside and appeared scarcely able to walk. He was at once led away by another man.

Mr. Minter: Why did you let him go back into the house, knowing that he was drunk?

Witness said it was not his duty to stop the man in the first place.

Sergt. Osbourne and P.C. Sharpe gave corroborative evidence as to Toppenden's condition.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, made a great point of the action of the police inspector allowing defendant to return to the house if he were really drunk. It would be admitted that the man had had a glass or two, but defendant on oath would deny that he was drunk.

Without further evidence, Alderman Banks said the Bench had come to the conclusion that defendant was not so drunk as he was represented to be. The case would therefore be dismissed.

There was some applause in Court when the decision was given.

Henry Jeffrey, the landlord of the Wonder, was the next defendant, being summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.

Mr. Minter, who defended, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Messrs. Banks and Swoffer in this case withdrew from the Bench.

The police evidence related to the two defendants in the previous cases.

For the defence it was urged that the case against Tappenden had been dismissed, while two witnesses and Spicer himself swore positively that he was not served with drink at all at the Wonder, alleging that he did not even go to the bar.

After a long address by Mr. Minter, the Bench held that Spicer was drunk on the premises and fined defendant 20s. and 14s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 5 September 1903.

Saturday, August 29th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Frank Spicer was summoned for being drunk and disorderly.

Inspector Lilley said that about 10.50 on Saturday night he saw defendant come from the Wonder Tavern. When outside he wanted to fight, although there was no-one near him, but afterwards went away. There were two previous convictions against defendant for drunkenness, and the Bench considering the case proved, imposed a fine of 5s. and 9s. costs.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk while on licensed premises. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley deposed that about 10.35 p.m. on Saturday, the 22nd inst., he saw defendant come from the public bar of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street. He was drunk at the time, and fell down two steps on to the pavement. Defendant got up and went to the urinal some 10 yards away, and after an absence of five minutes returned to the bar of the Wonder Tavern. Witness kept the house under observation until 10.55, when in company with P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe he entered the bar and saw defendant sitting on a seat near the door. Witness spoke to the landlord and then told defendant he had better get outside, which he did at once. When outside defendant was scarcely able to walk, consequently one of his companions led him home by the arm.

Mr. Minter: Why didn't you tell him not to go back when you saw him go to the urinal? – There is no reason why I should.

P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

In answer to a question from the Bench, the former said that defendant had no drink in front of him when they entered the bar.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench and said that three policemen had given evidence, so that he ought to be satisfied. They had, however, to prove that the man was drunk. His client had had a glass too much, but he wasn't drunk. He was a respectable working man and on the night in question had made an appointment to go mushrooming at Lyminge, the rendezvous being the bar of the Wonder Tavern, and further his client had had no beer in the house. He would ask the Bench to defer judgement in the case until the case against the landlord had been disposed of.

The Magistrates, however, came to the conclusion that the case was not proved, and dismissed the summons.

The case against Henry Jeffery, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was then proceeded with.

Inspector Lilley gave evidence similar to that in the last case, but added that in consequence of seeing Tappenden's condition he watched the house and saw Spicer come out rolling drunk. He used bad language and pulled off his coat, at the same time offering to fight anyone, although at the time there was no-one in sight. During the time he kept observation on the bar, Spicer never entered the house. The reason why he never stopped Tappenden from re-entering the house was because he had received reports respecting the house from constables. When he entered the bar he spoke to the landlord and informed him that a man named Spicer had left the house in a drunken condition, to which he received the answer “I did not notice him, and I have not served him”. Turning to Tappenden, witness said to defendant “Surely you can see his condition; he is drunk”. Defendant replied “I haven't served him. He has had no drink here”. Witness told defendant that he would be reported for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises.

P.S. Osborne stated in addition to his evidence in the first case that about 11.10 on the night in question he saw Spicer at his home, very drunk and using obscene language to his mother.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, and said that with regard to Spicer he was a nuisance to all the publicans. His client would swear that he had not served the man at all on Saturday, and it was being refused drink on Saturday night that made him want to fight when he came outside. If it were proved that no drink had been given the man his client would not be liable under the summonses for permitting drunkenness, for the man came in without his consent, and he was not permitted to remain. They could not prevent a man from coming in the house if he chose to do so, but they could refuse to serve him, and this was done.

The defendant then went into the witness box and said that Tappenden came into the bar about 10.30 p.m. on the 22nd inst. He was not drunk, but witness considered he had had enough to drink. Tappenden called for a pint of beer; witness told him that he didn't want any more, and a companion also expressed the same opinion. That was all that was said, and Tappenden being quiet was allowed to sit in the bar. Witness did not see Spicer enter the house, and certainly did not serve him. He was a man whom witness did not want near the place, and had previously refused to serve him. Witness was closing the house at 10.55, when the police arrived. They did not enter the house, but stood on the doorstep, and Inspector Lilley said “I shall report you for allowing drunkenness. Spicer has come out, and this man (meaning Tappenden) is drunk”. Witness replied that he had not served either of them.

The Superintendent:Do you say that the police never entered the house? – Yes.

Where was Tappenden? – Sitting in the doorway.

Then they would not have to come far to see him? – No.

What time did the police come to the doorway? – Between 5 and 10 minutes to 11.

You said that Tappenden came in about 10.30 and remained until closing time? – With the exception of five minutes when he was outside.

You said that he was not in a condition to be served? – He was not drunk, but when I see a man has had enough I refuse to serve him with any more, and do not wait until he is drunk.

How long has that been your practice? – Ever since I have kept a licensed house.

Do you remember the police coming to your house in November last? – I do not.

Were you then cautioned about a certain person? – Not that I know of, but if you tell me his name I might remember.

They might have come? – Yes.

Coming to Spicer, you know him very well? – Yes.

Will you swear that he was not in your house from 10.35 until 10.50? – Not to my knowledge.

By the Bench: There were about 30 people in the house.

The Superintendent: How many people were in this particular bar? – About four.

William Knott, a labourer, stated that he had made an appointment with Tappenden to go mushrooming. Tappenden entered the house at 10.30 and called for a drink, but the landlord refused to serve him. He was not drunk, but witness thought he had had enough. When the Inspector came to the door Tappenden was outside, going home to have his supper. Witness did not see Spicer in the bar, and had not seen him all day.

Alexander Valentine, a painter, gave evidence to the effect that he went to the Wonder at 10.30 and stopped there until closing time. Spicer never came into the bar, and was not in the house at all.

The Bench thought that there was no case made out with reference to Tappenden, but with regard to Spicer they had not the slightest doubt that he was in the house, and in a state of intoxication, and it was the landlord's duty to take notice of it. Therefore they would impose a fine of 1 and 14s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 September 1903.

Saturday, August 29th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer.

John Tappenden was summoned for having been drunk on the licensed premises of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on Aug. 22nd. Defendant was represented by Mr. J. Minter, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley stated that at 10.30 p.m. on the date in question he saw defendant come out of the public bar of the Wonder. He was drunk. In coming out he stumbled down the steps on to the pavement. About five minutes later he returned to the same bar. Witness kept observation on the house, and at 10.55, accompanied by Sergt. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe, he went into the bar. Defendant was sitting on a seat near the door. Witness spoke to the landlord, and also told Tappenden he had better get outside. Tappenden went out at once, and appeared scarcely able to walk. He was led away by another man who was at the door.

P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharp gave corroborative evidence.

After deliberating for some time the Bench dismissed the case.

Henry Jeffrey, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. Minter was for the defence. This case was heard by Alderman Herbert and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Inspector Lilley, who was the first witness, gave evidence to the effect that he kept observation on the house, and at 10.55 p.m. Spicer, who was drunk, came out. Witness gathered that he was drunk by his incoherency of speech, by his being almost unable to walk, and by his placing himself in a fighting attitude when there was no-one to fight with.

Mr. Minter: When you entered the house, what took place?

Inspector Lilley: I said to the landlord “A man, Spicer, has just left your house drunk”. He (the landlord) replied “I didn't notice him, and I haven't served him”. Turning to Tappenden (defendant in a previous case), who stood up, witness said “This man; you see his condition; he is drunk”. The landlord replied “I haven't served him. He has had no drink here”.

P.S. Osborne said he did not see Spicer leave the house, but saw him at ten minutes past eleven in his own house in Radnor Street.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated, saying he saw Spicer at his own house drunk. He was using obscene language to his mother.

Defendant, on oath, said Tappenden came into his house on the night in question about 10.30. He did not consider him drunk, but thought he had had as much as he ought to have. Tappenden asked him for a pint of beer, and defendant said to him “I don't think you want any more to drink”. He did not see Spicer, neither did he supply him with any drink on Saturday night in his house. Witness also said that the police did not enter his house, but only stood on the step outside. He was perfectly sure that neither Spicer nor Tappenden had had drink at his house that night.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve, defendant swore that the policemen did not enter his house. In answer to a further question as to why he did not serve Tappenden with drink, Jeffrey stated that it was his opinion that people ought not to serve a man to make him drunk.

Evidence for the defence was also given by William Knott, who said that neither of the policemen went inside the bar. Both he and Tappenden were outside.

Chief Constable Reeve: What condition was Tappenden in?

Witness: He had had enough to drink, but was not drunk.

Are you prepared to say that Spicer was not in the bar with you and Tappenden? – Yes, sir.

Alexander Valentine, another witness, said he never saw Spicer at all; if he was there he never was in the bar.

After consulting with his colleague, the Chairman said that they considered there was no case against Tappenden, but they had not the slightest doubt that Spicer was in the house, and that he was in a state of intoxication. Defendant would be fined 1, with 14s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 12 September 1903.

Local News.

The “Licensing World” recommends an appeal in the case of the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, convicted of permitting drunkenness.

 

Folkestone Express 7 November 1903.

Saturday, October 31st: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Horace Edwards was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. W. Prebble said that on Tuesday, shortly after noon, he was standing near the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, when he saw a man leave in a drunken condition. Witness then heard the landlord request another man to quit the premises, but he refused. Witness was then called by the landlord, and he saw defendant in the bar. He was drunk, and was holding a pint glass half-full of beer. When requested to leave the house, defendant said “Yes, I will for you, but not for that ---- thing”, pointing to the landlord. Defendant left the house, and witness reported him for the offence.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs; in default seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 November 1903.

Saturday, October 31st: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Horace Edwards was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on Tuesday, the 27th ult.

Fined 2s. 6d., and costs, 9s.; in default, seven days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 December 1903.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Wonder Inn was transferred from Henry Jeffery to John Matthews.

 

Folkestone Express 5 December 1903.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Colonel Westropp and E.T. Ward Esq.

The licence of the Wonder was transferred from Henry Jeffery to John Matthew.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 December 1903.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was transferred from Henry Jeffrey to John Matthew.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1904.

Saturday, July 23rd: Before Alderman Banks, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Henry Brown, a stranger, was charged with assaulting John Mathew, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on the previous day.

John Mathew said the prisoner came into his house at 10.30 p.m. There were three soldiers standing at the bar, and prisoner at once got into conversation with them, talking about the ribbons on their (soldiers) breasts. The soldiers did not want to converse with prisoner, so witness told prisoner to leave the house. Prisoner immediately picked up a glass from the counter and said he would dash it at witness's head and face. Witness immediately jumped over the counter, prisoner striking at him as he was going over the bar with his fist. They then closed, and both fell into the corner of the room. A constable then came in and dragged prisoner away from witness, who gave prisoner in charge.

P.C. Prebble corroborated.

The Bench considered the case was clearly proved, and sentenced prisoner to fourteen days' hard labour.

As prisoner was leaving the dock he threatened Mr. Mathew, and said he didn't care if he got ten years for it. He was immediately brought back, and was cautioned by the Bench.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 July 1904.

Saturday, July 23rd: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and C.J. Pursey.

Harry Brown was charged with assaulting John Matthew, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, by striking him in the face the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

John Matthew stated that prisoner went into his house about half past ten on the evening of the 22nd inst. He had been in the house two or three times that day. At half past ten, when he came in, there were three soldiers standing in the bar. Prisoner entered into conversation with one of the soldiers as regards the ribbons on his breast, and what he had in his pocket. The soldier did not want to converse with him, but Brown forced the conversation. With that witness told him to leave the house. Brown immediately picked up a glass from he counter, and said he would dash it in his (witness's) face. Witness immediately jumped over the counter to eject him, when he struck him. Witness closed with him, and they both fell into the corner of the bar. The soldier dragged prisoner away from him, and a constable went in and also dragged him away. Witness then gave him into custody.

P.C. Prebble stated that shortly after 10.30 on the 22nd inst. he was outside the Wonder Tavern, where he saw prisoner in the public bar. He heard the landlord say to prisoner “Drink up your beer and leave my house”. Prisoner replied “I will chuck it in your eye”, and began to use very bad language. The landlord jumped over the counter into the bar, and as he went over prisoner struck him on the head with his fist. The landlord closed with him, and they fell to the ground. As he (witness) went into the bar he saw prisoner strike the landlord again three or four times on the head. He pulled the prisoner off Matthew, and asked what was the matter. Matthew replied “I give this man into custody for an assault on me, and using obscene language”. Prisoner was sober.

Brown was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

As prisoner was being removed from the Court, he glared threateningly at Mr. Matthew and exclaimed “I'll do ten years for you when I come out”.

The Magistrates ordered him to be again placed in the dock, and Alderman Herbert said “If you do make any assault on this man when you come out, you will be punished very severely for it. Your threat today will be borne in mind”.

 

Folkestone Daily News 25 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th:

An application for the transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern was made and granted.

 

Folkestone Express 28 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: the Wonder Tavern, from John Matthew to Frederick Stickell.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 January 1905.

Wednesday, January 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern was transferred to Mr. F. Stickells from Mr. Jas. Matthews.

 

Folkestone Express 28 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 25th: Before W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was temporarily transferred to Mrs. Pinchers.

Note: No record of this in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 29 September 1906.

Wednesday, September 26th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Spurgen and Vaughan, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern was temporarily transferred from Frederick Stickall to Thomas Cowan (sic).

 

Folkestone Herald 29 September 1906.

Wednesday, September 26th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, and Councillor W.C. Carpenter.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern was temporarily transferred from Mr. Thomas Stickells to Mr. W.C. Cohen.

 

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906.

Wednesday, October 10th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, E.T. Ward, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern was transferred from Frederick Stickell to Samuel Thomas Cowan.

 

Folkestone Express 8 June 1907.

Saturday, June 1st: Before The Mayor, Major Leggatt, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Boyd Esqs.

Harry Ratcliffe was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Nash said the previous evening, about seven o'clock, he was at the bottom of Seagate Street, where he saw prisoner thrown out of the Wonder public house. He was drunk, and witness advised him to go home. Prisoner went along to the Fish Market, and wanted to fight everyone and used bad language. He went into a public house, and when witness brought him out he became very violent. With the assistance of P.C. Eldridge and Sharp and a fisherman, witness took him to the police station.

The Chief Constable said prisoner had been there seven times before, and on April 2nd he was sent to prison without the option of a fine.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 June 1907.

Saturday, June 1st: Before The Mayor, Councillor G. Boyd, Major Leggett, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames.

Henry Ratcliffe was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Nash deposed that the previous evening he was in Beach Street, where he saw the prisoner thrown out of the Wonder public house. Witness advised him to go home. He went down the Fish Market and offered to fight anyone. Witness then brought him to the police station. He had to be carried, as he became so violent.

The Chief Constable stated that accused had been there before.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 28 March 1908.

Saturday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Banks, Stainer, Swoffer, Linton, and Boyd.

William Tombs was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

Detective Burniston said he saw the defendant in the Marquis of Lorne and afterwards in the street. He also saw him in the Wonder Tavern. On entering with P.C. Prebble he saw him seated with four other persons, and there were five glasses on the counter containing liquor. Witness told the landlord, who was attending to his customers, and then brought the accused to the police station and charged him.

A fine of 7s., or 7 days' was imposed.

 

Folkestone Express 4 April 1908.

Saturday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esq.

William Toms, who has a wooden leg, was charged with being drunk on licensed premises the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said the previous night, just after ten, he saw the prisoner in the kitchen of the Marquis of Lorne lodging house, very drunk. A few minutes after he saw him outside the house, supporting himself by the wall. He missed the defendant shortly after, and, after going round to several licensed houses he looked through the glass door of the Wonder Tavern, where he saw the prisoner standing in the public bar with a glass of liquor in his hand. He therefore called P.C. Prebble, and they both went into the bar, and the landlord was at the time serving customers. He asked Toms to stand up, and on his doing so witness told him he was drunk. He also called the landlord's attention to him. He took the prisoner into custody, and Prebble and himself had great difficulty in getting him to the police station owing to him being so intoxicated. Toms had to be held up while being searched. In his condition it was impossible for the prisoner to stand alone.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and he was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour in default, the Mayor commenting on the fact that only about ten days ago Toms had taken the pledge.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 April 1908.

Saturday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, Alderman J. Banks, Councillor G. Boyd, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

William Toms, a one legged man, was charged with being drunk and incapable on licensed premises. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that at a quarter past ten on the previous night he saw the prisoner in the kitchen of the Radnor Park (sic) lodging house in Radnor Street. He was very drunk. Witness saw him later in Radnor Street. He was supporting himself against the wall of the premises. He walked through Radnor Street and through Beach Street, and shortly after missed the defendant. He looked rouns several of the licensed houses, and at 10.40 he looked through the glass panel of the Wonder beerhouse, where he saw the prisoner leaning on the counter with a glass of beer in his hand and drinking from it. The landlord's name was Samuel Born (sic). Witness called P.C. Prebble, who was standing a few yards away, and went into the public bar. Prisoner was then sitting. There were four other persons in the bar, and on the counter there were five glasses, each containing liquor. The landlord was behind the bar attending to his customers. Witness told defendant to stand up, which he did; he found he was drunk and not capable of taking care of himself. With the assistance of P.C. Prebble witness took him to the police station. Prisoner was so intoxicated that P.C. Prebble and he had much trouble in taking him to the police station, and while being searched he had to be held up. Witness also saw him at midday the previous day in Radnor Street, when he was drunk, but not incapable.

The Mayor: The prisoner said something when he came in about being a cripple.

Witness: Yes, he has only one leg, he walks with a stick, but it was impossible for him to stand last night.

A fine of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days', was imposed.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 April 1908.

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

Samuel Thomas Coen, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned for selling beer to an intoxicated person. Mr. Mercer appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Detective Burniston deposed: The defendant is the landlord of the Wonder Tavern. On the 27th of March, I visited the Marquis of Lorne, a lodging house in Radnor Street. Standing in the doorway of the passage, I met a man named Toms, who was very drunk and supporting himself by the doorway. I left the lodging house and went to the Radnor opposite, and returned later, when I again saw the man Toms. I then went into Beach Street, and from there to Dover Street, and returned ten minutes later, when I found that Toms had moved. At 10.40 I looked through the public bar window of the Wonder beerhouse and saw Toms, who had a wooden leg, facing the door, supporting himself by the counter. He was drinking from a half pint glass. I called P.C. Prebble, who accompanied me into the public bar, and found Toms seated. Four others were also present. The defendant was behind the bar. On the counter stood five glasses containing liquor. I said to defendant “You have served this man with half a pint of beer. He is drunk”. I told Toms to stand up, which he did, after some difficulty. I then said to defendant “You see this man's condition? I shall arrest him for being drunk on you licensed premises, and report you for serving him with liquor while being drunk”. He replied “I did serve him, and no doubt he is drunk”.

Mr. Mercer: Was the house quiet? – Yes, very quiet.

Why didn't you arrest him in the first instance? – Because he was not in a public place.

I contend that he was in a public place if the public use the passage in which he was standing. – The passage is private.

You knew he was drunk? – Yes.

How far is the Wonder from the passage? – About 100 yards away.

The Chief Constable: Where does Toms live? – At the Marquis of Lorne lodging house.

P.C. Prebble deposed: On the 27th March I was called by the previous witness to accompany him to the Wonder, where I saw the man Toms seated in the bar. On the counter stood five glasses containing liquor. Burniston told Toms to stand up, which he did, and I then saw that he was drunk and incapable. Burniston said to defendant “You see the condition of this man? I shall arrest him for being drunk on your premises, and report you for serving him with beer while drunk”. Defendant said he had not noticed it before.

The defendant then went into the witness box, and, in reply to Mr. Mercer, said: I have held the licence since 1906, and have never had a complaint against me. On the 27th March the man Toms came in. I had never seen him before. He came into the bar, and was as steady as a man would be with a wooden leg. He seemed perfectly sober, and leaned against the bar. The persons in the bar talked together. About five minutes later one of the persons called for five half pints of beer, but Toms did not touch his. Just then the constables came in, and Burniston told me I had served Toms with half a pint of beer. I admitted it. He then said the man was drunk, and I said he did not appear to be drunk to me. Toms then went to the door to go out, and Burniston drew him in again and told him not to go away as he was going to arrest him for being drunk. Toms said “Let me go home; I'm not drunk”. A constable then took Toms into custody. I was at the court the following morning, but was not called to give evidence.

The Chief Constable: Do I understand that you still think the man Toms was sober? – Yes, certainly.

And you didn't admit to Burniston that Toms was drunk? – No, certainly not.

Mr. Mercer said the conduct of the police on this occasion was extremely questionable. He dealt with the facts in detail, and said although he was legally liable, he was morally innocent, because it was a very difficult thing to tell whether some people were drunk or not. The evidence of Burniston and Prebble did not coincide, and the position of the defendant was placed in danger by the action of the police. He asked the Bench to consider all those facts, and inflict as small a penalty as possible; in fact, they had the power to impose costs only, which he hoped they would do.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said they were satisfied defendant did not know Toms was drunk, and therefore he would be fined 1 and 11s. costs only.

 

Folkestone Express 11 April 1908.

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

Samuel Thomas Coen, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned for selling beer to a drunken person. Mr. R.M. Mercer, of Canterbury, appeared for defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at a quarter past ten p.m. on March 27th he visited the Marquis of Lorne lodging house. In the kitchen of the lodging house he saw a man named William Toms, who was very drunk, supporting himself against the door. Toms had a wooden leg. Witness left the lodging house and went to the Radnor lodging house. About five minutes later he saw Toms in a passage in Radnor Street, leaning against the wall. He went into Beach Street, and then into Dover Street. He returned ten minutes later, and noticed Toms had moved. He looked round several of the licensed houses, and at 10.40 he looked through the public bar window of the Wonder beerhouse, where he saw the man Toms standing with his face to the door, supporting himself by the counter. He was drinking from a half pint glass, which contained liquor. He called to P.C. Prebble, who was standing some fifteen yards away, and they entered the bar. Toms was then seated. The defendant was behind the bar. On the bar counter there were five glasses containing liquor, and he said to Coen “You have served this man (Toms) with half a pint of beer. He is drunk”. He told Toms to stand up, which he did. He then drew the defendant's attention to the man's condition, and told him that he was going to arrest Toms for being drunk on licensed premises, and report him (the landlord) for supplying him while drunk. He replied “I did serve him, and no doubt he is drunk”.

Cross-examined, witness said the house was a quiet one. The house had been well conducted since Coen had been the landlord. The reason he did not arrest Toms before he went into the public house was because he did not see him in a public place.

In reply to the Chief Constable, Burniston said Toms lived at the Marquis of Lorne lodging house.

P.C. Prebble corroborated Detective Sergeant Burniston with regard to the visit they paid to the public bar of the Wonder.

Defendant went into the box and gave evidence. He said he had held the licence since September, 1906. He had had no sort of complaint against him before. On Friday, March 27th, a man with a wooden leg came into the bar, and he came across the bar in a steady manner. Witness served him with half a pint of beer and porter, and the man asked for it in a perfectly rational manner. The man did not lean against the bar until after he had had the glass of beer, which cost a penny. Toms entered into conversation with four other customers, and continued to do so for five minutes. One of the customers asked for five half pints and he served them, and Toms was to have had one. As soon as witness had finished drawing the beer, Burniston came in and said “You have served this man with half a pint of beer and he is drunk”. Witness told Burniston that he had served the man, but he did not notice he was drunk. When Burniston asked the man to get up, he got up as a man with a wooden leg would do. When he was on his legs witness told the police officer that he did not appear to him (the landlord) to be drunk. The man walked to the door, and Burniston called out to him “Don't go away yet; I will charge you with being drunk”. Burniston handed the man back again, and then called another police officer and told him to lock him up. The man went out of the house by himself. He attended the Court next morning, when the man was brought up before the Magistrates and fined. He was not called by the police to give evidence on that occasion. He did not know Toms at the time and had not seen him before. He had not seen the man since, or he would have brought him to give evidence that morning.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said his opinion still was that the man was sober, although he heard the man's admission that he was drunk when brought up at the police court.

Mr. Mercer, in addressing the Magistrates, said the conduct of the police officer in that case was questionable. When seen by Burniston in a passage close to the lodging house, the man was drunk and was allowed to go away and be a danger to the publican. He contended that the passage was a public place, and the man should have been locked up. He complained with bitterness, on behalf of his client, that he should have been placed in that dangerous position by the action of the police officer in allowing the man to go about.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into Court, the Chairman said they had been considering the question simply as to the penalty they should inflict. They were unanimously of the opinion that defendant did not know when the man went in that he was drunk. He would, however, be fined 1 and 11s. costs.

 

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.

Samuel Thomas Loen (sic) was summoned for selling beer to a drunken person. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

D.S. Burniston deposed to having under observation, on March 27th, a man named Wm. Toms, who was very drunk and supporting himself against a door. Toms had only one leg. Witness subsequently noticed that Toms had moved from where he had seen him. He went round to several of the licensed houses, and at 10.40 p.m. he looked through the public bar window of the Wonder Tavern beerhouse, where he saw the man Toms standing with his face to the door, supporting himself against the counter. He was drinking from a half pint glass containing liquor. Witness called to P.C. Prebble, who was standing near the house, and they entered the public bar, where they saw that Toms was seated. There were two men and two women in the bar, all seated. Defendant was behind the bar attending to his customers. On the bar counter were five glasses, each containing liquor, four beer and one porter. Witness said to the defendant “You have served this man with half a pint of beer. He is drunk”. Witness told Toms to stand up, which he did after some difficulty. Witness said to the defendant “You see this man's condition? I shall arrest him for being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself on your licensed premises, and report you for supplying him with liquor while drunk”. He replied “I did serve him, and no doubt he is drunk”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he did not arrest Toms when he saw him drunk at the Marquis of Lorne lodging house previously. He did not arrest him because it was not a public place.

Re-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said Toms lived at the lodging house.

P.C. Prebble corroborated.

Defendant, being sworn, stated that he had held the licence since September, 1905. He had had no sort of complaint before. On Friday, March 27th, he was in the bar when Toms came in. Witness had never seen him before. He came across the floor as steadily as a man could with one leg. He asked witness for half a pint of beer and porter in a very plain manner. Witness was very careful about seeing that his customers were sober. He leaned against the bar after he had his glass, and witness joined in conversation with him. That conversation did not last more than five minutes. Toms did not appear to be drunk, and there was no sign of quarrelling. After that one of the customers called for five half pints, but Toms did not drink any of it. Whilst witness was drawing the half pints the talk was going on just the same. The police officer came in and said that witness had served Toms with beer, and he said that he had. Witness told him that he was not drunk. Burniston told Toms to stand up, and he got up in the same manner as a man with a wooden leg would. Burniston said “You see him now”, and witness said “He does not appear drunk to me”. The man with the wooden leg went to the door and opened it, and went just outside. Burniston said “Don't you go away yet; I will charge you with being drunk”. He then brought the man in, went to the door, called a policeman, and said “Lock this man up”. The man with the wooden leg said “Let me go home. I can walk; I am not drunk”. The man went out by himself, and witness did not see the constable handle him. Witness was in Court when Toms was tried, and was ready to give evidence, but he was not called upon. Toms was in his house for about ten or fifteen minutes. He did not know Toms.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he was still of opinion that the man was sober.

Mr. Mercer, addressing the Bench, ventured to say that the evidence of the police was very questionable. It was always admitted by the Bench that it was very hard for a publican to tell when one of his customers was drunk. He considered it was a great hardship on the publicans, for if they prosecuted, the man whom they prosecuted was only fined a few shillings; on the other hand, if the police prosecuted, the publican was fined a large amount.

The Bench decided to fine defendant 1 and 11s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 6 June 1908.

Wednesday, June 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and G. Boyd Esq.

John Collins was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street the previous evening. He admitted the offence.

P.C. H. Johnson said at 10.20 the previous evening he was called to the Wonder public house, where he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, in the public bar. He was holding an altercation with another man. He left at witness's request. When outside he commenced to use filthy language and laid down on the pavement. He, therefore, took him into custody. The prisoner had not been served in the public house.

Collins said he could assure them he did not use bad language.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was there five years ago on a similar charge.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, but in default of payment he went down for seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, C. Jenner, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 125 premises licensed for the sail 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.

At the adjourned licensing meeting last year three licences (two full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and refused renewal by that Committee on the 9th July last.

Two of the houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street were closed after the payment of compensation on 28th September last.

The amount of compensation in the case of the other licence refused, viz., The Eagle, High Street, has not yet been settled. A provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be necessary, although the house has been closed for the sale of intoxicating drink since October last, the Excise licence, which expired on the 10th of that month, not having been renewed.

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

Since the last annual licensing meeting twelve of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Three occasional licences were granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 40 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 107 persons (86 males and 21 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 101 were convicted and six discharged. This is a decrease of 18 persons as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 29 were residents, 17 non-residents, 48 of no fixed abode, and 13 were soldiers.

Two licence holders were proceeded against and convicted during the year, viz.:- Permitting drunkenness – fined 40s. and costs 11s.; selling beer to person when drunk – fined 20s. and costs 11s.

In the former case the house has since been closed under the provisions of the Compensation Act.

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

There are sixteen places licensed for music and dancing and two for public billiard playing.

I have no objection to offer to the renewal of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner.

I have received notice of four applications to be made at these sessions for new licences, viz.:- one full licence, two beer “off”, and one billiard licence.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeves, Chief Constable.

The granting of the licences to the Wonder Tavern and the Eagle Inn were referred to the adjourned licensing sessions to be held on March 3rd.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore. Messrs. Boyd, Stainer and Jenner did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Express for details)The applicants for the renewal of old licences then came forward, and received their certificates. All were granted with the exception of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, held by Mr. Coln (sic), and the Eagle Inn, High Street, held by Mr. W.H. White. Both there were referred to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions, which will take place on Wednesday, March 3rd.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1909.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

William Spearpoint was summoned for a breach of the bye-laws by throwing and breaking a glass bottle in the street. Defendant did not appear until after the case had been dealt with.

P.S. Smith said that at about 11.45 on Saturday night he was in Beach Street, when he saw the defendant leaning against the Wonder Tavern with an empty lemonade bottle in his hand. Believing that he was about to smash it in the road, witness told him that it was an offence to do so. Defendant said it had got to go somewhere, and then threw the bottle into the middle of the road.

Fined 5s. and 10s. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Express 6 March 1909.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, and Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

With regard to the renewal of the licence of the Wonder Tavern (Mr. Cohen, holder), the Chief Constable said the application was adjourned from the annual licensing sessions in consequence of the licence holder having been convicted during the past year for an offence under the Licensing Act. He had no other fault to find with the way in which the house had been conducted, and he offered no objection to its renewal. There had been no complaint since.

The Chairman, in granting the licence, said he hoped Mr. Cohen would take warning, and that the house would be properly conducted in future.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 March 1909.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 3rd: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.

The Wonder Tavern.

The Chief Constable stated that the landlord of the Wonder Tavern had been convicted of an offence under the Licensing Act. He (the Chief Constable) hoped that the Magistrates would deal kindly with him. He saw no objection to the renewal.

The Chairman: Has the house been properly conducted since?

The Chief Constable: I have had no complaint at all since.

The Chairman, in granting the renewal of the licence, remarked that as Mr. Coln (sic) had been convicted, he hoped it would be a warning to him, and that his house would be properly conducted in the future.

 

Folkestone Express 18 September 1909.

Local News.

At the police court on Wednesday, the licence of the Wonder Tavern was temporarily transferred to Robert Fitall.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 October 1909.

Wednesday, October 6th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, and Linton.

The licence of the Wonder public house was transferred.

 

Folkestone Express 9 October 1909.

Wednesday, October 6th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. J. Stainer and R.J. Linton.

The following licence was transferred: Wonder Tavern, from Samuel Cohen (sic) to Robert Pithall (sic)

 

Folkestone Herald 9 October 1909.

Wednesday, October 6th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. R.J. Linton and J. Stainer.

An application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern from Mr. Samuel Cohen to Mr. Robert Whitall, this being granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 October 1909.

Thursday, October 14th: Before Alderman Herbert and Mr. Stainer.

Frances Collins, a lady attired in a motor hat and fashionable costume, with a countenance on which determination was strongly marked, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Wednesday evening.

She pleaded Not Guilty to the charge, and then P.C. Craddock was called upon to give the facts.

P.C. Craddock is a new hand, and this was his first prosecution. It was somewhat piteous to see his state of nervousness and trepidation. His manly face was diffused with blushes as he displayed a pair of white gloves, no doubt emblematical of his maiden charge. The Bench looked stern, and Inspector Swift, in tones worthy of the most military martinet, exclaimed “Take your gloves off, sir!” Craddock, in his nervousness, took his left-hand glove off, and took the Testament in the left hand. Inspector Swift betrayed signs of apoplexy. Only fancy, dear reader, the dignity of the Court being impaired by a new constable taking the Book in his left hand! “Take the Book in the right hand!” sternly ejaculated Inspector Swift, which Craddock, after recovering from his nervousness, did. He then bowled forth in a loud voice that he was called to the Wonder Tavern, where Frances Collins was drunk and using bad language. He ejected her, and then, as she would not go away, he, with the assistance of another constable, brought her to the police station and charged her.

Craddock had recovered from his nervousness, and the blushes on his countenance were transformed into a proud bearing. He looked at the reporters, at the stern Inspector, and at the Justice with pride, as much as to say “This is my first case, your wurshops, but it will not be my last”.

Frances, having pleaded Guilty, was asked if she had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon her. She cordially agreed with everything that Craddock had said, with the exception of using bad language, which she assured their Worships she was not in the habit of doing. It was not her custom.

Alderman Herbert, in hurried tones, told Frances she would have to contribute to the revenue the sum of 5s. for being drunk and disorderly, and 9s. 6d. costs, or go to Canterbury gaol for 14 days.

Lord Chancellor Andrew, who seems to be chief of the costs department at the Hall of Justice, threw a significant glance at Alderman Herbert, and that gentleman, in an apologetic tone, told Frances that the costs would be 4s. 6d., and not 9s. 6d.

It did not seem to be of great importance to Frances, as she pointed out that she had no money, and hence Craddock will have to escort her to H.M. Royal Hotel at Canterbury, where she will enjoy H.M.'s hospitality at the public expense for 14 days.

Only think, dear ratepayers, what a serious calamity it would have been if Craddock had not been on the alert, and that Frances, having indulged in her little conviviality at the Wonder, had been permitted to retire to her hotel, and sleep off the effects of the same, leaving the town without us poor ratepayers having to contribute towards a fortnight's maintenance. Alderman Herbert might have gone out riding this morning; Mr. Justice Stainer might have attended to his duties; Mr. Bradley could have sat in his office in Sandgate Road and studied his clients' interests; Lord Chancellor John Andrew might have sat behind his little trap door, comparing the number of births, deaths, headstones, and burials during the last session; Inspector Swift might have adorned the thoroughfares with that dignity so deterrent to evil-doers that it has been known to make the inebriate walk steady; and Craddock and Johnson might have spent an hour in the police billiard room, and no-one would have been any the worse; in fact, the ratepayers would have been better off.

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 February 1910.

Monday, February 14th.

Emily Small pleaded Guilty to being drunk and incapable in South Street.

P.C. Prebble deposed to her being ejected from the Wonder Tavern on Saturday.

She had previously been convicted, but it was six years ago.

She was now fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and allowed a week to pay it in.

The Chairman hoped she would not come before them for another six years.

 

Folkestone Express 19 February 1910.

Monday, February 14th: Before Mt. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Emily Small, a flower seller, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. W. Prebble said on Saturday night at 10.15 he was near the Wonder public house, when he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, being ejected by the landlord. When outside she made use of bad and obscene language. He asked her to go home, but she refused and continued to use bad language, so he took her into custody.

Prisoner had nothing to say, except that she was sorry.

The Chief Constable said it was something like six years since the prisoner was there.

The Chairman, in telling her that she would have to pay a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, expressed the hope that it would be another six years again before she had to come before the Bench.

 

Folkestone Daily News 2 August 1910.

Tuesday, August 2nd: Before Messrs. Penfold, Spurgen, Vaughan, and Fynmore.

Frederick Frost was charged, on remand, with stealing a cap.

The case had been remanded from Monday in order that prisoner might produce witnesses to prove that he did not steal the cap.

No witnesses, however, appeared when the case came on this morning.

Prisoner now said he was in the Wonder public house when a man came in and said he had come from a distance, and he (prisoner) took him to an eating house and treated him to some coffee. They then returned to the Wonder.

At this point in the case prisoner's father-in-law appeared and said he could prove prisoner's innocence, but as he was the worse for drink he was ordered to leave the court.

Continuing, prisoner said the man, noticing that he (prisoner) was wearing a very old cap, said he would go and get him a better one, and went out and brought in a new one, which he gave to prisoner. On being asked where he got it from, the man replied that he gave 6d. for it.

The Chairman said there was a doubt about the case and prisoner would be discharged.

 

Folkestone Express 6 August 1910.

Tuesday, August 2nd: Before Aldermen Penfold, Spurgen, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Frederick Frost, who was remanded from the previous day, was again charged with stealing a cap, value 1s., from Mr. Godden, clothier.

The Chief Constable explained that the prisoner was remanded in order that he could call some witnesses.

No witnesses turned up, and the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He further stated that the landlord of the Wonder public house knew all about it. He went into the public house, and his father-in-law told him he had a bad cap. He pulled it off his (prisoner's) head and put his fingers through it. Another young fellow who was there said he would get him a better cap. He went outside and returned with the cap (the stolen one). The man took off his (prisoner's) old cap and put on the new one. He did not mind going to prison for anything he did, but he did not like going when he was innocent.

A man then came forward and said that Frost's statement was true. He offered to give evidence, but he was not in a sober condition, and the Clerk ordered him to be removed from the Court.

The Chairman told the prisoner that the Magistrates had decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he could go.

 

Folkestone Express 26 July 1913.

Tuesday, July 22nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Col. Owen and J.J. Giles Esq.

Thomas Graham was summoned for stealing a bicycle. Mr. A.K. Mowll, of Canterbury, defended.

George James Wells, a private in the 3rd Buffs, stationed at St. Martin's Plain, said on July 4th a bicycle was lent to him by a friend named Alfred Pankhurst. He went into a fish shop in Harbour Street at about a quarter to eleven, and then saw defendant, with whom he got into conversation. They left the shop together, and went to the Wonder Tavern. He left the bicycle leaning against the window outside. They had two half pints of beer together about four minutes to eleven. Defendant was an entire stranger to him. Defendant drank his glass of beer, and he (witness) then lost sight of him, his attention having been taken from him by a conversation he was having with the landlord. He went out of the house, and immediately missed his bicycle. He shortly afterwards informed the police of his loss, and on the following Sunday evening he again saw it at the police station. He valued the cycle at 30s.

Cross-examined, witness said the bicycle was the one that was lent to him. He had not been drinking all the evening. He had only had four or five half pints.

P.C. Butcher said he received information on the loss of a bicycle on the 4th by the last witness, and on the 6th he saw the defendant in the Walton Allotments. He told him he was making inquiries about a bicycle that was stolen from outside the Wonder public house on the 4th, and that he believed he (the defendant) was in the soldier's company when the bicycle was lost. He asked him if he could give any information about it. Defendant replied “Well, I bought one in Tontine Street just after eleven o'clock on Friday night for 15s. I do not know who the man was”. He, however, gave a detailed description of the man, who told him he came from Deal and was looking for work, and wanted to get back to Deal that night. He gave a description of the man's clothing. He then went to No. 6, Darlington Street, where the defendant resided, and was shown the bicycle (produced) by the defendant. Later the bicycle was identified by Pankhurst, the owner. He saw the defendant again on the Monday, when he told him the bicycle had been identified. He replied he hoped he would not lose his 15s. On the 6th, after he obtained the bicycle from the defendant, he took down a statement made by the defendant, who signed it.

The Clerk read the statement, which was to the effect that he went into Marwood's fish shop for a fish supper, and got into a conversation with a soldier of the Buffs, who asked him if he would have a drink. He replied “Yes”, and they went into the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street. The soldier left the bicycle against the wall before he went into the house. They had two half pints of beer, and the soldier then asked for a match. As the landlord would not give him one, the soldier became cross. He (defendant) thought there was going to be trouble, so he went out, and the bicycle was then against the wall. He went up Tontine Street, and into the Brewery Tap, where he had a pint of beer. At closing time he went towards his home, and when near the Congregational Church a man, a stranger to him, beckoned from the other side of the street. The man asked him if he wanted to buy a cheap bicycle which he had in his possession. He asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied 15s. The man said he had come from Deal to look for work. He gave him 10s. in gold and 5s. in silver for the cycle. He did not ask the man his name. Defendant also described how the man was dressed, and said he had a respectable appearance.

P.C. Butcher, continuing, said he served the summons on the defendant on the 15th, and read it over to him. He said “I quite understand it. Is it any use me seeing the soldier?”

Cross-examined, witness said the defendant handed over the bicycle to him at once. The Wonder Tavern was near the common lodging houses. He thought the defendant had been in the employ of the Corporation for nine or ten years. He was now a fireman. As far as he knew, the defendant during that time had been of exemplary character. He knew that on the following day the defendant rode the machine about the town.

Defendant elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he was a present a fireman in the employ of the Corporation, in whose employment he had been for ten years. On Friday, July 4th, he was paid 2 4s. 9d. He met the soldier about half past ten. He had some fish and potatoes in the fish shop, and at the soldier's suggestion they went to the Wonder Tavern. When in the public house the soldier asked for a match, and as he did not receive one quickly he became very cross. He (defendant) picked up his beer, which he drank, and left the house. He went into Tontine Street, and went into the Brewery Tap, where he had a pint of beer. There was no-one in there whom he knew. On leaving the house he went towards his home. When near the Congregational Church he saw a man with a bicycle. He beckoned to him and asked if he wanted to buy a cheap bicycle. He eventually paid him 15s. for the bicycle and went home. On the following day he rode over to the Morehall Fire Station on the machine, and returned home upon it.

In reply to the Clerk, defendant said he told his landlady on the following day that he had bought the bicycle. When he came outside the Wonder Tavern there was a bicycle outside. In the Brewery Tap he was served with a pint of beer by a man. He did not know the landlord of the Brewery Tap.

Mr. H.O. Jones, the Chief Officer of the Fire Brigade, said the defendant had borne an exemplary character during the whole of the time he had been in the employ of the Corporation. He remembered seeing Graham on the Saturday twice on the bicycle. He could not identify the bicycle produced as the bicycle the defendant was riding.

In reply to the Chairman, he said he had not seen the man riding the bicycle before.

Lewis Brooks, of 57, St. John's Street, said he was foreman of the Cleansing Department of the Corporation, and since the early part of 1904 the defendant had been under his eye. He gave him an exemplary character. Here had not been a single complaint made against him during that time. He had never seen the defendant the worse for drink.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defendant, who, he said, had acted openly and straightforwardly throughout, and had not attempted in the slightest to alter the appearance of the machine.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates could only come to one conclusion. There was no question that the bicycle was stolen, and within a quarter of an hour the defendant was in possession of it. The law stated that a person in such circumstances had to satisfy the Magistrates how he came by it, and that he came by it in a proper legal manner. They could not accept the defendant's statement, but they were going to deal very leniently with him. He would be bound over to be of good behaviour for twelve months, and to come up for judgement if called upon.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 July 1913.

Tuesday, July 22nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore.

Thomas Graham, a corporation employee, was charged with stealing a bicycle, the property of Pte. Alfred Pankhurst, of the 3rd Buffs. Mr. A.K. Mowll, of Canterbury, defended.

George James Wells, a private in the 3rd Buffs, stated that on the evening of Friday, 4th inst., he was riding the bicycle produced, which had been lent to him by Pte. Pankhurst. He went into a shop in Harbour Street at about 10.45, and saw defendant there. Witness got into conversation with him, and they left the shop together, going to the Wonder Tavern on witness's invitation. They entered the Tavern together, and witness left the bicycle outside on the pavement, leaning against the window sill. Inside the defendant and he had two half pints of beer. It was about four minutes to eleven. Up till then Graham was an entire stranger to witness. He saw him drink some of the beer, and then lost sight of him, his attention being taken from him by the landlord. Turning from the landlord, witness found the defendant was gone.

The Chairman: Who paid for the beer?

Witness: I did. Proceeding, he said he left the house, and found the bicycle had been removed. Shortly afterwards he informed the police. Witness saw the bicycle on the following Sunday evening at the police station, and there identified it. The value was 30s.

Cross-examined, witness said he was certain the machine produced was that lent to him. He was often lent bicycles, and sometimes left them outside places. He had not been drinking all the evening. He had only had four or five half pints.

P.C. Butcher stated that he received information from the last witness respecting the loss of the bicycle, and on the following Sunday saw the defendant on the Walton allotments. Witness told him he was making enquiries respecting a bicycle stolen from outside the Wonder Tavern on the 4th inst., and that he believed he (defendant) was in the company of the soldier who lost the bicycle. He asked whether defendant knew anything about it. Graham said “Well, I bought one in Tontine Street just after eleven on Friday night for 15s.”, adding that he did not know the man he bought it from. He gave witness a detailed description of the man, and said he came from Deal and was looking for work, but wanted to get back to Deal that night. Accused gave a description of the clothing which he said the man was wearing. Witness went to defendant's residence in Darlington Street, where he was shown the bicycle now produced. It was later identified by the owner. Witness saw the defendant again on the Monday, and told him the bicycle had been identified. Accused said he hoped he would not lose his 15s. On the previous day, at the time the bicycle was handed to witness, he took the defendant's statement down in writing, and Graham then signed it. It was made voluntarily. The statement was to the effect that after he left the Wonder Tavern, he went along Tontine Street to the Brewery Tap. There he had something to drink, and at closing time went home. He got as far as the Tontine Congregational Church, when a man whom he did not know beckoned him across the road, and asked him whether he wanted to buy a bicycle. Defendant asked him how much he wanted for it, and the man replied “15s.”. He eventually bought the bicycle from him, and went home on it. The description of the man was that he was about 30 years of age, of middle height, broad shoulders, full face, fresh complexion, and clean shaven: dressed in blue or black jacket, cycling knickers, black leggings and boots; he had on a collar and tie, and looked very respectable. Witness served a summons concerning the charge on defendant on the 17th. He asked whether it was any use his seeing the soldier.

Cross-examined, witness said that defendant was perfectly open about the affair. The Wonder Tavern was in the fishermen's quarter. There were many people about, especially about the time of the public houses closing. Defendant had been in the employ of the Corporation for about ten years, and was at present a fireman. As far as witness knew, during that time he had borne an exemplary character. He had been riding about with the cycle since it had been in his possession.

Accused elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Giving evidence on oath, defendant said that he lived at 6, Darlington Street, and was at present a fireman in the employ of the Corporation. He had been in the employ of the Corporation for about ten years. Friday was pay night, and on the night in question he had 2 4s. 9d. It was about 10.30 when he met the soldier. They went to the Wonder for a drink. The soldier asked for a match, and as he did not get it he became very cross. The landlord said “You are getting very cantankerous”. Defendant thought there was going to be a row, and, saying “Goodnight”, he left the house. He then went to the Brewery Tap, where he stayed until closing time. He then went towards home. He saw a man with a bicycle near the Congregational Church. He beckoned to defendant, and asked whether he wanted to buy a cheap bicycle. Defendant considered what he should do. The man was a perfect stranger. The description he had given of the man was a true one. The next day he rode the bicycle to work at the Morehall fire station. It could be seen. He then went home to breakfast on it, and left it outside the house, and after breakfast rode it back again.

Questioned by the Magistrates' Clerk, defendant said he told his landlady he had bought the machine. A bicycle was standing outside the Wonder Tavern when he left. Witness did not know the landlord of the Brewery Tap, nor the man who served him. He did not know anyone in the bar.

Mr. Harry Oscar Jones, Chief Officer of the Folkestone Fire Brigade stated that defendant had been in the Corporation employ for some years, and during that time had borne an exemplary character. Defendant was appointed a probationary fireman when witness became Chief Officer. Witness saw the defendant on a bicycle at about 8.30 a.m. on Saturday going in the direction of his work. At about 1 o'clock on the same day he again saw defendant on a bicycle. Witness could not identify that produced as the one in question.

Questioned by the Bench, witness stated that he had never seen defendant on a bicycle before.

In answer to the Magistrates' Clerk, Mr. Jones said that during the time defendant had been a dustman he had ample opportunity of entering houses of all kinds. There had been no complaints.

Mr. Lewis Brooks, of 5, St. John's Street, foreman of the cleansing department of the Corporation, said defendant had been under his eye since the early part of 1904. For 8 years he had been refuse collector, and during that time he had borne an exemplary character. He had never seen him the worse for drink. During the whole of that time there had been no complaints.

The Bench retired for a few minutes to consider the case, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench had come to the only possible conclusion. There was no doubt that the bicycle was stolen, and within a quarter of an hour afterwards the accused had it in his possession. They could not accept his statement, but they would deal with him leniently. He would be bound over for twelve months.

The Magistrates' Clerk: In the meantime this will not rank as a conviction.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 November 1913.

Wednesday, November 26th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

Permission was given for some alterations in connection with the entrance to the Wonder Inn to be carried out.

 

Folkestone Express 6 June 1914.

Tuesday, June 2nd: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, and J.J. Giles Esq.

John Prendergast was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Cradduck said at 9.45 the previous night he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Wonder Tavern. He immediately began to shout and use obscene language, and then came across to him (witness) and put himself in a fighting attitude. He requested him to desist and told him to go home He refused to do so, and said no ---- policeman would take him. He (witness) eventually took prisoner into custody. Prendergast came up to him, started quarrelling with him, and wanted to fight.

The Chief Constable said the man was on a ship in the harbour.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He had only come into harbour the previous day.

Fined 2/6 and 4/6 costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 December 1914.

Friday, December 18th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, and Col. G.P. Owen.

An application was made for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, to Mr. Charles Henry Fiske.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said there was no objection, but he hoped the applicant would be able to keep the house in order; he was rather young.

The Magistrates granted the application.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Col. G.P. Owen.

The transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, to Mr. Charles Henry Fiske, was sanctioned.

 

Folkestone Express 15 May 1915.

Monday, May 10th: Before G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, and W.J. Harrison Esqs., Alderman Dunk, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Charles Manning was charged with assaulting Stephen Edward Gould, barman at the Wonder Tavern. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. H.J. Myers said he was instructed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association to prosecute, and he was asked to request the Bench to regard that case in a rather serious light. As they were aware, there were a great number of military as well as civilians in the town, and licence holders had a difficult task to perform. They were desirous to assist the police as much as possible. On Saturday evening the landlord wished to keep the public bar as select as possible. On Saturday evening the prisoner went into the house and was supplied with a pint of beer. He was perfectly sober. He remained in the house for about an hour, and after time had been called the assault took place, the prisoner smashing a glass full into Gould's face. The prisoner was then given in charge and Gould was taken to the Victoria Hospital, where he was detained until Sunday evening. His injuries included a fractured nose and a cut artery. He asked the Magistrates, in consideration of the times in which they were living, to impose a severe penalty to prevent a recurrence of such a dastardly outrage.

Stephen Edward Gould, whose face was covered with bandages, said he was barman to Mr. Fisk, the licence holder of the Wonder Tavers. On Saturday evening the prisoner came into the bar at seven o'clock and called for a pint of beer. He was quite sober, so he was served. He could not say whether the prisoner had any other drink, but he did not serve him with any. When closing time came at eight o'clock he saw the prisoner still in the public bar, and he said “Come along, Charlie. Time. Don't make a meal of your beer”. Manning answered in an objectionable tone, so he said “Come along, time is time”. The prisoner drunk up what was in his glass, and then got the glass in his hand and deliberately threw it at him, and said “Take that, you ----“. The glass was broken, and Mr. Fisk picked up the pieces off the floor. He was eventually taken to the hospital, where he was detained until five o'clock on Sunday evening. He had three stitches put in his nose, and a vein had been cut, while he had several small cuts over his eyes. He did not strike the defendant, and he did not provoke the assault in any way.

The Clerk: How far off was he when he threw the glass?

Witness: Not above an arm's length away. In reply to further questions, he said they were both of them on the public side of the counter. He had known the prisoner previously, and about a month ago there had been a little trouble with the prisoner when he was the worse for drink. There had been no ill-blood between them since. All he did on Saturday evening was to ask the prisoner to drink up his beer. Manning was quite sober at eight o'clock, and there was no difference in his demeanour then than when he came in. Prisoner, during the time he was in the house, was chatting with his friends and his wife. He had not been excited or quarrelsome.

Charles Henry Fisk, the licensee of the Wonder Tavern, said he saw the defendant on Saturday night about seven o'clock, when he came into the bar perfectly sober. At eight o'clock Manning was also sober. The barman did not provoke the defendant in any way. The glass was broken by the force of the blow. Prisoner's wife was with him. He did not serve Manning with any drink. Gould was in charge of the bar.

Prisoner said he spent 2/6 on beer in the house.

Gould, re-called, said he only received threepence from the prisoner all the evening. He was sure he did not serve Manning more than once, but he served the man's wife with a pint once or twice.

Manning said he did not know anything about it, as he was drunk.

P.C. Holland said he was on duty in Beach Street on Saturday evening about eight o'clock when he was called by Mr. Fisk, who gave Manning into custody for striking his barman. At that time the prisoner was out in the street. He brought the prisoner to the police station, where he was charged with assaulting the man, and made no reply. The man was sober. He certainly appeared to have been drinking, but he was not drunk. Manning spoke to him quite sensibly coming up the High Street. He would not say the prisoner was the worse for drink, but he would say he was sober. He appeared to be a little excited, but he could not say whether it was through drink or not.

Mrs. Manning asked to give evidence on behalf of her husband. She said she was in the house at six o'clock, when she called her husband, who was very, very drunk, out. He was then having a row with a woman. She then said to the barman she thought they had all been in the sun. She was not living with her husband, but went and looked after him wherever he was. Both the woman and her husband were drunk. She got him home and made him have something to eat, after which he got her some coals in. She went back with her husband to the Wonder about seven o'clock, and he was very drunk then. She remained in the house with him until eight o'clock. She had not been with him thirty years but what she knew when he was drunk or sober.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said in consequence of that statement he thought it was only fair that Inspector Lawrence should be called to give evidence. The woman's statement was an absolute falsehood.

The Chairman said he quite agreed the Inspector should be called.

Inspector Lawrence said at ten minutes past seven on Saturday evening he was in front of the Wonder Tavern. He looked in the bar, and everything was then quiet. Just afterwards he was in front of the Tavern with P.C. Holland when he saw the prisoner come down Dover Street and go into the Wonder. He was then as sober as he was that morning. It was an absolute lie from beginning to end what the woman said.

The Clerk: Was he drunk or sober?

Inspector Lawrence: He was perfectly sober. The man was as sober as he is now. He walked straight down the road.

The Clerk: Did you see any more of him?

Inspector Lawrence: I did not.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were several convictions against the prisoner, three being last year, twice in 1913, and once in 1912. On the 30th of April he was fined at Seabrook for being in possession of Government property.

The Chairman said the Magistrates looked upon that as a very serious case. The licensed victuallers had got a very grave duty to perform, and a great task in trying to keep their houses orderly. The Magistrates thought they did try to do that to the best of their ability, and they looked upon that case as a very grave one, and a most unprovoked assault. The prisoner would go to prison for two months with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1915.

Local News.

A very dangerous attack upon a barman with a glass was described at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday morning, when Charles Manning, a labourer, was charged with assaulting Edward Gould. The case was heard by Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J. Stainer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Alderman W. Dunk, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. H.J. Myers, who appeared for the prosecution, said he was instructed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and he was requested to ask the Bench to regard the case as a very serious one. There was in the town at present a great number of military. At the Wonder Tavern, the landlord, who had been there for some time, desired to assist the police as much as possible and to keep the public bar as select as possible. Mr. Myers outlined the evidence, and said the barman's injuries were a partly fractured nose and a cut artery, and in addition he lost a quantity of blood. In consideration of the times, he asked the Bench to inflict a severe penalty to prevent a recurrence of such a dastardly outrage.

Ed. Gould, whose face was almost entirely swathed in bandages, said he was employed at the Wonder Tavern as a barman. On Saturday evening, about seven o'clock, prisoner came into the public bar and asked for a pint of beer, with which witness served him. He was sober. The house was busy, and witness could not say whether prisoner had any other drink. At closing time, eight o'clock, accused was still in the bar, and witness said to him “Come along, Charlie. Time. Don't make a meal of it”. Prisoner said “You are in a ---- hurry, ain't you?” Witness said “Come along. Time's time”. Prisoner drank the rest of his beer that he had in the glass, and then deliberately threw the glass at witness, saying “Take that, you ----“. It was a pint glass, and it broke as it was thrown. (Fragments of the glass were produced) Witness went to a doctor, and then to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where he was detained from that evening until five o'clock the previous afternoon. He described his injuries, and said the blood from the cut artery ran all over his clothes. He did not strike the prisoner at all, or provoke the assault in any way.

By the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Prisoner was about an arm's length away when he threw the glass; they were both on the public side of the counter. Prisoner was a regular customer, and about a month ago there had been a little trouble with him when he was the worse for drink, but there had been no ill-blood between witness and accused since then. Prisoner was sober at eight o'clock; there was no difference in his demeanour from what it was when he came in.

Charles Henry Fisk, the licensee of the Wonder Tavern, said he saw prisoner about seven o'clock; defendant was perfectly sober. Witness saw him at intervals during the evening until closing time, when he appeared to be quite sober. At eight o'clock he was still sober. Witness noticed what passed between prisoner and the barman. The latter did not provoke the defendant in any way or strike him. It was quite an unprovoked assault. There was no more than a yard between them when the glass was thrown. The glass broke with the impact on the barman's face. Prisoner's wife was with him, and was drinking. She was drinking out of her husband's pint as far as he could see. He did not know whether she was served.

Prisoner said he spent half a crown in the bar between his wife and himself.

Witness said he did not know anything about that.

The barman Gould, re-called, said he only served prisoner with one pint. He served prisoner's wife once or twice with pints.

Prisoner said he did not know anything about the assault; he was drunk.

P.C. Hollands said the landlord gave prisoner into his custody. When charged at the police station accused made no reply. He was sober. He certainly appeared to have been drinking, but he was not drunk, for he spoke to witness quite sensibly coming up the High Street. He appeared to be excited, but witness could not say whether it was drink or excitement.

Prisoner's wife, giving evidence, said she went into the Wonder Tavern about six o'clock. She found her husband there drunk. He was having a row with a woman, who was also drunk. Her husband was absolutely drunk. She took her husband home and made him have something to eat. That was at seven o'clock. At five minutes past seven she went back to the tavern with her husband. She was not there when the glass was thrown. He was very drunk. She had not lived with him for thirty years not to know when he was drunk or sober.

The Chief Constable said in consequence of the statement made by prisoner's wife he thought it was only fair to the licensee that Inspector Lawrence should be called. What the woman had said was an absolute falsehood.

Inspector Lawrence said that at ten minutes past seven he was on the corner in front of the Wonder Tavern. He had looked in the tavern just before, and all was quiet in there. As he was standing in front of the tavern he saw prisoner come down Dover Street and go into the tavern. He was alone and was walking straight. What the accused's wife had said was an absolute lie from beginning to end. Prisoner was perfectly sober. He was as sober as he was now as far as witness could see.

The Chief Constable said there were several convictions against prisoner for drunkenness, assault, begging, and using obscene language, while at Seabrook Police Court last month he was fined for being in possession of Government property.

The Chairman said the Bench looked upon the case as a very serious one. Licensed victuallers had a difficult task to perform in trying to keep their houses orderly, but they did it. There was no doubt that they tried to the best of their ability in Folkestone. The assault was entirely unprovoked. Prisoner would be sentenced to two months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Monday, June 21st: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Courtenay Lewis Williams was charged with wilfully breaking a plate glass window in the Wonder Tavern on Saturday evening. Mr. H.J. Myers prosecuted on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Charles Edward Fisk, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, said on Saturday the defendant came into the private bar the worse for drink. He refused to serve him, and the prisoner declined to leave the house. He (witness) went to the public side of the bar, and when Williams again refused to go out he ejected him. He bolted the door, and immediately after the glass panel in the door was broken. He went outside the house by the private door, and then saw the prisoner with his hands on the window sash where the glass had been broken. The value of the glass panel was 2 8s. 6d.

Tom Smith, a labourer, said he was in the private bar of the Wonder Tavern about 5.45 on Saturday evening when he saw the prisoner come in. The landlord asked Williams to go out, but the man refused. Eventually the man was ejected, and the door bolted on him. Immediately he saw a shadow come up to the glass panel, which was then broken. The glass fell in the bar, and Williams caught hold of the framework. He could not swear whether the man's foot, fist or shoulder broke the window.

Prisoner said unfortunately he had too much to drink. He denied that he broke the window wilfully, but it was done when he was being ejected. He put his foot on the door to prevent being thrown out, and it slipped through the glass. He wanted to go straight, and he was sorry it had happened.

Inspector Simpson said there were eleven previous convictions against the prisoner, but none for drunkenness or wilful damage.

Fined 5/-, and ordered to pay the damage, 2 8s. 6d., a fortnight being allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 June 1915.

Monday, June 21st: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and Col. G.P. Owen.

Courtenay Lewis Williams was charged with wilfully breaking a plate glass window, value 2 8s. 6d., at the Wonder Tavern, North Street (sic), on Saturday afternoon.

Mr. H.J. Myers appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

The Bench fined accused 5s., and the cost of the damage, or 14 days', a fortnight being allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 24 July 1915.

Monday, July 5th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Col. G.P. Owen, Alderman C. Jenner, and H.C. Kirke Esq.

Annie Matilda Williams, 54, no fixed abode, was charged with having stolen a child's coat, value 7/-.

Thomas Wright, of 8, Beach Street, a refreshment house keeper, said the prisoner came to his shop on the evening of July 15th, and whilst she was in the kitchen he gave her some tea and cake. She remained there about twenty minutes and then left. Shortly after her departure he missed a child's coat from a peg on the wall near where she had been sitting. He saw it there while the accused was in the room. On Saturday he accompanied Inspector Lawrence to the Wonder Tavern, and there saw the prisoner. The coat was worth 7/-.

Mrs. L.F. Lynch, of 7, Martello Terrace, Sandgate, said on Friday evening, about 7 o'clock, she met the accused in High Street, Sandgate, and, taking her home, gave her a cup of tea. She appeared to be very distressed, and said she wanted to go to Ashford. The coat produced was wrapped in an apron, and she said she desired to sell it for a few coppers. She asked 8d. for it, and witness gave her 1/-, receiving 4d. change. She said she had had the coat given to her.

The Clerk: And you believed her?

Witness: Oh, yes. I was very sorry for her. Proceeding, she said subsequently the little girl Wright came and identified the coat, and witness handed it to Inspector Lawrence.

Inspector Lawrence said on Saturday he accompanied the first witness to the Wonder Tavern, where he saw the accused in the bar. He called her outside and cautioned her. He said “I am making inquiries about a child's coat that was stolen from 8, Beach Street. I want you to come to the police station while I make further inquiries”. She replied “I don't know anything about a coat stolen on Thursday; I only came into the town last night, walking here from London to try and get some hop picking”. When formally charged at the police station she said “To tell the truth, I took it because I was hungry and starving”.

Prisoner elected to have the case dealt with summarily. She declared that she had not stolen the coat, but that she picked it up from the floor thinking it was a blouse.

Mr. Wright, re-called, said he took pity on the woman, and gave her a good meal, including eggs and bacon.

Sentenced to a month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 July 1915.

Monday, July 19th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Annie Matilda Williams was charged with stealing a child's coat, value 7s., from 8, Beach Street, on Thursday, July 15th.

Thomas Wright, of 8, Beach Street, an eating house keeper, said prisoner came to his shop on July 15th, between 7 and 8 p.m. Whilst in the kitchen he gave her some tea and cake. She remained about twenty minutes, and then left the house. Shortly after she had left witness missed the coat produced from a peg on the wall near where she had been seated. He had seen it there while she was in the kitchen. On Saturday witness accompanied Inspector Lawrence to the Wonder Tavern. He there saw the prisoner and pointed her out. The value of the coat was 7s.

Mrs. Louisa Frances Lynch, of 7, Martello Terrace, Sandgate, said she met prisoner in High Street, Sandgate, on Friday, about 7 o'clock, with another woman. Witness took her to her house and gave her a cup of tea. She was very distressed, and said she had lost her son. She cried, and said she wanted to get her fare to Ashford. She had the coat produced wrapped up in an apron, and said she would like to sell It for a few coppers. She asked eightpence for it. Witness gave her the money, and ultimately prisoner left in company with another woman. Prisoner said she had had the coat given to her. Witness felt very sorry for her. The same evening, a little girl named Wright came to the house and identified the coat, which later witness handed to Inspector Lawrence.

Inspector Lawrence said that on Saturday he accompanied Mr. Wight to the Wonder Tavern, where he saw the prisoner seated in the bar. Witness called her outside and cautioned her. He told her he was making inquiries about the theft of the coat. She replied, “I don’t know anything about a coat stolen on Thursday. I only came into the town last night. I walked here from London to try and get some hop-picking.” He detained her, and later went to Sandgate, where he received the coat from Mrs. Lynch. When charged, prisoner said, ‘To tell you the truth, I took it, because I was hungry and starving”.

Prisoner said she took the coat from the floor. She was very sorry.

Mr. Wright, re-called, said she came into his place in a distressed condition, and said her son was wounded. He gave her a meal, including eggs and bacon.

Inspector Simpson said she was a stranger to the locality.

Sentence of one month's hard labour was passed.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday (Thursday), before. Lieut. Col. Fynmore and other magistrates, Charles Henry Fisk, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations by serving a soldier awaiting embarkation. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended.

P.S. Sales said at 7.20 on the 1st inst. he, in company with P.C. Kennett, visited the Wonder Tavern. In the bar facing the Queen's Square there were a number of soldiers. One soldier was drinking beer out of a pint glass. He questioned the man, and from what he told him he called the defendant, who was behind the bar. Witness said to him “This man is an Imperial soldier, and he tells me he is staying at the rest camp for the purpose of embarking”, He replied “How are we to know? He has no equipment on”. He told him he would report him, and the defendant said “They ought not to let these men out. We have quite enough trouble to deal with the Canadians”. The soldier had the badge of the Scottish Rifles in his cap, but there was nothing to lead anyone to think that he was an Imperial soldier except the badge.

P.C. Kennett corroborated.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said that was an extremely difficult thing for the licensee. It was the desire of every licensee to comply with such orders as the military thought it was advisable to make for the well-being of H.M. Forces. Of course, strictly speaking, the Order was an absolute prohibition. If they were going to deal with that matter strictly, then strictly speaking, the question of knowledge on the part of the licensee did not enter into the case. There was no evidence before the Court that the name of the soldier on the summons was that of a soldier at Folkestone for the purpose of embarkation. It was true that the man might have said so, but it was doubtful whether the landlord heard him say so. The soldier might even have come from the front, or from any training ground in England for all they knew, It was incumbent on the prosecution to prove their case. There must be definite and distinct evidence, not that the man said he was there for embarkation, but that he was there for that purpose. There was certainly no evidence as to that.

The Chairman said the evidence did not warrant a conviction. The Magistrates quite agreed with Mr. Mowll that the Order was really an absolute prohibition, so that the licence holders must be very careful indeed. The case would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1916.

Thursday, March 9th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Charles Henry Fisk, of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned for selling beer to Private T. Smith, of the 2nd Scottish Rifles, whilst he was waiting to embark for France. Mr. Mowll defended.

Sergt. Sales said at 7.20 p.m. on the 1st inst., in company with P.C. Kennett, he visited the Wonder Tavern. After questioning a soldier who was drinking beer, he said to defendant “This man is an Imperial soldier, and he tells me he is staying here for the purpose of embarking for France. You served him with liquor”. Defendant replied “Yes. How are we to know these men are going across? He has no equipment on”.

Cross-examined, witness said apart from the Canadian soldier, there was a number of Imperial soldiers deployed in the town.

P.C. Kennett corroborated.

Mr. Mowll said it was an extremely difficult order, which was an absolute prohibition, for a licensee to comply with. There had been no evidence that Smith was a soldier at Folkestone for the purpose of embarkation.

The Chairman said the Magistrates felt the evidence did not justify a conviction. They quite agreed with Mr. Mowll there was an absolute prohibition, so licensees must be very careful indeed. The case would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 18 November 1916.

Tuesday, September 14th: Before Alderman Spurgen and other Magistrates.

William Isaac Hudd and Pte. Fredk. Graves were summoned for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the former for supplying a pint of beer to a member of H.M. Forces who was undergoing hospital treatment, and the latter for wilfully procuring the beer. Mr. H.J. Myers appeared for Hudd and pleaded Not Guilty. Graves admitted the infraction.

Corporal Wilson, C.M.P., said on Nov. 1st he visited the Wonder Tavern with Corporal Jones, of the Imperials. In the bar they saw Private Graves, before whom was a pint glass more than half full of beer. He noticed that this man was wearing the hospital blue uniform, and placed him under arrest. The soldier drank the beer in witness's presence. Hudd, when spoken to, said it was none of witness's business. He (witness) was not at the time wearing his police badge. After he told him he was a military policeman, Hudd threatened to kick him out of the house.

By Mr. Myers (for Hudd): The bar of the Wonder Tavern was not rather dark. There were about eight persons in the bar at the time. Anyone standing three yards from graves could have seen that he was a hospital patient, because the blue uniform was showing at the wrist and the neck. Graves did not say that Hudd was not to blame. Graves was doing duty at the hospital.

Corporal Richard Jones, of the Military Police, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. He said he had no difficulty whatever in seeing that Graves was wearing a hospital uniform.

Corporal Robinson, C.M.P., said he was standing outside the Wonder Tavern, and when Graves came out witness noticed that he was a hospital patient. Graves had taken off his puttees in the bar.

Corporal George Marshall, of the West Cliff Hospital, formally proved that Graves was a patient there on November 1st.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Myers at once called for Mr. Hudd, manager of the Wonder Tavern, who said on November 1st he was on duty in the bar, which was shaded by the bridges of the railway. The counter was 4ft. high. Graves came in and called for a drink, but witness noticed nothing whatever about him. He was wearing an overcoat and had puttees on, and witness saw no trace of blue uniform. Witness always took particular notice of soldiers, because he knew it was an offence to serve a hospital patient. When the first Corporal came in and spoke about the matter, witness asked how was he to know Graves was a hospital patient when he (the Corporal) had to ask for his pass. Witness went on to deny that he threatened to kick the Corporal out the bar.

Re-examined, witness said the man disguised himself.

Graves also went into the box. He said that was the first occasion he had been in the house. He put his overcoat collar well up, and he turned up the sleeves of his blue coat. It was impossible for the man behind the bar to see his blue uniform. He put puttees on to make sure of his uniform being hid.

Private Milne, R.D.C., said he went into the bar, being preceded by Graves, who went up to the counter. He did not notice anything about Graves, who was dressed like an ordinary soldier. There was nothing to show that the man was a hospital patient.

Jeremiah Shea, 52, Beach Street, said he was in the bar on November 1st between two and a quarter past two, when he saw Graves come in, and he could not see anything to suggest that the man was a hospital patient.

Cross-examined, witness said he really did not know the number of the house where he resided. It might be that the street was Radnor Street, and not Beach Street.

Elizabeth Comboy, a charwoman at the Wonder Tavern, gave similar evidence.

The Chairman said Graves had pleaded Guilty, and he would be fined 20/-. He hoped he would not do that sort of thing again. The case against Hudd would be dismissed on payment of the costs (5/-). The Magistrates hoped it would be a warning to him an the other licence holders to keep a sharp lookout.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 November 1916.

Tuesday, November 14th: Before Alderman Spurgen and other Magistrates.

Wm. Isaac Hudd, manager of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, for supplying drink to a wounded soldier, and Fredk. Graves, a Canadian soldier, for procuring the commission of the act. Hudd, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. H.J. Myers. Graves pleaded Guilty.

Corpl. Wilson, Military Police, said he and Corpl. Jones visited the Wonder Tavern on November 1st and he saw Graves standing at the bar with a glass of beer before him. As he was wearing hospital uniform, witness took him into custody. He saw Graves drink some of the beer. Hudd was serving in the bar, and on witness speaking to him about serving the man with beer, he said “Yes, but it's none of your business”. Hudd threatened to kick him out of the place.

By Mr. Myers: The bar was not particularly dark at the time, and he could not say the counter was higher than was usual with bar counters. Graves wore a khaki overcoat with the collar turned partly up. He thought anyone could have seen Graves was a hospital patient. Grave did not tell him that he muffled himself up and put puttees on to get a drink, and that Hudd was not to blame.

Corpl. Jones, M.P., corroborated.

Corpl. Robertson stated that he saw defendant Graves leave the tavern, and could see at once that he was a hospital patient.

Corpl. Marshall, of the west Cliff Hospital, said Graves was a hospital patient at the time in question.

Defendant Hudd, on oath, said the room was shaded by the bridges of the railway, and the bar was very high. Graves was dressed in an overcoat buttoned up to the neck, and was wearing puttees. When the Corporal asked fro Graves's pass, the soldier said “I have no pass. I am a hospital patient”. Graves added that he had muffled himself up to get a drink, and that witness was not in any way to blame, as it could not be known he was a hospital patient.

By the Chief Constable: He served Graves with a pint of beer. Witness could see nothing of the blue uniform at all.

Graves said he put his overcoat and puttees on, and turned the cuffs of his blue tunic so that they would not protrude. It would be impossible for any person behind the bar to see he was in blue uniform.

Pte. Milne, of the Royal Defence Corps, stated that he was in the bar when Graves was. He could not see that graves was a hospital patient.

Jeremiah Shea, Radnor Street gave similar evidence, as did Elizabeth Comboy, a charwoman employed at the Wonder Tavern.

Graves was fined 20s., the case against Hudd being dismissed on payment of costs.

 

Folkestone Express 24 July 1920.

Local News.

The Borough Magistrates on Tuesday sanctioned the following temporary transfer of licence: Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, from Mr. C.H. Fisk to Mr. William Maskell.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 July 1920.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, the licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Chas. Henry Fisk to Mr. Wm. Maskell.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1920.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Councillor Boyd, Councillor Harrison, Rev. Epworth Thompson, Col. Owen, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Mr. Blamey.

The following transfer of licence was granted: The Wonder Tavern, from Mr. C.H. Fisk to Mr. W. Maskell.

 

Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer 2 August 1924.

AIR MECHANIC KILLED.

George William Maskell, leading air-craftsman, has been killed at Netheravon, Wilts., as a result of an aeroplane smash. Deceased was the eldest son of Mr. and Mrs. W. Maskell, of the "Wonder Tavern," Folkestone. He was 22 years of age, and had been eight years in the Service.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald 9 August 1924.

AIRMAN'S FUNERAL. BURIED WITH MILITARY HONOURS AT FOLKESTONE.

The remains of the late Leading Aircraftsman George William Maskell (whose death through an aeroplane crash was recorded in last week's "Herald") were interred with military honours in the Folkestone Cemetery on Tuesday, the Vicar of St. Michael's (the Rev. C. H. Griffith) officiating.

The remains were placed on a gun carriage which was preceded by an escort of Members of the Royal Air Force from the Hawkinge aerodrome. The chief mourners were the parents, Stephen and Bessie (brother and sister), Miss Williams, Mrs. Tunbridge (grandmother), Mr. S. Tunbridge (uncle), Mr. and Mrs. F. Tunbridge (uncle and aunt), Mr. and Mrs. Calloway (uncle and aunt), and Mr. King.

George William Maskell was the son of licensee William Maskell.

 

Folkestone Express 28 August 1926.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. A. Stace, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. Broome-Giles.

Mary Ann Williams was charged with being been drunk and disorderly on Tuesday, and she pleaded guilty.

P.C. Finn said that at 9.30 p.m. he was in Beach Street, when he was called by the landlady of the Wonder public house, to a woman in the public bar who was creating a disturbance. He went there, and saw prisoner, who was drunk, having an altercation with a man. He asked her to leave, and with assistance he ejected her. She went into the Jubilee public house, where he stopped her being served, and she was ejected. She then went into the Oddfellows, and became violent, and made use of filthy language. With assistance he took her to the police station.

Defendant: I am very sorry that it occurred again, and I hope you will lenient with me.

The Clerk: I think I have heard you say that about twenty times.

Defendant: I lost control of my mind.

Do you belong to the Army now? – Yes. I belong to it still.

The Clerk: I don’t know whether you want the list of her convictions; it is as long my arm.

Inspector Pittock said the last occasion was on the 7th July last year.

The Clerk: And I think the Army probably got hold of her again.

Mr. A.D.Z. Holmes (Police Court Missioner) said defendant had had one lapse, and after the numerous number of convictions it was not easy for her to go straightall at once. If the Magistrates could see their way to be lenient with her he would interview the Army officials himself. He understood trade had not been very good lately, and he thought the woman had had a serious temptation.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were very pleased to hear defendant had not been before them so frequently this last year or two. They would give her another chance and adjourn the case for a month to see how she went on, and they hoped she would continue with the Salvation Army, and turn over a new leaf. She had one more chance.

Defendant was bound over in the sum of 5 to appear in a month's time.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1926.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. A. Stace, Dr. W.W. Nottall, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

Mary Ann Williams was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street on Tuesday.

P.S. Thorne said at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday evening he was in Beach Street, when he was called to the public bar at the Wonder Tavern. Prisoner was there, and she was drunk. He asked her to leave, but she refused to do so. He had her ejected. Prisoner then went to the Jubilee Inn, where he again had her ejected. Then prisoner went to the Oddfellows Inn, where she became abusive. He took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry, and that it would not occur again.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I have heard you say that twenty times. Turning to the Magistrates, Mr. Andrew said: You do not want the list of previous convictions, I suppose? It is as long as my arm.

Mr. A.D.Z. Holmes (the Police Court Missionary) said since joining the Salvation Army the prisoner had only had one lapse, and that was in July last year. It was not easy for the prisoner to go straight at once. He would interview the Salvation Army officials.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were glad to hear that the prisoner had not been so frequently before them as she used to be. They were going to give her another chance. The case would be adjourned for one month to see how she got on. If she behaved herself during that time they would very probably not punish her. The Magistrates hoped she would continue her association with the Salvation Army.

 

Folkestone Express 13 September 1930.

Saturday, September 6th: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. W. Griffin, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

Julia Donovan, an elderly woman, of the Bowling Green Lodging House, Dover, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Kennett said at 7.30 p.m. on the previous evening he was called to the Wonder Tavern public house in Beach Street. He saw the prisoner drunk in the public bar. The licensee requested her to leave, and she refused to go away. He (witness) advised her to go away, and she did so. At 7.45 p.m. he saw her again in High Street, where she was using foul language and was surrounded by a crowd. She went into another public house and came out again. She said “It takes ten ---- policemen to lock me up in Dover”. With the assistance of P.C. Simpson he brought her to the police station.

Prisoner said she promised it would never occur again.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): She has not been in custody before. I think that from the evidence the beer and the police at Folkestone are stronger than at Dover.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Has she been in Dover long?

The Chief Constable: No, not long. She is on her way to the hop field now, I understand.

The Chairman: You admit that you have behaved badly?

Prisoner: Yes, but I will never do it again. For Gawd's sake give me this chance, please.

The Chairman: The Bench have decided to allow you to go.

Prisoner: Thank you, kind gentlemen.

The Chairman: You will leave the town, of course.

Prisoner: Yes sir, thank you, I will.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 September 1930.

Local News.

Julia Donovan, of Dover, an elderly woman, was charged at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Kennett said that at 7.30 p.m. the previous day he was called to the Wonder Tavern, where he saw the prisoner in the public bar. She refused to leave the premises at the landlord's request. Witness advised her to go away and she did so. At 7.45 he saw prisoner again in the High Street. There was a large crowd round her and she walked into the Earl Grey public house. He spoke to her and she said “It takes 10 ---- policemen to lock me up in Dover”. With the assistance of P.C. Simpson he brought her to the police station.

Prisoner tearfully said it would never occur again.

The Chief Constable said Donovan had never been in custody before. From the evidence he thought both the beer and the police at Folkestone were stronger than at Dover. He understood prisoner was on her way to the hop fields at the time.

When the Chairman (Colonel G.P. Owen) informed prisoner that she could go on condition that she left the town, she said “Thank you, kindly. Good morning”.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 January 1941.

Local News.

On Wednesday the licence of the Wonder Inn was transferred from Mrs. Maskell to Mr. A.E. Fullagar, Secretary of Messrs. Fremlins Ltd., of Maidstone.

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

Note: This transfer is not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald 24 September 1932.

WEDDING BELLS - MISS B. V. MASKELL - MR. R. STEPTOE.

The wedding of Miss Bessie Violet Maskell, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. William Maskell, of the "Wonder Tavern," Beach Street, Folkestone, to Richard Steptoe, son of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Steptoe, of Higgins College, Northfleet, took place at Christ Church, Folkestone, on September 11th. The Vicar (the Rev. C. Stonehouse) officiated.

The bride, who was given away by her father, looked very charming in a dress of silk crepe suede and carrying a bouquet of red roses. Her bridesmaid, Miss Ruby Steptoe (sister of the bridegroom) wore a blue crepe-de-chine dress.

Mr. Stephen Arnold Maskell (brother of the bride) carried out the duties of best man.

A reception was held at the "Wonder Tavern," after which Mr. and Mrs. Richard Steptoe left for a honeymoon in Ilfracombe.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 January 1946.

Local News.

On Christmas day the death occurred of Mr. George William Prior, of 6, Bonsor Road, Folkestone, one of the oldest and best-known licensed victuallers in the district. He was 80. Mr. Prior was born on a farm at Preston, near Dumpton Park, Kent, and was only seven when he began work on a milk round.

He came to Folkestone 51 years ago, and opened a restaurant in Beach Street. Later he acquired the licence of the Wonder Tavern, which was demolished by a land mine in 1940. In 1901 he left the Wonder to take over the licence of the Ship Inn, which he held until 1938, when it was transferred to his son. Altogether Mr. Prior had been in the licensed trade for 42 years, and for some years was Chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. His hobbies included gardening and rough shooting. Mr. Prior, who had been a widower for 31 years, leaves two sons and two daughters.

The funeral took place at Folkestone Cemetery, Cheriton Road, last Friday.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1956.

Notice.

In the County of Kent, Borough 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 sighting 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

Last pub licensee had BOORN John Whittingham 1863-69 Next pub licensee had Bastions

RHODES Henry 1870-72 (age 55 in 1871Census) Bastions

CARPENTER Daniel 1872-75 Bastions

BOND John 1875-78 Bastions

BOND Rhoda 1878-80 Bastions

LASLETT George 1880-93 Bastions

LASLETT Jane 1893-94 Bastions

PRIOR George William 1894-1901+ Next pub licensee had (age 35 in 1901Census)

BORLAND William 1901 Bastions

CHESTER Henry 1901-02 Bastions

JEFFREY Henry 1902-03 Bastions

MATTHEW John 1903-05 Bastions

STEGGALL Frederick 1905-06 Bastions

PINCHERS Mrs 1906 Bastions

COHN Samuel 1906-09 Bastions

FITALL Robert 1909-14 Bastions

FISKE Charles 1914-20 Bastions

MASKELL William 1920-40+ Bastions

FULLAGER A E 1941 (Protection)

 

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room