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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 4½d. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 11½d. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.