DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, January, 2023.

Page Updated:- Monday, 09 January, 2023.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1845

York Hotel

Latest 1852

Dover Road

Folkestone

 

Only open from between 1845 and 1852 as far as I am aware and eventually turned into a Prep School and eventually a Temperance Hotel that I believe was still in operation in 1912.

 

Maidstone Gazette 16 September 1845.

The new hotel near the railway station is now completed and opened for business, under the management of Mr. Paceman. It is called The York Hotel.

 

Dover Chronicle 29 November 1845.

Advertisement: Under the patronage of the principal inhabitants of Folkestone, Dover and Sandgate. Folkestone winter subscription balls.

The public are respectfully informed that a series of Winter subscription balls will be held at the York Hotel, Folkestone, on the second Thursdays in the months of December, January, and February.

Season tickets (to admit two) 21s., Single tickets – Gentlemen 7s., Ladies 5s., which may be had of Mr. Stock, Library, High Street, or at the York Hotel, Folkestone.

 

South Eastern Gazette, Tuesday 2 December 1845.

Maidstone Gazette 2 December 1845

Under the patronage of the principal inhabitants of Folkestone, Dover, and Sandgate.

Folkestone Winter Subscription Balls.

The public are respectfully informed that a series of Winter Subscription Balls will be given at the "York Hotel," Folkestone, on the 2nd Thursday of December, January, and February.

Season tickets (to admit 2) 21s.; single tickets, gentlemen 7s, ladies 5s.; which may be had of Mr. Stock, Library, High Street, or at
the "York Hotel," Folkestone.

The first ball will take place on Thursday, Dec 11th.

 

Canterbury Journal 13 January 1849.

The Borough Quarter Sessions were held on Monday before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

James Griggs was indicted for stealing a basket of game from the railway station.

From the evidence of William Nairns, the prosecutor, it appeared that a basket of game was brought down to Folkestone by him, and was placed in the care of the omnibus driver, Laker. On arriving at the "York Hotel" the parcel was missed. The prisoner was close by with a fly when the basket was lost, and, with the contents, was subsequently found in his bedroom.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he found the basket in his omnibus, and that it did not contain anything; it was lying in his stable for three weeks, when he took it home.

Six months' hard labour.

 

Kentish Gazette 29 May, 1849.

York Hotel, Folkestone; To be sold by auction, by Mr. H. Bird, on Wednesday, June 6th, 1849; All the household furniture, bar and house fittings, at the "York Hotel," Dover Road, Folkestone.

The Bar and House Fittings comprise a six-motion spirit fountain, with oval spirit casks, pipes, and taps; an excellent four-motion beer engine with pipes and taps; bar counter and shelves, handsome slate chimney pieces, register stoves, two ranges, with ovens and boilers; valuable gas fittings, hall and door lamps, fine wire blinds, bells, &c.

The furniture comprises mahogany four-post, tent, and French bedsteads and hangings, bordered mattresses, feather beds, bolsters, and pillows, blankets, sheets, and counterpanes, mahogany double and single chests of drawers, Japanned wash and dressing tables, mahogany tray dressing glasses, bedroom carpets and chairs, handsome mahogany pedestal sideboard, mahogany telescope dining table (nearly new), mahogany dining and Pembroke tables, double and single-scroll couches, cane-seat end other chairs, handsome large Brussels carpet, 38ft. by 13ft-6in; Turkey ditto, 17ft. by 15ft.; Kidderminster ditto, druggets, hearth rugs, gloom fenders, sets of fire irons, cut decanters, spirit bottles, rummers, tumblers. ale and wine glasses, china and earthenware, the usual kitchen requisites, &c., &c.

As will be specified in catalogues, which may he had of the auctioneer, at his offices, Canterbury, and on the premises on the morning of sale, which will commence at eleven o’clock precisely.

 

Kentish Gazette, 14 August 1849.

Public Sales.

July 28, at the "Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone, by Mr. M. M. Major; Freehold estate, Cheriton, near Folkestone, with 22 acres of arable and meadow land, sold for 1,520; freehold residence and acre of pasture land, in the Upper Sandgate-road, 1,800 (bought in); freehold messuages, Dover-road, 500 (bought in); freehold pasture land, two acres, near Dover-road, Folkestone, sold for 385, to Mr. John Jeffery, whose property it adjoins; the "York Hotel," Folkestone, put up at 800 (no bidders). — July 21, by Messrs. Farebrother and Co., at Garraway's: Freehold farm, called Clinch-street, Hoo, Kent, let for 300, knocked down at 8,400.

 

Canterbury Journal, 18 November 1849.

Charles Golder Esq. was re-elected Mayor on the 9th inst. The dinner took place at the "York Hotel," Dover Road, and was attended by sixty seven persons, being the largest number who have attended on a similar occasion in this town. The usual loyal and complimentary toasts were given and responded to, and the evening was spent with much good feeling and pleasure.

 

Kentish Gazette 22 May 1855.

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Henry Bird v Thomas Smith (Jury Case)

This action was to recover 27 10s. for a quantity of fixtures sold at the "York Hotel," Folkestone, on the 6th June, 1849.

Mr. Delasaux for the plaintiff, explained. that the plaintiff had, in June, 1849, been employed by Mr. George Ash, to sell the furniture and goods at the "York Hotel," under a Bill of Sale granted to him by a Mrs. Martha Hoskins. At this sale the defendant, who was the real occupier of the house, was present, and employed a Mr. Terson to buy the fixtures in question for him; and after the sale, they were left in his possession, he continuing in the house. In fact, sometime shortly subsequent, the defendant had actually resold these fixtures for a larger sum than they cost him; and had pocketed the money. The defendant had made 100 promises to pay his client, who added, he was a very kind man, and very averse to litigation and so he had abstained from taking any earlier proceedings for enforcing his claim.

Henry Bird, the plaintiff, deposed: I am an Auctioneer in Burgate Street, Canterbury. In 1849 I was employed by Mr. Ash, under a bill of sale, to sell by auction, the furniture and fixtures at the "York Hotel," Folkestone. The defendant was present at the sale, and told me he had engaged a Mr. Terson to buy for him. The fixtures were bought by Mr. Terson, for the defendant, for 27 10s., and they were afterwards handed over to the defendant. I have frequently applied for the money; and should say I had done so 100 times; he always promised to pay me but has not. I have paid over the money to Mr. Ash.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had the least doubt about defendant's liability; I knew he owed me the money; he never on any occasion expressed any surprise at my asking him for it. In February last, he certainly promised an arbitration, but I did not consent to it. Previous to the sale I did receive a notice from some prior mortgagees not to sell the fixtures; and Mr Ash, and Mr. Delasaux went down with me to the sale, but I do not know that Mr. Ash withdrew his claim to the fixtures. I remember that the fixtures were, however, taken out of the catalogue and put by themselves. Mr. Delasaux is my attorney and knew all about this from the beginning. I employed him to write to the executors of Mr. Terson who was then dead, to demand the money I now sue for. I knew, however, that Mr. Terson never owed me the money.

Mr. Leath deposed:- I was clerk to the plaintiff at the auction in question; the fixtures were knocked down to Terson, for Smith; the defendant himself bought a Pembroke table for 17s., which was left in the house for him. I dare say I have been 50 times with the plaintiff to Smith’s, in Westgate Street. I remember Smith made appointments to meet again, but I never heard any allusion to the fixtures.

The Judge:- That is nonsense, you mean he made appointments to settle.

Mr. Towne:- The witness distinctly negatives that any allusion was made to the fixtures.

The Judge:- Yes: but he must mean something about the appointments. You mean, I suppose, he made appointments to settle.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne:- I understand you to say, that the defendant made no allusion to the fixtures at anytime, when you accompanied Mr. Bird?

Witness:- No. the fixtures were not spoken about.

John Robinson said:- I am an auctioneer. In July, 1849, Smith employed me value the fixtures to Mr. Watts, on whose part Mr. Major met me; and we valued them at 33. I received that amount, and paid it to Mr. Smith, for which I produce his receipt.

Cross-examined:- Before I completed the valuation or paid over the money to the defendant, I required to see Mrs Hoskins; and I got her signature, because I always thought the fixtures were hers.

Mr. Delasaux:- That is the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Towne observed:- It was a pity it had ever been brought into Court. One story was generally good before another was told; and he, at least, gave the jury credit, as men of good sense and understanding, for keeping their minds in abeyance until they had heard both sides of this lamentable case. Mr. Delasaux had, he said, represented his client as a most kind-hearted hater of litigation, and that was his motive for not coming here until the eleventh hour - but he could not but be amused at the innocent suggestion of his learned opponent; for he ventured to believe, that there was not an individual in Court, from the judge to the door-keeper, who was not most familiar with the plaintiff's frequent appearance there. He would tell them the other side of this curious case. The real fact was, that Smith had acted throughout merely us agent for his mother-in-law. Mrs. Martha Hoskins, and the plaintiff was perfectly aware of it. Mrs. Hoskins was the true tenant of that hotel; she had granted a bill of sale of the furniture, &c., to Mr. Ash, and the plaintiff acted under it. When he went to sell the fixtures, he had notice of the claims of other parties, and he took his attorney, Mr. Delasaux, to inspect the documents on which those claims rested. Mr. Delasaux had, prior to the sale, satisfied himself and Mr. Ash that the claims were valid, and he had very properly advised his client to withdraw. But Mr. Ash and the plaintiff had no sooner decided to abandon the fixtures, than the defendant interfered for his relative, and ordered the plaintiff to sell them, at the same time appointing Mr. Terson to protect them against sacrifice; and so they were not sold at all, but bought in. About a month afterwards, the defendant, still acting as agent for Mrs. Hoskins, obtained a proper purchaser, and realised the value, which he handed to her. The plaintiff had avowed ignorance of these facts, and said he always knew Mr. Smith to be the purchaser and his debtor, and that Smith never denied his liability; but what would the jury think of his having, several years after the sale, instructed Mr. Delasaux to state that Mr. Terson was his debtor for the amount? When they had heard the testimony he should adduce, he knew they would return a just verdict.

Thomas Smith, the defendant, deposed:- That the "York Hotel" was rented by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hoskins, who made a bill of safe of the furniture. &c., to Mr. Ash. The plaintiff was employed to sell it. Before the sale, he had notice not to sell the fixtures. On the morning of the sale, Mr. Ash, Mr. Delasaux, and himself, were present at the "York," and then Mr. Ash abandoned his claim to the fixtures. On behalf of his mother he then thought if best to pass the fixtures through the sale, and he-appointed Mr. Terson to buy them in, and they were not sold; about a month afterwards he did sell them, and received the money, which he gave to his mother. He had all through merely acted as agent to his mother-in-law. He denied that the plaintiff had ever made any personal claim on him, until February last, and then he said, he expressed his surprise, and offered to leave the matter in arbitration; but he said the plaintiff had frequently wished him to get the matter cleared up between his mother and Mr. Ash, and he had intended and tried to do so.

Matilda Smith, the wife of the last witness, stated, that she happened to be staying with her mother when Mr. Robinson came for her sanction to the last sale, and that her mother distinctly told him that Smith only acted on her behalf, but that she fully authorized him to receive the value for her. Witness said that her husband gave her the 33, the amount of their last valuation, to hand to her mother, and she did actually pay the money to her mother.

The Judge minutely summed up the evidence, and told the jury, that the question for them to decide was merely whether the defendant was acting as agent or not? If they believed the plaintiff, it would appear that Smith bought for himself. It certainly did seem that one article, a Pembroke table, had been purchased by him, for 17s.; however, that he denied. If the jury thought he had purchased the whole, or the table, they would find a verdict accordingly; but if they were satisfied he was only an agent, then they would give him their verdict.

The jury retired for a few minutes and then returned with a verdict for the defendant.

 

LICENSEE LIST

SMITH Thomas 1845-52 Bagshaw's Directory 1847

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

 

The following has kindly been researched and sent by Jan Pedersen and is still to be formatted.

 

York Hotel, Dover Road 1845 – 1852

Licensee

Thomas Smith 1845 1852 Became a Prep School, then re-opened as a Temperance Hotel

Kentish Gazette 29 May 1849

York Hotel, Folkestone; To be sold by auction, by Mr. H. Bird, on Wednesday, June 6th, 1849; All the household furniture, bar and house fittings, at the York Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone.

The Bar and House Fittings comprise a six-motion spirit fountain, with oval spirit casks, pipes, and taps; an excellent four-motion beer engine with pipes and taps; bar counter and shelves, handsome slate chimney pieces, register stoves, two ranges, with ovens and boilers; valuable gas fittings, hall and door lamps, fine wire blinds, bells, &c.

The furniture comprises mahogany four-post, tent, and French bedsteads and hangings, bordered mattresses, feather beds, bolsters, and pillows, blankets, sheets, and counterpanes, mahogany double and single chests of drawers, Japanned wash and dressing tables, mahogany tray dressing glasses, bedroom carpets and chairs, handsome mahogany pedestal sideboard, mahogany telescope dining table (nearly new), mahogany dining and Pembroke tables, double and single-scroll couches, cane-seat end other chairs, handsome large Brussels carpet, 38ft. by 13ft-6in; Turkey ditto, 17ft. by 15ft.; Kidderminster ditto. druggets, hearth rugs, gloom fenders, sets of fire irons, cut decanters, spirit bottles, rummers, tumblers. ale and wine glasses, china and earthenware, the usual kitchen requisites, &c., &c.

As will be specified in catalogues, which may he had of the auctioneer, at his offices, Canterbury, and on the premises on the morning of sale, which will commence at eleven o’clock precisely.

Kentish Gazette 14 August 1849

July 28, at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, by Mr. M. M. Major: the York Hotel, Folkestone, put up at 800 (no bidders).

Kentish Gazette 22 May 1855

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Henry Bird v Thomas Smith (Jury Case)

This action was to recover 27 10s. for a quantity of fixtures sold at the York Hotel, Folkstone, on the 6th June, 1849.

Mr. Delasaux for the plaintiff, explained. that the plaintiff had, in .lune, 1849, been employed by Mr. George Ash, to sell the furniture and goods at the York Hotel, under a Bill of Sale granted to him by a Mrs. Martha Hoskins. At this sale the defendant, who was the real occupier of the house, was present, and employed a Mr. Terson to buy the fixtures in question for him; and after the sale, they were left in his possession, he continuing in the house. In fact, sometime shortly subsequent, the defendant had actually resold these fixtures for a larger sum than they cost him; and had pocketed the money. The defendant had made 100 promises to pay his client, who added, he was a very kind man, and very averse to litigation;ndl so he had abstained from taking any earlier proceedings for enforcing his claim.

Henry Bird, the plaintiff, deposed: I am an Auctioneer in Burgate Street, Canterbury. In 1849 I was employed by Mr. Ash, under a bill of sale, to sell by auction, the furniture and fixtures at the York Hotel, Folkestone. The defendant was present at the sale, and told me he had engaged a Mr. Terson to buy for him. The fixtures were bought by Mr. Terson, for the defendant, for 27 10s., and they were afterwards handed over to the defendant. I have frequently applied for the money; and should say I had done so 100 times; he always promised to pay me but has not. 1 have paid over the money to Mr. Ash.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had the least doubt about defendant's liability; I knew he owed me the money; he never on any occasion expressed any surprise at my asking him for it. In February last, he certainly promised an arbitration, but I did not consent to it. Previous to tlie sale I did receive a notice from some prior mortgagees not to sell the fixtures; and Mr Ash, and Mr. Delasaux went down with me to the sale, but I do not know that Mr. Ash withdrew his claim to the fixtures. I remember that the fixtures were, however, taken out of the catalogue and put by themselves. Mr. Delasaux is my attorney and knew all about this from the beginning. I employed him to write to the executors of Mr. Terson who was then dead, to demand the money I now sue for. I knew, however, that Mr. Terson never owed me the money.

Mr. Leath deposed: I was clerk to the plaintiff at the auction in question; the fixtures were knocked down to Terson, for Smith; the defendant himself bought a Pembroke table for 17s., which was left in the house for him. I dare say I have been 50 times with the plaintiff to Smith’s, in Westgate Street. I remember Smith’made appointments to meet again, but I never heard any allusion to the fixtures.

The Judge: That is nonsense, you mean he made appointments ro settle.

Mr. Towne: The witness distinctly negatives that any allusion was made to the fixtures.

The Judge: Yes: but he must mean something about the appointments. You mean, I suppose, he made appointments to settle.

Cross-examined by Mr, Towne: I understand you to say, that the defendant made no allusion to the fixtures at any time, when you accompanied Mr. Bird?

Witness: No. the fixtures were not spoken about.

John Robinson said: I am an auctioneer. In July, 1849, Smith employed me value the fixtures to Mr. Watts, on whose part Mr. Major met me; and we valued them at 33. I received that amount, and paid it to Mr. Smith, for which I produce his receipt.

Cross-examined: Before I completed the valuation or paid over the money to the defendant, I required to see Mrs Hoskins; and I got her signature, because I always thought the fixtures were hers.

Mr. Delasaux:That is the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Towne observed: It was a pity it had ever been brought into Court. One story was generally good before another was told; and he, at least, gave the jury credit, as men of good sense and understanding, for keeping their minds in abeyance until they had heard both sides of this lamentable case. Mr. Delasaux had, he said, represented his client as a most kind-hearted hater of litigation, and that was his motive for not coming here until the eleventh hour- but he could not but be amused at the innocent suggestion of his learned opponent; for he ventured to believe, that there was not an individual in Court, from the judge to the door-keeper, who was not most familiar with the plaintiff's frequent appearance there. He would tell them the other side of this curious case. The real fact was,that Smith had acted throughout merely us agent for his mother-in-law. Mrs. Martha Hoskins, and the plaintiff was perfectly aware of it. Mrs. Hoskins was the true tenant of that hotel; she had granted a bill of sale of the furniture, &c., to Mr. Ash, and the plaintiff acted under it. When he went to sell the fixtures, he had notice of the claims of other parties, and he took his attorney, Mr. Delasaux, to inspect the documents on which those claims rested. Mr. Delasaux had, prior to the sale, satisfied himself and Mr. Ash that the claims were valid, and he had very properly advised his client to withdraw. But Mr. Ash and the plaintiff had no sooner decided to abandon the fixtures, than the defendant interfered for his relative, and ordered the plaintiff to sell them, at the same time appointing Mr. Terson to protect them against sacrifice; and so they were not sold at all, but bought in. About a month afterwards, the defendant, still acting as agent for Mrs. Hoskins, obtained a proper purchaser, and realised the value, which he handed to her. The plaintiff had avowed ignorance of these facts, and said he always knew Mr. Smith to be the purchaser and his debtor, and that Smith never denied his liability; but what would the jury think of his having, several years after the sale, instructed Mr. Delasaux to state that Mr.Terson was his debtor for the amount? When they had heard the testimony he should adduce, he knew they would return a just verdict.

Thomas Smith, the defendant, deposed:That the York Hotel was rented by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hoskins, who made a bill of safe of the furniture. &c., to Mr. Ash. The plaintiff was employed to sell it. Before the sale, he had notice not to sell the fixtures. On the morning of the sale, Mr. Ash, Mr. Delasaux, and himself, were present at the York, and then Mr. Ash abandoned his claim to the fixtures. On behalf of his mother he then thought if best to pass the fixtures through the sale, and he-appointed Mr. Terson to buy them in, and they were not sold; about a month afterwards he did sell them, and received the money, which he gave to his mother. He had all through merely acted as agent to his mother-in-law. He denied that the plaintiff had ever made any personal claim on him, until February last, and then he said, he expressed his surprise, and offered to leave the matter in arbitration; but he said the plaintiff had frequently wished him to get the matter cleared up between his mother and Mr. Ash, and he had intended and tried to do so.

Matilda Smith, the wife of the last witness, stated, that she happened to be staying with her mother when Mr. Robinson came for her sanction to the last sale. and that her mother distinctly told him that Smith only acted on her behalf, but that she fully authorized him to receive the value for her. Witness said that her husband gave her the 33, the amount of their last valuation, to hand to her mother, and she did actually pay the money tn her mother.

The Judge minutely summed up the evidence, and told the jury, that the question for them to decide was merely whether the defendant was acting as agent or not? If they believed the plaintiff, it would appear that Smith bought for himself. It certainly did seem that one article, a Pembroke table, had been purchased by him, for 17s.; however, that he denied. If the jury thought he had purchased the whole, or the table, they would find a verdict accordingly; but if they were satisfied he was only an agent, then they would give him their verdict

The jury retired for a few minutes and then returned with a verdict for the defendant.

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room