 |
| Foresters Arms, Date Unknown. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown |
Licensees
Mary Anne Meadows 1850s
1854
Thomas Hall 1854 1858
William Swain 1858 1871
From Pilot Cutter, to Duke Of Edinburgh
John Hartley 1871 1883 Ex
Princess Royal
Harry Jackson 1883 1891
From Star And Garter
Matilda Le Fevre 1891 1892
George Cook 1892 1898 From
Earl Grey
Amelia Cook 1898 1899
Edgar Dalton 1899 1900
Albert Austen 1900 1912
Charles Ovenden 1912 1931
From Richmond Tavern
Kate Elers 1931 1938
William Creasy 1938 1941
Gladys Creasy 1941 1946
William Creasy 1946 1964
Alfred W. Hammond 1964 1964
Alfred W. Hammond 1964 1964
Philip Creasy 1964 1969
Geoffrey Biggs 1969 1970 To
Red Cow
Southeastern Gazette
21-3-1854
Wednesday, March 15th: Before The Mayor, J.
Kelcey and S. Godden, Esqs.
Mary Ann Meadows, of the Foresters Arms, was fined 1s. and
costs for opening her house for the sale of beer before half-past 12 o’clock on
Sunday, the 6th inst.; the magistrates believing that she supposed
her customers were travellers.
Southeastern Gazette
13-6-1854
Local News
The licence of the Foresters Arms was transferred from Mary
Ann Meadows to Thomas Hall.
Note: Date is at variance with More
Bastions.
Folkestone Chronicle 21-8-1858
Wednesday
August 18th:- Before the Mayor, James Kelcey and Gilbert Kennicott
esqs.
Peter McGowan
was brought up on remand charged with obtaining money under false pretences
from Henry Swain, landlord of the Foresters Arms, Shellons Lane. Prisoner was
undefended. From the evidence, it appeared the prisoner went to the house to
lodge on the Saturday previous, representing himself as a Captain, of the
Elizabeth and Ann, of Carlisle; he remained there until the following Monday
morning, and borrowed money under the pretence of having a sum of money in the
Folkestone Bank, at the same time showing Mr. Swain a cheque on the Folkestone
Bank. Swain accompanied prisoner to the bank on the Monday morning, when he
made an excuse and said his money had been sent to Dover in mistake. Swain then
went with prisoner to the railway station, but missing the train they went into
the Swan public house for refreshment, when the prisoner contrived to give
Swain the slip. No more was seen of the prisoner until the following Wednesday
morning, when Mr. Wells, of the Star, at Newington, came to Folkestone in
search of the so-called “Captain”, he having previously paid Wells a visit,
staying for some days at his house, and managing to obtain from him the sum of
£3, under the pretence of having money in the Ashford Bank. The two victims
went in company to the Black Bull, and there found prisoner trying on the same
“artful dodge” with the landlord of that house. He was afterwards taken into
custody, and remanded until this day. Prisoner had nothing to say in his
defence, and was fully committed for trial at the next quarter sessions.
From
communications since received by the superintendent of police, it appears the
prisoner had been to Sheerness, and Boughton, where he obtained from various
persons, sums of money in the whole amounting to about £10, by the same artful
means; he had also been to Ashford and Canterbury, where he had not only
obtained money, but in one instance a suit of clothes. From papers found on him
it appeared prisoner had been a time-keeper on the Silloth Harbour and Dock
Works, Carlisle, for a period of two years; he also had a contract in his possession
for the purchase of a large quantity of oak timber from Mr. George Austen of
Canterbury, together with a letter from that gentleman, accompanying a copy of
the agreement for prisoner`s signature.
Kentish Gazette 24-8-1858
At the police court on Wednesday (before the Mayor, James Kelcey, Esq., and Gilbert Kennicott, Esq.), Peter McGowan was brought up on remand charged with obtaining money under false pretences from Henry Swain, landlord of the Foresters’ Arms, Sbellons Lane. Prisoner was undefended. From the evidence it appeared the prisoner went to the house to lodge on the Saturday previous, representing himself as a captain of the “Elizabeth and Ann," of Carlisle. He remained there until the following Monday morning, and borrowed money under the pretence of having a sum of money in the Folkestone bank, at the same time showing Mr. Swain a cheque on that bank. Mr. Swain accompanied prisoner to the bank on the Monday morning, when he made an excuse and said his money had been sent to Dover in mistake. Mr. Swain then went with prisoner to the railway station, but missing the train, they went into the Swan public house for refreshment, when prisoner contrived to give Mr. Swain the slip. No more was seen of the prisoner until the following Wednesday morning, when Mr. Wells, of the Star, at Newington, came to Folkestone in search of the so-called “captain," he having previously paid Mr. Wells a visit, staying some days at his house, and managing to obtain from him the sum of £3, I under tbe pretence of having money in the Ashford bank.
The two victims went in company to the Black Bull, and there found prisoner trying on the same “artful dodge” with the landlord of that house. He was afterwards taken into custody, and remanded until this day. Prisoner had nothing to say in his defence, and was fully committed for trial at the next quarter sessions. From communications since received by the superintendent of police it appears the prisoner has been to Sbeerness and Boughton, where be obtained from various persons sums of money, amounting in the whole to about £10, by tbe same artful means. He had also been to Ashford and Canterbury, where he bad not only obtained money, but in one instance a suit of clothes. From papers found on him it would appear prisoner had been a time-keeper on the Silloth harbour and dock works, Carlisle, for a period of two yean. He bad also a contract in his possession for the purchase of a large quantity of oak timber from Mr. George Austen, of Canterbury; together with a letter from that gentleman, accompanying a copy of the agreement for prisoner's signature.
Kentish Express 28-8-1858
Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before the Mayor, James Kelcey and Gilbert Kennicott Esqs.
Peter McGowan was brought up on remand charged with
obtaining money under false pretences from Henry Swain, landlord of the Foresters
Arms, Shellons Lane. Prisoner was undefended. From the evidence, it appeared
the prisoner went to the house to lodge on the Saturday previous, representing
himself as a Captain, of the Elizabeth and Ann, of Carlisle; he remained there
until the following Monday morning, and borrowed money under the pretence of
having a sum of money in the Folkestone Bank, at the same time showing Mr.
Swain a cheque on the Folkestone Bank. Swain accompanied prisoner to the bank
on the Monday morning, when he made an excuse and said his money had been sent
to Dover in mistake. Swain then went with prisoner to the railway station, but
missing the train they went into the Swan public house for refreshment, when
the prisoner contrived to give Swain the slip. No more was seen of the prisoner
until the following Wednesday morning, when Mr. Wells, of the Star, at
Newington, came to Folkestone in search of the so-called “Captain”, he having
previously paid Wells a visit, staying for some days at his house, and managing
to obtain from him the sum of £3, under the pretence of having money in the
Ashford Bank. The two victims went in company to the Black Bull, and there
found prisoner trying on the same “artful dodge” with the landlord of that
house. He was afterwards taken into custody, and remanded until this day.
Prisoner had nothing to say in his defence, and was fully committed for trial
at the next quarter sessions.
From communications since received by the
superintendent of police, it appears the prisoner had been to Sheerness, and
Boughton, where he obtained from various persons, sums of money in the whole
amounting to about £10, by the same artful means; he had also been to Ashford
and Canterbury, where he had not only obtained money, but in one instance a
suit of clothes. From papers found on him it appeared prisoner had been a
time-keeper on the Silloth Harbour and Dock Works, Carlisle, for a period of
two years; he also had a contract in his possession for the purchase of a large
quantity of oak timber from Mr. George Austen of Canterbury, together with a
letter from that gentleman, accompanying a copy of the agreement for prisoner`s
signature.
Folkestone Chronicle 2-10-1858
Quarter
Sessions
Friday 1st
October:-
Peter
McGowan, mariner, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with
obtaining by false pretences the sum of 2s., with intent to defraud William
Henry Swain, at Folkestone, on 9th August 1858.
The case was
commenced and gone into some extent, when the Recorder stopped it from there
being no evidence to contradict a statement that the prisoner had made to Mr.
Leith, the manager of the Folkestone Bank, that he (prisoner) had a sum of
money in the London and County Bank. His Honour said the case could not go on,
but the jury must acquit the prisoner. The Recorder discharged him with a
caution. He was however immediately taken into custody and conveyed to Hythe to
be examined on another charge of obtaining money from Charles Wells, landlord
of the Star Inn, Newington.
Kentish Express 9-10-1858
Quarter Sessions, 30th September: Before J. Lonsdale Esq.
Peter McGowan, 45, mariner, was indicted for obtaining 2s. by false pretences from W.H. Swain. Prisoner was acquitted, but immediately taken to Hythe to undergo examination there for a similar offence. It was stated that there were thirteen charges against the prisoner at Sheerness. The way in which the money was obtained by the prisoner was by his representing he had an account at the bank, which was closed before he could get a cheque changed, and he expected a ship freighted with timber any day.
Folkestone Express 22-8-1874
Monday,
August 17th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.
There is the
usual influx of mendicants during the season, and the police have considerable
difficulty in clearing the town of them. Two men who gave names of John Cook
and Manus Conway were charged with begging.
P.C. Keeler
saw Cook go to Mr. Hart`s and Mr. Tyson`s and beg on Saturday, and Supt.
Wilshere saw Conway go into the Prince Albert and Foresters` Arms public houses
on Sunday, and followed him. Mr. Wilshere being in plain clothes, prisoner made
the blunder of begging of him.
Prisoners
were committed for 21 days hard labour each.
Southeastern Gazette 3-1-1876
Local News
It may be remembered
that in October, 1874, a coastguardsman named Patrick Carraghty was killed by
falling over the cliff at the Warren, not far from Steddy’s Hole. Deceased at
the time was out shooting, but, strange to say, his gun could never be found,
although the most rigorous search was made. On Tuesday last, Mr. J. Hartley, of
the Foresters’ Inn, Foord Road, was near the spot, when he found the deceased’s
gun. The barrel end was covered with chalk, leading to the supposition that it
had lodged in the chalk during the fall of the poor fellow, and had since been
brought down by the recent heavy snow.
Folkestone Express 18-9-1880
Wednesday,
September 15th: Before The Mayor and Captain Crowe.
Mr. Hartley,
of the Foresters` Arms, obtained an occasional license to supply refreshments
at Walton Farm, on the day of the shooting competition in connection with the
Artillery Volunteers.
Folkestone Express 11-12-1886
Saturday,
December 4th: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, and H.W. Poole Esqs.
An extension
of one hour was granted to Mr. Jackson, of the Foresters` Arms on the occasion
of a dinner on Wednesday.
Folkestone Express 1-8-1891
Saturday,
July 25th: Before Ald. Banks, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick and W.G.
Herbert Esqs.
Matilda
Lefevre, niece of the late Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Foresters` Arms, was
given temporary authority to draw at the house.
Folkestone Express 8-8-1891
Wednesday,
August 5th: Before Captain carter and W.G. Herbert Esq.
The licence
of the Foresters` Arms was transferred to Miss Lefevre.
Folkestone Express 3-12-1892
Wednesday,
November 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman
Pledge.
Mr. Cook, of
the Foresters Arms, applied for an extension of one hour on the occasion of the
Prussian Hermits` dinner. The Magistrates refused the application.
Folkestone
Express 16-6-1894
Wednesday, June 13th: Before Aldermen
Sherwood and Dunk.
Mr. Cook, of the Foresters` Arms, was granted an
occasional licence to sell at the Town Hall at the Foresters` Smoking Concert.
Folkestone
Chronicle 4-10-1895
Local News
At the Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. Fitness
and Alderman Pledge, a young servant girl, aged fourteen years, was placed in
the dock, charged with stealing money belonging to her master, Mr. Geo. William
Cook, landlord of the Foresters` Arms, Shellons Street, on the 28th
September.
Mrs. Cook was called, and stated that the prisoner had
been in her husband`s employ about four months. On the 18th ult.
witness placed a china vase containing £5 in silver and two half sovereigns in
her drawer, and moved it on the 20th to another drawer in which her
husband kept his cash. On the first of October she missed some of the silver, and
in consequence of her suspicions searched the prisoner`s dress. She found in
the pocket a quantity of nuts, fruit, and sweets, and also a purse containing
5s. 5½d. Witness went direct to the prisoner and asked her what money it was,
and she answered “It`s not your money. I`ve not stolen it from you”. Witness
went again to the china vase and counted the money. There was £1 in silver
missing. She returned to the girl, and questioned her further respecting the
coin she had found in her pocket, when she remarked that it was her mother`s
money. Witness then went to the Albion Mews, where her mother resides, but she
was out, and Mrs. Cook returned home, telling the girl that she had seen her
mother, and that she had told her that the money did not belong to her. The
reason for telling her that was to get at the truth, and the girl said “It was
your money. I took it from the chest of drawers on Saturday”. Witness made her
turn out her pockets, and found six bangles, a silk handkerchief, a pair of kid
gloves, two combs and a shoe horn. Witness asked her if she bought them with
her money, and she said “Yes”.
P.S. Lilley stated that he saw the prisoner at the
Foresters` Arms on Tuesday afternoon. He gave her the usual caution, and told
her the charge. Mrs. Cook, producing a small china vase, said “This is the
ornament the money was taken from”. Prisoner said “I didn`t take it out of
that; I took it out of a little wooden bowl”. The officer said “Took what?”,
and she replied “The money”. She said she took it last Wednesday, but didn`t
know how much, and the 5s. 5½d. in the purse was a part of it She also said she
bought the gloves at Shaw`s for 1s. 11d., and other articles at the 6½d. shop
on Grace Hill.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and elected to be dealt with
summarily. Her mother, who was in Court, said the girl was 14 years old last
July, and asked that she might be sent to a reformatory.
Mrs. Cook asked the Bench to deal as leniently as
possible with the prisoner. She was young, and she was sorry to have to bring
her there. She had always been a very willing girl.
Mr. Fitness said the prisoner was almost too young to
be placed in such a position, and he thought it was a desire for finery that
had caused her to give way to temptation. They had decided to give her another
chance, for they thought she was too young to be sent to prison. She would be
discharged, to come up for judgement when called upon.
Folkestone
Herald 5-10-1895
Police Court Record
On Wednesday, Janet Cox, aged 14, was charged with
stealing £1 in silver, the property of her master, Mr. Cook, Foresters` Arms,
Shellons Street.
Mrs. Cook said the prisoner had been her servant for
about three months. On the 18th ult. witness placed £6 in a china
vase, and put the vase into a drawer in her bedroom. £5 of the money was in
silver. She moved it to another drawer on Monday last. Next day she examined
the pocket of a dress in prisoner`s bedroom, and found a purse containing 5s.
5½d. She then asked prisoner what she had in her pocket. Prisoner said “It is
not your money. I have not stolen it from you”. Witness went to the drawer and
counted the money. Finding that £1 in silver was missing, she asked prisoner if
she had taken the money or not. Prisoner said her mother had given her the
money to buy some coal with. Witness then went to see the mother, who was not
at home. After returning she told the girl she had spoken to her mother, which
was not a fact. Prisoner then said she had taken the money from the chest of
drawers on Saturday. In her pocket witness found, besides the purse, six
bangles, a pocket handkerchief, and a pair of kid gloves. In reply to witness,
the prisoner said she had bought the articles with the money that was stolen.
P.S. Lilley deposed that from what the last witness`s
husband told him, he went to the Foresters` Arms. He saw the prisoner and
warned her that what she said to him would be told to the Magistrates. Mrs.
Cook showed him the vase from which the money was taken. Prisoner then said, in
reply to the sergeant, that she took the money from a wooden bowl. She did not
know how much, it was in silver. The money in the purse was some of that she
had taken.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
Mrs. Cook asked the Bench to deal with her leniently,
she had been a willing girl. She would not take the girl back into her service
again.
In answer to the Magistrates, prisoner said she had
passed the 3rd standard of the National Schools, Sandgate.
Mr. Banks, who was in the chair, said as the girl was
so young they would give her another chance, and dismiss the case, the prisoner
being bound over to come up for judgement when called upon.
On Wednesday licence was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters` Arms
Folkestone Chronicle
23-7-1898
Local News
We regret to have to record the death of Mr. George R. Cook,
of the Foresters` Arms, Sutton Street, which occurred on Sunday. On the
previous day he accompanied Mr. Fearon`s beanfeast party to Tenterden. He was
taken suddenly ill on Sunday morning, and although Dr. Thornton Gilbert did all
in his power, he died in the afternoon from syncope.
Mrs.
Cook was granted the transfer of the licence of the Foresters` Arms.
Transfer was sanctioned to Mrs. Cook, Foresters Arms
Folkestone Herald
23-7-1898
Felix
His many friends will hear with more than ordinary regret of
the sudden death of Mr. Cook, of the Foresters` Arms, Shellons Street. Deceased
had been out for a little excursion into the country, and whilst driving from
Ashford in the direction of Cranbrook he complained of feeling unwell.
Subsequently he was brought on to Folkestone, and died at his home. Mr. Cook, I
understand, suffered from heart affection. He had served his Queen and country
in India, and the climate no doubt had told on his health. His death will be
generally regretted, and Mrs. Cook has the deep sympathy of a large circle of
friends.
Folkestone Chronicle
6-8-1898
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge,
W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Folkestone Up To Date
6-8-1898
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C.
Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.
Transfer was sanctioned to Mrs. Cook, Foresters Arms
Folkestone Herald
6-8-1898
Police Court Report
On Wednesday licence was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters` Arms
Hythe Reporter
13-8-1898
Folkestone Police Court
At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday,
the following licence was transferred:
Mrs. Cook, widow of the late landlord, was granted temporary
authority to sell at the Foresters Arms.
Folkestone Chronicle
17-9-1898
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Messrs. J.
Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Mrs. Cook was granted the transfer of the Foresters` Arms, formerly
held by her late husband.
Folkestone Up To Date
17-9-1898
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Ald. Banks, J.
Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Transfer was made to Mrs. Cook, Foresters Arms
Folkestone Herald
17-9-1898
Police Court Record
On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters`
Arms.
Folkestone Express
22-4-1899
Wednesday, April 19th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden,
T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs.
Edgar Dalton, the landlord of the Foresters` Arms, was
summoned for unlawfully opening his house for the sale of intoxicating liquor
during prohibited hours. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.
P.C. Burniston said at midnight on the 14th inst.
he was on duty in Shellons Street, and saw two men come up Grace Hill – William
Price and Patrick Harrington – and as they passed the public bar door of the
Foresters` Arms, Harrington knocked at the door. They walked about five yards
up Shellons Street and stopped. The door was then unbolted and opened by
defendant, who came out on to the pavement. Harrington called out to defendant
“Is it alright?”, and he replied “Yes. Come on”. The two men then walked back
to where defendant stood, and Harrington said “Is there any policeman about?”
Defendant looked about, and said “No. Come on”. The three men then went into
the bar. Shortly after, witness went to the door and listened, and heard a
noise as if the till was pulled open. There was the chink of money, and then
the till was pushed back again, and made a loud noise. There appeared to be a coin
thrown on to the bar counter. Defendant said “Drink up. I`ll let you out this
way”. Witness went to the private bar door in Shellons Street, the door being
unbolted, and he was seen through one of
the glass panels, and the door was left. He then knocked at it. He was admitted
by defendant, and when he got inside he heard a rumbling of feet, as if the men
were trying to make their escape. He said to defendant “Where are those two men
gone to on your premises?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. He looked round the
public and private bars, and they were in a private room at the rear of the
bar. There were two glasses standing on the bar counter, and they smelt of
whisky very strongly. Not being able to see the men inside, he went to the back
gate on Grace Hill, which he found locked, and on returning found the two men
leaving the premises. He took their names and addresses, and told them he
should report them, and they made no reply. He told defendant he should report
him for keeping his house open during prohibited hours. He replied “I own that
I served them. They had an Irish whiskey each, but they did not pay for it. It
seems very hard for a young man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”.
Witness then left the premises.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He was standing in the doorway
of a private house opposite at the top. There was a light in the bar at the
time, and he noticed a musical box open on the counter.
Mr. Haines, in defence, explained that defendant was
cleaning out a musical box which had become jammed, and while engaged in this
occupation the two men, whom defendant knew very well, knocked at the door and
asked for a drink. Defendant said he could not sell them a drink, but he would
give them one. The money that the constable said he heard chink was that taken
from the musical box. Was it likely that for the sake of two whiskies the
defendant would wantonly imperil his licence and his future?
Superintendent Reeve said that before taking over the
licence the defendant produced an excellent testimonial to his predecessor.
The Bench considered the case proved and fined defendant £2
10s. and 9s. costs, or in default one month`s hard labour. Being the first
offence, they decided not to endorse the licence.
Folkestone Herald
22-4-1899
Notes Of The Week
We have often heard very funny defences raised on behalf of
licence holders, when the latter have been proceeded against for selling
intoxicants at prohibited hours. We do not refer to Folkestone, but rather to
other towns, especially in the north. Nevertheless, we cannot recall to mind
any more ludicrous defence than that which was set up in a local case on Wednesday
morning. A policeman saw two men admitted into a public house at midnight, he
heard the clink of money in the drawer and on the counter, he found two glasses
which had recently contained ardent spirits, he saw the two men leave the
premises, and he received the landlord`s confession that the men had been
admitted. These facts were pretty clear; but the defence was that the men had
been treated by the landlord, and that the latter had been emptying a musical
box of the coppers it had accumulated during the day. Whether the belated men
enjoyed a tune to the accompaniment of their toddy is not specified in the
evidence, but at all events, the case points a moral to licence holders, that
when they are counting up the cash of their musical boxes after closing time,
they would do well to exclude any passers-by who might be curious to enter. A
mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs will suffice to vindicate the law.
Folkestone Police Court
On Wednesday morning last an interesting licensing case was
before the Magistrates at the Borough Police Court. The Bench consisted of
Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Vaughan, and Stainer.
Mr. Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters` Arms, Shellons
Street, was summoned for opening his house during prohibited hours for the sale
of intoxicating liquors. He pleaded Not Guilty. Superintendent Reeve conducted
the case for the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared for the
defence.
P.C. Burniston deposed: At 12 o`clock, midnight, on the 14th
inst., I was on duty in Shellons Street. I saw two men come up Grace Hill from
the direction of Foord Road. They were William Price and Patrick Harrington. As
they passed the public house, Harrington knocked at the door. The two men then
walked about five yards up Shellons Street and stopped. The door was then
unbolted and opened by the defendant, Dalton, who came out on the pavement. I
recognised him. Harrington called out to Dalton “Is it all right?” Dalton
replied “Yes, come on”. The two men then walked back to where Dalton stood,
Harrington saying “Is there any policeman about?” Dalton looked about and said
“No, come on”. The three men went into the bar, the door was closed and bolted
again. I went to the door about two minutes afterwards. I listened and heard a
noise as if the till pulled open, and then the chink of money. The till was
then pushed back again. It made a loud noise, and I heard the chink of money on
the bar counter. Dalton said “I will let you out this way”. I knew it was his
voice. I went to the private bar door in Shellons treet. The door was being
unbolted by someone from the inside before I knocked. I was seen through one of
the glass panels of the door, and he left the door. I then knocked at it. I was
admitted by Dalton. When I got inside, I heard the rumbling of feet as if the
men were trying to make their escape. I said to Dalton “Where are those two men
you have got on your premises?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. I looked round
the public bar, private bar, and a private room in the rear of the bar, but
could not see the men. There were two glasses upon the bar counter. I smelt
them. They smelt of spirits. There was nothing in them, but they had recently
contained spirits, whiskey, for they smelt strongly. Not being able to see the
men inside, I left the bar and went to the back gate on Grace Hill. I then
returned to the bar. I did not find anybody; the gate was locked. I saw the two
men leaving the premises, just getting on the pavement. I took their names and
addresses and told them I should report them for being on licensed premises at
prohibited hours. They made no reply. I said to Dalton “I will report you for
keeping your house open for the sale of intoxicating liquor”. He replied “I
know I served them. They had an Irish whiskey each”. I said to him “I heard the
chink of money on the bar counter”. He replied “They did not pay for it. It
seems very hard for a poor man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”. I then
left the premises.
Cross-examination by Mr. G.W. Haines: Where were you
standing at this time? – At a private house opposite, in the doorway. I had
business to attend to there.
You say you heard all this conversation? – Yes, sir.
Did you say you heard all of it? – Yes, sir.
They could not have said anything you could not hear? – No, sir.
When they came up and tapped at this door, was there a light
there? – Yes, sir. A full light on the bar.
Did you notice any musical box arrangement? – There was a
musical box standing on the counter.
Can you say whether it was open? – Yes, it was open.
Now, after this man had gone in, the light was still kept
going? Just so. – Yes, sir.
Did the defendant, when you spoke to him about the men being
there, mention anything about the musical box to you? – No, sir.
You say you heard the chink of money? – I heard what
appeared to be that.
The defendant told you he did not charge these men for what
they had? – He said so.
Mr. Haines, on the defendant`s behalf, said the case was
taken under Section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874, in which there were two offences,
for selling liquors during prohibited hours or for keeping the house open for
the sale of liquor. There was not the slightest doubt that had the police
sufficient evidence to have brought the case within the section of selling
liquors, the summonses would have been taken out under the section, or the
first part of that section, but owing to the difficulty of proving a sale the
summons was taken under the latter part of the section, and that was for
keeping open the house. The offence, however, was for opening the house. (Mr.
H.B. Bradley, the Clerk to the Justices, said that was altogether a different
offence from keeping open.) Mr. Haines, continuing, said it was for the Bench
to decide on the evidence whether or not within the meaning of the Act the
defendant did open the place for the purpose of a sale. There had been many
cases decided with regard to opening or keeping open, amongst which at one time
was the question of giving to or treating one`s friends. Having called the
Bench`s attention to two cases in point, Mr. Haines contended that there were
cases in which there was a very fine line. The Bench would have to decide
whether this man wantonly opened this house at midnight for the express purpose
of selling two whiskies, and would prejudice the house, the licence, and his
own future. The explanation he was instructed to give to this Court was one, in
conjunction with the constable`s evidence, which would, he thought, be taken to
a certain extent to be not contradictory. He thought that when they heard that,
they would see the defendant was worthy of credence, and his statement was not
altogether an airy romance. The defendant had a musical box on the counter, and
the door where the money portion is was opened. A customer could place a penny in
and a tune was played. That night, as they heard, the light was burning in this
bar at 12 o`clock. The defendant would have turned out his lights, but he was
clearing the money out of the musical box, which had got jammed. The two men
came up. They were known to him, but he did not know that they were intimate
friends of the defendant. They knocked at the door. They asked him “We should
like a drink”. He said “I can`t sell you a drink, but I will give you a drink”.
They went inside, the lights being left on. There was no attempt at turning out
the lights. The money which had been taken out of this box was cleared off the
counter and put in the till. That was the money or the sound of money to which
the constable referred. The constable came in; it was not of course for the
police to judge whether or not it was within the section. He submitted that the
defendant had a right if he liked to give liquor to any of his friends, but he
would have learnt his lesson, and know that he would have to satisfy the Bench
that his intention was not a wilful one to open his house for that purpose. The
defendant was a young man, inexperienced, and he might say this was the first
house he had had. It was not many weeks since he had been granted the transfer
of his licence. His character satisfied the Bench. He believed that the house
in question had had a most exemplary character. The brewers, Messrs. Isherwood,
were the last persons to have a tenant who would imperil their licence. The
defendant might be ignorant altogether of the law. It was hedged in with
technicality, and the defendant thought that if he chose to give the men a
drink he could do so. This man had started life, and it was not to be believed
that for the sake of two whiskies he would imperil his licence. This was not in
a back street, but in the centre of the town. He submitted on the facts that
the defendant did not intend to open his house for the sale of liquor. There
was no proof that it was sold. He asked them to believe the defendant when he
said he gave the liquor to these men. He asked that the licence should not be
endorsed in any case. As to the two glasses, they might have been not
previously cleared away.
Superintendent Reeve said the defendant produced to his
predecessor excellent testimonials.
The Bench having consulted, the Chairman said: Edward
Dalton, the case is proved satisfactorily to the Bench, and you have rendered
yourself liable to a penalty of £10, and also endorsement of the licence. It
being the first offence, the Magistrates are of opinion that, taking into
consideration that the house has always been of good repute, they will be
justified in mitigating it to one fourth.
Fined £2 10s., and 9s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment.
Folkestone Up To Date
22-4-1899
Wednesday, April 19th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge,
J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.
Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters Arms, Shellons
Street, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours on the
14th April. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and was represented by
Mr. G.W. Haines.
Police Constable Burniston said: About midnight on the 14th
April I was on duty in Shellons Street, when I saw two men come up the Foord
Road. The men were William Price and Patrick Harrington. As thep passed the
Foresters Arms public house, Harrington knocked at the door. The two men then
walked about five yards up Shellons Street, then stopped. The door was then
unbolted and opened by the defendant`s daughter, who came out on the pavement.
Harrington called out to Dalton “Is it all right?”, and Dalton replied “Yes,
come on”. The two men then walked back to where Dalton stood. Harrington asked
if there were any policemen about, and Dalton replied “No, come on”. The three
men then went into the bar. The door was closed and bolted again. Shortly
afterwards I went to the door.
The Magistrates` Clerk: How long afterwards?
Police Constable Burniston: Two minutes, sir. I listened and
heard a noise, as if the till was pulled open. There was the jink of money. The
till was then pushed back again, and made a loud noise at the bar counter.
Dalton said “Drink up. I will let you out this way”.
The Magistrates` Clerk: You heard someone say so.
Police Constable Burniston: I knew it was his voice. I heard
the private door opened in Shellons Street. I could see through one of the
glass windows. I then knocked. I was admitted by his daughter. When I came
inside I heard the running of feet, as if there were men trying to make their
escape. I said to Dalton “Where have those two men gone?” He replied “Somewhere
in there”. I looked round the public and private bar, and into a private room
at the rear of the bar, and could not see the men. There were two glasses
standing on the bar counter. I smelt the glasses, and they smelt of spirits.
The Magistrates` Clerk: What spirits?
Police Constable Burniston: Whisky, sir. Afterwards I went
to the entrance in Grace Hill, and saw the two men just leaving the premises. I
took their names and addresses, and told them I should report them for being on
licensed premises. They made no reply. I said to the daughter “I shall report
you for keeping your house open for the sale of intoxicants”. The defendant
replied “I own I have served them. They had an Irish whiskey each. They did not
pay for it”. I said to him “I heard the clink of money on the bar counter”. He
replied “They did not pay for it. It seems very hard for a young man like me to
be reported. It will ruin me”. I then left the premises.
Mr. Haines proceeded with the cross-examination of the
witness.
Where were you at this time? – I was in a private doorway
over the way.
You say you heard this conversation. Do you say you heard
all of it? – I heard all, sir.
When they came to the door, was there a light? – There was
in the private bar.
Did you notice a musical box? – There was a musical box on
the bar counter.
Was it open? – It was open.
And it was still kept going? – It was still kept going.
Did the defendant mention anything about the musical box? –
No, sir, not to me.
You say you heard the clink of money? - Yes.
As if the till was being opened? – That is it.
There was the rattle of money inside? – Yes.
The defendant told you that he had not charged these men for
what they had had? – He said so.
Mr. Haines then addressed the Court. He said: Gentlemen, on
behalf of the defendant I have to make a few remarks on this case. In section 9
of the Licensing Act of 1894, there are two offences mentioned. One offence is
selling intoxicating liquors on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and
the other offence is for keeping the house open for the sale of those liquors.
There is no doubt that the summons would have been taken out under the first
part of the section for selling liquors during prohibited hours had it not been
for the difficulty which is very often experienced in proving the sale. To
avoid that difficulty that summons has been taken under the latter part of the
section for keeping open his house.
The Magistrates` Clerk: That is the offence.
Mr. Haines: The offence is for opening the house.
The Magistrates` Clerk: That is a different offence than
keeping open.
Chief Constable Reeve: There is a mistake on the charge
sheet. The offence is for keeping open during prohibited hours.
Mr. Haines: Now, with regard to cases dealt with summarily,
it is for the Bench to consider what is opening a house for the sale of
intoxicating liquors. There have been many cases upon the point, and it will be
for you to decide whether, within the meaning of this Act, the defendant did
open his house for the purpose of sale. There have been many cases for opening
or keeping open, and amongst other questions raised has been that of giving or
treating practically one`s friends. One case to which I wish to call your
attention is that of Tennant v Cumberland. In that case Cumberland, a beer
house keeper, was summoned for keeping open. The offence charged was that at
two o`clock on Sunday morning the constable saw the beer house keeper and
another man drinking ale in the house, and soon after the man came out. There
was no proof of selling beer, and the Court of Queen`s Bench held there was no
evidence of keeping open.
The Magistrates` Clerk: That was a case of keeping open, not
opening.
Mr. Haines: Of keeping open, but it is a matter for the
Bench whether there is sufficient evidence of keeping open for the sale of
drink. Although a man was on the premises, and the place was open, it was held
that one man being there and drinking was not sufficient evidence to show that
the defendant kept his house open for the purpose of selling liquors. And,
further, there was the case of Jefferson v Richardson. In that case the
alehouse keeper was charged with keeping open on a Sunday. The man was seen to
come out at a side door, though the front door was shut. There was no evidence
to support the charge that liquor had been sold during prohibited hours. I take
it that there are no facts in the case now before you on which you can decide
that the defendant wantonly opened his place at midnight (when he knew the
police were about) for the purpose of selling two whiskies, and would prejudice
the house, and his own future. This case is one in which you will say that the
defendant is worthy of credibility. His statement is not altogether a tissue of
rumours. I can undertake to say that he hda a musical box on his counter when
the door was opened. I believe a customer can place a penny in the box, and a
wheel goes round, and there is no doubt that the box got full of upper coins.
On the occasion of the alleged offence a light was burning in the bar at twelve
o`clock at night. What I understand is that defendant was cleaning the money
out of the musical box. The two men who came in were known to him. I do not
know they were intimate friends, but at all events they were friends, and they
knocked at the door. They said “We should like a drink”. He said “I can`t sell
a drink, but I will give you a drink”, and they went inside. There were lights.
With the lights all glaring the men went inside. The money was taken from the
musical box and put in the till. The policemen came in very properly.. It is
for the police to bring him here by summons, and for the defendant to show that
he is not opening his house during prohibited hours for the express purpose of
selling liquors. I put it to you there is no proof that liquor was sold. The
defendant said “I gave it to them”. I submit that the defendant had a right to
give liquors in the way he did. It is for you to say if the policeman has put a
wrong construction upon the defendant`s action, and that he has a right to come
here to show that he has committed no offence against the law, that he has not
wantonly outraged the law. The defendant is a young man, inexperienced I may
say. The Foresters Arms is the first house that he has had, and I believe it is
not many weeks since he was granted a transfer. I believe he had a high
character, that he had testimonials to show that he was a fit and proper person
to carry on and conduct this house, and I believe that this house before had an
exemplary record. The brewers, Messrs. Isherwood, who own the house, are
particular that their tenants should conduct it in accordance with the term of
the law, and would be the last persons to have a tenant who would imperil their
licence. This young man here (the defendant) may be ignorant of the law, which
is edged round with technicalities. He may have said “If I can give these men a
drink I will do so”. The police come between 11 and 12 o`clock at night and
report him for keeping open. It is for you to say whether he wantonly offended.
It is not to be believed that for two whiskies he would imperil his licence.
Shellons Street is not an out-of-the-way street. It is not a back street
entirely. He must have known that if he offended there would be no doubt about
his being found out. I put it to you that he did not open his place for the
sale of liquor after prohibited hours, and I ask you to say whether you believe
that he gave liquor to the two men who had been referred to as entering the
house. It is for you, looking to the character of the house, and the way in
which it has been previously conducted, and to the owners, Messrs. Isherwood,
to say whether you will cause the licence to be endorsed. It is in your power
to have the licence endorsed, unless you decide in the defendant`s favour,
taking into consideration what I have to say. It is in your power to have the
conviction endorsed upon the licence. Any suggestion from the Bench, Messrs.
Isherwood would be willing to listen to, either with reference to the tenant,
or anything else; but I do ask you that the licence, taking into consideration
the circumstances I have referred to, shall not be endorsed. I can not say any
more now than that the offence is for keeping open, and there is no evidence
that the defendant kept open for the purposes of sale. With regard to there
being two glasses on the counter, they may have been there to be cleared away.
Glasses are not always cleared away at once. One would almost have thought that
the defendant would have drunk with the two men himself under the circumstances.
He has only just got his licence, and it is hardly likely that he would open
his house for the sale of drink during prohibited hours. Injudicious he may
have been. It is his own fault he has placed himself in the position he has,
but wilfully go against the law I tell you he would not.
Chief Constable Reeve: Will you (the Bench) allow me to say
that my predecessor informs me that the defendant brought with him excellent
testimonials on applying for a licence?
The Chairman said, after consulting his brother Magistrates:
This case is proved satisfactorily to the Bench, and you (the defendant) have
rendered yourself liable to the penalty of £10, and also to endorsement of the
licence. But this being your first offence the Magistrates are of opinion that,
taking into consideration that the house has always been of good repute, they
will make the penalty a fourth of £10, that is 50s., and 9s. costs, £2 19s.
altogether, or one month`s imprisonment. Also taking into consideration that
this is a first offence, the Magistrates will not endorse the licence.
Folkestone Chronicle
29-4-1899
Editorial
There are too many public houses in Folkestone. There is no
denying the fact. Nor is there any denying that the subsequent competition
between the publicans is demoralising both to themselves and the habitués of
the bars in the town. Publicans have as much right to live as other people we
know. Whether their trade is one which would be better annihilated or not is a
question the whole country alone can decide. We know the teetotallers, who have
been besieging Folkestone lately as relentlessly as the Goths besieged Rome,
have a very decided opinion that the publican should be placed under the
temperance heel. But the fall of Folkestone is not so near as was the fall of
Rome on the occasion alluded to, and the hand of justice is lifted with a
gesture which proclaims “Not yet. Let us be fair”. Now, we sympathise keenly
with the good intentions of the temperance party, though we would that some men
were able to see that they may possibly themselves be actuated by the most selfish
instincts when labouring to prevent other men having a privilege they debar
themselves, i.e., if privilege it be. In saying this much we are not backing
away from our opening proposition, that Folkestone has too many public houses.
There is such a condition of things as almost a whole side of one street being
occupied by licensed houses, of which it may be said that rather than being in
rivalry they are leaning against one another for support in the second stage of
dilapidation. Nor do we retract one iota of our contention that the competition
– if you will, rivalry or close association – of so many publicans is
demoralising to themselves. The publican is not a whit less unfair in his
dealing than the rival fishmonger, or the rival greengrocer, or the rival
furniture-on-the-hire system tradesman, who uses his every allurement to get
his neighbour`s customers away, and, once got away, tries to “pluck the goose”.
But just now public attention is more closely drawn to the publican than to any
other class of tradesmen, and, if we read the indications aright, there is a
disposition on the part of the police to weed out as many of the superfluous
publicans as possible. We commend the movement, if it really has begun, and we
believe the publicans who remain, if the weeding is successful, will benefit
considerably. The strife for life among the publicans has probably led some of
them to adopt methods which they may not find approved in the code of rules
supplied to every licence holder by the Licensed Victuallers` Association.
Whether the police, in their efforts to reduce a public evil and to benefit
both publicans and residents, are adopting a commendable method of securing an
eminently desirable end, is perhaps open to question. They have had a typical
case in hand during last week and this week, in which they did not shine, and a
Magisterial Bench, composed, with one exception, wholly of teetotallers, has
given a decision which, while in the main it must instil a salutary lesson into
the minds of the licensed holders, was not, we submit, wholly complimentary to
the police. One Edgar Dalton, a young man to whom the Bench had granted a
temporary licence for the Foresters` Arms Hotel – which, by the way, is not in
the part of town infested with clusters of “pubs”, but in a part where, if a
house is needed at all, this one is needed – was brought before the Bench
charged with opening his house after hours. What he did was a thing done, not
only in Folkestone but in most towns in the kingdom, with impunity. He is a young
beginner as a landlord, and has the impression that every Englishman`s house is
his own castle. He opened his door to two friends, admitted them, and
entertained them with a glass of whisky each, out of his own store. His
impression, it was proved to him, was a delusion. No Englishman`s house is his
own castle, if he happens to be a publican. Dalton was fined fifty shillings,
not for serving drink, not even for entertaining his friends, but for opening
his door after eleven. The magisterial decision was virtually that the man who
holds a licence for a public house must lock, bolt, and bar his door when the
clock strikes eleven at night, and not open it again until six in the morning.
We wish it to be understood that we are entirely in sympathy with the temperance
party, and ready to support every movement they may make which shows the
slightest chance of annihilating the demon of drunkenness. But this desirable
triumph will never be achieved by unjust laws, unfairness between man and man,
nor by a system of contemptible espionage. We say contemptible espionage
advisedly, as what follows may justify it. Under cross-examination the
constable Burniston, on whose evidence alone the case was proved, admitted that
his conduct was this:- He saw two men coming up a hill in the direction of the
Foresters` Arms. Thereupon he hid himself in a dark doorway, and watched. But
the policeman who hides himself at midnight might, we venture to think, be
proved an accessory to crime if he fell under the scathing cross-examination of
criminal counsel of the calibre of Mr. G.F. Gill, Mr. Charles Matthews, or Mr.
Horace Avery at the Old Bailey. A constable in sight is no doubt a preventative
of crime, and his presence should be as much for the confidence of the night
wayfarer as the instrument of terror to the would-be evil-doer. The police are
instituted to prevent crime, not merely to secure convictions and gain
promotion, and the only cases in which conduct such as that mentioned would be
justified would be, we fancy, in circumstances where there was reason to
believe there was continual evasion of the law or an evident plan to work
serious evil or inflict personal injury. Under such circumstances no-one could
but commend the course adopted. In this case, however, it was not so. Nothing
could have been more manly than the action of the Chief Constable, after
hearing this cross-examination, than rising and informing the Bench, before
they gave their decision, that Mr. Dalton had the highest credentials and came
to Folkestone with an unimpeachable character. The Magistrates, on Wednesday
this week, showed their good sense, and did honour to themselves, as the
holders of the seals of justice, in granting Mr. Dalton a full licence, without
any endorsement recording his having been made a victim to an inadvertency.
Constable Burniston was present at the last parade, when the Mayor, Alderman
Salter, gave the force some good advice. The Mayor said: “The members of the
police force had a great responsibility in the duties they had to perform, and
needed much tact and patience to carry out those duties judiciously. In many
cases they would find difficulties in their path, and cases upon which it was
difficult for them to decide whether they ought or not to go to the length of
bringing a misdemeanant before the magistrates. In many instances they would
find a few kind words would work wonders, and in the case of persons who were
found to have had too much to drink, with discretion and kindness they might
make such an impression on the memory of the offender, by saving him from the
disgrace of being dragged before the magistrates, as to be the instrument of
future good conduct on his part”. Burniston heard these remarks. Let us recall
them to his memory, and hope he will realise that the desire of every
respectable person to see drunkenness decreased, and public houses fewer in
Folkestone, will be met by following the Mayor`s advice.
Folkestone Express
29-4-1899
Saturday, April 22nd: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge,
J. Holden, J. Stainer, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Col. Westropp.
Patrick Harrington and William Price were summoned for being
on licensed premises – the Foresters` Arms – during prohibited hours.
P.C. Burniston repeated the evidence he gave on Wednesday,
when the landlord was fined for selling liquor during prohibited hours.
The defendants pleaded Guilty, and one of them told a very
long story as to how and why they were there.
They were each fined 5s. and 9s. costs.
Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J.
Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.
Mr. Dalton, who had temporary authority to sell at the
Foresters` Arms, applied for a transfer of the licence.
It will be remembered that last week the applicant was fined
for serving two men during prohibited hours.
Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared for the applicant, made
reference to the above, and pleaded on behalf of his client that he had
offended through ignorance of the licensing laws, and it would be exceedingly
hard to punish him further by refusing the transfer, which would mean that he
would be absolutely barred from holding a licence in future. He was a young man
of the highest possible character, and the experience he had had would be a
warning to him to be extremely careful not to offend again. He had witnesses in
Court who would speak as to his character, and the owners of the house, Messrs.
Isherwood and Co., were so convinced of his suitability as a licence holder
that one of the partners had come to give testimony on his behalf.
Mr. Minter, who appeared for Messrs. Isherwood, said he need
not say to the Bench that their houses bore the very highest character, and
they always insisted on their tenants obeying the law, and in the event of its
being broken by an old tenant who they did not think ought to be forgiven, he
had to leave. But in that instance, a member of the firm was present to give
his testimony on behalf of the applicant, because they felt he had committed an
indiscretion from ignorance, and it would not be right that his future should
be damned by the refusal of the licence. They felt that he was a man who would
obey the law in future, and that the punishment which had been inflicted upon
him would have the effect, as Mr. Haines had said, of making him very careful
in the future, and never to transgress again. Therefore they were willing to
put their property in his hands to conduct the business and run the risk,
feeling sure that he would not endanger their property by committing any
offence which would entail the endorsement of the licence. The house bore an
exceptionally good character, and until last week there had never been any
complaint against it at all.
Superintendent Reeve said he had no objection to offer to
the transfer, having regard to the result of the enquiries he had made as to
the conduct of the house and the testimonials the applicant had produced.
The Chairman said the Bench had given the application the
most careful consideration, and after what had been said as to the applicant`s
character, they would not object to the transfer.
The gentleman from the firm of brewers expressed his thanks
to the Bench for the view they had taken of the matter.
Folkestone Herald
29-4-1899
Folkestone Police Court
William Price, Beach Street, and Patrick Harrington, 3
Bouverie Mews, were charged with being in the Foresters` Arms during prohibited
hours.
P.C. Burniston repeated his evidence given last week in the
case against the landlord, when the latter was convicted.
One of the defendants said that on the night in question,
Friday, 14th, he was at work on the Harbour until 20 to 12. Being
thirsty and cold, on passing the Foresters` Arms, he knocked at the door.
Hearing the bolt on the door go, he returned, and being a customer, asked for a
drink, saying he was very cold. The landlord said that was more than he dare
do, serve them with a drink, but “if I would come inside he would give me
some”. Mr. Dalton was doing something to a musical box. He put coppers in the till
and they drank their drinks. Mr. Dalton said “You can come out of this door”.
When they got to the door they could see the policeman, and stood in the
passage. They didn`t want any bother. The policeman went round to the other
door.
The other defendant agreed to this statement.
Fined 5s., and 9s. costs.
On Wednesday last Mr. Edgar Dalton applied for the transfer
of the licence of the Foresters` Arms, Shellons Street.
Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared in support of the application,
said that it would be useless for him to ignore the fact that during the past
week there was a conviction against the present applicant, who held a temporary
licence, for opening his house for the sale of liquor at prohibited hours.
Having regard that it was his first offence, the Bench inflicted only a
mitigated penalty. The brewers, who always wished that the house should be
conducted properly, would accept any suggestion as to the tenancy. The Bench
did not then make any suggestion, but they did say that having regard to the previous
conduct of the house they would not endorse the licence. Mr. Dalton on that put
himself in the hands of the brewers, with whom he had been previously nine
years, from whom he had an excellent character, and his testimonials were
before the Bench when the temporary authority was granted, being of a very high
order. He asked the Bench to take into consideration these facts, and that the
brewers themselves, from what they knew of him, were perfectly content that the
applicant should come before the Magistrates that day to ask for a transfer of
the licence. The applicant was starting his career in this business, and the
consequences to him would be most serious if they should refuse his
application, because in the business he had elected to go into, if at any time
he applied for a licence the result of their refusal would stop him obtaining
it. He had been fined, although a mitigated penalty, and he had been punished.
He asked the Bench to take into consideration the evidence they would hear as
to the applicant`s testimonials, the evidence of his employers, the brewers,
that even they were quite content to consent to him as a tenant. The applicant
had had a lesson, and he quite appreciated the consequences that would ensue
should he break the laws,
Mr. J. Minter said he had been requested to appear on behalf
of Messrs. Isherwood, the brewers and owners of this house. He perhaps need
scarcely tell the Bench that Messrs. Isherwood had a very high character. They
always insisted upon their tenants obeying the law. In this case the applicant
had committed an indiscretion through ignorance, and they felt it would be, as
far as they were concerned, a pity his future should be damned by the refusal
of a transfer. They felt that they ought to assist in all cases in seeing that
a tenant is a man who will obey the law. They felt that with the punishment
which had been given to him he would never for the future break that law, and
they thought from their knowledge of his character, which had been so good, and
they had the utmost confidence in him, that he never would transgress again,
and they were willing to put their property in his hands, running the risk if
he did transgress of having the licence endorsed. They had that confidence, and
were willing to run the risk. It was always their wish to act in accord with
the Bench, to whom they were not in any way seeking to dictate. The applicant
was starting in life. The brewers thought the lesson he had received, knowing
what he was, his principles, his conduct all the years with them, would prevent
him ever offending again, and convert him into a goo law-abiding holder of the
licence. The house bore a very high record.
The Bench granted the application.
Folkestone Up To Date
29-4-1899
Saturday, April 22nd: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden,
J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lt. Col Westropp.
William Price, Beach Street, and Patrick Harrington, Bouverie
Mews, were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on
the 14th inst. Both defendants pleaded Guilty.
Police Constable Burniston gave similar evidence to that
against the landlord, who was brought before the Court a few days previously.
About midnight on Friday, the 14th, Burniston was on duty in
Shellons Street, where the Foresters` Arms is situated, and saw the defendants
admitted into the house, but could not see the defendants in the private bar or
the public bar, but afterwards saw them coming out of a door leading to Grace
Hill.
The defendants, one of whom was spokesman, said in effect
that the landlord`s statement that he gave them a drink, and did not sell them
one, was true.
They were each fined 5s. and 9s. costs, in default 14 days`
imprisonment.
Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J.
Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.
Mr. Haines applied on behalf of Mr. Dalton, the landlord,
for the transfer of the licence of the Foresters` Arms. He said: It would be
useless for me to ignore the fact that there has recently been a conviction
against the applicant for keeping the house open during prohibited hours.
Although the Bench convicted the landlord, having regard to the fact that his
was a first offence, they only inflicted a mitigated penalty. It is not for me
now to go into the whole question, but may I say that the offence committed
arose more from carelessness and ignorance than from intention to disobey the
law. There was something else which I put to the Bench. It was that the brewers
who held the house had always done their best to conduct it properly and would
be glad to listen to any suggestions from the Bench. They hoped, therefore,
that the licence would not be endorsed. Mr. Dalton himself put himself
unreservedly into the hands of the brewers with whom he had been for nine
years. His testimonials, which were put before the Bench when the licence was
granted, were of a very high order. The brewers themselves are perfectly content
that Mr. Dalton should come before you today to ask you for a transfer. Mr.
Minter has been instructed by Messrs. Isherwood, who may have something to say
as regards the view of the brewers. There can be no doubt that in the present
landlord the house has a respectable tenant. Mr. Dalton was not a man of mere
mushroom growth. He has put the savings of many years into the Foresters` Arms.
He has started his career at that place, and the consequences to him will be
most serious if you should, as it is in your own discretion, refuse his
application, because if in any town of the kingdom he shall apply for a
licence, the refusal today will at once stop him from obtaining it. That is
most serious. He has been fined already in a mitigated penalty and punished. When
a man has been before you, even charged with felony, I have seen merciful
consideration shown by the Bench, and I ask you to take into consideration the
special circumstances of the case, and the testimonials of his last employers.
The brewers who hold the premises are prepared to accept him still as tenant,
should you in your discretion grant him his licence. He has had a lesson. He
quite appreciates the serious consequences that must ensue if he breaks the
law, and I think that if you allow him the licence you will not have a more law
abiding licensed victualler on your register. I put before you the proof of the
services of the notice, and also the testimonials which I believe are here
before the Bench.
Mr. J. Minter said: I am here to say a few words on behalf
of Messrs. Isherwood, who are the owners of this house. I think I need hardly
inform the Bench that Messrs. Isherwood`s houses are always of the highest
character, and that they insist upon their tenants obeying the law. But they
feel in this case that the applicant has committed an indiscretion through
ignorance, and they think it is a pity that his future should be damned by the
refusal of the transfer. They feel that they ought to assist on all occasions
in seeing that the tenant is a man who will obey the law, and they do feel that
with the punishment that has been given to him, he will never for the future
break that law, and they think from their knowledge of his character, which has
been so eminently good – and they have the utmost confidence in him – that he
will never transgress again, and they are willing to put the licence of this
property in his hands, knowing the risk they run. They are willing to come here
and give testimony in his favour, without in any way seeking to dictate to the
Bench. They always wish to act in accord with the Bench, and to submit to any
decision which the Bench may arrive at. But they do feel that this is an
exceptional case, this young fellow having just started in his present
business, and to condemn him for the remainder of his existence would not be
just. They feel, as Mr. Haines has said, that if the Bench refuse to grant the
transfer it will preclude this young man from making an application for a
licence with success in the future. It would be a very hard course to interfere
with his prospects for life for this one offence. They will find a new tenant
if the Bench desire it, but otherwise they are willing that he should hold the
licence. As I understand, the object of the Licensing Law, and the administration
of it by the Bench, is that there should be respectable and responsible tenants
who will obey the law. They say that the lesson he has received will be of such
a character as to convert him into what the Bench desire, a good law abiding
holder of a licence, a holder who will assist in carrying out the law.
Chief Constable Reeve remarked that he had no personal
objection to the transfer applied for by Mr. Dalton.
The Bench, having taken all that had been said into
consideration, granted the transfer.
Folkestone Express
16-9-1899
Wednesday, September 13th: Before W. Wightwick,
C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
Mr. Dalton, of the Foresters` Arms, applied for permission
to make a doorway into the garden at the rear of the house. The object was to
afford means of ingress for cycles, &c. The Bench refused to grant the
application.
Folkestone Herald
16-9-1899
Folkestone Police Court
On Wednesday, an application by the landlord of the
Foresters` Arms for permission to make a doorway from Copthall Gardens to admit
bicycles and mailcarts was refused.
No comments:
Post a Comment