Guildhall Hotel/Tavern, Guildhall Street 1868 - 1984

Guildhall Hotel, 1978

The 3rd Hussars on Guildhall Street, 1914, showing the Guildhall Hotel just behind the Town Hall. My thanks to Christine Warren for permission to use this photo http://www.warrenpress.net/FolkestoneThenNow/FolkestoneThen_Now.html

The former Guildhall, May 2012

 

Guildhall Hotel, 1983. Credit Alan Taylor

 

Licensees

Arthur Andrews 1868 1873
Henry Andrews 1873 1877

Thomas Harvey 1877 1881

Eleanor Harvey (Later Hoad) 1881 1882

James Hoad 1882 1888

James Tunbridge 1888 1902 From Castle Inn

Dudley Jeffrey 1902 1903 Ex Prince Albert

James Filmer 1903 1913

Richard Jacobs 1913 1914
W.H. Vickery 1914 1915

George Cozens 1915 1928

Eileen Cozens 1928 1931

Richard Rivers 1931 1933

Eric Anderson 1933 1934 From Black Bull

Percy Wootten 1934 1943 Also Martello 1940-43
R.P. Rawlings 1943 1945

Alfred Copson 1945 1951

John Dawkins 1951 1952

Maud Lewis 1952 1984

Folkestone Express 28-8-1869

Wednesday, August 25^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Spirit License (Fresh Application)

Arthur Andrews applied for a spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel.

Mr. Creery, of Ashford, supported the application, and addressed the Bench. He said from his experience in licensing matters it appeared to him that the magistrates required three things before granting a new license; 1^st, that the man who applies is a respectable man, and a man who can be trusted. 2^nd, that the premises are proper for the purposes for which they are meant to be used, and 3^rd, that the license asked for is requisite. He then proceeded to show the Magistrates that these three propositions ought to meet their approval in this case, and put in a requisition signed by 380 respectable inhabitants in support of the application.

Mr. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. George Taylor, and while admitting the two first propositions of Mr. Creery, he contended on the third point that the license was not requisite, as the accommodation afforded by the other houses in the neighbourhood was quite sufficient.

The Court was then cleared. When re-opened the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to the unanimous decision that no more licenses should be granted, but in exceptional cases, as they were of opinion that too many licensed houses already exist. The application would be refused.

Southeastern Gazette 30-8-1869

Local News

Annual Licensing Day.—A full bench of magistrates attended on Wednesday to grant renewals and hear fresh applications.

Mr. Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Hotel; Mr. Burgess, Richmond Tavern ; Mr.Thomas Wilson, of the Prince of Wales; and Mr. Chittenden, of the Star and Garter, made fresh applications but were refused; the magistrates stating that no more licenses would be granted except under exceptional circumstances.

 

Folkestone Observer 25-8-1870

Annual Licensing Meeting

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

Spirit License

Mr. Creery applied on behalf of Mr. Arthur Andrews for a spirit license to the Guildhall Inn. In a speech of some length, Mr. Creery referred to the respectability of his client, and produced a memorial signed by 338 persons to the effect that the applicant was a respectable man, and a spirit license was needed at the house, which was already licensed in every other respect, and had been recently fitted up with every convenience as a refreshment bar. The town of Folkestone, Mr. Creery observed, was rapidly increasing, and he never came without noticing building going on, but during several years past in this particular branch of trade no increase of accommodation had taken place. Last year the Bench had declined to grant the application, but this year he thought he had shown stronger reasons for allowing it.

Mr. Minter, instructed by the landlords of the King`s Head and Folkestone Lugger opposed, alleging that the accommodation in the vicinity was already abundant.

The Bench refused to grant the application.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1870

Wednesday August 24^th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.E. Dashwood Esqs.

This was the annual licensing day.

Application for spirit license:

Mr. Creery, on behalf of Mr. Andrews of the Guildhall Hotel, applied for a spirit license for that house.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of Mr. Medhurst, and the landlord of the Lugger, opposed the application.

Mr. Creery said there were very strong reasons, which he would lay before the Bench, to show why the application should be granted, and the two cases upon which the Bench had decided (Note. Royal Oak and Victoria in Sandgate) encouraged him to hope that the same liberal treatment would be extended to his client. Although on a former occasion the Bench refused to grant the application, since then he thought his case had grown stronger, and he believed the Bench would view the facts and arguments he should lay before them without any reference to any former decision. The applicant was well known as a tradesman, and so was his father, who was much respected in the town. If it had been required they could have got a memorial signed by any number of inhabitants, but as it was they had a strong one to present to the Bench. During the two years Mr. Andrews had occupied the house no complaint had been made, and it had been conducted in an orderly and praiseworthy manner. He did not know if any of the Bench had frequented the house. If so they would better understand it`s thorough efficiency for what it is intended. It is a refreshment bar. During the last two years it had been fitted up in an elaborate manner, reminding him of one of the gin palaces of Vauxhall and Cremorne, and, he thought, more respectably conducted than many such places. The question would be: Is a license to sell spirits necessary? To decide this they must remember the remarkable enlargement of the boundaries of Folkestone, and improvements in the town during the past few years. He certainly was surprised when he came to Folkestone to see the large number of new houses and mansions erected in every part, and the visitors had, in ratio, increased, and consequently the Town Hall was the centre of attraction, and the thirsty souls that follow entertainments could not do without refreshments. Frequent were the entertainments at the Hall; moreover, His Honour, the Judge of the County Court, came once a month and brought many visitors with his advent, who often needed refreshments. Added to this was the great increase of population and houses, and the new Bathing Establishment, and it was an undoubted fact that no increase of accommodation had been provided in ratio to the demand.His friend (Mr. Minter) could not contradict him when he said there had not been, for the last forty years, any increase in that locality. A gentleman on the Bench shook his head; well, at any rate, the increase was very limited. Gentlemen in other lines of business were making fortunes and retiring, but this particular business stood still. He had a memorial to present, signed by 12 tradesmen, 26 licensed victuallers, and 293 inhabitants and visitors of Folkestone. All agreed that in the locality of the Town Hall more public accommodation was required, and that was, he thought, a sufficient reason, independent of the requisition signed by 300 of the most respectable inhabitants. Against Mr. Medhurst, who opposed the application, he had nothing to say. He was a respectable and old inhabitant, and they were not willing to inflict any injury on him. In spite of the good opinion the Bench and all they had of Mr. Medhurst, he trusted that no personal feeling would be allowed to be imported into the case, and however much they might respect him, he hoped that feeling would not stand in the way of the present application, in justice to the petitioner. They had been rejected once, and now they came again, and that alone, he thought, was a circumstance that should have it`s weight with the Bench.

Mr. Minter, in reply, said that the case was even weaker than on the last occasion when it was brought before the magistrates. This was the second application, and no circumstance had occurred to change the reason for refusing the license. Was the petition more respectably signed? He would ask the Bench to look at the names, and among them were many sergeants and corporals of the Camp, who could not possibly know the requirements of Folkestone, and one person living in Canterbury. The memorial was perfectly useless for the purpose for which it was intended. The statement that no public houses were in the neighbourhood was false. They were surrounded with them: The King`s Arms, The Lugger, The Rose, and others, all within an area of 100 yards. His ground of opposition, for he had nothing to say against the respectability of applicant, was that it was neither necessary nor required. Mr. Creery said many “mansions” had been erected in the immediate neighbourhood. Where? At any rate, he did not think their occupants would sent to a public house for what they required, but would be most likely to look into the cellars of the “mansions”. The Bathing Establishment was also mentioned, Mr. Creery evidently forgetting that that place had a license. He thought he had mentioned enough to show that there was no reason to reverse the decision of last year.

The Bench declined to grant the license.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1870

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

Annual Licensing Meeting

The Guildhall Hotel: This was an application for a spirit license to this house, which adjoins the Town Hall. Mr. Creery supported the application, and Mr. J. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Creery, in introducing the case, said that the Magistrates` decision in the two cases decided by them encouraged him in the hope that the same liberal spirit would be extended to all applicants for new licenses, except in those cases where there existed strong grounds of objection. Although the ground of this application was sufficiently strong, he would proceed to explain the case to them. He (Mr. Creery) had the honour to act as Clerk to a large Bench of Magistrates, and he always found that the justices required to be satisfied that the applicant was a person to be trusted, and was a respectable man. They might not be so well acquainted with Mr. Arthur Andrews, but they were acquainted with his father, who was a respectable contractor and builder residing in their midst for very many years, and he had a memorial to produce, which was signed by upwards of 300 individuals, giving a most satisfactory evidence of the respectability of the applicant, who had occupied this house upwards of two years, and no complaint of any description had ever been made. He was just the proper person to be entrusted with the sale of spirits; he already had beer and wine licenses. If the Bench was anxious to ascertain whether the premises were properly fitted up for the purpose, he would explain that this house was constructed for a refreshment bar, and not intended for people to go in and sit down. But the most important point was whether the license for the sale of spirits was necessary and required. He would remind the Bench of the large increase of buildings in Folkestone; the hall in which they were assembled was also new, and thousands, he might say, who attended the hall every week found this house a great convenience. Although there had been a great increase in the population there had been no corresponding increase in accommodation for the public for the past 40 or 50 years. Every other business had increased, and some who had made fortunes in them may be sitting on the Bench. Was this grant required? He could produce 300 witnesses to say it was; not personally, as that would take up too much time, but by memorial, (The learned gentleman here produced a memorial several yards long) which was signed by 19 tradesmen of the immediate neighbourhood, 29 licensed victuallers, and 293 of the inhabitants and visitors of Folkestone. It read “We, the undersigned inhabitants of Folkestone, beg to submit the necessity for more Public House accommodation near the Town Hall, and ask you to grant a license to Mr. Arthur Andrews, a respectable tradesman, who two years ago opened this house”. The memorial, after speaking of the increase in visitors, proceeded “The fact that there was only one public house in the immediate neighbourhood would be sufficient reason to induce the Magistrates to grant a license, the house being conducted in a highly respectable manner”. Mr. Creery then enumerated the other houses accessible from the Guildhall; The King`s Arms, kept by Mr. Medhurst, a very respectable and old inhabitant of Folkestone, and a person, he was sure, who would not willingly inflict injury on neighbours not so well off as himself. He hoped the Magistrates would accede to the request of the 338 persons who asked them to grant a license.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed on behalf of Mr. Medhurst, of the King`s Arms, and Mr. Taylor, the landlord of the Lugger, to oppose the present application, which was the renewal of one made last year, and in his opinion the applicant had a weaker case than before. No circumstances had changed since the first application was made, and when the Magistrates determined it was not necessary or requisite to grant the license. The memorial on the previous occasion was more respectably, if not more numerously, signed. He had inspected the present signatures and the inspection would give rise to this remark, that they were for the most part perfectly useless. The statement that there was only one other house in the neighbourhood was untrue, as they had the Lugger, the Rose, Mr. Lukey`s all close at hand. The persons that signed must either not read the memorial or be signing to an untrue statement, and the probability was the signatures were utterly worthless, as they could not know what the memorial contained. On inspection it would be found that some who signed lived at Canterbury, Shorncliffe Camp, Sandgate and Swingfield Minnis; was the accommodation really necessary or required by such people? He contended there was nothing in the circumstances different from the previous year. Mr. Andrews, they all knew as a highly respectable man, but that was not the only thing required, and he would ask the Magistrates to say the same at that meeting as they had said before.

The Magistrates decided to hear the other applications before deciding.

The Bench decided on not granting the above application.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-10-1870

East Kent Quarter Sessions, Canterbury

October 18^th: Before E. Knatchbull-Hugesson M.P., Chairman, and a Bench of Magistrates

Andrews v The Justices Of Folkestone

This was an appeal by Mr. Arthur Andrews, the keeper of a beerhouse adjoining the Town Hall, Folkestone, called the Guildhall Hotel, against the refusal of the Justices to grant him a license to sell excisable liquors by retail at the said house.

Mr. Biron was Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Barrow for the respondents, the Justices.

Mr. Biron, in stating the appellant`s case said the Justices had refused the license on the  ostensible ground that there was ample inn accommodation in the neighbourhood, but he should prove that the licensing of the appellant`s house would be a great convenience to the public. The house adjoins the Town Hall, where all public business was transacted and entertainments were held, and there were only two licensed houses in the immediate district, namely the King`s Arms and Lugger, which were of a very primitive character. Mr. Biron produced a photograph of the appellant`s house, and said a memorial in favour of the house being licensed had been signed by 293 persons.

Mr. Barrow objected to the reception of this memorial, or any reference being made to it, and Mr. Biron admitted he could not put it in as evidence.

Mr. Biron then called Charles Andrews, who stated that he was a builder, and had lived in Folkestone 27 years. The Town Hall was in the centre of the town, and the County Court, Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions and other public business was transacted there. The Guildhall Hotel abutted onto the Town Hall, his son was the tenant, and had occupied it about two years and nine months. It was fitted up as a refreshment bar, and had no equal in Folkestone. The bar would hold 70 or 80 people; 50 or 60 people had often been in it. A spirit license to the house would be a great convenience. The bar of the King`s Arms Hotel will not accommodate more than four people. The bar and parlour are about eight feet square. The only houses in the borough licensed within the last 27 years are the Rendezvous, Shakespeare, Gun and Albion. I have spent £300 or £400 on the Guildhall Hotel. My son don`t intend to let the rooms in the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow: The plan you have handed me is correct. I see the nine licensed houses marked on it. The first is the King`s Arms; it is fourteen yards from my son`s house. The Lugger is 50 or 60 yards; the George 93 yards; Rendezvous 101 yards. The Prince Albert is a long distance off, 142 yards. I call the Shakespeare a very long distance off, 166 yards; the Gun longer still, 215 yards; Foresters 286 yards. There is also the Albion Hotel in Bouverie Square. The Gun, Albion and Rendezvous have, I believe, all been licensed within four years. The inside of the bar of the Guildhall Hotel is only 13ft. 8in. frontage, and 18ft. deep. The bar takes up the whole of the ground floor of the house. On the first floor there is a parlour and two back sitting rooms. My son occupies them all: he don`t use them for guests. On the second floor there are four bedrooms, and an attic over. There is no urinal to the house; there is a water closet at the back. You go down stairs to it. Between the Guildhall Hotel and the Town Hall there is a passage. I know people commit a nuisance in it. Don`t know that the Surveyor sends his men daily to cleanse it. There is a Tap Room opposite the King`s Arms bar. It is capable of holding 40 or 50 people; there is also a sitting room at the back of the bar which will hold about the same number. The King`s Arms is one of the principal houses in the town. The Officers from Shorncliffe Camp mess at it.

Re-examined by Mr. Biron: At the bottom of the Town Hall passage there is a urinal. People won`t go to the end of the passage to use it. It is a long dark passage.

Mr. Arthur Andrwes, the appellant, Mr. Tucker, a bootmaker, a tenant of the appellant`s father, and Mr. Hoad, a plasterer, were called by Mr. Biron, and gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Barrow said he had proved his case out of the mouths of the appellant`s witnesses, and need not, therefore, have to call evidence. It was for the Court below to decide as to the propriety of the application. The Alehouse Act gave the Justices power to regulate the number of licensed houses. They had a discretion in the matter, and the Court of Queen`s Bench had over and over again declined to interfere with the discretion of Justices. Jurisdiction, in matters of licensing, is entrusted to them from a consideration of their local knowledge, and the Court must assume that they had done their duty, and their decision ought to be supported. The Justices had decided that the house was not wanted, and even if it were, it had certain disqualifications. Out of the mouths of the appellant`s witnesses he had proved that within a radius of 286 yards from the Town Hall there were nine licensed houses. The Bench, knowing the wants of the locality, said it was preposterous to suppose another licensed house was required. As to the house itself, look at it`s boasted accommodation: A bar, covering the whole of the ground floor, and yet only 13 feet by 18 feet; then there were no apartments or beds to let to visitors, and the appellant could not provide the accommodation he was bound to do by law. There was no urinal to the house, but a water closet, only to be reached by going down steps. The consequence was, the Town hall passage was rendered a nuisance, and how much worse would it be if a spirit license were granted to the house with the insufficient accommodation it afforded. He thought the Court would hesitate before disturbing the decision of the Court below, but would dismiss the appeal.

The Court retired to deliberate, and after an absence of half an hour returned, when the Chairman said the license would be granted.

We understand that this decision was only obtained through the casting vote of the Chairman.

Folkestone Express 22-10-1870

At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the Eastern Division of the county, held at St. Augustine`s Session House, Canterbury, on Tuesday last, Mr. Biron, on behalf of Mr. Andrews, applied to the Court to reverse the decision of the justices of Folkestone in an application for a wine and spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel, next to the Town Hall, Folkestone. The hotel was represented as having a splendidly fitted refreshment bar – a trade that the applicant especially “went into” – having every convenience and accommodation for 70 to 80 persons at one time, and in fact being a place where marble and plate glass abound. Witnesses on both sides were examined, and Mr. Barrow having addressed the Court in maintenance of the magisterial decision, contending that already there were nine licensed houses within 286 yards of the Guildhall. The Court granted the license, ordering the decision of the Folkestone Magistrates to be quashed.

Kentish Gazette 25-10-1870 

East Kent Quarter Sessions, Canterbury, Tuesday, before E.H. Knatchbull-Hugessen Esq., M.P.

Appeal: Andrews v the Justices of Folkestone

The appellant, represented by Mr. Biron, sought to obtain a reversal of the Magistrates’ refusal to grant a wine and spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel, adjoining the Town Hall, at Folkestone. The hotel was represented as having a splendidly fitted refreshment bar -a trade that the applicant especially “went into” - and having every convenience and accommodation for 70 or 80 persons at one time.

Witnesses on both aides haring been examined, Mr. Barrow addressed the Court in maintenance of the magisterial decision, contending that already there were nine licensed houses within 286 yards of the Guildhall.

The Court, however, granted the license, ordering the decision of the Magistrates to be quashed.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-9-1871

Annual Licensing Day

Wednesday last was the Annual Licensing Day. The Magistrates on the Bench were The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Gambrill Esqs.

When all the licenses were disposed of with the exception of that of the Guildhall public house, the landlord of that house, Mr. Andrews, came before the bench and asked that his license might be renewed.

The Mayor: The magistrates were in doubt whether they should renew your license. There are many complaints against your house. Much noise has been heard there, and music and singing have annoyed the neighbourhood. The magistrates will grant the license for this year, but it is very likely that if anything like what is complained of occurs again, your license will be taken away.

Mr. Andrews said that he acknowledged that some music had been played in his bar, but he did not think at the time that it would annoy anyone. He would, however, take care that it should not happen again.

Mr. Hart: There is not space or room in your place for anything like that; in fact you have not accommodation. I can only warn you that, although your license is granted this year, I think it probable that it might be taken away next year.

Mr. Andrews: I have plenty of accommodation and rooms for people to sit down in. Mine is the only house in Folkestone where there is a stand up bar like the London system. People can come in, take what they want, and then leave. I would rather have a trade of that character, because it is an accommodation to people who quickly come in for what they require and go away again. In consequence of being so near the street the talking creates a little hubbub or noise.

Mr. Hart: Well, that is not a place for a house like that. A nuisance is created at the corner, and if the evils complained of continue I warn you that your license will be taken away. I hope you will do all in your power to keep your house orderly and quietly conducted.

Mr. Andrews said he would endeavour to do so, and this concluded the business before the Court.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-9-1872

Saturday, September 7^th: Before The Mayor and T. Caister Esq.

Charles Andrews, landlord of the Guildhall Hotel, applied for an occasional license to sell excisable liquors at the Town Hall on the following Wednesday.

The Bench refused the application.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1873

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

Annual Licensing Meeting

The licensing committee met at ten o`clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o`clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

Mr. Andrews, in reply to the Clerk, said he had filed a petition in liquidation and that the trustee would apply for a renewal of the license to the Guildhall Hotel.

The matter was left over until the adjourned meeting on the 30^th September.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-10-1873

Wednesday, October 1^st: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The Guildhall Tavern license was transferred from Arthur, to Henry Andrews.

Note: This transfer is not listed in More Bastions

Folkestone Express 4-10-1873

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

Tuesday, September 30^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Guildhall Hotel

Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, applied for a transfer of the license of the Guildhall Hotel from Henry Andrews to his brother, Arthur Andrews. It having been shown that the premises were let to Arthur, the application was granted.

Note: No mention of Henry Andrews in More Bastions.

Kentish Gazette 7-10-1873 

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination. Mr. R.W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the office of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had be­come of certain portions of his estate. It was elicited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father - he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied that he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs.  Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £31 1s. It was also elicited that his profits had amounted to £200 a year.

Mr. Flint strongly opposed the bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bank­rupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-10-1873

Bankruptcy

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination. Mr. R.W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the office of Messrs. Hallett & Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt. The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was elicited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father – he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied that he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £31 1s. It was also elicited that the profits had amounted to £200 a year. Mr. Flint strongly opposed the bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts. The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15^th inst.

Folkestone Express 11-10-1873

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination.

Mr. R. W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the offices of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was eliceited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father – he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £31 1s. It was also elicited that his profits amounted to £200 a year. Mr. Flint strongly opposed bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15^th inst.

Southeastern Gazette 14-10-1873

Bankruptcy

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination. Mr. R. W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustees, Mr. Kelcey, from the office of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was elicited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father—he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied he informed any of his creditors of being about to become a bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £31 Is. It was also elicited that his profits had amounted to £200 a year.

Mr. Flint strongly opposed the bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst. 

Folkestone Chronicle 18-10-1873

The Bankruptcy Court, Canterbury

Wednesday, October 15^th, 1873. Arthur Andrews, of Folkestone, came up for his final examination, and after a long hearing, the Registrar made an order that he should pass. At the previous examination, the bankrupt stated that he had accepted bills for his father, but this appeared to be incorrect and what he meant was that while he was carrying on the house for his father he had accepted bills in his own name in the ordinary transactions of business.

Folkestone Express 18-10-1873

The Bankruptcy Court, Canterbury

October 16^th, 1873

Arthur Andrews, of Folkestone, came up for his final examination, and after a long hearing the Registrar made an order that he should pass. At the previous examination the bankrupt stated that he had accepted bills for his father, but this appeared to be incorrect, and what he meant was that while he was carrying on the house for his father had had accepted bills in his own name in the ordinary transactions of business.

Folkestone Express 30-5-1874

Advertisement Extract

To Brewers, Capitalists, Photographers and Others

Messrs. Andrews and Son beg to offer for public auction at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, on Friday the 19^th June, 1874, at seven o`clock in the evening, the following desirable residences, in three lots:

Lot 3: A Free Fully Licensed Public House, known as the Guildhall Hotel, situate next the Town Hall, Folkestone, having a most extensive and lucrative bar trade, and being of great importance in the neighbourhood.

The House contains goo dry wine and beer cellars, kitchen, scullery and W.C. A large and splendidly fitted Bar, with Bottle and Jug Department.

Also 9 rooms suitable for sitting and bedrooms, and 2 W.C.s, the workshop in the rear with back entrance and use of pump with good water.

This Lot leasd from Earl Radnor for 99 years from the 24^th June, 1844, and the annual ground rent will be £2 5s.

Further particulars and conditions of sale may be obtained on application to the auctioneers, Hythe, at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, or to

George Wilks Esq.,

Solicitor,

Hythe.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-1-1875

Monday, January 4^th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Jane Pellett was charged with obtaining on the 24^th of December, 6d. worth of oranges, 1 lb. Of sugar, and a quart of chestnuts.

Prisoner represented herself to prosecutor`s assistant named Court, as a servant of Mr. Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Tavern, whereas she was not in his employ at that time, but she had been his servant.

Mr. Andrews stated that he never authorised her to obtain goods for him.

Remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 6^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, W. Bateman, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Jane Pellett was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining from Mr. Daniels, grocer, Beach Street, 1 ¼ lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, 2 oz. of peel.

The prisoner represented herself as Mr. Spurrier`s servant, in whose name she had the goods.

Mr. Spurrier denied sending the girl for the goods. She had been in his employ.

The Bench committed her for trial at the Quarter Sessions on the charge heard against her on Saturday and on this occasion.

Folkestone Express 9-1-1875

Monday, January 4^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Jane Pellitt, general servant, out of place, was charged with having obtained by false pretences sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar, value 1s. 2½d., from Mr. Spinks, grocer. Guildhall Street, on the 24^th ultimo.

William Court, apprentice to prosecutor, knew the prisoner, who had been in the habit of purchasing goods at his employer`s for Mr. Andrews of the Guildhall Tavern. On the afternoon of the 24<sup>th</sup> prisoner was served by witness with sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar. Witness asked, after he had served her, who the goods were for, and she said for Mr. Andrews. Did not then know that she had left Mr. Andrews` service; had he known this, should not have served her. The goods were worth 1s. 2½d.

Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Tavern, said prisoner left his service about the beginning of December. Did not authorise the prisoner to get them.

The witness Court, re-called, said when he asked who the goods were for she had not taken them off the counter. Witness had weighed and measured the goods.

A nice point arose as to whether the prisoner obtained the goods under a false pretence, as she was served before being asked for her employer`s name. Eventually she was remanded till Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 6^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Dr. Bateman, J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Jane Pellitt was charged on remand of having obtained certain groceries by false pretences from J.B. Spinks, Guildhall Street, on the 24^th ultimo. The depositions taken on Monday having been read over, a consultation took place between the members of the Bench. Prisoner was cautioned, and said she didn`t wish to say anything, only that she was guilty.

Prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, Mr. Andrews being bound over to prosecute. He objected to do so, but was told that as he had taken out the summons he must do so.

Folkestone Express 30-1-1875

Quarter Sessions

Thursday, January 28^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Pellett, 16, domestic servant, imperfectly educated, was indicted for having obtained by false pretences 1¼ lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, and 2 ozs. of candied peel, value 1s. 8½d., the property of George Daniels, on the 19^th and 23^rd December.

A second count charged her with obtaining by false pretences 12 oranges, 1 quart of chestnuts and 1 lb. lump sugar, value 1s 2½d., the property of James Reeves Spinks, on the 24^th December.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and in reply to the Recorder said she had no witnesses to speak to her character.

Superintendent Wilshere stated, in answer to the Recorder, that he had received information of 12 or 13 similar charges against prisoner, who had been identified in several cases.

Mr. Edward Simmons, the Governor of the Dover Gaol, said prisoner had been well behaved when in gaol, and appeared to feel her position acutely. If she continued to conduct herself aright during her term of imprisonment he hoped, with the help of the Chaplain, to get her some employment after it`s expiry.

The Recorder said taking into consideration prisoner`s youth he should sentence her to a light term. She would be sentenced to two calendar months` imprisonment for the false pretences to Mr. Spinks, and two similar sentences in each of the other cases of fraud upon Mr. Daniels, making in all six months` imprisonment.

Southeastern Gazette 10-5-1875

Local News

At the Police Court a few days since Robert Acton Beresford, a tramp, was oharged with begging in Sandgate Road.

Prisoner went into the King’s Arms and Guildhall Tavern, and told people that he was a cashiered military officer.

Mr. Boarer, before whom prisoner was charged, asked the ex-captain if they did not know each other, to which prisoner replied that he was not aware of it.

He begged to be allowed to leave the town, saying he had a family at Brighton.

He was told that he would be at perfect liberty to go away after he had received the public hospitality for fourteen days, during which period he would be kept to hard labour for the benefit of his health.

The “gallant captain,” who seemed indignant at the degradation he was doomed to undergo, was then removed. 

Folkestone Chronicle 15-6-1878

Notice

Mr. THOMAS HARVEY

GUILDHALL HOTEL, FOLKESTONE

All persons having any claim upon Mr. Harvey are requested to send full particulars thereof to me, the undersigned, on or before the 20^th day of June instant, and all persons having any property belonging to Mr. Harvey will forthwith deliver the same to Mrs. Harvey, at the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

Dated 13^th day of June, 1878.

WORSFOLD MOWLL

Solicitor, Dover

Folkestone Express 11-1-1879

Thursday, January 9^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Fletcher.

Ann Clarke, charged with being drunk and disorderly in Sandgate Road on Wednesday, pleaded Guilty. Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner was turned out of the Guildhall Tavern, and was afterwards quarrelling with a man in the street.

She was fined 1s., and 3s. 6d. costs, which she paid.

Folkestone Express 8-3-1879

Monday, March 3^rd: Before Alderman Hoad, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Minnie Smith appeared to a charge of being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening.

P.C. Ovenden said he saw the prisoner lying in the gutter in the centre of a crowd of persons, opposite the Guildhall Tavern. He raised her up and advised her to go home. She refused to do so and swore at him, and was taken into custody.

Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner had been up on similar charges six times previously. The last time was in `76, and since then she had been very orderly.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner with a caution.