Queen`s Head, Beach Street 1861 - 1907

Queen`s Head, on right c1905. Credit Folkestone Library

Queen`s Head c1908. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown

 

Queen`s Head c1908. Credit Peter & Anne Bamford

 

Licensees

Thomas Mayhead c1861 c1861 (1861 Census)

Richard Bailey 1861 1862 To Marquis Of Lorne

Daniel Hall 1862 1869 To North Foreland. Renamed Oxford Tavern 1869-71
Alexander Stonham 1871 1871

Daniel Hall 1871 1874 From North Foreland

George Young 1874 1874

Thomas Masters (or Marshall) 1874 1876
John Pope 1876 1876 From Ship

George Burgess 1876 1877 Ex Bouverie Arms

James Jordan 1877 1879

Charles Barringer 1879 1887

Walter Tame 1887 1907

Folkestone Observer 10-8-1861

Thursday August 8^th:- Before the Mayor, A.M. Leith and James Tolputt Esqs.

Drunk And Riotous

Bernard Carr, on Wednesday afternoon, about 4 o`clock, went into the Queen`s Head beer-house, Beach Street, and wanted a pint of beer; but the landlord seeing that he was already too much beery, refused to serve him. Ten minutes afterwards he came a second time to the house, and made a disturbance, using obscene language. He was fined 5s and 6s costs, or 7 days` imprisonment. The fine was paid.

Southeastern Gazette 24-9-1861

Local News

William Pumfrey, 39, and Mary Pumfrey, 45, tramps, were on Monday charged before the Mayor and W. H. Browell, Esq., with committing a highway robbery, on the Upper Sandgate Road, on Saturday evening.

Mary Reed stated that she was a soldier’s wife, and was returning from the camp, when she met the prisoners. The male prisoner knocked her down and pressed his knee on her chest, breaking her stay bone, while the female prisoner put her band into her pocket and stole 4s. 6d. in silver. They then made their escape. When prosecutrix screamed out a soldier in the 25th Regt., named John Wilson, came to her assistance, and found her bleeding from the mouth. She gave information at the police station, and P.C. William Peel apprehended the prisoners, at the Queen’s Head beerhouse, near the Harbour.

They were remanded to Tuesday, when Wilson, the soldier, confirmed the evidence of the prosecutor, and the prisoners were committed for trial at the next assizes.

 

Folkestone Observer 5-10-1861

Monday September 30^th:- Before the Mayor, James Tolputt esq., and Captain Kennicott R.N.

A Beer-Shop Brawl

George Mercer was brought up on three separate charges viz., disturbance in a beer-shop, assaulting the beer-shop keeper, and assaulting a policeman.

On the first charge, Richard Bailey, landlord of the Queen`s Head beer-house, in Queen Square, deposed that on Saturday evening last, about 6 o`clock, the prisoner came to the house and called for a glass of beer. He appeared at that time to be sober. He used the house till nearly 9 o`clock. The latter part of the time he was quarrelling with another man, and he stripped to fight. Witness went inside to quiet him, and he then lifted his fist to strike him. Witness requested him to leave off, and the other man got him away. This quarrelling and fighting continued the greater part of an hour. He did not serve him with beer while the quarrelling lasted. Witness went for the police.

The prisoner said he certainly did quarrel with another man, who had challenged him to fight. The landlord drew a pot of beer for him within two minutes of his going for the policeman.

The bench dismissed the charge.

Evidence was then taken on the charge of assault on the landlord, Bailey deposing that when he went inside to quiet the prisoner he received a blow on his left eye from the prisoner`s fist, the mark being still visible. He was rather fresh; but he did not appear to be fresh when he came into the house. In reply to prisoner the witness now stated that he did not hit his eye against the door. Prisoner said that the prosecutor was turning round to go out of the bar when he hit his eye against the door. He drew another pint of beer after that and he (prisoner) paid for it. He also drew for other parties. He then went out to fetch a policeman.

In this case the prisoner was fined 1s. and 7s. costs.

On the third charge – resisting the police in the execution of their duty – the evidence of the policeman was taken, and the bench then inflicted a fine, with costs, that made a total mulct of 20s., which was immediately paid.

Southeastern Gazette 8-10-1861

Local News

Petty sessions: Before Capt. Kennicott, R.N., and Alderman Tolputt.

George Mercer was charged with making a disturbance in the Queen’s Head beerhouse.

Richard Bailey, the landlord said that on Saturday evening last the defendant was in his house from 6 till nearly 9 o’clock. During the last hour he was very quarrelsome, and he went out for a policeman. Witness had not served him with any beer for some time a.

The defendant said, defence that he certainly was quarrelling with another man, who had challenged him to fight. The landlord had drawn a pot of beer for him within two minutes of his going for a policeman.

Case dismissed.

A second charge was then made of striking Bailey, the landlord, in the eye. Defendant denied having hit the landlord, and said that he received the blow on the eye from suddenly turning against the edge of an open door, as he was going out. Bailey said at the time that he should charge him with striking the blow, but persons present said they did not know whom he could have to prove it. It was five minutes afterwards that he went out for a policeman, and meanwhile he had served him (prisoner) with beer. He did not know that the landlord had gone for a policeman, and he walked out of the house shortly after, and was very much surprised to be taken into custody.  He had no witness to prove his statement.

Fined 1s., costs 7s.

A third charge was then preferred, of resisting and kicking the  policeman when apprehended. This prisoner also denied, alleging that the officer had knocked off his cap and wouldnot let him look for it, and had also threatened to break his arm, and he did actually severely handle him without cause.

The bench also thought this case proved, and brought up his fines and costs to £1, which were paid.

 

Folkestone Observer 26-10-1861

Monday October 21^st: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq.

Disorderly Beerhouse

Richard Bailey was charged with permitting drunkenness and quarrelling in the Queen`s Head beerhouse, Queen Square, on Friday night, and was fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-12-1861

Saturday November 30^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., William Major, James Tolputt and A.M. Leith esqs.

Richard Bailey was brought up on summons, charged with assaulting John Reynolds, a police constable, in the execution of jis duty.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

John Reynolds deposed he was a police constable. On Thursday morning last, about 10 minutes to 1, was on duty in Queen`s Square, saw the gas lit up in the bar of the Queen`s Head beer-house, kept by the defendant; he went to the window, and heard two men talking close to the window, heard one of them ask for beer and heard the beer engine going, witness knocked at the door and instantly the light was put out. Witness called out “Bailey, open the door” and after a delay of 6 or 7 minutes defendant opened the door. Witness called three separate times before the door was opened. Witness asked why the door was not opened at first, and asked where the people were who were in front of the bar. Defendant used violent language to witness, and struck him in the breast. He shook his fist next at him, and then his wife and daughter pushed him back. He appeared as if he had been drinking. Witness then left the house. Searched the house, and found one room locked: found no person in it.

By the Bench:- I heard the voices of the men.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter – Police constable Smith was at the back door in Seagate Street when I knocked at the front door. There are only doors front and back. Smith did not come into the house; did not see me struck. Prisoner began to swear and struck me directly I got into the house. I cautioned him against striking me, and told him to keep his hands off. I went upstairs and down into the kitchen before he struck me. I told defendant after this, I knew there were some men in the house, but did not go upstairs twice to search it – Bailey said I was too fast; his wife and daughter were there and put their hands against defendant and pushed him away.

By the Court:- Smith did not come to my assistance. His wife saw the first blow struck, but I can`t say whether the daughter did or not. This was the whole of the evidence.

Ellen Bailey, daughter of the defendant, was then sworn.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter:- Remembered Reynolds coming to my father`s house on Thursday morning last; it was past 12. Saw him come in. He went over the house twice; am quite sure he went over the house twice; he stood in the passage after coming down the first time, and said he knew there were people in the house, as he heard them call for beer. I saw him when he came down the 2^nd time, and then would not believe but there was someone in the house. Some angry words passed, but my father did not strike Reynolds.

Captain Kennicott said “From the evidence, Bailey, you appear to have kept a very irregular house. We consider the assault to be proved. We therefore fine you 10s. and costs 10s.” The fine and costs were paid at once.

Folkestone Observer 7-12-1861

Saturday November 30^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R,N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith esqs.

Assaulting The Police

Richard Bailey, landlord of the Queen`s Head beerhouse, Queen Square, was charged with assaulting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Reynolds said that on Thursday morning, at 10 minutes before one o`clock, he was on duty in Queen Square, and saw that the gas was fully lit in the Queen`s Head beerhouse. Going to the window, he heard two men talking, one of them calling for beer, and the beer engine going. He knocked at the door, and the lights were then instantly extinguished. He then called to Bailey, and after six or seven minutes he opened the door. Remonstrating with him inside the house for not opening the door quicker, and inquiring for the men who had been in the bar, Bailey who had himself been drinking, used violent language, and struck him in the chest. He shook his fist to witness a second time, but his wife and daughter interfered. He could not find anyone in the house, but one room was locked.

Mr. Minter cross-examined Reynolds, but failed to shake his evidence, and then addressing the bench, he concluded by calling the daughter of defendant, who said that angry words passed, but her father did not strike Reynolds.

The magistrates considered the case proved, and fined Bailey 10s. with 10s. costs.

Kentish Express 7-12-1861

Saturday Nov. 30:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., William Major, James Tolputt and A.M. Leith esqs.

Richard Bailey, landlord of the Queen`s Head beer-house, Queen Square, was charged with assaulting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Reynolds said that on Thursday morning, at ten minutes before one o`clock, he was on duty in Queen Square, and saw that the gas was fully lit in the Queen`s Head beer-house. Going to the window, he heard two men talking, one of them calling for beer, and the beer engine going. He knocked at the door, and the lights were then instantly extinguished. He then called to Bayley, and after six or seven minutes he opened the door. Remonstrating with him inside the house for not opening the door quicker, and inquiring for the men who had been in the bar, Bayley, who had himself been drinking, used violent language, and struck him in the chest. He shook his fist to witness a second time, but his wife and daughter interfered. He could not find anyone in the house, but one room was locked.

Mr. Minter cross-examined Reynolds, but failed to shake his evidence, and then addressing the Bench he concluded by calling the daughter of defendant, who said that angry words passed, but her father did not strike Reynolds.

The magistrates considered the charge to be proved, and fined Bayley 10s. with 10s. costs.

Maidstone Journal 10-12-1861

Richard Bailey, landlord of the Queen`s Head beer-house, Queen Square, was charged at the Sessions on Saturday with assaulting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty.

Reynolds said that on Thursday morning, at ten minutes before one o`clock, he saw that the gas was fully lit in the Queen`s Head beer-house. Going to the window, he heard two men talking, one of them calling for beer, and the beer engine going. He knocked at the door, and the lights were then instantly extinguished. He then called to Bayley, and after six or seven minutes he opened the door. Remonstrating with him inside the house for not opening the door quicker, and inquiring for the men who had been in the bar, Bayley, who had himself been drinking, used violent language, and struck him in the chest. He shook his fist at witness a second time, but his wife and daughter interfered. He could not find anyone in the house, but one room was locked.

The magistrates fined Bayley 10s. with 10s. costs

Folkestone Observer 15-2-1862

Saturday February 8^th:- Before the Mayor and W.F. Browell Esq.

A Beerhouse Offence

Richard Bailey, of the Queen`s Head beerhouse, in Queen Square, was charged with selling beer between 12 and 1 on Monday morning, and P.C. Smith proving the offence, he was fined 11s. and costs, in default of payment a distress warrant to issue, or 7 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-4-1862 

Petty Sessions, Wednesday, 9^th April: Before Capt. G. Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

The license of the Mariners Home, Radnor Street, was transferred from Ann Tong to Richard Bailey, late landlord of the Queen`s Head. The license of the West Cliff Hotel transferred to Joseph Horwood from G. Giovannini. The license of the South Foreland to Charles Edward Jordan from H. Robinson.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-2-1864

Wednesday February 3^rd:- Before James Kelcey and R.W. Boarer esqs.

Daniel Hall, landlord of the Queen`s Head, appeared on a summons, charged by Supt. Martin with selling beer on Sunday morning last at a quarter to 11 o`clock.

From the evidence of James Sackree Jnr. and James Sackree Sen., father and son, it appeared that they met each other on Sunday morning last about half past ten, and going into defendant`s house asked for, and were served with, a pot of beer by the defendant himself, who took 4d for it; they went in at the back door, which a little girl unbolted for them; there were seven or eight more persons there, who were all drinking. Defendant made no defence, and was fined £1 and 12s 6d costs.

Folkestone Observer 6-2-64

Wednesday February 3^rd:- Before James Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Daniel Hall was summoned for selling two pints of beer on Sunday morning, the 31^st of January.

James Sackerie, mariner, living in Fancy Street, said: On Sunday last I went out to walk with my child in the morning about half past ten. I fell in with my father and asked if he was going to stand a pot of beer. He said “Yes”, and we went into the defendant`s house, the Queen`s Head. My father ordered a pot of beer, for which he paid the defendant (Hall) himself. This was between five and ten minutes to eleven in the morning. The defendant himself took the order for the beer, brought it in, and received the money for it. A man named Titmarsh caused a row, and wanted me to fight. The defendant came in and told me not to make so much noise, and then struck me in the face. There were seven or eight persons there drinking beer besides us. We went in at the back door, which a little girl unbolted and let us in. The front door was shut. We saw several other persons go in and we thought we could go in as well as them. We stopped there about half an hour.

James Sackerie, mariner, said: I met my son on Sunday morning last. He asked me if I was going to stand a pot of beer. I said “Yes”. I knocked at defendant`s back door and a little girl came and unbolted the door, and we went in. I called to the bar and the defendant brought me a pot of beer, for which I paid him fourpence in coppers. We drank the beer between us. This was between a quarter and twenty minutes to eleven o`clock in the morning. My son and Tidmarsh had a few words, and Hall came in and struck my son. There were six or seven other persons present. There was beer on the table. We stopped in the house about three quarters of an hour.

The defendant was convicted and fined £1 and costs 12s. 6d.

Folkestone Observer 1-7-1865

Friday June 30^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

William Warman and Edward Warman, his son, were charged with assaulting police constable Reynolds and resisting him in the execution of his duty.

Police constable Reynolds said about half past twelve o`clock this morning he was on duty in Queen`s Square. There was a great disturbance at the Queen`s Head public house and he went to the door to see what it was. He looked in the door and saw several people quarrelling in the passage, and the landlord called him in to assist in clearing the house. There was a woman there named Mrs. Hall, the landlord`s mother, and he assisted in removing her from the house; all the people were drunk. While removing the woman from the house, a young man, who he believed was the elder prisoner`s son, rushed into the passage and kicked him in the stomach, and he took him into custody. William Warman then came up and collared witness by the throat, and tried to rescue the prisoner, and as he would not let go his hold, witness took him into custody also. As he was holding a prisoner in each hand several persons rushed at him, and he had a scuffle with his prisoners, during which someone cut the neckerchief by which he was holding the younger prisoner, and he escaped. The elder prisoner also struggled violently to get away, and several people tried to rescue him, but witness drew his staff and kept them at bay, and got the prisoner to the station house and locked him up.

Daniel Hall said he was the landlord of the Queen`s Head public house in Queen`s Square. Soon after twelve o`clock last night he called police constable Reynolds to assist in removing his mother and sister from his house as they had been making a bisturbance. Police constable Reynolds helped him to clear the house.

In answer to the constable, witness said that he saw a young man kick Reynolds in the stomach.

The complaint against the younger prisoner was that when Ryenolds was bringing the elder prisoner up High Street, the younger one threw flint stones, several of which struck the constable, and Mr. Boult, landlord of the Victoria, stopped him from throwing more. He followed his father to the station house, when Reynolds apprehended him and locked him up.

The magistrates told William Warman they were very sorry to see him in such a position, for they believed him to be a very respectable fisherman, who ought to have assisted the policeman instead of assaulting him. He would have to pay a fine of 1s., and costs 15s., or go to prison for a week.

The younger prisoner was severely reprimanded and discharged.

Folkestone Observer 8-7-1865

Monday July 3^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., Captain Leith R.V. and J. Tolputt Esq.

William Warman, fisherman, was charged with assaulting police constable Reynolds in the execution of his duty.

Police constable Reynolds said – On Friday morning about half past twelve o`clock he was on duty in Queen`s quare, when he heard a disturbance at the Queen`s Head public house. On going to see what was the matter, he found the landlord trying to put some people out of his house, and he called on him to assist. William Warman interfered and he took him into custody. The defendant then came into the passage and kicked him on the leg behind, and also in the stomach, and he took him into custody, but someone cut the handkerchief by which he held him, and he escaped from custody.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and witness, in reply to him, said he was sure the handkerchief which he produced was the one defendant wore when he took him into custody.

Daniel Hall, landlord of the Queen`s Head public house, said that on Friday morning he called police constable Reynolds to assist him in clearing his house, and while he was removing William Warman the defendant kicked him on the leg. Defendant had been abusing witness previous to this.

Mr. Minter said he would show that defendant was not the man who kicked the policeman. He called Elizabeth Warman, mother of the defendant, who said he lived at her house, and she looked after his clothes. The handkerchief produced by the constable did not belong to her son.

Thomas Freeman said he was a bit of a fisherman, and was at the Queen`s Head public house when the row took place. The defendant`s mother was in the house at the time. The defendant neither kicked nor touched constable Reynolds; if he had done so, h must have seen it. He saw no person kick the policeman. (Witness here got incoherent, but with a good deal of questioning it was elicited, amidst much laughter, that he saw the defendant go into the house and shut the door; that he remained outside while the row was going on in the passage, and when he next saw the defendant the policeman was pushing him out of the house).

The magistrates said they considered the assault proved, and that they were determined to protect the constables in the execution of their duty. Defendant would have to pay a fine of 10s., and costs 12s., in default, 14 days` imprisonment, with hard labour.

Folkestone Observer 29-6-1867

Friday, June 28^th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Daniel Hall was charged with having his house open during the prohibited hours on Sunday, the 23^rd instant.

Supt. Martin said: On Sunday morning last, the 23^rd inst., I went into the defendant`s house, the Queen`s Head, in Queen`s Square. The door was open. It was about 20 minutes to twelve in the morning. I met a man coming out with a pipe in his hand. I went into the house, into the tap room. I found 19 men sitting down, some smoking. There were several pots on the table, containing beer. I went to the bar door. Defendant was there. I called his attention to what was going on. He said he was going out of the house, and wanted to get rid of the beer.

Mr. Minter here withdrew the plea, and pleaded guilty.

Witness continued: I put in evidence of a former conviction against defendant for a similar offence, dated 3^rd February, 1864.

The Bench fined the defendant £3 and 10s. costs, and in default two months imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 1-2-1868

Advert

To Let: the Queen`s Head Inn, Folkestone. Incoming nominal. Apply to Newport and Lock, Lion Brewery, Ashford

Folkestone Observer 28-3-1868

Monday, March 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and J. Tolputt Esq.

James White, 28, a private of the 7^th Dragoon Guards, charged with being a deserter, pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Ingram Swaine said: This morning, between twelve and one o`clock, I was on duty near the Royal George, on the Backway, and met the prisoner in an undress state. He had no jacket and no cap. He was very wet. He did not know where he was or where he was going. He was the worse for liquor. I charged him with being a deserter. I took him into custody. He said he did not wish to desert, but to find his clothes. He said he belonged to the 7<sup>th</sup> Dragoons, but had no pass. He was not troublesome at all. I found his cap, stock, and jacket this morning, in the lower part of the town, at the Queen`s Head. I found the door unfastened, and went in, rousing the landlord. Prisoner seemed to be stupefied, but he could walk very well.

Prisoner said he was sorry he had been overcome by liquor. He had been a soldier for eight years, and had a good conduct stripe.

The Chairman said he was sorry to see a man in such a position, but he ought to have known better. Ordered to be sent to the depot of his regiment at Shorncliffe.

Folkestone Express 28-3-1868

Monday, March 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt

James White, 28, was charged with being a deserter from the 17^th Dragoon Guards.

P.C. 6F deposed: That morning about 25 minutes to one o`clock he was on duty in the lower part of town, near the Royal George, when he met the prisoner without jacket and cap, and he was very wet. I asked him where he was going to; he said he did not know. I then asked him whence he came from, and he said he did not know. I then charged him with being a deserter. He said he did not want to desert – he wanted to find his clothes. At the police station he said he belonged to the 17<sup>th</sup> Dragoon Guards. I asked him if he had a pass, when he said he had not. He was the worse for liquor, but not so drunk but what he knew what he was about. I found his jacket, stock, and cap at the Queen`s Head beerhouse, where he had been allowed to sleep in the tap room.

The Clerk said that according to the Articles Of War the prisoner would be liable to be charged with being a deserter.

The prisoner said he hoped the Bench would look over this case as he was drunk.

Captain Kennicott said that to look over one would be to look over a hundred.

The prisoner was ordered to be returned to the Camp, to be dealt with as his Commanding Officer may think fit.

Folkestone Observer 29-5-1869

Wednesday, May 26^th: Before R. W. Boarer, J. Gambrill, and W. Bateman Esqs.

Mr. H.A. Herwigg made an application for a license to sell excisable liquors at the Queen`s Head, Queen`s Square. It appeared that the last tenant, Daniel Hall, had closed the house, and it had been kept closed for the past two years, thus forfeiting the license. Mr. Herwigg had kept the Pavilion Shades and Paris Hotel Tap, and Mr. Martin had no complaint of his management.

The Bench granted the application.

Folkestone Express 29-5-1869

Wednesday, April 26^th: Before J. Gambrill, R. W. Boarer, and W. Bateman Esqs.

Mr. Henry Augustus Herwigg applied for a license for a house called the Queen`s Head, Queen`s Square. Mr. Minter supported the application. He said the house belonged to Mr. Jeffrey, who let it to Daniel Hall. Mr. Hall removed to the South Foreland, and closed this house, and the license was forfeited. The house was now opened again, and the Bench would understand this was not an application for a fresh license, but merely a renewal of that purposely lost by the last occupier. The applicant had previously held a spirit license in the town, and the police Superintendent could testify that he never had any complaint against him.

The Magistrates` Clerk said there was a special clause in the Act of Parliament to meet a case of this kind. It says the application can be made at any time within three years of the forfeiture of the license. If it was over three years the Bench would have to treat it as a fresh license. The Bench granted the application.

Note: According to information in More Bastions, the house had changed it`s name to the Oxford Tavern by 1869!

Folkestone Chronicle 4-3-1871

Friday, March 3^rd: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Alexander Stonham applied for temporary authority to sell excisable liquor at the Queen`s Head under the license granted to Louis Herwig at the last general annual licensing meeting.

The application was granted.

Note: Stonham does not appear in the list of licensees in More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-10-1872

Saturday, October 5^th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny

Daniel Hall was summoned for keeping his house, the Queen`s Head, open during prohibited hours.

The Bench convicted defendant, and fined him 20s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 12-10-1872

Saturday, October 5^th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

Daniel Hall, Queen`s Head Inn, Queen`s Square, was summoned for a similar offence on the same day.

Defendant: I am Guilty, I suppose.

P.C. Hogben said he went into the house at half past five, when he found a ship`s crew there. The landlady said some of them were lodgers, and she was not aware that they were required to close the house before six o`clock.

Defendant said: The men had been working for me and I called them in for the purpose of paying their wages. I had a trap at the door and was going away directly. The police ought to watch other people, who he knows have their houses open at improper hours.

Mr. Tolputt: You can turn informer if you like. You must pay a fine of £1 and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 3-5-1873

Thursday, May 1^st: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Eliza Stewart was charged with stealing the articles named in the evidence given below, the property of Henry Hills, Lifeboat Inn, North Street. The goods were valued at £15.

Jane Hills deposed: I am the wife of Henry Hills, Lifeboat Inn, North Street. Prisoner came to lodge at my house on the 15^th April and stayed there up to yesterday. I went to a chest of drawers in one of my rooms yesterday for a pinafore for my child, when I missed five yards of alpaca, two nightgowns, two chemises, three pieces of calico, a little embroidered frock, a small piece of linen, a waistcoat, a white jacket, an apron, a sheet, and a pillow case. The articles produced I identify as my property. I last saw the articles the day after prisoner came to my house. The Superintendent showed them to me last night.

Ann Dennard deposed: I am servant to prosecutrix. I bought five yard of alpaca, two chemises, and a scarf of prisoner on the 22^nd and 29^th April. I gave her 1s. each for the chemises and 2s. 6d. for the alpaca. P.C. Keeler came to me yesterday and I told him I had bought the goods of prisoner.

Sophia Huxley deposed: I am housekeeper at the Queen`s Head Inn. I bought a pawn ticket of prisoner referring to two nightgowns and a child`s jacket on the 28^th. On Tuesday morning she came to the Queen`s Head for a glass of beer and I gave her 1s. 6½d. to get the articles out of pledge, which she did and gave them to me. On Tuesday she brought three pieces of stuff, a child`s bead belt, and a piece of linen, and said she was going back to Derby and would give them to me. I gave the goods to a policeman last night.

Sarah Aldridge said: I am wife of Henry Aldridge, fisherman, Radnor Street. I was in the Queen`s Head on Monday evening when prisoner came in and said she had a child`s frock to sell, which I took to Mrs. Fagg, a neighbour, for her and brought one shilling back. The frock produced is the same. I gave the frock to P.C. Keeler after fetching it back from Mrs. Fagg.

Superintendent Wilshire deposed: I received the alpaca now produced from the witness Dennard yesterday afternoon.

P.C. Keeler deposed: I apprehended prisoner about half past six last evening in Harbour Street and charged her with stealing three yards of alpaca from Mr. Hills. I then went to the Queen`s Head and the witness Dennard gave me two chemises which she said she had bought of a woman. She went upstairs and gave me two nightgowns, three pieces of stuff, a pianoforte, a piece of linen, a belt, and a child`s jacket. She said she bought the pawn ticket referring to the two nightgowns and jacket of prisoner. She said the pieces of stuff were given to her by prisoner. Mrs. Aldridge gave me the child`s dress and said she took it of prisoner and sold it to Mrs. Fagg.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said her husband was at the School of Musketry, Hythe, and was married February 16^th, at Derby.

Superintendent Wilshire said a soldier of the 60^th Rifles had sent money from Derby to pay her fare to that place.

Prisoner was sentenced to three months` hard labour.

The Mayor cautioned the witnesses to be careful purchasing goods in future.

Folkestone Express 16-8-1873

Saturday, August 9^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

The convictions in the following cases show the determination of the police and the magistrates to put down what is far too common in the neighbourhood of Radnor Street and Beach Street.

Daniel Hall, Queen`s Head Inn, was charged with permitting disorderly conduct in his house, contrary to the tenor of his license.

P.C. Swaine said his attention was called to a noise in the Queen`s Head about a quarter before eleven on the night of the 28^th July. On going there he found three woman and several men drunk. Mrs. Pope, of the Star Inn, Radnor Street, and her two daughters were there, the mother being drunk. Language was being used which was unfit to repeat. There appeared to be a general quarrel all round. He heard Hall say he wished the parties would leave the house. There were about thirty of forty people round the house. Hall did not ask witness to interfere. Mrs. Pope and her two daughters left the house and witness went away. About a quarter before twelve he was passing the house, when he heard a great disturbance again; told defendant to clear his house, when witness was called away to assist the military picket.

In cross-examination by Mr. Till, who appeared for defendant, witness said Hall tried to interfere, and he knew he had been very ill. Hall told the parties he would not have his house disturbed by them.

Sergt. Reynolds corroborated as to the disturbance and as to Mrs. Pope being drunk. Hall said he should go away as he could do nothing with them. Witness told the people in the Queen`s Head if they did not go away he should summon them.

In answer to Mr. Till witness said the noise was disturbing the neighbourhood and several persons were looking out of their windows.

Mr. Till said he had not much to answer. Defendant had been very ill, and was ill at that time. There was a family quarrel and no doubt the words used were very shocking to people not accustomed to such language. Hall told them they must go home, and interfered so far as he was able, short of using force, which he was not in a condition to do, being very ill; and not only so, but he complained to the police.

William Saunders was called for the defence, and said he was in the Queen`s Head just before the row commenced. Hall was not there at the commencement, but when he came he remonstrated with the parties and asked them to go away.

James Crumby was also called for the defence, but showed such levity when about to be sworn that Mr. Till very properly refused to examine him.

The Mayor said defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £10 and to have his license endorsed with the conviction. No doubt he was in ill health, but he was bound to know the law, and had every opportunity of calling in the aid of the police. Considering the state of his health the fine would only be £2 and 11s. costs and his license would not be endorsed.

Defendant paid the money.

Mrs. Mary Ann Pope was charged with being drunk in the Queen`s Head on the 28^th July.

Mr. Till for the defence.

P.C. Swain said he saw defendant in front of the bar in the Queen`s Head on the night of the day in question. He had no doubt she was drunk, and she was acting and talking like a woman out of her mind. She came out of the house with her two daughters; when he went again he found her there again, still drunk.

By Mr. Till: Her two daughters had to lead her out of the house. She was very much excited. I think from her appearance and her staggering about she was drunk; she reeld backwards and forwards and was disputing with someone. She is in the habit of getting drunk in her own house.

By Mr. Clarke: I have seen her when sober, and know she was drunk.

Sergt. Reynolds corroborated, and said he had no doubt defendant was drunk.

Mr. Till said it might appear when two constables stated the same thing that it was proved. The same quantity of drink taken when a person is calm might have a different effect if taken when excited, and the excitement on the night in question might have been taken for intoxication. He should call defendant`s two daughters, whom he knew were charged with misdemeanour, but that ought not to make any difference.

Mary Pope, defendant`s daughter, said she was sure her mother was not drunk, but was excited by a dispute with her sister.

Emily Pope, another of defendant`s daughters, said she was sure her mother was sober. They had a quarter of brandy and a bottle of ginger beer among three of them, and her mother went into the house sober.

The Mayor said the Bench considered the case proved, and as defendant kept a public house she ought to set a better example. She must pay 10s. fine and 12s. costs, and if she were convicted again the fine would be doubled.

Mary Ann, Emily, and Mary Pope were charged with using obscene language in Beach Street on the 28^th July.

P.C. Swaine said he heard Mrs. Pope and Emily using very bad language. They were on the doorstep and stepped into the street. Mary was in the street. Several of the neighbours complained.

By Mr. Till: Mr. Worsell and Mr. Ashtell complained, but they were not present to give evidence. He followed defendants to the arches; they had ceased making a noise and were walking home quietly.

John Johnson, inspector under the C.D.A., deposed to hearing Emily using bad language; he did not hear Mrs. Pope or Mary say anything.

Mr. Till asked that Mary might be discharged as there was no evidence against her, and said it was a superfluous act on the part of the police to summon her.

Mary was then discharged.

Mr. Till contended that the doorstep was not a part of the street, but he would leave it to Mr. Bradley, the Clerk, to advise the Bench on that point. He wished to point out discrepancies in the evidence of the police and Johnson as to the words alleged to have been used.

The Mayor said the Bench were determined to put a stop to the practice of using bad language in the streets. As it was the first offence the defendants would be dealt leniently with. They must pay a fine of 10s. and 9s. costs each.

Southeastern Gazette 19-8-1873

Local News

At the Police Court, a few days ago, Daniel Hall, landlord of the Queen’s Head Inn, Queen’s Square, was charged with permitting disorderly conduct in his house.

The attention of P.C. Swaine being called to a noise in the Queen’s Head, at about a quarter to eleven on the night of July 28th, the constable went there and found several men drunk, as well as Mrs. Pope, landlady of the Star Inn, Radnor Street, with her two daughters, the mother being drunk. There appeared to be a general quarrel all round, and very bad language was used, and amidst it all the three women went away. Hall tried to quiet the people, but did not ask witness to interfere. Witness knew defendant had been very ill.

Sergeant Reynolds corroborated as to the disturbance, and as to Mrs. Pope being drunk; and as 30 or 40 people were concerned in the row the whole neighbourhood was disturbed by it.

Mr. Till, who appeared for the defence, said the defendant had been very ill, and was ill at that time. There was a family quarrel, and no doubt the words used were very shocking to people not accustomed to such language. Hall told them they must go home, and interfered as far as he was able short of using force, which he was not in a position to do, being very ill; and not only so, but he complained to the police.

William Saunders, who was in the Queen’s Head just before the row commenced, heard Hall remonstrate with the parties, asking them to go away.

The Mayor said defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £10, and to have his licence endorsed with the conviction. No doubt he was in ill health, but he was bound to know the law, and had every opportunity of calling in the aid of the police. Considering the state of his health, the fine would only be £2 and 11s. costs, and his licence would not be endorsed. Defendant paid the money.

At the same sitting Mrs. Mary Ann Pope was convicted of being drunk, and fined 10s., costs 12s. She was also fined 10s., costs 9s., for making use of bad language, and a similar penalty for the like offence was inflicted on her daughter, Emily Pope.

Folkestone Express 21-3-1874

Monday, March 16^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark Esqs.

William Cole, a private in the Kent Artillery Militia, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and using obscene language on Saturday night.

Supt. Wilshere said he saw prisoner in Queen`s Square, outside the Queen (sic) public house, about a quarter to eleven on Saturday night, surrounded by thirty or forty persons, chiefly boys. Prisoner was drunk and rushing about in a frantic state, striking wildly about him with his belt, and saying “Let me get at the ----“. Witness took the belt from prisoner, and assistance being procured he was taken to the station. He appeared to have been badly treated, as his tunic was torn. He had a pass to twelve on Saturday night, and would be punished on his return to quarters at Dover as an absentee.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and expressed sorrow for what had occurred, and appeared to feel his position acutely, shedding tears copiously. He should have to pay 18s. 6d. for a new tunic.

The Bench, taking into consideration the prisoner had been locked up since eleven on Saturday night, and that he would be punished on his return to quarters, discharged him.

Folkestone Express 19-12-1874

Wednesday, December 16^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq. and Col. De Crespigny.

License Transfer

This was one of the days appointed for the transfer of licenses. The following application was heard:

That of the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, from George James Young to Thomas Masters.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-8-1875

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

This was the annual licensing day.

Thomas Marshall applied for the renewal of the license of the Queen`s Head, Queen`s Street, temporarily transferred to him about six months since.

Mr. Mowll supported the application.

Superintendent Wilshere opposed the application on the ground that Marshall was not the real applicant, but that he was under Pope, but the applicant having stated that the house did belong to him, and he was responsible, the Bench granted the license.

Note: Licensee is listed as Thomas Masters in More Bastions

Folkestone Express 28-8-1875

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

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

Wine, Spirit and Beer Licenses

The Bona Fides Of A License Holder

Thomas Marshall applied for the renewal of the license to the Queen`s Head, temporarily transferred to him about six months since.

Mr. Mowll supported the application.

Mr. J.M. Wilshere, as Superintendent of Police, opposed it on the ground that the applicant was not the bona fide landlord of the premises.

Mr. Mowll having made the application, Superintendent Wilshere said that there was reason to believe that Marshall was not the real applicant, but that the house would be managed by a man named Alfred Pope, who in 1873 conducted the Star Inn, Radnor Street, so badly that witness opposed it`s renewal. The Magistrates then granted it conditionally on his conducting his house better, and he did so, but soon afterwards transferred his business to another man, and went to Dover. Since the present applicant, Marshall, had held the license of the Queen`s Head, he had not lived in the house, as he was a driver for Mr. Williams, of the ginger beer works. The house had been managed by Alfred Pope, his wife (who, when landlady of the Star, was convicted of drunkenness), and two daughters. It was at first a “quiet house” under Marshall, but lately had attracted more custom, and was visited by soldiers and similar company, who, he feared, were drawn thither by questionable attractions. He must therefore oppose the granting of the license to applicant, as he considered him entirely unfit to conduct the house.

In reply to the Bench, Superintendent Wilshere said he had had occasion to caution the applicant once on account of the disorderly manner in which the house was being conducted.

Police sergeant Woodlands corroborated this statement on oath.

The applicant was then examined, and swore that he was the only person responsible for the conduct of the house, that Pope and his wife were simply acting as his servants, but had, like him, to “get a living” out of the house, and that he (Marshall) had full responsibility and control over the house. Although employed at Williams`s ginger beer factory in the day, he came home at night, and had always slept in the house since having the license.

Mr. Mowll having addressed the Bench in support of the application, the Mayor said the Bench must believe the applicant, who had sworn that he was the responsible holder of the license, and should therefore grant the renewal, subject, of course, to confirmation at the annual licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 4-3-1876

Inquest

On Saturday morning a little after six o`clock, a little boy, who was under the tramroad, noticed the body of a man lying beneath the ship Christian. He at once gave information, and assistance being procured the body was rescued, when it was found to be a man named James Henry Goldsack, mate of the brigantine Expert, of Faversham.

On Monday morning an inquest was held before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, and a jury.

The following evidence was taken:

Onslow James Foreman said: I am a dredger, living at Whitstable. The deceased Henry Goldsack was my brother-in-law.

The jury having viewed the body, the witness Foreman said he identified the body as being that of James Henry Goldsack. He was mate of the Expert brigantine of Faversham. He was 39 years of age, married, and his wife was living at Whitstable. He produced a letter which his wife had received on Saturday morning, and dated Friday night, saying he was quite well, and asking her to come down and spend the Sunday with him.

Henry Wootton Gunn said: I am the master of the brigantine Expert. Deceased was mate, and we arrived at Folkestone laden with coals on Friday morning. We were berthed in the middle of the outer harbour. At five minutes past eight o`clock on Friday evening deceased left the vessel and walked ashore. The tide was coming up. Deceased was perfectly sober, and had been on board all day. He said he was going to post a letter. I went to bed at 9.30, and he had not returned then. The water at that time was round the vessel. The vessel would be afloat by eleven o`clock. She drew twelve feet of water. I expected that he would have got on board the Christian, and have taken her boat to get on board the Expert. At half past six on Saturday morning the mate of the Polly called out “Here`s Jim under the tramway”. I went there and saw deceased in a boat.

Mr. Richard Mercer, M.R.C.S. said: I examined the body of deceased, and found a slight bruise on the right cheek, and a few abrasions on the forehead. All the marks were of a very slight character. In my opinion he met his death by drowning. There are no marks to show that death resulted from violence.

Alfred William Temple: I am fourteen years of age, and live with my father, who is a tailor. On Saturday morning I was underneath the tramway picking up coals; it was twenty minutes past six o`clock. I saw deceased lying under the bottom of the brigantine Christian, which was lying alongside the tramroad at the upper berth in the outer harbour. Deceased was lying on his face on the west side of the vessel. There was no water. I called a man named Redmond, alias Colley, and then went for further help. Deceased had his clothes on, but not his hat.

Joseph Colley: I am a shipwright, living in Dover Road. On Saturday morning I was at work when the last witness called me. I went and crawled under the ship, where I found deceased lying on his face. The body was half covered with sand. I called the mate of the Polly who came and assisted me to get him out. We put the body into a boat lying near. Deceased was dressed, but his hat was off.

P.C. Charles Ovenden said on Saturday morning last he was on duty at the police station. From information he received he went to the harbour and saw the body of the deceased in a boat. He obtained assistance, and had the body taken to the old police station. On searching the body he found nothing except a little wet tobacco and a tobacco pipe.

Alfred Pope said: I am a publican, and live at the Queen`s Head. On Friday nigh I saw the deceased at my house. He came in at half past ten and left at eleven. I have known him for twenty years. I went out with him. He was perfectly sober. He told me that he was going aboard as he thought they were going to move her. I walked with him to the entrance gate of the tramroad. He told me that he should have to tak a boat of another vessel to get aboard. When he was at my house he had no hat on and complained of his head. We had one glass of ale at my house. I shouted to him to ask if he was all right and he said he was. It was quite dark, and was very dangerous for anyone to go in consequence of there being so many cross-metals.

The witness Foreman was re-called and said deceased had been unwell for some time and it was believed that he was suffering from heart disease.

Several jurymen spoke of the danger to persons whose business led them to cross the tramroad in order to fet to their ships at night, and thought that some lights should be provided.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found Drowned”, and added that they considered that lights ought to be placed for the safety of those whose duty led them to use the tramroad, and also that the ladders should be extended to the bottom.

The Coroner said he would forward the recommendation to the proper quarter.

Note: No mention of Pope at the Queen`s Head according to More Bastions

Wednesday, March 1^st: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Captain Fletcher, and Alderman Caister.

Minnie Smith was charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Queen`s Head Inn on the previous evening. Prisoner was further charged with using obscene language, with wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the Queen`s Head, and also with resisting the police.

On reference to our police report of Saturday, it will be seen that the prisoner was then fined for being drunk and disorderly.

Thomas Masters, landlord of the Queen`s Head said that on Tuesday evening the prisoner came in with a private belonging to the Lancers. He noticed that she was tipsy, but he served the soldier with some beer, which the latter handed to the girl. Prisoner then used bad language, and he requested her to go out, but she refused. He then put her outside, when she immediately smashed the square of glass in the door. The value of the glass was 5s.

P.C. Ovenden said that about half past ten o`clock on the previous evening he was sent for to the Queen`s Head. He went there and prisoner was given into his custody. She was drunk and resisted violently. On the road to the station she used bad language and witness had to procure the assistance of another officer. Witness put her in the old police station until she became quiet. He had frequently cautioned her as to her conduct on previous occasions.

The Mayor said that the prisoner was before the Bench on Saturday, when she was let off with a fine, but that did not appear to have had any deterring effect upon her. The Bench on the present occasion had therefore determined to punish her more severely. For the first offence, viz. being drunk and disorderly, she would have to pay a fine of 10s. and 10s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days` imprisonment, and for the other charges she would be committed for fourteen days.

Southeastern Gazette 31-7-1876

Local News

There were two or three cases heard before J. Sherwood, Esq. (Mayor), on Saturday last, the most important of which was that of John Pope, landlord of the Queen’s Head, Beach Street, formerly of the Ship, Radnor Street, who was fined £12 and costs, for selling spirits without a licence.

 

Folkestone Express 5-8-1876

Saturday, July 30^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Crowe.

Alfred Pope was charged with having on the 25^th  of July unlawfully sold by retail certain intoxicating liquor, which he was not then licensed to sell.

Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared in support of the information, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Mowll, in opening the case, said the facts were very simple, and coul;d hardly afford matter of dispute between him and Mr. Minter, though there might be some contention as to the construction of the Act of Parliament. At the last licensing day a license was granted to Thomas Masters of the King`s Head (sic). The defendant came into the house under certain circumstances which would be explained, and remained there until some days since, when a dispute took place between them and Masters, who had to go for the protection of the police. A policeman went down to the house, and was present while Masters left it with the license in his pocket. The defendant nevertheless remained in the house, and though by his having turned Masters out any authority which he might previously have derived from Masters had terminated, he continued to sell beer, spirits and tobacco without any authority. The sale would be clearly proved by two soldiers, and the magistrates, he thought, would have no option but to say that the offence had been committed.

Thomas Adams Masters produced the license of the Queen`s Head Inn, Queen Street (sic), which, he said, was granted to him by the magistrates on the last licensing day. He continued in the occupation of the house from that time until the previous Monday, when he was obliged to go for the assistance of the police. An officer returned with him and remained while he removed his goods and papers, incliding the license. The defendant remained in the house and continued to sell spirits, beer and tobacco against his (witness`s) orders.

Cross-examined: This was a renewed license, which witness had transferred from Mr. Young, of Dover. Mr. Young did not hold it for witness`s brother, William Masters. He had no brother, but a son, William Masters. Mr. Young did not hold it for him. He swore before the licensing magistrates when he applied for the license that he was tenant of the house to Mr. Young, and so he was. He was a quarterly tenant, at £32 a year rent. He could not swear whether or not he had paid any rent since last licensing day. The defendant paid the rent this year, and also paid the money for the license.

The defendant here began to make a number of grimaces, upon which Mr. Minter, addressing him rather sharply, said “If you like to conduct your own case you can, but if you wish to perform those antics you must do so in my absence”.

Cross-examination continued: Witness had not slept three nights at a time out of the house since last licensing day. The defendant bought the beer and spirits, but the business had been carried on in witness`s name. He knew that it had been arranged for the business to be transferred to William Brunt, who was entitled to his discharge on his return from India in October, and he and Mrs. Brunt had £150 to keep on the business until this time. He agreed to stop to October if they would give him £50 more.

Police Constable Hills deposed to going with Masters to the Queen`s Head and seeing Masters carry away his boxes, which were searched by defendant.

James Rushton, a corporal in the Coldstream Guards, deposed that he went to the house about ten o`clock on Tuesday night, and saw the defendant, his wife, and two daughters. He called for a glass of ale, twopennyworth of gin, and half an ounce of tobacco, with which he was served by Mrs. Pope. The defendant was standing at the bar at the time and took the money.

Cross-examined: He saw the Superintendent of Police before he went to the house. He saw him hourly every night, but Mr. Wilshere did not tell him to go into the Queen`s Head and call for ale, gin and tobacco.

Robert Watson, a private in the 26^th Regiment, gave similar evidence. He was present when Adams left the house. Someone belonging to the family gave him (witness) into custody.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant. He observed that Mr. Mowll had very carefully concealed for whom he appeared, but it transpired that Adams was the person who was putting the law in motion and taking these proceedings against the defendant. Mr. Mowll opened the case somewhat unfairly, because he stated that Pope was the occupier of the house. This must have been a mistake, and his friend must have known better, for he himself, at the last annual licensing meeting, examined Masters, who swore positively that he was the occupier of the house. There was no mystery whatever in the matter. It appeared from Masters` own statement that under a written agreement he obtained £150 from the defendant`s daughter, Mrs. Brunt, for the purchase of the furniture and goodwill of the house. Masters himself, however, was said to be the tenant and carry un the house for twelve months, until Mrs. Brunt`s husband, who was a soldier in India, could return. But it appeared that he did not pay a penny piece for rent, or what was consumed by the customers, and that even the license was paid by Mrs. Brunt. And yet they found Masters behaving in this way. The reason of his conduct was quite clear. He knew that October was drawing very close, and that he could then have no excuse for transferring the license to William Brunt on his return from India. Accordingly he turned round and said “The license is in my name, and I can levy blackmail upon you. It it true that among us we have got £150 out of you, but that £150 will be perfectly useless if I destroy this house as a licensed premises. Unless you submit to my coertion and give me another £50 I will shut the house and ruin you”. The £50 was refused, upon which a disturbance took place, and Adams was unfortunately enabled to get the Superintendent of Police to lay this information against Pope. But was the case proved by the soldiers` evidence? This was a highly penal statute, and he asked the Bench to say that the defendant was not responsible for the act of his wife in selling the ale, gin and tobacco. The real tenant of the house was Mrs. Brunt, who was keeping it on until her husband returned from India, and who would state that she did so by Masters` direction. He submitted that under the circumstances the Bench would be justified in saying that the defendant was not responsible for the sale of this ale, gin and tobacco.

Mr. Minter then called Emily Brunt, who said she was the wife of William Brunt, a private in the 9^th Regiment of Foot, now in India, but who would be entitled to his discharge on coming home in October.  In June, 1875, she entered into an agreement with Masters for the purchase of the goods at the Queen`s Head for £120, Mr. Mowll acting as solicitor between all parties. (The agreement, which was produced, was between William Masters, of Dover, hairdresser, and William Brunt, whereby Masters agreed to sell the effects for the sum of £120, £100 of which he received at the time, and to remain in Emily Brunt`s service in the house as long as his services were required.) Masters was to take returned, but the business was really her husband`s. Masters remained in her service until the other day. Witness had also had the assistance of her sister in carrying on the business, and when she had the baby in her arms she sometimes told her father (the defendant) to draw. This was by the direction of Masters, who had been away working for a ginger beer manufacturer. The defendant was a carrier and merely lodged in the house. On this occasion she asked her mother to draw as she had the baby in her arms.

During his examination of this witness Mr. Minter said there was too much interference on the part of the Superintendent of Police, adding “We will have to put you in your place, Mr. Wilshere”.

Mr. Mowll said he was taking his instructions from the Superintendent, who had done nothing but what was perfectly regular.

Mr. Minter said the place where Mr. Wilshere was sitting – at the solicitors` table – was not the proper place for him at all. There was too much interference on his part.

The Bench said if there had been any interference – and they hadn`t noticed any – it would have had no influence whatever upon them.

Mr. Minter: Immediately I am saying something about the license the Superintendent takes upon himself to snatch it up, which he has no right whatever to do. The liberties taken by the Superintendent of Police here would not be permitted anywhere else I go.

Mr. Mowll said he had observed nothing on Mr. Wilshere`s part which could not be done by Superintendents at other Courts which he was in the habit of attending.

Mr. Minter said it was only natural that Mr. Mowll should constitute himself the champion of those who instructed him.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on their return to Court the Chairman said that they considered a great deal had been said that day which had no bearing on the case. For the purposes of the day they considered that Masters was the holder of the license, and if he had wronged the defendant in any way the latter had his remedy. They repeated, however, for the purposes of the day, Masters, in their opinion, was the holder of the license, and the defendant had sold illegally. Therefore, according to their view, the defendant was liable. The penalty was £50, and they could not fine him less than £12 10s. and 15s. 6d, costs, though it was their wish to have made it still lower if they could. In default he must go to gaol for one month without hard labour. There was an appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the County. They were acting under legal advice, which, no doubt, was the best that could be given to them.

Mr. Minter: I am very sorry you should view it in that light. It is a question of evidence, and if the daughter`s evidence is carried your decision is wrong. Mr. Minter next asked what the defendant must lodge as security for an appeal, and was told £60, or two sureties of £30 each.

The Chairman observed that he assumed the Watch Committee would support the conviction.

Mr. Minter said he did not suppose that the Watch Committee would allow themselves to be made a party to such a prosecution. There were a great many extenuating circumstances, and these poor people would be grievous sufferers.

Eventually the defendant said he would pay the fine and costs.

Mr. Minter then applied that the license might be re-transferred to Mr. Young, but as no notice had been given the Bench said the house must remain closed until the next licensing meeting.

Folkestone Express 19-8-1876

County Court

Saturday, August 12^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Thomas Masters, lately residing at the Queen`s Head Inn appeared on a judgement summons in respect of a debt of 9s. 1d., issued by Godfrey Lepper, carpenter. He declared that he was utterly unable to pay the amount. He was sixty years of age and afflicted with rheumatism, and had no employment.

The plaintiff said the defendant and his son pocketed £50 by the sale of the business of the Queen`s Head.

The defendant again declared that he had spent every farthing he received in paying bills he owed and keeping himself from starving.

His Honour declined to make any order, but said the defendant must pay when he had the money.

Kentish Gazette 29-8-1876 

On Wednesday last, the licensing day, the proceedings before the magistrates were of considerable interest. There was a full Bench, consisting of W. Bateman Esq. (chairman), T. Caister, J. Clark, J. Tolputt and J. Kelcey Esqs., and Capt. Crow and Gen. Cannon.

The granting of the Queen`s Head licence was deferred.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1876

Wednesday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman caister and Captain Crowe.

Application was made on behalf of Mr. Young, lessee of the Queen`s Head, in respect to the license of the same.

Information was given to the effect that some time ago a man was convicted for selling without a license. Mr. Young, being the lessee of the property, had underlet it to Masters, by whom it was again underlet. Now Masters had some private arrangements to which Mr. Young was no party. This came before the Bench and there was a fine imposed of 40s.

It was now desired to question Mr. Ogden`s right and to prevent this, Mr. Young wished openly to transfer it to Mr. Ogden, who formerly carried on business at Sandgate.

Charles George Young deposed to his living at Dover, and being the lessee of the Queen`s Head, Folkestone, owned by Mrs. Jeffoy. He let the premises to Mr. Masters, who has gone out of possession, and who has neglected to apply at the Annual Licensing Meeting, but, as lessee, he was desirous of obtaining the license for the object of transferring it to Mr. Ogden. They did not acknowledge Pope in any shape whatever.

Arrangements to be made in accordance with application.

Note: No mention of Ogden in More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-12-1878

Wednesday, December 4^th: Before Capt. Crowe, Gen. Armstrong C.B., Capt. Fletcher, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

J. Jordan, of the Queen`s Head, upon evidence very strong against him, was fined £2 and 11s. costs for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, and two men were fined 1s. and costs for being on the premises.

Folkestone Express 7-12-1878

Wednesday, December 4^th: Before Captain Crowe, General Armstrong, Captain Fletcher, James Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Jordan, of the Queen`s Head, was summoned for having his house open during prohibited hours.

P.C. Ovenden said on Sunday morning, about 11.25, he knocked at defendant`s door and defendant opened it. He went into the back parlour, and there saw two men – Charles Vye and William Coleman. He asked the landlord what they were doing there, and he said Vye had come to order a fly for his father, who was ill, and that Coleman had come with him. There were three glasses on the table, one with liquor in it. He told defendant he should report the circumstance. A little while after, he saw a fly coming, driven by defendant`s son, and defendant said to him “You see, I was not telling you a story”. Defendant was a fly proprietor, and had stables near Marine Terrace.

Defendant called Charles Vye and William Coleman, who both denied having anything to drink.

Mr. Boarer said a majority of the Bench had decided to convict the defendant, who would be fined £2 10s., the lowest penalty, and 11s. costs.

Charles Vye and William Coleman were summoned for being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the same day. Vye pleaded Guilty, and Coleman said he was not there for an unlawful purpose.

They were each fined 1s. and 8s. costs, or three days` imprisonment.

Southeastern Gazette 7-12-1878

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday, Aby Nash was summoned for assaulting Robert Staveley, on the 2^nd December. The complainant said he lived at 31, Queen Street, and on Saturday night he went with some friends into the side bar of the Queen’s Head and called for a pot of beer. Defendant, who was standing in front of the bar, said she would raffle for three pots of beer, and witness refused to do so, whereupon defendant commenced to annoy him. On turning to leave the public-house defendant caught hold of the sleeve of his coat and knocked him down with his fist. Defendant struck him twice in both eyes, and witness had to remain in bed all day Sunday.

 Defendant called Henry Marshall, who said be was a mariner, and lived in North Street, and was in the private bar at the Queen’s Head on Saturday night when Staveley and three others came in. Staveley and Nash began to talk about sailoring, and at last commenced to jangle. Staveley hit Nash in the breast with his fist, and in self-defence he struck Staveley.

The Bench dismissed the case.

James Jordan was summoned for opening licensed premises (the Queen’s Head) during prohibited hours, on Sunday, December 1st. He pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Ovenden stated that on Sunday evening he visited defendant’s house at 11.25, and knocked at the back door in Seagate Street. It was opened and he went into the little back parlour, where be saw two men names Charles Vye and William Coleman. He asked the defendant what the men were doing there, and he said that Vye had come to order a carriage to go to his father’s, who was ill. Witness then asked him what the other man was there for, and defendant said he had come in with Vye. There were three glasses on the table. One contained malt liquor. Witness left the house, and at 11.55 saw defendant’s carriage drive from his house into Tontine Street. Vye was inside the carriage. Jordan came along and said, “Now you see I have spoken the truth.”

For the defence the defendant called Charles Vye, who said he went to Jordan’s house to order a fly, but neither he nor Coleman had anything to drink.

The Bench considered the case proved and fined the dofendant 50s., costs 11s., the licence not to be endorsed.

Charles Vye and William Coleman then appeared in answer to a summons charging them with being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours, on December 2nd. They pleaded guilty and were fined them the turn of 2s. 6d., costs 8s.; in default three weeks` imprisonment. 

Kentish Gazette 10-12-1878 

At the Police Court on Wednesday Aby Nash was summoned for assaulting Robert Staveley on the 2^nd December.

The complainant said he lived at 31, Queen Street, and on Saturday night he went with some friends into the side bar of the Queen`s Head and called for a pot of beer. Defendant, who was standing in front of the bar, said he would raffle for three pots of beer, and witness refused to do so, whereupon defendant commenced to annoy him. On turning to leave the public house defendant caught hold of the sleeve of his coat and knocked him down with his fist. Defendant struck him twice in both eyes, and witness had to remain in bed all day on Sunday.

Defendant called Henry Marshall, who said he was a mariner, and lived in North Street. He was in a private bar at the Queen`s Head on the previous Saturday night, when Staveley and three others came in. Staveley and Nash began to talk about sailoring, and at last commenced to jangle. Staveley hit Nash in the breast with his fist, and in self-defence he struck Staveley.

The Bench dismissed the case.

James Jordan was summoned for opening licensed premises (the Queen`s Head) during prohibited hours on Sunday, December 1^st. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Ovenden stated that on Sunday evening he visited defendant`s house at 11.25, and knocked on the back door in Seagate Street. It was opened and he went into a little back parlour, where he saw two men, named Charles Vye and William Parlour. He asked the defendant what the men were doing there, and he said that Vye had come to order a carriage to go to his father`s, who was ill. Witness then asked him what the other man was there for, and defendant said he had come in with Vye. There were three glasses on the table. One contained malt liquor. Witness left the house and at 11.55 saw defendant`s carriage drive from his house into Tontine Street. Vye was inside the carriage. Jordan came along and said “Now you see that I have spoken the truth”.

For the defence the defendant called Charles Vye, who said he went to Jordan`s house to order a fly, but neither he nor Coleman had anything to drink.

The Bench considered the case proved and fined the defendant 50s., costs 11s., the licence not to be endorsed.

Charles Vye and William Coleman then appeared in answer to a summons charging them with being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours on December 2^nd. They pleaded Guilty and were fined each in the sum of 2s. 6d., costs 8s.; in default three days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 28-12-1878

Monday, December 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Colonel De Crespigny, General Cannon, Captain Fletcher, Alderman Caister, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Fitness Esqs.

Joseph West, a plasterer, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street on Saturday. He was also charged with breaking a pane of glass at the Queen`s Head Inn.

James Jordan, the landlord of the house, said he ejected the prisoner, who was fighting in the bar. Directly he was outside he thrust his fist through one of the embossed windows. The damage was about 30s.

The prisoner`s hand was severely cut, and a doctor had to be obtained to dress the wounds.

He was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour, for being drunk and disorderly, and for the damage he was fined 1s., 4s. 6d. costs, and ordered to pay 30s., the value of the window, or be imprisoned for 21 days.

Folkestone Express 4-1-1879

Shortly before eight o`clock on Saturday morning the body of a man was seen lying in the inner harbour, having apparently been left there by the receding tide. On examination it proved to be that of a plasterer, a comparative stranger in the town – in fact his name was found out almost accidentally to be Henry Dickenson, whose home would appear to have been at Peckham, in Surrey. He was known to a soldier at the camp, and a day or two ago had been there to see him. The soldier gave the address of a friend who knew a friend of the deceased`s relatives, and a telegram was sent to request him to acquaint them with the occurrence. An inquest was held on Saturday evening at the Town Hall, when the following evidence was given:

James Jordan, landlord of the Queen`s Head Inn, identified the body as that of a man whose name he believed to be Henry Dickenson, and who was at his house about half past eight o`clock on Friday night. He had known him as a frequenter of the house for a few days, but did not know where he lived. Witness saw him go out with a baked potato can belonging to a man named Brand, for the purpose of going into the streets to sell them. There was no fire in the can. Deceased was sober.

John Freeman Hall, a mariner, living in East Street, said a little before eight that morning, James May, a fisherman, went to him and said there was a man drowned in the harbour. He went directly to the east side of the tramway, and on crossing the metals he saw the body lying by the side of the steamer Maud, to the west of the Pent Stream. The potato can and a knife were near the body, which was lying face downwards on the mud.

P.C. James Knowles said about eight o`clock that morning he went to the harbour. He saw deceased lying face downwards on the mud, close to the steamer Maud in the inner harbour. He procured a stretcher, and with assistance placed the body on it. Deceased was dead and cold. He was lying five or six yards from the edge of the slipway leading down to the sluice, with his head to the east, and a knife was lying nearer the corner. He should think deceased fell over when the water was up. The can was lying near the quay opposite the Pavilion. They put the body in the tan house and searched it, but only found a comb and a piece of a pencil.

Hall was recalled and said it would have been high tide about two o`clock. There would have been no water in the inner harbour at nine, as the tide only then began to flow.

Mr. Richard Mercer, surgeon, said he had examined the body, and found no marks of violence, scratches, or bruises. Deceased had been dead some hours. The hands and face were covered with mud, and the clothing was soaked with water. In his opinion death was caused by drowning.

Henry Stone, a plasterer, living in North Street, said he had known deceased for about a fortnight. He was a plasterer, and came from Margate. He believed he belonged to Peckham. He said his name was Harry Dickenson, and that he was known to a soldier at the camp. Deceased told him that he had work to go to on Monday if the frost broke up. Witness last saw deceased at ten minutes to eleven on Friday night. He had previously seen him just before nine. He said he was going to lodge at the Eagle in High Street. When he saw him at just before eleven he had had something to drink, but was sober. Witness found deceased`s boot in a boat in the harbour. He wore no stockings.

Hall explained that when the body was found, it only had one shoe on. The other was picked up and placed in the boat.

The jury, in the absence of any evidence to show how deceased came in the harbour, returned a verdict of “Found Drowned”.

Southeastern Gazette 4-1-1879

Inquest

Mr. Minter, the borough coroner, held an inquest on the body of Henry Dickenson, a labourer, who was found drowned in the harbour on Saturday.

James Jordan, the landlord of the Queen’s Head, said the deceased came into his house the night before with a baked potato can. He was sober.

John Hall, a fisherman, proved finding the body face downwards in the mud, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased was found drowned, but how he came into the water there was no evidence to show.

 

Folkestone Express 1-3-1879

Monday, February 24^th : Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, M. Ball and J. Kelcey Esqs.

John Maginnis was charged with being drunk on Saturday in Queen`s Square, and also with begging. He pleaded Guilty to being drunk.

P.C. Hogben said about half past seven on Saturday evening he had a complaint made to him that the prisoner had been begging and abusing Mr. Worsell. A few minutes after, Mr. Jordan, of the Queen`s Head, called him to eject prisoner from his bar. He did so, and when in the street he used threats to Mr. Jordan, and he was taken to the police station.

Edward Jordan said the prisoner went into his house and begged of the persons in the bar, asking for a copper for a night`s lodging. He ordered him out, but he said he would not go. Prisoner was drunk.

Harry Goodwin, a lad employed by Mr. Worsell, butcher, said the prisoner came into the shop on Saturday evening and asked for a copper. When he was refused, he swore, and would not leave the shop.

He was convicted in November, 1877, for being drunk and disorderly.

He was sentenced to 21 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-1-1883

Saturday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and J. Holden Esq.

Charles Barringer, publican, was charged with keeping his house open during illegal hours on Sunday the 7^th inst., and George Hawkins, Henry Bull and John Taylor were charged with being there at the same time. All pleaded guilty, and Barringer was fined £2 10s., and 8s. costs, and the other defendants 5s., and 8s. costs each

Folkestone Express 20-1-1883

Saturday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Holden Esq.

Charles Barringer was charged with keeping open his house during prohibited hours for the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday, the 7^th inst.

George Hawkins, Henry Bull, and John Taylor were charged with being in the house during prohibited hours.

All the defendants pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Pay said that he was on duty in plain clothes about 11 o`clock on Sunday and saw the three defendants go into the house, and when he, in company with P.C. Gardner, entered, he saw two pints of beer had been drawn, and a half pint was drawn and paid for in his presence.

Mr. Barringer said that the door had been left open by his servant and the three men walked in. He thought the best and quickest way to get rid of them was to let them have what they wanted.

The Bench fined Barringer 50s. and 8s. costs. The three other defendants were fined 5s. and 8s. costs, or in default 7 days`.

Folkestone Express 16-8-1884

Friday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Alderman Hoad, and F. Boykett Esq.

A woman named Rigg, apparently a native of the sister island, and the wife of a stonemason, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and also with breaking a plate glass window, value £2, the property of Mr. Barringer, landlord of the Queen`s Head Inn. She pleaded Guilty.

The prosecutor said the prisoner went into his house about seven o`clock in the morning of Thursday, and asked for half a pint of beer. He did not notice at the time that she was not sober, but subsequently he saw that she was the worse for drink, and was drinking out of other people`s glasses. He took a glass out of her hand, and in doing so spilt some of the contents on her dress. She accused him of throwing a pail of water over her. He removed her from the premises, when she said she would have her revenge, and thereupon took off her shoe and with the heel smashed a pane of glass over three feet square. He then gave her into custody.

The Bench fined her 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for being drunk, and 1s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the damage, together with £2, the value of the window, and in default seven days` hard labour for the first offence and 21 days` for the second.

Folkestone News 16-8-1884

Friday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, General Armstrong C.B., and F. Boykett Esq.

A woman named Ann Green was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and also with wilfully breaking a square of glass at the Queen`s Head Inn, value 2s.

Defendant pleaded Guilty to the charges, with the reservation that she did not break the glass wilfully. She said she had been a teetotaller for eleven months, but a person brought her the news that one of her two boys who were soldiering was dead, and gave her something to drink, and that was how she came to do as she did. She begged God`s pardon, and the magistrates`.

The Bench convicted her, and the fines and damage amounted to £2 15s. 0d., instead of paying which she went to prison for a month.

Folkestone News 22-11-1884

Saturday, November 15^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Richard Oliver was charged with stealing nine pairs of stockings, value 12s., from the shop of Stephen Petts, on the 14^th inst.

Prosecutor said the stockings were hanging outside his shop on Friday morning. He identified the stockings produced as his property.

Charles Thew, a labourer, said he saw prisoner hawking some stockings for sale, at 3d. per pair, in the Fish Market, about half past eleven on Friday morning. Witness gave him 9d. for three pairs of them. Sergt. Ovenden subsequently came to his house and h gave them up.

Turner Court said he saw the prisoner selling stockings, and he went up to him, saying “What have you got?” Prisoner said “I will give you this pair”. As soon as witness heard they were stolen property he went to Mr. Petts`s and gave them up. A few minutes afterwards Sergt. Ovenden came in.

Edward Paine, a seaman, said the prisoner was offering stockings for sale in the Railway Inn on Friday. Witness bought a pair for 6d.

Sergt. Ovenden said he found the prisoner in the bar of the Queen`s Head public house about ten minutes after one. The man was apparently asleep, and the worse for drink. Witness took him to the police station. He made no reply on being charged with theft. Witness received the stockings produced from the above named witnesses.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. The stockings were handed to him by a person he had seen several times in the town, who asked him to dispose of them, as he might as well do that as stand about with his hands in his pockets. The person spoken of said he would be satisfied if prisoner brought back 1s. 9d., and appointed to meet him at the Queen`s Head. Prisoner had no idea they were stolen property.

The Bench found prisoner Guilty and sentenced him to six weeks` hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with stealing three jugs, value 2s., from the shop of John Surrey on Thursday night.

Prosecutor identified the jugs produced.

Thomas Venner, a porter, said he saw prisoner at the Rendezvous. They left the house together, and went along as far as Mr. Surrey`s, when witness saw prisoner take three jugs from the shop. Witness then turned back.

Mr. Bradley: Why didn`t you go into Mr. Surrey`s shop and tell him?

Witness: Well, I thought it was nothing at all to do with me, and I made no more to do but turned round and went back.

Mr. Bradley: Did you give information to the police?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bradley: You thought he had a right to the things?

Witness: No, sir.

The Mayor: Do you mean to say you saw this man steal these jugs and didn`t think it was your duty to go and inform the police?

Witness: I could not say he stole them.

The Mayor: But you saw him take them?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Mayor: Then why did you not go and inform them?

Witness: I did not know whether he bought them or not.

The Mayor: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, said the defendant came in on Thursday night between half past nine and ten with three jugs. A fisherman named Hart bought them of him. Hart left them with the landlord to go to sea.

Prisoner (in reply to the usual question): To this charge I must plead Guilty.

The Bench gave him a month`s hard labour, to follow the last sentence.

The Mayor: Venner, I wish just to speak to you. The Bench consider the way in which you have given your evidence is very unsatisfactory, and the fact is you have run a very good chance of being put in the same position as prisoner. You saw the man take the jugs and hadn`t the honesty to inform Mr. Surrey of his loss. Such conduct is very reprehensible. You must be more careful.

Venner: Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Mayor: The Bench wish me to make a remark with regard to the exposing of goods for sale by tradesmen. Now and then it acts as an incentive to men out of employ to steal. We hope in future they will not expose more goods than it is necessary.

Supt. Taylor said goods were very much exposed outside of the shops in the town.

Folkestone Express 20-11-1886

Saturday, November 13^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs.

Benjamin Freeman, a labourer, who said he came from Bexhill, was charged with stealing a quantity of whisky, cherry brandy, and cloves, the property of Henry Spillett.

Henry Spillett, landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street, said the prisoner was in his house several times during Friday, drinking. The last time was about half past five. He then remained about ten minutes. No-one else was in the bar whilst prisoner was there. Witness was in the bar parlour getting his tea when he heard the prisoner leave, and when he went back into the bar two or three minutes after prisoner had left, he missed two bottles from a shelf, one containing about a pint of Scotch whisky, and the other about a pint of cloves. Previous to that, about four o`clock in the afternoon, he missed two bottles – one of cherry brandy, and the other a show bottle.

William H. Paul, landlord of the Marquis Of Lorne, said the prisoner went to his house about two o`clock on Friday and took lodgings. He went away and returned about three. He had a pint of beer, and took a bottle from his pocket, and poured some of the contents into the beer. He asked witness to taste it. He did, and said “That is funny stuff. What do you call that?” He replied that he had a lot of it, brought from a shipwreck at Romney. Two other lodgers came in, and they tasted the liquor in the bottle, but none of them could say what it was. It tasted like a weak solution of rum, sugar, and water. After that prisoner pulled out a full bottle and offered to sell it for 2s. It had a capsule on it, but no label. He drew the cork from the bottle and tasted it, and gave the prisoner 2s. for it. He thought it was home made cherry wine. Prisoner went away, and returned a few minutes before six. He then pulled another bottle from his pocket, and witness found it was whisky. He told prisoner he did not want it. Prisoner had another half pint of beer, and poured something out of another bottle into it. He asked witness to taste that, but he declined. He smelt the glass afterwards, and it smelt strongly of cloves.

P.C. Lilley said he received information from the prosecutor that he had lost a quantity of spirits. In consequence of what was said he went with prosecutor to the Queen`s Head, where they found the prisoner, and prosecutor gave him into custody. Prisoner, in answer to the charge, said “There is no charge. You can`t find anything on me”. He at first refused to go to the police station, but another constable came up, and with some difficulty they conveyed him to the station. He had the appearance of a man who had been drinking, but was not drunk. He had 6s. and some bronze in his possession.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he bought three bottles of a man, to whom he gave 3s. 6d. for them, and the other bottles he brought from Romney. He was sentenced to one month`s hard labour, and the Bench recommended Mr. Paul in future not to buy bottles of liquor in his bar.

Folkestone News 20-11-1886

Saturday, November 13^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs.

Benjamin Freeman, a labourer, was charged with stealing a quantity of whisky, cherry brandy, and cloves, the property of Henry Spillett.

Henry Spillett, landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street, said the prisoner came to his house several times during Friday drinking. The last time was about half past five. He then remained about ten minutes. Witness was in the bar parlour getting his tea when he heard the prisoner leave, and when he went back into the bar two or three minutes after prisoner had left he missed two bottles from a shelf, one containing about a pint of Scotch whisky, and the other about a pint of cloves. Previous to that, about four o`clock in the afternoon, he missed two bottles – one of cherry brandy, and the other a show bottle.

William H. Paul, landlord of the Marquis Of Lorne, said the prisoner went to his house about two o`clock on Friday and took lodgings. He went away and returned about three. He had a pint of beer and took a bottle from his pocket and poured some of the contents into the beer. He asked witness to taste it. He did, and said “That is funny stuff. What do you call that?” He replied that he had a lot of it, brought from a shipwreck at Romney. Two other lodgers came in and they tasted the liquor in the bottle, but none of them could say what it was. It tasted like a weak solution of rum, sugar and water. After that, prisoner pulled out a full bottle and offered to sell it for 2s. It had a capsule on it, but no label. He drew the cork from the bottle and tasted it, and gave the prisoner 2s. for it. He thought it was home made cherry wine. Prisoner went away, and returned a few minutes before six. He then pulled another bottle from his pocket, and witness found that it was whisky. He told prisoner that he did not want it. Prisoner had another half pint of beer, and put something out of another bottle into it. He asked witness to taste that, but he declined. He smelt the glass afterwards, and it smelt strongly of cloves.

P.C. Lilley said he received information from the prosecutor that he had lost a quantity of spirits. In consequence of what he said he went with prosecutor to the Queen`s Head, where they found the prisoner, and prosecutor gave him into custody. Prisoner, in answer to the charge, said “There is no charge. You can`t find anything on me”. He at first refused to go to the police station, but another constable came up, and with some difficulty they conveyed him to the station. He had the appearance of a man who had been drinking, but was not drunk. He had 6s. and some bronze in his possession.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he bought three bottles off a man, to whom he gave 3s. 6d. for them, and the other bottles he brought from Romney.

The Bench sentenced him to one month`s hard labour, and recommended Mr. Paul in future not to buy bottles of liquor in his bar.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-6-1888

County Court

Tuesday, June 19^th: Before W.L. Selfe Esq.

J. Banks and Others v C. Barringer: This was a claim for £3 15s. The defendant, who did not appear, was formerly the landlord of the Queen`s Head, Folkestone, but now kept a public house at Deal.

Mr. Eldridge attested the signature.

His Honour made an order for payment in 14 days.

Folkestone Chronicle 1-9-1888

Saturday, August 25^th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Jemima Davidson was charged with using obscene language in Seagate Street.

Mrs. Major, landlady of the Queen`s Head, was the complainant. She said on Monday, shortly after six, the defendant went to her house and made a disturbance. She did not appear to be sober, and was ordered to go outside. When she got outside she was very abusive, and used most offensive language. In consequence of her conduct complainant sent for a policeman.

Benjamin Harris said he was in the house when the defendant went in. He heard her use filthy language.

Defendant said her husband left her on Monday morning, taking with him all the money she had, and which was owing for rent. She went to look after him, and found him in complainant`s house with a black eye and one boot off.

Mr. Minter said the man had no drink in complainant`s house. He and his wife were a perpetual nuisance to her, and she wished to keep them from using the house.

The Bench fined defendant 10s. and 10s. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Express 1-9-1888

Saturday, August 25^th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Jemima Davidson was charged with using obscene language in Seagate Street.

Mrs. Major, landlady of the Queen`s Head, was the complainant. She said on Monday, shortly after six, the defendant went to the house and made a disturbance. She did not appear to be sober, and was ordered to go outside. When she got outside she was very abusive and used most offensive language. In consequence of her conduct, complainant sent for a policeman.

Benjamin Harris said he was in the house when the defendant went in. He heard her use filthy language.

Defendant said her husband left her on Monday morning, taking with him all the money she had, and which was owing for rent. She went to look after him, and found him in complainant`s house with a black eye and one boot off.

Mr. Minter said the man had no drink in complainant`s house. He and his wife were a perpetual nuisance to her, and she wished to keep them from using the house.

The Bench fined defendant 10s. and 10s. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Express 18-5-1889

Saturday, May 11^th: Before W. Bateman, J. Holden, J. Hoad and J. Fitness Esqs.

David Philpot was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street on the 3^rd of May. He admitted that he was “a little the worse for drink”.

P.C. Osborn said he saw the defendant in Beach Street, very drunk and creating a disturbance. He used very bad language, and caused a large crowd to assemble. Witness had previously ejected him from the Queen`s Head Inn. Defendant`s wife eventually took him away.

Defendant, who was one of the witnesses in the smuggling case, said he had been a teetotaller for two years, but he had a little to drink that day.

The Magistrates` Clerk: I suppose you had some of that champagne?

Defendant: Yes, I had a little drop. (Laughter)

Mr. Fitness: That was the Skylark, wasn`t it?

The Superintendent: Yes, and this is a lark arising from it.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s. and 9s. costs, and recommended the defendant to again become a teetotaller.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-6-1889

Thursday, June 20^th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Brooke Esq.

George White, a tramp, was charged with stealing a cheese, value 2s. 6d., the property of Joseph Baxendale (Pickford and Co.).

Herbert Major, landlord of the Queen`s Head Inn, said on Wednesday afternoon one of Pickford`s vans was standing opposite the Royal George, and he saw the prisoner take something out of the van, put it under his coat, and run in the direction of Radnor Street. He told the driver of the van what he had seen, and afterwards went with P.C. Bailey to the Radnor lodging house, where he pointed out the prisoner. There was a cheese on the table, cut into pieces.

William Rye, a carman in the employ of Messrs. Baxendale, said he was delivering beer at the Royal George Inn, and had 25 Dutch cheeses in his van. He was in the cellar, and when he came up Mr. Major told him what had occurred.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 22-6-1889

Thursday, June 20^th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Brooke Esqs.

George White was charged with stealing a cheese, value 2s. 6d., the property of Joseph Baxendale.

Herbert Major, landlord of the Queen`s Head Inn, said on Wednesday afternoon one of Pickford`s vans was standing opposite the Royal George. Prisoner was standing by the van. Witness saw him take something out of the van, put it under his coat, and run in the direction of Radnor Street. He told the driver of the van what he had seen, and afterwards went with P.C. Bailey to the Radnor lodging house, where he pointed out the prisoner. There was a cheese on the table, cut into pieces.

William Rye, carman in the employ of Messrs. Baxendale (Pickford and Co.), said he was delivering beer at the Royal George Inn, and had 25 Dutch cheeses in his van. He was in the cellar, and when he came up Mr. Major told him what had occurred. He counted the cheeses and found one was missing.

P.C. Bailey proved apprehending the prisoner at the Radnor and finding the cheese on the table. When charged he said he knew nothing about it.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 12-10-1889

Monday, October 7^th: Before J. Banks and J. Brooke Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne

James Loveday was charged with wilfully damaging the woodwork in the Queen`s Head. He pleaded Guilty. He was further charged with resisting the police.

The landlord of the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, said the man went into his house on Saturday evening with a friend. The friend called for a pint of beer, which they drank between them, and the friend left. Defendant remained and called for another half pint, which he refused to draw, as he appeared to be under the influence of drink then. He said he would kick the front of the bar in, which he did, breaking a panel. A constable came in and he gave the defendant in charge. The damage was 5s.

Sergeant Butcher said the prisoner was given over into his custody, charged with wilful damage. He said he should not go. Witness caught hold of one arm, and P.C. Hogben the other. He went a few paces and then tried to throw them both down. He was very violent and his conduct was like that of a madman. He knocked witness on the nose. They had to handcuff the prisoner, tie his legs, and carry him up the High Street. At the police station he commenced to tear his clothes up with his teeth. He tore his coat up, and in the police cell he tore his trousers. Witness had to buy the prisoner a “new suit”.

P.C. Lawrence said he saw the prisoner behaving very violently, kicking and biting. He assisted in securing the prisoner, and as they were carrying him up High Street he bit witness`s leg.

Supt. Taylor said the prisoner was before the Court on the 6^th October, 1885, when he was sentenced to six weeks` hard labour for assault, and six weeks for larceny. He was fined 10s., 5s, the damage, and 4s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and 20s. and 4s. 6d. costs for the second, and in default 14 days` imprisonment for each.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1890

Annual Licensing Session

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Superintendent Taylor complained of the manner in which the Queen`s Head was conducted by Mr. Tame. Several men, he stated, were found on the premises at five and twenty minutes to one on the 12^th of July. The landlord claimed them to be his friends, but since then there had been another complaint of a similar nature. The general conduct of the house was unsatisfactory.

The licence was ordered to be held over until the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1890

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Queen`s Head

Supt Taylor said this was a house conducted in a very unsatisfactory manner. At 25 minutes to one on the 12^th January some persons were found in the house, and they claimed to be the landlord`s friends, and since then there had been another complaint of a similar nature. The general conduct of the house was unsatisfactory.

Dr. Bateman thought it was a pity the parties were not brought before the Magistrates for them to deal with.

Supt. Taylor said every difficulty was put in the way of the police. Before they were admitted there was time to concoct a story and to put away any glasses which might be on the counter.

This application was ordered to stand over.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-9-1890

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Walter Tame, of the Queen`s Head, again applied for the renewal of his licence.

Police constable Lilley stated that he visited the Queen`s Head on the night of the 12^th January (Sunday). He saw two people leave the house about 12.35. He saw some people inside about twelve months ago at midnight, but when he got inside they were gone, having escaped by the window into the yard below.

Sergeant Harman said he visited the house about one o`clock on the 10^th of July. He tried the back door and it was twenty minutes before he could get in. In the bar he saw a man named Burton, belonging to Dover, drinking. He went upstairs and saw a man in bed. His name was Frank Lister. Witness shook him, but he pretended he was asleep and would not answer. He pulled the clothes off and found that he was dressed, and looked as though he had gone to bed in a hurry (Laughter).

By Mr. Minter: I don`t know that Burton belonged to 15, De Burgh St., Dover. I have seen him before.

P.C. Lawrence said on Sunday morning, the 6^th of July, he visited the house in company with the last witness, and found Burton in the bar with a pint of beer. He saw Lister in bed. The landlord said the man was the worse for drink, and he put him to bed to take care of him.

Superintendent Taylor said he saw the defendant on the 13^th of January and told him that people had been seen leaving his house early that morning, and that he must be more careful in the future. He promised to do so.

Mr. Minter, in defence, put in a post card which came from Burton, at Dover, on the 4^th of July stating that he was going to lodge at the Queen`s Head. His defence was that Burton was a lodger. As for the other man, he was taken ill on the premises and the landlord put him to bed. That was just before closing time, and he would call a witness to prove it.

James Carter said he was at the Queen`s Head on the night of the 5^th of July. He saw Lister there about a quarter to eleven. He asked defendant to let him go to bed because he was ill. Witness saw him go upstairs, and left the house himself before closing time.

The Mayor said it was an aggravated case and different to all the others. Defendant`s advocate had pleaded the case remarkably well, but the Bench could not lose sight of the fact that there were two cases in one year. He did not believe the statement that the man Lester was taken ill. He must have been a very merciful landlord, because it was generally the case that when the people were drunk and had emptied their pockets they were turned out into the streets. The licence would be renewed, but it would not be well for him to come before them again in a similar manner.

Folkestone Express 27-9-1890

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

Adjourned Licenses

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

The Queen`s Head

In this case the Superintendent had reported that on the 12^th of January three persons were seen to leave the house after hours.

P.C. Lilley gave evidence as to the facts, and said Mr. Thane had told him they had been to the house on business. He had visited the house previously and found no-one there, but there was a window open through which persons could pass out.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the applicant, cross-examined the witness with a view to show that the parties in the house were friends of the landlord.

Mr. W.H. Harrison appeared in this case also on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer.

Sergt. Harman said on the 6^th of July he visited the house at 20 minutes past one. He saw a man there named Barton, who said he was a lodger, sitting in the bar. He searched the house and found a man named Frank Lester, belonging to Foord, in bed partly dressed. He tried to wake him, but the landlord said he was drunk, and he took compassion on him and put him to bed. He thought Lester was shamming – he looked as though he had been put to bed in a hurry. The house was surrounded by the police, so that no-one could make his escape.

In answer to Mr. Minter, Sergt. Harmer said he should say the man Lester was sober. The landlord said he got drunk there, and he put him to bed.

P.C. Lawrence corroborated Sergt. Harman`s statement.

Superintendent Taylor said on the 13^th of January, in consequence of the report made to him by Lilley, he saw the defendant and cautioned him as to the way in which he conducted his house.

Mr. Minter assured the Bench that the two persons who were in the house were guests of the landlord, and he contended that if there was an offence the landlord should have been summoned at the time. With regard to the man Barton, he was a lodger, and resided at Dover, and in support of this contention he put in a postcard received from him by the landlord in July last. The man Lester was taken ill there, and the landlord put him to bed.

James Carter, living in Dover Street, said on the 5^th July he was at the Queen`s Head, and saw Lester there from half past ten till a quarter to eleven. He heard Lester ask to be allowed to go to bed before closing time. Lester appeared to be ill.

The Mayor said the Magistrates thought this to be a very aggravated case – far different to the others. He believed when the applicant went to the house he was a respectable man, and conducted the house properly. The police were again blamed for being too merciful; there were such things as sham friendships and sham hospitality, and it was foolish for publicans to set up such defences. They believed defendant had committed a flagrant breach of the Act. The licence was, however, renewed with a caution.

Folkestone Chronicle 1-8-1891

Wednesday, July 29^th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, Major H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert Esq., and Alderman Banks.

George Bailey was charged with leaving a horse and cart unattended in Beach Street on the 18^th of July.

P.S. Lilley proved the charge. He saw it standing there from 8.32 till 8.40. Defendant was in the Queen`s Head.

Fined 5s., and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 8-4-1893

Saturday, April 1^st: Before Messrs. W.H. Boykett, H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Brooke, and Alderman Pledge.

Thomas Warman, a fisherman, was summoned for being found drunk on the premises of the Queen`s Head public house on the 29^th ult.

Mr. Haines appeared for Warman and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Dawson deposed that on the day named, at 9.30 in the evening, he was called to the Queen`s Head. He there found P.C.s Osborne and Earle, who were attempting to eject Warman. The latter was offering a very stubborn resistance, and blood was flowing from his nose. When he was got outside the house he endeavoured to return to fight with a man named Philpott, but he was eventually induced to go away by his friends.

By Mr. Haines: He formed an opinion that defendant was drunk when he found him outside with his friends.

P.C. Osborne said he was called to the Queen`s Head by three women, who shouted out “For God`s sake come here or we shall be murdered”. He entered the house and found the defendant fighting with Philpott. Witness called to his assistance P.C. Earl, and together they removed Warman. He was taken away by two of his friends.

By Mr. Haines: The defendant required the support of his two friends in order to get away. They were afraid he would be locked up if allowed to remain in the street.

P.C. Earl gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Haines said he should now call evidence to show that defendant was not drunk, as alleged. It seemed to him that because a man was violent and quarrelsome, the police laboured under the impression that he must needs be drunk. He would, however, bring evidence to show that it was not so, in this case at any rate.

James Philpott, fisherman, then deposed that whilst he was in the Queen`s Head the defendant came in and they entered into a dispute about money matters.

Mr. Haines: And you got to words? – Yes.

Did you get to anything else? – Yes; he told me he wouldn`t pay me, and then I gave him a “wipe” across the face.

I believe, as a matter of fact, the landlord immediately came round? – Yes, sir.

And very soon the constables? – Three constables rushed in directly minute.

Did they ask for any information? – Not then. Warman went out and I sat there.

Did they throw Warman out? – There was some struggling.

Mr. Bradley: What did the defendant have to drink? – He called for a half pint of beer, and the landlord served him in a pint glass.

What else did he have? – I didn`t see him have anything else.

Robert Day, a Yankee, who lodged in the same house as the defendant, said he saw Warman after the episode at the public house, and he did not think he was drunk.

Henry Vickers, a cutler, said he saw defendant at the Queen`s Head.

Mr. Haines: Did you notice his condition? – He was all right.

You mean to say he was sober? – Yes, perfectly sober.

Did you see what liquor he had? – He only had one pot, and half of that was knocked over.

How long did this affair last? – Only about two minutes. I didn`t think it was anything to bother about.

This concluded the evidence, and a previous conviction for drunkenness having been proved against defendant, the Bench found him guilty in this case and fined him 5s. and 14s. costs.

Walter Thame, landlord of the Queen`s Head, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 20^th March.

The above particulars were repeated, but on the advice of Mr. Bradley the case was stopped and the charge dismissed, the Bench pointing out that no evidence had been given to show that Warman had been supplied with liquor.

Folkestone Express 8-4-1893

Saturday, April 1^st: Before F. Boykett, W.G. Herbert, H.W. Poole, J. Brooks, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Thomas Warman was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. Mr. Haines appeared for defendant.

Sergt. Dawson said about half past nine on the 20^th March he was called to the Queen`s Head. He found there P.C.s Osborne and Earl ejecting Warman, who was drunk. His nose was bleeding, and there was a quantity of blood on the floor. After he was ejected he wanted to go back again to fight a man named Philpott. He was taken away by his friends.

In answer to Mr. Haines, the witness said the defendant could not stand. He was taken away by his friends.

P.C. Osborne said he was called on the 20^th March at 9.30 by three women to go to the Queen`s Head. They said murder was being done in the house. He went into the bar and found defendant there very drunk, and fighting with Philpott. With the assistance of P.C. Earl he ejected him, and he wanted to return. There was no doubt about his being drunk. He was taken away in the direction of Radnor Street. He wanted their support, and they were afraid they would have to lock him up.

P.C. Earl gave similar evidence.

Mr. Haines said he should prove by several witnesses that defendant was not drunk – he was excited and fighting – of that there was no doubt.

David Philpott said he was in the Queen`s Head on the 20^th. Defendant went in. He was not drunk. There was a disturbance between them over money matters. They got to words. Defendant said he would not pay him, and he gave him “a wipe across the face”. The landlord went round, and then a constable rushed in “directly minute”. Warman went out. He could not say if the constables threw him out. They got him out.

By the Clerk: I went to the house about half past eight. Defendant came in about a quarter to ten. He called for half a pint of beer, and the landlord served him in a pint glass.

Robert Day said he lodged with the defendant. He went home on the 20^th March about ten o`clock. He was sober, but bleeding from the nose.

Henry Vickers, of 46, Black Bull Road, said he was in the Queen`s Head on the occasion referred to. He saw the defendant there about ten. He was perfectly sober. He only had one drink of beer, and then he was knocked over. He heard something said about a shilling, and saw Philpott strike defendant. The landlord was in the bar, and went round to the lobby. The disturbance did not last two minutes.

There was a previous conviction against the defendant for drunkenness. The Bench considered the case proved and fined the defendant 5s. and 14s. costs, or seven days`.

Walter Thame was then charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, the Queen`s Head, on Monday the 20^th March. This case arose out of the preceding.

Sergeant Dawson said when all was quiet he saw the defendant and asked him what the noise was about, and he said there had been a dispute about a shilling, and Philpott struck Warman. Next morning he asked Thame if he was going to summon Warman for being drunk and refusing to quit. He said “No. If you had not been here, I should have put him out myself, and you could have done as you liked afterwards”.

In answer to Mr. Haines, the witness said he went by the instructions of the Superintendent to ask Thame whether he was going to summon Warman. He said Warman was not drunk. He did not see any blow struck, but saw Warman struggling with a constable.

Without troubling Mr. Haines to address them, the Bench at once dismissed the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1893

Local News

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

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

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

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate

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

Mr. Glyn`s Opening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Queen`s Head

This case was then gone into.

Mr. Glyn said what they wanted to know was whether there had been any disorderly conduct during the past year.

Superintendent Taylor: That is what I propose to prove.

Sergeant Dawson said on the 1^st April, 1893, he was present at the police court when a man named Thomas Warman was fined 5s. and 14s. costs for being drunk and disorderly on the premises. The tenant, Walter Tame, was summoned for permitting drunkenness, but the case against him was dismissed.

Mr. Glyn said the case was dismissed without the tenant`s legal adviser being called upon.

Mr. Minter: I believe before the Bench it was shown that no drink at all was given to the man.

Sergeant Dawson: I could not prove that any drink was served to him in the house.

Mr. Minter: The fact was a drunken man came into the house, and we were going to turn him out, when the police came and put him out for us. (Laughter)

Sergeant Swift said he had measured a distance of 100 paces from the Queen`s Head, and he had found that there were seventeen licensed houses within that area.

By Mr. Glyn: All the houses have been there for years to my knowledge.

Mr. Glyn submitted that there was nothing for him to answer. With regard to the charge of disorderly conduct, he submitted that the Bench would not deprive the tenant of his licence unless he had been charged, so that the matter could be legally investigated. As a matter of fact there had been no disorderly conduct. There was a charge, but it was dismissed by the Magistrates without calling upon his legal adviser to address them.

The Magistrates having held a consultation amongst themselves, Mr. Glyn said he hoped the Bench would state whether they thought the Superintendent had made out a prima facie case for objecting to the renewal of the licence. If they decided that he had made out a prima facie case then he should have to call witnesses to rebut it.

The Chairman said the Magistrates would not require any witnesses to be called to rebut the charge of disorderly character, but they would require to hear evidence whether the house was required or not.

Mr. Minter: That necessitates my calling a witness to show that the business is an increasing one.

Walter Foster Crouch, manager to Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, the owners of the house said the property was valued at £1,500. Mr. Tame became tenant of the house in August, 1887, and he paid £305 for the valuation on taking possession. An increasing trade was done at the house; at present it was about six barrels a week. The tenant was a thoroughly respectable man, and had been with them for three or four years.

By Mr. Minter: He has much improved the trade since he has had the house.

Walter Tame, the tenant, also gave evidence.

Supt. Taylor: Do you remember what took place on the 1^st April of the present year between you and the police?

Witness: The police came into the house because they were told there was a disturbance. They ejected one of the persons but he was not drunk.

By Mr. Bodkin: It was in respect of that that I was summoned, and the Magistrates dismissed the case without calling upon my solicitor.

By Mr. Minter: We are frequently rung up at night by the police to take in lodgers.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation

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

The Decision

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1893

Adjourned Licensing Session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

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

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

The Queen`s Head

This was the first case taken.

Sergt. Dawson said on the 13^th April, 1893, he was in the Police Court, Folkestone, when a man who was found drunk was fined 5s. and 14s. costs. On that date Mr. Walter Tame was summoned for permitting drunkenness, and the summons was dismissed.

By Mr. Minter: I think it was not proved that the man had been served with drink. I could not prove that he had.

Mr. Minter said a drunken man went into the house and they were going to turn him out.

Sergeant Swift said he had measured 100 paces from the Queen`s Head, and found 17 other licensed houses.

Mr. Glyn: Those are all old licenses which have existed for several years? – Yes. They have not moved.

By Mr. Minter: I do not know that the police often have rung Tame up at night to take in lodgers.

Mr. Glyn submitted that there was nothing to answer. There was a charge against the tenant, but it was dismissed  without calling upon his legal adviser to reply. £1,500 was paid for the house, and the tenant had put in £305.

Mr. Minter said he could prove that the business was good, and had not decreased.

Mr. Glyn said if the Bench thought the Superintendent had made out a prima facie case he would call evidence to rebut it. But he did not wish to call a lot of witnesses to rebut what was not made out. He was only suggesting that to save time.

The Bench said with respect to the disorderly conduct, they decided there was none; with respect to whether the house was required, they would decide that after.

Walter Foster Crouch, manager to Messrs. Nalder and Cloyer, the owners, said he had supervision of the houses. This house was valued at £1,500. Mr. Walter Tame was admitted as tenant in 1887, and paid £305 for valuation. He paid £40 a year rent. He did an excellent trade – about six barrels a week. That was exclusive of spirits or wine. Tame was a thoroughly respectable man.

By Mr. Minter: He has much improved the house.

Superintendent Taylor desired to put a question with regard to notice of opposition in September, 1890, but it was held that he could not put it.

Walter Tame, the tenant, corroborated Mr. Crouch`s evidence. He said the trade was increased considerably. The licence had been renewed by him year by year.

By Superintendent Taylor: I remember the police coming, because they were told there was a disturbance. There  was a slight disturbance and the police ejected one man. He was certainly not drunk.

Superintendent Taylor: I can`t expect you to say he was drunk.

By Mr. Minter: The police very often rap me up to take in lodgers.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

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

The business then terminated.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1893

Editorial

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

Licensing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Minter: I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

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

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

The Queen`s Head

Sergeant Dawson said: On the 1^st April, 1893, I was present at the police court at Folkestone when a man named James Warman, who was found drunk at the Queen`s Head, was fined 5s. and costs. Up to this date Mr. Tame was landlord of the house.

Mr. Glyn: The case against the tenant was dismissed without his solicitor being called upon to reply.

Superintendent Taylor: On that occasion, was Walter Tame summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises, and the case against him dismissed?

Sergeant Dawson: It was, sir.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I believe before the Bench it was shown that no drink at all had been served to this man?

Sergeant Dawson: I don`t think so, sir.

Mr. Minter: Don`t think; you are called to give evidence.

Sergeant Dawson: It was not proved that the man did not have drink, but I could not prove that he had any.

Sergeant Swift, called, said: I know the Queen`s Head, and I have measured one hundred paces from this house and find 17 licensed houses within the area.

Cross-examined by Mr. Glyn: These are old licences been granted for several years.

Mr. Minter: You frequently ring the tenant of this house up at night to take in lodgers.

Witness: Never.

Superintendent Taylor said this was the case.

Mr. Glyn submitted there was no case to answer and it would be depriving a person of his property to forfeit the licence on a charge of disorderly conduct, for no charge had been made against the tenant and properly investigated before the Magistrates. As a matter of fact, however, the Superintendent had been perfectly fair. There was no disorderly conduct. There had been a charge brought against the tenant, but it had been dismissed without calling upon the solicitor who was defending to reply to the charge. He also reminded the Magistrates that in this case the owners had given £1,500 for the house, and the tenant had paid on valuation £305.

The Chairman (after consulting with the other Justices) said: With regard to disorderly conduct, the Magistrates said nothing about it, but as to whether the house was required they would come to a decision on that question afterwards. He (Mr. Glyn) need not call evidence with regard to the disorderly conduct, and the Magistrates would decide further on whether the house was required or not.

Mr. Minter said that would necessitate him calling evidence on behalf of the tenant to show that the business was good, and that it was increasing.

Mr. William Foster Crouch, manager to Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, owners of the Queen`s Head, said he had supervision of this house, which was valued in the firm`s book at £1,500. Mr. Walter Tame was admitted as tenant of the house in August, 1887, and he paid himself £305 for valuation on taking possession. He was a tenant at £40 a year rent, purchased his beer of their firm, and did an excellent trade; he drew about six barrels a week. He came to them with a good character, which he had retained.

By Mr. Minter: He was doing a much improved trade.

Superintendent Taylor asked whether in September, 1890, the licence was not opposed.

Mr. Minter: You cannot go into that.

Walter Tame gave corroborative evidence.

By Superintendent Taylor: He certainly remembered that on the 1^st April of this year the police came into his house to quell a disturbance, but he did not send for them. The constable ejected a man, but he was not drunk.

Mr. Bodkin: Was it respect of that that you were summoned, and the summons was dismissed without your solicitor being called upon to reply?

Witness: Yes, sir. No further evidence was taken.

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

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

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

Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal, notice of appeal served on the Justices` Clerk should be accepted by the Justices.

This was at once acceded to.

Mr. Glyn: My clients all feel, sir, what the professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr. Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893

Licensing

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13^th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it`s conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin`s work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen`s arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

The first case was that of the Queen`s Head. The objections were that the landlord had been summoned for permitting drunkenness, but the summons was dismissed. Also that within a radius of 100 paces there were seventeen other publics. The Manager to Messrs. Nalder and Colyer valued the house at £1,500. Mr. Tame, the landlord, paid £305 to enter upon it; £40 a year rent, and was doing a good trade.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.