Welcome Inn, Dover Street 1893 - 1906

The former Welcome Inn (where the sign bracket juts out) as seen in 1927. Credit Folkestone Library

 

 

Licensees

James Warman 1893 1895 Also Victoria (1)

Walter Jefford 1895 1895 From Wellington

Edward Bailey 1895 1896 From Agnes

Thomas Jacob 1896 1898

John Knopp 1898 1899

Joseph Jackson 1899 1899

Frederick Mansfield 1899 1901

Charles Gartner 1901 1903

Charles Brown 1903 1904

George Jarvis 1904 1904

John Luck 1904 1905

John Freeman 1905 1906

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 Welcome, Dover Street

This house, otherwise “The Cutter” belongs to Messrs Moxon, brewers. Mr. Glyn said it was a very old house, and doing a fair business.

Sergeant Swift said there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were about 150 houses in Dover Street, and four licensed houses. There had been four tenants since 1891.

Mr. Glyn: It has never been held that that is a ground for refusing a licence. I should like to see the case.

Richard Moxon, of the firm Ash and Co., said the house had belonged to the firm many years – it might be 150. (Laughter) It`s value was close on £1,000. It had a very respectable tenant against whom there were no complaints.

By Superintendent Taylor: there have been four tenants.

Mr. Minter: Oh, Burgess was convicted, and they got him out. They wanted a respectable tenant.

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 Welcome, or Folkestone Cutter

The ground of objection to this house was the same as in the last case.

Sergeant Swift found eight other licensed houses in a radius of 100 paces, and of 130 houses approximately in Dover Street, four of them were licensed, said the Superintendent, but Counsel said this could not be held as evidence that the house was not required.

Mr. Richard Moxon, of the firm of Ash and Co., brewers, said his firm purchased the house many years ago, and it`s value was £1,000. He admitted that since 1891 there had been four tenants, and he supposed they had been got rid of because they had been complained of. The present tenant was a very respectable man, and there was no complaint against him.

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 Victoria, the Oddfellows, the Welcome, British Colours, and Granville were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and the Tramway for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place, this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

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.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-6-1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the licence of the Welcome Inn was transferred to Mr. Jefford

 

Folkestone Express 8-6-1895

Wednesday, June 5^th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was transferred to Mr. Shepherd (sic)

Folkestone Chronicle 31-10-1896

Wednesday, October 28^th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. T.J. Vaughan, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, and W. Salter.

Thomas George Jacob was granted the transfer of the licence of the Welcome, Dover Street

Folkestone Express 31-10-1896

Wednesday, October 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Salter, and J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome was transferred to Mr. Thomas George Jacob 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30-4-1898

Local News

Temporary authority to sell has been granted to Mr. Kropp at the Dorset Inn, Dover Street.

Note: Welcome Inn.

Folkestone Up To Date 30-4-1898

Wednesday, April 27^th: before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Licence was granted to Mr. Kropp, Welcome, Dover Street, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 25-2-1899

Saturday, February 18^th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and J. Hoad Esqs.

Mr. Joseph Jackson applied for temporary authority in respect of the Welcome, Dover Street. Adjourned for production of testimonials.

Folkestone Express 11-3-1899

Wednesday, March 8^th: Before J. Fitness and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Welcome Inn was transferred to Mr. Joseph Jackson.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Monday, transfer was granted to Mr. Jackson (Welcome).

 

Folkestone Up To Date 11-3-1899

The following licence was transferred:

Welcome Inn to Mr. Joseph Jackson.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-4-1899

Local News

William Nichols, Reuben Row, and John Kifford are Soldiers Three, all of the West Riding regiment, stationed at Dover. They have not the humour of Private Mulvaney, and we do not think Mr. Rudyard Kipling would have chosen them as models of heroes for his romance. They have only one similarity to his three pals – they fight for one another, but their virtue is sullied, inasmuch as they have a penchant for fighting for a bad cause. To get drunk, to smash a glass panel with the fist, to hit a policeman behind the ear, to try to throttle him with a grip on his windpipe, to break his fingers by turning them back while he`s struggling on the ground, are not qualities which commend defenders of the Queen and country for promotion. Yet, by these last three little pleasantries the three young privates named endeavoured to prove their brotherhood.

The event was a Sunday evening diversion, and on Monday morning this week all three appeared before the Magistrates at Folkestone. Alderman Banks occupied the chair, and was supported by the Mayor (Alderman Salter), Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Herbert. As the prisoners three in turn stood in the dock and pleaded, one other dissimilarity to Kipling`s three was emphasised. Though belonging to a Yorkshire regiment, they had none of the dialect of that county, and their facial formation was rather that of a section of the youth of Birmingham, than of the bright, merrily pathetic Cockney soldier of Mr. Kipling`s depiction. They had, too, it is averred, displayed a trick peculiar to the Brummagem youth – they whipped off their belts and swung round the buckle end among those who attempted to defend the police sergeant they assailed. The hearing of the case on Monday caused the public part of the Court to be crowded by persons who had witnessed their savagery.

The first witness called was Mr. J. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who said that at about 6.40 on the previous night, Sunday, the three men, in uniform, entered the Welcome, and called for three glasses of beer. He saw they were all the worse for drink – they had already had more than enough – so he quietly advised them to have no more. This advice they resented, so he asked them to leave. Thereupon they became very abusive, refused to leave, and addressed him in language which was most obscene, and shocking to everyone else in the house. Witness ordered them out, and said he would send for the police if they did not go. Nichols declared that neither policemen nor landlord, nor anyone else would put him out, and the epiphets wtih which he coupled policemen and all other men generally were too disgusting to imagine the most filthy-minded person to have power to invent. Witness sent for the police, and meanwhile made an effort to put the men out. Row and Kifford went out on to the doorstep slowly, but Nichols resisted. Witness got an opportunity of pushing Nichols outwith the door, and succeeded in bolting the door on him. The moment he was outside, Nichols kicked furiously at the door, smashed the glass panel with his fist, and threatened to smash witness`s face through the hole he had made in the panel. Police Sergeant Swift had been told of the disturbance, and was coming to the spot. The three men ran down Dover Street, followed by witness, and Nichols was seized by P.S. Swift just at the bottom of the Tram Road near the Pavilion Shades Inn. He resisted arrest in a rough manner, and the two other men assisted him.

P.S. Swift said he met the prisoner and the two other men and Mr. Jackson outside the Shades. Jackson made the charge against Nichols. Witness said to him “You hear what this gentleman says, you`ll have to go to the station”. Prisoner replied “Not for you nor forty like you. I`ll box you, you ----“, and struck witness a blow on the side of the head. Witness closed with him. They fell to the ground, and the prisoner fought and struggled like a demon. A seaman named Williams and two other seamen came to his assistance, and helped him to get the man to the police station.

An officer of the West Riding Regiment attended the court, and said the most he could say for Nichols was that he had only a moderate character in the regiment.

The sentence of the court was that Nichols be fined 7s. 6d. for the damage to the window panel, 10s. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for the offence of wilful damage, with the alternative of 14 days` hard labour. For the offence of resisting the police he was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour, without the option of a fine.

In passing sentence, Alderman Banks said: The Bench feels very much indebted to Mr. Jackson for the able action he took in this matter, and for having you arrested for being drunk on his premises, and for the part he has taken in bringing you to justice for having assaulted the police. A soldier`s duty is to assist the police in every way he can, not to prevent him from maintaining the police. I hope you will take this lesson to heart and will eventually go back to your regiment a better man, with a proper sense of your duty as a soldier, a better man to yourself, and a higher feeling of your duty to your Queen and your country.

The case of the two men Row and Kifford was taken separately. They pleaded Guilty to both charges.

P.S. Swift described how these two men were with the last prisoner and were using most filthy language. Kifford caught him by the throat and nearly strangled him, while Row got hold of one of his fingers and bent it back, trying to break it. But for the assistance he had from the seaman Williams they would have released Nichols. They followed to the police station, where he gave them into custody.

Neither man had anything to say in defence of this conduct.

Their officer had not a good character to give of either. Row had been in trouble during the last twelve months, and Kifford previously.

The sentence upon these two was 5s. fine and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days` imprisonment for using obscene language, and £1 and 4s. 6d. costs for resisting the police, with the alternative of 14 days` hard labour.

At a moment when everyone in court was intent on the prisoners and witnessed, a shaggy-haired sheepdog, well known in Folkestone as “Zulu”, trotted noiselessly into court, unobserved, until he had made a sniffing inspection of the Bench, and was turning his attention to the new Chief Constable. Then came the order “Take that dog out of Court!” Zulu was instantly arrested by P.S. Swift, by the collar, and proved a prisoner with a better respect for the majesty of the law than had been exhibited by the three young soldiers. He shook the hair from over one eye, looked round and saw his master in court, and offered no resistance. He did not refuse to leave when requested, but once outside the court he squatted on the bottom step and refused to budge until he saw his master come out in safety. During the court conversation, it was stated that Zulu, with similar quietude, has obtained initiation to the Druids, the Buffs, and even the Freemasons` Lodges of Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 29-4-1899

Monday, April 24^th: Before J. Banks and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

William Nichols (Private, W. Riding Regiment) stationed at Dover, was charged with breaking a plate glass panel in a door, belonging to Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome Inn, on Sunday evening. He pleaded Guilty. He was further charged with assaulting P.S. Swift.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the Welcome public house. The defendant entered the public bar with two others in a drunken state and asked to be served with three glasses of ale. Witness refused because all three of the man had had enough. Defendant commenced to use most vile language, and they were requested to leave. Defendant refused to leave and said witness could not put him out, nor could any police constable. Witness sent for a constable. Defendant was pushed out, and he then commenced to kick at the door, and finally thrust his fist through a glass panel of the door, and threatened to smash witness`s face. The value of the panel was 7s. 6d. Witness went outside, and the three ran away, he following them till they got outside of the Pavilion Shades in the Tram Road. Sergt. Swift there stopped them, and defendant, who he had got hold of, struggled to get free. He did not see defendant strike the officer. The other two did their utmost to obstruct the officer. The struggle lasted five minutes.

Sergt. Swift said about 6.45 on Sunday evening he was called to the Tram Road, and saw the prisoner and two other soldiers of the same regiment. The complainant charged the prisoner with having broken a window. He told prisoner he must accompany him to the police station. Defendant replied “Not for you or forty like you. I`ll corpse you, you ----“, and struck him a deliberate blow on the right side of his head. He closed with prisoner, and threw him on to the ground, when he kicked and fought “like a demon”. After two minutes three men came to his assistance, and prisoner was handcuffed and taken to the police station. The blow prisoner struck him was a violent one, and partially stunned him.

Prisoner had nothing to say. An officer of his regiment said he only bore a moderate character.

For the damage he was fined 10s., with 7s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`, and for the assault on the officer 14 days` hard labour.

The Bench commended the action of the complainant in declining to serve the men and causing them to be taken into custody.

Reuben Row and John Kifford, privates in the same regiment, were then charged with using obscene language and resisting the police. They pleaded Guilty to both charges.

Sergt. Swift repeated the evidence he gave in the case of the first prisoner. He said the defendants used most filthy language. Kifford caught him by the throat, and Row bent back his forefinger. They followed the last prisoner to the police station, and were then taken into custody.

They both bore indifferent characters in the regiment. The Bench fined each 5s. and 4s. 6d, costs for using obscene language, and for resisting the police £1 and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Up To Date 29-4-1899

Monday, April 24^th: Before J. Banks, W. Salter, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

William Nicholls, a private in the West Riding regiment, was charged with wilful damage, and assaulting Police Sergeant Swift in the execution of his duty, and Reuben Rowe and John Kifford, two privates in the same regiment, were charged with using obscene language, and resisting the Sergeant in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Welcome public house, in the neighbourhood of the harbour, deposed that on Sunday night Nicholls came into the public bar with two other men, and three glasses of beer were asked for. He refused to serve the beer because he thought they had had enough. Nicholls commenced to use impudent language, and was requested to leave the premises, but said he would not go, nor could the landlord, nor a constable, nor anyone else in the house put him out. The result was there was a scene, and Nicholls ultimately put his fist through a glass pane, doing damage to the amount of 7s. 6d. When all the mischief the three soldiers could achieve before the arrival of the police had been done, they ran away.

Sergeant Swift deposed to receiving information as to the prisoners, and apprehending Nicholls and the other prisoners. Nicholls refused to go quietly, and struck the sergeant a violent blow on the head and partly stunned him. A struggle then took place, in the course of which Nicholls kicked and fought – the sergeant said – like a demon. Some seaman then came to the sergeant`s rescue, and the man was handcuffed ant taken to the police station.

The Chairman gave Nicholls a lecture on morality, and said the Bench had decided to fine him 10s., to order him to pay 7s. 6d., the amount of the damages, and 4s. 6d. costs, in default 14 days`. For the assault, the Court sentenced Nicholls to 14 days` hard labour, without the option of a fine.

The special evidence as to Rowe and Kifford showed that Police Sergeant Swift was seized by the throat, and one of his fingers bent, in the attempt to secure them.

The Chairman remarked that soldiers ought to protect the police rather than assault them. The two prisoners were each fined, Rowe 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days hard labour, and Kifford £1 and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 26-8-1899

Folkestone Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Captain Carter, J. Hoad, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

The landlord of the Welcome, Dover Street, applied for a music and dancing licence.

The Chairman announced that the magistrates considered there were already a sufficient number of houses licensed for music, and refused the application.

Folkestone Herald 26-8-1899

Annual Licensing Sessions

On Wednesday last the Annual Licensing Meeting was held at the Court Room, Town Hall, the sitting justices being Capt. Carter, Mr. Fitness, Mr. Pursey, Mr. Hoad, Mr. Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Alderman Herbert.

Mr. Joseph Jackson, of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, applied for a music licence, but the application was refused, the Chairman stating that there were already sufficient houses for music and dancing.

Folkestone Up To Date 26-8-1899

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Licensing Day

Music Licence

The application of Mr. Joseph Jackson for a music licence for the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14-10-1899

Police Court

The Welcome Inn

The Magistrates refused to transfer the licence of this house in Dover Street to Mr. Frank Mansfield, who, they said, had rendered himself liable to a penalty for selling temporarily while waiting for a chance to apply for permission.

Folkestone Herald 14-10-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday, Frederick Mansfield applied for a licence for the Welcome, Dover Street.

Chief Constable Reeve said that he felt that he ought to explain that he did not agree with the procedure adopted in this case and others, that licences should transfer in this way without any intimation being given to him, and a man went in, took possession, commencing to sell. He did not think that that procedure ought to be allowed. This was the first intimation he had that the man was in the house selling.

The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that there was no legal obligation. They had no right to sell without a temporary authority. Defendant could not sell without his licence.

The applicant was requested to bring up more recent references

Folkestone Up To Date 14-10-1899

Saturday, October 7^th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

An application was made by Frederick Mansfield for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street.

Chief Constable Reeve objected to applicants for transfers beginning to sell without due notices at places they had taken possession of. He believed they had no right to sell without consent.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. Bradley): The defendant has rendered himself liable to a penalty.

Mr. Mansfield: I did not know the rules.

The Chief Constable: I will not object to the transfer, as the applicant has produced testimonials.

The Bench decided that the applicant must produce more recent references.

Folkestone Herald 28-10-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday the Welcome Inn was transferred from Joseph Jackson to Fredk. Mansfield