Oddfellows Arms 1890 - 1894

Folkestone Chronicle 3-1-1891

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday Thomas Markwick was summoned for being drunk and incapable. Police Constable Stannage found him outside the Oddfellows Inn (sic) on Christmas Eve, helplessly drunk. He had to obtain the assistance of Inspector Brice to get him to the police station. Markwick, who did not appear, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Express 3-1-1891

Wednesday, December 31^st: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Thomas Marwick, summoned for being drunk, did not appear. Sergeant Harman said the defendant was a fisherman, and was probably at sea. He belonged to Brighton.

P.C. Stannage said on Wednesday he saw the defendant lying outside the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, helplessly drunk. He and Boat Inspector Brice tried to stand him up, but he was too drunk to stand. They therefore took him to the police station and detained him.

The Magistrates desired to be informed where the man got the drink, and Brice said he saw him nearly drunk the first thing in the morning. He had probably been drinking all the day.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days`.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 7-1-1891

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before The Mayor, J. Holden Esq., Major Penfold, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

William Samuel Frodsham was charged with assaulting a man named Carter – I`m sorry, I don`t know his front name. Defendant said he was Guilty of striking him “and he had cause to”.

Complainant said he was a fish hawker, living at 9, Dover Street. About 3.30 on the previous Saturday several of them were in the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, talking, laughing and chaffing. He was not talking to defendant at all, but all at once the latter said “I`ll give the gentleman something” – it wasn`t “gentleman”, but the List is a family paper – and at once knocked him down. He remembered no more. He had never had a misword with defendant; would be very sorry to have a misword with anybody.

By the Clerk: I had had a glass, but was not drunk. I was neither drunk nor sober, just as you would be at Christmas time (!!)

Defendant`s version was that complainant had asked his “missis” to drink, and that when the lady declined, Carter turned round and laughed in his face. Defendant then lost his temper and struck complainant, who got up and said “What`s that for?”, to which he replied “You know very well what it`s for”. “That`s all I`ve got to say, gentlemen, and if you like to hear my missis she`ll tell you the same”.

1s. and 9s. costs. Defendant paid 5s. down, and was allowed a week in which to pay the remainder.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-1-1891

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before The Mayor, Major Penfold, Ald. Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Samuel Frodsham was summoned for assaulting a labourer named Carter at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), on the 27^th December.

Carter stated that he lived at 9, Dover Street. On the 27^th he was in the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, between three and four o`clock. He was talking and joking with the prisoner and one or two others. They were not talking about the prisoner, but he went up to witness, without any provocation, and struck him in the face with his fist. The blow knocked him down, and the mark on his face was the result. Witness did not know what his grievance was; he had never had a misword with him in his life. Witness was not drunk. He was a little merry – like people were at Christmas time. (Laughter)

Prisoner said his “Missus” went to the Oddfellows Arms for him on the day in question. They were talking together, and a man picked up a quart jug off the counter and asked her to drink. She said “No, I drink with no man, as I have told you before”. The prosecutor then turned round and laughed in his face. He lost his temper and struck him.

Fined 1s. and 10s, costs.

Folkestone Express 10-1-1891

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden, J. Fitness and S. Penfold Esqs.

William S. Frodsham was summoned for assaulting George Carter on the 27^th December. He pleaded Guilty, but said he had cause for doing it.

Complainant, a fisherman, of 9, Dover Street, said on Saturday he was in the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, about half past three, talking with four other men. Defendant was there, but they were not talking to him, but he “up fist” and said “I`ll give the ---- something”, and struck witness in the eye. He was not drunk, but he was “a little merry, as he would be Christmas time”. (Laughter)

Defendant said they were in the Oddfellows Arms. His missus went for him, and said “Bill, I want to speak to you”. While they were talking, Carter went in front of him, and taking a quart pot and a glass off the counter, asked his missus to drink. She replied that she drank with no man. Carter laughed at her, and he (defendant) lost his temper and struck him.

Defendant was fined 1s. and 9s. costs. He paid 5s. and was allowed a week to pay the balance.

Folkestone Express 17-1-1891

County Court

Tuesday, January 13^th: Before Judge Selfe

Lewis, Hyland and Goble v Robert Carter: Claim £1 0s. 9d. Defendant is a publican and a boatowner. His Honour asked if the Oddfellows was a house of entertainment of a high class. (Laughter) Committed for 14 days. Order suspended for 14 days.

John Francis v Robert Carter: Claim £1 10s. 6d. Fresh order 10s. a month.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-4-1891

Monday, March 30^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, valued at 15s. 6d., and the property of William Bull.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn shortly before nine o`clock on Saturday evening, when the prisoner went into the bar and offered a pair of boots for sale. He asked witness if he knew where he could sell them, and he took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He went back to the Royal George and found Murray waiting.

Joseph Whiting stated that Harford lodged at his house, the Bricklayer`s Arms, and on Saturday evening both prisoners called at his bar for some beer, but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting identified Murray as the man who called at her uncle`s house on Saturday afternoon with a pair of elastic side boots. He waited until Harford came in and they both went out together.

P.C. Keeler deposed that he found Harford at 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Mr. Whiting as a lodging house. Witness asked him if he had a pair of new boots, and he gave him the pair produced. He said he bought them at the Bricklayer`s Arms for 3s. 6d. from a man whom he did not know. Witness took him to the police station, and later on he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, where he found Murray in the bar. He had been drinking.

Both prisoners denied the charge. Murray stated that he bought the boots from a strange man and sold them to Harford.

Each prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 4-4-1891

Monday, March 30^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, value 15s. 10d., the property of William Bull, of High Street.

Prosecutor said on Saturday night, about a quarter to nine, he missed a pair of boots from outside his shop. P.C. Swain called upon him and about five minutes after he was gone he missed a second pair.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when the prisoner Murray went in with a pair of boots and offered them for sale. Murray asked him if he knew where he could sell them. He took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He returned to the George with the boots. Murray was still there. He thought one of the loops of the boots was broken.

Joseph A. Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, said Harford lodged in his house. Both prisoners went to his bar between seven and half past seven on Saturday evening. They called for beer but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting said she recognised Murray as having gone to her uncle`s house about half past four on Saturday afternoon with a pair of new elastic side boots. He asked for Dan, meaning Harford, and she told him he was not at home. He waited until he came and they then went out into the back yard together.

P.C. Keeler said he went to No. 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Whiting as a lodging house, and found Harford there. He asked i he had a pair of new boots, and he showed him those produced, saying he bought them from a man he did not know, whom he met at the Bricklayers Arms, and gave 3s. 6d. for them. Witness took him into custody, and when charged by Sergt. Ovenden he made no reply. About half past eleven he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, in Radnor Street, and found Murray in the taproom asleep. He had been drinking. When charged at the police station with stealing two pairs of boots he made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. Harford pleaded Not Guilty, and Murray Not Guilty. Murray said he bought the boots of a man and sold them to Harford.

The Bench convicted both prisoners and sentenced them to a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 23-5-1891

Thursday, May 21^st: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

Wm. Marshall and Alfred Madden were charged with breaking a square of glass at the Oddfellows Inn (sic) on Wednesday, and further with being absentees from the Royal Marines, at Deal.

Mrs. Carter said on Wednesday night, about 20 minutes to 12, the inmates were having their supper. The house was closed. They heard a knocking at the side door, and asked who it was. A voice replied “We want a bed”. She told him she had no bed to let, and then the voice said “Let`s have a drink”. She told him the house was closed. The man then made use of a bad expression, and directly after she heard a window broken. She was looking through the window, and saw Marshall put a stick under his arm. The value of the window which was broken was 15s. She sent the servant for a policeman. She did not see or hear the other man, but knew there were others in uniform. P.C. Lawrence brought the man back to the house.

Josephine Driscoll, servant to Mrs. Carter, said she saw four men outside, and heard Madden say “If I was you, I`d bash the ---- window”. Madden had his belt in his hand, and a stick. Marshall struck the window three times with his stick before it broke. They both used bad language, and ran away. Madden threatened to smash the larger window with his belt. The other two men took no part.

P.C. Lawrence said he saw the two defendants and two others in the Fishmarket. They were all Marines. They ran up The Durlocks by St. Peter`s Church, and into Mr. Hyham`s meadow. The four then made a stand, and took off their belts. He called to some fishermen who were following to help him, and the soldiers ran away. Marshall fell as he was getting over a fence, and he secured him. The servant identified him as the man who broke the window. He was searched and had no pass.

P.C. Dawson said he stopped three soldiers on East Cliff, and asked or their passes. They said the had none – they were militiamen. He took Madden into custody.

The defendants were each fined 5s., damages 7s. 6d., costs 6s. 6d., or seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-7-1891

Local News

At the Folkestone police court on Tuesday, James McCarthy was charged with stealing a large quantity of house linen, valued at £5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell.

From the evidence of Henry Robus it appears that he was in charge of Miss Campbell`s house – 67, Brockman Road. The stolen goods were safely locked in the house on Sunday night, but he missed them on Wednesday. Upon examination he found the storm sash at the back of the house had been broken, and also the glass in the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

The prisoner lodged at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and it was stated by the landlady that he was absent all Tuesday night and came home on Wednesday morning. He opened a bundle and showed her the articles produced, and as she had suspicions she sent for the police. When questioned by Supt. Taylor he said he had obtained them in the ordinary way of dealing, but declined to say where.

Mrs. Edith Ralph, of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner offered  some towels for sale at her bar, and she and a woman named Davison bought a number, but took them to the police station afterwards.

Statements were also made by Stephen Bailey and Jane Davis, who were at the Oddfellows when McCarthy returned. He asked them what they thought of his night`s work.

The Magistrates committed him for trial.

Folkestone Express 18-7-1891

Thursday, July 16^th: Before Alderman Dunk and J. Fitness Esq.

James McCarthy was charged with stealing a quantity of house linen, value £5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell, from a house in Brockman Road.

P.C. Walter Down said he went on Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, and there saw a bundle containing the property now produced. Prisoner afterwards came in, and he asked if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said it did, and he bought the goods in Folkestone, but declined to say where he got them.

Prisoner: I object to leading questions. It is against all order. It don`t give me a chance. I haven`t got much as it is.

Witness: He said he came by them honestly, but declined to say where he bought them, or who he bought them of. At the police station Superintendent Taylor asked prisoner where he got the clothes. Prisoner replied “In the ordinary way of dealing, but I decline to tell you where”. The bundle contained ten sheets, two tablecloths, a towel, a toilet cover, 16 pillow cases, two pairs of curtains, four valances. They were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets upon them.

Henry Robus said on the 17^th July, 1889, he attended a sale of the effects of Mr. D. Owen, at 67, Brockman Road, and purchased through Smith, a broker, lots 215 to 225, and afterwards made them up into a bundle, and took them to a house in Brockman Road belonging to Miss Mary Campbell. There was no other furniture in the house at the time. The house was in his charge – securely locked and the windows were fastened. He was in the house on Sunday at 11.30, and the articles were then safe, just as he put them there two years ago. He went to the house on Wednesday, and the goods were then missing. He examined the house, and found the glass of the storm sash at the back of the drawing room broken, and also the glass of the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

Prisoner: Where did you get your information?

Witness declined to answer.

Prisoner: Could a man of my size get in the window? – Yes. I could get in.

Jane Davis, wife of a labourer, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said she saw the prisoner there on Wednesday morning. He asked her to go down into the scullery and see his night`s work. She went down, and he untied the bundle of linen. He gave her 18 towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell to get a drink. She was to ask 2s. for them. She returned and told him Mrs. Carter refused to buy them, saying they were stolen property.

Stephen Bailey said on Wednesday he saw the prisoner in the scullery at the Oddfellows. He showed him a bundle, and asked “What do you think of my night`s work?”, and asked him to feel the weight of it. He opened it and showed him the sheets and pillowcases, and offered to sell him a pair of sheets for a shilling, and also asked him to stand a drink. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent him for a constable.

Lucy Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows Inn, said the prisoner was staying at her house three weeks ago, and remained 10 days. He went away and returned on Saturday evening, and slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. He was absent all night on Tuesday, and came in about seven o`clock on Wednesday. She went into the scullery and saw prisoner there with a large bundle of linen. She asked him to show her the things he had to sell. He opened the bundle and showed her tablecloths and shirts. She told him he had not come by them honestly, and that he was to take them away. She then sent for a policeman. Prisoner left the house with some of the articles in a handbasket.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her private bar on Wednesday with some towels, which he asked her to buy. She bought ten for 1s. 10d.. She saw they were marked “Owen”, and took them to the police station.

Jemima Davison, of 6, South Street, produced two towels which she purchased of prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner said he wished to be remanded or committed for trial, and then he would make a statement to the police which would very likely clear him, which it would not do if he spoke it in open court. He believed he was quite justified in selling the things, and came by them in a perfectly honest manner. He expected someone would have been present when they knew he was in trouble, to say how he came by them.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Sessions.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-9-1891

Wednesday, September 23^rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Oddfellows

Mr. Carter applied for a renewal of the licence of this house, it having been held over from the last Court.

Superintendent Taylor said a complaint was received with reference to the conduct of the house six weeks before the licensing day. A similar complaint was also sent to the brewers, who promised to find a fresh tenant. He had since found that the complaint was sent from a person who had quarrelled with Carter`s wife.

Mr. Minter said no other complaint had ever been made.

Superintendent Taylor said on two occasions Carter had rendered the police very valuable assistance. The arrests could not have been made had it not been for him.

The renewal was granted.

Folkestone Express 26-9-1891

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The Oddfellows

Robert Carter applied for a renewal of the licence to this house.

Superintendent Taylor said complaints were made to the Mayor as to the conduct of the house, and also to Messrs. Rigden, the owners. The complaint was made by a woman who had been quarrelling with Carter`s wife. Carter had on two occasions rendered valuable assistance to the police, and they had no complaint against him. Granted.

Folkestone Visitors` List 14-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

The Quarter Sessions on Monday occupied seven hours – an unusual time for Folkestone.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, pleaded Not Guilty to stealing, in a house in Brockman Road, a quantity of linen &c., the goods of Miss Campbell, on the 16^th July. Mr. Glyn prosecuted.

Prisoner defended himself with considerable ability, and his defence was that he received the goods from a soldier of the 17^th Lancers, and was disposing of them for him when he was apprehended. The case occupied over two hours, and a verdict was returned of Guilty on the second charge, that of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen.

The Recorder sentenced prisoner to three months` hard labour, taking into consideration the fact that he had already been nearly three months in prison awaiting his trial.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, 12^th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

A true bill was returned against James McCarthy, who was charged with having, on the 15^th of last July, stolen from the dwelling house of Mary Campbell, Brockman Road, two dimity curtains, four valances, three pairs of linen sheets, and a number of towels, of the value of £5 12s.

Mr. L. Glyn prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty, was not defended.

P.C. Walter Down was called and stated that on Wednesday, the 15^th of July, about half past nine in the morning, he went to the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street. He there saw the bundle produced. It contained the articles which were the subject of the present charge. Shortly after his arrival at the Oddfellows, the prisoner entered. He asked him if the bundle belonged to him. He said “Yes”. Witness asked him where he got them from, and he replied “I came by them honestly. I bought them at Folkestone”. He then asked the prisoner to take him to the place where he bought them, but he refused to. He told the prisoner he should take him to the police station on suspicion of having stolen the goods.

By the prisoner: Witness was called to the Oddfellows about half past nine, and about twenty minutes elapsed after he first saw the prisoner. He went to the station quietly and seemed to take it in good humour. He did not consider it necessary to handcuff prisoner. When he (prisoner) went into the Rendezvous, witness waited outside for him. He suggested that witness should go back to the Oddfellows and wait for the man who sold them.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go and have a drink after you arrested him?

Witness: Yes, sir; he was determined to go.

The Recorder: A very obliging policeman, but it is fortunate for you there wasn`t a back door.

Supt. Taylor said he remembered prisoner being brought to the station. Witness told him he had been brought there on suspicion of having stolen the goods. He said he was a dealer and had bought them. Witness asked him of whom, and he answered that he bought them at Folkestone, and had come by them honestly.

At the request of the prisoner Supt. Taylor produced a statement which the prisoner made after he had been committed for trial and also a letter which he wrote in prison. Nothing was known against him by the London Police and he could not have obtained information easily without the prisoner`s help. There were no scratches on his face to indicate scratches by broken glass. He found that he was in company with a man in uniform on the Monday and Tuesday nights. Prisoner said the man belonged to the 17^th Lancers. He had seen the Sergeant Major and had had the regiment paraded.

Henry Robus proved having purchased the articles at the sale of Mr. Owen, for Miss Campbell, on the 17^th July. 1889. They were all marked “Owen”. He took them to 21, Brockman Road. He visited the house on the Sunday before the robbery. The goods were all right then.

Jane Davis said she was employed at the Oddfellows Inn. On the morning in question prisoner showed her the articles and asked her what she thought of his night`s work. He gave her 13 towels to take to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. Mrs. Carter said she would see about it when she came down. Mrs. Carter was ill and could not attend that day.

Prisoner: What`s the matter with her?

Witness: She`s ill.

Prisoner: Yes, with the perjury! She committed gross perjury before the Magistrates. I shall prove it presently.

Mr. Glyn put in a certificate, and the witness Davis said she was suffering from dropsy and diseased kidneys.

Stephen Bailey, labourer, said he lodged at the Oddfellows. The prisoner also asked him what he thought of his night`s work. He asked him to lend him twopence for a drink, and to buy a pair of sheets for 1s. He did not buy them.

Mr. Glyn then read the depositions of Mrs. Carter, which were given before the Magistrates. She stated that the prisoner slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights. He was absent on the Tuesday night and came home at seven o`clock on the morning of the 15<sup>th</sup>. At quarter to eight prisoner was in the scullery, and when he asked her to buy some towels she said “You didn`t come by these things honestly and take them out of my house. Where did you get them from?” He said “Mind your own business”.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner brought some towels into the bar and she gave him 1s. 10d. for ten. When she found the name “Owen” on them she took them up to Supt. Taylor.

Jemima Davidson, of 6, South Street, stated that she bought two towels from prisoner for 3d.

This was the case for the prosecution, and prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse. He stated that prisoner was admitted to the Workhouse Infirmary on the 24^th of June and was discharged on the 13^th of July (Monday). He was in bed the whole time, and was discharged at his own request.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury on the part of the witness Carter, who stated that he slept at the Oddfellows on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday, whereas he was not discharged from the Workhouse until the Monday.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, was called on the prisoner`s behalf, but did not put in an appearance.

Harry Stone, alias Lucas, stated that he saw prisoner in the Perseverance at half past twelve on Monday. He remained in his company until eleven at night. The next day he went into the Perseverance about the same time and saw the prisoner. In the afternoon they went to Cheriton to get a job for the prisoner. They went back to the Perseverance, and in the evening a man came in dressed in soldier`s clothes. It was the uniform of the 17<sup>th</sup> Lancers. They all went out at eleven o`clock. He went with Supt. Taylor, but was unable to identify the soldier.

Prisoner then read a long statement. He said he had work to go to at Cheriton at five o`clock on the Wednesday morning, and as he was the worse for drink on Tuesday night, and fearing that he might overlay of he went to the Oddfellows, he slept under a bathing machine on the beach. He got to the White Lion, Cheriton, at five in the morning. His employer did not turn up and whilst he was waiting a soldier came up with the bundle of goods. They talked for some time. He said he was Captain Owen`s servant, and that he was going abroad and had given him everything he did not want. He asked him (prisoner) if he knew where to sell them, and he said very likely Mrs. Carter would buy them. The soldier said he had another lot and if prisoner liked to take them to the Oddfellows he could have the middle man`s profits and he would follow with the other bundle. He (prisoner) did not know they had been stolen and carried the bundle through the open streets, passing a large number of people on the way. Since he was arrested he had given every assistance to the police.

The jury found prisoner Not Guilty of stealing the goods, but Guilty on the second count of receiving them knowing them to have been stolen, and he was sentenced to three calendar months` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11^th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, was indicted for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, and which articles were left in an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

Mr. Glyn, instructed by Mr. Minter, prosecuted.

P.C. Down said on the 15^th July he went to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and was there shown the bundle of things produced. He saw the prisoner come in and asked him if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said “Yes”, and added that he came by them honestly -  he bought them in Folkestone. Witness asked him to go with him to the place where he bought them, and he said “No”. He then told prisoner he should take him to the station on a charge of stealing them.

By the prisoner: You took the matter lightly and good-humouredly, as though there was nothing in it. You went into the Rendezvous and had a drink while I stood outside.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go into a public house and have a drink while you had him in charge? – He was determined to go, sir.

Supt. Taylor said he had a conversation with the prisoner at the police station. He asked him to account for the possession of the goods. He said “I bought them. I am a dealer”. He asked who he bought them of, and he did not say – he said he came by them honestly.

Prisoner asked for the statement he made before the Magistrates, and a letter he wrote from Canterbury to the Superintendent to be produced and read to the jury.

Supt. Taylor put in a long statement made by the prisoner after his committal, and the Recorder read it. It`s purport was that he received the articles of a soldier belonging to the 17<sup>th</sup> Lancers, who, he said, was an officer`s servant, and wanted to find a purchaser for them, and on his (prisoner`s) suggestion he was allowed to carry the bundle to the Oddfellows. Next morning he sold some of the towels quite openly to get a drink. The Recorder also read a long letter written by the prisoner from Canterbury, in which he said he had been the landlord of a public house at Devonport. He married the landlady and they separated by mutual consent. His wife had allowed him upwards of a guinea a week. He had also received two small legacies, and had written stories for weekly journals, and had won money in newspaper prize competitions, so that he had no necessity to work.

In reply to the prisoner, Supt. Taylor said all the information he gave as to his antecedents was correct. The London police knew nothing. He found by enquiry that the prisoner was in company with a man in uniform two days previous to his arrest. There was no man in the 17^th Lancers of the description given by the prisoner. There was no Capt. Owen in the 17^th Lancers. Prisoner said a man named Stone or Lucas could identify the man, and he took Stone to the Hounslow Barracks, where the 17^th Lancers had just arrived, but he could not identify anyone. The statement made by the prisoner about his wife was not true. She had not made him an allowance.

Henry Rebus proved purchasing the articles at a sale of Mr. Owen`s goods in 1889, for Miss Mary Campbell. The articles were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets on them. He took them to a house belonging to Miss Campbell, 29, Brockman Road, and locked them up in a room. He saw the things safe as late at the 14^th or 15^th July of this year. He missed the things on the 19^th. The storm sash of the window had been broken open, and the things were gone.

Jane Davis, wife of John Davis, a lodger at the Oddfellows Arms, said on Wednesday morning, the 15^th July, she saw the prisoner, who asked her to go into the kitchen to see his night`s work. She went, and untied the bundle. He gave her thirteen towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. to get him a drink. She took them to Mrs. Carter, and brought them back. Mrs. Carter said she would see about them when she got up. She had seen Mrs. Carter that morning. She had been ill for a week and was unable to attend.

Prisoner: What is the matter with Mrs. Carter? – I don`t know.

Prisoner: Perhaps she has got perjury the matter with her. I can prove she committed perjury before the Magistrates.

Witness said she had a doctor`s certificate.

In answer to prisoner, witness said she lent him an open basket to take the towels out in. There were about 20 people in the house.

Prisoner caused some amusement by reading a list of the people who were in the house.

Stephen Bailey, another lodger at the Oddfellows, said the prisoner asked him to feel the weight of a bundle of linen. He then asked him to lend him 2d., or to give him 1s. for a pair of sheets. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent for a policeman.

Mr. Glyn put in the deposition of Lucy Carter, and told prisoner the doctor had been sent for, and when he arrived he would be allowed to put questions to him. The deposition stated that the prisoner lodged in her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but was absent on Tuesday night. He returned early on Wednesday.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh Inn, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her house with some towels in an open basket. He asked her to buy some, and she bought 10 for 1s. 10d. In the afternoon she examined them, and finding a name on them, she took them to the police station. Prisoner told her he got the towels honestly.

In answer to the Recorder, witness said she had not heard of the robbery before she took the towels to the Superintendent.

Jemima Davidson said she bought two towels of the prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse, who stated that the prisoner was admitted to the infirmary on the 24^th June and discharged on the 13^th July.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury of the witness Carter, who was so ill she could not come.

Henry Stone, who said “Lucas” was his nickname, said he was a plasterer, residing at Folkestone. He saw the prisoner in the Perseverance on Monday from twelve o`clock until five or ten minutes to eleven, and on Tuesday from 12.30 until eleven. There was a man there in soldier`s clothes on Tuesday night. His uniform was like that of the 17^th Lancers. Prisoner said he should like to get work in the town, and they went together about eight o`clock oto the Pavilion Fields to see if they could get work. When they returned the soldier was still there, and they left about eleven.

In reply to Mr. Glyn, witness said he went to Hounslow, and saw the regiment paraded, but did not recognise the soldier among them.

Prisoner made a long statement, in which he attempted to show that he was innocent in “thought, word, or deed”. Had he been guilty, it was not likely he would have stayed in the town to be arrested.

Mr. Glyn, in his closing remarks to the jury, said that on his own statement the prisoner was a thief, because he said he received goods from a soldier and agreed to find a customer for them, instead of which he sold a portion of them and spent the money on drink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said they must all regret to see a man possessing the ability the prisoner had displayed standing in such a position. He commented on the statements of the prisoner, and compared them with the evidence, pointing out that there was proof that the prisoner was dealing with the goods very shortly after they were stolen.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner Guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to be stolen.

Superintendent Taylor produced a copy of the prisoner`s discharge from the army and a letter he had received relating to that part of the prisoner`s statement as to his keeping a public house. Nothing was known about him by the London police. The address he gave was that of a court which had been pulled down for improvements.

The Recorder said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case. Prisoner had been in prison three months, and he would be sentenced therefore to only three months` hard labour.

County Court

Tuesday, October 12^th: Before Judge Selfe

Thomas Watson v Robert Carter: There were two other judgement summonses against the defendant, by Mr. Brooks and Mr. P.C. Upton. Mr. Fearon, for Mr. Brooks, said the defendant was doing a large trade. Mr. Watts said the defendant had been frequently committed, and always paid. Committed for 14 days in the first case; order suspended for 28 days, and in the others, fresh order of £1 a month.

Folkestone Herald 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 12^th:

James McCarthy, 29, engine fitter, was sentenced to three months` imprisonment for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, from an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

Folkestone Express 6-2-1892

Before Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Wilson was charged with stealing two coats, value £3 15s. 0d., the property of John Bristow.

Prosecutor, a fly driver, in the employ of Mr. Jackson, Osborne Mews, said on the previous evening he placed two coats in the office on the inner door. At half past seven he missed them, and subsequently saw them at the police station.

Mrs. Lucy Carter, of the Oddfellows Arms, said the prisoner lodged with her on Monday and Tuesday. He went in on Wednesday about twenty minutes to nine and she saw him in his bedroom doubling up the coats produced. He was wearing them when he came in. She sent for the police.

P.C. Dawson said he apprehended the prisoner. On the way to the police station he said the coats were on his bed, and he knew nothing about them. Nothing was found on him but a pedlar`s certificate, stating his address to be 6, Fair Road, Chatham.

He was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-5-1892

Saturday, April 30^th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street, was summoned for having the house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on the 12^th April, and also for permitting drunkenness on his premises.

Sergeant Swift said on the 12^th inst., at midnight, he went to the Oddfellows Inn with P.C. Knowles. He saw a light burning in a room between the two bars, and several persons drinking. There was loud talking, and two men apparently quarrelling and using threatening language to one another. Defendant`s wife was there. A man named Rolfe came out of the door and, seeing witness, tried to escape. In the house there were eight persons; four of them were lodgers, and three were Folkestone residents, Fagg, Rolfe, and Aldridge. He asked defendant`s wife what they were doing and she said that they were lodging there that night. Aldridge had, she said, come to call her husband up to go to sea. There were two pint glasses half-full of beer on the table, and one half-full of beer and ginger beer, and three other glasses which had recently contained beer. Aldridge was very drunk, and also a lodger named Friend. He called defendant`s wife`s attention to them, and she said they were not drunk. He told her he should report her, and she replied “You can do what you like”.

P.C. Knowles gave corroborative evidence.

Stephen Bailey said he was in the house from 10 till 12. He saw Aldridge go in at 10 minutes to 11 – the worse for drink. He did not hear him call for any beer. He did not see Mr. or Mrs. Carter draw any beer all the time he was there. Mrs. Carter told Aldridge she hadn`t anything to serve him with. Witness was reading the paper, and the other men were listening to him.

Mr. Mercer said Messrs. Rigden had got the defendant out of the house.

Fined 10s. and 9s. costs in each case.

Folkestone Express 7-5-1892

Saturday, April 30^th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, (sic) Radnor Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquors during prohibited hours on the 12^th April, and also for permitting drunkenness on his premises at the same time.

Sergeant Swift said on the 12^th inst., at midnight, he went to the Oddfellows Inn with P.C. Knowles. He saw a light burning in a room between the two bars, and saw several persons there drinking. There was loud talking, and two men apparently quarrelling and using threatening language to one another. Defendant`s wife was there. A man named Rolfe came out of the door and went towards the urinal. Upon seeing witness he tried to escape. In the house there were eight persons; four of them were lodgers, and three were Folkestone residents, Fagg, Rolfe, and Aldridge. He asked defendant`s wife what they were doing , and she said they were lodging there that night. Aldridge had, she said, come to call her husband up to go to sea. There were two pint glasses half full of beer on the table, and one half full of beer and ginger beer, and three other glasses which had recently contained beer. Aldridge was very drunk, and also a lodger named Friend. He called defendant`s wife`s attention to them, and she said they were not drunk. He told her he should report her, and she said “You can do what you like”. He subsequently saw Fagg leave the house and go towards his home.

P.C. Knowles gave corroborative evidence. Aldridge, he said, was talking very thick, and could scarcely sit in his chair. He saw Aldridge, Rolfe and Fagg leave the house. Aldridge rolled against the wall as he walked.

Defendant said he was in bed and knew nothing about the matter. There wasn`t any beer in the house.

Mr. Mallam, who appeared for the owners of the house, said he could understand that probably his clients were “cutting short”.

Stephen Bailey was called by the defendant, and said he was in the house from ten till twelve. He saw Aldridge go in at ten minutes to eleven – the worse for drink. He did not hear him call for any beer. He did not see Mr. or Mrs, Carter draw any beer all the time he was there. Mrs. Carter told Aldridge she hadn`t anything to serve him with. Witness was reading the paper and the other men were listening to him.

Supt. Taylor said it was the first charge which had been made against the house. Defendant and his wife had on several occasions rendered valuable assistance to the police in cases of robberies. It was a low class house.

Mr. Mallam said Messrs. Rigden had got defendant out of the house by giving him three months` notice at Christmas. When their agent went to the Magistrates` Clerk`s office about the transfer, they then heard that there was a summons against the defendant.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs in each case.

Sandgate Visitors` List 7-5-1892

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, Robert Carter, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was fined £1 and 18s. costs for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and also for permitting drunkenness on the premises.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-5-1892

Wednesday, May 11^th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Wards Esqs.

William Fagg and Harry Aldridge, fishermen, were summoned for being found at the Oddfellows Arms during prohibited hours on the 12^th ult., and pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Swift deposed that he found the defendants on the premises about midnight, and that the landlord, Mr. Carter, had since been fined for the offence.

The Bench fined defendants 1s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 14-5-1892

Wednesday, May 11^th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.

William Fagg and Henry Aldridge were summoned for being found on licensed premises at midnight on the 18^th April. The defendants were the two men who were found in the Oddfellows Arms at midnight.

They were fined 1s. and 9s. costs, which they paid.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-7-1892

Local Bankruptcy

Re. Robert Harold Carter, of 4, East Cliff, Folkestone, lately residing and carryong on business at the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, Folkestone, fisherman. The statement of affairs shows unsecured creditors to the extent of £176 17s. 5d., and creditors for rates, etc., amounting to £6 8s. 2d. The causes o failure are alleged to be – loss of a set of heaving nets at sea, loss of £78 by a collision with a Dover smack, and loss of fishing lugger by sinking in Folkestone, estimated value £100.

The Official Receiver observes: The Receiving Order was made on the debtor`s petition, and he has been adjudicated bankrupt on his own application. The bankrupt commenced business about 14 years ago as a fisherman at Folkestone with the boat “R.H.C”. About eight years ago he was put into the Star public house, Radnor Street, Folkestone, to manage the same for the brewers, and after managing it for four years he took the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, the valuation amounting to £17. This house was carried on until 26<sup>th</sup> April last, when it was given up upon notice from the landlord. The valuation on leaving amounted to £97, which has to be deducted from the amount owing to the brewers, which is stated to be £164 6s.7d. The bankrupt continued to carry on the fisherman`s business with the boat “R.H.C” until September last, when she became waterlogged and sank in Folkestone Harbour. Although the boat was insured for £100, the bankrupt has been unable to recover the insurance, which only extended to losses at sea. The furniture is claimed by the bankrupt`s wife as having been purchased by her out of her own monies both before and after her marriage. This claim has not yet been admitted. The bankrupt states he first became aware that his property was insufficient to pay his debts in full about 14 years ago. The bankrupt has not kept any books of account.

Folkestone Express 9-7-1892

Bankruptcy

At the sitting of the Bankruptcy Court on Friday, a local debtor presented himself for examination.

Robert Harold Carter

The debtor is a fisherman, and formerly kept the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street. The total liabilities were £176 17s. 5d. Creditors for rates &c., £6 8s. 2d., and there were no assets.

In reply to the Official Receiver, the debtor said he now resided at 4, East Cliff; he formerly kept the Oddfellows Arms, and previous to that the Star Inn. He took the Star about eight years ago. About four years ago he was put into the Oddfellows. He was paid no salary, but had the profits on the beer – really he carried the business on in his own name, and the licence was in his name. He paid no valuation when he went in, but had paid it by instalments. He carried on business until April the 26^th, when he left, the landlord giving him notice to quit. The valuation then came to £97. He had considerably increased the valuation. He owed the brewers £165 6s. 7d., and the £97 was deducted. He continued to carry on the fishing business, but his lugger, the “R.H.C.”, got waterlogged and sank in Folkestone Harbour. She got waterlogged through the men leaving the plug out whilst he was engaged one day in connection with his licence. The next day she foundered. He did not get her up again.

The Registrar: Then she couldn`t have been much good before she foundered? – No. She was an old vessel.

The Registrar: I can`t quite see how a vessel sunk in Folkestone Harbour could not be got up again if she was worth anything.

The Official Receiver: Was she insured for £100? – Yes.

How was it you did not apply for the amount to be paid? – Because our insurance is only for total loss.

It would not be the case, then, if the vessel was sunk in Folkestone Harbour? – No.

She was on her last legs, wasn`t she? – Yes.

The Registrar: Did you ever try to get the insurance? – No. It was no use unless she was a total loss.

Haven`t you had a meeting with the committee to try to get the money? – Yes.

Did you argue the matter with them? – No. It was no use.

Didn`t you assert that you were entitled to it? - No. There was a rule under which I was not entitled.

The Official Receiver: Your wife claims the furniture. When were you married? – Fourteen years ago on the 30^th of last May.

Why does she claim the furniture? – She bought it.

What with? – Her own money.

Where did she get it from? – I don`t know. It was her own earnings.

How did she earn the money? What did she do? – She kept a lodging house.

Where? – She used to take lodgers at the Oddfellows.

But that was your business, wasn`t it? – She took in lodgers before.

The Official Receiver said he could not allow the wife to have the furniture.

The Registrar: What did you do with the boat? Did you sell it? – No. I made off with it.

But the wood was worth something? – Yes. The wood was sold for a sovereign.

Who sold the material? – I was £2 in debt for harbour dues.

Then the harbour people had the sovereign? – Yes.

Would not the stores and sails realise more than £1? – The stores were all washed away when she sunk.

I suppose they were not worth much? – No.

The Official Receiver: Do you occupy 35, Radnor Street at 5s. 8d. a week? – I have taken it for my daughter and my nephew. The furniture in it is my daughter`s. She has lived there about three or four years. She was my daughter by my first marriage. She is married, and the husband earns the living by fishing. None of my furniture is there. I have no property there belonging to my creditors.

Be careful. Mr. Banks informs me that there is. – No.

No sails, or ropes, or spars, or anything? – No.

Nothing from the public house? – No.

No sails, or wines, or spirits? – No.

Now, be very careful! If I find it out you know you will get into trouble? – There is nothing whatever.

You have nothing except this furniture, which is claimed by your wife? – I have nothing, only what I stand upright in.

During the 14 years you have been in business you have always been in trouble? – Always.

The examination was then adjourned till the 29^th.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-7-1892

Local News

The Bankruptcy of Mr. R. Carter: The following is a list of creditors under the bankruptcy of Mr. Robert Carter: Robert Hounsell, Bridport, about £20; W.E. and J. Rigden, Faversham, £69; W.G. & S.P. Brett, Folkestone, £12; T.H. Franks, Folkestone, about £23; Priestley and DeButts, Folkestone, about £10; R. Saunders, Folkestone, about £20; and creditors under £10.

Folkestone Chronicle 8-10-1892

Saturday, October 1^st: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, and Councillor Holden

William Frodsham, a fisherman, was charged with assaulting Henry Punnett on the 27^th September.

He pleaded that what he did was in self defence.

The complainant alleged that the defendant assaulted him in the Oddfellows Inn, and knocked him down. When complainant got up he ran away.

The Bench considered the assault proved, and fined the defendant 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Visitors` List 7-6-1893

Police Court Jottings

A brutal and unprovoked assault was partly proved against a man of colour on Thursday.

Prisoner, who gave the somewhat favourite name among darkies of Alec Johnson, 58, labourer, on the previous Wednesday evening, about quarter to eleven, went into the Oddfellows Arms, kept by Mr. Whiddett, and asked Mrs. Whiddett for a bed. She told him she had not got one to let, and, when eleven o`clock struck, requested him to leave, upon which he up with his fist and knocked her down, she, in falling, striking her head at the back against the mantelpiece.

Mrs. Whiddett went to the station and gave information, and she was seen by Dr. Yunge Bateman, who dressed her head, and, seeing it was a serious case, wished her to go to the hospital, which, however, she declined.

The black ruffian was afterwards apprehended by P.C.s Osborne and Gardner.

As the injured woman was too ill to attend and give evidence, prisoner was remanded until the 7^th.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-6-1893

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday, Alec Johnson, a man of colour, was charged on remand with assaulting Mrs. Widdett, landlady of the Oddfellows Arms.

The latter appeared to be in a very weak condition, and wore a white shawl over her head.

From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner went to the house about 11 o`clock on the previous Thursday, and asked for lodgings, and was told they had no room. Prisoner would not leave the house, and when requested to do so by the prosecutrix he struck her a violent blow in the chest. She fell down upon the stove, and according to the evidence of Dr. Yunge Bateman, received a contused wound, three inches in length, on her head.

Sentenced to 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 10-6-1893

Wednesday, June 7^th: Before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Major Poole.

Alec Johnson, a black man, was placed in the dock, charged with assaulting Catherine Whiddett with intent to do her bodily harm.

Mr. Haines watched the case on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association.

Catherine Whiddett said her husband was the landlord of the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. It was a licensed house and they took in lodgers. On Thursday the 1^st of June at ten minutes past eleven in the evening, prisoner went into the house and asked for lodgings. She told him they were full up. He was a stranger to her entirely, and had never been in the house before. She said it was past eleven and told him he had better go or he would not get a bed anywhere. He appeared to be perfectly sober, and stood and talked for some time. She put her hand upon his shoulder and asked him to leave. She did not put it on roughly. When she got to the bar, prisoner struck her on the chest with his clenched fist. He then took hold of her by the front of the dress and pushed her back. She fell against the stove and caught the back of her head. A man named Watts picked her up. Prisoner ran away immediately. She went to the police station, had the injury to her head dressed, and charged the prisoner with the offence, the prisoner being in custody when she arrived there. She had been ill since from the effect of the blow. Witness felt it now very much, and was still weak. She was now under medical treatment.

In answer to the prisoner, she said she did not push him out of the door and tell him to go away.

George Watts said he lodged at the Oddfellows and was a whitesmith. He was not in the bar of the house at five minutes to eleven, nor was he there when the prisoner came in. Prisoner was there when he came into the bar, and he heard him ask Mrs. Whiddett for a bed. She said she had got no room – she was full up. The prisoner was in her private bar. She put her hand on his shoulder and asked him to leave – she did not push him at all. It was close on eleven when this occurred. Prisoner turned round and hit her on the chest, but did not say anything. He saw the blow struck, and noticed defendant`s fists were clenched. She fell against the stove, and her head struck against the corner. The prisoner went out directly and left her on the floor. Witness helped complainant up, and noticed that she was bleeding from a cut on her head. In his opinion prisoner was sober.

Prisoner: You say I was sober. I was not – I was drunk. I remembered nothing until the next morning, when I awoke and found m,yself in the police station.

Albert Edward Philpott corroborated.

Dr. Marcus Yunge Bateman said he was called to the police station at half past eleven on Thursday night. He made an examination of complainant and found she was bleeding profusely from a wound at the back of her head. He sent her home, and told her to send for her medical attendant. The wound was such as might have been caused by a fall against a stove as described.

The prisoner pleaded that he was drunk and knew nothing of the occurrence. He had met a friend whom he knew very well, somewhere out Cheriton way, and they had both had a lot to drink.

The Magistrates fined prisoner 20s. and 10s. costs, or in default 14 days` imprisonment with hard labour.

Prisoner was removed in custody.

Folkestone Herald 10-6-1893

Police Court Notes

Wednesday: Before Messrs. Fitness, Wightwick, and H.W. Poole.

Alec Johnson, a man of colour, was charged on remand from Friday last, with having assaulted Mrs. Catherine Whiddett, landlady of the Oddfellows lodging house, Radnor Street, on June 1^st.

Mr. Haines, solicitor, attended to watch the case on behalf of the local Licensed Victuallers` Society.

Mrs. Catherine Whiddett, whose head was enveloped in a bandage, and who appeared weak, was accommodated with a seat. She said on Thursday last, about ten minutes to eleven, the prisoner, who was a stranger to her, came to the house and asked for a night`s lodging. She told him that they were full up. He stood there some time, and she said to him that as it was past eleven he had better go, or he would not get a bed anywhere. Prisoner, who appeared to be sober, remained talking, and said he had plenty of money. Prisoner at that time was in the private part of the bar. Prosecutrix put her hand on his shoulder gently to persuade him to go, when he struck her on the chest with his clenched fist, and as she was falling he caught hold of her by the front of her dress and threw her to the ground. She fell on the grate in the bar and cut her head. She did not become insensible, but bled a great deal. Prisoner immediately ran away. Mr. Watson picked prosecutrix up and placed her on a chair. She was afterwards taken to the police station, where she identified the prisoner, who was in custody. She had been very ill and weak from the effects of the treatment, and was under the care of Dr. Barrett.

By the prisoner: She denied pushing him roughly to the door.

George Watson, a whitesmith, lodging at the Oddfellows lodging house, and Albert Edward Philpott gave corroborative evidence.

Dr. Bateman said he was called into the police station about 11.30 last Thursday night to attend to the prosecutrix. He found her bleeding profusely from a contused wound at the back of the head, about three inches long. He stopped the bleeding and dressed the wound. Prosecutrix was also suffering from shock. She seemed very excited, and did not realise the extent of her injury. He sent her home and told her to call in her regular medical attendant. The wound was such a one as would be caused by falling against a grate.

Prisoner said he was on the road, and came into the town on Friday night last. He had a few shillings in his pocket and went in search of lodgings. At an hotel out Cheriton way he got drunk, falling in with some friends he knew. When he came into town there were “thousands” round him and he did not know what to do, for he thought they would murder him. £4 15s. and a watch was taken out of his pocket. He was a “rank” stranger to the place, and should not have come had he not been “boozed”.

The Chairman: That makes the case rather worse.

After consideration the Bench resolved to fine the prisoner 20s., and costs 19s., or in default 14 days` hard labour. He was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 14-6-1893

Police Court Notes

A small sized but sturdy nigger, who gave the name of Alec Johnston, was charged on Thursday, before Messrs. Fitness, Wightwick, and Poole, with assaulting Mrs. Whiddett, the landlady of the Oddfellows Arms.

The prosecutrix appeared in court with her head enveloped in wraps, and seemed in a very weak state. According to her story, the prisoner, who had been under remand for a week, came into her house a few minutes before eleven on the night of Wednesday, the last day of May, and asked for a bed. She told him she was full up, and as it was closing time, placing her hand upon his shoulder, requested him to leave. Upon that he struck her in the chest, not a violent blow, she admitted, but rather a push. The result, however, was that she fell backwards, and in falling struck her head against a stove, cutting it so severely that she had had to be under the medical treatment of DR. Barrett ever since.

Prisoner said the woman chucked him out with both hands, and he then pushed her. What happened afterwards he did not know, as he was drunk at the time.

That excuse made it rather the worse, said Mr. Fitness, and in accordance with that opinion the Bench fined him 20s. and 10s. costs, in default fourteen days.

Prisoner made the somewhat extraordinary statement that on coming into Folkestone he was followed by a mob of rowdies who robbed him of over £4 in money, a gold watch, and a couple of shirts.

As he had not a “fardin lef” he was obliged to go to Canterbury.

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 Oddfellows

Mr. Glyn said this house had been licensed since 1810, and belonged to Messrs. Rigden. It was doing an increasing trade  of from four to five barrels a week. The only ground of objection was that it was not required.

There are seven licensed houses within 100 paces of the house.

Mr. C.E. Godden, travelling agent for Messrs. Rigden and Co., said the house was purchased for £1,100, and they had spent a considerable sum on it last year. The present tenant, George Whiddett, had considerably increased the trade.

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 Oddfellows

Mr. Glyn said this house had a licence in 1810, and belonged to Messrs. Rigden. It was let at £25 a year and doing four or five barrels a week. The only ground of objection was that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were seven other licensed houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor said there were 63 houses, and eight licensed.

Mr. Minter: Perhaps the book is wrong. I think there are 200.

Superintendent Taylor: It was my mistake with regard to South Street.

Charles Edward Goddard, agent for Messrs. Rigden, said the house was purchased by them for £1,100 in 1810. During the last ten years they had spent £600 in improvements. The present tenant took possession in 1891. He had increased the business considerably. The business was done with seafaring men, and he let lodgings.

George Widdett, tenant of the house, said he was previously County Court Bailiff at Canterbury. He had experience in six other houses. He was doing about five barrels a week. About eight or nine lodgers used the house – working men and seafaring men. His trade had increased lately.

By Superintendent Taylor: The sale of beer has increased. He averaged five barrels a week for the first year. There were several houses near.

By Mr. Minter: I do not take any females in.

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 Oddfellows

Mr. Glyn pointed out that this licence had existed since 1810, and was probably the oldest one in the borough. It belonged to Messrs. Rigden, and was let at £20 per annum. The ground of objection was not misconduct, but that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift and Superintendent Taylor gave evidence in support of the objection, while in support of the licence Mr. C.E. Godden, travelling agent for Messrs. Rigden, said that the house was purchased by his firm in 1810 at £1,100, and £600 had been spent on it during the last ten years in improvements and repairs, the owners reying upon the renewal of the licence.

Geo. Whiddett, tenant, said he drew five barrel weekly, and the house was used by lodgers.

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 2-11-1894

Local News

Yesterday morning Frederick Coleman, late of Canterbury, applied for the transfer of the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, from George Whiddett to himself. He furnished the necessary references as to his good character, saying that he was a bona fide tenant, and had not merely been put in by the brewers. The police had no objection to the transfer, which was accordingly acceded.