Ship Inn 1890s

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1890

Annual Licensing Session

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

Mr. Warman applied for a renewal of the licence of the Ship. Superintendent Taylor said on the 13^th of January four persons were found on the premises at half past eleven. They were said to be friends, and he thought there was some truth in the assertion. In all other respects the conduct of the house was fairly good.

The renewal was granted.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1890

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

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

The Ship

Supt. Taylor said on the 18^th January last several people were found in this house at half past eleven at night. It was claimed that they were friends of the landlord. In other respects the house was very well conducted.

The applicant said it was his wife`s birthday, and two days before was his daughter`s, and they had a few friends in.

Mr. Bradley: And you were celebrating the double event.

Applicant replied that they were, and added that he was up at the police station at 25 minutes to 12.

Superintendent Taylor said Mr. Warman was very indignant that the police should take the liberty of visiting his house after hours.

It appeared the constable was not in uniform, and the Bench granted the licence.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 19-11-1890

Extract from Folkestone Then and Now

As the day passed, the weather became gloomy, and in the afternoon a merry party of fishermen were enjoying themselves over a game of ninepins in the cellar of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. This was the ninepin alley, where the space was so restricted that every time the ball was thrown the spectators had to be on the look out and dodge it`s course as it bounded off the faggots which stood around the cellar, answering the same purpose as the “cush” on a billiard table.

Sailors filled the place to overflowing, and the steps leading down the cellar from the quay were also crowded to watch the game. The herring season was at it`s height, and had been fairly good thus far, and the boats had come in that morning each with a last or two of fish, and were ready for sea again, but the weather began to look squally and threatening, hence the congregating of the ninepin players, where the anxiety to see Jack Philpott “get the nine” conduced towards the consumption of an unknown quantity of beer from the straight quart and pint pots of the white and blue earthen pattern of the day.

The evening closed in, and gradually some of the party found their way up the crooked staircase to the sanded-floored parlour over the ninepin alley, where a “free and easy” was at once started, and Bobby Baker, Squashy Hall, Mopsey Spearpoint, old Jimmy Hopkins the cobbler, and others “favoured” the company till both singers and heares got tired of the “harmony”. A strong smell of herrings – fresh herrings – oily and pungent overpowered even the strength of the tobacco smoke that filled the room and almost hid the flickering lights of the tallow candles on the table, and seemed to forbid admission to the overcrowded, cabin-like apartment, where the fierce fire in the grate added to the insanitary conditions. Fishermen filled every corner of the room and puffed away at their long clay pipes behind their pots of beer as the wind began to howl outside and whistle through the closely-casemented windows, from whence the men occasionally glanced to see that their boats in the harbour were safe at their moorings.

A regular sou`-west gale blew as the night advanced, and it was evident that the boats must stay ashore for the evening. “Nanny Widdy” made a skirmish into the room, like an old hen after an erring chick, and fetched out her son “Squashy” for the night before he became hopelessly irremovable. Young “Bobby” heard outside the door the siren-like charms of an old wheezy accordion, which lured him away to his lady-love; while some of the most thirsty became silent under the combined somnolent surroundings, and others indulged in a quiet chat as if enjoying the most salubrious incitements to converse.

Discourse took a practical turn. All the herring “hangs” were said to be full of fish, although Court and Willis and Golder had done a roaring trade in bloaters. Spratters had got their nets ready and meant, if they could, to catch some sprats for the Lord Mayor`s Dinner. The Harmbourmaster came in for an uncomplimentary share of the conversation, the steam boats were voted a nuisance, and the tan-copper wanted mending.

These and other subjects had been discussed when a newcomer entered the parlour with his hands deep in his nether garments, and smoking a long pipe, the bowl of which reached down to his waistcoat pockets. He seemed to come meandering in, like a vessel entering the harbour. He worked his way round the room into a berth and dropped anchor next to an old salt who wore a tall weather-beaten beaver hat pushed down on the back of his head over his ears as if the wearer was afraid of catching cold.

“You know what I told you Ant`ny?” he said as he seated himself.

“What say, Jack?” asked the other, who was deaf.

“Didn`t I tell you Dick Hart was goin` to be Mayor?”

“You did, but I hope it ain`t true”

“It`s right, and I believe he`d make a good Mayor, too”

“Do you? What about the rates?”

“Oh! Blow the rates; they won`t hurt us”

“Won`t they? You`ll see; they`ll go up like wild fire”

Thus, the gentlemen in Bennett`s sail loft, and the fishermen in the Ship parlour both agreed about the upward rush of rates in the future if Mr. Richard Hart became Mayor. Nevertheless, on the 9^th of November that event came to pass.

Folkestone Visitors` List 17-5-1893

Police Court Jottings

Publicans have need to be very careful nowadays, seeing how stringently the law is interpreted against them, when, for instance a man`s having been seen to enter and leave a house, according to the judges, is equivalent to his actually being found on the premises.

Mr. George Warman, of the Ship Inn, had rather a narrow escape. He was summoned for keeping his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours.

Sergeant Swift about half past eleven the previous Sunday morning saw a little girl leave the premises, after the defendant had previously come out and looked up and down the street, with a quart jug of beer in her hand. When the sergeant spoke to the defendant about it he said he had given it to the child for her mother. She, however, took it to the house of a Mrs. Hopkins.

Mr. Haines, who defended, said no money had been shown to have passed, and in fact it all arose out of acts of kindness. The wife of the defendant was very seriously ill, and the neighbours came in and did what cooking there was. Mrs. Hopkins had performed that charitable office that morning, and having a friend call upon her sent for the beer, which defendant made her a present of.

The little girl and the defendant were called and bore out the statement as to no money having been paid for the liquor.

Mr. Holden gave the decision of the Bench. He said they considered it a suspicious case, and they did not like the idea of beer being sent out on a Sunday morning during prohibited hours, but there was no evidence that a sale had been effected, and therefore the case would be dismissed. At the same time the constable was to be commended for having done his duty.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-5-1893

Saturday, May 13^th: Before Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, S.J. Penfold, J. Fitness and J. Holden

George Warman, of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of beer on Sunday, the 7^th instant.

It was stated that the beer was given away, and the Bench, after hearing the evidence, held there was no sale and dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 20-5-1893

Saturday, May 13^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood and Pledge, W.G. Herbert, S. Penfold, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

George Warman, of the Ship Inn, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday the 7^th May. Mr. Haines defended.

Sergt. Swift said at a quarter past eleven on Sunday 7^th May, he was near the Ship Inn and heard the door unbolted. It was opened by the defendant, who looked out in an opposite direction to where witness was standing, and then in the other direction. On seeing witness he put his arm across the doorway as if to prevent someone leaving. A girl named Haylor left with a jug of beer under her apron. He asked who served her with it, and she replied “Mr. Warman”. Defendant said “Yes. I gave it to her for her mother”. The girl took the beer to 67, Radnor Street – not her mother`s. A Mrs. Hopkins lived there.

By Mr. Haines: Although defendant saw me he allowed the girl to run out.

Mr. Haines: How do you know what was in the jug? – I tasted it. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines: Sunday morning – very convenient. (Laughter)

The girl was called, and said she was sent to the Ship Inn by Mrs. Hopkins, between eleven and twelve, and asked Mr. Warman to let her have a little beer – a quart if he would. Mr. Warman drew some beer into the jug. She did not give him any money – she had none with her. She saw Sergt. Swift outside. He asked her what she had there, and she said “Some beer”. He put his finger in and tasted it. She took it to her mother`s and she told her to take it to Mrs. Hopkins`s.

Mr. Haines contended that there was no sale of beer, but it was given as an act of kindness. Mrs. Warman was ill, and the neighbours had done defendant`s cooking for him. They did not care to take money payments. The defendant had no idea that he was doing anything wrong.

Defendant went into the box and gave evidence in support of this statement. It was only in acknowledgement of the services Mrs. Hopkins had rendered his wife that he sent the beer. He did not intend to charge anything for it.

The Bench dismissed the case, holding that there was no evidence of a sale. But Mr. Holden said they considered it was a suspicious case, and they did not like the idea of beer being sent out on a Sunday morning. They commended the sergeant for his action.

Folkestone Up To Date 20-5-1893

Hall Of Justice

The Magistrates sat on Saturday to administer justice and carry out those duties to which they are appointed by direct commission by Her Majesty.

Mr. George Warman, a licensed victualler, was charged, on the information of Sergeant Swift, with having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday last at 10.15 a.m.

Sergeant Swift deposed that he heard the bolt of the door move and saw Mr. Warman come out and look up and down the street, and then a little girl came out with a jug containing beer. He asked her, in the presence of Warman, what she had got there, and who served her. Mr. Warman said he had given it to her out of kindness for her mother.

Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defence, cross-examined Sergt. Swift, and asked him how he knew it was beer, to which he replied that he had tasted it. He further asked whether he saw any money pass. Sergt. Swift said he did not.

The next witness was a little girl, who deposed that she was sent to Mr. Warman`s by a Mrs. Sanders for some beer. Mrs. Sanders did not give her any money, and did not tell her how much to fetch.

In answer to Mr. Haines, she said that Mr. Warman did not make any effort of concealment when he saw the policeman.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench for the defence, and he asked for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that there was no sale. He intimated that Mrs. Warman had been ill for a considerable time, and that they had been unable to do any cooking in the house, but that the neighbours, acting in kindness, had cooked many articles of food at their own homes for Mrs. Warman, for which they would not take any remuneration in the shape of money. That the lady who had sent the little girl for the beer had, on Sunday morning, cooked a sole and sent it in for Mrs. Warman. Mr. Warman had offered to pay for this act of kindness, but the lady would not take any money, but at 11 o`clock in the morning she sent the little girl, who was in the habit of minding her children, down to Mr. Warman`s to ask him for a little beer. Mr. Haines said that he should establish his defence, by proving these facts, that it was no sale, but a neighbourly act of kindness in return for an act of kindness, and he would ask their Worships to consider the matter.

Mr. Holden, who presided, announced that the Bench considered it a very suspicious case, but they had decided to dismiss it for the want of evidence. He said that beer should not be carried about the streets at that time in the morning, and thought that great credit was due to Sergt. Swift for bringing the matter forward.

 

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 Ship

Sergeant Swift said there were seven licensed houses within 100 paces of the Ship. On the 7^th May he was present at the Police Court when George Warman was summoned for selling during prohibited hours.

Mr. Glyn: There is no notice given for any objection but that it was not required.

Mr. Taylor said the house was situated in Radnor Street, where there were eight other licensed houses.

Mr. Glyn said this was a very old established house, and the present tenant had been there since 1884.

Benjamin Henry Flint, of the firm Flint and Sons, the owners of the Ship, said the house was valued at £1,100. The tenant was doing a very steady business of seven barrels a week.

Warman, the tenant, went into the witness box and, in answer to Mr. Minter, said he was a fisherman and had a connection with that class. During the last five years the fishing boats at Folkestone had increased more than a third in number.

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 Ship, Radnor Street.

The only ground here was that the house was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were seven licensed houses within 100 paces. On the 7^th May, 1893, he was present in the Police Court, when George Warman was the tenant. (This was objected to as not in the notice).

Superintendent Taylor gave similar evidence in this case. In answer to Mr. Glyn he said he did not know what trade the house did.

Mr. Glyn said the house did six to seven barrels a week, and was most respectably conducted.

Benjamin Henry Flint, of the firm Flint and Sons, owners of the house, said they acquired it in 1856. It was valued at £1,100. The present tenant went in in 1884, and did a steady business.

George Warman said he had been a tenant of the house since 1884 and did a good trade. He was a fish buyer and had a good connection. During the last five years there were more boats in Folkestone than there used to be and a great deal of foreign trade came 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.

Proceeding, the Bench considered the case in regard to the Ship.

The only ground of objection, said Mr. Glyn, was that it was not required.

Sergt. Swift`s figures were again in evidence, and this time he found within 100 paces of the Ship 7 licensed houses existed. On the 7^th of last May he was present at the police court when the tenant was summoned, but Mr. Glyn submitted that on this ground no objection could be lodged, as it was only on the ground that it was not required they had received notice.

The Magistrates upheld this view, and after Superintendent Taylor had repeated some statistics concerning Radnor Street, Mr. Glyn submitted that the tenant was a most respectable man, that a fair and steady trade was done, and that the house was properly conducted, notwithstanding it was suggested that the house was not required and that the Bench should deprive the owners of their property.

He called Mr. Benjamin Henry Flint, director of the firm Flint and Sons, and assistant manager, who deposed that the firm acquired the house in 1856, and it was now in their books as of the value of £1,100. The present tenant went in in 1884, and did a steady trade of some 6 to 7 barrels weekly.

George Warman, the tenant, also gave evidence, and in reply to Mr. Minter said he was a fisherman and had a connection among fishermen. During the last five years there was one third more fishing boats than there was before, and they were visited by one foreign fishing boat then. They had ten now. That increased the trade.

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.

Ship, Radnor Street: Seven houses within 100 paces only objection.

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 18-11-1893

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday, George Warman, landlord of the Ship, Radnor Street, was charged with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6^th November, and further with permitting drunkenness on his premises.

The defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll.

Sergeant Swift said that at 11.35 p.m. on the 6^th instant he was in Radnor Street in company with Boat Inspector Brice. He saw the front door of the Ship standing ajar, and he went into the passage leading to the bar. He saw the defendant with two fisherman come into the bar from the back entrance, which opened on to The Stade. The names of the two men were Weatherhead and Cornish. The bar was lit up, and witness saw the defendant serve the men with two glasses of rum, which Weatherhead paid for. The defendant took two glasses containing liquor into the front room and then returned to the bar. Another fisherman named Hopkins came in by the back entrance and was served with some rum for which he paid. Witness then went into the bar and pointed out to the defendant that it was then about 20 or 25 minutes to 12. He said “Yes. These men have just come in from sea, and are travellers”. Witness knew that Hopkins and Cornish lived in Radnor Street, and Weatherhead also lived in the town. While witness was talking to the defendant another man came from the front room into the bar. He was drunk. He pushed against witness and said “All right. Don`t trouble yourself. I will explain it. I am a lodger here”. Witness took the addresses of the three fishermen and they left. He then went into the front room, where he found the defendant`s housekeeper and a woman, who was pointed out to witness as being the other man`s wife. She was drunk, and there was a glass containing whisky on the table before her. When witness asked the man for his name and address he commenced to talk in a foreign language, and it was only when witness told him he should take him to the police station that he said his name was William Joseph Cloughton, while the defendant said he lived at Warren Road. Witness pointed out to Warman that they were drunk, and he said they had had nothing to drink since 11. He then called witness out of the room and said “I will explain it all to you. The three fishermen have just come in from the sea and they are travellers. The man and his wife came in during the evening, and they had been sitting talking together. They often come in and they are a nuisance to me. I wish you to get them out of my house before you go”. Witness requested them to leave and they did so. Brice entered the house with witness and was present the whole time.

By Mr. Mowll: Witness had never seen the man nor the woman before. He did not know that she was a professional singer in the town. He came to the conclusion that they were drunk by the man`s general behaviour and by the woman`s appearance and conversation. The landlord did not tell him they had come to see him about the purchase of a piano. Witness was he Sergeant in the previous case against the defendant which was dismissed by the Magistrates.

Boat Inspector Brice gave corroborative evidence.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he was not an expert French scholar, but he could understand the man Cloughton when he spoke in French, as well as in English. Witness knew most of the Folkestone smacks, but he could not say whether the one the three fisherman belonged to came in from sea that night.

Benjamin Harris, called by Mr. Mowll, said he was in the habit of calling the fishermen and ferrying them to their smacks in the harbour. The three men referred to went to sea in the smack Emily on Sunday night the 5^th instant, and did not return until eleven o`clock the following night.

Henry May, owner of the smack Emily, gave similar evidence.

Emily Cloughton said she was a singer and dancer and lived at 5, Warren Road. On the 4^th instant witness`s husband wrote the note produced to Mr. Warman, asking if it would be convenient to see a piano on the following Monday night, and in consequence they went to the house on the 6^th instant. Witness only had a “small lemonade” in the house, and was no drunk. They went to the house at half past 10 and left about half past 11.

William Joseph Cloughton, husband of the last witness, said he wrote the letter, and in consequence he and his wife went to the house. He was not drunk while there.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, said he ventured to submit that the fishermen were bona fide travellers, and whether they were so or not he certainly thought it was not a case in which the Bench could convict, as he understood it was the practice in every seaport town, when the men came in wet through from the sea, to serve them with rum. As to the other case he had shown that the two persons went to the house with reference to the piano mentioned in the letter he had put in. Mr. Mowll criticised the evidence given as to their condition, and said he did not think it was sufficient for the Bench to convict the defendant upon. He had never heard of a case in which a drunken man could speak not only his own language, but also French sufficiently fluidly to be understood by one who was not an expert linguist. It was generally difficult for a person in that condition to speak one language. (Laughter)

After a retirement the Mayor said, after a careful consideration the Bench had come to the conclusion that the charge of selling during prohibited hours was not proved to their satisfaction and it would therefore be dismissed. They, however, considered that the charge of permitting drunkenness was fully proved. They would inflict the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, and the licence would be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll asked the Bench to reconsider their decision as to the endorsement of the licence, but they declined to make any alteration.

 

Folkestone Express 18-11-1893

Wednesday, November 15^th: before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6^th November, and also with permitting drunkenness on his premises at the same time. Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Swift said: On the 6^th inst. I was on duty in Radnor Street, accompanied by Boat Inspector Brice. I saw the front door of the Ship standing open. I went into the passage which leads to the bar and saw the defendant there, and two fishermen came in at the back entrance. Defendant served them with rum. The men were named Cornish and Weatherhead. Weatherhead paid for the rum. Defendant took a light into the back room on the ground floor and was absent a few minutes. He then returned to the bar, by which time a third fisherman, named Hopkins, had come in by the back entrance. He said “I`ll have a drop of rum, George” and paid for it. I then said to the defendant “It is now from twenty to twenty five minutes to twelve”, and he said “Yes. Those men have just come in from sea and are travellers”. There was a clock in the bar, but I looked at my own watch. I know the three men personally, and two of them live in Radnor Street. I do not know where Weatherhead lives, but he lives in the town. A fourth man came from the front room into the bar, and pushed against me. He said “All right, don`t trouble yourself. I`ll explain it. I am a lodger here”. Defendant said “No, you don`t lodge here. Go away and leave the sergeant alone”. Defendant said to me “That man and his wife came in here this evening and sat talking together”. I took the names of the fishermen and they left. After they left I went into the front room and found there the defendant`s housekeeper and a woman who was pointed out to me by the fourth man as being his wife. She had a glass in front of her which contained whisky. I asked the man for his correct name and address. He commenced to talk in some foreign language and refused to give his name and address, until I told him I would take him to the police station. Defendant said “I can tell you where he lives, but I don`t know his name”. He then gave his name as William Joseph Cloughton. Defendant gave me his address and said he lived in Warren Road, but he could not give me the number. I pointed out to defendant that the man and the woman were drunk. He said “They have had nothing to drink here since eleven”. He then called me out of the room and said “I`ll explain it all to you. These three fishermen had just come in from sea and were travellers. That man and his wife came in during the evening and sat talking together. I don`t want them, I don`t know them – in fact they are a ---- nuisance to me. I wish you would get them out of my house before you go”. I requested them to leave, and they left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: I don`t know the name of the boat from which the men came. I don`t know the names of the smacks that come to the harbour. The landlord did not tell me that Cloughton and his wife came to see him on business. Nothing was mentioned about a piano. I do not know that the three fishermen had come in from sea. I did not feel their clothes, but the appeared to be dry. I do not know the owner of the smack they belonged to. I do not know the owner of every smack in the harbour. There are 50 or 60 of them. I was the sergeant in the case when Warman was summoned before, and the case was dismissed.

William Brice, boat inspector, said he was with Sergeant Swift on the night in question, and he gave evidence generally corroborating what he had deposed to. He said he knew the three fishermen, and knew most of the smack owners of Folkestone. After they left the house he went with Swift into the front room. He saw the man referred to and the woman, who. He said, was his wife. The woman was sitting at the table with a glass in front of her. The glass contained whisky. Swift asked the man for his name and address. He refused his address, and then commenced talking in French, giving an address in Boulogne. Sergeant Swift said to him “I don`t understand what you are talking about. Will you give me you address?” Warman said “I will give you his address, but I don`t know the number of the house where he lives. It is in Warren Road”. The man ultimately gave his address in French and English. He said he had lived many years in Boulogne, and his wife was an actress. I heard Warman say to the sergeant “Come outside and I`ll explain the whole matter to you”. The sergeant went outside, and Warman said “The three fishermen had been at sea four and twenty hours and had just come in. I am entitled to give them a drink. The other man and woman come here occasionally. I don`t know who they are – in fact they are a ---- nuisance to me when they are here. I wish you would assist me to get them out”. Warman wnet in and spoke to them. They got up after a little while and went out. They were drunk, both of them.

By Mr. Mowll: I am not an expert in French, but I knew what the man was talking about in French. I mean to say that a gentleman who could talk French and English could be at the same time drunk. The lady did not talk in French and English. I know a few of the smack owners. I have been boat inspector about seven years. I know the smack these three fishermen belong to, but I cannot say if she had just come in from sea. I did not make any enquiry.

Mr. Mowll: Don`t  you think it would be only the fair and right thing to do to make enquiry whether their story was right? – (No answer) On the question being repeated, witness said he did not make any enquiries. The report was not made by him, but by Sergeant Swift.

By the Clerk: It was a rough night, and had been raining. The men have got oilskins on, and when they take them off it is not easy to see whther they have been to sea or not.

Benjamin Harris, examined by Mr. Mowll, said he was the ferryman, and it was his duty to call the fishermen and ferry them to their smacks. He knew the three fishermen in that case as belonging to the Emily. He remembered them starting out for sea on the night of the 5^th November (Sunday) and they came back on Monday night about a quarter past eleven. He did not know Sergt. Swift.

Superintendent Taylor: It is mutual, you see.

Mr. Mowll expressed surprise. He thought the men would be well known to each other.

Henry May said he was the owner of the smack Emily, and Cornish was the captain. He was captain himself before he started as a licensed auctioneer in the fish market. The Emily went to sea on Sunday, the 5^th, at eleven. His son was one of the crew. He went to sea in her, and returned at a quarter past eleven on Monday night. He was wet through, and his mother got up and made him some tea, and hung up his clothes before the fire to dry.

Emily Cloughton, wife of William Joseph Cloghton, said: I am an artiste, and have been for 18 years. I am a singer and dancer.

Mr. Mowll: I believe you were in this house on the occasion of the night of the 6^th November? – I was, my lord (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll: I am not that yet. I may be by and by. (Laughter) It is no good having a compliment paid you like that if you don`t take some notice of it. (Laughter)

Witness continued: I went down with my husband to this house. I have lived in Warren Road since the 7^th of August. On the 4^th November my husband wrote to Mr. Warman the letter produced. It has not been written since then for the purposes of this case. The letter ran: “Dear Sir, If it is convenient for me to see the piano on Monday night, as it is the only time my wife is disengaged, will you kindly give the bearer an answer. Yours truly, William Joseph Cloughton.” In consequence of that letter we went down. I was not in the least intoxicated. I only had a small lemon, and a glass of common ale I keep in my house.

By the Clerk: I went to the house about half past ten. My husband wrote the letter.

William Joseph Cloughton said he wrote the letter, and in consequence of the answer he received went down to the Ship about half past ten. He was no more drunk then than he was at that time.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench, urging that it was the custom to supply fishermen when they came in late on such a night, and he believed the Bench would say that the three fishermen in that case were bona fide travellers. Therefore the charge of selling liquor after closing time must fail. As to the second charge, it was not likely that a man who could speak in two languages could be drunk. As a rule, when a man was drunk, it was with difficulty he could speak in English. He expressed a strong hope that the Bench would dismiss both summonses.

Mr. Bradley called Mr. Mowll`s attention to the statement of the man that he was a lodger, and the evidence of the constables that he was drunk.

Mr. Mowll explained that it was due to the fact of the police coming suddenly upon them. He did not think a statement hurriedly made under those circumstances would have any weight with the Magistrates. It was a great pity the letter was not mentioned in the first instance, but there was no doubt about it being a bone fide letter, and that it accounted for those people being there.

The Bench then retired to consider the case, and on their return the Mayor said: Mr. Warman, the Bench have very carefully considered these charges against you, and they are unanimously of opinion that in regard to the charge of selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, it is not proved to their satisfaction. We therefore dismiss that charge. The charge of permitting drunkenness is in the opinion of the Bench fully proved, and e therefore fine you in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, leviable by distress, and in default of sufficient distress, one month`s imprisonment. The licence to be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll made an appeal to the Bench to alter their decision with regard to the endorsement of the licence. The defendant had held the licence for eleven years, and there was no conviction against him. It was not the tenant only who had to suffer, but the owner of the house. He therefore asked the Bench to reconsider their decision as to the endorsement of the licence.

The Bench declined to entertain the application.

Folkestone Herald 18-11-1893

Police Court Notes

Before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge, at the Borough Petty Sessions on Wednesday, a case of exceptional interest was heard and decided.

Mr. George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, (for whom Mr. Worsfold Mowll, solicitor, appeared) was charged with two offences against the tenure of his licence – (1) with having sold intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6^th November, and (2) with having permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises on the same date.

Police Sergeant James Swift, examined by the Justices` Clerk (mr. Bradley) said:  On the 6<sup>th</sup> inst., at 11.35 p.m., I was on duty in Radnor Street, accompanied by P.C. Brice, the Boat Inspector.  I saw the front door of the defendant`s house standing open a little way, and I went into the passage that leads to the bar. I then saw the defendant and two fishermen coming from the back entrance into the bar. The back entrance opens into the fish market, or Stade. When I got to the bar I saw that it was lighted up, and I saw the defendant serve the two men with two glasses of rum, for which he was paid by Weatherhead, the other man being named Cornish. I could not tell how much money was paid to the landlord.

Mr. Bradley: It is not disputed.

P.S. Swift continued: Defendant then took a lighted lamp and went into the back room on the same floor. He returned immediately into the bar and then took two glasses containing liquor into a front room on the ground floor. I did not see him draw the liquor. When he returned to the bar a fisherman named Hopkins entered by the back entrance and came up to the bar. He said to the landlord “I shall have a drop of rum”. He was served with it and paid for it. I then went into the bar and said to the defendant “It is now between 20 and 25 minutes to twelve, Mr. Warman”. He said “Yes. These men have just come in from sea, and are travellers”. There was a clock in the bar, which then indicated a quarter to twelve, but the time I mentioned was that shown by my own watch. I knew Cornish and Hopkins, and that they lived in the same street. When I was speaking to the defendant a fourth man came from the front room into the bar. I did not know him. He was drunk. He pushed against me, and said “All right. Don`t trouble yourself. I will explain it. I am a lodger here”. Defendant said “No, you don`ty lodge here. Go away and leave the Sergeant alone”. Defendant then said to me “That man`s wife came in with him during the evening, and they have been sitting talking together”. This man had then gone into the front room, and I went there with the defendant, after having taken the names of Cornish and Hopkins. In the front room I found the defendant`s housekeeper and a woman, who was pointed out to me by the man as being his wife. The woman was sitting down, and was drunk. There was standing before her on the table a glass containing whisky. I asked the man for his correct name and address. He commenced to talk in some foreign language, and refused to give his name and address until I told him I would take him t the police station. The landlord then said “I can tell you where he lives, but I don`t know his name”. The man then gave his name as Wm. Joseph Cloughton. He said he was living in the Warren Road, but the number he forgot. I pointed out to the defendant that the man and woman were drunk. He replied “They have had nothing to drink here since 11”. The landlord then came out with me and said “I will explain all to you. Those three fishermen had just come in from sea. That man and his wife came in during the evening, and had been sitting and talking together. They often come in. I don`t want them. I don`t know them. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me. I wish you would get them out of my house before you go”. I requested the man and woman to leave, and they did so, the defendant being present at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Don`t you know the man and woman pretty well? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you have never seen them before? – I have not.

Is not she a professional singer in the town? – I am not aware of it.

How long have you been here? – About 11 years.

You have said the man was drunk because he pushed against you. Was that the only reason? – No, sir.

What else? – His general behaviour, manner, and appearance.

How do you know that the woman was drunk? – By her appearance.

Had you any conversation with her? – Yes, sir.

You say from her appearance and conversation she was drunk? – Yes, sir.

Did the landlord tell you they came to see him on business? – No, sir.

Was anything said about a piano? – No sir.

You are quite sure of it? – Quite.

Didn`t you know that the fishermen had come from sea? – No.

Didn`t you feel their coats and find them wet? – They were dry. They had the appearance of going to sea, and not coming from it.

Do you know the owner of the smack these men belong to? – No, sir.

You know every smack in the harbour? – No.

Do you mean to say you have been here 11 years and don`t know the 50 or 60 smacks in the harbour? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you don`t know the crews of these smacks? – No, sir.

Were you the Sergeant in the previous case when this man was summoned before the Magistrates? – Yes.

And the Magistrates dismissed that case? – They did, sir.

Police Constable Brice, Boat Inspector, deposed: On the night of the 6^th inst, at 11.35, I was going along Radnor Street and heard loud talking in the left hand room in front of the Ship Inn. I stopped a minute or two with Sergeant Swift, and we then walked to the front door, which we found open. Sergeant swift entered, and I was behind him. When we got inside the second door Sergeant swift said “There are some men coming in at the back; stand back”. I saw the defendant and two fishermen enter by the back door and come up to the bar, in which there was then a light. Defendant went into the bar and drew some liquor, with which he served the men. I could not see what it was, but it was brown, and I did not taste it. The men were Cornish and Weatherhead. The latter paid for it. I saw him put the money on the counter. Defendant then took up a lighted paraffin lamp and went from the bar to the back with it. He returned to the bar with two glasses containing drinks, and during that time Hopkins came in at the back door and said “A drop of rum, George”. He put something down and was served with rum by the defendant. Sergeant Swift went to the bar and said to the defendant “Do you know what time it is? It is nearly twenty minutes to twelve”. Defendant replied “These men have just come in from sea, and they are travellers”. While the Sergeant was taking the names and addresses a man who was in the front room came into the bar, went up to the Sergeant, and said to him “I will settle the matter. I am a lodger here”. Defendant replied “You are not. Don`t interfere with the Sergeant, he is on duty”. The man then returned into the front room, and Hopkins and Cornish left the house by the back door. Swift and I then went into the front room, and found a woman sitting down, and standing by her side the man who had just left the bar. He said “That is my wife”. The woman had on the table in front of her a glass containing whisky. He then commenced talking in French, mentioning Boulogne, and the Sergeant said “I don`t understand what you are talking about. Give me your address”. The defendant then said “I`ll tell you where he lives, but I don`t know the number. He lives in Warren Road”. The man said “I have been many years in Boulogne. My wife is an actress”.

The Clerk: Did you hear any conversation between the landlord and Swift outside the room?

Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Warman said “Come outside and I will explain the whole matter to you”. On going into the bar Mr. Warman said “These fishermen had been at sea 24 hours, and had just come in, and I thought I was entitled to give them a drink. As for the other man and woman, they come here occasionally, but I don`t know who they are. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me when they are in the house, and I wish you would turn them out”. After a while, on being spoken to, they went out.

The Clerk: In what state were they?

Witness: They were drunk, both of them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: You are not an expert, but you are a bit of a French scholar? – No, sir.

Without being a French scholar you understood that this gentleman was talking French? – Yes, sir.

And he had talked English before? – Yes.

Could you make out his French? – I did, sir.

You understood what he said in French? – Yes, sir.

And what he said in English? – Yes.

And do you mean to say that a gentleman who talks French that you can understand, and English that you can understand is drunk? Do you meant to say that a gentleman talking these two languages is drunk? – Witness gave no reply.

You don`t give me an answer. Did the lady talk in English and French? – No, sir.

You know all these smacks? – A few of them.

How many years have you been boat inspector? – About seven.

You know all these smacks, and smacksmen, for you have lived your live among them? – Yes, sir.

You know the smack these men belong to? – I know the one they went in.

Had it come in that night? – I don`t know, sir.

Did you make any inquiry as to whether their story was true? – No, sir.

You are only here (as I am and the Magistrates are) in the interests of justice, and don`t you think it would be only fair to make enquiries? – I did not make the report, the Sergeant did.

Is that your only answer? – That is all, sir.

By the Justices` Clerk: It had been raining that night, but as the men had not got their sea things on I could not tell whether they had been to sea or not.

This was the case for the prosecution, and evidence for the defence was called, as follows.

Benjamin Harris, ferryman at the Harbour, deposed: It is my duty to call the fishermen and ferry them to their smacks. Cornish, Hopkins, and Weatherhead form the crew of the smack Emily. I ferried them out to the smack on Sunday night, the 5^th November, and they returned about 11 o`clock on Monday night, the 6^th, having been to sea all that time.

Henry May, owner of the smack Emily, deposed: Cornish has been taking my place as Captain during the last three months while I have been acting as a licensed auctioneer on the fish market. The smack went to sea on the 5^th at 11 o`clock, and my son was one of the crew. He returned home at 11.15 on Monday night, the 6^th, and his clothes were so wet that my wife got up, made a fire, and hung them up to dry. The three men named by the police were members of the crew.

Mrs. Emily Cloughton, examined: What are you, Mrs. Cloughton? – I am an artist, and have been for 18 years.

What sort of artist? – A singer and dancer. I went with my husband to defendant`s house on the night of the 6^th inst. My husband and I lived in Warren Road since the 7^th August, and on the 4^th November my husband wrote (letter produced) to defendant, asking him to appoint Monday night, the 6^th, for me to see a piano, that being the only night I was disengaged. In consequence of that letter my husband and I went to the house on the 6^th.

This is a disagreeable question to put to a lady at any time, but I am bound to put it to you after the evidence of the Sergeant. Were you intoxicated? – Not that I am aware of, sir.

What did you have to drink in the house? – A small lemon and a glass of common ale I had at home.

You only had the lemon in defendant`s house? – Only the lemonade. I never had a whisky in my lips.

There is no question that you were in the house? – I was in the private kitchen waiting to see the piano.

The Clerk: What time did you go to the house? – At half past ten.

What time did you leave? About half past eleven, as near as possible; after we were disturbed.

Did you write this letter? – No, my husband did.

How was it sent? – My little son, 13 years of age, took it down.

Wm. Joseph Cloughton, husband of the last witness, proved writing and sending the letter to defendant about the piano.

We hear that you answered the constable in French and English, as he understood you in both languages. Were you drunk at the house? – Certainly not. No more than I am now.

This concluded the evidence for the defence.

After hearing Mr. Mowll, the Justices retired to the Mayor`s parlour and spent about a quarter of an hour in private consultation. On their return to Court, The Mayor said: George Warman, the Bench have very carefully considered these charges against you, and they are of the unanimous opinion that as regards the charge of selling intoxicating drink during prohibited hours the charge is not proved to our satisfaction, and we therefore dismiss it. The charge of permitting drunkenness is, in the opinion of the Bench, fully proved. We therefore fine you in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, to be levied by distress, and in default one month`s imprisonment, and the licence is to be endorsed. (Sensation in Court)

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 22-11-1893

Police Court Notes

A case in which a publican met with what most people will think rather “hard lines” came before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Fitness on Wednesday.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on the 6^th of November, and also with permitting drunkenness on his premises on the same occasion. Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended.

The evidence of P.S. Swift and P.C. Brice was to the effect that on the night in question they went into the defendant`s house and saw two fishermen come in, who were served with rum, which was paid for. These men, the defendant stated, had just come from sea, and he regarded them as travellers. While the police were in the house another man also put in an appearance, and he was the worse for liquor, but not so bad but that he had sense enough to say that he was all right and was a lodger. Defendant, however, very candidly told the man that he was not a lodger and that he must leave. In another room was a woman, the wife of this man, whom the police also described as having been drunk. At the request of the defendant Swift asked them to leave, which they did.

The defence, which was supported by several witnesses, was that the fishermen had only just come home, having been away at sea since the previous night; while as to the drunkenness, this was denied both by the woman and her husband, who explained their presence on the premises by asserting that they had gone to look at a piano, the woman being a professional singer. Mr. Mowll contended that it was a custom, honoured in the observance in every seaport town, of landlords supplying fishermen with rum on their return, wet and tired, at night from a trip to sea.

After a consultation in private the Bench found the charge of the unlawful sale of liquor not proven, but they considered that of permitting drunkenness had been fully proved, and fined the luckless landlord 50s. and 14s. costs, and ordered the licence to be endorsed. The severity of the decision created a considerable amount of surprise in court.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-11-1893

Local News

The Borough Police Court was crowded on Wednesday, when the Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and Mr. J. Fitness were engaged for some three hours in hearing a case which arose out of one which was before the court last week, when the landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was fined for permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 6^th instant. The defendants were William Joseph Cloughton, who described himself as an engineer, and Emily Clouhgton, his wife, a singer and dancer, who were summoned for being drunk on the premises.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover, appeared for the defendants.

Sergeant Swift repeated his evidence as to visiting the Ship Inn at 25 minutes past 11 on the 6^th instant, entering by the front door, which was standing ajar. While the witness was in conversation with the landlord the male defendant came into the bar from the front room. He was drunk, and he pushed against witness saying “All right. Don`t trouble yourself. I will explain this. I am a lodger here”. The landlord said “No, you are not a lodger here. Go away and leave the Sergeant alone”. He went back into the room. Witness went with the landlord into the front room, where he saw a woman sitting beside the table. Cloughton said “This is my wife”. She was drunk and in a half-dazed condition. A glass containing whisky was standing before her on the table. Witness tasted it and handed it to Boat Inspector Brice, who accompanied him, to taste also. Witness asked the male defendant for his correct name and address. He commenced talking in some foreign language, and witness said he would take him to the police station. Witness then said to the woman “Perhaps you will give me your husband`s name and address”. She murmured something he could not understand and afterwards said “My husband is an independent gentleman”. The male defendant ultimately gave him his name, but refused his address. Witness said to the landlord in the defendants` presence “That man and woman are drunk”, and after a few seconds the landlord replied “They have had nothing to drink since 11”. When the landlord requested the defendants to leave the house the man said to his wife “Come along” but it was some few seconds before she attempted to move. She then attempted to get up out of her seat by hanging on to the table with her hands. She dropped back into her seat, and it was not until she made a third attempt that she got on to her legs. While she was arranging her hat in front of the glass she swaggered to and fro. Her husband assisted her out into the street and they went off together arm in arm, walking very slowly and unsteadily.

By Mr. Glyn: Witness gave evidence at the hearing of the objection to the renewal of the licence of the Ship before the Licensing Justices, and he also gave evidence at the Quarter Sessions when the ruling of the Folkestone Magistrates was revoked. He had not been instructed to watch this house. He was not watching it on the night in question, but happened to be casually passing. Since he gave evidence on the last occasion, when the landlord of the house was charged, he had not made a statement to the Superintendent or to anybody about his evidence. He had not seen the Superintendent about it or discussed the subject with him. Before the last hearing he made a written report to the Superintendent.

Mr. Glyn: Is that here?

Sergeant Swift: I don`t know.

Mr. Glyn: I call for it, please.

Supt. Taylor said he had not got it.

Mr. Fitness said they were re-hearing the case and he did not see what it had to do with it.

Mr. Glyn said at the last hearing he omitted nearly the whole of the evidence he had given that day.

Mr. Bradley: He was not asked about it.

Mr. Glyn: Mr. Bradley must either act as your adviser, or he can prosecute, but he cannot do both.

Mr. Bradley: I have only done what has always been done – interrogated the witnesses – and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Glyn: We shall see, Mr. Bradley. I wish to have a note taken on the depositions. Any observations you make will not have any effect.

Mr. Bradley replied “Nor will your observations have any effect”. Then, turning to Supt. Taylor, he remarked “You do not produce it?”

Mr. Glyn: I have a shorthand writer.

Mr. Bradley: Bother the shorthand writer.

Mr. Glyn: Shorthand writer, take a note of it. He says “Bother the shorthand writer”, and tells the Superintendent not to produce it.

Mr. Bradley: It is most untrue.

Mr. Glyn (to witness): Do you know whether the report you made to the Superintendent is in existence or not?

Witness: I do not know. I made it verbally and the Superintendent wrote it down.

Mr. Glyn: Do you suggest that you have given the same evidence today as you gave when you were heard on the last occasion?

Witness: I did not detail her state. I gave her general behaviour.

Why did you leave it out? – I was not pressed for it.

Did you say a word last time about having tasted what was in the glass, and finding it to be whisky? – I did not. I said the glass contained whisky.

Did you forget last time, or think that it was not material? – I was not cross-examined on it. I have given the details tofay.

Did anybody tell you to do that? – No.

In the statement you made to the Superintendent did you tell him the woman was in a half-dazed condition, and that you tasted what was in the glass? – I told him, but I don`t know whether he took it down.

The witness was further cross-examined at length by Mr. Glyn, who, in the course of his questions, asked “Which was the more drunk of the two, the husband or the wife?”

Witness: I don`t think there was any distinction between them. The one appeared to be ridiculously drunk and the other stupidly drunk.

As a policeman do you think it is a distinction without a difference? – There is a little difference, certainly.

The husband was sufficiently sober to give his wife his arm and conduct her into the street? – A drunken man could do that easily.

Do you think it evidence of drunkenness for a husband to give his wife his arm? – They did that to support each other.

Supt. Taylor: In the case last week you were giving evidence against the landlord? – Yes.

On that occasion did you go into details about the condition of the defendants? – No.

Boat Inspector Brice, who accompanied the last witness to the house, gave corroborative evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Glyn, the witness said at the last hearing he did not give certain details at to the defendants` condition which he had done in his evidence that day because he was not pressed for them. He was simply asked their condition, and he said they were drunk.

The case for the prosecution having been closed, Mr. Glyn said he proposed to call one or two witnesses, and then offer a few observations to the Bench.

William Joseph Cloughton said he was an engineer, but was not in occupation. He had lived at 5, Warren Road since the 7^th August. Witness wrote a letter, dated 4^th November, to Warman, the landlord of the Ship Inn, and in consequence he went to the Ship on the evening in question. He went there at half past ten for the purpose of examining Mr. Warman`s piano, with the view of purchasing it. Witness left home about seven o`clock to see the carnival procession. He was accompanied by William Wilson, and his wife, and they went to the Harvey Hotel, where they each had a drink. Before leaving home witness had a glass of bitter. They had nothing else until they went to Warman`s house. During the evening witness met a man named Brice and had some conversation with him. On arriving at the Ship, witness went into the kitchen. Mr. Warman was attending behind the bar, and he asked witness to wait a few moments. While there witness had a brandy and soda. They had nothing else to drink in the house that night. There was no whisky on the table there. The glass which the sergeant tasted contained lemonade – not whisky. Neither witness, his wife, nor his friend were the worse for liquor. The sergeant asked him his address and he gave it to him in French for a joke, but he afterwards gave it to him in English. Witness certainly did not refuse to give his name. He did not say he was a lodger. His wife was not in a half-dazed, stupid condition. He never heard her say witness was an independent gentleman. There was no truth in the statement that his wife had great difficulty in getting up from her seat. There was no truth in the statement that they could not get along without staggering when they left the house. Witness had never been charged with drunkenness before.

Emily Cloughton, the wife of the last witness, also gave evidence, describing herself as a singer and dancer. She stated that she had never been intoxicated in her life. Witness had an abscess in her knee for which she was attended by Dr. Ellis and it was difficult for her to rise from her seat.

John Taylor, the Superintendent of Police, called by Mr. Glyn, said on the same night as the occurrence happened at the Ship, Sergeant Swift made a statement to him which he took down shortly. He could not say whether it existed now. It was handed in to the Court at the last hearing.

Mr. Glyn then called for the report in question, and Mr. Bradley said he was informed by his clerk that he tore it up after the sitting at the last Court.

William Wilson, a fireman in the employ of the S.E. Company, and Herbert Price, fly proprietor, who were in company with the defendants on the evening in question both gave evidence to the effect that the defendants were perfectly sober when they left them. Wilson left them at th Ship at 10 minutes to 11.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper at the Ship Inn, said she had been out on the night in question, and returned at quarter to 11. The police came to the house half an hour afterwards. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Cloughton were the worse for liquor. When the sergeant tasted the contents of the glass belonging to defendant which was on the table and said it was whisky, witness informed him that it was lemonade.

Charles Marsh, who manages the bar at the Harvey Hotel for his mother, gave evidence as to the liquor with which the defendants were supplied at the house, and said when they left they were perfectly sober.

By Superintendent Taylor: There were three others serving in the bar, and it was possible they might have had other drink than that with which witness served them.

Mr. Glyn, in the course of a forcible summing up, said it was unfortunate that the case had already been investigated by the same Bench, because having come to the conclusion that the holder of the licence had permitted drunkenness by reason of the two persons having been drunk in the house, they would stultify themselves if they came to the conclusion that this case was not proved. Although he saw that difficulty, he was quite sure that the Bench would look at this case from an entirely impartial point of view, and so far as they could they would shut out from their eyes anything that had previously happened with reference to the house. He submitted without fear of contradiction that if the case was brought up for the first time that day no Bench would say the charge was made out against the two defendants. In the last case the point was as to whether or not the landlord permitted drunken persons to be on the premises, and the suggestion of Mr. Mowll, who conducted the case, was that the persons were not drunk, and that the reasons which were given by the witnesses for coming to the conclusion that these two persons were drunk were not sufficient for the Bench to act upon. It was a most extraordinary thing that the two policemen should have omitted all the strong points in their previous evidence and never said a word about them, although the matter was then fresh in their recollection. He ventured to say that the evidence would not be relied upon by any Court of Justice of a witness who omitted the most important part of the evidence to which his attention was directed and who afterwards put in a lot of extraordinary details for the purpose of affecting a decision then before the Bench. When he heard the constables endeavour to get out of it by telling them that they had made a statement to the Superintendent he thought it right to call on the Superintendent, without having the slightest knowledge as to where the memorandum was or anything of the kind. He had not had an opportunity of seeing it, but Sergeant Swift swore he made all these statements to the Superintendent of Police, a man of large experience, who must have known that all those statements were of the utmost importance to prove drunkenness against this house; and having regard to what had already taken place with reference to the house, he asked them whether it was human, if the statements were made, he should not have recorded them? The Superintendent`s answer was that he took down general things. Mr. Bradley had seen the document and he would be able to tell them as to whether the statement produced at the last Court by the Superintendent contained all those details. He (Mr. Glyn) must ask them what a Judge of Assize, Mr. Justice Hawkins for instance, would say to a policeman, a Superintendent or anybody who had taken part in these prior proceedings and having this statement made to him omitted to take not of it?  He ventured to submit that any Judge would say that such evidence when it was afterwards given was not reliable. He (Mr. Glyn) did not ask them to find that the evidence was untrue, but he asked them to say that they were not satisfied with it, and that his clients were entitled to be discharged.

The Magistrates retired for deliberation and on their return to Court the Mayor said: There is a decided conflict of evidence in this case and we are called upon to decide which set of witnesses we believe. We unanimously believe the evidence of the police constables, and we therefore fine each of the defendants in the sum of 5s. and 13s. costs, leviable by distress, or in default seven days` imprisonment.

Mr. Mowll: We shall, of course, have to consider the effect the decision given today will have upon the notice of appeal we have given in the other case. I must, therefore, ask the Superintendent of Police not to take any further steps in the matter until I communicate with him, because I may have to intimate to him that the matter will not proceed further.

Folkestone Express 25-11-1893

Wednesday, November 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

William Joseph Cloughton and Emily Cloughton, man and wife, were charged with being drunk in the Ship Inn on the night of the 6^th November. They pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Mr. Mowll, appeared for the defendants.

Sergeant Swift repeated the evidence he gave last week as to his visit to the Ship on the night in question. He added that when he went into the front room he saw a woman seated at the table. Cloughton said it was his wife. She was in a dazed and stupid condition. A glass containing whisky stood on the table before her. He knew it was whisky because he tasted it, and handed it to inspector Brice to taste it. The woman said “Yes, it is mine”. He said to the woman, after he had threatened to take the man to the station if he did not give his name and address, “Perhaps you can give me your husband`s name and address and particulars”. She murmured something he could not understand. Afterwards she said “My husband is a gentleman”. He said to the landlord “That man and woman are drunk”. After a pause of two or three seconds the landlord said “They have had nothing to drink here since eleven”. After they were requested to leave, the woman sat for some few seconds before she attempted to move. Then she got up out of her seat by hanging on the table with her hands. She dropped back into her seat, and at the third attempt she succeeded and stood on her legs. She stood in front of the glass arranging her hat, swinging to and fro, quite intoxicated. While she was doing that the man said “Don`t take any notice of my wife. She has been on the stage”. She then went to the front door. Her husband took her arm and assisted her into the street. They went up towards the railway, arm in arm together, walking very slowly indeed.

In answer to Mr. Glyn, witness said he was a witness in the case at the Quarter Sessions. He had had no conversation with the Superintendent or anyone else as to the evidence he was going to give that day. No-one instructed him to watch the Ship Inn. He went there casually. He admitted that on the last occasion he did not say the woman was in a half-dazed and stupid condition. On the last occasion he was not examined or cross-examined as to the details. He said nothing about the woman staggering or being assisted into the street by her husband and going off arm-in-arm with him. Asked as to which was the most drunk of the two he said there did not appear to be much difference – one appeared to be ridiculously drunk, and the other stupidly drunk.

Boat Inspector Brice repeated the evidence he gave on the last occasion, and also added somewhat to it. He said that when he went into the room where the defendants had been sitting, Swift took up a glass from the table and said “Taste that, Brice”. He tasted it and said “It`s whisky”. The woman appeared to him to be drunk. Her hat was disarranged, and it took her some little time to get it right in front of the glass. After some few seconds the defendants went out together.

In cross-examination by Mr. Glyn, witness said he made no statement to the Superintendent, and he had had no conversation with anybody about it since. He said on the last occasion all he had said that day, to the best of his recollection. He wasn`t asked about tasting the whisky last time. He never said anything then about the lady having two or three tries to get up and falling back in the chair again. He was asked their condition, and he said they were both drunk. The man could talk coherently, and they could both walk.

Mr. Glyn then called several witnesses for the defence. The first was William Joseph Cloughton, the male defendant. He said he was supposed to be an engineer, and lived at 5, Warren Road. He had received a communication from Mr. Warman about a piano, and arranged to see him on Monday night at the Ship Inn. He left home about seven o`clock on the night of the 6<sup>th</sup>, with his wife and a young man named Wilson. They all went together to the Harvey Hotel, where he had a half tankard of bitter, his wife a half tankard of stout, and Wilson two pennyworth of whisky. They stayed to see the torchlight procession, and then went to the Ship Inn, which they reached at half past ten. They had nothing to drink till they got there. On the way there they met a man named Price. That was about nine o`clock. They had some conversation with him. When they got to the Ship, Warman was busy and could not attend to them. He had a glass of brandy and soda, and his wife had lemonade. Wilson had soda. His wife had no whisky, and there was no glass containing whisky on the table. The glass the policeman took up contained lemonade. The policeman said it was whisky, and she replied that it was lemonade. Neither of them was the worse for wear. He first answered the policeman in French, and gave an address in Boulogne. He did not refuse to give his name, nor did he say he was a lodger. He did not hear his wife say he was an independent gentleman. There was no truth in the statement that his wife attempted to get up twice from her seat before she succeeded. He had never been charged with drunkenness before.

Emily Cloughton gave similar evidence, and said she had never been intoxicated in her life. It was not true to say she attempted twice to get up from her chair before she succeeded. She had an abscess on her knee, and had been attended by Dr. Ellis.

Superintendent Taylor was next called, and in reply to Mr. Glyn he said he took a note of the report made by Sergeant Swift. He could not say if it was in existence now.

Mr. Bradley explained that the report was the notes handed to him for the purpose of examining the witnesses. His Clerk informed him that after the case was over he destroyed it. It was on a half sheet of foolscap – he thought there were two.

William Wilson, a young man in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, who was in the company of the defendants on the evening in question, said they only had what the defendants said they had to drink. They were perfectly sober when he left them about ten minutes to eleven, so he saw nothing of what took place when the policeman came in.

Herbert Price, a fly proprietor, said he saw the defendants about nine o`clock, and they were talking to him about a fly they wanted on the following Saturday. He knew them very well and had often driven them about, but never saw them the worse for drink. He had known them since the middle of August.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper to Mr. Warman, said she was in the house during the time the policeman was there. The Cloughtons were sitting in the kitchen. The glass the sergeant took up from the table was hers and it contained aired lemonade. It was not true that Mrs. Cloughton made two unsuccessful attempts to get up. Mr. Cloughton gave the sergeant his name when he was asked for it. The sergeant took him by the collar and said he would take him to the police station. The house was closed at five minutes to eleven; only Mr. and Mrs. Cloghton remained.

Charles Marsh, assistant to his mother, landlady of the Harvey Hotel, corroborated the defendants` statements as to what they had to drink there. He served them.

In reply to Superintendent Taylor, he said there were two others serving in the bar, and he could not say whether they served defendants with anything or not.

Mr. Glyn then made an eloquent and long speech for the defendants, his main contention being that as the police evidence had been extended so much in detail compared to what it was on the first occasion it was the duty of the Magistrates to say not that it was untrue, but that it was unreliable.

The Magistrates then retired to consider their decision, and were absent for some time. On their return the Mayor said: The decision of the Bench is as follows. I will read it. There is a direct conflict of evidence in this case. We are called on to decide which set of witnesses we believe. We unanimously believe the evidence of the police constables, and we therefore fine each of the defendants in the sum of 5s. and 13s. costs, leviable by distress, and in default of payment seven days` imprisonment.

Mr. Mowll said they would consider the effect of the decision. They were ready then to enter into their recognisances with respect to the notice of appeal given in the other case. He would carefully consider the evidence given that day, because he might have to notify that the matter would not be proceeded with further.

Recognisances were then entered into to prosecute the appeal from the decision of the Bench in the case against Warman.

 

Folkestone Herald 25-11-1893

Police Court Notes

Last week we gave a full report of the prosecution instituted by the police authorities against the landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, on the charge of having permitted drunkenness on his premises upon the night of the 6^th November inst. In the result the defendant landlord was convicted and the Justices directed that the conviction be endorsed upon the licence. It will also be recollected that the persons alleged to have been found drunk on the premises were William J. Cloughton and his wife Emily Cloughton, who were stated to be “artists”, and who were residing at No. 5, Warren Road, in this town. Since the hearing of that case, the decision in which is, we believe, about to be appealed from, Mr. and Mrs. Cloughton have been summoned for having been drunk upon the Ship Inn premises upon the night of the 6^th instant. The case came on for hearing on Wednesday morning before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, of Mowll and Mowll, solicitors, Dover) was retained for the defence; the prosecution was conducted by Mr. John Taylor, the Superintendent of the Folkestone Police. Each of the defendants denied the charge of drunkenness, and the evidence for the prosecution was to a great extent a recapitulation of the testimony given on the hearing of the case against the landlord, though, of course directed more in detail to the specific charge now under investigation.

Police Sergeant Swift, in support of the case, said that he was accompanied on the night in question by Boat Inspector Brice, and on walking along Radnor Street they saw lights and heard voices in the bar of the house. Witness and Brice both entered, and found defendants drunk. The female defendant was half-dazed and in a stupid condition. A glass containing whisky stood before her. The landlord (Warman) said they had had nothing to drink since eleven. The woman was sitting down and tried to get up by hanging on to the table. On the third attempt she succeeded. Whilst she was arranging her hat, before a glass, the male defendant said “Don`t take any notice of my wife. She has been on the stage”. Her husband ultimately assisted her out into the street, and they walked in a staggering state towards the railway.

Examined by Mr. Glyn, the constable said he gave evidence before the Justices, and also at the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury on the appeal in reference to the Tramway licence. No-one had instructed him to watch the house. Witness was casually passing. He had made no statement to the Superintendent or anyone else since the last hearing. Witness had made a verbal report to the Superintendent, which that official had written down.

Mr. Glyn: I call for that report.

Mr. Bradley: We do not produce it.

In further examination the witness said he did not know whether the report was in existence. He suggested that he gave the same evidence as he did in the other case. If he had not mentioned certain facts then it was because he was not pressed for them. The cross-examination of this witness was continued for a long time, but was mainly directed to the evidence given now for the first time by the witness, whose explanation throughout was that on the prosecution of Warman he had only given replies to the questions which had been put to him as being then considered the most material to the issue.

P.C. Brice, Boat Inspector, was also called, and gave corroborative evidence. He, likewise was submitted to a close cross-examination, but his evidence-in-chief remained unshaken.

The defendants, on being severally sworn, denied the accusation. The learned Counsel placed, through their evidence, a complete history of the defendants` movements that evening before the Court. It appeared that, as stated last week, they had made an appointment with Warman as to inspecting a piano which the latter had on sale. The procession of masqueraders took place the same evening, and both the defendants went out to see it, leaving home about seven o`clock. They were accompanied by William Wilson, a fireman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and living at 12, Warren Road. They walked about for a time, awaiting the procession, and called at Harvey`s Hotel, where they had drinks.  – Mr. Cloughton half a tankard of bitter, Mrs. Cloughton half a tankard of stout, and Wilson 2d. worth of whiskey. When the procession came by they followed it, and ultimately proceeded to the Ship Inn, which they reached at 10.30, and where Wilson remained with the defendants until 10.50. During the interval the drink had on the premises was – Mr. Cloughton a brandy and soda, Mrs. Cloughton a lemonade, and Mr. Wilson a small soda. Each of these three people swore in the most positive terms to their individual sobriety at the hour named, 10.50 p.m., and it was deposed also by the Cloughtons that neither of the latter had anything else to drink at the house that night. The difficulty which Mrs. Cloughton had in rising from the chair was caused by the fact that, owing to a fall on the stage, she has been suffering from an abscess in the knee, for which she had been under surgical treatment.

Herbert Price, a fly proprietor, who has frequently driven the Cloughtons about the town and neighbourhood, proved that he met them that night about nine o`clock in Tontine Street, that they were then perfectly sober, and that on all occasions when he had driven them out they had been distinguished for sobriety.

After a long address from the learned Counsel, who dealt exhaustively with the various aspects of the case, the Justices retired with their learned Clerk to consider the evidence. In the result, the defendants were convicted, and were ordered to pay, severally, a fine and costs amounting to 7s. 6d.

Great interest was taken in this prosecution, the little courtroom being crowded to it`s utmost capacity.

Southeastern Gazette 28-11-1893

Local News

At the Folkestone Town Hall, on Wednesday, before the Mayor, in the chair, Mrs. Emily Claughton, described as an actress, and Mr. William Claughton, of 5, Warren Road, were charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of the Ship Inn, on the 6th November. Mr. Glyn, barrister, defended.

According to the evidence of the prosecution, Mr. Claughton was found drunk in the bar of the Ship Inn by P.S. Swift and P.C. Brice. In the front room Mrs. Claughton was sitting at a table in a half-dazed condition. When leaving the house Mrs. Claughton had to make three attempts before she succeeded in standing up.

The defence was an absolute denial of the evidence of the constable, and several witnesses were called to prove the absolute sobriety of the defendants. Mrs. Claughton was said to have injured her knee by a fall on the stage, and that accounted for her being unable to rise readily from her chair.

The Bench convicted, and fined each defendant 5s. and 13s. costs, or seven days’ imprisonment in default. It was intimated that an appeal might be made. 

Folkestone Visitors` List 29-11-1893

Police Court Notes

Considerable interest was manifested in a case which came before The Mayor and Messrs. Fitness and Pledge on Wednesday, when Mr. William and Mrs. Emily Cloughton, of 5, Warren Road, were summoned for having been drunk on licensed premises, the Ship Inn.

The charge arose out of another which was heard at a previous sitting when the same Magistrates inflicted a fine of 50s. and costs on the landlord of the inn for permitting the drunkenness in question.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, instructed by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, appeared for the defence.

The case, as stated by Sergt. Swift and P.C. Brice, was that on the evening in question, about five minutes after eleven, the two constables went into the Ship Inn, and there found the two defendants. Mr. Cloughton said he was a lodger, which the landlord, however, denied. When asked for his address he gave it in French, and the police had to threaten to take him to the station before they could obtain it. Mrs. Cloughton they described as in such an advanced state of intoxication that they could not understand what she said, except that her husband was a gentleman, and she had to make three attempts before she could rise from her chair.

During the hearing of the case Mr. Glyn called for the original report made by the officers to the Superintendent. The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. Bradley) at that point interfered, and Mr. Glyn intimated that it would be as well for him either to act as adviser to the Bench, or prosecutor – he could not do both. Mr. Bradley said he had only done what had always been done and he should continue to do. Upon this Mr. Glyn told him his observations would not have much effect, and Mr. Bradley returned the compliment. Mr. Glyn stated that he could produce a shorthand writer to give evidence as to what the constables stated at the first hearing, but Mr. Bradley objected, remarking “Bother the shorthand writer”.

The defence was a total denial of the charge, both defendants flatly contradicting the story of the police. Mrs. Cloughton said she was an actress, and had been living at Boulogne until the middle of August, since when she had been living at Folkestone. She had injured her knee, and that prevented her rising readily from her seat. A Mr. Wilson and other witnesses also swore that all the female defendant had to drink was a glass of stout at the Harvey Hotel, and that at the Ship what she had was lemonade, which the police had declared to be whiskey. Mr. Cloughton had a soda and brandy at the Ship. Several witnesses testified to the fact that both were absolutely sober, while defendants explained their presence in the house by stating that they had gone to look at a piano.

Mr. Glyn, in addressing the Bench, said he would not ask the Magistrates to stultify their former decision by declining to believe the police, but to say that the evidence was not satisfactory, and with this end in view he very forcibly reviewed the case.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into court the Mayor said there was a decided conflict of evidence, and they were called upon to decide which they believed, and they unanimously believed the constables. Defendants would therefore be fined 5s. and 13s. costs each; in default seven days`.

Mr. Glyn intimated that very possibly the decision would be appealed against.

Folkestone Express 23-12-1893

Wednesday, December 20^th: Before J. Fitness and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Aldermen Dunk and Pledge.

Susannah Freeman was charged with assaulting Jane Hogben on December 18^th.

Jane Hogben, housekeeper to Mr. Warman at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, said on Monday evening, between half past four and five, she was in the bar, when defendant, who is Mr. Warman`s half-sister, came into the bar and tried to push her out. Witness told defendant to go out, but she said she would not, as everything in the place belonged to her. Defendant then knocked witness down and threatened to knock her brains out. She took a poker to defend herself, but did not strike defendant.

Esther Taylor, servant in the employ of Mr. Warman, said she saw the defendant come in on Monday, and asked her “where the thing was”, and went into the bar and threatened to knock plaintiff`s brains out.

Thomas Warman, a fisherman, said he saw defendant try to turn Mrs. Hogben out of a chair, and heard her threaten to knock the plaintiff`s brains out.

The Bench bound the defendant over in her own recognisance of £10 for the period of three months, and to pay 13s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 21-4-1894

Local News

Transfer

The following transfer was granted at the Police Court on Wednesday: Ship, Radnor Street, to John.G. Griggs

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-5-1896

Kaleidoscope

An interesting licensing application was made by Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, on Saturday to the Magistrates, but which was not sustained. The points raised by Mr. Haines are, however, worthy of consideration, and no doubt they are points that the Trade Association will consider sooner or later.

Mr. Haines` application was in respect of three houses in the vicinity of the harbour, and it was supported by two petitions, one bearing eighty five signatures, and another signed by 150 men, chiefly employees of the South Eastern railway Company. Mr. Haines pointed out that for the Folkestone fishing industry alone this application should be considered. The fishermen could not at all times enter the harbour at such an hour as to enable them to get any refreshment before the houses were opened at six o`clock.

But further, during the mackerel season there were some forty or fifty boats that came from Newhaven, Ramsgate, and other places, and when these boats entered Folkestone harbour at hours between two and six o`clock in the morning, they invariably knocked up his clients. The local fishermen could not be considered bona fide travellers, but with regard to the other fishermen, his clients had to be very careful whom they admitted, and had always to see the boats in order to justify admittance.

Very often those Newhaven fishermen put up at these houses, and though this application was made, it was not made so as to enable the landlords to sell drink entirely. They invariably supplied coffee and other refreshments. Put shortly, a local boat`s crew, after being at sea all night, on arriving at the harbour at say two or three o`clock in the morning, have to wait until six o`clock, under the existing conditions, before they can secure any refreshment.

The teetotallers themselves will think this hard, and it would be equally hard on the mother of the household to be expected to have food or any kind of refreshment prepared at this early hour.

But then again, it is hard on the railway employees, who have to turn out of their homes at very early hours, to meet and work on the boats bringing cargoes of produce for the London markets. These men can get no refreshment or stimulants of any kind until the public houses open at the hour of six.

When we consider the industries concerned, the application was a reasonable one, and one which, in our opinion, the Bench should have given due consideration to. The matter will doubtless be taken up by the Licensed Victuallers Trade, whose duty it is not only to look after their own interests but those of the public.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-5-1896

Saturday, May 16^th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness.

Mr. Haines applied that early opening licences be granted to three public houses. He said there was not a single one in the borough, and he thought when the Bench had heard the evidence they would be prepared to grant some, especially considering that they could at any time revoke them.

In the first case he applied on behalf of John Grigg, of the Ship Inn, The Stade, that he might open his house at 3 o`clock to accommodate the fishermen. There were some 68 or 70 boats that, by reason of the harbour being a tidal one, sometimes had to come in at hours when the public houses were not open, and were unable to obtain any kind of refreshment, although they had been for hours battling with the wind and the weather. They were not bona fide travellers, although they had been out to sea. In the mackerel and herring seasons there were boats from Newhaven, Shoreham, etc., put in and the applicant was knocked up, but for fear of offending the law he had great difficulty in finding out if the men were really travellers. He did not intend to keep open for the purpose of drinking, but simply to accommodate these men. Grigg had been two years in the house and had conducted it properly.

In the case of the other two applicants, they only wanted to open at 5 a.m. instead of 6.

Mr. Haines called Grigg, who bore out the statement.

Superintendent Taylor said he was not aware that anything had arisen recently that showed any need of an alteration. He presumed it was because of the remarks that were made the previous Saturday as to Dover, but at Dover there was a great vegetable market, and men came long distances from their houses to attend it. Mr. Haines` arguments were illogical, for he might as well argue that because there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, Dover did not require them. If this application was granted, the applicant would be able to keep open continuously from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. If boats from Shoreham came in they could be served, and if the police prosecuted there would be a good defence, as they would be bona fide travellers.

The next application was by George Kirby, of the Chequers Inn, who desired to open at 5 a.m. to supply the workmen going to work at the Harbour, especially to the fruit boats.

The Chairman said they must decline all the applications, for if they granted one they would be obliged in justice to grant all. Mr. Haines had fought well, but had failed to show that the licences were needed.

Folkestone Express 23-5-1896

Saturday, May 16^th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Haines appeared before the Bench and made an application in respect of three exceptional licences for certain houses in the town. It will be remembered that a few days ago a publican was fined for opening his house a few minutes before six o`clock in the morning in order to supply the men who were going to work, and Mr. Mowll, who appeared for the defendant, expressed surprise that there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, there being no less than 33 in Dover. Mr. Haines said the Section under which he applied was 26 of the Licensing Act of 1872, which he read. The exception which he was about to ask the Bench to grant was in respect to three houses, and he pointed out that it was entirely in the discretion of the Bench. It was a matter entirely of evidence, and he thought the Magistrates would see that it was desirable to grant them. The matter was so much in their hands, that should they think proper at any time to revoke a licence so granted, they could make a revocation order.

The first case was that of Mr. J.G. Gregg, of the Ship Inn, and it was in respect of the fishing industry that the application was made. There were now 65 or 70 boats, and they could not come into the harbour at all times, as it was tidal. The boats went out at all hours of the day, and came in often at three or four in the morning, and the houses being closed, there was no means of the men getting refreshments if they required. As they resided in the town, they were not entitled to come under the definition of bona fide travellers. In the mackerel season 20 or 30 boats came in from other ports, and the crews often required refreshments from these houses. If the permission was granted, it was not intended to keep the house open, but merely to open when it was required. Mr. Gregg did not ask for the house to be allowed for the house to be open from one until three, but only from three till six. Mr. Haines then put in a memorial signed by the fishermen themselves to the number of 85, and said he had given notice of the application to Superintendent Taylor. There was nothing against Gregg, who had been two years in the house, and had conducted it in a proper manner.

Mr. Holden: You say there are two others.

Mr. Haines replied that there was only one application for an early opening licence, the others were different – applications to be allowed to open at five.

Mr. Bradley remarked that the memorial was in favour of what the Bench had no power to grant – a tidal licence. The signatures also were many of them in the same writing, and there were crosses to them.

Mr. Haines replied that many of the men could not write, and Mr. Gregg had permission to put their names, and they appended crosses.

John Galley Gregg was then called, and gave evidence as to his having been frequently asked to serve men at all hours of the night, and, under present circumstances, he had to go out and ascertain if their statements were correct. He said there were between 60 and 70 boats, and 250 fishermen. There were also a good many boats from other ports, and some of the crews stayed at his house.

Superintendent Taylor said there were no circumstances within his knowledge which rendered the licence necessary. It was a fact that there were no early opening licences in Folkestone, but there were in Dover, but the circumstances were very different. At Dover, market carts came in from the surrounding districts very early in the morning, and the drivers wanted refreshments. There were also at Dover large ships coming in, in addition to the fishermen. It might just as well be argued that no licences were wanted at Dover because there were none at Folkestone, as to argue that they were wanted at Folkestone because they had them at Dover. He urged that there was no necessity for the houses to be open, and it was very undesirable to make any change in the hours of opening.

Mr. Fitness: You have had no complaints from these fishermen that they cannot get what they want?

Mr. Haines said he believed in Dover there were something like 33.

Mr. Holden said he had sat on the Bench for many years, and he had never heard of a single case of hardship.

Mr. Haines said there was a memorial from the fishermen themselves.

Mr. Fitness said they would take that for what it was worth.

Mr. Haines said the men were often out all night, and there were occasions when they were out all day. It showed what a law abiding community they were, as they had not used the houses at forbidden hours.

Superintendent Taylor said he could not go so far as that, as there had been prosecutions.

Mr. Fitness said after the statement of the Superintendent they could not in all conscience go against it.

Mr. Haines then called Henry George Kirby, of the Chequers, who was an applicant for permission to open at five.

Mr. Holden asked Mr. Haines if it did not occur to him that if the Bench granted those applications, they must grant the same to other applicants. If they took from one end of Radnor Street to the other, there were about 20 houses.

Mr. Haines answered that the others had not applied. The Bench would try every one on it`s own basis.

Mr. Holden said in all justice they were bound to give it to one as well as another.

Mr. Haines agreed that it would be so, if they applied for it.

Mr. Bradley said the application did not come from the public, but from the publicans.

Supt. Taylor said it came from the brewers.

Mr. Haines said there was a large body of men who were employed by the South Eastern company at the Harbour.

Mr. Bradley: I am sure the South Eastern Company would not support the application.

Mr. Haines: The men support it.

Mr. Holden: You have made a very eloquent application, but the police are against you.

Mr. Haines: Of course I must bow to the decision of the Bench.

Mr. Holden: You see where we are. If we give it to one we should have to give to another.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Haines has not satisfied you that the thing is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. Haines said he had a memorial signed by 130 workmen, many of them South Eastern Railway men, who had to go to work early in the morning to unload the fruit boats and so on. They could not get refreshments before they left their own homes.

The Bench decided not to grant the applications, although they complimented Mr. Haines on the manner in which he had made them.

Folkestone Herald 23-5-1896

Police Court Record

On Saturday Mr. Haines made an application in respect of an exemption order, required by the Licensing Act, for certain houses in the town. It was made under Section 36 of the Act. He said he believed that on licensed houses in the town had this early opening, and the Bench would see by the evidence put before them as to the desirability of it. If the Bench should grant this order they would be able to revoke it at any time.

The first application was from the landlord of the Ship Inn, on The Stade. This was made in respect of the fishermen and the fishing industry. They had 70 or 65 boats. These men, after being out fishing, could not always get into the harbour, and after being out all day they came in at about 3 o`clock in the morning, and there was no means of getting the refreshment they desired, as they did not come under the definition of bona fide travellers. Then again in the mackerel season boats came in from Newhaven and other ports, and the landlord had numerous applications in the early morning, and it was with great difficulty that he could exercise his discretion as to who those men were. It was not the landlord`s intention to keep the place open for drinking every night, but only when a boat came in. He asked that from 3 to 6 in the morning he should be exempt from closing. He put in a memorial bearing 85 signatures, signed, he believed, by the men themselves, for what it was worth. If the Bench thought the hours too long, he asked them to limit the hours to a shorter period. He did not think the police had anything against the landlord of the house, Grigg, who had been there for two years. He asked the Bench to give the matter consideration, as it had regard to one of the only industries of this town.

Mr. Grigg stated that he was the licence holder of the Ship Inn. The fishing industry was something considerable in Folkestone. There were about 65 boats belonging to that part of the town, and about 250 fishermen. A good many boats came in from neighbouring ports during the mackerel season. During the year he had many of these boats` crews knocking him up for refreshment. If the Bench granted this application it was not his intention to keep the house open always, but only when knocked up.

Superintendent Taylor said that he was not aware of any circumstances that made this early opening desirable. Reference was made in a case the previous week that Dover had early opening houses, but in addition to the ordinary fishing interest, they had a number of large ships coming in there. With regard to ships coming in early in the morning from ports, he had no doubt that if a case of this description was brought before the Bench, it would be argued that those crews were bona fide travellers. He did not think early opening necessary. He had received no complaints from these men about not being able to obtain refreshment. The section Mr. Haines quoted said that early opening could be granted where it was necessary and desirable. It had not been desirable hitherto, and it did not seem to be now.

Mr. Haines said he had another application to make with respect to the Chequers Inn at the bottom of Dover Street. This was for an opening order from 5 to 6 in the morning. He put in a memorial supporting the early opening of this inn, containing 250 signatures. Several of them were S.E.R. men.

The Chairman of the Bench said he believed there were about 20 public houses in this part. If they gave the early opening order to one, the would have in justice to give it to all.

Mr. Haines said the others had not applied for it.

The Chairman said they would be sure to do so. The application was not granted.

   

Folkestone Up To Date 23-5-1896

Hall Of Justice

May 16: Before Messrs. Holden, Vaughan, Pledge, and Fitness.

Mr. Haines applied for opening the Harbour Inn (sic) from 3 to 6 a.m. on behalf of the fishermen whose boats came into the harbour. Strongly opposed by Superintendent Taylor. Application refused.

Folkestone Herald 2-7-1898

Police Court Report

On Saturday last – the Mayor (Col. Penfold) presiding – Mr. R. Pay was granted a temporary authority for the Ship Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6-8-1898

Wednesday, August 3^rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Pay was granted permission to sell at the Ship Inn. 

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6-8-1898

Wednesday, August 3^rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.

Transfer was sanctioned to Mr. Kay, Ship Inn

Folkestone Herald 6-8-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Pay, Ship Inn 

Hythe Reporter 13-8-1898

Folkestone Police Court

At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following licence was transferred:

Mr. Richard Pay was granted a transfer of the licence of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street.

 

 

Folkestone Express 11-11-1899

Saturday, November 4^th: Before The Mayor, Col. Westropp, J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, W. Medhurst, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Pope, architect, produced plans for alterations at the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, which were approved.

Folkestone Herald 11-11-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last plans were submitted to the Bench for alterations to the Ship Inn