Folkestone Chronicle
30-8-1890
Annual Licensing Session
Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Major
H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.
The Tramway Tavern: Superintendent Taylor said on the 13th
of May some soldiers were found on the premises after closing time. They were
absentees from the Camp. The general conduct of the house was bad.
The application was adjourned.
Folkestone Express
30-8-1890
Wednesday, August 27th: 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 Tramway
Supt. Taylor said after closing time on the 18th
May some soldiers were found in this house by the picquet, and taken to the
Camp.
The applicant said they told him they were on pass, but even
if they were they had no business in the house.
The application was adjourned.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-9-1890
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor,
Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.
The first case dealt with was the Tramway Tavern (Herbert
Hogben).
Sergeant Butcher was called and stated that he visited the
Tramway at quarter past eleven on the 13th of May, and found three
soldiers belonging to the Royal Engineers and two civilians on the premises.
The landlord told him that they were there for the night and that they had
taken lodgings. The soldiers were drinking.
In reply to Mr. Martyn Mowll, who appeared for tenant and
Messrs. Beer & Co., witness said he had visited the house on other
occasions.
Mr. Mowll said it was a fact that the soldiers said they
were on pass and that they had taken lodgings for the night. As to the
civilians, no doubt the tenant had made a mistake, but he thought a caution
from the Bench would be sufficient. He thought the fact that Sergeant Butcher
had visited the house on several occasions without finding any other complaint to
report would convey to the minds of the Bench that the house was well
conducted.
The Mayor said the police had done their duty in bringing
the case forward and he hoped they would continue to be as active. The Bench
would give them every support. There was only one complaint against Hogben, and
the licence would be granted, but he must be more careful in the future.
Folkestone Express
27-9-1890
Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor,
Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.
Adjourned Licenses
This was the adjourned licensing session, and several
certificates which had been postponed were applied for.
The Tramway Tavern
Herbert Hogben applied for a renewal of the licence of this
house. The Superintendent of Police opposed on the ground that soldiers had
been found on the premises at quarter of an hour after closing time on the 15th
May last.
Sergeant Butcher gave evidence that he found a civilian and
two soldiers who were not on pass, and who were taken in custody to the Camp.
Mr. Martin Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the applicant, and
also on behalf of Messrs. George Beer and Co, the owners,. He said there was no
doubt whatever, so far as they could get at the facts, that they were as stated
in evidence, that two soldiers were in the house after closing time on the 15th
May. The excuse was that the soldiers were on pass and had taken lodgings for
the night. No doubt the applicant had made a little slip, but he did not think
it was such a one as would lead the Bench to refuse a renewal of the licence.
The Bench said the considered the police had done their duty
in bringing the matter to the knowledge of the licensing justices. They were
very glad there was no other case against the house, and therefore they decided
not to withhold the licence, although they cautioned the applicant as to the
conduct of the house in future.
Folkestone Chronicle
6-12-1890
Local News
At the Police Court on Thursday before Mr. Fitness and Major
Penfold, Thomas ryan was charged with assaulting William Marsh, of the Lord Nelson
Inn, Radnor Street.
Prosecutor said the prisoner, with several other soldiers of
the Leinster Reguiment, had some beer at his house, and ran out with a jug and
a glass. He pursued them, and when the prisoner got to the Tramway Tavern he
poured some of the beer into a bottle which a girl named Lily Hogben, who lived
at the Tramway, was holding. Witness asked him to give up the jug, when he
“butted” him in the chest with his head, knocking him down.
Lily Hogben was called, but stated that prisoner was not the
man at all. It was one of the prisoner`s witness`s, named Cunningham, who
committed the assault. She could swear to it, as she knew him well.
The Magistrates discharged Bryan, and Cunningham was placed
in the dock and ultimately fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs.
Folkestone Chronicle
3-1-1891
Saturday, December 27th: Before Captain Carter,
Major Penfold, Aldermen Dunk and Sherwood, J. Holden, E.T. Ward, and J. Fitness
Esqs.
James Murphy, a private, belonging to the Leinster Regiment,
was charged with stealing one umbrella, one hat, and a purse containing 3s.,
the property of Lucy Spearpoint, a woman of loose character, on the night of
the 26th of December.
Prosecutor stated that she was a widow, living at 3,
Portland Place, Dover Road. She was going home about one o`clock in the morning
when she was overtaken by the prisoner. He asked her to take him home with her,
but she refused to do so, and he struck her a violent blow with his fists. The
marks on her face were caused by the blow. The blow knocked her down. She
screamed, and a policeman came up. He saw her bleeding. When she got up she
discovered that the prisoner had stolen her purse, which contained 3s. It was
wrapped up in her handkerchief. The prisoner must have taken it out of her
pocket. He ran away immediately after he struck the blow. She also missed her
umbrella and her hat. She told the policeman what had happened, and the
prisoner was afterwards apprehended. She identified the man in the dock as the
man who struck her. She had never seen him until the night in question, to her
knowledge, and she did not wish to press the charge against him.
By the prisoner: Did not meet the prisoner by appointment.
He followed her. She was not in the Tramway Tavern with him, and it was false
that he had given her 2s. She did not ask him for money; the blow was struck
because she refused to take him home.
In reply to Mr. Bradley, the prosecutrix further stated that
she was in the Tramway Tavern during the evening, but left about half past
nine. From that time up till about one o`clock she was walking the streets.
Sergeant Lilley stated that he was on duty at the Police
Station about half past one on Saturday morning, when he saw the prosecutrix.
She was bleeding from a cut on the left side of her nose, and her eye was also
swollen and discoloured. In consequence of what the prosecutrix said he went in
search of the prisoner, and overtook him beside the entrance to the lower end
of Augusta Gardens, in Sandgate Road. Witness asked him if he were on pass, and
then asked him to go to the police station with him. Prisoner turned back, and
walked a short distance towards the station, when he asked what he was wanted
for. Witness told him that a woman had been assaulted and robbed, and that he
had reasons to believe that he did it. He further told him that he should take
him to the station for the purpose of identification. Prisoner immediately
turned and ran up Sandgate Road in the direction of the Camp. Witness pursued him,
and eventually caught him in a field, about mid-way between Westbourne Gardens
and Shorncliffe Railway Station. He took the prisoner to the police station,
where he was identified by the prosecutrix.
In answer to the charge, prisoner said “I met this woman in
a place – I think it was called the Tramway – where there were a lot of bad
women. I stayed there awhile and then I said I wanted to go. She came out with
me, and I gave her 2s. or 3s. She wanted some more money and I left her”.
Prosecutrix said she had not recovered her hat or umbrella.
Prisoner was remanded until Monday.
Monday, December 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen
Dunk, Pledge, and Sherwood, Major Penfold, E.T. Ward, J. Fitnes, J. Clark, and
J. Holden Esqs.
James Murphy was placed in the dock and charged, on remand,
of having stolen one hat, one umbrella, and one purse containing 3s., the
property of Mrs. Spearpoint.
The evidence given on Saturday was read over and confirmed.
Mrs. Spearpoint said she did not believe she was in the prisoner`s company more
than ten minutes before the blow was struck.
William Thomason, a drummer, belonging to the Lincolnshire
Regiment, stated that he was in Dover Road about one o`clock on Saturday
morning. He saw a woman and a soldier talking at the corner of Bradstone Road.
They were talking very loudly, but he could not hear what the conversation was
about. He could neither identify the woman or the man, but he could distinguish
that the man had dark facings – like the Leinster Regiment – and a scarlet tunic.
Witness did not see him strike the woman, but he heard her scream, and when he
looked round he saw her in the act of falling. The man was then standing by
her, but ran away up Bradstone Road as soon as she fell. Witness told the
policeman he thought he belonged to the Leinster Regiment, because he had black
facings. He could not swear that the man did not have an umbrella when he ran
away. So far as he could tell, he should say he had nothing in his hand.
Mr. Bradley enquired whether there were any witnesses
present from the Tramway Tavern.
Supt, Taylor said the landlord`s daughter – Lily Hogben –
was in the time that the prisoner and the prosecutrix were supposed to have
been there, but she declined to come as a witness. She said she got into
trouble the last time she gave evidence.
Mr. Bradley: Then you send for her at once and tell her if
she does not come a warrant will be issued to compel her to come.
The girl eventually arrived, and stated that she lived at
the Tramway Tavern with her father. She knew the prosecutrix, but she only knew
the prisoner by sight. He had not been to their house very frequently. He was
there on Friday evening. He came in about two minutes to eleven. Could not say
whether he was alone or not. Several other soldiers came in at the same time.
Should imagine he was alone. He remained in the house until “shut up time” –
eleven o`clock. Witness called out “time” and they all left together. Did not
recollect serving the prisoner with anything. The prosecutrix was in the house
about the same time, and also remained until it closed. She had been in two or
three times during the evening. Did not see her in conversation with the
prisoner, neither could she say whether she was in company with anyone on the
last occasion. They were all together.
By the prisoner: Did not remember whether the prosecutrix
had a glass in her hand on the last occasion or not. She had to call “time” in
two rooms.
The witness was very stubborn in giving her evidence, and
gave Mr. Bradley a great deal of trouble.
The Chairman said the evidence with regard to stealing from
the person was not sufficient to enable them to convict, and the charge would
therefore be dismissed, but if the prosecutrix liked to proceed against the
prisoner for assault, she would have a clearer case.
Prosecutrix said she did not wish to press either of the
charges against the prisoner, and she would forgive him for the blow he gave
her.
Prisoner was then discharged.
Folkestone Express
3-1-1891
Saturday, December 27th: Before Captain Carter,
Aldermen Sherwood and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Holden, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold
Esqs.
James Murphy, a private in the Leinster Regiment, was
charged with stealing 3s. from the person of an unfortunate woman, named Lucy
Spearpoint.
Prosecutrix said she was a widow, living at 3, Portland
Place, Dover Road. About one o`clock that morning she was going home and met
the prisoner, who asked her to let him go home with her. She told him she could
not, and he then struck her with his fist. He knocked her down, and when she
got up she found her purse, which contained 3s., was gone, and also she had, in
the scuffle, lost her hat and umbrella. Prisoner ran away. The mark on her face
was caused by the blow the prisoner gave her. Her purse was in her handkerchief
in her pocket. A policeman came up and saw her bleeding. She told the policeman
what had occurred, and the prisoner was afterwards apprehended. She had never
seen the prisoner before, but she did not wish to press the charge against him.
In cross-examination by the prisoner, prosecutrix said she
did not meet him anywhere. She was not in a public house called the Tram with
him, nor did she ask him to go home with her. She did not ask him for money,
and it was not true that he gave her two shillings. He struck her because she
would not let him go home with her.
In reply to the Bench, the prosecutrix said she was in the
Tramway Tavern during the evening. It was half past one in the morning when she
met the prisoner. She had been walking about the streets all the evening, and
she had just come from Tontine Street when she saw the prisoner. She had not
been in any house in Tontine Street.
Sergt. Lilley said about 1.30 that morning he was in the
police station, where he saw the prosecutrix, who was bleeding from a cut on
the left side of the nose, and her eye was swollen and discoloured. From a
statement she made to him he went in search of the prisoner, and overtook him
in Sandgate Road, near the entrance into the lower end of Augusta Gardens. He
asked if he was on pass, and he said “Yes”. He told prisoner he wanted him to
go to the police station, and he at once turned and commenced to walk back with
witness. Then he said “What for, Sergeant?” He replied “A woman has been
assaulted and robbed, and I have reason to believe you are the man that did it.
I shall take you to the police station for the purpose of identification”.
Prisoner immediately turned and ran up Sandgate Road in the direction of the
Camp. Witness chased him and caught him in the field about midway between
Westbourne Gardens and Shorncliffe Railway Station, and brought him back to the
police station, where he was immediately identified by the prosecutrix. The
charge was read over to prisoner, who said “I met this woman in a place – I
think it is called the Tramway. I don`t know where it is; where there are some
more bad women. I stopped there a while and then I said I wanted to go. She
came out with me and I gave her 2s. or 3s. She wanted some more and I left
her”. When prisoner was searched, 4d. was found on him.
In answer to the Magistrates, the prosecutrix said she had
not recovered her hat and umbrella.
Prisoner was remanded until Monday, prosecutrix again saying
she did not wish to press the charge against him.
Monday, December 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen
Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, E.T. Ward, J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Clarke, and S.
Penfold Esqs.
James Murphy was charged on remand with assaulting and
robbing Lucy Spearpoint early on Saturday morning.
The prosecutrix, in reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, said
she was not with the prisoner in the Tramway Tavern at all. She was sober. She
was with him only about ten minutes before he struck her.
William Thomason, a drummer in the Lincoln Regiment, said
about one o`clock on Saturday morning he was in Dover Road and saw a woman and
a soldier standing near the corner of Bradstone Road. They were talking very
loudly. He could not identify the man or the woman, but the man had a scarlet
tunic with dark facings. He saw the woman fall down, but he could not say what
caused her to fall. He heard her scream, and he saw the man run away up the
Bradstone Road. A policeman came along, and he told him he thought the soldier
belonged to the Leinster Regiment.
Superintendent Taylor said the girl from the Tramway Tavern
would not come. She said she got into trouble on a previous occasion. A message
was directed to be sent to tell her that if she did not attend, a warrant would
be issued to compel her to attend.
Lily Hogben, daughter of Herbert Hogben, landlord of the
Tramway Tavern, said she knew the woman and the soldier by sight. He had been
to her father`s house once, and that was on Friday night about ten minutes to
eleven. There were Lincoln and Leinster men in at the same time. Prisoner went
in alone and remained in the house until closing time, eleven o`clock. She did
not recollect seeing him with anyone. All the people in the bar left together
at eleven. When prisoner entered the bar, the woman was in the house, and
remained there until the house closed. She did not see her in conversation with
the soldier. She had been in the house previously two or three times. She could
not say if she was in company with anyone. Did not see the prisoner treat the
woman.
By the prisoner: I do not remember when I called out “time”
that the woman who had a glass of beer in her hand took it out with her. I had
to call “time” in two rooms.
The Magistrates considered there was not sufficient evidence
of robbery to go to a jury, and discharged the prisoner, telling the prosecutrix
she could proceed against him for the assault if she pleased. She replied that
she did not wish to do so.
The Magistrates` Clerk: Very well. The black eye is your own
affair.
Folkestone Chronicle
29-8-1891
Wednesday, August 26th: Before J. Clarke, J.
Pledge, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.
Annual Licensing Sessions
An objection was raised in the case of the Tramway Tavern.
Mr. Mowll, on behalf of the brewers, said if the Bench would
adjourn the case he would undertake to put a fresh tenant in the house.
The case was adjourned.
The adjourned Sessions will be held on the 23rd
of September.
Southeastern Gazette
1-9-1891
Licensing Sessions
The annual
Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday, when objections were raised against
the renewal of the licences for the Globe Hotel, the Bellevue Hotel. The Bouverie
Hotel, and the Tramway Tavern. Mr. Rooke appeared on behalf of the council of
the Folkestone Temperance Society, and the whole of the cases were eventually
adjourned until Sept. 23.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-9-1891
Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clarke Esq.,
Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
The Tramway
The licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from
Hogben to a new tenant named Tarper (sic).
Folkestone Express
26-9-1891
Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W.
Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.
Adjourned Licensing Day
The Tramway Tavern
The granting of this licence was postponed in order that the
tenant might be changed. George Barber, of Canterbury, had succeeded Hogben,
and now applied for the licence, which was granted.
Note: This date is at variance with
More Bastions.
Folkestone Chronicle
5-3-1892
Monday, February 29th: Before Major H.W. Poole
and W.G. Herbert Esq.
Thomas Davis, a labourer, was charged with stealing one pair
of boots, valued at 6s. 6d., the property of Thomas Vickery.
P.C. Nash stated that from information he received on
Saturday morning, he went to the Tramway Tavern at quarter to nine. He saw the
prisoner there, and, noticing that his coat pockets appeared to be bulky, he
called him outside and said “Where are those boots?” He replied “Here they
are”, and produced them, taking one from each pocket. He said he won them in a
raffle. Witness took him to the police station, where he was charged by Sergt.
Butcher in his presence, and made no reply.
Thomas Vickery said he carried on business as a bootmaker at
54, Guildhall Street. On Saturday night he had some boots exposed for sale at
the door of his shop. About half past six he missed the pair produced, and gave
information to the police. The selling price of the boots was 6s. 6d.
Prisoner said he was Guilty of having the boots in his
possession, but not of having stolen them. He did not know how he got them. He
had been going from house to house all the evening and was stupefied with
drink.
The Bench sentenced him to 21 days` hard labour.
Folkestone Express
5-3-1892
Monday, February 29th: Before H.W. Poole and W.G.
Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Davis, a sturdy looking man, was charged with
stealing a pair of boots, value 6s. 6d., the property of Mr. Thomas Vickery,
boot and shoe dealer, of Guildhall Street.
P.C. Nash said he received information from Mr. Vickery that
the boots had been stolen, and went to the Tramway Tavern, where he saw the
prisoner. He noticed that his pockets were sticking out, and said to him “Where
are those boots?” He said “Here they are”. He said he won them at a raffle.
Thomas Vickery said he had boots exposed, just at the
doorway of his shop in Guildhall Street. About half past six on Saturday evening
he missed a pair and gave information to the police. He could swear to the
boots produced. They had his private mark upon them. The selling value was 6s.
6d.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty to having the boots in his
possession, but not to stealing them. He did not know how the boots came into
his possession. He had been drinking from house to house, and did not know what
he was doing.
Supt. Taylor said the man did not bear a good character and
was regarded with suspicion.
It appeared there was a conviction against the prisoner
prior to 1877, but it was not proved against him. Prisoner was sentenced to 21
days` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-8-1892
Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen
Banks and Pledge, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick.
John McKew and William Fitzpatrick, Highlanders from the
Camp, were severally charged with stealing, on the 22nd August, 48
cigars, value 4s., the property of John Thomas Warman, landlord of the Tramway
Tavern, Radnor Street.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoners came to his house
on Monday evening and had two glasses of ale. He left the bar shortly after
serving them, and when he returned he missed the cigars from a case over the
spirit jars at the rear of the bar. In order to reach them a person would have
to stand on a seat in the bar. When he missed his property, he followed the
prisoners into Tontine Street, where he found them talking to two young women,
smoking cigars similar to those he had missed. He gave information to the
police and P.C. Smoker followed the men into the Royal George, where he asked
them for the missing cigars, and one handed him the case produced.
P.C. Smoker deposed that he went to the Royal George, and
there found the prisoners smoking in the bar. Warman said he would give them
into custody for stealing his cigars, and in response to this McKew put his
hand into his pocket and drew out one packet of cigars (produced), saying that
was all he had.
McKew denied that he gave the police constable the cigars.
He asserted that a corporal of Military Police put his hand into his pocket and
withdrew the packet from it. He did not say “There you are, guv`nor”.
The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and both
pleaded Not Guilty. McKew stated that he purchased the cigars of a sailor for
6d., and Fitzpatrick said he was not in the habit of smoking.
The Captain of the Company, who was present, said both men
had extremely good characters.
The Bench considered the case proved against McKew, and
fined him 10s., and in the case of Fitzpatrick, they gave him the benefit of
the doubt and dismissed him.
Note: No record of Warman at the
Tramway according to More Bastions.
Folkestone Express
27-8-1892
Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen
Pledge and Banks, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
John McHugh and William Fitzpatrick, Cameronian Highlanders,
were charged with stealing 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of James Thomas
Boorman.
Prosecutor is the landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor
Street. He said the prisoners went in on Monday evening about a quarter past
seven and called for two glasses of beer. He served them and left them there,
and on his return they had two more glasses He left the bar again, and on his
return, missed the cigars from a case on the shelf. The prisoners left the bar
as he returned. He followed them, and saw them talking to two girls and smoking
cigars similar to those produced. He spoke to P.C. Smoker, and together they
followed the prisoners to the Royal George, where McHugh handed him the packet
of six cigars produced.
P.C. Smoker said on Monday night he was on duty at the
bottom of High Street, when the prosecutor spoke to him and they went together
to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners with three other soldiers.
Prosecutor gave them into custody for stealing four packets of cigars. McHugh
took a packet of cigars from his pouch and handed them to witness.
They both pleaded Not Guilty. McHugh said he bought the
cigars from a sailor for 6d.
An officer from the regiment said the prisoners bore an
exceedingly good character, and one of them had eighteen months service.
The Bench considered the case proved against McHugh, and
fined him 10s. Fitzpatrick was dismissed with a caution.
Folkestone Herald
27-8-1892
Police Court Jottings
Two privates in the Cameronians made their appearance in the
iron grating known as the “dock” on Tuesday before the Mayor and Messrs.
Pledge, Banks, Herbert, and Wightwick, with having been concerned in obtaining
a surreptitious smoke at the expense of Jno. Thos. Foreman, landlord of the
Tramway Tavern.
The evidence was very simple. The man, who were named John
McKew and Wm. Fitzpatrick, went into the house the previous evening, and,
having had some beer, left, the landlord, as they were drinking what they had
ordered, having occasion to go out of the bar. On his return he missed four
dozen of cigars, which he valued at 4s. Suspecting the prisoners, he followed
them, and saw them talking to a couple of fair ones and smoking cigars similar
in appearance to those he had lost. He invoked the aid of the police, and
curiously found a representative of the law in the person of P.C. Smoker, with
whome he went to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners. Smoker asked
for the “smokes” they had stolen, and McKew handed over a packet of twelve with
the remark “It`s all I`ve got, guvnor”. They were taken to the station, and on
being searched, nothing except what was their own property was found upon them.
McKew now asserted that he had bought the cigars from a
sailor, whilst Fizpatrick declared that he knew nothing about the matter, and
as for himself, he was a non-smoker.
An officer of the Regiment, who was in Court, gave each of
the men a good character, in consequence of which the Bench dismissed the
charge against Fitzpatrick, and let McKew off with a fine of 10s.
Folkestone Chronicle
10-6-1893
Wednesday, June 7th: Before Mr. J. Fitness, Major
Poole and Mr. Wightwick
The licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred to James
Bayliss.
Note: Date is at variance with More
Bastions.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-8-1893
Licensing Sessions
The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the
Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge,
Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.
The Opposed Licenses
Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll
said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases
of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police,
he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting
the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been
utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be
necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the
matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the
hearing of these cases – say the 15th of September. No doubt it
would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to
adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle
might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to
be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on
Saturday night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the
mass of facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did
not think there would be any objection to the adjournment.
The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and
a special sitting would be held on the 13th September at 11 o`clock.
In the case of the Tramway Tavern, one of the houses
objected to, the temporary authority to sell was extended till the 13th
September.
The Superintendent`s Report
Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: In
accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number
of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130,
these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off,
the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit
licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house
licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South
Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been
granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to
premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the
last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held
on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal
of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British
Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship,
Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and
Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of
these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses
are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public
within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of
licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground
is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory
manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With
reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street
there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor
Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.
The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to give you
the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under
the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for
the trouble you have taken.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Folkestone Express
26-8-1893
Annual Licensing Meeting
Wednesday, August 23rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H.
Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad
Esqs.
The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants
were Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr.
Clarke-Hall (barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.
Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I
mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been
objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr.
Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications
for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application
to make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to
prepare facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been
objected to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is
that you will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13th
September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the
whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases.
Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with
these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with
regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him
whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may
at once state that the houses objected to are the Jubilee, Radnor Street; the
Harbour Inn, Harbour Street; the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; the Granville,
Dover Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the Royal George, Beach Street;
the Victoria, South Street; the Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; the Wonder, Beach
Street, the British Colours, Beach Street; the Ship, Radnor Street; the
Oddfellows, Radnor Street; and the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street. There are
13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same
principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the facts
and statements connected with every case are different, and it is necessary
that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench before they
give their decision.
The Chairman: Will the 13th be the adjournment?
Mr. Bradley: No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will
be on the 27th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll`s
application?
Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18th?
Mr. Mowll: I am in the Bench`s hands entirely as to the day.
The 13th would be the most convenient day.
Mr. Boykett: The 13th is on Wednesday.
Mr. Bradley: This day three weeks.
The Chairman: The Bench will grant your application, Mr.
Mowll.
Tramway Tavern
Mr. Mowll: there is another matter that had better stand
over till the adjournment. I did not know till this morning that Bayliss had
only got temporary authority. He must apply at the adjourned special session
for a licence to be granted before a renewal can take place. I therefore ask
the Bench to let the application stand over till the adjourned day.
The Chairman: We see no objection to that.
Mr. Bradley: But you want temporary authority in the
meantime. You are selling without a licence at the present moment.
James Bayliss therefore made formal application for
temporary authority, and it was granted till the 13th September.
The Superintendent`s Report
The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:-
“Borough of Folkestone Police, 23rd August, 1893.
Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the
honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual
licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist of 82 full ale-house licenses,
12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment
houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the
public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate
in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front.
No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence
being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon
the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed
at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice
of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George,
Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports,
Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the
Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed
the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the
objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are
required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to,
and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short
distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for
some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply
to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of
these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and
beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five,
in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
John Taylor, Supt.
To The Licensing Committee”.
The Chairman: Superintendent, I am requested to give you the
thanks of the Magistrates for that report. You have only been acting on the directions
of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you
have taken and the report you have presented.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Mr. Mowll: The Bench will not object to me having a copy of
the report. I don`t know whether the shorthand writers took it – the
Superintendent read it very rapidly.
Mr. Bradley: There is no objection to that at all.
The unopposed licenses were then granted.
Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting
would be held in the large room.
Folkestone
Herald 26-8-1893
Police Court Notes
On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of
this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J.
Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H.W.
Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.
The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr.
Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would
have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance,
inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of
licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application
reported below, the question was postponed until the 13th September,
and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that
had been looked forward to by the resident community.
There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests
of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr.
Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations
were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).
The Black List
The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the
thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being
given also:- (1) British Colours, 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley; (2) Cinque
Ports, 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead; (3) Folkestone Cutter, 24, Dover
Street, ---- Warman; (4) Granville, 63, Dover Street, F.G. Stickles; (5)
Harbour Inn, South Street, S. Barker; (6) Jubilee Inn, 24, Radnor Street, J.L.
Adams; (7) Oddfellows, The Stade, G. Whiddett; (8) Queen`s Head, 11, Beach
Street, W. Tame; (9) Royal George, 18, Beach Street, A.J. Tritton; (10) Ship
Inn, 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman; (11) Tramway Tavern, 4, Radnor Street, J.
Bayliss; (12) Victoria Inn, 26, South Street, J. Watson; (13) Wonder Tavern,
13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My
application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to
adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13th of September.
No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as
well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be
involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I
saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the
circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at
the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been
objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with
them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements
connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be
very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.
The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench):
Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.
Mr. Mowll now brought forward the case of Mr. James
Bayliss, of the Tramway Inn, whose temporary authority to sell expired on this
day. On the application of the learned advocate, the applicant giving evidence
on oath, the Bench extended the temporary authority until the 13th
September.
Superintendent`s Report
Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in
the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the
honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual
licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house
licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to
refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The
bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of
premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road,
and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last
beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne
Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting
in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th
instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the
Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville,
Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows.
With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former
licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The
general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none
of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the
boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed
houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that
the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but
this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference
to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are
four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight,
Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.
The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to
convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel
obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of
the report, and the application was at once acceded to.
The remaining licenses were then renewed.
Folkestone
Up To Date 14-9-1893
Licensing
The adjourned licensing meeting was held in the large
hall before Justices Hoad, Pursey, Davey, Holden, Clark, Fitness, Poole,
Herbert and Pledge.
Messrs. Glyn and Bodkin were the counsel for the
owners, Mr. J. Minter for the tenants.
Superintendent Taylor conducted his own case.
Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, said he represented the
Temperance party, but the Bench decided that he had no locus standi.
At the commencement Mr. Glyn handed in a written
objection to the jurisdiction of certain Magistrates, and asked them to retire
and consider it. They did so and returned minus Mr. J. Holden.
Mr. Glyn opened his case at great length, and asked
“Where is the public complaint? Where is the Watch Committee?” He did not ask
where Mr. Holden had gone.
The Bench eventually decided to close the Tramway
Tavern only.
Of all the houses we should think this is the most
insignificant, and any benefit that the Temperance cause may gain will be very
trifling.
We shall give a fuller report in our next issue, with
comments thereon.
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 Tramway Tavern
Mr. Glyn said this was a beer-house, situated in Radnor
Street, rented at 10s. 9d. a week. The ground of objection were that it was not
required, and secondly that it was kept disorderly. Messrs. Beer and Co., the
owners, had never had any intimation whatever that the house was improperly
conducted. If they had, they would have made enquiries, and, if necessary, have
secured another tenant. There had been no conviction since 1883, and he
asserted without fear of contradiction that it would be an unheard-of
proceeding, even assuming that the Superintendent had got evidence that the
tenant had not conducted the house properly, to deprive the owners of their
property without any charge being brought before the Magistrates, or the owners
having an opportunity of obtaining another tenant.
Mr. Minter said the present tenant only took the house last
June.
Evidence was given to the effect that there were thirteen
licensed houses within 100 paces of the Tramway.
Evidence was given by Sergeant Harman, Sergeant Lilley, and
several members of the Garrison Police as to the character of the house. It was
stated that is was the resort of soldiers and persons of a very indifferent
character. On several occasions disturbances had taken place there.
In answer to Mr. Bodkin, one of the witnesses stated that
the house had not been placed out of bounds by the military authorities.
Mr. Taylor said there had been nine tenants since 1880.
Mr. Glyn said it had been suggested with regard to this
house that there had been disorderly conduct. There had been no conviction
since 1883, and he put it to the Bench
that it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive the owner of the licence
for disorderly conduct, which was suggested for the first time, so far as he
was concerned, when the application was made for a renewal, especially having
regard to the fact that there was no record against the house whatever. Was it
right that the owners should be deprived of their property without any notice
whatever, and without the police thinking it right to institute proceedings? He
(Mr. Glyn) could not help thinking that the military authorities could not have
thought the house was so bad, or they would have put it out of bounds.
Mr. Sandeford said the house was purchased by his firm in
1888, and it was valued at about £800. Bayliss entered in possession this year,
and had increased the trade of the house. They had not received any complaint
at all from the police authorities since the last renewal.
James Bayliss, the tenants of the house, said he had tried
to keep the house respectably, and had made it better since he had been there.
By Mr. Taylor: This was his first house. The capital he put
into it was £5.
By Mr. Glyn: The furniture in the house was his own.
William Austin, marine store dealer, was called in support
of the application for the renewal, and gave evidence as to the way in which
the house was conducted.
By Mr. Taylor: He swore that he had not made complaints to
Sergeant Harman within the last six months as to the disorderly conduct of the
house.
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 Tramway
Mr. Glyn said this was a fully licensed house in Radnor
Street belonging to Messrs. Beer. It was alleged that it was not required and
that it was kept disorderly. He said the brewers never had any intimation that
it was kept disorderly, and there had been no conviction since 1883, and it
would be an unheard of proceeding to deprive the owners of their property
without any opportunity of appearing before the Magistrates or to change their
tenant.
Sergeant Swift said there were 13 other licensed houses
within 100 paces.
Sergeant Harman said the character of the people who
resorted to the house was very indifferent. He had cautioned the landlord of
the disorderly conduct of two soldiers and two civilians, coming out and
fighting in the streets. He had frequently visited the house and found it full
of soldiers and women. They were drinking.
By Mr. Minter: The offences were not sufficiently grave for
me to take a summons out.
By Mr. Bodkin: I did
not then see the landlord, nor do I know whether he was there. I saw him after
the row outside was over.
By Superintendent Taylor: I believe there was a quarrel
inside.
Sergeant Lilley said he had been called to a disturbance at
the Tramway about the 29th or 30th of last month, caused
by a drunken man in the taproom. The landlord called him to eject him. He
assisted him. The house was frequented by prostitutes and soldiers. No
proceedings were taken. He had frequently been called to the house.
Corporal James Lake, of the Military Police, said the
Tramway Tavern was frequented by soldiers and women. He had had information
about the house and been there in consequence of disturbances by soldiers.
During the past twelve months he had been called about three times. He had
brought the conduct of the soldiers to the notice of the officers on two
occasions.
By Mr. Bodkin: I was in charge of the military police. I was
not subpoenaed, but had a notification that my presence would be required. It
was in the month of June I was last called. The house has not been put out of
bounds by the military police.
Corporal James Harwood, of the Military Police, said the
Tramway was largely frequented by soldiers. The majority of the customers were
soldiers. He had been called there to disturbances on several occasions during
the past twelve months. He had never confined soldiers for misconduct there.
Mr. Glyn (to Supt. Taylor): Don`t lead him, please.
By Mr. Bodkin: There was nothing serious about the
disturbance. I and a couple of men quieted them. The house was not out of
bounds. He had never reported the house to his superiors.
Corporal Albert Edward Harris, of the Military Police, gave
similar evidence. He had confined one soldier for being drunk and absent, and he
was punished by a Court Martial.
Superintendent Taylor: Can you tell us the result?
Mr. Bradley: You can`t have that – there is a conviction.
Mr. Bodkin objected to the witness`s statement.
Mr. Bradley said Superintendent Taylor was at a great disadvantage.
He had conducted the case remarkably well.
Mr. Bodkin: We quite admit that. But we have to adhere to
the rules of evidence. We want to know what the man was charged with.
Witness: The man was drunk.
Mr. Bodkin: No proceedings were taken?
Superintendent Taylor: We will accommodate you next year.
There have been nine tenants since 1881.
Mr. Glyn said there had been no conviction since 1883, and
it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive an owner of a licence on the
suggestion that there had been drunkenness. He was not at all sure that the
Superintendent could have secured a conviction. It would be monstrous, under
those circumstances, without any notice to the owners, that their property
should be taken away from them – as a matter of law and elementary justice,
without notice of some kind, to give the owner an opportunity of defending
himself.
Mr. Sandiford, manager for Messrs. Beer and Co., said the
house was purchased in 1888 for £800, and a large sum had been spent last year.
Bayliss had increased the trade, and was doing four barrels a week.
James Bayliss, the tenant, said he was doing between four
and five barrels a week. He had done his best to keep the house respectable and
had succeeded. In June he sent for a constable to put a man out. He tried three
times to do it, and was afraid of hurting him. He therefore called a policeman,
and whilst he stood there he ejected him.
By Superintendent Taylor: I pay 10s. 9d. a week. I paid £5
when I went into the house. (The tenancy agreement was put in, and showed it
was a yearly tenancy, the rent payable quarterly)
Witness: If there was any complaint by the police, or he
allowed disorderly conduct likely to forfeit his licence he would have to
leave.
By Mr. Glyn: The furniture in the house is my own.
William Austin, a marine store dealer, said the house was
respectably conducted.
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 23rd ult.
the Justices adjourned until the 13th 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.
Then the Bench proceeded to consider the objection to
the Tramway Tavern, a fully licensed house in Radnor Street, belonging to
Messrs. Beer and Co., the tenant being Mr. Davis, at the rent of £14 a year,
and doing business of about £4 weekly. The grounds of objection were (1) that
the house was not required; (2) that it was kept disorderly.
After a few prefatory remarks from Mr. Glyn, Sergt.
Swift was called, and said there were 13 licensed houses within 100 paces of
the Tramway.
Sergt. Harman said the character of the persons who
resorted to this house was very indifferent. Recently his attention was called
to disorderly conduct at the house, and P.C. Gosby was present. A man and two
soldiers came out of the house and commenced fighting in the street. This was
not an isolated case, and he had frequently found the house full of soldiers
and women drinking, and he had been inside in consequence of disorderly
conduct.
Sergt. Lilley was called to the Tramway to quell a
disturbance on 29th or 30th August. The nature of the
disturbance was a drunken man in the tap room, and the landlord called him to
eject the man. The house was frequented by prostitutes and soldiers.
Corporal Lake, of the Military Foot Police,
Shorncliffe, said the Tramway was frequented by soldiers and women, and he had
been called there in the discharge of his duty in consequence of disturbances
committed by the military, with whom he had especially to deal. He had been
once during the tenancy of the present occupier; three times during the past 12
months.
By Mr. Bodkin: The house was not placed out of bounds.
Corporals Harwood and Harris, Military Foot Police,
gave corroborative evidence.
Superintendent Taylor said there had been 9 tenants
since 1880.
Mr. Glyn: It is now suggested as to this house that
there has been disorderly conduct, but there has been no conviction since 1883,
and I put it to you that it would be a most unusual proceeding to deprive the
owner of that house of the licence for disorderly conduct, which is suggested,
so far as he is concerned, for the first time when application is made for
renewal, especially having regard to the fact that there is no record of any
kind against this house for ten years. It has been suggested that there has
been drunkenness permitted in the house. I am not sure that the Superintendent,
if he had taken proceedings, could have secured a conviction against any of
these houses. I am not at all sure of it as a matter of law, and in that belief
I am corroborated by the fact that no proceedings of any kind have been taken
by the Superintendent, which it would have been his duty to have done if he
thought that such would be successful. I submit to you that it would be a
monstrous thing under those circumstances to assume that the house has been
conducted in a disorderly manner up to June, or is now so conducted. I submit
it would be monstrous without any notice to the owners that their property
should be taken away from them without having had notice of a particular charge
made against them. Is it to be suggested that wer are to be deprived of our
property on the ground that certain soldiers have misconducted themselves, have
taken part in drunken riots, or have been quarrelsome, matters in respect of
which the police authorities have not thought it right to institute
proceedings? I cannot help thinking that the Military Police have not thought
this house so bad up to June, or it would have been put out of bounds. Speaking
under the correction of your very able Clerk when he comes to discuss the
question with you, I submit as a matter of law, as a matter of elementary
justice, that without notice of any kind to the person who is owner of property
of some value, it would be an unheard of proceeding to deprive him of that
property.
Mr. James Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Geo.
Beer and Co., who has supervision of the Tramway Tavern, said the house was
purchased by his firm in 1888. They gave £800 for it, and it has been kept in
repair at a considerable expense in faith of the licence being renewed.
Bayliss, the tenant, had been in the house since July, 1893, and there had been
no complaint since the last renewal.
James Bayliss, the tenant, said he was doing a fair
trade of four to five barrels weekly. He had been in the house since June, and
had kept it far more respectable than it was when he went into it. On the
occasion referred to, the constable did not eject the drunken man. Witness did
so, but sent for the constable to witness no harm was done the man.
In answer to Superintendent Taylor: He had not been in
the trade before. He paid 10s. 9d. for rent; he paid no goodwill when he went
into the house, and only put £5 capital into the business. That was the whole
stake he had in the house, excepting what he had put in since. He paid his rent
quarterly. If he did anything to jeopardise the licence he would be liable to
quit at once; otherwise he was entitled to three months notice.
William Austin, marine store dealer, attested that
since Bayliss had been in the house it had been better conducted.
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.
Sandgate
Weekly News 16-9-1893
Local News
The special sitting of the Folkestone Licensing Bench,
for the consideration of thirteen cases in which notice of opposition to the
renewal of the licences had been given by the Superintendent of Police, was
held on Wednesday. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared on behalf of the livence
holders and owners of houses, together with Mr. Minter, solicitor. The ground
on which the licences were opposed were that they were not required for the
accommodation of the public, and in some cases that the houses had not been
conducted satisfactorily. Mr. Glyn pointed out that the whole of the opposed
licences were granted a great many years ago, when the population of the
borough was about half what it was now. No new licences had been granted for
twelve years, and were the Bench to say now that licences which were required
for a population of 13,000 persons were not necessary with a population of more
than double that number? He further pointed out that in none of the cases had
there been any conviction for improperly conducting the houses since the period
of the last renewal. Mr. Bodkin cited the decision in the case of “Sharpe v
Wakefield”, which he said was on all fours with the cases in question, and said
the present was an inopportune time to take away the licences, as the only
change that had taken place was in favour in continuing them, as proved by the
absence of complaints or police proceedings. The cases were then gone into
seriatim. The Bench stated that they had decided to renew all the licences with
the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, the complaints against which were
that it was frequented by soldiers and women of loose morals, and that
disturbances took place there.
Southeastern Gazette
19-9-1893
Local News
Much interest was manifested in the Special Licensing Sessions
held at the Folkestone Town Hall, on Wednesday, for the purpose of dealing with
thirteen cases in which notice of objection to the renewal of the licences had
been given by the Superintendent of Police. The opposition was conducted by
Supt. Taylor, of the Borough police force, while Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, barristers,
with Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the licence holders and
owners of the houses. At the outset, Mr. Glyn objected to one of the
Magistrates, Mr. J. Holden, who is one of the proprietors of a temperance
hotel, and that gentleman retired, his place being taken by another Magistrate.
The general ground of objection to the licences was that
they were not required for the accommodation of the public, and, further, in
some of the cases, that the houses were not conducted in a satisfactory manner.
It was shown that in one case there were eight houses in a street near the
harbour, five of which were licensed, and several other instances where the
proportion was unusually great were mentioned. In another case there were
seventeen licensed houses within an area of 100 paces.
Mr. Glyn strongly commented upon the fact that the
objections were brought forward by the police in pursuance of instructions
received from some members of the licensing committee. He questioned whether
the requirements of the section had been complied with, and whether the
Superintendent, acting as agent for certain members of the committee, had any
locus standi at all to oppose the licences. Dealing with the question whether
the licences were required for the accommodation of the public, it was pointed
out that they were granted a great many years ago, when the population of the
town was about half its present number. Could it be suggested that, with a
population of about 25,000, licences which were held to be required for a
population of 12,000 were not necessary now? With regard to the way in which
the houses had been conducted, Mr. Glyn remarked that there had not been a
single conviction during the past year, and urged that any offence which might
have taken place previously had been condoned by the renewal, and could not be
taken into consideration now.
The Magistrates then considered the cases, and in those
instances where disorderly conduct was alleged limited the complaints to
occurrences during the last year. In the course of the inquiry it transpired
that most of the licences had been in existence since 1810. In giving decision,
the Chairman said the Bench had decided to renew all the licences, with the
exception of the Tramway Tavern, which was said to be frequented by persons of
loose character, and was the scene of frequent disturbances.
It was intimated that an appeal might be made in this case.
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 13th, the Special Adjourned
Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great
interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great
improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police
court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled,
the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also
being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may
here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was
objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words
the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them
without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his
leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular
feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in
the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but
none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out
“How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for
nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the
day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were
Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr.
Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by
counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the
owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr.
Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers`
Association, for the tenants.
Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and
exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative
and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital
forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers
themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the
opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it`s conclusion that the
ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at
applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of
feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.
The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections –
or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous
brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of
love to him.
Mr. Bodkin`s work was chiefly confined to the examination of
witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being
struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single
witness.
Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds,
which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this
opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds
for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the
Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that
the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these
licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required.
Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to
deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone
chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present
case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they
were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at
present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some
of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To
meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last
twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the
tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the
licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by
subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken
place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.
Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr.
Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of
the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very
fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in
favour of the existence of these houses.
The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned
gentlemen`s arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an
hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were
against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling
of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police,
the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.
The Victoria, the Oddfellows, the Welcome, British Colours,
and Granville were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and
the Tramway for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place,
this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the
disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.
Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired
for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman
briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of
the Tramway.
Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the
house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the
attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair
manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an
end.
Folkestone Chronicle
23-9-1893
Local News
At the police court on Monday formal notice was given by the
representatives of Messrs. Geo. Beer and Son, of Canterbury, to appeal against
the decision of the Borough Justices in refusing to renew the licence of the
Tramway Tavern.
Folkestone Express
23-9-1893
Local News
Notices of appeal from the decision of the Licensing
Committee were served on Monday morning. The appeal will be held at Canterbury
on th 16th October.
Sandgate
Weekly News 23-9-1893
Local News
Notices of appeal from the decision of the Folkestone
Licensing Committee with reference to the Tramway Tavern were served on Monday
morning. The appeal will be held at Canterbury on the 16th October.
Folkestone Chronicle
21-10-1893
Editorial
As will be seen by a report in another part of our journal,
the East Kent Justices at Canterbury on Tuesday reversed the decision of the
Folkestone Licensing Bench in the appeal against their refusal to renew the
licence of the Tramway Tavern. Commenting on the decision, the Kentish Observer
says:- “This is the second time within a couple of years that the East kent
Quarter Sessions Court has declined to deprive a tenant of his licence and the
owners of public houses of their just rights. In the interest of the licensed
victuallers` trade the result of the last appeal has a most important bearing.
It shows that there is justice still left for a much harassed and grossly
maligned trade, and that, when he facts are fairly and properly put before the
tribunal that has the power of reviewing the decision of the licensing
justices, they will receive full and careful attention”.
Local News
The appeal against the refusal of the Licensing Justices to
renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern occupied for some hours the attention
of Judge Selfe and a full bench of magistrates at the East Kent Quarter
Sessions on Tuesday.
Mr. H.F. Dickens Q.C., with Mr. L. Glyn and Mr. L.H. Bodkin
was for the appellants (Messrs. G. Beer and Co., the owners of the house), and
Mr. Lewis Coward with Mr. Alec Tassell was for the respondent justices.
Addressing the Court in support of the decision of the
Licensing Committee, Mr. Coward said that in the eastern part of Folkestone,
where the house in question was situated, there were licenses in the proportion
of one to every twenty houses. There were fifty houses in Radnor Street, and of
these, including the Tramway Arms, eight were licensed. The house in question
was, moreover, conducted in a disorderly manner.
Superintendent Taylor said the house was principally
frequented by soldiers and loose women. Since 1882 the house had changed
tenants on no less than 10 occasions, and once it was temporarily closed. There
had of late been an improvement in the conduct of houses in the district.
Cross-examined: The only conviction against the house was in
1883. A man named Foreman occupied the house from December, 1891, to April,
1893. Witness did not tell Superintendent Farmery when applied to for Foreman`s
character that he had conducted the business satisfactorily.
Evidence as to the character of the house having been adduced
by civil and military police, Mr. Dickens called rebutting evidence.
Mr. Dickens, for the appellants, pointed to the fact that
there had only been one conviction against the house during the thirty years of
the existence of the licence, and contended that it would be most unfair to
pick out one of the oldest houses for condemnation.
The Magistrates retired for deliberation. On their return
into Court, the Chairman said the case had been fully considered by nearly a
full Bench, and though they were not unanimous, the majority had come to the
conclusion that the licence should be renewed. They had had a new trial, and
the evidence had been much fuller than when the case was before the local
Magistrates. Although the Bench were of opinion that the number of licenses in
Folkestone was considerably in excess of the number required, it would not be
just to take away the licence of so old a house on that ground only, and the
evidence was not sufficient to justify the Court in saying that the house had
been improperly conducted.
Folkestone Express
21-10-1893
The Tramway Tavern Appeal Case
At the East Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday, the case in
which James Bayliss, the holder of the licence of the Tramway Tavern, appealed
against the decision of the justices of Folkestone refusing to renew the
licence. W.L. Selfe Esq. (County Court Judge) presided. The applellant was
represented by Mr. H.F. Dickens, Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Bodkin, instructed by
Messrs. Mowll and Mowll of Dover, and the justices by Mr. J.C. Lewis Coward,
and Mr. Tassell, instructed by Mr. H.B. Bradley.
Mr. Dickens, at the outset, suggested that it was for the
other side to begin.
The Chairman said it did not seem to have been the practice
of the sessions, but he understood it was stated on high authority to be usual.
Mr. Dickens said it was usual and convenient.
Mr. Coward then stated shortly the nature of the appeal, and
the grounds, which were twofold – one, that the decision was against the weight
of evidence, and two, that the said refusal to renew the licence was erroneous,
and that there was not sufficient reason given to justify such refusal. Of
course the justices in quarter sessions were not limited to the evidence that
was given below, and he proposed to give evidence of a conviction in 1883
against a previous licensee, and also evidence of misconduct of the premises
previous to the year 1892.
His Honour asked if there was no statute of limitations?
Mr. Glyn said “Yes”. He was going to object strongly. There
had been a renewal every year.
Mr. Dickens said the Folkestone Bench had it put before
them, and they said it was a most unfair thing to go into anything previous to
the last renewal.
Mr. Coward said the evidence he should have to lay before
them was to the point that the premises were not required for the public
accommodation. It had been held that the justices might rightly refuse a
licence. Nearly all the houses were at the east end of the town, but he added
he was addressing the Chairman, who perhaps had local knowledge.
The Chairman was afraid he did not know much of the east end
of Folkestone.
Mr. Coward said as a matter of fact there was not much
affinity between the east and the west, but he would not pray the Chairman`s
local knowledge in aid again. Radnor Street had 50 houses, and of those 50,
eight, including the Tramway Tavern, had licenses. The population of Folkestone
at the last Census was 23,900, and there were already in the borough 101
licensed houses, giving an average of one licensed house to every 237 inhabitants.
But the majority of those licensed houses were situated in a very restricted
area at the east end of the town. He should put in a map, which would explain
more clearly. Of those 101 houses, no less than 57 were situated within a small
circle, comprised by South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road
and the Tram Road. That area was chiefly populated by working classes. Radnor
Street was chiefly inhabited by fishermen. He mentioned that because it might
afterwards be important, when they saw the nature of custom the appellant had.
In the borough there were 4557 houses, and that gave to every 43 houses one
licensed house. But in that restricted area there were only 1054 houses, and as
he had told them, there were 57 licensed houses, it gave to every twenty houses
one licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards from the Tramway Tavern there
were no less than 14 public houses. Although the population of Folkestone had
increased, the houses in which the people resided were increased at the west and
northern portions of the town. Since 1882 the Tramway Tavern had had a new
tenant every twelve months, and once or twice it had been temporarily closed.
There had been repeated warnings to the various tenants, and repeated
complaints were made to the civil police, and the military police had reported
it to the military authorities.
Frank Newman was called first, and he put in a plan showing
the position of the Tramway and the various other licensed houses, and was
examined and cross-examined upon it.
Superintendent Taylor said he had been Superintendent of the
Folkestone Police for just upon 12 years. He gave evidence as to the population
of the borough and the number of licensed houses, as stated by Mr. Coward in
his opening, and then described the situation of the Tramway Tavern, which he
said had an entrance from Radnor Street, and another from the Stade, making it
difficult of supervision. The house consisted of a bar facing Radnor Street and
a taproom beyond. A passageway led to the back entrance, and in the yard there
was a detached building which consisted of one room. The house belonged to
Messrs. George Beer and Co., of Canterbury. The rateable value of it was £22
10s. The customers were all of the rough class, consisting principally of
soldiers and the class of women who usually associated with private soldiers.
During the time he had been Superintendent of Police, or since 1882, there had
been ten tenants, including the present one.
He gave their names as Drury, Tournay, Hambrook, Spillett, Hill, Hogben,
Barber, Foreman, Bailey and Bayliss, who had held the licence since June last.
That gave one tenant in 12 or 13 months, and once or twice the house had been
temporarily closed. It was closed for about a fortnight after Hogben`s tenancy.
He knew the house was much frequented by soldiers, but had not been there
himself. The disorderly and drunken soldiers were dealt with by the military
police, and they were dealt with by the commanding officer. He had not
proceeded against the Tramway Inn, but from time to time had received reports
from the police and the military police, and in consequence of those reports
had warned the incoming tenants, and had told them of the character of the
house. There had been an improvement in the conduct of the houses generally
during the past three years. He had made representations to the authorities at
the Camp as to the conduct of soldiers at the Tramway. On the 10th
of March, 1883, he prosecuted a tenant named Drury for having his house open
during prohibited hours. There was no endorsement of the licence. In his
opinion the house was not required.
Note: No mention of Bailey in More
Bastions.
The Chairman: That is for us to decide.
Examination continued: He was acquainted with many of the 51
licence holders in the locality, and some of them followed other occupations.
Mr. Dickens: What have we to do with other houses and the
occupations of the licence holders? Ask him whether the tenant of this
particular house does.
Mr. Coward: It is a question of the want of accommodation,
and supposing they did follow other occupations, it would go to show the
business was not enough to keep them.
The Chairman thought it was very material to show the
occupation of the tenant of the Tramway, and whether the tenant gave the whole
of the time to the management.
Superintendent Taylor said he could not say that the tenant
followed any other definite occupation.
Mr. Coward then proposed to put questions as to the conduct
of the house.
Mr. Dickens objected. He urged that the licensing justices
decided, and rightly decided, not to go beyond the last licensing meeting, but
after a brief argument he said he would raise the point again later on.
In cross-examination by Mr. Dickens witness said he was
aware that within the last twenty years the population had practically doubled.
The last full licence was granted twelve years ago. There was a beer licence
granted in Westbourne Gardens. He opposed 13 licenses on the ground that they
were not necessary. There were not many of them of the same character as the
Tramway. There were some respectable houses in the restricted area. Some of
them had been licensed for 30 years. The Tramway had probably. It existed prior
to 1872. He enumerated the houses he opposed in Radnor Street – the Ship, the Jubilee,
and the Oddfellows. In Dover Street they were the Welcome (or the Cutter) and
the Granville. The Tramway was frequented mainly by soldiers, but not much by
fishermen. The custom of soldiers was comparatively large. Other houses were
more fishermen`s houses. The conviction in 1883 was personal to the man for
selling after hours. He remained till 1884, and there was no endorsement of the
licence. Since that time there had been no prosecution. He had complained to
Foreman, one of the tenants. He remained till April, 1893. He was now a licence
holder at Canterbury. He did not give him a character to Superintendent
Farmery. He replied to a question asked by Superintendent Farmery through the
telephone. The enquiry was as to the manner in which the house had been
conducted. His reply was that there had been no prosecution against the house.
His reply was a guarded one. (Witness was closely questioned on this point, and
adhered to his statement).
In cross-examination witness said the reason there had been
no prosecution against the house was because of the difficulty of getting
evidence in that neighbourhood, and the situation of the house made another
difficulty.
In answer to Mr. Dickens witness said there had been
prosecutions against the Cutter and the British Colours, and both licenses had
been renewed.
Sergeant Swift, of the borough police, said he had had the
Tramway Tavern under observation for some time.
Mr. Coward was about to examine him as to it`s conduct prior
to 1892.
Mr. Dicken objected, alleging the unfairness of it when they
had come there to meet a specific case.
Mr. Coward replied, and quoted cases to show that such
evidence as he proposed to give had been taken in similar appeals.
After considerable argument the Court considered the point
and the Chairman said the Justices had considered the question raised, and
though he was not prepared to say they were unanimous on the point, the
decision of the justices was that the evidence ought not to be admitted on the
ground that it did not come within the terms of the notice at the previous
hearing. If the notice had been in another form, he thought it would have been
admissible. Under the circumstances it would not be admitted.
Sergeant Swift`s evidence was then continued. He said he
knew the house in Foreman`s time. From August, 1892 to August, 1893, the
conduct of the house had been bad. It was frequented by prostitutes and
disorderly soldiers. He gave them the names of several of the former. One
woman, named Rye he was told, lived in the house. The house was not frequented
at all by fishermen. The character of the house had not improved at all under
Bayliss. He was examined before the Magistrates by Superintendent Taylor, who
did not ask him any questions about prostitutes.
In reply to Mr. Dickens, he said he had complained to the
Superintendent, who knew all about it. From first to last he did not think he
had suggested that thieves had been seen in the house. Rye told him she was
living there in Foreman`s time.
Sergeant Harman, examined by Mr. Tassell, said he had
frequently visited the house. There were constant rows there with soldiers and
women. The general customers there were soldiers and women – all of a low
class. He could not be certain he had been called in during the past twelve months.
He gave evidence as to the general proceedings at the house, and said it was
used by prostitutes. One of the ladies had been “housekeeper to several
widowers”. (Laughter)
Mr. Dickens: I hope there is nothing wrong in that?
(Laughter)
Witness: I might correct that, and say men who are living
away from their wives. (Laughter)
In answer to Mr. Dickens he said he did not say anything
before the Magistrates about a quarrel he had witnessed – he was not asked. He
had seen disturbances in Foreman`s time. The disturbance he spoke of in
Bayliss`s time was about a pincushion. He did not see the quarrel inside at
all, but outside, and he prevented the men from fighting further. He saw no
improvement in the conduct of the house lately, and did not agree with Superintendent
Taylor on that point. There had not been any case strong enough to cause him to
take out any summons.
Sergeant Lilley said he knew the house as the resort of
thieves, prostitutes, and soldiers. (He corrected himself and withdrew
“thieves”, although he said he had arrested a man there). He knew many of the
women who frequented the house and he had seen them drinking with soldiers. He
had once cautioned Bayliss, and many times Foreman. The man he arrested was
charged with stealing a gold watch from the Alexandra. It was recovered from
Foreman. On the 26th August last he was called by Bayliss to eject a
drunken man named Bailey, said to be the husband of Ann Bailey. He knew Bailey,
but he did not know anything against the wife.
Mr. Dickens: That is a good character you know from the
police. (Laughter)
Witness was cross-examined at considerable length.
James Lake, a lance corporal in the military police, Albert
Edward Harris, another corporal in the military police, and a third soldier,
named James Harman, gave evidence as to their experience in connection with
soldiers who used the house, and this closed the case for the respondents.
James Bayliss, the tenant of the house, said he entered into
possession on the 7th June, 1893. He first gave his version of the
disturbance Sergeant Harman spoke about, which he said was a simple quarrel
about a pincushion. The men went outside and set to fighting. They had not been
long in the house. They were drunk and he declined to serve them – hence the
quarrel. Sergeant Harman made no complaint whatever to him, except to say “You
must be careful what you are doing”, and he replied that they had nothing to
drink. Soldiers frequented the house, but had fallen off lately. He had turned
some of them out. He had sometimes had as many as 50 or 70 and two or three
civilians. People of all classes used the house. The soldiers belonged to
different corps and frequently began to quarrel about their corps and very
simple matters. One night, after closing time, Sergeant Lilley assisted him in
ejecting a man who would not go out. Corporal Lake went in one evening when
there was a disturbance caused by a fisher lad, about 18, striking a soldier,
who knocked his cap off. The soldier was a young fellow, and he advised him to
go out the back way, and he did so. He never had any complaint from the police,
except on the occasion Sergeant Harman spoke to him.
In cross-examination by Mr. Coward he said he had had
nothing to do with the trade before. He paid £28 a year rent – 10s. 9d. a week.
He paid nothing for the goodwill, except £5. Then he had to furnish the house,
and there were other things belonging to the landlord, for which he had paid
altogether about £7. He was examined as to the women, and said two of them had
been servants, to whom he paid wages, and he believed they were respectable
women. He paid Bailey, whose husband was a soldier, 5s. a week. He had
dismissed her since. The consumption of liquor was three or four barrels a
week. There had never been any disturbance in the house out of the ordinary way
– nothing beyond what they expected in houses of that class. He was a married
man and his wife assisted him in the house. On only one occasion had he
summoned the military police to quell a disturbance.
James Thomas Foreman, who now keeps the Alexandra Inn,
Northgate, Canterbury, gave evidence as to the conduct of the house during the
time he kept it. He said Superintendent Taylor told the Superintendent of
Canterbury that he had conducted it in a proper manner.
Mr. Howard cross-examined him as to the women who used the
house. He said as far as he knew they were respectable.
Superintendent Farmey, of Canterbury, said he received a
verbal message through the telephone from Superintendent Taylor that Foreman
had conducted the Tramway Tavern at Folkestone in a proper manner, and he told
the Magistrates that when Foreman applied for the transfer of the licence of
the Alexandra Inn.
Mr. Coward cross-examined the witness with a view to showing
that Superintendent Taylor`s evidence was correct, but he adhered to his
statement, that it was a certificate that the house was conducted properly.
Mr. William Charles Chapman, a partner in the firm of
Messrs. Beer and Co., said since 1883they had received no complaints as to the
conduct of the house. It was valued at £800.
In answer to Mr. Coward he said he believed it was true
there had been a new tenant every 12 or 13 months, and it had been temporarily
closed.
Mr. Dickens then addressed the Court, urging that upon the
evidence it would be most unfair to deprive the owners of their property and
that the case for the justices had hopelessly broken down. The house had had a
licence for 30 years or more. It was true that the clientele were rough, but
there must be houses where the rough classes could be supplied. He did not
object at all to the conviction in 1883 being put in, but he had objected to
the introduction of alleged offences since.
Mr. Coward, in his reply, referred first to the
contradictory evidence of the police superintendents, to which Mr. Dickens had
alluded, and also replied to that gentleman`s remarks disparaging the police
evidence for the respondents. He contended that the justices, as reasonable
men, could not fairly come to any other conclusion or decision than they did.
Having made an eloquent speech on behalf of the respondents, he asked the Bench
not to grant the licence, and concluded by saying “This is a sort of house
which is cancerous, one of the sort of houses that bring discredit to the
trade, and one of the sort of houses the justices have exercised a proper
judgement in putting down”
The Court then retired to consider the case.
The Chairman, in giving judgement, said: In the case of
Bailey against the Justices of Folkestone, it is an appeal by way of a rehearing
for a renewal of a licence for the Tramway Tavern. The case has been considered
by a somewhat full bench of Magistrates, and the bench is not unanimous, but a
majority of them have come to the conclusion that the licence should be
renewed. In expressing that, as the deputy or mouthpiece of the Court, it is, I
think, usual to give the reasons of the justices for coming to this conclusion,
and in doing so, I must refer briefly to the arguments addressed to the bench
by the learned counsel for the justices, that the appeal was on the ground that
the judgement of the Magistrates was against the weight of evidence, and he
urged that I, as Chairman, would advise the Court that they could not reverse
the decision of the Magistrates unless they came to the conclusion that the
decision was one which, as reasonable men, they ought not have come to. I
entirely agree with the proposition, that if it rested with the evidence before
the Magistrates, their decision ought not to be interfered with. In that case,
I think it would have been my duty certainly to have advised the sessions that
the decision was certainly the only one which they, as reasonable men, could
come to, and consequently this bench should not interfere with that decision.
It must be admitted, however, that this is not only in the nature of an
application for a new trial, but in point of fact there has been a new trial –
not merely a consideration whether there should be a new trial, and not only
has the evidence put before the Magistrates been put before us, but it has been
amplified. We do not, therefore, interfere with the decision the Magistrates
came to on the evidence presented to them, but the majority of this bench are
of opinion that although no doubt the number of licensed houses in proportion
to the population of the borough of Folkestone, and more especially in the
restricted area, in which the evidence shows the houses are situated is very
large, yet when a house has been licensed for so many years as this Tramway has
been licensed, it would not be wise to take away the licence on the ground that
there are more licensed houses than are required for the accommodation of the
inhabitants, except on some evidence applicable especially to the house itself,
namely, that the house has been improperly conducted, and therefore if any
reduction were to be made, that house should be closed. The Magistrates have
considered the question whether any evidence has been offered them as to
improper conduct. That point has been taken into careful consideration, and
also the evidence given as to the character of the frequenters of the house,
which it was admitted was rough, and it was also admitted that this was a rough
house. It was admitted of course that in licensed premises there must be
differences of character. The justices, or a majority of them, are not
satisfied that this house has been conducted by the late or the present licence
holder in such a manner as to call on the bench to say that it has been
improperly conducted by them, and therefore the licence should be refused, and
taking that view of the question, the majority of the bench have decided that
the licence shall be renewed.
Mr. Coward asked the Chairman to order that the costs of the
justices should be paid out of the county rate.
The Chairman: There will be no objection to that, I think.
Mr. Bodkin: As to the order of the Court, it will be that
the licence be granted to the appellant, James Bayliss?
The Chairman: That is the effect.
Folkestone
Herald 21-10-1893
Editorial
The Court of Quarter Sessions for the district of East
Kent has promptly reversed the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Justices in
the matter of their refusal to renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern. It
would be the idlest affectation to deny that the verdict of the appellant court
is in harmony with the anticipations of the majority of the Folkestone
community. All who have given an impartial consideration to the merits of this
case must have felt that the refusal to renew the licence was somewhat
arbitrary. Two main grounds for the refusal were relied upon by the Court
below. One of these grounds was that the locality was more than adequately
supplied with licensed houses; the other ground was that the business of the
Tramway Tavern had been improperly carried on. As to the first of these
reasons, it is one which applies with equal force in every old town in the
country. If it be taken for granted that this multiplicity of licensed houses
is a valid reason for refusing a renewal, we are landed in a very awkward
complication. The congestion of liquor houses in that part of Folkestone is not
a thing of today or yesterday. It has existed for a considerable time, and for
the fact of it`s existence the licensing Magistrates, and they alone, are to be
held responsible. In past times the licensing Justices created the supply which
is regarded as excessive, and they created it, be it remembered, at a period or
periods when the requirements of the population were fewer and less important
than they are now. If the house was required when the licence was granted, and
we are bound to assume that it was, it is still more needed at the present
time, in consequence of the increase in population, both resident and casual.
If it was not originally needed, the licensing Justices of that day must have
taken a very lax view of the duties they had to discharge and the
responsibilities they had assumed. This is a very awkward dilemma, from which
there is no reasonable method of escape. It`s awkwardness is enhanced, however,
by the further consideration that from year to year the licence has been
renewed, down to the last annual licensing meeting. This circumstance must be
accepted as a conclusive proof that, in the opinion of the licensing justices,
the renewal of the licence was warranted by the needs of that particular
locality. As a matter of fact, nothing has occurred since the Brewster Sessions
of 1892 to call for or to justify the suppression of the licence. The
congestion of licensed houses in that neighbourhood was quite as notorious in
1890 as it is in 1893, but the Justices, in the exercise of their discretion,
made no attempt until this year to diminish the drinking facilities in the East
End. The presumption is that in granting and in renewing the licence the
Justices acted in the interests of the community, and therefore, to abolish the
licence without due cause shown for so strong-handed a proceeding would be an
arbitrary if not despotic exercise of discretionary power. Under these
circumstances the upper Court held that it would be unfair to extinguish the
licence on the ground that the district was sufficiently provided for in
respect of drinking facilities. When we turn to the second ground on which the
renewal was refused we are bound to concur in the opinion of the appellate
Court, that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the house had been improperly
conducted. A general allegation of disorderly conduct is too vague a charge on
which to visit a tenant or owner with the pains and penalties of forfeiture. We
are quite aware of the fact that it is quite difficult to bring home a charge
of disorderly conduct in many cases of this kind. An unprincipled tenant may
successfully baffle the police for a long time, but where there is a systematic
violation of the law, the offender is almost certain to be made amenable to
justice. How does it stand with regard to the present case? In other towns
there is at every Brewster Sessions a list of incriminated licence holders,
known as the “Black List”. A record is kept during the licence year of every
case brought against a tenant, and the result is appended. When the licensing
day comes round all these licence holders are called up to show cause why the
licence should not be refused. If the cases are serious, the licence is in
peril in each instance; if the cases are not serious, the landlord is solemnly
warned against the consequences which may result in the event of a fresh
complaint being brought against him before the Magistrates. In the case of the
Tramway Tavern there was no conviction against the tenant, and of course there
could be no endorsement of the licence, and it certainly does seem hard that a
licence should be forfeited on a general allegation of disorderly conduct,
unsupported by even a single conviction, or even by a prosecution before the
Justices in petty sessions. That is the view which commended itself to the
members of the appellate Court, the majority of whom, presided over by the
distinguished County Court Judge of this Circuit, have held that there was not
sufficient evidence to justify their saying that the house had been carried on
in an improper manner. On due consideration of all the circumstances we cannot
come to any other conclusion than that which has been arrived at by the Court of Quarter Sessions. Apart from
the temperance question altogether, and viewing the matter from a legal and
equitable standpoint, we think that the decision of the Court below was unfair,
not to say oppressive. The Licensing Laws are about to be overhauled, the
theory of Local Option has made considerable headway, and before many years
there will probably be a fundamental change in the regulation of the liquor
traffic. It is a time of transition, and therefore it is doubly inexpedient
that the licensing Justices shouls so exercise their power as to be liable to
the construction that they favoured a policy of confiscation. The nett result
of our Brewster Sessions this year is the refusal to grant a licence to the
proposed Metropole Hotel, a building which has thus been classified in the same
category as the Tramway Tavern.
East Kent Quarter Sessions
The refusal of the Folkestone Licensing Justices to
renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street, was the subject of an
appeal to the East Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday last, before His Honour
Judge Selfe.
The parties to the case were: Appellants; Mr. John
Bayliss (Folkestone) and George Beer and Co. (Canterbury), the landlord and
owners, respectively, of the Tramway Tavern. Respondents: the Licensing
Justices of Folkestone.
Counsel: For appellants; Mr. H.F. Dickens, Q.C., and
with him Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. A.M. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and
Mowll, Dover. For the respondents; Mr. Lewis Coward (Recorder of Folkestone),
and Mr. A. Tassell (instructed by Mr. H.B. Bradley, Clerk to the Folkestone
Justices).
Mr. Coward, in opening, said the reason the Magistrates
refused to renew the licence was firstly that the premises were not required,
and secondly that they were conducted in a disorderly manner. The premises are
situated in the east end of town. In Radnor Street there are 50 houses, eight of
which are licensed. Since 1882 there had been a new tenant every twelve months.
Mr. John Taylor, Superintendent of the Folkestone
Police, said he had held the position close on twelve years. There are
altogether 101 licensed houses in Folkestone; the majority of them are situated
in the eastern part of the town. The house belongs to Messrs. George Beer and
Co., of Canterbury, and was principally patronised by soldiers and prostitutes.
Since 1882 there had been ten fresh tenants; the premises had also been
temporarily closed. There had, however, been an improvement in the conduct of
the houses in the district lately. In 1883 the then tenant of the premises was
convicted for selling beer during prohibited hours.
By Mr. Dickens: Of late the Magistrates had not been
granting fresh licences. On the last occasion he opposed the renewal of
licences to thirteen houses, and this was the only objection out of the lot
sustained. He cautioned Foreman, who had the house up to April, 1893. He
understood that Foreman was now a licensed victualler in Canterbury. When asked
by Superintendent Farmery about Foreman he told him that there were no
convictions against him, but did not say that he had conducted the business
satisfactorily.
Sergeant Swift deposed that he had known the house
since August, 1892. Foreman left the house in the spring of this year. The
house, from that date to August, 1893, had been badly conducted, and frequented
by prostitutes and disorderly soldiers. He knew that one of the women was
living in the house, as she said so; that was before last Christmas. The house
was situated in the fishing quarter, but was not used by the fishermen.
Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens: He did not agree with
his Superintendent that there was an improvement in the house. He had not made
any complaints since Bayliss` tenancy. This was the first time any suggestion
had been made that one of the women lived in the house.
Sergeant Harman, of Folkestone, deposed that from
August, 1892, to August, 1893, he had constantly visited the house, and it was
of a bad character, there being constantly rows of soldiers and women. He
visited the house on the 28th July through a fight between soldiers
and civilians. He followed them inside and found that two or three soldiers and
one civilian were there drunk. On the 1st October he visited the
house; they were nearly all soldiers. In September a woman was living in the
house. He also knew another woman who was there; she had been a housekeeper to
several widowers.
Cross-examined: He had seen rows there in the latter
part of Foreman`s time. He saw no improvement in the house. Since August, 1892,
the character of the house had been bad. It had been frequented by prostitutes,
and he had ejected drunken and disorderly persons from the house. He had
cautioned Foreman as to the way he conducted his house. He had had frequent
complaints from persons living in the neighbourhood. The fishermen did not use
the house; the customers were of a very low sort.
Cross-examined: He did not think anyone was there who
made complaints. He had seen prostitutes frequent the British Colours, and the
licence had been renewed.
Lamce Corporal Lake, of the Military Foot Police,
stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, stated that they started out at seven o`clock at
night and got back about half past twelve or one. He had patrolled the lower
parts of Folkestone. He knew the Tramway Tavern, and it had been a badly
conducted house, it`s customers consisting of all the roughest soldiers on teh
camp, costers, and prostitutes. He had been there three times this year,
sometimes being called by the landlord. He had taken soldiers into custody for
drunk and disorderly conduct twice this last year. He had seen a few civilian
customers there. He had to go to the house twice in a fortnight in February,
when he had to lock up five soldiers the first time and seven the second. In
June he went to the house and found a soldier fighting with a civilian. He
tried to arrest the soldier, but he was hustled out at the back by two or three
men; the landlord was one of them.
Cross-examined: This house has not been put out of
bounds by the military authorities.
Lance Corporal Harris, Military Police, Shorncliffe,
stated that he knew the tramway Tavern, it was a badly conducted house, and he
had several times seen drunkenness there. He had been called to the house about
three or four times to quell fights, by civilians who said they had been sent
by the landlord. On the 4th of June he went to the house to arrest a
drunken soldier. He had never seen many civilians in there.
Cross-examined: On each occasion he went he was called
by the landlord.
Lance Corporal Harwood deposed that the house had been
conducted very badly. He should say it was the worst conducted house round that
quarter.
Cross-examined: He was called in twice to the house.
This concluded the evidence in support of the action
taken by the Licensing Justices. Witnesses were then called, as follows, on
behalf of the appellants.
Mr. James Bayliss deposed that he was the present
tenant fo the Tramway Tavern. Before then he was an out porter at the station.
He entered the house in June, 1893, and he had done a fairly good trade since
he had been there. On the evening when Sergeant Harman was called in the
soldiers were fighting outside the house. He had declined to serve two
civilians with drink. If he thought there was going to be a row he sent for the
police. He fetched Sergeant Lilley to turn a man out after closing time. The
military authorities had made no complaint about the way the house was
conducted.
Cross-examined by Mr. Coward: He had a warning from the
police a month after he had been in the house. He had been selling three to
four barrels a week.
Re-examined: He had done his best to keep the house
orderly.
Mr. James Thomas Foreman deposed that he was the tenant
of the Princess Alexandra Inn, Northgate, Canterbury, and he was tenant from
December, 1891, to April, 1893, of the Tramway. During that time no complaint
of any sort was made by the police.
Cross-examined: During the time he had the house two
young ladies visited the house, and they only stopped ten minutes. While he was
there the house was peacefully conducted.
Mr. Superintendent Farmery deposed that the last
witness had kept the White Horse at Canterbury before he went to Folkestone.
When he wanted to come back to Canterbury, he (witness) asked Superintendent
Taylor how the man had conducted the house at Folkestone, and he said he
conducted it satisfactorily, and had not been before the Magistrates. Witness
had had no complaints of Foreman`s present house.
Mr. W.C.N. Chapman deposed that he is a partner in the
firm of Messrs. Beer and Co., brewers, of Canterbury. The house was purchased
by them in 1888. Since then there had been an expenditure in regard to
improvements to the house. He had had no complaints with regard to any of the
tenants.
Mr. Dickens contended that the opposition had entirely
broken down, the evidence being simply ridiculous. He pointed out that during
the thirty years the house had been licensed not a single conviction had been
obtained against it, nor had the licence been endorsed. Just before the time
for the renewal of the licence the police gave notice that it would be opposed
owing to the way in which the house had been conducted. The Superintendent told
them that the house was improved. At the Licensing Court thirteen licences were
opposed on the ground that they were not wanted, twelve were renewed, and they
surely were not going to stop this one house. He then carefully went through
the evidence, and stated that from first to last no notice had been given to
the owners as to the way in which it was alleged the house was being carried
on. He asked that the licence should be granted, pointing out the amount of
money the owners had spent on the house and the loss it would mean if it were
closed.
Mr. Coward, in reply, dealt with the objections raised
by Mr. Dickens, and said the Tramway Tavern was one of the sort of houses that
were a curse to a borough, and brought discredit on the trade, and he hoped the
Court would uphold the decision of the Magistrates.
The Bench retired, and on returning into Court the
Chairman said the case had been well considered by nearly a full Bench of
Magistrates, and although they were not unanimous, the majority came to the
conclusion that the licence should be renewed. They had had a new trial, and
the evidence had been much fuller than when before the Magistrates, and
although the Bench were of opinion that the number of licensed houses at
Folkestone was considerably in excess of the number required, it would not be
just to take away the licence of so old a house on that cause only, and the
evidence was not sufficient to call upon the Court to say the house had been
improperly conducted.
Sandgate
Weekly News 21-10-1893
Local News
At the East Kent Quarter Sessions, held at Canterbury
on Tuesday, the appeal against the decision of the Folkestone Magistrates
refusing to grant the licence of the Tramway Tavern was held. The case occupied
some considerable time, and in the end the decision of the Magistrates was
overruled and the licence granted.
The Bench said although they were of opinion that the
number of licensed houses at Folkestone was considerably in excess of the
number required, it would not be just to take away the licence of so old a
house on that cause only, and the evidence was not sufficient to call upon the
Court to say the house had been improperly conducted.
Southeastern Gazette
24-10-1893
East Kent Quarter Sessions
John Bayliss, Folkestone, and George Beer
and Co., Canterbury, v. the Licensing Justices of Folkestone: This was an
appeal against the refusal of the Folkestone Magistrates to renew the licence
of the Tramway Tavern in that town, kept by John Bayliss and owned by Messrs.
George Beer and Co., brewers, Canterbury.
Mr. H. F. Dickens, Q.C., with Mr. Lewis Glyn
and Mr. A. M. Bodkin (instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Dover, Canterbury,
and Ashford) appeared for the appellants, while the respondents were
represented by Mr. Lewis Coward and Mr. Alick Tassell (instructed by Mr.
Bradley, the Folkestone Magistrates’ Clerk).
Mr. Coward, in opening, said the reason the
Magistrates refused to renew the licence was first, the premises were not
required, secondly, that they were conducted in a disorderly manner. The premises
were situated in the east end of the town. In Radnor Street there were 50
houses, eight of which were licensed. Since 1882 there had been a new tenant in
the Tramway Tavern every twelve months.
Frank Newman, architect and surveyor, deposed
that he prepared the plan produced.
John Taylor, Superintendent of the Police at
Folkestone, said he had held the position close upon twelve years. There were
altogether 101 licensed houses in Folkestone; the majority of them were
situated in the eastern part of the town. The house in question was principally
patronised by soldiers and women of ill-fame. Since 1882 there had been ten
fresh tenants; the premises had also been temporarily closed. There had been an
improvement in the conduct of the houses in the district lately. In 1883 the
then tenant of the premises was convicted for selling beer during prohibited
hours.
By Mr. Dickens: Of late Magistrates had not
been granting fresh licences. On the last occasion he opposed the renewal of
licences to 13 houses, and the objection in respect to the Tramway Tavern was
the only one sustained. He cautioned Foreman, who occupied the house up to
April, 1893. He understood that Foreman was now a licensed victualler in
Canterbury. When asked by Supt. Farmery about Foreman, he replied that there
were no convictions against him, but did not say that he had conducted the
business satisfactorily.
Sergeant Swift deposed that he had known the
Tramway Tavern since August, 1892. Foreman left the house in the spring of this
year. The house, from that date to August, 1893, had been badly conducted and
frequented by women of bad character and disorderly soldiers. He knew that one
of the women was living in the house, as she said so; that was before last
Christmas. The house was situated in the fishing quarter, but was not used by
the fishermen.
Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens: He did not
agree with his Superintendent that there was an improvement in the house. He
had not made any complaints against Bayliss since he had occupied the premises.
This was the first time any suggestion had been made that one of the women
lived in the house.
Sergeant Harman, of Folkestone, deposed that
from August, 1892, to August, 1893, he constantly visited the house, and it was
of a bad character, there being constantly rows by soldiers and women. He
visited the house on the 28th July through a fight between soldiers and
civilians. He found two or three soldiers and one civilian drunk upon the
premises. In September a woman was living in the house. He also knew another
woman who was there; she had been a housekeeper to several widowers.
Cross-examined: He had seen rows at the
house in the latter part of Foreman’s time. He saw no improvement in the house.
Sergt. Lilly deposed that from August, 1892,
the character of the house had been bad. It had been frequented by women of bad
character, and he had ejected drunken and disorderly persons from the house. He
had cautioned Foreman as to the way he conducted his house. He had had frequent
complaints from persons living in the neighbourhood. The fishermen did not use
the house; the customers were of a very low class.
Cross-examined: He did not think there was
anyone in Court who made complaints.
Lance-Corporal Lake, of the Military Police,
stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, stated that he had patrolled the lower parts of
Folkestone. He knew the Tramway Tavern; which had been a badly conducted house,
its customers consisting of all the roughest soldiers in the camp, costers, and
women of low, character. He had been to the house three times this year,
sometimes being called by the landlord. He had taken soldiers into custody for
drunken and disorderly conduct twice within the last year. He had seen a few
civilian customers on the premises. He had to go to the house twice in a
fortnight in February, and had to lock up five soldiers on the first occasion,
and seven the second. In June he went to the house arid found a soldier
fighting with a civilian. He tried to arrest the soldier, but he was hustled
out at the back by two or three men; the landlord was one of them.
Lance-Corporal Harris, Military Police,
Shorncliffe, stated that he knew the Tramway Tavern; it was a badly conducted
house, and he had several times seen drunkenness there. He had been called to
the house about three or four times to quell fights by civilians who said they
had been sent by the landlord. On the 4th June he went to the house to arrest a
drunken soldier. He had never seen many civilians on the premises.
Cross-examined: On each occasion he went
when he was called by the landlord.
Lance-Corporal Harman deposed that the house
had been conducted very badly. He should say it was the worst conducted house
round that quarter.
This concluded the evidence for the
respondents and witnesses for the appellants were called.
James Bayliss deposed that he was the
present tenant of the Tramway Tavern. He entered the house, in June, 1893, and
he had done a fairly good trade since he had been there. On the evening when
Sergeant Harman was called in the soldiers were fighting outside the house. He
had declined to serve two civilians with drink. If he thought there was going
to be a row he sent for the police. He fetched Sergeant Lilly to turn a man out
after closing time. The military authorities had made no complaint about the
way the house was conducted.
Cross-examined by Mr. Coward: He had a warning
from the police a month after he had been in the house. He had been selling
three to four barrels a week.
Re-examined: He had done his best to keep
the house orderly.
James Thomas Foreman deposed that he was the
tenant of the Princess Alexandra Inn, Northgate, Canterburv, and from December,
1891, to April, 1893, occupied the Tramway Tavern. During that time he had no
complaint of any sort made by the police.
Supt. Farmery deposed that the last witness
kept the White Horse at Canterbury before he went to Folkestone. When he wanted
to come back to Canterbury witness asked Supt. Taylor how the man had conducted
the house at Folkestone, and the reply was that he had conducted it
satisfactorily and had not been before the Magistrates. Witness had had no
complaints of Foreman`s present house.
Mr. W.C.N. Chapman deposed that he was a
partner in the firm of Messrs. George Beer and Co., brewers, of Canterbury. The
Tramway lavern was purchased by the firm in 1888. Since then there had been an expenditure
in regard to improvements to the house. He had had no complaints with regard to
any of the tenants.
Mr. Dickens contended that the opposition
had entirely broken down, the evidence being simply ridiculous. He pointed out
that during the 30 years the house had been licensed not a single conviction
had been obtained against it, nor had the licence been endorsed. Just before
the time for the renewal or the licence the police gave notice that it would be
opposed, owing to the way in which the house had been conducted. The
Superintendent told them that the house had to improve. At the Licensing Court
thirteen licences were opposed on the ground that they were not wanted; twelve
were renewed, and they surely were not going to single out this one house. Mr.
Dickens then went through the evidence, and stated that from first to last no
notice had been given the owners as to the way in which it was alleged the
house was being carried on. He asked that the licence should be granted,
pointing out the amount of money the owners had spent on the house and the loss
to them it would mean if it were closed.
Mr. Coward, in reply, dealt with the
objections raised by Mr. Dickens, and said the Tramway Tavern was one of the
sort of houses that were a curse to a borough, and brought discredit on the
trade, and he hoped the Court would uphold the decision of the Magistrates.
The Bench retired, and on returning into
Court the Chairman said the case had been well considered by nearly a full
Bench of Magistrates, and although they were not unanimous, the majority came
to the conclusion that the licence should be renewed. They had had a new trial,
and the evidence had been much fuller than when before the Magistrates; and
although the Bench were of opinion that the number of licensed houses at
Folkestone was considerably in excess of the number required, it would not be just
to take away the licence of so old a house, on that ground only, and the
evidence was not sufficient to call upon the Court to say the house had been
improperly conducted.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 25-10-1893
Editorial
Quarter Sessions quashed the refusal of the Folkestone Bench
to renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern on two grounds, each of them a
common sense one. First, they held that after a house had been in existence for
over 30 years it was rather late in the day to discover that it was not needed;
and secondly, the mere fact that it was patronised by a class of customers who
would not be looked for in a West End hotel did not constitute bad management.
“Rough” houses are a necessity in all large towns. Men and women whose language
may not be the most polished have as much right to refreshments as their
kid-gloved superiors, as long as they behave with proportionate decency; and to
turn them from resorts which meet their standard of social pleasure would only
be to drive them where their presence might hardly be held so unobjectionable.
The court, however, in thus nullifying the decision of the Folkestone Bench,
very kindly saved their amour propre by
intimating through their genial chairman, Judge Selfe, that upon the evidence
before them when the application for the licence was made, their decision was
the only one which, as reasonable men, they could come to. The fresh evidence
adduced on behalf of the tenant turned the scale, so that everyone ought to be
satisfied.
Folkestone
Express 5-5-1894
Saturday, April 28th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Banks, W.G. Herbert, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and J. Brooke Esqs.
The Tramway Tavern
Temporary authority was granted to Joseph Henry Burton
to sell at this house.
The applicant, in answer to Mr. Mowll, who represented
the owners, said that he had paid the valuation and taken the premises at a
yearly rent.
No comments:
Post a Comment