Folkestone
Chronicle 22-2-1895
County Court
Tuesday, February 19th: Before Judge Selfe.
C.J. Barr and Sons and Mrs. Law v C.H. Burton:
Applications under judgement summonses. Defendant was examined by the Judge as
follows:-
His Honour: What are you, sir? – I am manager of the Tramway
Tavern, Radnor Street, under Beer, the brewers.
What salary do you receive? – I do not get any salary;
I am paid by profits on the materials I sell.
Do you pay for what you have? – Yes.
What do you take per week? – I have taken about £50
since May.
What were you before you went there? – An upholsterer.
About how much do you take per week? – About 15s. or
16s.
Is it a fully licensed house? – Yes.
What do you pay for spirits? – You have the receipts
there, sir.
Do Beer`s supply you with spirits as well as with ale?
– Yes.
Were you in business for yourself as an upholsterer? –
Yes, in High Street.
For how long? – For about 18 months.
What were you before then? – Nothing in Folkestone, but
I was in business in Euston Road, London, as an upholsterer.
Where did you contract these debts? – In Folkestone.
Were you in debt in London? – No.
Then why did you come here? – Because I was not making
money, for one thing; and because I had ill-health, and had been ordered to the
seaside by my doctor.
What family have you? – I have none of my own, but my
widowed sister and her four children live with me.
Whose is the furniture in the house? – I have none, it
belongs to Beer.
Do you pay any rent? – NO.
Who pays the taxes? – Beer has paid for everything up
to now, as far as I know.
C.J. Barr: Burton attends sales, as an upholsterer. He
is a man who won`t pay anything unless he is made.
His Honour (to defendant): Do you attend sales? – Yes,
on commission, but I have made nothing this year.
What are your total average earnings per week? – I have
only earned 15s. this year altogether, for a little job I did at the Catholic
Church.
What offer do you make as to payment? – I do not see
how I can make any offer.
How much do you owe altogether? – Between £40 and £50.
When did you have the goods? – About two years ago; I
may tell Your Honour that the landlord at High Street came in and took all I
possessed there. I do not see that I can offer to make any payment.
How much do you get paid per week by the brewer? – You
can see, sir, I get 6s. in the £, and I have been paying them £2 or £3 per
fortnight. Then I have myself and my sister and her children – six of us – to
keep out of that. In fact, if it were not for a few friends I have in
Folkestone – where I have made more friends than I have done in any other place
in my life – I do not know what we should do. Mr. Barton, the auctioneer, only
the other day lent me £1.
His Honour: I do not think there is much prospect of
either of these plaintiffs getting their money, but I will make a fresh order
for payment at the rate of 4s. per month in each case.
Folkestone
Express 23-2-1895
County Court
Tuesday, February 19th: Before Judge Selfe
C.J. Barr and Son v J.H. Burton, and Laws Bros. v Same:
Defendant said he was manager of the Tramway Tavern for Messrs. Beer and Co.,
and was paid by commission. He had taken about £50 since May. Before going in
he was an upholsterer. The takings at the house were now about 30s. a
fortnight. Some time since he was in business in High Street as an upholsterer.
He came from Euston Road, London, where he had a business. The debts were
contracted in Folkestone. He had bad health in London, and the doctor ordered
him to the seaside. He had no family of his own, but kept his widowed sister
and her four children. He paid no rent to Messrs. Beer, who paid taxes and
everything.
The plaintiff Barr said the defendant attended sales
and did upholstery work.
Defendant admitted that he attended sales, but only on
commission. He had only earned 15s. this year. His debts altogether were
between £40 and £50. He had the goods of Barr two years ago. His landlord in
High Street distrained and took everything he had, and the County Court bailiff
had been “in” more than once.
Mr. Ward, for the other plaintiff, asked for a small
instalment order against the defendant.
His Honour thought there was not much prospect of
either of the plaintiffs getting their money. He made orders of 4s. a month in
each case.
Folkestone
Chronicle 24-5-1895
County Court
Tuesday, May 21st: Before Judge Selfe
Hyland v Burton: Defendant is the manager of the
Tramway Tavern. Committed for 10 days; order suspended for 28 days.
Folkestone
Express 25-5-1895
County Court
Tuesday, May 21st: Before Judge Selfe
Hyland and Co. v Burton: Committed for 10 days; order
suspended for 28 days.
Folkestone
Chronicle 23-8-1895
County Court
Tuesday, August 20th: Before Judge Selfe
Hyland and Co. v J.H. Burton: Amount due £1 0s 9d.
Defendant lives at the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street.
His Honour: Who keeps it?
Defendant: The brewers.
What do you do? – I manage it.
At what salary? – None at all.
How are you paid? – On the profit on the goods I sell.
What does that come to? – Seven or eight shillings a
week. I cannot pay this debt off at 5s. per month, as I owe other debts, but if
Your Honour will make an order for 2s. 6d. per month I will meet it.
His Honour: How long have you been at the Tramway
Tavern? – Twelve months last May.
What were you doing before? – Working as an
upholsterer.
Where? – At different houses. I had to give up because
of the rheumatism, but I work for Mr. Barton when he has anything for me to do.
My widowed sister, who lives with me, had to pawn her wedding ring to pay off
one debt of 16s.
Fresh order at the rate of 4s. per month.
Folkestone
Express 24-8-1895
County Court
Tuesday, August 20th: Before Judge Selfe
Hyland and Co. v J.H. Burton: Defendant is an
upholsterer and manages the Tramway Tavern. He said his profits were only about
7s. or 8s. a week.
Fresh order for 4s. a month.
Folkestone
Up To Date 24-8-1895
County Court
Tuesday, August 22nd: Before Judge Selfe.
Hyland and Co. v J.H. Burton: Claim 19s 9d. Defendant
is an upholsterer, and manages the Tramway Tavern. He said his profits were
only about 7s. or 8s. a week.
Fresh order for 4s. a month.
Folkestone Express
8-5-1897
Wednesday, May 5th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq.,
General Gwyn, and J. Fitness Esq.
Joseph Henry Burton, landlord of the Tramway Tavern, was
summoned for selling beer at No. 1 Martello Tower without having a licence for
the same.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented the owners of the Tramway
Tavern (Messrs. G. Beer and Co., Canterbury), and Mr. F. Hall appeared on
behalf of the defendant.
P.C. Skinner, of the Dover Borough Police, said on Saturday,
the 1st of May, in consequence of instructions received, he went to
work on the tunnel works in the Warren, Folkestone. At seven o`clock in the
morning, in company with a man named Roper, he went into No. 1 Martello Tower.
The man Roper called for two pints of beer, which was served by the defendant
Burton. Defendant and an assistant were there, and the place was fitted up
conveniently for their purpose. There were nine or ten beer barrels there. He
gave Roper sixpence to pay for the beer,, which defendant took, and gave 2d.
change. There were two other men there at the time. He went back to work and
returned again with Roper at a quarter to ten. There was no-one there but
defendant and his assistant. He called for two pints of beer, which the defendant
served them with. During the time he was there, two or three men from the works
came in and were served with beer. Again, accompanied by some men. he went in
at half past ten, and defendant served them with another two pints. Five or six
more men came in, and were served with pints of beer, which they paid for. He
went in again at eleven with Roper, and called for another two pints of beer,
which were served by defendant. Several more men came in on this occasion, some
of whom were served with beer, and others porter. During this last visit he saw
a brewer`s dray standing by the tower, and he saw that the barrels inside had
been removed. He could not say how many barrel were taken into the tower. He
also heard the defendant say to the drayman “Never mind about putting in the
taps. That will all be gone by one o`clock”. They went out and returned at
11.30, and were served with another two pints of beer. They stopped there until
the police came at 12.45. During the time he was there, defendant asked them their
names and numbers, and all the others that were there. He afterwards put them
on a big slate, which was hanging on the wall. He asked defendant what this was
done for, and he said it was to bar the police of they came along. From half
past eleven to 12.45, over 50 or 60 men went in and were supplied with beer,
most of which was supplied by Sparrow, whilst defendant was watching outside
the tower. About a quarter to one, defendant came rushing into the tower,
saying “Here the b----s come”. Witness left when the police arrived.
Examined by Mr. Hall: Defendant was a stranger to him. On
the occasion referred to, he passed as a navvy in navvy`s clothes. Everything
was convenient for the accommodation of men. He did not see any bread, but he
did see some beef pies. He did not see any plates or cups and saucers. The men
had to go all round the inside of the tower before they found the beer. There
were forms there and a table. Durning the time he was there only one man was
refused – the ganger. The slate was 4ft. long and 2ft. 6in. wide. It was not
there before half past eleven. At that time there were three marks on it.
By Mr. Bradley: He did not notice the name on the brewer`s
dray.
P.S. Lilley was called, but Mr. Hall said he had no idea
that evidence like that of last witness would be given, and he therefore, in
order to save the time of the Bench, would advise his client to plead “Guilty”,
and there would therefore be no need for any further police evidence. They had
already got everything that as needed.
The plea of Not Guilty was withdrawn, and the Bench
intimated that they did not require any further evidence from the police.
Mr. Hall then addressed the Bench for the defence.
The Chairman said the penalty was £50, but they would only
inflict a fine of £15 and costs, or in default one month`s imprisonment, the
liquor seized on the premises to be confiscated.
Two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale
and porter were ordered to be confiscated.
Folkestone Police Court
Folkestone Herald
8-5-1897
Notes by Felix
When I advocated that the disused Martello Towers might be
put to some use, little did I think that “Burton” beer would be dispensed from
within their walls to thirsty navvies. Just think of it! How are the mighty
fallen! These isolated and obsolete fortifications were all part and parcel of
a coast scheme of defence, erected in anticipation of an invasion of the hosts
of the first Napoleon. The nation`s hopes were fixed in this chain of forts,
commencing at the Warren and ending at Sussex. Napoleon, however, did not visit
us, although he massed an army and a flotilla on the opposite shore for the
alleged purpose of visiting our sea-girt isle. Whether it was the knowledge
that the Martello Towers, each armed with a single gun (and pop-guns they were,
compared to the ordnance of the present day) were ready to receive him, caused
him to think twice before he crossed the silver streak we do not know. If this
should be the case, then, the towers have been of some use, but there they have
stood for close upon one hundred years – monuments of departmental waste, and
also of the ever-changing conditions of modern tactics. I have been told on
high authority that these same towers – built at the expenditure of a vast sum
of money – were condemned ten years after their erection as being practically
useless for the purpose of repelling a possible invasion.
On Wednesday – Mr. Herbert presiding – Joseph Henry Burton,
landlord of the Tramway Tavern, was charged with selling by retail intoxicating
liquors at a Martello Tower situated near the Warren while not being licensed
to sell the same.
Mr. Hall appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll
represented Messrs. George Beer and Co., brewers, who supplied the Tramway
Tavern, but not the liquor now in question. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Skinner, constable in the Dover Borough Police Force,
said that on Saturday, May 1st, from instructions he received he
went to work upon the tunnel works situated at the Warren, Folkestone. At 7
o`clock in the morning he, in company ith a man named Roper, went into the
Martello Tower situated near the works. He called for two pints of beer, which
were served by the defendant Burton. In the tower there were the defendant and
an assistant named Sparrow, and everything was erected conveniently for the
purpose. He saw nine or ten barrels erected on a stage. He gave the man Roper
6d. to pay for the beer, and the defendant took the money, giving Roper 2d.
change. Two other men came in while witness was there, and each was served with
beer. Witness went to work again with Roper. He went in again at a quarter to
10 with the same man, and found only the defendant and his assistant there.
Witness called for two pints of beer, the defendant served him, and he gave him
4d. to pay for it. During the time he was there, two or three men from the
works came in, each paying for their beer. He did not know any of them.
Witness, again accompanied by the same man, Roper, went in at half past ten and
were served with beer, each paying for their own. He again went in at 11
o`clock with Roper and called for two pints of beer, for which he paid, and the
defendant served him. During the time he was there, several more men came in,
some being served with beer and some with porter, some by the defendant, and
some by the assistant, Sparrow. While he was there he saw a brewer`s dray
standing at the door of the tower. He could not say how many barrel were put
inside, but he saw the barrels had been shifted from the inside of the tower
and carried outside, while the full ones were put inside. It was not
particularly under his notice at the time. At the 10 o`clock time he heard the
defendant say to the drayman “Never mind about putting in the taps, old chap.
That will all be gone by 11 o`clock”. He returned again at 11.30, and called
for two more pints of beer, which he paid for to the defendant. Witness stopped
there until 12.45, when the police came. At 11.30 the defendant asked witness
and Roper for their names and numbers, and all the other men besides, and he
put the names and numbers on a big slate hanging upon the wall. Witness asked
what the names and numbers were taken for, and the defendant said it was to bar
the police if they came along. He did not give his own name. Between 11.30 and
12.45 between 50 and 60 people came in and were served. Mostly it was served by
Sparrow, while the defendant was watching outside the tower. At a quarter to
one the defendant came rushing in, saying “Here they come”. He left the tower
in the charge of the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: The defendant was a stranger to
witness, who at the time was not of course in police clothes. He posed as a
navvy in the usual navvies` clothes. Roper was not a friend of his, and he had
never seen him before. On the fitsy occasion witness asked Roper if he would
take a drink.
Mr. Hall: Being a navvy, you so effectively played the part
that between 7 and 12.45 you had five pints of beer?
Witness: I did not have it all.
Mr. Hall: You were playing the part to perfection.
Witness said he suggested that everything was convenient for
the purpose of accommodation. He did not see any bread there, but he saw some
beef pasties, which were on the board near where the beer was. He did not see
tea, cups and saucers, or plates. There were nine or ten barrels there, and you
had to go all round the tower before finding the beer, which was in the far
corner. He did not think it was put there because it was the coolest corner,
for he considered it would have been as cool in the doorway. There were no
chairs about, but there were forms and a table. There was a partition between
the beer and the forms. He suggested that was the “secretest” place for the
beer. There was nothing secret or unusual in a brewer`s van standing before the
door. On the first occasion Roper asked for the beer and paid, and on the next
he stood. Only one man was refused drink by the defendant, and that was the
ganger, who he asked for a pint of beer and offered to pay for it. The conversation
between the defendant and the drayman was between themselves, but he was close
to them. With regard to the slate on which the names and numbers were put down
by defendant, its size was about 4ft. long and 2ft. wide. He first noticed it
at 11.30, when there were three marks on it. The slate was not out before. He
did not notice the name on the brewer`s dray. The slate was opposite the
barrels on a rack. Bteween 11.30 and 12.45 he said the sales were mostly by
Sparrow, and the defendant was watching outside, and before that the defendant
had been serving. The defendant was walking to and fro outside. He might have
been taking fresh air as he had been so busy. He was at work during the day and
was paid. He was served with five pints of beer.
Mr. Hall: I suppose you would not mind another job of that
description on the same terms.
P.S. Lilley then entered the witness box.
Mr. Hall said he did not think this evidence was necessary.
He was not aware that evidence of this description would be brought before the
Bench. He advised the defendant to plead Guilty.
The defendant pleaded Guilty.
Superintendent Taylor said he would prove the extent to
which this had been carried on.
Mr. Hall said he thought the Bench had had sufficient
evidence, and he had withdrawn the plea of Not Guilty to save the time of the
Bench and the public.
Mr. Herbert: The Bench is of opinion that we have heard
quite enough.
Mr. Hall, in defence, said that it really read like the
chapter of a romance to think that in the nineteenth century sales of beer
could go on of the nature described by the constable under the very eyes of the
police. It seemed most extraordinary. The Bench were perfectly well aware that
certain works were in progress at the Warren, and there were 2, 3, or 400 men
employed there. There was a arren Inn there two or three years ago, but the
Magistrates removed the licence, and there was no licensed house nearer than
Radnor Street or North Street. The navvies were human, and they used their
muscles and worked hard, so it was only natural that they should require beer.
There was no facility for the navvies having beer. The defendant had been the
licensed holder of the Tramway Inn for upwards of three years, and there was
nothing of any description against his character. He had been led entirely from
mistaken notions as to what the law allowed him to do, and had been under the
impression until then that the licence he held justified him in doing the act
for which he was now summoned. There was no concealment at all about the sales,
and the defendant thought as a tradesman that he would be doing good to the
navvies and to himself, and hired the Martello tower from the Government, paid
a small rent, and utilised it as a store for the supply of goods to the
navvies. The constable said there were beef patties, and undoubtedly there was
bread, cheese, and ordinary eatables, in addition to the beer. There was
absolutely no concealment on the defendant`s part, or could they imagine a
brewer`s dray would stand there in broad daylight in front of unlicensed
premises? After having quoted two cases from the “Law Times”, 1896, bearing on
the question, Mr. Hall said that at the initial stage no beer was sent out
unless it had been previously ordered and paid for. That was the origin of the
whole transaction. The defendant thought he was justified in doing what he did.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll said he wished to say one or two words.
That it was not Messrs.George Beer and Co.`s beer. The Magistrates might think
it a very important thing for the brewers to deliver beer up at the Martello
tower, but it was not Messrs. Beer and Co,`s beer. In confirmation of the
appeal by Mr. Hall to let the man off with a small fine, the Superintendent of
Police representing the owners had intimated to him that the man must leave the
house, and therefore they must get him out as quickly as they could.
The Chairman (Mr.Herbert) said the Bench had listened very
carefully to what Mr. Hall had said, but the offence to which the defendant had
pleaded Guilty was very, very serious. They could not believe for a moment that
he, a licence holder, could have been in ignorance, and the fact that he did
not get the beer direct from his own brewers showed he knew what he was doing.
The penalty was £50, but he would be fined £15, or one month`s imprisonment.
The Bench understood that there was a seizure of beer, which would be
confiscated.
P.S. Lilley gave evidence that on May 1st he
received the warrant produced, and in company with P.S. Swift, P.C. Burniston,
P.C. Johnson, and P.C Lawrence, went to No. 1 Martello Tower, entering at 12.45
p.m. No. 1 was the further tower. He found a hole had been cut in at ground
level, and inside there were a number of men drinking, and in a recess were
seven barrels of beer, which he seized and conveyed to the police station. The
barrels were marked “Chapman, Ashford”.
Cross-examined: There were a good number of navvies in the
place, but they did not give any trouble, and the defendant did not say “Oh,
leave the police alone”.
Mr. Hall asked the Bench to consider the circumstances of
the defendant, and not confiscate the beer, as the man had been punished
enough.
Mr. Fitness said they had considered the matter in the
reduction of the penalty.
The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. H.B. Bradley) pointed out
that the Bench had no alternative.
The defendant was detained until the fine was paid.
Folkestone Up To Date
8-5-1897
Police Court Proceedings
Joseph Henry Burton, landlord of the Tramway Tavern was
summoned for selling beer at No. 1 Martello Tower without having a licence for
the same.
Mr. Hall addressed the Bench for the defence.
The Chairman said the penalty was £50, but they would only
inflict a penalty of £15 and costs, or in default one month`s imprisonment, the
liquor seized on the premises to be confiscated.
Two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale
and porter were ordered to be confiscated.
Folkestone Programme
10-5-1897
Notes
It is said that it is not wise to “make haste to be rich”. At
any rate a gentleman, named Burton, has had his way to fortune rudely checked.
Mr. Burton was the defendant in proceedings at the police court on Wednesday,
the charge having been that he was selling beer without having a licence. The
defendant is the proprietor of a tavern in the Tram Road (sic), but he had been
granted leave to make use of No. 1 Martello Tower in order to provide
refreshments for the navvies employed at the tunnel works in the Warren. No
doubt the navvies found that when they could procure cooked foods and
refreshing beverages, which do not inebriate, they found it very convenient,
but whether Mr. Burton found it a paying concern is another question. Whether
the serving out of bread and beef and tea and coffee paid or no, the defendant
was no doubt desirous of developing his business. But he proceeded to work in
an illegal manner, for he brought to No. 1 Tower a quantity of beer, and this he
retailed to the navvies without having the necessary licence to enable him o do
so in a legal manner.
On May Day a police constable was sent off for special duty
at the tunnel works. He was not dressed in the well-known blue, with bright
buttons, but as a navvy, and he worked with a will that made some of his fellow
labourers think that were they all to work so cheerily as he, the job would not
last long. This navvy-policeman and his mate had to pass No. 1 Tower at
frequent intervals in the course of their work, and they never passed without
entering the tower and having “a couple of pints of beer”; nor did they enter
without giving a good look round, so that the “ganger” might not see them.
About one o`clock in the day other policemen arrived, and the tower was
cleared. Then it was that the men on the “job” knew that the “new hand” was a
policeman.
At the police court the defendant was represented by Mr.
Frederic Hall, and pleaded “not guilty”, but after hearing the evidence of the
navvy-policeman he felt that it would be better for his client to plead
“guilty”, which he eventually did. The Bench ordered the defendant to pay £15
with costs, or in default one month, and they also ordered the confiscation of
two kilderkins of beer and several smaller quantities of ale and porter. It was
an unlucky day for Mr. Burton, last May Day.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 12-5-1897
Editorial Quips
The solicitors who defended in our Police Court last week
the case of beerselling without a licence to navvies from one of the Martello
Towers between Folkestone and Dover, very truly remarked that “the evidence
reads like a chapter from a romance; seeing that large sales of beer can go on
like this under the very eyes of the police”. I entirely agree with our popular
solicitor and Town Councillor. And it is a remarkable fact that the offender
was not “brought to book” until a police constable, disguised as a navvy, had
partaken of five separate pints of beer in
one morning.
It was not at all an inappropriate remark made by the same
solicitor that the policeman effectively acted his part as a navvy, for it is a
well-known fact that the “navvy”, whose work is very heavy and laborious, is
generally recognised as a large consumer of beer, and it is thus obvious that
our national and popular beverage of malt and hops has been proved by these
hardy workers of the ground to be a good, strengthening “medicine”, so to
speak. But one would hardly expect that this good old English drink would need
sampling in quantities of pints on five occasions in one morning to “prove” a case.
Not only that, our navvy-policeman could hardly have earned the money he was
paid as a navvy while spending such an enjoyable morning in the consumption of
“John Barleycorn”, whose “praises have been sung by old and young”.
It would be difficult to prove with what part of our
population “John Barleycorn” is most popular; the Civilian, the “Bobby”, or
“Tommy Atkins”. I have just heard of a funny incident which happened not many
hundreds of yards from the Town Hall the other evening. It seem that at one of
our large local places of business two of the maid-servants became increasingly
enamoured of two strapping soldiers from the Camp, and to prove their love for
these warriors, had been in the habit of handing up, from the basement of the
house at a given hour on certain evenings, a jug of noble dimensions, belonging
of course, to the master of the house.
This went on for some little time until the “master” began
to have suspicions as to whether his beer barrels were “lasting out” long
enough, and, on keeping watch, discovered the fact that a goodly proportion of
his “nut brown ale” was being consumed at the evening hour on the pavement
outside. He said nothing, but one evening, just as Messrs. “T. Atkins” and Co.
were giving the old familiar signal to the maids “below stairs” to pass up the
foaming jug from the basement window, down came a torrent of water from the
room above them, ejected by the hands
of the proprietor himself with an unerring aim, right over their heads and
ears. This was sufficient for these warriors. They have not appeared at that
particular window since!
Folkestone Chronicle
22-5-1897
County Court
Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.
The Army and Navy Breweries Co. Limited v J.H. Burton: Mr.
Richards, traveller for the plaintiffs, stated that the defendant was formerly
a publican and kept the Tramway Tavern. He got notice and had left now, the
brewers having found another tenant. He was not paid by salary, but merely
received a percentage on the profits of the drink sold. The previous week he
had drawn 18 shillings. At the time the spirits, for which the debt had been
incurred, were supplied, defendant was getting 15 shillings weekly by letting
lodgings, and had four or five men “snobbing” for him. He paid no rent. An
order for 5s. a month was made.
Folkestone Express
22-5-1897
County Court
Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe.
Army and Navy Co-Operative Brewery Company v J.H. Burton:
Defendant is a publican at the Tramway Tavern, and has notice to leave. He said
he was paid by profit on what he sold. He took 18s. last week. An agent of the
plaintiffs said defendant told him he took 14s. or 15s. a week for beds, and he
had four or five men “snobbing”.
Defendant said the debt was for spirits, which ought to have
been supplied by his own brewer.
Fresh order 5s. a month.
Folkestone Herald
22-5-1897
County Court
Tuesday, May 18th: Before Judge Selfe
The Army And Navy Co-operative Brewery Company Limited v
J.H. Burton: This claim was for spirits supplied.
The defendant was out of business now, but he had been a
publican – landlord of the Tramway tavern. He had notice to leave now as soon
as the brewers could find another tenant. He was there yet, but might have to
go the next day. He had no salary at all, merely the profits on what he sold,
and this came to about 18s. the previous week.
A traveller for the company, named Richards, said that at
the time when the goods were supplied the defendant said he was taking 15s. or
16s. a week by lodgers, and he employed four or five men.
His Honour made an order for 4s. a month.
Folkestone Chronicle
10-7-1897
Wednesday, July 7th: Before Messrs. Holden,
Fitness, and Salter.
Alfred Skinner applied for authority to supply customers
with drink at the Tramway Tavern on the Warren, the licence of the house having
previously been in the name of J.H. Burton.
Sergt. Butcher gave applicant a good character, and his
previous testimonials being satisfactory, the Bench granted the application,
the Chairman, however, remarking that he would have to be very careful, as the
eyes of the police were on the place after the previous infringement.
Folkestone Herald
10-7-1897
Police Court Report
On Wednesday – Mr. Holden presiding – Mr. Alfred Skinner
made an application for a temporary authority to sell under a licence granted
to Mr. John Henry Burton at the Tramway Tavern.
After a short discussion the Chairman said that it would be
granted, but the house had a very shady reputation, and he would have to be
very careful to keep it respectably, as the eyes of the police were upon it.
On
Wednesday – Captain Willoughby Carter presiding – a transfer licence was
granted toMr. Alfred Skinner, Tramway Inn, Radnor Street
Note: Frederick Skinner actually transferred to Tramway Tavern
Folkestone Herald
7-8-1897
Police Court Record
Folkestone Chronicle
27-8-1898
Monday, August 22nd: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J.
Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Holden, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.
Two men, named Cooper and Phillips, were charged with
stealing three mackintoshes and a covert coat, the property of someone unknown.
P.S. Lilley said that having received certain information he
proceeded to 58, Dover Street, occupied by Robert Downey. Mrs. Downey showed
him a bedroom in which were a lady`s and gentleman`s mackintosh under the bed,
and a gentleman`s mackintosh rolled up behind a door, and a gentleman`s covert
coat. Witness kept the prisoners under observation, and at 7.30 that morning he
saw Cooper leave the house with a gentleman`s mackintosh wound round him under
his coat. In Dover Street he went into a passage and, unrolling the mackintosh,
put it on his arm. Witness followed him into the Tramway Tavern. Cooper was
alone. In reply to a question, he said “What mackintosh? I haven`t one”.
Witness then saw it rolled up on a shelf behind the counter. The manager came
in and, in reply to witness, said he had seen no mackintosh, only having just
come in. Witness said “I am a police officer. Where did you get this mack?” He
replied “I got it from a man outside to sell for him. He is up the hill. I`ll
show him to you”. They both went out and in Seagate Street they met Phillips
with a gentleman`s mackintosh on his arm. P.C. Ashby, who had Phillips under observation,
then joined them, and witness said “We are police officers. Where did you get
that mackintosh?” Cooper said to Phillips “Has he given you one, old man? They
say it has been pinched”. Phillips said it was given to him by a man up the
street to sell. Cooper said he bought his the previous night. They were taken
to the station and charged by P.S. Swift, and made no reply. On Phillips was
found one shilling and three farthings; a letter addressed to “Mr. Howard, care
of Mrs. Downey, Dover Street, Folkestone”, one pair and two odd gloves.
Mrs. Ellen Downey said the prisoners had lodged with her for
a week. They said they had come to work at the harbour. They brought no
luggage, but said it would be sent down. In the evening Cooper brought in a
mackintosh – one of those produced. He said he had no money, and asked her to
take the coat as a deposit. She agreed to do so, as they said they were going
to work in the morning. She saw the other coats on Friday morning in the
prisoners` bedroom, and gave information to the police. She did not think they
went to work, as they did not leave the house until eleven, and returned in the
evening to wash.
On the application of P.S. Butcher a remand was granted.
Folkestone Up To Date
27-8-1898
Monday, August 22nd: Before J. Banks, W.G.
Herbert, W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, J. Pledge, and J. Holden Esqs.
George Cooper and a young man named Phillips were charged
with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of some person
unknown.
It appeared that one of the prisoners described himself as a
fitter`s mate and the other as a labourer. Inquiries were made into the matter
on Saturday, and the prisoners were apprehended that (Monday) morning.
P.S. Lilley said that from information received he went to a
bedroom occupied by the prisoners at a house of a Mr. Robt. Downey, No. 58,
Dover Street. Underneath the bed he saw a gentleman`s mackintosh rolled up, and
behind the door were a gentleman`s and lady`s mackintosh, and a gentleman`s
coat. He afterwards saw the prisoner Cooper leave the house with a gentleman`s
black mackintosh rolled round his coat and he followed him down into a passage.
He subsequently went into the Tramway public house, in Radnor Street, and saw
Cooper and asked him about a mackintosh. Cooper said “What mackintosh? I have
not had one”. Witness saw one wrapped up and placed behind the counter, and
spoke to the landlord and said “Where is the mackintosh this man has brought
in?” The landlord replied “I haven`t seen the mackintosh, and did not know the
man was here. A man has just been upstairs and told me that there was a man
behind the bar”. Witness then took the mackintosh from a shelf behind the bar
and asked the prisoner where he had got it from, and he replied “From a man
named Phillips”. I asked him “Where?” and the prisoner said “Come this way and
I`ll show you”. Witness afterwards saw Phillips and asked him “Where did you
get this from?” Phillips replied “It was given me by a man”. I then took both
prisoners into custody on a charge of stealing coats, the property of some
person unknown. The name on one of the mackintoshes is “H. Booth Esq”.
Ellen Downey said: I am the wife of Robert Downey, 58, Dover
Street. The prisoners had been lodging with me for a week. When they came they
said they were strangers come to work at the harbour. They occupied one bed and
slept together, and informed me that their things would be sent down. I
afterwards found a black mackintosh and other things under the bed. During the
week they would leave the house about 11 or 12 a.m., and return in the evening
to was about six o`clock. They afterwards went out and returned about 11 p.m.,
when they went to bed. I am not aware that they did any work. On the Monday
they told me they were going I gave information to the police.
P.S. Butcher applied for a remand to make further inquiries.
The prisoners were then duly remanded.
Folkestone Herald
27-8-1898
Police Court Report
On Monday – Alderman Banks presiding – two men, named
Phillips and Cooper, were charged with stealing some mackintoshes and a coat.
P.S. Lilley deposed that on the previous Saturday, from
information received, he went to a bedroom occupied by the defendants, 58,
Dover Street. The landlord`s name was Downey. Underneath the bed witness saw
the mackintosh produced. Rolled up behind the door were two mackintoshes and a
coat, one gentleman`s and one ladies`. Since then witness had kept the defendants
more or less under observation. On one occasion he saw the defendant Cooper
leave the house with a gentleman`s mackintosh rolled round him under his coat.
Witness saw him go round the corner, and followed him. The defendant rolled up
the mackintosh. He went into the Tramway public house in Radnor Street. After a
few moments witness followed him. Witness said to him “Where is the mackintosh
you brought in?” He said “What mackintosh? I have not had one”.
One of the defendants: That`s a falsehood.
Witness, continuing, said that he then saw the mackintosh
rolled up on a shelf behind the counter. Witness said to the manager “Where is
the mackintosh this man brought in?” He said “I have seen no mackintosh, and I
did not know the man was here”. Witness took the mackintosh and said “I am a
police officer. Where did you get this from?” He said “I got it from a man
outside to sell for him”. Witness said “Where is he?” He said “Up the hill. I
will show you”. Witness brought him outside, and on coming through the Radnor
Arches, witness saw the defendant Phillips coming down with the mackintosh
produced under his arm. He was coming down Seagate Street. When opposite the
Wonder Tavern, witness stopped him and said “We are police officers. (He meant
P.C. Ashby, who joined him, and himself) Where did you get this mackintosh
from?” Before Phillips could reply, Cooper said “What, has he given you one,
old man? Here, I have been pinched”. After some hesitation, Phillips said “It
was given to me by a man up the street to sell”. Witness then said to them “I
shall charge you with being concerned together in stealing two gentlemen`s and
one ladies` mackintoshes, and a gentleman`s covert coat, the property o some
person or persons at present unknown”. Cooper said “I bought them last night”.
Phillips made no reply. Witness brought them to the police station, and they
were charged by P.S. Swift. On one of them was found a letter addressed to Mr.
F. Howard.
Mrs. Ellen Downey deposed that she lived at 58, Dover
Street. Defendants had lodged with her a week that day. They were strangers to
her when they came. They said they had come to work at the Harbour. Defendants
occupied one room, sleeping together. They brought nothing with them, but said
their things would be sent down. In the evening they brought a coat, a grey
mackintosh. One said they had no money, and asked if she would take the coat as
a deposit. They were going to pay 3s. each for the lodgings. She gave
information. During the week they had not left the house until between 11 and
12 in the morning.
P.S. Butcher asked for a remand until today (Saturday), that
the police might try to ascertain where the goods came from.
One of the defendants said they were not guilty of stealing
the clothes.
The Bench remanded the defendants accordingly.
Hythe Reporter
27-8-1898
Folkestone Police Court
On Monday morning, at the Folkestone Police Court, before a
full Bench of Magistrates, the Deputy Mayor being in the chair, two men named
respectively Cooper and Phillips, were charged with stealing several articles
of clothing, to wit two gentlemen`s mackintoshes, one lady`s mackintosh, and a
gentleman`s covert coat, the property of persons unknown.
P.S. Lilley deposed that “from information received” he went
to a bedroom occupied by prisoners at 58, Dover Street. Mrs. Downey, the
landlady, pointed out the room to him. Under the bed he found a mackintosh, and
behind the door two more mackintoshes and a gentleman`s coat. Since that time
he had kept prisoners under observation, and on Monday morning at 7.30 he saw
Cooper leave the house in Dover Street with a mackintosh wrapped around him
under his jacket. He followed him down into a Dover Street passage, where he
(Cooper) unrolled the mackintosh from about him, put it on his arm, and went
into the Tramway public house. He followed him in, and asked him “Where is the
mackintosh you brought in?” He said “I didn`t have one”. (Here the prisoner
interposed with the brief remark “That`s a falsehood”.) He looked around and
found the mackintosh on a shelf. He took it, and said to prisoner “I am a
police officer. Where did you get that from?” The reply was to the effect that
he had it to sell, on behalf of a friend. He took him outside to find his
“friend”, and beheld Phillips coming down Dover Street with a mackintosh on his
arm. The question “Where did you get this mackintosh from?” being put,
equivocal answers were made, until he, with the assistance of a police
constable, took him into custody, when Cooper said “I bought them from a gentleman
last night” Phillips had on him a pair of kid gloves and two odd ones.
Mrs. Downey, the landlady of the house, 58, Dover Street,
deposed that prisoners had lodged with her for a week. They were strangers and
said they had come to work at the harbour. They occupied a top bedroom
together. They brought no luggage, but the same evening when Cooper came in, he
had one of the mackintoshes produced on his arm, and left it at the bedroom,
saying he would leave that until they had paid the week`s rent. On Friday last
her suspicions were aroused as to their being workmen, as she found they did
not get up until very late in the morning, and she found the additional coats
in the bedroom.
After this evidence, Sergeant Butcher, representing
Superintendent Taylor, asked for a remand until next Saturday morning, when
additional evidence will be forthcoming. The Magistrates granted the remand,
and the prisoners were removed in custody. The following is a description of
the clothing which the prisoners are charged with having stolen from persons at
present unknown: Two men`s mackintoshes, 1 black, 1 grey; one lady`s
mackintosh, navy blue; and one gent`s covert coat, fawn-coloured.
Folkestone Chronicle
3-9-1898
Saturday, August 27th: Before Messrs. J. Banks,
J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert.
George Cooper and John Phillips were charged on remand with
stealing three mackintoshes and a covert coat, the property of some person
unknown.
The Superintendent of Police said he had been unable to
trace the mackintoshes. The owner of the covert coat had been found, and had
telegraphed that he did not desire anything done in the matter.
The prisoner Cooper had been sentenced to two months`
imprisonment.
The Bench discharged the prisoner, retaining the
mackintoshes in the hope of finding the owner or owners.
Folkestone Up To Date
3-9-1898
Saturday, August 27th: Before Ald. Banks, W.G.
Herbert, J. Fitness, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Two young men, named George Cooper and John Phillips, were
charged on remand at the instance of P.S. Lilley with stealing a number of
mackintoshes and other coats, the property of some person unknown.
It appeared that a detective had traced the owner of one of
the coats alleged to have been stolen, but as there was no prosecutor in Court
to give evidence against the prisoners, they were discharged.
Folkestone Herald
3-9-1898
Police Court Record
On Saturday George Cooper and John Phillips were charged on
remand with stealing mackintoshes and a coat.
Superintendent Taylor said that the coat referred to had the
name of Booth upon it. He traced the owner of the coat and telegraphed to him.
The reply was that Mr. Booth gave the coat to someone who had since been to
Folkestone, and did not wish to take further steps. He also got a report saying
that the man Cooper was a convicted thief.
A statement from Cooper was read to the Bench.
The Bench dismissed the case, but made no order as to the
clothes.
Folkestone Chronicle
5-8-1899
Police Court
Alfred Skinner, of the Tramway Tavern, applied for the
licence of the Victoria, South Street, to be transferred to him from his
brother, Frederick Skinner, and Frederick Skinner applied for the licence of the
Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street, to be transferred to him. The case was simply
one of exchange of premises. Mr. Minter, solicitor to the Folkestone and
District Licensed Victuallers` Protection Society, appeared for both
applicants. The Bench would remember, he said, that a few months back both were
fined for serving drink off the premises to the workmen at the Pavilion new
works. The offence, however, was a purely technical one, arising out of a
practice which had prevailed for a long time and had been carried on under a
misunderstanding of the proper interpretation of the law. The prosecution had
resulted in the misapprehension being removed, but had left no stigma upon the
Skinners, and there had been no endorsement of the licence. The Chief Constable
had no objection to the transfer, and the Magistrates granted the request of
the applicants without raising any question.
The
following transfer of licence was allowed: Frederick Skinner, Victoria Inn,
South Street
Folkestone Herald
5-8-1899
Wednesday, August 2nd:
Note: Frederick Skinner actually transferred to Tramway Tavern
Folkestone Herald
11-11-1899
Folkestone Police Court
On Saturday last plans were submitted to the Bench for alterations
to the Tram Tavern (sic).
No comments:
Post a Comment