Princess Royal 1900s

Folkestone Chronicle 15-6-1901

We Hear

That at the Bromley Petty Sessions on Monday, Mr. Gregory, solicitor, applied on behalf of Mr. A. Adams for a protection order in respect of the Swan and Mitre, Bromley. The police reported that the applicant, who had kept the Prince George at Thornton Heath, was convicted in 1895 on five summonses for permitting betting on his premises, and was fined £5 on each summons, but his licence was not endorsed.

He had since held the licence of the Princess Royal at Folkestone, and there had been no complaint whatever about the conduct of that house. Mr. Gregory stated that the applicant bore an irreproachable character, with the exception of that single occurrence. He submitted that, having been fined about £25, he had been sufficiently punished, and that such a thing should not be a bar to any man from gaining a livelihood in the future. Applicant sold his Folkestone house to go to the war in South Africa.

The Chairman said that the Bench had decided to grant the licence, though not without some misgiving. It was, however, fair to say that the misgiving was only produced by the fact that in that district a great deal of betting was carried on.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, and Pledge, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. Riddell takes the Princess Royal.

Folkestone Express 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

 Mr. John Riddall was granted a transfer of the licence of the Princess Royal.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

We Hear

That Mr. John Riddalls, of the Princess Royal Hotel, was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs for allowing his chimney to catch fire. Mr. Riddalls said that a soldier who came to the house foolishly threw a piece of greasy paper on the fire, which caught the chimney.

Folkestone Express 30-1-1904

Saturday, January 23^rd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter and J. Stainer Esqs. The Mayor and Aldermen Vaughan and Spurgen were present, but did not adjudicate.

More than ordinary interest was evinced in the Police Court proceedings, a well-known resident – George Colman, of 5, Marine Terrace, appearing to answer two charges; while the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street, was served with a summons by the police in relation to the conduct of his house.

At the outset Supt. Reeve stated that there were two informations against the defendant Colman – one for being drunk on licensed premises, taken out by the police, and the other for refusing to quit, taken out by the landlord.

The latter case was taken first, and in reply to the charge, defendant, who was represented by Mr. J. Minter, pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Mr. Riddall, the landlord, and in opening the case, said that on January 14^th the defendant entered the Princess Royal, but by reason of his disorderly conduct the licensee had to order him out. Defendant, however, omitted to go, and remained in the house for some ten minutes until the police came, when he left. He (Mr. Haines) need hardly say that the licensed victualler in these days had an important duty to perform, not only to himself in the interests of the licence entrusted to him, but also to the public. Defendant was a man not unknown in Folkestone, and his eccentricities and extraordinary conduct made him such that the licence holder considered him a nuisance whether he had a drink or not; in fact Mr. Riddall had given orders to refuse to serve him if ever he went to the house. On this occasion defendant remained in the house, singing and striking dramatic attitudes, and carrying on in that extraordinary way which so many knew of, and in order to put a stop to such conduct the Licensed Victuallers` Association, which he also represented that day, desired the Bench to support them in their endeavours to carry out their duties in a proper way. Whether the defendant`s eccentricities were due to the fact of not having a properly balanced mind he did not know, but at all events, he “broke out” at times in such a way that one hardly knew what to do with him. If in the end the Bench were satisfied that the case had been proved, he need hardly say that he did not press for a heavy penalty; but certainly it was time that an individual like the defendant was prevented from being a nuisance to everybody, and from being a means to endangering the licences held by publicans.

Selina Riddall, the first witness, said: I am the wife of the complainant, who is the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street. The defendant is not a regular customer at the house, but I know him; I have seen the gentleman before. I also know he is an eccentric man. On the evening of the day in question, I remember the defendant coming to the house. A musical box was playing in the saloon bar, and when he came in he imitated a man playing a violin. He also recited a little, and did a good deal of talking. His conduct was such that I desired him to leave the house. He made a noise and created a disturbance in the bar. Defendant refused to leave, and remained another five minutes. The police eventually came, and then he left. I did not serve him with any drink; in fact I have had instructions from my husband not to serve him.

During the examination of this witness, the Clerk frequently reminded Mr. Haines not to trouble about the defendant`s eccentricities, the charge being one of refusing to quit. Mr. Minter also complained of the manner in which Mrs. Riddall was led in giving her evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: What kind of a thing is this musical box? – Not a very large one.

Is it anything like these barrel organs we hear in the street? – No.

Is it anything that would make your stomach ache to hear? – No answer.

I suppose the music is very nice and very exhilarating? – No answer.

It is done for the purpose of merriment, I suppose? – I don`t know.

The music is not played to make people serious and sorry, is it? – No, I think not.

Was your husband there? – No.

Do you remember what tune the musical box was playing? – No.

How many tunes does it play? – A good many.

When the musical box began playing the defendant imitated the playing of a violin? – Yes.

That is what you call disorderly conduct? – He was acting and such like. The music set him dancing.

That is what it is meant for? – I think not. He was very noisy.

James Taylor, residing at 25, Victoria Road, a fly driver, stated that he went into the Princess Royal a few minutes before ten in company with two others. Just behind them was the defendant, and on hearing the musical box he began to imitate a banjo. Afterwards he tried to show people how he learnt boxing some time ago. He was not dangerously near the customers. Witness and the others had something to drink, but he did not hear the defendant call for anything. The landlady asked him to go, and witness`s friend, on hearing that he refused, remonstrated with him.

Mr. Minter: When this musical box was playing you say he imitated the banjo? – I should think so.

He didn`t do any harm? – No.

And when he was showing his skill and science at what he had learnt in his youth in fighting, he didn`t do any harm? – No, but he was a nuisance in the bar. He interfered with the customers.

In what way? – In showing his fighting attitude.

Did you hear the defendant sing? – Yes.

What did he sing? – I could not say. It was only a line or two.

Do you know him? – I know him by sight.

Do you know the eccentricities talked about? – Yes.

John Baston, a hairdresser, 12, South Street, corroborated the last witness`s evidence, adding that defendant emptied a glass of beer which did not belong to him.

Without hearing any further evidence, the Bench decided to dismiss the case.

John Riddall, the landlord of the house, was then charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Swift gave evidence to the following effect: About 25 minutes past 10 on the night of the 14^th inst., in consequence of what P.C. Ashby told me, I went with him to the Princess Royal, of which house the defendant is the licensed holder. In the bar I saw a man named Geo. Colman, drunk, in front of the counter, attempting to execute a step dance. He was flinging his arms and legs about. Mrs. Riddall was behing the counter, watching Colman and laughing. There were other men in the bar, and they appeared to be highly amused. I said to Mrs. Riddall “Do you see the condition of this man Colman?”, but she made no reply. I then said “Have you served him?” She hesitated, but eventually replied “I have not served him; the other gentlemen treated him with it”. I advised her to get him removed from the premises, and I also asked Colman to leave. Defendant said to Mrs. Riddall “Is there anything owing?”, and she replied “No. It is all paid for”. I told her that I should report her husband for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. She said “Thank you. He has paid for nothing here. What he has had the other gentlemen paid for”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Did you make any note at the time? – I committed it to writing.

At the time? – My report was made while it was fresh in my memory – not two hours afterwards.

Do you suggest this was all said by Mrs. Riddall? – Yes.

What ledy you to believe that Colman was drunk? – His conduct.

How long did you keep him under observation before you told him to leave the house? – I had the door opened and watched before I entered. They were all looking on and laughing at his antics.

But you cannot say that he was drunk? – I know him when he is sober, and I know that there is a vast difference in him when he is sober.

When he is sober he is not eccentric, I suppose? – I don`t say he is an eccentric.

I put it to you that he is an eccentric man? – No, not when he is sober.

What was his appearance? – He was unable to stand erect.

What was your duty if he was unable to stand erect? – No answer.

It was your duty to take him in charge. – He was not incapable.

Could he walk erect? – No, hardly.

Did you follow him up? – No.

You didn`t think he wanted to be followed? – I swear he was drunk.

In further cross-examination it was gathered that witness had seen defendant the worse for liquor on previous occasions, but it was not his duty to follow a drunken person.

Re-examined by Supt. Reeve: Where does the defendant live? – 5, Marine Terrace.

How many public houses would he pass between the Princess Royal and his home? – None.

P.C. Ashby stated that at 10.15 p.m. on the 14^th inst. he was on duty in South Street, when he noticed the door of the Princess Royal was open. Colman was leaning on the bar. Witness waited a moment, and hear defendant call for a “long sleever”. At 10.25 p.m. he went in company with Inspector Swift to the house, where he saw the defendant drunk and doing a step dance in front of the bar. Having corroborated the statement made by the last witness as to what transpired, witness added that Colman said to Inspector Swift “Hands off me or you are a dead `un”.

Mr. Haines: You heard the defendant ask for a `long sleever”? - Yes.

Did you see him supplied? – No.

Why did you go to Inspector Swift? – I didn`t make a report.

But you would not have gone unless you made a report to him? – I didn`t speak to him about the house. Inspector Swift said “Have you seen Coloman?”, and I answered “Yes, I saw him in the Princess Royal”.

Defendant could not walk straight? – No.

Was he helped out? – No.

What made you think he was drunk? – His face was flushed, his speech very thick, and he could not walk erect. (Loud laughter)

No evidence was called for the defence, the Bench, after consulting with their Clerk, being quite satisfied that the case ought to be dismissed.

In face of the decision of the Magistrates, Supt. Reeve asked permission to withdraw the charge against Colman for being drunk. With this view the Chairman quite acquiesced.

Mr. Minter said that on behalf of the defendant Colman he ought to say that he had abundant testimony to prove that he was perfectly sober. They had heard a greta deal about his eccentricities, and unfortunately it was so. He was well known throughout the town, and it was lamentable that he was so eccentric. This, to his mind, was the only excuse that could be offered to the police for believing that Colman was drunk. No doubt they had mistaken his eccentricities for drunkenness.

The Chairman: We quite agree with what you say. We are quite satisfied.

Folkestone Daily News 22-3-1905

Wednesday, March 22^nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, and Herbert.

The licence of the Princess Royal was transferred from Mr. Riddall to a gentleman from London who has never had a public house before.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25-3-1905

Local News

On Wednesday morning the Folkestone boro` justices granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Princess Royal Hotel, South Street, from the present tenant, Mr. John Riddall to Mr. Charles Stephen Barrett (sic), of London.

Folkestone Express 25-3-1905

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Princess Royal Hotel, South Street, was temporarily transferred from John Riddalls to Charles Bassett.

Folkestone Herald 25-3-1905

Wednesday, March 22^nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

The licence of the Princess Royal, South Street, was temporarily transferred from John Riddalls to Charles Brassett.

Folkestone Express 15-4-1905

Wednesday, April 12^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench considered several applications for the transfer of licences, and granted the following: The Princess Royal from Mr. J. Riddall to Mr. G.S. BassettStephen Bassett.

Folkestone Daily News 12-4-1905

Wednesday, April 12^th: Before Messrs. Spurgen, Carpenter and Fynmore.

The Princess Royal was transferred from Mr. J. Riddall to Mr. S. Bassett

Folkestone Herald 15-4-1905

Wednesday, April 11^th: Before Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

A special licensing session was held, when the licence of the Princess Royal was transferred from Mr. John Riddall to Mr. G.S. Bassett

Folkestone Daily News 25-11-1905

Saturday, November 25^th: Before The Mayor and Mr. Ames.

Pose Annie Maud Foreman pleaded Guilty to smashing a plate glass panel at the Princess Royal Hotel.

P.C. Cox stated that he was on duty in South Street at 10.50 on the previous night. He saw the prisoner go towards the Princess Royal and smash the plate glass panel of the door. He took her into custody, and at the police station she made no reply to the charge.

Mr. Thos. Bassett, landlord of the Princess Royal Hotel, said he had reason to eject the prisoner from his house. She returned, and he again put her out, and locked the door. He heard the panel of the door smashed, and on looking out saw the prisoner in custody of the constable. The amount of damage was 10s.

The prisoner, in reply to the Bench, said she was very sorry.

She was ordered to pay 10s. damage, 2s. 6d. fine, and 4s. 6d. costs, or undergo 14 days` hard labour.

Prisoner had no money, and asked for time to pay, as she had good work and did not want to lose it.

She was taken below, and it did not transpire if the Magistrates granted her request for time or not.

    

Folkestone Chronicle 2-12-1905

Saturday, November 25^th: Before The Mayor and Mr. C. Ames.

Rose Annie Maud Foreman is a lady with a pretty name but a bad temper, and with the bump of destruction largely developed. On Friday night Mr. Thomas Barrett, landlord of the Princess Royal, had cause to eject Rose Annie Maud from his house. She wished to return, so he locked the door. Still the lady had longings to get inside, and with that purpose she smashed the plate glass panel, value 10s., of the door.

P.C. Cox, who saw the act, took the lady into custody, and on Saturday morning she expressed her contrition for that which had occurred.

Accused was ordered to pay the damage, 10s., a fine of 2s. 6d., and 4s. 6d. costs, or go to Canterbury for 14 days.

Folkestone Express 2-12-1905

Saturday, November 25^th: Before The Mayor and T. Ames Esq.

Rose Annie Maud Foreman was charged with wilfully breaking a glass panel in the door of the Princess Royal Inn, South Street, and doing damage to the amount of 10s., the previous night.

P.C. Cox said about 10.50 the previous night he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner deliberately smash with her fist the plate glass panel in the door of the Princess Royal. He took her at once to the police station, and charged her with wilfully breaking the glass.

Charles Stephen Bassett, the landlord of the Princess Royal, said he had to turn the prisoner out and lock the door on her. He then went to serve other customers in the bar, and while doing so he heard a smash of glass. He rushed out and saw the prisoner taken into custody. He estimated the damage at 10s.

Prisoner expressed her sorrow, and was ordered to pay the damage, 10s., and a fine of 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 2-12-1905

Saturday, November 25^th: Before The Mayor and Mr. T. Ames.

Rose Annie Maud Foreman was charged with breaking a plate glass window at the Princess Royal Hotel the previous evening.

The Bench ordered prisoner to pay the 10s. damage, as well as a fine of 2s. 6d. and 5s. costs, or, in default, undergo fourteen days` hard labour.

Prisoner asked for time to pay, but was taken below. It afterwards transpired that she went to prison.

Folkestone Daily News 10-10-1906

Wednesday, October 10^th: Before Messrs. Banks, Stainer, Herbert, Pursey, Fynmore, Ames, Swoffer, and Linton.

James Sellis pleaded Guilty to assaulting Charles Stephen Bassett.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the Licensed Victuallers` Association, and said the case was a most aggravated one. The complainant was practically a newcomer, and tried to conduct his house in an orderly manner. After assaulting the landlord the defendant left, but came back afterwards and again assaulted Mr. Bassett.

Charles. S. Bassett, landlord of the Princess Royal, said the prisoner came in about 10.30, and a customer came in and was insulted by the prisoner. Witness asked him to leave, whereupon prisoner attacked him in such a manner as to render him insensible. Prisoner then left, but afterwards came back and further assaulted him by tearing his waistcoat off his back.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He was in drink at the time, and hoped the Bench would take a lenient view of the case. He would take care drink would never get the better of him again.

Fined £3 and 9s. costs.

Defendant said he had £1 with him, and asked for time to pay the remainder.

He was allowed 14 days to pay the balance.

 

Folkestone Express 13-10-1906

Wednesday, October 10^th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, E.T. Ward, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

James Sellis was summoned for assaulting Charles Stephen Bassett, the landlord of the Princess Royal, South Street. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. De Wet said he was instructed to prosecute by the Licensed Victuallers` Association. The defendant had pleaded Guilty, but he asked the Magistrates to bear in mind that the case was of a decidedly aggravated nature. The prosecutor was a newcomer and that was his first licence. Up to the present he had always conducted his house in a proper and able manner, and he took all the steps he possibly could to protect his own licence, and also his customers. The defendant, it appeared, insulted a customer, and, on being rebuked by the landlord, he turned round and swore at him. On being requested to leave, he at once hit Mr. Bassett on the nose and eye. He then left the house,, but not being satisfied he immediately came back and ripped off the landlord`s tie and waistcoat. He asked the Magistrates to dael with the defendant very seriously indeed, because they were aware licensed houses must be conducted properly, especially at that end of town.

Charles Stephen Bassett, the prosecutor, said at about 10.30 p.m. Mr. Angelo Sellegro came in for some stout. Defendant said to him “Hello, old Saffron Hill”, and hit him on the head with a hat. Sellegro left the house, and he called Sellis to order for insulting his customers. He asked him to leave, but defendant remarked he did not care for the whole Italian colony. Witness then told him he should have to put him out. He went round the bar and opened the door. Defendant then hit him on the nose, in the eye, and loosened some teeth. He (witness) did not lay hands on him. Defendant rushed into the house again shortly after and said “Come outside and fight me in the street”. He then pulled his tie and also his waistcoat off his back. Sellis had been a regular customer at the house.

Cross-examined by the defendant, prosecutor said he had only had to find fault with defendant on one occasion previously. He took it the defendant was acting drunk at the time of the assault. He did not see his (prosecutor`s) wife throw a pint of beer over him.

Defendant said he was very sorry. He was in drink at the time, or else it would not have happened. He hoped the Magistrates would be as lenient as possible with him, and he would take care the drink would not get him into trouble like that again.

The Chairman said the landlord had taken a very proper step in bringing the defendant before the Bench, and they had decided to fine Sellis £3 and 9s. costs, or one month`s hard labour in default, for the assault.

Defendant said he had only £1 with him, and he asked for time to pay the remainder.

The Magistrates ordered defendant to pay £1 down and the balance in 14 days.

Folkestone Herald 13-10-1906

Wednesday, October 10^th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.

John Sellis was summoned for assaulting Chas. Stephen Bassett, the landlord of the Princess Royal public house on the 3^rd October.

Mr. De Wet appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association, and asked the Bench to make an example of the defendant, as they knew that houses in that part of the town must be conducted properly.

Complainant stated that at 10.30 the defendant was in the bar, when a gentleman, who kept a restaurant nearby, came in for some ale. Defendant struck the customer on the head with a cap, saying “How do, old Saffron Hill?”. The gentleman went out, and witness called defendant to leave the house. He said he would “Go when he liked, and did not care a ---- for the whole Italian colony”. Witness said he would have to put him out, and simply opened the door, whereupon defendant hit him on the eye and nose, and loosened his teeth. He afterwards tore witness`s waistcoat and tie off.

Questioned by Alderman Banks, complainant said defendant had been a customer of his for eighteen months.

In answer to defendant, witness said he did not see his wife throw a pint of beer over him.

Defendant said he was very sorry. He was in drink at the time. He hoped they would deal leniently with him, and he would take care that drink did not get him into trouble again.

Alderman Banks thought the landlord had taken a very proper step in bringing the defendant before the Bench. Sellis would be fined £3 and 9s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment. Defendant paid £1, and was allowed 14 days to pay the balance.

Folkestone Daily News 8-4-1908

Wednesday, April 8^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Wood, and Leggett.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said he saw the defendant in Beach Street, very drunk. He went into the Wellington, and also into the Royal George. Witness followed him, and told him he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Styles corroborated.

Defendant said he never went into the Wellington, nor into the Princess Royal, and when he went into the Royal George they served him.

He was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Herald 11-4-1908

Wednesday, May 8^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales deposed that shortly after 10 o`clock on the night of the 26^th March he saw defendant drunk in Beach Street. He saw him go into the Wellington beerhouse, but immediately afterwards he came out without being served. Witness cautioned him about being drunk on licensed premises. At 10.20 he saw him go into the Royal George public house, and witness, in company with P.C. Prebble, went into the house and told the barmaid not to serve him, and she did not. Witness asked him to leave the premises. At first he refused to go, but afterwards he left.

P.C. Styles stated that at 8 p.m. on the 26^th March he saw defendant, with another man, go into the Princess Royal. Clark was drunk. Witness went in and told the barmaid not to serve him. He came out, and went towards the harbour.

A fine of 5s. and 10s. costs was imposed, or 7 days` hard labour.