Railway Hotel 1900s

Folkestone Chronicle 29-6-1901

Tuesday, June 25^th: Before Alderman Banks, Mr. Herbert, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

John Thomas, a tall, hulking individual, who said he was a carpenter, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Shorncliffe Road on the previous evening.

P.C. Waters said that at 10.55 p.m. he was in Shorncliffe Road, when he saw prisoner ejected from the Railway Hotel. He was drunk, disorderly, and using disgusting language.

Prisoner said he had been a carpenter at the Camp, and was knocked down by four Dublin Fusiliers. He admitted being drunk, but denied using obscene language.

P.C. Watson said that at the time there was only one soldier about, and he was an Artilleryman.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`.

The Chief Constable opposed time to pay, saying that prisoner stopped at a common lodging house in Radnor Street.

John, therefore, had to go for the 14 days.

 

Folkestone Express 29-6-1901

Tuesday, June 25^th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

John Thomas, a carpenter, who has lately been employed on Shorncliffe Camp, admitted that he was drunk and disorderly on Monday evening.

P.C. Watson said about 10.55 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Shorncliffe Road when he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Railway Hotel. He was drunk and used most disgusting language, and continued to do so until he was in the “lock-up” at the police station.

The prisoner said he had been set upon by some soldiers and they kicked him.

Witness said there were no soldiers in sight, and the prisoner was too drunk to stand.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days.

Folkestone Herald 5-10-1901

Hythe County Sessions

Thursday, October 3^rd: Before Messrs. J.H. Du Boulay, H. Strahan, A.S. Jones, W. Wightwick, O.H. Smith, and Capt. Baldwin.

David Wood pleaded Guilty to a charge of drunk and disorderly at Cheriton.

The case was proved by P.C. Honey and Sergt. Stevens, and then defendant was told if he had anything to say he could say it.

Defendant: Well, now, gentlemen, if you will listen to me, I will tell you what I have to say. On this night I went for a walk with my wife, and strolled into the Shorncliffe Arms. There I had three glasses of six ale and three penn`orth of whisky. (Laughter) After four and twenty years in Cheriton, there`s not much the matter with that.

Notwithstanding his own opinion about it, he was fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Daily News 23-1-1907

Wednesday, January 23^rd: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Carpenter, Leggett, Vaughan, Fynmore, Hamilton, Linton, and Ames.

George Barker, of the Shorncliffe Railway Tavern (sic), was charged with supplying a constable on duty. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Osborne deposed that on the 12^th January at midday, he found P.C. Taylor sitting down and drinking and smoking cigarettes in a room at the Railway Tavern. On seeing the sergeant, he drank up his beer and left the house. Barker was behind his bar serving the constable, and the constable was wearing his armlet.

Sergeant Dawson deposed that on the 12^th inst. he paraded tha constable, including Taylor, who was told off for the Morehall and Sandgate beat from 10 to 2. He did not give Taylor permission to go into a licensed house on duty.

P.C. Taylor deposed that he was a constable of the Borough. He was on the beat of Sandgate. He did not have permission to enter licensed premises. He entered defendant`s house at 12.20, and was supplied with a pint of beer. Mr. Barton, the greengrocer, paid for it. Witness was in uniform, wearing his armlet. Sergeant Osborne came in and remarked that it was cold. Witness drank up his beer and went out.

Mr. Barker was sworn, and deposed that on the 12^th he saw P.C. Taylor. Mr. Barton called for a pint of beer and a glass of ginger beer. Afterwards Sergeant Osborne came in and Barton ordered a pint of “fives” ale and beer mixed for 2½d., for which Barton paid.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, of Sandgate, said he went into the house for his usual drink. Taylor came in and he asked him to have a drink. He ordered a pint for him, and he drank it. Afterwards witness`s man came in and had some refreshments. Then Sergeant Osborne came in and ordered a pint. He paid for it.

The Bench, after hearing Mr. De Wet for the defence, retired to consider the case, and on their return the Chairman announced that they found the defendant Guilty to serving a constable on duty, and inflicted the penalty of £3 and 13s. costs.

Folkestone Express 26-1-1907

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday a case which created a great amount of interest, especially amongst the licence holders in the town, came before E.T. Ward Esq., and seven other Magistrates. The summons for hearing was of an uncommon nature, and was against George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Inn, Shorncliffe, for supplying intoxicating liquor to a constable on duty without the permission of a superior officer on January 12^th. The defendant, who was defended by Mr. De Wet, pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Osborne said on Saturday, the 12^th inst., about 12.45 p.m., he visited the Railway Inn, kept by the defendant. In the private bar he found P.C. Taylor, a constable of the borough, in uniform, on duty and wearing his armlet. On the constable seeing him he picked up a pint glass from the counter. It was half full of beer, which he drank. He immediately left the house. The defendant was behind the bar at the time serving some other customers.

The Chief Constable: There was one other thing the constable was doing, according to your report, and which you have not mentioned.

Witness: He was smoking a cigarette.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Did you speak to the defendant about it at the time?

Witness: No, sir. He was busy.

In the course of cross-examination, witness said there might have been a number of soldiers in the other bar. He was not in uniform, neither was he on duty at the time. He did not visit that house a great deal. He had not got a market garden near the house. He was not in the habit of staying at the house for hours at a time.

The Chief Constable at this point objected to the cross-examination, as he did not see what it had to do with the case before the Court.

Mr. De Wet: It is testing the witness`s credibility.

Further cross-examined, the sergeant said he had a small allotment garden out there. After he entered the house he had a drink. There might have been a man named Sidney Barton in the bar at the time, but he did not stand him (witness) a pint of “fives”. He made no remark at all to P.C. Taylor. He did not ever tell the defendant that he was going to report him. It was not his duty to warn the publican.

P.S. Dawson said he was on duty on January 12^th, and paraded the second relief day duty men at ten o`clock. P.C. Taylor was one of the men paraded, and he remained on duty until two o`clock. He was told off for the Morehall and Sandgate beat. Owing to the absence of the Inspector on leave there was no officer on patrol that morning. He did not give Taylor authority to enter any licensed houses for refreshment that morning.

P.C. Taylor said he had been in the force 12 years next month. On January 12^th he was on the second relief day duty. His hours were from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and his beat was Sandgate and Broadmead. He did not obtain that morning any authority from a superior officer to enter any licensed house for refreshment. During his tour of duty he entered the Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe, kept by the defendant, at about twenty minutes to one. He was supplied with a pint of beer by the landlord. He did not pay for it, but Mr. Barton, a greengrocer, did so. He did not have more than one. He drank the beer on the premises, on which he remained nearly five minutes. He was wearing his uniform with the armlet on.

Cross-examined, he said he saw P.S. Osborne come in, and he made a remark about the weather being cold. He did not say anything to him about the fact that he had no right to be there.

By the Chairman: He said the reason he went into the house was because he had a bad cold on him, and he went and had a drink to revive him a little. Mr. Barton saw him and asked what he would have.

The Chief Constable: Are you sure Mr. Barton paid for it?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Chief Constable: You did not tell me that when you saw me in my office. Did you not tell me something else?

Witness: No, sir. You asked me if I paid for it, and I said “No”.

The Chief Constable: Did you not say Mr. Barker served you with it?

Witness: Yes, sir, but Mr. Barton paid for it.

Mr. De Wet then said he was charged with supplying the drink to the constable when on duty. The Act said that the drink should be supplied by way of gift or sale. There was no evidence that Mr. Barker sold or gave the constable a drink. The evidence was that the sale was to Mr. Barton. He considered he had no case at all to answer, but if the Magistrates thought he had he would call his evidence.

The defendant went into the box, and said he had held the licence of the Railway Inn for eight years. On the morning in question Mr. Barton was in his bar. He did not see Taylor enter the house, as he was busy. He was then called to the private bar by Mr. Barton, who asked for a pinto of beer and a ginger beer, for which he paid threepence. The constable had the beer. A little later P.S. Osborne came in, and Barton paid for a pint of fives for the sergeant. He knew the sergeant`s usual drink. P.S. Osborne was frequently in his house, three or four hours at a time, and could drink nine or ten pints. Of course, that was when he was off duty. Mr. Barton certainly paid for the drinks. He did not see any armlet on P.C. Taylor`s arm at the time. When P.S. Osborne came in he said he had been gardening and as it was cold he came to have a drink. The first he heard of the matter was when he received a summons.

Cross-examined, he said he knew he had no right to supply a man on duty without permission.

Re-examined, he said he did not supply the constable with beer, but served Mr. Barton with it.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, residing at Cheriton, said on Saturday, January 12^th, he called at the defendant`s house as he usually did between twelve and one. When he went into the private bar he called for a glass of ginger beer. Mr. Barker was serving at the public bar at the time. In the meantime P.C. Taylor came in and he asked him to have a drink. He said he would, and in reply to his question what he would have, he said “A pint”. He called for the pint and the ginger beer at the same time. Mr. Barker served him with it after he had called for it two or three times. He laid down sixpence for it and got threepence change. After that witness`s man came in, and P.S. Osborne came in shortly afterwards. After making some remark about the weather, he called for a pint. Witness said to him “I will pay for that”, and he did so. The sergeant made no remark to him about P.C. Taylor being in the house. He did not notice any armlet on the constable`s arm. The defendant handed him the drinks. P.C. Taylor stood behind him, and nearer to the door.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into court the Chairman said they were of opinion that there was a sale or gift to the constable. They had decided that case on that of “Lord Satterworth v Johnson”, in which it was held that where a drunken man accompanied a sober man into a public house, and liquor was sold to the sober man, but was consumed by the drunken man, it was evidence of sale to a drunken man. Therefore they convicted the defendant, and he would be fined £3 and 13s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment.

Mr. De Wet said he should ask permission to make application for the Magistrates to state a case. If that decision was decided on that case a publican was open in innumerable cases. It would be possible for a person to enter a public house, call for a drink, take it outside for a drunken man to drink it, and then the publican would be liable.

The Chairman told Mr. De Wet he could take his own course in the matter.

Folkestone Herald 26-1-1907

Wednesday, January 23^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Major Leggett, and Messrs. T. Ames, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore.

George Barker, landlord of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was summoned for unlawfully supplying a constable (P.C. Thomas Taylor) when on duty with intoxicating liquor, without the permission of his superior officer. Mr. De Wet appeared for the defendant.

P.S. Osborne said that on Saturday, the 12^th inst., about 12.45 p.m., he visited the Railway Hotel, kept by the defendant. In the private bar he found a constable of the borough named Thomas Taylor, who was on duty and wearing his armlet. On the constable seeing witness, he picked up a pint glass from the counter. The glass was about half full of beer, which the constable drank, immediately leaving the house. Defendant was behind the bar serving some other customers. The constable was smoking a cigarette. When the constable wore his armlet he was on duty.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Witness did not speak to the defendant, as he was busy. There were a number of people in the public bar, but witness did not go in. He was in plain clothes when he went into the bar, and was not on duty. Witness had a small allotment garden in teh vicinity of the Railway Hotel. He was not in the habit of spending four hours at a time in the house. Mr. Sidney Barton did not “stand” witness a “pint of fives”. Witness made no remark at all to P.C. Taylor, nor did he speak to the landlord until the summons was issued. It was not his duty to tell the landlord it was his intention to report the matter.

P.S. Dawson said that on the 12^th January he paraded the second parade of relief duty men. P.C. Taylor was one of the men on duty, and remained so until two o`clock. He was told off for the Morehall and Sandgate beat. Owing to the absence of an inspector on leave, there was no officer on patrol that morning. Witness did not give Taylor any authority to enter licensed premises on duty.

P.C. Taylor stated that next month he would have completed twelve years` service. On the 12^th inst. he was on duty from 10 a.m. till 2 p.m., and his beat was the Sandgate and Broadmead beat. He did not obtain any authority that morning to enter any licensed premises for the purposes of refreshment. On his turn of duty he did enter the Railway Hotel, which was kept by the defendant. That was about twenty minutes to one. Witness was supplied with a pint of beer by the landlord.  He did not pay for it; Mr. Barton, a greengrocer, paid for it. Witness drank the beer on the premises although he remained there barely five minutes. He was in uniform and was wearing an armlet.

Cross-examined: Witness saw P.S. Osborne come into the house. The sergeant said it was cold, and witness went out again, but said nothing to the sergeant. He knew he had no business on the premises.

In reply to the Chairman, witness said that he had a very heavy cold, and had been round to Sandgate and Shorncliffe, and he was very thirsty.

Mr. De Wet said the defendant was charged with supplying a constable with drink, but the prosecution had proved that somebody else had been supplied.

The Bench decided that there was a case to answer, and Mr. De Wet called defendant, who said he had held the licence for 8 years, and had never received a complaint from the police. On the morning in question a Mr. Barton was in the bar. Witness did not see the constable enter the house, though he saw him later. Mr. Barton called witness and asked for a pint of beer and a glass of ginger beer, for which he paid 3d. The constable had the beer and Mr. Barton the ginger beer. When next witness was called to the private bar Sergt, Osborne entered, and Mr. Barton then paid for a pint of “five” for the sergeant. Sergeant Osborne was very often in the bar, sometimes four or five hours at a time, and drank eight or nine pints at a time. (Laughter) Of course, that was when he was off duty. There was no doubt Mr. Barton ordered and paid for the sergeant`s and the constable`s drinks. Witness did not see the armlet on the constable`s arm. When the sergeant entered he said it was very cold and he had come for a drink. The first witness heard about it was when he had the summons.

Cross-examined: As a licensed victualler he knew that he had no right to serve a constable on duty, and had he not been so busy he would have asked Taylor if he was on duty.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, residing at Cheriton, deposed to being in the bar on Saturday, 12^th January, about half past twelve. He went into the private bar and called for a glass of ginger beer. Mr. Barker was serving in another bar, and in the meanwhile P.C. Taylor entered. Witness asked him if he would have a drink, and the constable said that he would, and in reply to a further question said that he would have a pint. Witness then called for the two drinks together. Witness had to call for the drinks two or three times. The defendant served witness and gave 3d. change out of sixpence. After witness`s man had been in and had a drink, P.S. Osborne came in. He made some remark about teh weather and called for a pint, and witness said “All right. I`ll pay for it”. The sergeant sometimes paid for one for witness, and he (witness) sometimes paid for the sergeant. Osborne made no remark about Taylor being in the house. Witness did not notice an armlet on the constable`s arm. The defendant did not give the constable beer, nor did the constable pay for any.

The Bench retired to consider their verdict, and on their return the Chairman said that they were of opinion that there was a sale or gift to the constable. They based their finding on a case in which it was held that a sober person having bought intoxicating drink for a drunken man it constituted a sale or gift to the drunken man. They would fine the defendant £3 and 13s. costs.

Folkestone Daily News 5-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Tuesday, February 5^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such offences.

The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were illegal. Every licence hiolder must understand that they were to be immediately removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be removed.

The renewal licences for the Black Bull Hotel, the Railway Inn, the Chequers, Queen`s Head, Channel Inn, Alexandra Tavern, Perseverance, and Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, were adjourned  till the 4^th March, some on account of convictions, and some for the consideration of closing them under the Licensing Act. The other applications were granted, a full report of which will appear in our next issue.

Folkestone Express 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, 6^th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31^st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31^st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coollinge.

Folkestone Herald 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for details see Folkestone Express report).

The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory, and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny, pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful, and not create nuisances with these machines.

The renewals of the licences of the Black Bull Hotel, Alexandra Tavern, Imperial, and Railway Hotel were all adjourned till the adjourned sessions for reasons not given

The Justices fixed the 4^th March as the date of the adjourned licensing meeting.

Folkestone Daily News 4-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 4^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.

There were seven licences to be considered: The Black Bull, Railway Tavern (sic), Railway Hotel, Perseverance, Chequers, Channel Inn, and Queen`s Head.

The Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe

This licence was granted, the Chief Constable reserving his objection pending the appeal that is to be heard next Quarter Sessions against a recent conviction for serving a constable on duty.

In respect to the Black Bull Hotel, the Chief Constable asked for an alteration to be made in respect to a coloured glass door. If an undertaking was made to remedy this he had no opposition to make.

Mr. De Wet said that undertaking would be given, and the licence was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 9-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The Railway Hotel, Coolinge

Mr. De Wet said he was instructed to apply for the renewal of the Railway Hotel licence, which had been deferred until that day.

The Chief Constable said in that case a conviction had been recorded against the house, but as an appeal was to be heard with respect to it he would not offer any objection to the renewal that day.

The Magistrates granted the application.

Folkestone Herald 9-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 4^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.

The case of the Railway Inn, Coolinge Lane, was mentioned. It was stated that there was an appeal pending against a conviction, and on this consideration the Bench granted the renewal.

Folkestone Daily News 5-4-1907

Quarter Sessions

Friday, April 5^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

An appeal case of some importance was heard. Mr. Barker, of the Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe, was convicted of serving a constable when on duty. The conviction was appealed against, and Mr. Clarke Hall appealed for the appellant, and Mr. T. Matthew for the Justices.

Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by the Town Clerk) recited the facts as given before the Justices.

P.C. Taylor deposed that he was on duty on the day in question. He had a cold on him and wanted a drink, so he went into the Railway Tavern (sic), where a man named Barton asked him to have a pint of beer.

Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. F. Hall) submitted witness to a long and severe cross-examination with an object of showing that Mr. Barker served Mr. Barton (who gave the constable the drink) quite unknowingly, he not having seen the constable enter the bar. Witness also submitted that when Sergeant Osborne entered the bar nothing was said about the drink.

Re-examined by Mr. Matthew, witness said that when Mr. Barker handed him the beer, he (Barker) said “Good morning”.

Sergeant Osborne next entered the box, and in answer to Mr. Matthew repeated his evidence given at the police court.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: Witness first described the position occupied by Taylor and Barker when he entered the bar. When Mr. Barker saw witness he said “Good morning”. He had a pint of ale and beer, a pint of fives. (Laughter) He was positive that Barton did not pay for his drink. He stayed in the bar about twenty five minutes, not, as Counsel suggested, an hour. He did not warn Barker about serving the constable on duty, because he had no opportunity. The man knew as well as witness that he was doing wrong. Had Taylor have had the consent of a superior officer he could have had a drink, but witness did not ask that question.

The Recorder: Was it your duty to report Taylor?

Witness: Yes.

The Recorder: Was it not equally your duty to warn the publican?

In further cross-examination, witness said he had an allotment ground in Shorncliffe Road. He would swear that he had no dealings with Mr. Barton in selling vegetables from his allotment. He had sold vegetables to a Mr. Samuels, market gardener. At the police court he was asked if he was a market gardener and replied no, but he could not remember swearing before the Magistrates that he never sold vegetables at all.

The Recorder: What I want to know is what is the point of all this, even if he did sell vegetables?

Mr. Clarke Hall: It is purely a question of credibility, what he swore before the Magistrates and what he says now. There is the question of a breach of police regulations.

Mr. Matthew: Is it a breach of police regulations to sell a few carrots?

Witness: No, not that I am aware of.

The Recorder: So far as you were concerned you remained in that house twenty minutes and did not make any intimation to the landlord.

Sergeant Andrew Dawson proved parading the men on the day of the offence, and said that he had not given P.C. Taylor permission to obtain drink while on duty.

Mr. Clarke Hall opened the case for the appellant, and at once admitted the main facts detailed by Mr. Matthew`s witnesses, on which he said they were on common ground. Where the evidence diverged would be on the evidence of Barton, who would tell the Court that when Mr. Barker first saw the constable was after the serving of the liquor, and at that time the constable was smoking a cigarette. The points he wished to raise would be, was there a supply, a sale, or a gift? He should prove that to constitute an offence, it must be shown that Mr. Barker knew that drink was being supplied to a constable.

The Recorder: If such is the case, the onus of proving that rests upon you.

George Barker, on being examined, said he had been at the Railway Inn about eight years and that he paid £500 to go in. He had known Sergeant Osborne about five years. The sergeant was one of the best customers he had got. (Laughter) On the 12^th of January there were a number of soldiers in the bar. Mr. Barton then came into the bar and called out for a pint of beer and a glass of ginger beer, which he drew. At the time he heard Mr. Barton`s voice, but did not see him. Witness picked up 6d., and gave Barton the change. At that time he did not see P.C. Taylor. The first sight he had of Taylor was when Sergt. Osborne came in. Later, when he returned to the bar, Osborne called for a pimt of “fives”, or ginger wine, and Barton paid for it. He was quite clear upon that point. Witness was chatting to Osborne afterwards, and also stood him a pint of “fives”. That was the second pint to Osborne. Witness left the bar about 2.30, and Osborne was still in the bar. It would not be an unusual thing to see police in the house, as the county police, while waiting for trains, often came in. He had no knowledge that the glass of beer supplied to Barton was for a constable.

By Mr. Matthew: He knew that Barton was a teetotaller and did not require the beer, but Barton treated so many people. He was quite clear there were soldiers in the private bar. He had served them before Barton came in. He saw the soldiers, but did not see Taylor. Several people came in and out of the bar at that time, but he could not remember how many. When Osborne came in, he (witness) saw Taylor, who at once went out. Witness said “Good morning” to Taylor, but did not see him drink any beer.

Stephen Barton, a greengrocer, residing at Cheriton, said on Saturday, January 12^th, teh was in the private bar of the Railway Hotel when Sergt. Osborne came in. There were about ten people present, three artillerymen, two hussars, and the remainder civilians. Witness saw Taylor and treated him. Mr. Barker had not seen Taylor. Witness was quite certain that he paid for Sergt. Osborne`s pint of fives. When witness left the bar he left Osborne there; when he left he had been in the house over an hour, so Osborne must have exceeded that time. There was an automatic machine in the bar, and witness put 2d. against 2d. of Sergt. Osborne`s, the winner on the machine to have the lot.

By Mr. Matthew: Before this case cropped up I asked to see Sergeant Osborne at the Railway Hotel about every other day. After the occurrence, he (witness) had a talk over the matter and assisted each other`s memories as to what had taken place. Taylor was drinking his beer as Osborne came in, and Barker then said “Good morning”. Witness did not notice Taylor`s armlet; he did not know that the armlet signified whether a constable was on or off duty. He knew that it was wrong to give a drink to a constable on duty.

The case having been closed, Mr. Clarke Hall addressed the Recorder, and dwelt upon the conflict of evidence and suggested that no very great weight should be attached to the evidence of Osborne. There was the question of Osborne denying that he had received any drink from Barton.

The Recorder: What has that got to do with it? All I have to decide is whether drink was supplied to a constable by way of a gift, sale, etc.

Mr. Clarke Hall, continuing, laid great stress upon the evidence of Mr. Barker`s ignorance of whom he was serving, and commented upon the fact of Barker`s unsatisfactory mode of mumbling when giving his evidence. In view of the class of evidence given for the prosecution, and the law that if there was any reasonable doubt of Barker`s knowledge as to the constable being served, then the applicant was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Osborne had not given any reasonable opportunity to the defendant to show that he had no knowledge of Taylor`s presence in the bar. He (Counsel) submitted that at the time Osborne had not made up his mind that he was going to prefer a charge, otherwise he would have stayed talking in the bar. Counsel concluded by referring to a number of decided cases upon which he earnestly asked the Recorder to give judgement in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Matthew was about to address the Recorder, who said: Mr. Matthew, I will not trouble you. This appeal must be dismissed with costs. He agreed with Mr. Clarke Hall in reference to Sergt. Osborne not giving any information to the publican, but in his opinion that did not affect the case, but in all future cases of this nature he hoped that sergeants would inform publicans that an information was to be laid. In this case the evidence laid before him by the Chief Constable had not been conclusive, and was somewhat thin. If that had been met by clear, positive, rebutting evidence, matters might have been different, but what could the Court say to such evidence (described as shuffling by his own Counsel) as given by Barker? It had been said this was a very hard case. He (the Recorder) did not think so, and his advice to publicans in the future was to be more careful.

The Recorder called forward P.C. Taylor and said: Taylor, you, by your conduct, have put this Court to a great deal of trouble; you have also inflicted upon this publican a grievous hardship. I have made a mark against you in my book, and I hope that I may never have to address you or any other constable of this Borough in this manner. Your conduct is a disgrace to the force.

Folkestone Herald 6-4-1907

Quarter Sessions

Friday, April 5^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The appeal of Mr. George Barker, of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from the decision of the Borough Bench under Section 16, Sub-Section 2, of the Licensing Act, 1872, which prohibits the supply of liquor to a constable on duty, for which he was fined £3 and 13s. costs, was taken first. Mr. Theodore Matthew represented the police, and Mr. Clarke Hall was for the appellant.

Mr. Matthew, in outlining the case referred to its legal aspect.

P.C. Thomas Taylor said that on January 12^th, about one o`clock in the day, he went into the Railway Hotel, because he had a bad cold and wanted a drink. His armlet was on his arm at the time. A Mr. Barton and a friend of his were in the bar. When witness entered, Mr. Barton asked him what he would have to drink, and witness replied that he would have a pint of beer. Mr. Barker was behind the bar, and witness saw him bring the beer for witness. Mr. Barker had some ginger beer for himself. Mr. Barton paid, the landlord taking the money. The landlord wished witness “Good morning”. Witness drank the beer, and P.S. Osborne came in while he was doing it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: When he entered the house the door was in such a position as to hide him from the landlord. He was barely five minutes in the house, and at no time did he go to the bar itself. Mr. Barton handed him the beer. When P.S. Osborne came into the house all he said was “It is cold weather”. Barton called for “a pint of fives” for the sergeant. P.S. Osborne did not speak to anybody about witness during the time that he was there. The first witness heard about it was the day after the case, when he was told that he had been reported. When he went out Osborne was still in the bar. He lighted a cigarette in the bar.

The Recorder: Not a very high conception of your duties as a member of the Folkestone Constabulary, it seems to me.

Re-examined by Mr. Matthews: Barker said “Good morning” to witness when he brought the ginger beer and beer.

P.S. Osborne said the landlord stood in front of Taylor when the latter drank his beer, and he must have seen him. The constable went out within twenty minutes after witness entered.

Cross-examined: Witness had a pint of beer.

Counsel: That is “fives”, is it not? – Yes.

Who paid for that? – I did.

You are quite sure, for you know Mr. Barton said he paid for it? – I paid for it, and put down the twopence halfpenny.

In reply to the Recorder: He had nothing to do with Taylor that day, as he was not on duty, though if Taylor had come in again he would have spoken to him. It was his duty to report Taylor, though he did not remonstrate with the landlord, as he was busy.

In reply to Mr. Clarke Hall: He had an allotment garden in the Shorncliffe Road. He sold vegetables to a Mr. Samuels. Before the Court, he was asked if he carried on the duties of a market gardener and he said that he did not.

In reply to the Recorder: In the public house he had made up his mind to report the constable. It was usual to warn the landlord that he would be reported, in order that he might give any explanation at the time. He remained in the house twenty minutes, and did not tell the landlord that he would report him.

P.S. Dawson proved being on duty on the day in question, when P.C. Taylor was one of the parade. He did not give him permission to go to any public house.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

George Barker, licensee of the Railway Hotel, said he paid £500 to go into the house. During the eight years he had been there he had received no complaint. Sergt. Osborne was the best customer he had got. On the 12^th January witness was in the public bar. A number of soldiers were in, prior to going on furlough. Witness heard Mr. Barton call out from the private bar while he was serving the soldiers. He called several times for drinks, and eventually witness drew the beer from the engine in the public bar. Witness drew them, and took them into the private bar. There were several soldiers in the private bar, too. Witness received sixpence for the drinks, and he gave Mr. Barton the change – threepence. The change was taken up by Barton, but witness did not see the constable then. Witness did not return to the private bar until Osborne came in. Then he went to serve Barton`s man. Osborne ordered “a pint of fives” and Barton paid for that at the same time as he paid for his man`s. Witness then saw Taylor, and he might have said “Good morning”, though he was not sure. Witness was chatting with Osborne after the soldiers went, and he himself stood him “a pint of fives”. That was the second pint. When witness went out of the bar at half past two Osborne and Barton were still in the bar. Witness frequently had constables going by the train coming into his house. He meant members of the County Police. He had no idea that the beer purchased in the first case by Barton was for a constable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: He was prepared to swear that he did not see Taylor drink the beer. Any County policeman visiting the house would not be on duty.

Sidney Barton, greengrocer, of Cheriton, said the drinks were put in front of witness by the landlord. Witness was standing on a brass rail in front of the bar, and the constable was at the back of the bar. Witness handed the beer to the constable, and when the latter put it down the landlord was still in the private bar. Later, witness`s brother came in, and Osborne came in soon after. He called for a “pint of fives”, for which witness paid. Witness left Osborne in the bar when he went out of the house, and he (witness) was there over an hour.

William Wingate, potman to the appellant, said that on the day in question he went on duty about half past two. Sergt. Osborne was in the bar then.

Mr. Clarke Hall contended that it was only fair that the sergeant should have given notice to the defendant of what he proposed to do. Osborne did not know whether the constable had the authority of a senior man to get drink, nor did he know that the landlord was not aware that the man had no permission to have drink on the premises.

The Recorder did not call on Mr. Matthew to address him, but decided at once that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs. At the same time he agreed with a great deal of the observations that had been made by Mr. Clarke Hall in reference to the conduct of Osborne in not giving the publican an intimation that he was about to lay an information. The Recorder pointed out to the landlord the necessity of being more careful in the future. It seemed impossible to say that the Justices were wrong.

Mr. Coward severely censured Taylor.

Folkestone Express 13-4-1907

Quarter Sessions

Friday, April 5^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

At the Quarter Sessions on Friday, in the hearing of an appeal by Mr. George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Hotel, near Shorncliffe Station, against a conviction of the Borough Magistrates for supplying a constable with intoxicants whilst on duty took a considerable time.

Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. Kidson) represented the Magistrates.

Mr. Matthew, in opening the case, said the conviction was obtained under Section 16, Subsection 2, of the Licensing Act, 1872, which prohibited the supplying of liquor to a constable while on duty, unless by the authority of a superior officer. He also explained that the Magistrates gave their decision on the case Scatchard and Johnson, in which the landlord of a house served a sober man with drink, and he gave it to a drunken man. He submitted that the justices were right in holding that there had been a sale to the constable, notwithstanding that the drink was paid for by a man named Barton.

P.C. Taylor said on January 12^th he was on duty about one o`clock. His beat was between Sandgate and Broadmead. He had not had the authority of his superior officer to have refreshment while on duty. He went into the Railway Hotel about twenty minutes to one, because he had a bit of a cold on him, and he wanted a drink. He had his armlet on at the time, and Mr. Barton and a friend were in the bar at the time. Barton asked him what he would have, and he told him he would have a pint of beer. The landlord was in the public bar at the time Barton called for drinks, and he brought the beer for witness and the ginger beer for Barton, putting them in front of Barton, who paid for them. The landlord said “Good morning” to him. Witness drank some of the beer, and when P.S. Osborne came in he drank the remainder. He was also smoking a cigarette at the time.

Cross-examined, he said he stood behind the door when he went into the bar. He was barely five minutes in the house. Barton called out his order several times before he was served by the landlord. He did not go at any time to the bar. Barton took up the glass of beer and handed it to him. He, however, could reach his glass on the bar from where he stood. After Osborne came into the bar he saw Barker again. It was then that Barker said “Good morning” to him. Osborne saw him with the glass in his hand and he simply said it was cold weather. Barton called for a pint of “fives” for Osborne. During the time he was there Osborne did not complain about his having a drink. He never asked him what he was doing there. On the following night (Sunday) he was told that he was reported for it, but he had not seen P.S. Osborne during that time.

Re-examined, he said Barker wished him “Good morning” when he served Barton with the beer and ginger beer. He smoked a portion of a cigarette, which he had upon him, in the house.

The Recorder: Not a very high conception of your duties as a member of the Folkestone Constabulary, it seems to me.

P.S. Osborne said on Saturday, January 12^th, he went into the Railway Hotel and saw Taylor in the private bar. He was in uniform, with his armlet on, leaning against the wall near the door and smoking a cigarette. He said “Good morning; it is cold”. Taylor went to the bar, picked up a glass of beer, drank the contents, threw down his cigarette, and went out immediately. Barker was standing in front of Taylor pulling beer when he drank the contents from his glass.

Cross-examined, he said he had a pint of ale and beer, which was called “fives”. He paid for that. He knew Barton said he paid for it, but it was not true. He remained in the bar about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. He was not there an hour. He did not say anything to Barker about serving the constable, because he had not had an opportunity, as he had left the bar. He never spoke to Barker about serving the constable, but he did not speak to him about it because it was not compulsory for him to do so. The landlord knew as well as he that he was doing wrong in serving a constable.

The witness, in answer to the Recorder, said he reported the matter to the Chief Constable on Saturday night, between seven and eight, which was the first opportunity he had. It was his duty to report Taylor, although he (witness) was not on duty. When he was in the public house he had made up his mind to report him. The reason he did not tell the publican was before he left the bar a few minutes after he went into the house. He remained in the house about twenty minutes.

P.S. Dawson said he paraded the second day relief duty men on January 12^th and Taylor was one of them. He did not give Taylor any permission to go into any public house while on duty.

Mr. Clarke Hall, in opening his case, submitted that his friend was not right in his contention that it did not matter to whom the sale took place. He contended the sale must be to the person in respect of whom the charge was brought.

George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Hotel, under a tenancy of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said he did trade to the extent of eight to ten barrels a week. He paid £500 to go into the house. Up to that time, for eight years no complaint had been made against him. He had known P.S. Osborne for some years, and he was the best customer he had got. On January 12^th he was serving a lot of soldiers in the public bar when Barton called for drinks. He drew them and put them on the counter of the private bar. There were several artillerymen in the bar at the time, and he did not see Taylor there then. He did not see Taylor there until Osborne came in. Barton paid for Osborne`s drink, and afterwards he (witness) sat chatting to Osborne for some time. He also stood him a drink. Osborne did not make any complaint to him about having served Taylor. He had no idea that the beer purchased by Barton was for Taylor. When he went out of the bar at half past two, Osborne was still there. Members of the County Police frequently came into his house while waiting for their train, and he knew they would not be on duty.

Cross-examined, he said he did not see Taylor drink his beer.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, of Cheriton, said at the time there were nine or ten people in the bar, including three artillerymen and two Hussars. P.C. Taylor came in, and he (witness) called for drink, which was put in front of him by Barker. He was standing on a brass rail near the counter, and the constable was behind him. He handed the beer to Taylor, who, after having a drink, put it back on the counter. Mr. Barker was then in the public bar. Witness`s young brother came in, and when calling for some drink for him, Osborne came in and asked for a pint of fives. He (witness) said “All right, I will pay for it”, and he was positive he paid for Osborne`s drink. He remained in the house for an hour, and when he went out Osborne was still there. He and Osborne had  a go at one of the automatic machines in the bar.

Cross-examined, he said he agreed with Mr. Barker`s statement about the number of people in the bar. He thought the landlord said “Good morning” to Taylor when Osborne came in. The constable was drinking his beer at that time.

William Wingate, a potman in Barker`s employ, said when he went into the bar at half past two Osborne was there.

Mr. Clarke Hall contended that the sergeant should have given notice to the publican that he was going to report him.

The Recorder informed Mr. Matthew he need not address him. Continuing, he said that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. He was of opinion it had been brought home to Mr. Barker that he had supplied liquor, whether by way of gift or sale, to the constable. He must say he agreed a good deal with Mr. Clarke Hall`s observations with reference to the conduct of Osborne in having refrained from giving to the publican any intimation that he was about to report him for having supplied the constable with drink. The information that had been laid before him on the part of the Chief Constable was certainly not conclusive to some extent, but the landlord and the evidence called on his behalf was not of the best description. If the evidence for the police had been rebutted by clear and positive evidence, then matters might have been different. What were they to say of a landlord who went into the witness box and gave evidence in the way Barker had? He even told them he was not in the habit of looking to see whether the constable had any armlet on. It seemed impossible for him to say that the Justices were wrong in their decision.

The Recorder then called P.C. Taylor and censured him rather severely, saying he hoped he would not have to speak again to a constable of that borough in the way he had done that morning. His (Taylor`s) conduct was disgraceful.

Folkestone Daily News 5-2-1908

 

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.

The following licences were under consideration: Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and Packet Boat.

The licences of the Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Packet Boat, and Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, were adjourned till March 2^nd.

 

Folkestone Express 8-2-1908

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, February 5^th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Superintendent`s Report

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen`s Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28^th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates` certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31^st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5^th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

Folkestone Herald 8-2-1908

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 5^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report. (For which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well conducted.

The various licensees then came forward for their renewals.

The granting of the licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane (Mr. George Barker), and of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street (Mr. Tom Goldsmith) was also deferred to the adjourned sessions, but in these two cases no notice of opposition was given. In the case of the Packet Boat Inn, the adjournment was to enable the Committee of Justices to consider certain suggested alterations.

Folkestone Daily News 2-3-1908

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 2^nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Carpenter, Herbert, Leggett, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, and Stainer.

The objection to the Railway Hotel having been withdrawn, the licence was renewed.

Folkestone Express 7-3-1908

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

The Railway Hotel

Mr. Barker applied for the renewal of the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge.

The Chief Constable said steps were being taken to transfer the licence to a new tenant, so he proposed to withdraw his objection.

The licence was therefore granted.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1908

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 2^nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Councillor G. Boyd, Col. Fynmore, Col. Hamilton, Messrs, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Town Hall on Monday morning, when the licences of three houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street (Beer and Co.), the Eagle, High Street (Style and Winch), and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street (Ash and Co.), were referred to the Compensation Authority for East Kent.

Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe

Mr. Barker, of the Railway Hotel, was granted a temporary licence, as a new tenant was to be put into the house.

The Chief Constable withdrew his objection, and the Bench granted the application.

Folkestone Express 9-5-1908

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday, the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Road, was transferred from Mr. Barker to Mr. Lord.

Folkestone Herald 9-5-1908

Wednesday, May 6^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Councillor C. Jenner.

The licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was transferred from Mr. G. Barker to Mr. Joseph Percival Lord. Mr. Lord said that although he had never before held a licence, he had managed a business. Mr. Barker, who stated that he was leaving the town for Swanley that day, was excused from attending on transfer day.

 

Folkestone Express 30-5-1908

Wednesday, May 27^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett. G. Boyd and C. Jenner Esqs.

The transfer of the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from Mr. Marker to Mr. P. Lord was confirmed.

Folkestone Herald 30-5-1908

Wednesday, May 27^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Councillor C. Jenner, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Mr. G. Boyd.

The licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was transferred from Mr. Barker to Mr. George Percival Law (sic).