Imperial (1) 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Chronicle 18-1-1902

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, a case of considerable importance was heard before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer. Mr. T. Stainer was also present, but did not adjudicate.

James Hills, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for an offence under the Child Messenger Act: “That he did supply a child under the age of 14 with a pint of beer, the vessel which contained the same not being securely sealed according to the requirements of the Act”.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. Bradley) having read the section relating to the summons, defendant was asked to plead.

He replied: I do not know what you mean. What is the Act?

Mr. Bradley: As a publican you ought to know.

P.C. Thomas Sales said: At about 7.40 on the evening of the 5^th inst. I was on duty in Black Bull Road, when I observed a child, Bessie Stokes, carrying a bottle similar to the one now produced. She went into the Imperial Hotel, and when she came out, from what she told me I examined the bottle. I saw that there was a label over the cork; it was partially stuck and fastened to the nose of the bottle. I took hold of the label and easily removed it without damaging it. I then took the child back into the public house and found defendant and his son behind the bar. I said to them “Have you just served this child?”, and at the same time produced the bottle and label. Defendant said “Yes, I served her with a pint of beer, and I stuck the seal on it”. I replied “I have removed the label. You can see that it is not broken. The child is under the age of 14”. I added “I shall make a report of this case. It is a question whether this label is a seal”. Defendant replied “Stick it on again”. I then left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and was informed that the child was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards, defendant`s son saw me, and from what he said I again saw the defendant, and said to him “You quite understand what I am going to report you for, Mr. Hills?” He replied “I know you are going to make a case, and you are going to make an example of me”.

Eliza Stokes, wife of William Stokes, 6, Park Street, deposed to the child and the policeman bringing home the beer, and said that the child was eight years of age last November.

The Chief Constable said that was the case, and called the attention of the Bench to the latter portion of Section Five of the Act, which related to a sealed vessel, contending that to properly seal meant that the seal could not be removed without being damaged or destroyed.

Defendant, who, by the way, is not a member of the Licensed Victuallers` Association, although offered, refused legal assistance. He said he was under the impression that everything was all right. He had acted in accordance with the instructions of the Act to the best of his ability.

The Bench retired to deliberate, and upon their return into Court five minutes later, the Chairman said: Mr. Hills, as a licensed victualler you are supposed to know the law, and it your duty to see that you comply with the Act. Sealed means secured, and there is no doubt in the minds of the Bench that an offence has been committed. This being the first case, the Bench will only fine you the nominal penalty of 5s. and 15s. costs. The licence will not be endorsed. You might not have been aware of it, but there is no doubt that the use of a label improperly secured is an offence under the Act of Parliament.

The case caused considerable interest among licence holders in the town, many of whom are evidently incensed against Mr. Hills, in that he was not properly defended in the very first case tried concerning a matter of so much importance to the trade, it being felt that a penalty which would have carried reasonable ground for appeal should have been asked for.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1902

Wednesday, January 15^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Alderman Salter, G.I. Swoffer, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

James Hills, of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned for allowing his son to deliver to a child named Bessie Stokes, under the age of 14 years, a pint of beer in a vessel not properly sealed..

The defendant said he did not understand the Act.

The Magistrates` Clerk said being a publican, he ought to know it.

P.C. Sales said about 7.40 on the evening of the 5^th inst. he was on duty in Black Bull Road, and saw a child named Bessie Stokes carrying a bottle similar to the one produced. She went into the Imperial Hotel and came out again. He saw she had a bottle containing liquor, and he examined it, and saw there was a label on it (produced) stuck over the top of the cork, and fastened or partially stuck on the nose of the bottle.

Mr. Wightwick: Over the cork and over the bottle too?

Witness said “Yes”. He took hold of the label, and easily removed it without damaging it. He took the child back into the public house. Defendant`s son was behind the bar. He said to him “Have you just served this child?” At the same time he produced the bottle and label. Defendant`s son said “Yes, I served her with a pint of beer and stuck the seal on”. Witness said “I removed the label, which you see is not broken, and the child is under 14 years of age”. He had the label in his hand. He told defendant he should report the case, and question whether the label was a seal. He replied “Stick it on again”. Witness left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and ascertained that she was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards defendant`s son saw him, and owing to what he said he again saw defendant, and said “You quite understand what I`m going to report you for, Mr. Hills? For not sealing the vessel”. He replied “I know, you are going to make a case and make an example of me”. The bottle contained a pint of beer.

Eliza Stokes, wife of Wm. Stokes, of 6, Park Street, and mother of the little girl, said on the 5^th her daughter brought home a pint of beer from the Imperial Hotel in a bottle. Her age was eight last November.

The Superintendent of the police directed attention to the section of the Act which said that the vessel should be sealed with some substance without the destruction of which the plug, cork, or stopper could not be withdrawn. In this case the label was removed and not destroyed.

Defendant: But the cork could not be.

Mr. Wightwick: Have you anything to say?

Defendant: Not in the least. Everything is right. I acted according to the Act to the best of my ability. I did not wish to do anything wrong. The firm sent me a letter. Perhaps you would like to see it? I acted up to it.

The Magistrates retired, and on returning, Mr. Wightwick said: As a licensed victualler you are supposed to know the law. You seem to think, because you put a label on the top of the bottle like that you complied with the Act. The Act says distinctly that the expression “seal” means secured with some substance, without the destruction of which the cork, plug, or stopper cannot be withdrawn. Of course this label was not even stuck, and could be removed like that. The result is that you have committed an offence under the Act of Parliament providing that it must be secured and sealed up properly. It is well for all the licence holders to bear this in mind. This is the first offence, and you are liable to be fined 40s., but we take into consideration the fact that probably you may have mistaken the Act, and therefore we shall give you a nominal penalty of 5s., and the costs are 15s. We shall not endorse the licence, because no doubt you mistook your duties. We are sorry to be obliged to fine you 5s. and 15s. costs.

Mr. Wightwick, continuing, said the Bench would like to ask the Superintendent how it was the person who sent the child to the public house was not also before them?  That was an offence under the Act.

The Superintendent said the matter of taking proceedings was under his consideration.

Folkestone Herald 18-1-1902

Local News

Much interest was evinced in the first case under the new Children`s Bill (Intoxicating Liquor Act), which was heard in Folkestone on Wednesday. The case was a somewhat peculiar one, owing to the fact that the barman of the house had placed a seal over the cork of the bottle, but that this was alleged not to have been properly secured. It was, we believe, the first prosecution of the kind in the country, and the Magistrates had a rather knotty point to decide. A large number of people were present in court to hear the evidence, which we give below. The charge was against James Hills, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and was described as a breach of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Children) Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said defendant was summoned for having allowed his son to serve a child with one pint of beer in a bottle not properly sealed according to the Act.

Defendant, when asked whether he was Guilty or Not Guilty, said: I don`t understand you. What is the Act?

Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. H.B. Bradley): You will know presently.

Chairman: It will be Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said at 7.40 on the evening of the 5^th inst., he saw a child named Bessie Stokes go into the Imperial Hotel. Shortly afterwards she came out with a bottle, like the one produced, in her hand, and from what she told him in reply to questions he examined the bottle, and saw there was the label produced stuck over the cork and partly stuck to the sides and nose of the bottle.

The Chairman: Was this stuck down over the cork and over the bottle?

Witness: Yes, sir. I then took hold of the label and easily removed it without damaging it in the least. I took the child back into the house and found defendant and his son behind the bar. I said “Have you served this child?”, at the same time producing the bottle and the label. I said “I removed the label, and you see it is not broken. The child is under 14 years of age”. I said to the defendant “I shall make a report of this case. It is a question of whether the label is a seal”. He replied “Stick it on again”. I then left the premises with the child, saw her parents, and ascertained that she was eight years of age. Shortly afterwards the son saw me, and from what he said I again saw defendant. I said to him “You quite understand what I am going to report you for, Mr. Hill; for not sealing your vessel?” He replied “I know, you`re going to make a case; you`re going to make an example of me”.

Eliza Stokes, wife of William Stokes, residing at 3, Park Street, said she remembered the constable coming to her house on the evening of January 5^th with her child Bessie. The child had a bottle like the one produced, in which was a pint of beer. Witness knew that her daughter fetched it from the Imperial.

The Chief Constable said he would like to call the attention of the Justices to Section 5 of the Act, which says “The expression seal means secured by any substance without the destruction of which the stopper, plug or cork cannot be withdrawn”.

The Chairman: Have you any witnesses to call?

Defendant: Not at all.

Chairman: Have you anything to say?

Defendant: No, I have nothing at all to say. Not in the least. Everything is all right. I acted according to the Act to the best of my ability. The firm sent me a letter, which perhaps you would like to see, and I acted up to it.

The Magistrates retired, and returned into Court after about ten minutes deliberation, when the Chairman said: As a licensed victualler, Mr. Hills, you are supposed to know the law. You seem to think that because you put a label on the top of the bottle without fastening it down it complies with the Act, but the Act says distinctly that the expression sealed means secured by any substance without the destruction of which the stopper, plug or cork cannot be withdrawn. Of course this was not even stuck down. There is no doubt you have committed an offence under the Act of Parliament, which says that a vessel containing liquor must be secured and sealed. It is well that all licensed victuallers should bear that in mind. This is your first offence, for which you are liable to a fine of 40s. We have taken into consideration that you have probably mistaken the Act, and shall only impose a nominal fine of 5s. and 15s. costs. We shall not endorse the licence.

Then, addressing the Chief Constable, Mr. Wightwick said: We should like to ask how it is that the person sending the child is not also brought before us?

The Chief Constable: That is a matter which is under my consideration as to whether we shall issue a summons or not.

Folkestone Programme 20-1-1902

Notes

One of the first convictions in the country under the Child Messenger Act was heard at Folkestone. The case was one which aroused some interest, especially amongst temperance advocates and the local licence holders. The Act requires that no messenger under the age of fourteen years shall be served with intoxicating liquors except in bottles or other utensils “securely corked and sealed”.

In the case in point a child of eight was sent to the defendant`s public house, was served with beer, and the defendant not only corked the bottle, but placed over the stopper a gummed label, such as those who purchase bottled beers and bottles of aerated waters are familiar with. Just outside the public house a policeman met the child, and with apparent ease he removed the label without damaging it. In the same way a letter for post may be opened after being sealed, or a postage stamp may be removed immediately after it is affixed to a letter or package. It is not believed generally that the legislature ever intended that the security should be cut so fine as in this case; any more than it is expected that the publican should detain the messenger and the utensil until the label dried. The great Trade Organisation took eminent counsel`s opinion on the subject, and the brewers gave directions to their tenants accordingly. Hence the use of the label, which, according to the Folkestone Bench of Magistrates, is not in compliance with the Act.

One would have thought that the local Trade Protection Society would have taken some action in the case, if only to draw an explanation from the Bench as to the meaning of the special section of the Act to which the Chief Constable directed attention. Nor is it easy to see what action can be taken by the parents. If the publican is compelled to cork and seal the full bottle securely, it is too ridiculous to suggest that the parents must send the empty bottle “securely corked and sealed”. The members of the local Licensed Victuallers have, however, now decided not to serve any child under the age of fourteen under any circumstances whatever. But the Society hardly represents half the Trade in the district. It is a question whether those landlords who are the mere servants of the brewers dare refuse serving any child. All credit is due to the members of the Society for the steps they have taken.

The Act falls far short of what was expected, inasmuch as it does not prevent young children from going to public houses. In the Folkestone case referred to, the messenger was but eight years of age and moreover a girl. One of the strongest arguments in favour of a temperance measure was that children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited from going to public houses. But the Act which came into force on the first of this month does not protect the child from the contaminating influences of such places if it succeeds in making it difficult for the little one to sip from the bottle or utensil on the way home. Advocates of temperance are thankful, however, for the very incomplete Act they have got, and eagerly await the promised Government measure of licensing reform to be brought into the House of Commons in this Session.

Southeastern Gazette 21-1-1902

Local News

At Folkestone on Wednesday, James Hill, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, was, under Section 5 of the Children`s Act, fined 5s. and 15s. costs for serving a child with liquor in a bottle which was not properly secured. It was stated that the child was seen to come out of the place with a bottle, on which was a label, but this was not properly secured, a constable removing it without injuring it.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10-1-1903

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold, Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. G. Peden, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer.

Stephen Brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on the 26^th of December.

Inspector Lilley said on the day in question he saw the defendant in the Imperial Hotel, Foord Road. He was drunk, and was subsequently ejected and taken to the police station, where he was detained until he became sober. Defendant had a first given a false name and address.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 10-1-1903

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Stephen brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

Inspt. Lilley said about 20 minutes past six on the 26^th of last month he heard a scuffle in the Imperial. On going inside he saw defendant surrounded by six men, trying to put on his coat. Defendant was afterwards ejected by the landlord and a barman, and then witness found he was incapable of taking care of himself, therefore he took defendant to the police station, where he was detained until sober.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 10-1-1903

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before Alderman Penfold, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, Councillor Peden, and Mr. Stainer.

Stephen Brazier was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Lilley stated that he went into the Imperial hotel, Foord Road, and found defendant drunk, trying to get his coat on. When outside he could hardly walk, so witness brought him to the station.

Defendant, who said he was very sorry, was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, in default 7 days` hard labour. The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Express 14-2-1903

Thursday,  February 12^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Alderman Salter, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling drink to a drunken person on licensed premises.

The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. J Minter appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk stated that the summons was issued under Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872, and opened the case in detail.

Mr. Wightwick asked if the case did not come under the new Act.

Mr. Minter replied that it did not.

The Town Clerk thereupon called Henry Frederick Martin Schutz, manager of the Leas Pavilion, who said Richard Gambrill was employed by him as porter. He had been there seven months. On January 22^nd, in the evening about half past eight or a quarter to nine, he had occasion to send him out. When he returned he came to the conclusion, by the way he answered him, that he had had too much to drink, and he told him to go home. Under ordinary circumstances he would have left work between ten and half past.

By Mr. Minter: During the seven months he had been in his employ the man`s conduct had been very good indeed. He could not tell if during the week previous he had been suffering from influenza. He knew he was an old army man, but he had never heard that he had had a sunstroke in India. He considered that on the evening in question he was not drunk, but under the influence of drink. He might, however, have been suffering from the effects of influenza. He seemed dazed. He had sent him to Mr. Pain`s in Sandgate Road with a dozen lemonade bottles on an open tray, and he brought six back.

Mr. Minter: A pretty good performance for a drunken man, isn`t it?

Charles Watson, living at 42, Fernbank Crescent, and staff cook at the Leas Pavilion, said on January 22^nd he went to the Imperial Hotel about 10.40 at night. He saw Gambrill there, sitting on a seat in the bar. He came out with him, and left him at the bottom of Walton Road. He then seemed dazed, as if he had had two or three drinks.

By Mr. Minter: He saw Gambrill before he left the Leas Pavilion on January 22^nd. He had complained to him about a week previous that he was suffering from influenza, and also of pains in the back and head. In walking from the Imperial Hotel to Walton Road the man walked all right. He was not drunk, but appeared to be under the influence of drink.

Amy Ruth Lane, living at 116, Garden Road, said on January 22^nd she saw Gambrill at the Leas Pavilion at eight o`clock. She noticed that he was very ill, which he had been for some time. He may have had a drink, but had not had too much. She went to meet him when he left, and saw him again in the Imperial Hotel. He was sitting down quietly and said he was thinking. She asked him if he was coming home, and he got up and went out. She went home with him and arrived home talking the same as usual. After he got inside she locked the door.

At this point Mr. Minter objected. He did not think anything which took place afterwards in his own house ought to be gone into here. He did not think they ought to hear that on that particular charge.

The Chairman: Anything that took place in the house cannot have anything to do with this case.

The Town Clerk was seen whispering to the Clerk to the Justices, and Mr. Minter at once raised a vigorous protest. He said the Town Clerk was whispering loud enough for a deaf man to hear. He was actually trying to contradict his own witness, and he had never heard of such a thing in his life.

The Town Clerk replied with equal warmth that he was simply asking the Magistrates` Clerk if he could treat this witness as a hostile witness, which he had a perfect right to do.

Mr. Minter retorted that he should have applied to the Bench in the proper way, when he could have raised his objection.

The Chairman: I don`t think we will trouble Mr. Minter about the matter. There is evidently no proof whatever that the man was drunk, and we shall dismiss the case.

Folkestone Herald 14-2-1903

Thursday, February 12^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. W. Herbert, Alderman Salter, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

James Hill, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned for selling beer to a drunken person.

Considerable interest was manifested in the case, the Court being crowded. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

In opening the case for the prosecution, the Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) stated that the summons had been issued under Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872, which provided “that any licensed person who sells any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence £10”. It was not necessary for him to prove that the beer was actually sold to the man, neither was it necessary to prove that the licensee himself must actually know what was taking place, as he was responsible for the acts of his managers.

Mr. Kidson also reminded the Bench that the man in respect to whom this prosecution had arisn fell down the steps at his home on the evening of the alleged offence, and died from the injuries which he sustained. An inquest was subsequently held on the body. Whatever the Magistrates` decision was, added the Town Clerk, he felt sure they would come to the conclusion that it was a proper case to be brought before them, and that the police had not exceeded their duty in taking that step.

Henry Frederick Martin Schultz, manager of the Leas Pavilion, was the first witness called. He stated that deceased, Richard Gamble, had been in their employ as porter for about seven months. On Thursday, the 22^nd of January, about half past eight in the evening, he sent him on an errand to Mr. Baines, jeweller, and from the answer he gave him on his return he concluded that Gamble had had a “drop too much”. In consequence of that, he told him to go home, but under ordinary circumstances he would not have left work until between ten o`clock and half past.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defence, witness said that during the time Gamble had been in the service of the Leas Pavilion his conduct had been very good indeed. He did not know that the man was suffering from influenza, although the same evening he had heard someone ask Gamble what was the matter with him. He had never heard that he had had a sunstroke whilst in India, but knew that he was an old Army man.

Mr. Minter: Has one of the policemen been to you to ask for information?

Witness: The Town Sergeant came and saw me about it.

Did Inspector Swift come to you? – Yes, he did.

When you told the Inspector he had had a drop too much, did you not also tell him you did not consider the man was drunk? – I told him that I did not think the man was drunk, but that he was under the influence of drink.

Witness further stated that he sent Gamble with a tray containing a dozen bottles of lemonade to Mr. Baines, whose residence was about 40 yards away across the road. He brought six bottles back again.

Mr. Minter: That is very good for a drunken man. (Laughter)

Charles Watson, a cook at the Leas Pavilion, said that on the 22^nd of January he went to the Imperial Hotel about 20 minutes to 11 in the evening, and saw Gamble there. When they came out of the Imperial, he left Gamble at the bottom of Walton Road. Whilst in the hotel, Gamble sat on a seat in a sleepy attitude. He appeared to be dazed, and seemed as if he had had two or three drinks. Half a glass of beer, he noticed, was on the counter near him.

In reply to Mr. Minter, Watson said he saw Gamble at the Leas Pavilion at nine o`clock. For about a week he had complained to him that he was suffering from influenza, and had also complained of pains in his back and head. During the time he was with him after leaving the hotel – a distance of about 40 yards – Gamble walked alright. He (Gamble) was not perfectly sober, he was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk. What he (witness) observed might have been the effects of the pains in the man`s back and head.

Amy Ruth Lang, 116, Garden Road, who is also employed at the Leas Pavilion, gave evidence to the effect that when she saw Gamble at eight o`clock in the evening, he looked very ill. He might have had a drink, but he had not had much.

At this stage, Mr. Minter interposed with the remark that he hoped they were not all going to be told they were drunk when they had had a glass of beer. If so, they would all be charged. (Laughter)

Continuing, witness observed that she saw Gamble later in the evening at the Imperial, when he was sitting down quietly, and seemed to be thinking. She asked him what was the matter with him, and he replied “Oh, I was just thinking”. She went home with him, and he talked as usual.

The Town Clerk was proceeding to question witness relative to what took place when witness and Gamble reached home, when Mr. Minter raised an objection to anything which transpired in the house being introduced into the case. The Bench upheld Mr. Minter`s objection, upon which the Town Clerk intimated that his only object was to show the condition of the man when he reached home.

This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Minter was about to address the Bench for the defence when he was told by the Chairman that he need not trouble any further, as the Bench had come to the conclusion that there was no proof whatever that the man was drunk. Therefore the case would be dismissed.

Mr. Minter thereupon mentioned that defendant`s licence was amongst those which were adjourned, and he had no doubt that it was adjourned because of a prior conviction against him for not properly sealing a bottle. It was the first case under the new Act in Folkestone, which place distinguished itself by being the first to obtain a conviction of that kind, and it came off. As the application for the licence was adjourned, and as some of the Magistrates were on the Licensing Committee, he wanted to disabuse their minds of the slightest pretence of that charge having been made.

The Chairman announced that the Bench were perfectly satisfied with Mr. Minter`s explanation. 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville, Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope, Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting; and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel, as to her husband`s conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear)

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man`s living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel`s observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

They warned the holder of the licence of the Imperial Hotel, who was convicted on the 15^th of January, 1902, for selling beer to a child under 14 years of age, except in a sealed vessel, that any future breach of the licensing laws would jeopardise his licence

Folkestone Herald 12-9-1903

Thursday, September 10^th: Before Aldermen T.J. Vaughan and S. Penfold, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Thomas Davis was charged with stealing a shilling from Thomas Basset, a labourer.

Prosecutor stated that he had been in company with Davis from about seven o`clock in the morning until about half past six in the evening the previous day. At that time prisoner asked him to lend him twopence. Witness took out a shilling from his purse, and prisoner, snatching it from him, went into the Imperial and called for a glass of beer. He was refused, because he had had enough to drink. When Davis came out of the public house witness asked him several times for the shilling, but prisoner refused to return it. He then gave prisoner into custody.

Inspector Swift proved the arrest of prisoner.

The Bench considered there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, and the case was therefore dismissed.