Rose Hotel 1900s

Folkestone Herald 19-1-1901

Felix

If there is a watering place in the United Kingdom that ought to be justly proud of the magnificence of its hotels, surely it ought to be Folkestone. Strange, then, it is to read the following:- “The Folkestone Arms Commercial Hotel and Excise Office is the principal hotel in Folkestone, and one, as regards comfort and convenience, of which any town might be proud. The beds are excellent; of the cookery the choicest epicure could not complain; the wines and spirits challenge competition with any; the management reflecting the greatest credit; the posting equal to any on the road; and, though last, not least of its recommending qualities, the charges reasonable.” The site of this hotel was in Bayle Street, near the Herald printing works of today. Mr. Venner, the present genial proprietor of the Rose will probably learn that his house in the far-off days I am alluding to was considered a “a very comfortable establishment, with good accommodations, including stabling and lock-up coach-houses. It is situated in Broad Street (now High Street), opposite the entrance from Sandgate Road, commanding a fine land prospect, and within a few minutes` walk of the beach. Coaches and vans to and from London, Dover, Sandgate, Hythe, and every other part of the coast call daily.”

Folkestone, it would seem, was years ago well provided with public houses, for the writer says: “Of inns and public houses in Folkestone, it may be said, like churches in an old city, they are more numerical than ornamental; without wishing to be invidious, we would name the North Foreland, the George, the King`s Arms, the Folkestone Cutter, the Folkestone Lugger, and the Fleur-de-lis, affording a variety of accommodations, which we have not space to enumerate.” The North Foreland was in the neighbourhood of the Fish Market, and it was here of an evening that the Town councillors and Jurats of the day would enjoy a rubber of whist and discuss the town`s affairs. But “The Foreland” has disappeared, and on its site the Fishermen`s Bethel has been erected. The palatial Queen`s Hotel covers the ground on which once stood the King`s Arms. As Folkestone grew I suppose it was considered infra dig to term a house “The Lugger” in the fashionable part of the town. Then it was altered to the East Kent Arms – the name the old, but renovated house in Sandgate Road is now known by.

Folkestone Herald 23-8-1902

Yesterday (Friday), August 22^nd: Before Alderman Banks and Mr. W.G. Wightwick.

James Douglas Somerville, a Colonial trooper, was charged with having stolen an umbrella from the Rose Hotel, and a pair of boots from Messrs. Lewis, Hyland and Linom.

Percy Harry Venner, of the Rose, deposed that prisoner came to the house, and witness asked him to leave. Prisoner asked for a week`s accommodation, and witness said he had none, being full up. Prisoner left, but came back, and, taking up a chicken, started to eat it. Witness ordered him out, and he left. He went out subsequently with an umbrella (produced).

John Walter, an assistant at Messrs. Lewis, Hyland and Linom, stated that prisoner came to the shop and selected several articles, and wanted to have them entered. Mr. Linom said he could not, and prisoner, who had put a pair of boots on, went off. Prisoner gave his name, and said he was at Room 373, Metropole Hotel.

Frank Newbury, a porter at the Metropole, said prisoner had not stayed there.

P.C. Lemar proved the arrest. When charged, prisoner said “Oh! God bless me!”

Prisoner now said he was drunk.

The Superintendent said prisoner had served in Bethune`s Mounted Infantry.

Fined £1 and costs, of 14 days` in each case.

 

Folkestone Express 30-8-1902

Friday, August 22^nd: Before Alderman Banks and W. Wightwick Esq.

James Douglas Somerville was charged with larceny.

Mr. P.H. Venner, proprietor of the Rose Commercial Hotel, said prisoner went to his house between three and four o`clock on Thursday afternoon, and seemed to be in a dazed state. Witness asked him to leave the premises, but he said he wanted accommodation for a week. Witness replied that they had no rooms. Shortly afterwards he went into the commercial room and took some chicken from a dish and ate it. When requested to leave he did so, but returned later, when he took an umbrella. Shartly afterwards a gentleman complained that his was missing. Witness then gave information to the police.

John Walter, an assistant at Messrs. Lewis and Co.`s, said about 4.45 p.m. prisoner went into the shop and asked to see some pants and vests. He selected three pairs and then asked for some shirts, and selected one. He then inquired if they kept boots. Witness said “No, but I can get some”. Prisoner said he would be much obliged if witness would do so. Witness procured four pairs and prisoner tried on a pair and told him to give the old ones to the porter. He then asked for some dark trousers, and selected a pair. He then asked for the bill and said he would call in the morning and pay for the articles. Witness asked for his name and address. He gave the right name, but said the address was Room 273, Hotel Metropole. Prisoner then asked if witness could lend him a crown. Witness then called Mr. Linom and asked if he knew the gentleman. Mr. Linon told the prisoner he could not take anything away without paying. Witness then went to speak to Mr. Linom, and prisoner left the shop with the boots in his possession, and witness gave information to the police.

The second porter at the Hotel etropole gave evidence to the effect that prisoner had never stayed there.

P.C. Lemar said on the 21^st inst. he was on duty in Rendezvous Street about six p.m., when his attention was called to prisoner by Mr. Linom. He arrested prisoner, and when searched he had 4s. 6½d. in his possession. Prisoner appeared to be very drunk.

The Superintendent said prisoner had served for twelve months in Bethuen`s mounted Infantry. He had drawn his gratuity and was waiting for his passage to America.

Fined £1, or in default 14 days` hard labour in each instance.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-4-1905

Local News

The Rose Hotel is again on the market. Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward are the auctioneers.

Folkestone Herald 27-5-1905

Local News

At the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, on Thursday afternoon, Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward offered for sale the valuable freehold commercial house known as the Rose Hotel. Bidding commenced at £5,000, and rose to £6,750, at which figure it was withdrawn.

Folkestone Daily News 4-9-1905

Saturday, September 2^nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. Venner to Mr. Hunt.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9-9-1905

Saturday, September 2^nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Mr. J. Stainer, and Alderman T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. Robert Hunt applied for the temporary endorsement of the licence of the Rose Hotel from the present holder, Mr. P. Venner. Mr. Hunt gave the usual formal evidence, and said that it was his intention to apply for the full transfer at the next Licensing Sessions in due course. Granted.

Folkestone Express 9-9-1905

Saturday, September 2^nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Alderman Vaughan and J. Stainer Esq.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. Venner to Mr. R. Hunt.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1905

Felix

The Rose Hotel, I suppose, is generally known amongst commercial men throughout the country. Its reputation has stood high for many years – dating back to the time when the late Mr. Medhurst was the proprietor. Mr. Fred Ralph followed in that gentleman`s footsteps, and made the Rose a home from home. Mr. Venner, the last proprietor, who has just retired to Marten Road, has also been very jealous of the reputation of the famous hostelry. He has proved a model host in every way, and earned the respect and esteem of one and all. Mr. and Mrs. Venner leave the Rose with the best wishes of their numerous friends. Mr. Hunt, who has taken over the destinies of the Rose, comes to Folkestone with a good reputation, and he, too, has the good wishes of his wide circle of acquaintances.

Folkestone Daily News 21-9-1905

Thursday, September 21^st: Before Ald. Herbert and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Frederick Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a half sovereign, the property of his master, Robert Hunt, proprietor of the Rose Hotel. Mr. Haines defended.

Robert George Hunt, son of the prosecutor, deposed: I assist my father in the business. Money has recently been missing from a desk in the hotel. Last night I placed two half sovereigns, a florin and a shilling in the desk. All the coins were marked and the desk locked. About 7.25 this morning I went to the desk in the office and found one of the half sovereigns missing. The desk was closed but not locked. In consequence of what I was told I went to the Rendezvous Hotel and received from the landlord the half sovereign (produced). I at once informed the police. The prisoner has been in my father`s employ two weeks.

By Mr. Haines: I put the marked money in the desk on Tuesday night as well. My father kept the key of the desk, and it is my duty to look after the office. The lock appeared to have been forced. The prisoner and other servants had access to the office and could help themselves to food that was kept there. The prisoner slept out last night.

A waiter named Emery said he was in the commercial room this morning at 7.25 and saw the prisoner go in the direction of the office, but did not see him go in. Prisoner shortly afterwards left the hotel, and on returning said he had been in next door (meaning the Rendezvous Hotel).

George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said prisoner came into his bar about 7.20 this morning and asked for some whisky and gave half a sovereign to pay for it. Witness gave him 8s. 5d. change. Prisoner was the first customer that morning. The half sovereign was put on a shelf at the back of the bar. After prisoner left Mr. Hunt came to the hotel, and witness handed him the half sovereign he had taken from prisoner.

Inspector Lilley said at 8 o`clock this morning he went to the Rose Hotel and saw Mr. Hunt, who handed him the half sovereign (produced). Witness examined the desk, and found the lock could be easily forced with a thin knife. He saw the prisoner at 8.30 in the kitchen of the hotel, and said to him “You will be charged with stealing a half sovereign from the desk in the office this morning”. Prisoner replied “I have not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. Witness took him to the police station and read the charge over to him, and he said “I only had the half sovereign the governor paid to me”. Witness searched him and found 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze.

Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel said the prisoner was employed as chef. Last Saturday he paid him 30s., but could not say whether it was all in gold or not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: I have never marked any coin before in my life.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he was perfectly innocent. The half sovereign he changed was paid to him by Mr. Hunt on Saturday night.

Prisoner was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 23-9-1905

Thursday, September 21^st: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Frederick Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a marked half sovereign, the property of his employer, Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel. The accused was defended by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Mr. Robert George Hunt, the son of the landlord, said that prisoner was employed by his father as chef. His father, when taking over the hotel, took over the old employees of Mr. Venner, among whom was the accused. In consequence of money having been missed from a roll-top desk, witness on Wednesday night placed a marked half sovereign and other marked coins in the desk. In the morning the half sovereign was missing, and from that which subsequently transpired the police were communicated with.

In cross-examination witness said that other persons had access to the room in the morning. The key of the room was taken to his father each night, and fetched again in the morning.

Walter Emery, waiter at the Rose Hotel, said: About seven o`clock this morning I saw prisoner in the kitchen. About 7.15 I was in the commercial room, when I saw the prisoner pass with an empty dish in the direction of the office. A few minutes later he returned with a dish of eggs. The eggs are kept in the office. A little later in the morning I saw him leave the hotel. He was absent about five minutes. When he returned I was in the kitchen. He said he was in next door (I presume the Rendezvous), when someone came in and changed half a sovereign, spent 1s. 4d., and George, the landlord, gave him 9s. 10d. change in mistake.

Cross-examined: Witness said that he and the chambermaid had access to the office. It was not unusual for accuse to go out in the morning and have a drink. He could assign no reason for accused telling him about the change episode.

Mr. George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous, said: I know the prisoner. About 7.20 this morning he came into the bar and asked for a drop of whisky, and paid me with half a sovereign. The drink was 3d. of Johnny Walker. Independent of that he had a quarter to take away with him in a bottle. I gave him 8s. 6d. change. Accused was the first customer this morning. After receiving the half sovereign I placed it on the shelf at the back of the bar. There were no other half sovereigns on the shelf. After accused left, Mr. Hunt came to the bar, and in consequence of something he said, I handed him the half sovereign I had received from the prisoner.

Cross-examined: Prisoner came in about 7.20, stayed about half a minute, and immediately after his leaving Mr. Hunt came in.

Inspector Lilley said: About eight o`clock this morning, from information received, I went to the Rose Hotel, where the first witness, Mr. Hunt, handed me the half sovereign (produced). From what he said, I examined a desk in the office. It is a roller-top desk, and I found that the lock was easily forced with a thin-bladed knife. I interviewed Emery and Godfrey, and subsequently saw the landlord. About 8.30 I saw the prisoner in the kitchen at the hotel. I said to him “You will be charged with stealing half a sovereign from the desk in the office this morning”. He replied “I have not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. At the police office I read the charge over to him, and he said “I only had the half sovereign I changed in the Rendezvous, and that the Governor paid me”. I searched him, and found on him 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze, a watch and chain, comb, pipe, pouch, and a small knife.

Cross-examined: You don`t suggest that the knife (produced) would open the desk?

Witness: No, not for a moment.

Mr. Haines: Is the lock in a defective condition?

Witness: Yes, it certainly is.

Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said: I took over the hotel a fortnight today, and took over the prisoner as chef. During the fortnight I paid the prisoner a few shillings on the first Saturday to make up the balance from Mr. Venner`s account. Last Saturday I paid him 30s; 25s. wages, and 5s. bonus, as paid by Mr. Venner. When I paid him, I paid in silver and gold. In consequence of missing money I marked a number of coins, including a half sovereign. I marked them with a triangle, and took the dates at the same time, all on Tuesday night. The marked half sovereign is the only coin missing.

Mr. Haines: Are you quite sure that you had not marked any coins before?

Witness: Quite sure. I never marked a coin before in my life.

Mr. Haines: Had you made any statement before to anyone that money had been missed?

Witness: Yes, to the young lady in the office, but not to Emery.

The Chairman said that the Bench had decided to commit accused to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

After the usual caution had been given, accused made the following statement: All I can say is that I am perfectly innocent. The half sovereign I changed this morning is the one paid me on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

Prisoner was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was offered, himself in £20, and one surety in a like amount, or two in £10 each.

Folkestone Express 23-9-1905

Thursday, September 21^st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Fredk. Charles Horlick was charged with stealing half a sovereign, the money of Mr. Hunt, the same morning. Prisoner is a chef. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Mr. George Robert Hunt, son of the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, said he had missed money from a locked desk in the office, and on Wednesday night placed two marked half sovereigns in the desk, and locked it. About 7.25 that (Thursday) morning he went to the desk, which was closed, but unlocked. One of the marked half sovereigns was missing. In consequence of what he was told he went into the Rendezvous Hotel, next door to the Rose, and received from Mr. Godfrey the half sovereign produced, which was one of the two he placed in the desk. He recognised it by certain marks upon it. About 8.30 he sent for the police. Prisoner had been in witness`s father`s employment for a fortnight, but he was previously employed by Mr. Venner.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said he put some marked money in the desk on Tuesday night, and on Wednesday morning it was still there. Witness`s father had the key of the desk at night. The chambermaid would have the key of the office first thing in the morning, in order that the staff might get out stores – tea, sugar, etc. He thought the desk was opened by a knife – forced. On one occasion when money had been missed the desk was found unlocked. With a thin, sharp knife the lock could be forced easily. He believed prisoner had been in Mr. Venner`s employ for a year. Sometimes he slept out of the hotel, and did so on Wednesday night.

Emery, a waiter at the Rose Hotel, said he saw the prisoner at seven o`clock that morning. Ata quarter past seven witness was in the Commercial Room, and saw the prisoner go in the direction of the office, and also saw him come back with some eggs. Later in the morning he saw prisoner leave the hotel, and he was absent about five minutes. He said he had been in the Rendezvous when someone went in and changed half a sovereign. He spent 1s. 4d., and the landlord gave him 9s. 10d. change in mistake.

Mr. Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said the prisoner went to the bar that morning and asked for a drop of whisky. He had three pennyworth, and tendered half a sovereign. He also had a quartern of whisky in a bottle to take away. Witness gave him 8s. 5d. change. He was the first customer that morning. Witness put the half sovereign on a shelf at the back of the bar. Shortly after Mr. Hunt entered the bar, and witness gave him the half sovereign he received from the prisoner.

Inspector Lilley said he went to the Rose Hotel about eight o`clock that morning and saw Mr. Hunt, who handed him the half sovereign produced, and from what he said witness examined a desk in the office. The lock could very easily be forced with a thin-bladed knife. He had interviews with the other witnesses, and about 8.30 saw the prisoner in the kitchen of the hotel. He told him he would be charged with stealing a half sovereign from the desk in the office that morning, and he replied “I had not been in the office until Mr. Hunt called me”. At the police station prisoner said “I only had the half sovereign I changed in the Rendezvous that the governor paid me”. There was 8s. 5d. in money found on prisoner when he was searched, and among other things a small knife.

Mr. Robert Hunt, licensee of the Rose Hotel, said he paid the prisoner 30s. on Saturday, but could not say in what coin. He put the mark on the coin produced on Tuesday night. He marked at the same time three other coins, and took the dates of them.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said he was positive he had never marked any coins before. On three different occasions last week a half sovereign was missing from the desk.

Prisoner said he was perfectly innocent. The half sovereign he changed that morning was paid to him on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

He was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Bench fixing bail at £20, and one surety in £20, or two in £10.

Folkestone Herald 23-9-1905

Thursday, September 21^st: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Fredk. Charles Horlock was charged with stealing a half sovereign from the Rose Hotel that morning. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Robert George Hunt deposed that he was assistant to his father, who was the licensed owner of the Rose Hotel. The office was just inside the door as one went into the hotel, on the left hand side. On Wednesday, about midnight, he placed two half sovereigns, with some silver coins, in the desk in the office. He locked the desk. At 7.25 that morning he went to the desk, which he found closed, but unlocked. One of the half sovereigns was missing. In consequence of something that the waiter told him he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, next door, and received from the landlord there, Mr. Godfrey, the half sovereign produced. It was one of the coins which he placed in the desk the night before. He identified it by a triangle scratched underneath the Queen`s face, and the date “1892”. He sent for the police at about half past eight, and prisoner was taken into custody.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there was a safe in the office. He would take the key up to his father`s room every night. On Tuesday night he put the marked money in the desk. It would be the prisoner`s duty to go into the office every morning for stores; the waiter would also go there for a similar purpose. Prisoner sometimes slept out at night. This particular night was one of those occasions.

A waiter named Emery, in the employ of Mr. Hunt, stated that at 7 o`clock that morning he saw prisoner in the kitchen. About a quarter past seven he was in the commercial room, and whilst there he saw prisoner go by with a dish in his hand in the direction of the office. A minute or two afterwards he saw him return. Later in the morning he saw him leave the hotel. He was absent for about five minutes, and on returning said he was in next door (he presumed the Rendezvous) when someone came in and changed half a sovereign. He spent 1s. 4d. and the landlord gave him 9s. 10d. in mistake.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness admitted that it was not an unusual thing for prisoner to go out of a morning. He did not see him go to the office.

George Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said he knew accused, who came into his bar at 7.20 that morning, and asked for some whisky. Witness served him and gave him 8s. 2d. change from the half sovereign he tendered in payment. The first witness then came into the bar, and to him he gave the half sovereign.

Inspector Lilley gave evidence as to having arrested prisoner that morning in the kitchen of the Rose Hotel. He (witness) examined the lock, and found that it could be easily forced with a knife. He took prisoner to the police station, and on searching him found 8s. 5d. in silver and bronze, a watch and chain, and other articles in his possession.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness admitted that the lock on the desk was in a defective condition.

Robert Hunt, landlord of the Rose Hotel, said he took over the premises two weeks ago. He employed prisoner as the chef. He (witness) marked the money produced.

Prisoner said all he could say was that he was perfectly innocent, and that the half sovereign that he changed that morning was one that was paid to him on Saturday night by Mr. Hunt.

Accused was committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions for the borough, to be held on Monday, October 9^th, bail being allowed in the sum of £40, himself in £20, and a further surety of a like amount.

Folkestone Daily News 9-10-1905

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 9^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Frederick Charles Horlick, 38, hotel chef, was charged with stealing 10s., the property of Robert Hunt, on the 21^st September, 1905, at the Rose Hotel. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Wiegall prosecuted.

Robert George Hunt stated that he was the son of the landlord of the Rose Hotel. There was a desk in the office close to the door. His father marked two half sovereigns and some silver on the 19^th Sept., and placed them in the desk on the following day. The desk was then locked. At 7.20 on the following morning witness found the desk shut but unlocked. He missed one half sovereign (marked). From certain information witness visited the Rendezvous Hotel at 7.25, and was handed the marked half sovereign (produced) by the landlord. It was one of the coins marked by his father in witness`s presence. Prisoner was his father`s chef.

Prisoner did not wish to ask any questions.

Walter Emery, waiter at the Rose Hotel, said he saw the prisoner pass the commercial room in the direction of Rendezvous Street at 7.30 a.m. on September 21^st. When he returned he told witness that he had been in the Rendezvous, and while there a man had changed half a sovereign, and having spent 1s. 4d., had received 9s. 8d. change. He made a joke of it.

In reply to the prisoner, the witness said he did not say that it was himself (the prisoner) who changed the half sovereign.

George Alma Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said he knew Horlick. On the morning of the 21^st September prisoner came into the bar and had some whisky, handing a half sovereign in payment, which was placed on a shelf at the back of the box. It was the only half sovereign there. Mr. Hunt jun. came in almost immediately, and witness handed him the half sovereign.

Inspector Lilley said that at about a quarter to eight on September 21^st he visited the Rose Hotel, and saw an American roller desk. He found that the lock could be pushed back with a knife very easily. Witness charged the prisoner. At the police station 8s. 5d. was found on him, also a knife, but it would not open the desk.

Prisoner declined to give evidence, but read a statement from the dock. He said that at 7.30 he went to the Rendezvous Hotel to get a drink, taking a half sovereign of his own from a drawer. He paid with that for his drinks. He did not know how the marked half sovereign got into his drawer.

The Recorder briefly summed up, describing the case as a painful one.

The prisoner was found Guilty.

Mr. Hunt (re-called) said his suspicions were aroused by the prisoner having been seen going and trying the desk.

The Recorder said Mr. Hunt had only acted as he should have expected him to do.

The Chief Constable said prisoner was a married man. He had been in the town some years, and there was nothing against him.

The Recorder said he concurred in the verdict, and the prisoner would be imprisoned with hard labour for six calendar months.

Folkestone Daily News 11-10-1905

Wednesday, September 11^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from P. Venner to Mr. Robert Hunt. Temporary authority had already been given.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14-10-1905

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 9^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Frederick Charles Horlick, an hotel chef, aged 38, was indicted and pleaded Not Guilty to a charge that, being the servant of Mr. Robert Hunt, he feloniously did steal one half sovereign, the money of his said master on the 21^st of September.

Mr. Weigall prosecuted, and after explaining the case to the jury, called Robert George Hunt, son of Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel. Witness said that in consequence of entertaining suspicion, certain coins were marked on Tuesday, Sept. 19^th. The coins were all right on Wednesday night at 11 o`clock, and locked in a desk. In the morning of Thursday, the 21<sup>st</sup>, the desk was closed, but had been unlocked – forced, and the half sovereign missing. Another half sovereign, also marked, and other coins had not been taken from the desk. Prisoner was employed by witness`s father as chef.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the Rose, said on Thursday, 21^st Sept., he saw prisoner in the kitchen. At 7.15 he passed the commercial room from the direction of the office. About 7.20, prisoner went out in the direction of the Rendezvous. When prisoner returned he laughed, and said that he had seen the landlord give a man wrong change for half a sovereign.

By prisoner: Witness was sure that he said a man had too much change, and that he did not say too much change had been given to him.

George Harmer Godfrey, landlord of the Rendezvous, said on the 21^st Sept. prisoner came into his bar about 7.25. Witness served him with a drop of Scotch and a half quartern in a bottle, receiving a half sovereign in payment. The half sovereign was put on a shelf at the back of the bar. That was the only half sovereign there. Mr. Horlick left, and a minute after Mr. Hunt came into the bar, and was handed the half sovereign (produced), which he identified by the mark, a triangle scratch under the Queen`s chin.

Robert Hunt, the landlord, said he took over the Rose on the 8^th Sept., and the staff, including prisoner as chef, at 25s. per week and a 5s. bonus.

Inspector Lilley proved the arrest, and said that the lock of the desk in which the marked money was deposited could be easily forced open with a table knife. A knife, with which witness had opened the lock, was lying close to the desk when he examined the room.

Prisoner preferred to give his statement from the dock, rather than be sworn. He then read a statement to the effect that the half sovereign he changed was one which Mr. Hunt paid him on the previous Saturday. He gave his wife the sovereign, and kept the half.

The jury found accused Guilty.

The Recorder re-called Mr. Hunt and asked what had aroused his suspicions in this case.

Mr. Hunt: The head waiter told me something and a watch was kept. I have never marked coins before in my life.

The Recorder: You acted very properly, Mr. Hunt. Suspicion might have been thrown on others.

Chief Constable Reeve said accused was a married man with two children. There was nothing previous against him.

The Recorder: Frederick Charles Horlick, the jury have found you Guilty, and in their verdict I entirely concur. They could have arrived at no other decision. It is idle of you to stand there and say “I am innocent”. This Court will always entertain a severe view and visit with the utmost penalty any case in which suspicion may be thrown upon innocent people. The sentence of the Court is six months` hard labour.

We are informed that after the Court the wife made an earnest appeal, which, coming to the knowledge of the Recorder, he reduced the sentence to one of three months` hard labour.

Local News

The Licensing Bench sat at the Police Court on Wednesday in special sessions for the transfer of ale house licences.

The Rose

Temporary authority having previously been granted, the final transfer of the Rose Hotel was granted to Mr. Robert Hunt, from the late tenant, Mr. Percy Venner

Folkestone Express 14-10-1905

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 9^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Frederick Charles Horlick, a chef, aged 38, was charged with stealing half a sovereign, the property of his employer, Robert Hunt, the licensee of the Rose Hotel, on September 21^st. Mr. Weigall prosecuted.

Robert George Hunt, son of Mr. Hunt, the licensee, said that he assisted his father. He had a desk in the office, near the entrance, and in consequence of losses from the desk his father marked two half sovereigns and some silver on August 19^th. On the following day he put the coins in the desk just after eleven o`clock at night, and locked it up. The next morning, shortly after seven o`clock, the desk was shut but not locked. He looked inside and missed one of the marked half sovereigns. In consequence of information he received he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, where he saw the half sovereign which was marked by means of a scratched triangle on the Queen`s chin. The prisoner was the chef employed by his father.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the hotel, said on September 21^st he first saw the prisoner in the kitchen at seven o`clock. A quarter of an hour later he saw the prisoner come from the office and go by the commercial room window in the direction of the Rendezvous Hotel. At half past seven he saw the prisoner in the kitchen, and he said he had been in the Rendezvous, and a man had changed half a sovereign and got the wrong change.

George Alfred Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous, said on September 21^st he saw the prisoner at twenty minutes past seven, when he came in and called for a Scotch and a quarter in a bottle. He tendered witness the half sovereign (produced), which he put on a shelf at the back of the bar, He did not notice at the time that there was a mark on it. Prisoner left, and almost immediately Mr. Hunt came in and pointed out the triangle on the Queen`s face on the half sovereign tendered by the prisoner.

Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, gave evidence of marking the coins.

Inspector Lilley said the desk in which the money was placed was easily opened when locked by means of a knife being used to push the bolt back.

Prisoner made a statement from the dock to the effect that he got the half sovereign out of the kitchen drawer, which was for his use. It was the half sovereign which was given to him in his wages. How the marked coin got into his drawer he did not know.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

Mr. Hunt was re-called, and in answer to the Recorder said his suspicions were aroused by the waiter telling him that he had seen the prisoner open the desk. He had previously missed two half sovereigns and a sovereign.

The Recorder said Mr. Hunt had done what was perfectly right.

Prisoner said he was innocent. He did not touch the desk.

The Chief Constable said there was noting against the prisoner.

The Recorder said it was idle for the prisoner to say he was innocent. It was a very bad crime, for it was the betrayal by a servant of a master`s confidence. Those cases in that borough would meet with the utmost severity. He would be imprisoned for six calendar months with hard labour.

Local News

At the police court on Wednesday the licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from Mr. P. Venner to Mr. R. Hunt.

At the Quarter Sessions on Monday, Frederick Charles Horlick, a chef, was sentenced to six months` hard labour for stealing a half sovereign, the property of his employer, Mr. R. Hunt, of the Rose Hotel. Subsequently the man`s wife made a strong appeal to the Recorder, who eventually reduced the sentence to one  of three months` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 14-10-1905

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 9^th: Before Mr. J.C. Lewis Coward.

Frederick Charles Horlick, a hotel chef, was indicted for stealing a half sovereign, the property of his employer, Robert Hunt. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Robert George Hunt, son of the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said that he assisted his father. There was a desk inside the office. Witness saw his father, in consequence of money being missed, mark two half sovereigns and some silver. The coins were on the Wednesday night put in the desk. About twenty minutes past seven the following morning the desk was unlocked, but shut down. A half sovereign was missing from the marked money. Witness obtained some information, and went straight along to the Rendezvous Hotel, where he received the marked half sovereign from the landlord. The coin (produced) was that which was missing.

Walter Emery, a waiter at the Rose Hotel, remembered the morning in question, when he saw the prisoner go past the commercial room from the direction of the office. Witness saw him later, when he made a joke that he had been in the Rendezvous Hotel, when a man had come in and spent 1s. 4d. and had received 9s. 10d. change out of half a sovereign.

Mr. George Alma Godfrey, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he knew the prisoner. On the 21^st September, about 7.25 a.m., the prisoner entered the bar and called for a drop of Scotch, and for some in a bottle, for which he tendered half a sovereign. Witness placed that on a shelf at the back of the bar. Mr. Hunt entered the room about a minute after the prisoner had left, and he pointed out the mark on the coin.

Mr. Robert Hunt, the landlord of the Rose Hotel, said that the prisoner`s wages were 25s. per week, and his meals. Witness paid him his wages on the Saturday. Having lost some money, he marked two half sovereigns and some silver. They were placed in a desk, and the next morning one was missing.

Inspector Lilley proved the arrest. He examined the desk in which the money was deposited. He found that it could easily be opened.

Prisoner, from the dock, read a statement in which he said that on the Thursday morning he arrived at the hotel about five minutes to seven, and changed his outdoor clothes for his working clothes. About five minutes past seven the chambermaid came downstairs with the keys of the larder, office, and desk. After preparing some breakfast, he thought he would like a drink, so he took a half sovereign from the kitchen drawer, which he had placed there with some coppers when he drew his money on the Saturday. How it came to be the marked half sovereign he did not know.

Prisoner was found Guilty.

Mr. Hunt, re-called by the Recorder, said that a waiter had seen the prisoner go to the desk, and his (witness`s) son had seen him the following morning at the desk, but he ad not taken anything then. Money had been missed, and to prevent the slur being cast upon other employees the money was marked.

The Recorder: A very proper act, and one which I should expect an employer to take.

The Recorder, in sentencing the prisoner, said that it was idle for him to stand there and say he was not guilty. Those cases of the betrayal of a master`s confidence would always be dealt with with the utmost severity. There need be no mistake about that. Prisoner would be sent to prison for six months with hard labour.

Subsequently, however, the Recorder remitted three months of the sentence.

Wednesday, October 11^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to Mr. Hunt.

Folkestone Daily News 29-12-1908

Local News

It is with regret and sorrow that we have to announce that Mr. Robert Hunt, the well-known and much respected proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, was buried today, the deceased gentleman having suddenly expired in High Street on Christmas Day. The news came as a shock to all who knew him, and cast quite a gloom over the Christmas. Although he had only resided in Folkestone for a period of three years, he had made numerous friends by his kindness, gentlemanly bearing, and courtesy to all.

Previous to his taking the Rose Hotel he was proprietor of the Salisbury Hotel, London, and for very many years of the old Ship Hotel, Brighton, so that although he had not lived in Folkestone long he was by no means a stranger. He was 52 years of age, and had been under special treatment for some time, on account of which his friends felt great anxiety. He leaves a widow, three sons, and two daughters, and to them we, with others, offer our tenderest sympathy.

Folkestone Express 2-1-1909

Local News

We regret to have to record the very sudden death of Mr. Robert Hunt, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, and formerly of the Ship Hotel, Brighton, and the Salisbury Hotel, London. The deceased gentleman had, it appears, been for some time suffering from heart trouble, and had consulted a specialist, who advised him that his death would possibly take place without warning. On Christmas morning he had been down to the locality of the Harbour with several friends, and was returning by way of High Street to his home shortly before two. When near the publication office of this paper, he was suddenly seized and almost immediately died. His family having been apprised of the sad event, he was carried to the Rose Hotel.

The deceased had a large circle of friends and was greatly respected by them, his genial demeanour and happy temperament gaining for him the esteem of all who came into contact with him.

The funeral took place on Tuesday, unfortunately in a heavy snowstorm, but nevertheless there was a large attendance of mourners at the graveside, and upwards of sixty wreaths and other floral tributes being sent to be laid on his grave. The Rev. C.S.M. Playfair, senior curate at the Parish Church, officiated and the service was attended by several members of the Masonic Lodges, who, as usual, cast sprigs of acacia upon the coffin as they took a last look at it. Mr. Hunt was only 52 years of age, and it is almost superfluous to say that the family have received tokens of the deepest sympathy from all their friends, two of whom, it may be said, travelled from Paris to attend the funeral.

Folkestone Herald 2-1-1909

Local News

It is with regret that we record the death of Mr. Robert Hunt, of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, who expired suddenly on Christmas Day. Although Mr. Hunt had been a resident for only three or four years, he was well known, and many mourn the loss of a good friend. On Chrstmas afternoon he was proceeding up High Street with three friends, when he dropped down. Those accompanying him, noticing his sudden collapse, rendered every assistance possible, and carried Mr. Hunt in a chair into the hotel, where he succumbed, the cause of death being heart failure. The Borough Coroner (Mr. Haines) was informed of the unhappy circumstance of Mr. Hunt`s death, but an inquest was deemed unnecessary.

Mr. Hunt was 52 years of age, having been born in London on February 16^th, 1856. He was a member of the Folkestone Rowing Club, and also of the Folkestone Racing Club, in which he took considerable interest, likewise being an enthusiastic playing member of the Folkestone Bowling Club. He often played in contests against such teams as Ashford, Dover and Hythe, being a very good hand at the game. Prior to coming to Folkestone, he was at St. Leonards, where he carried on the Alexandra Hotel. He was there about two years. Previously he was at the Salisbury Hotel, London for upwards of six years, while before this he was at Brighton at The Old Ship for many years. Wherever he went, Mr. Hunt made many friends by his genial and kindly nature, and his death is deeply and widely mourned.

The funeral took place on Thursday afternoon in a snow storm. Consequently few friends travelled on foot to the cemetery to witness the last rites.

Folkestone Herald 23-1-1909

Wednesday, January 20^th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, W.G. Herbert, and G. Boyd.

The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred from the executors of the late Mr. R. Hunt to his son, Mr. R. Hunt.

Folkestone Express 20-3-1909

Local News

An outbreak of fire occurred in the billiard room of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, on Monday afternoon. At 2.38 a call was received at the Fire Station, and the members of the Brigade were on the spot within three minutes. On arrival they found the room was filled with smoke so dense that it was impossible to see where the fire was. By crawling on hands and knees the firemen were able to take stock of the outbreak, and after twenty minutes brisk work succeeded in extinguishing the flames by chemical extincteurs. It is supposed that a lighted match thrown onto the floor set fire to the settees, and the settees, wainscoting, and pictures were well alight when the task of extinction commenced. Practically the whole of the room, which is a commodious one, was more or less damaged by the heat and smoke. Inspection afterwards revealed the fact that by the use of extincteurs the usual large amount of damage done by water was conspicuous by its absence. Although the fire had burnt away the floor and the joist, the plastering underneath was not even broken, and very little water had got through to the room below. Had ancient methods been adopted, the stock room, which is immediately beneath the billiard room, would have undoubtedly been flooded, and more damage would have been done by water than was actually done by fire. The damage, which is estimated at £100, is covered by insurance.

Folkestone Daily News 21-4-1909

Wednesday, April 21^st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Swoffer, Linton and Boyd.

Percy William John Hunt was summoned under Section 17 of the Gaming Act for allowing gaming to be carried on on his premises. Mr. W.A. Groser, of London, (instructed by Mr. J.E. Churchill) appeared for Mr. Hunt.

P.C. Sales deposed: At 12.30 on the 12^th inst. I was in Rendezvous Street near the Rose Hotel when I heard voices and the rattle of money. I looked through the window of the commercial room of the hotel, the windows of which were open, but the blinds were drawn. I stood by the window and heard remarks passed “I`ll go four on red. I`ll have twopence on black. I`ll have threepence on red”, and other similar remarks. On looking through the window beside the blind I could see eight men seated round the table playing cards. There was a pile of money by the side of each of them on the table. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each. I saw money passed between them. I kept observation, and at 12.45 I heard one say “Who says a drink?”, and called the waiter. One said “I`ll have a sloe gin”. Another, “Mine`s a brandy and soda”. I saw the waiter come into the room. The drinks were ordered and they were brought in by the waiter. During the time the waiter was in the room card playing was going on. Shortly before one o`clock, P.C. Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. I signalled to him, and he came over. I called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he looked through the window. About one o`clock I rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter. Johnson and I slipped past him, and went into the commercial room, where I saw the eight men sitting at the table playing cards, with money on the table beside each of them. Glasses were on the table, some of which contained liquor. I took their names and addresses and possession of the cards. I then saw the waiter and called Mr. Hunt, who came downstairs. I said to Mr. Hunt “Are you the landlord?” He replied “Yes”. I said “I shall report you for a summons for permitting gambling on your premises with cards”. I said, pointing to the gentlemen in the room “These men will also be reported”. He said “They are all staying here and the room is private, but I did not know they were gambling”. I said “Your waiter did, as he has been in the room with drinks”. He replied “He could not serve them, as I have the keys. Is there anything I can do for you?” I said “I shall submit a report”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Groser: Was there a notice on the commercial room door with the word “Private” on it? – There was.

It was the “Boots” you spoke to, wasn`t it? – Yes.

Was it not a few minutes after twelve that “Boots” came into the room with drinks? – No, a quarter to one.

When “Boots” came in and served drinks, the gentlemen were not playing for money, were they? –Yes, they were.

Was it not after the drinks were served that they played farthing nap? – They were playing before.

Did Mr. Hunt say to “Boots” “Did you see them playing for money?” – No, sir.

The house has always borne a very good character up to the present time, has it not? – Yes.

P.C. Johnson corroborated the evidence of P.C. Sales in every particular.

In cross-examination he said he did not know how long Sales had been watching before he came up.

Mr. Groser, for the defence, said a number of hockey players arrived at the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday, and engaged a private room. As no other room was available, the commercial room was placed at their disposal, and the word “Private” placed on the door. His case was that it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the landlord connived at gambling, and that he knew that it was going on.

He then called Robert Hunt, who said he was the manager of the Rose Hotel for his brother. Prior to the visit of these hockey players no cards had been played in the house. His father, who died last Christmas, strongly objected to cards being played in the house. Fourteen hockey players came to the hotel at Easter, and the commercial room was allocated to them till Easter Monday. Witness retired to bed at 11.30 on Easter Sunday, and the “Boots” was the only person un besides the hockey players. About 12.30 he was called by the “Boots”, and on going downstairs the constables told him that gambling was going on, and that “Boots” knew it. “Boots”, however, denied this, and witness himself said he had no knowledge of it.

The Chief Constable: Who did you leave in charge when you went to bed? – The “Boots”.

Did you give him any instructions about allowing gambling? – No.

Could the “Boots” have served any drink if he was required? – Oh, yes.

He could get it from the bar? – Yes.

William Warman said he was “Boots” at the Rose Hotel. On the Sunday night in question he saw no indication of gambling. All had gone to bed except himself and the hockey players. He last went into the commercial room about 12 o`clock in answer to a ring, when drinks were ordered by the gentlemen there. He saw cards on the table, but no money, neither had he any suspicion that they were gambling. He returned to the kitchen, and did not leave it again until the constables arrived.

The Chief Constable: Do you say you did not know gambling was going on? – Yes.

But you knew they were playing cards? – Yes, but Mr. Hunt is opposed to gambling, and does not allow it on the premises.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Do you mean to say there was no money on the table when you went into the commercial room? – Yes.

Or didn`t you see any? – Well, there may have been.

Edmund John O`Connell said he was one of the hockey party, and stayed at the Rose Hotel over the Easter. It was about a quarter past twelve when they ordered their last drinks, and they did not play for money until after the landlord had gone to bed. It was quite possible that the “Boots” did not see any money on the table, as the cards were scattered about. The cards belonged to the party.

Paul Broder, another member of the party, corroborated the evidence of the last witness, and said it certainly was not so late as the constables had stated when they said drinks were ordered as late as 12.45.

This concluded the evidence. The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said they were unanimously of opinion that the case had been proved, and defendant would be fined £5 and 14s. costs.

Notice of appeal was given.

 

Folkestone Express 24-4-1909

Local News

Percy William John Hunt, of the Rose Hotel, was summoned at the Petty Sessions on Wednesday, under sub-section 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for suffering gaming upon his licensed premises.

Mr. Groser, barrister (instructed by Mr. J.F. Churchill), appeared on behalf of defendant.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

P.C. Sales said at 12.30 on the morning of the 12^th inst., he was in Rendezvous Street, near the Rose Hotel, when he heard voices and the rattle of money in the commercial room, the windows of which were open but the blinds were drawn. Witness stood by the window, and heard those inside say “I`ll go four on red”, “I`ll have twopence on black”, “I`ll have threepence on red”, and other similar remarks. On looking through the window he saw eight men seated round a table playing cards. There was a pile of money by the side of each of them. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each, and he saw money pass between them. Witness kept observation, and at 12.45 heard one say “Who says a drink?”, and called the waiter. One said “I`ll have a sloe gin”, and another “Mine is a brandy and soda”. Witness saw the waiter come into the room, and drinks were ordered and brought by him. During the time the waiter was in teh room card playing was going on. Shortly before one o`clock P.C. H. Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. Witness signalled to him, and he came over. Witness called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he looked through the window. About one o`clock witness rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter, and Johnson and witness slipped by him and went into the commercial room, where witness saw eight men seated at the table, playing cards, with money beside each of them. There were glasses on the table, some containing liquor. Witness took possession of the cards, and took the names and addresses of the gentlemen. Witness then asked the waiter to call Mr. Hunt, who subsequently came downstairs. Witness said to him “Are you the landlord?” He replied “Yes”. Witness said he should report him for a summons for permitting gambling on his licensed premises with cards. At the same time he pointed to the gentlemen in the room and said that they would also be reported. Mr. Hunt replied that they were all staying there and that the room was private. He did not know they were gambling. Witness replied “Your waiter did; he has been in the room with drinks”. Mr. Hunt replied that he could not serve them as he (Mr. Hunt) had the keys. Was there anything he could do for witness? Witness said he should submit a report.

Cross-examined, witness said there was a notice on the door of the commercial room with the word “Private” upon it. The man witness said was the waiter was the boots. It was not just after twelve when the drinks were brought in. When the boots came in and served the drinks the gentlemen were playing for money, and there was money on the table. Mr. Hunt, who was at present carrying on the hotel, was the son of Mr. Hunt, who died suddenly on Christmas Day. The late Mr. Hunt had carried on the house for some three or four years. Prior to him Mr. Venner held the licence, and during the period when the house was conducted by Mr. Venner and the late Mr. Hunt, and until that complaint, the house had borne a very high character for respectability. As far as he knew there had been no complaint of any sort or kind. The licence was recently transferred to the defendant.

P.C. H. Johnson said shortly before one o`clock on the 12^th inst., he was called by the previous witness to the Rose Hotel. When a few yards from the hotel he heard voices and money rattling. On looking through the window he saw eight persons sitting round a table playing cards. He could hear counting “One, two, three”, and so on, and he saw money passed. After waiting two or three minutes the last witness rang the bell. It was answered by the boots, whom they walked past and into the commercial room, where witness saw eight persons sitting round a table. Several had cards lying on the table in front of them, and some had cards in their hands. There was money in front of each one, varying from one shilling to five or six. P.C. Sales collected the cards and handed them to witness, and told the gentlemen they would be reported. He then called the boots and asked him to fetch the landlord. After a minute or two Mr. Hunt came downstairs, and P.C. Sales told him he would be reported for permitting gambling upon his licensed premises. At the same time he pointed to the door of the commercial room and said those gentlemen would be reported. Mr. Hunt said “This is a private room. I did not know they were gambling”. P.C. Sales said “You waiter did. He has been in there with drinks”. Mr. Hunt then asked if there was anything he could do for him. They left the premises.

Cross-examined, witness said he had no idea how long Sales had been watching before he came up.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Groser, before calling witnesses, addressed the Bench at some length. He said a party of hockey players came to the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday, they having a number of matches to play in the neighbourhood. Some fourteen gentlemen arrived at the hotel, and they engaged bedrooms and also a private sitting room, the commercial room being given up to them. The gentlemen played cards, but it was not until shortly after twelve o`clock, after the boots had served them with drinks on the Monday, that they played for any stakes at all. As a matter of fact, what they were playing was farthing “Nap”. The boots would tell them that when he went into the room there was nothing whatever to indicate that the gentlemen were playing even for so small stakes as he had mentioned. He should ask the Magistrates to accept the testimony given by the constable as to the reputation of the persons who had been associated with the hotel, and say that under the circumstances there was no connivance on the part of Mr. Hunt or the man he had left in charge. Mr. Groser quoted the case of “Somerset v Hart” in support of his contention. Mr. Hunt was in bed, and it was not suggested that he knew that anything was going on. With regard to the boots, he could hardly be called a person who was clothed with authority in that case.

The first witness for the defence was Mr. Robert Hunt, manager of the Rose Hotel. He said he had been carrying on the business since the death of his father. During his father`s lifetime he had assisted him in the management. Prior to the visit of those gentlemen cards had not been played in his house. His father had a strong objection to cards being played upon his premises at all. On the Thursday before Good Friday he had a party of fourteen gentlemen who came to stay at his hotel. He allocated them the commercial room  as their sitting room for their exclusive use. The party remained at his house until Monday morning. There was a piano in the room. During the occupation by those gentlemen of the room from time to time witness went in to see them and to attend to their requirements. At no time was there any indication of any card playing for stakes of any sort going on. Witness went to bed on Sunday night about 11.35. Before going to bed he went into the commercial room, and one of the gentlemen was playing the piano and the others were playing cards. Four of them were at bridge. When he retired they were not playing for money. Only the boots was up then. The boots` work was in the kitchen. He would have to answer the bell. Between the kitchen and the door of the commercial room there were two passages. It was not possible to hear from the kitchen what was going on in the commercial room if the door was shut. The piano might be heard. It would be impossible to hear conversation. Witness had been in bed about three quarters of an hour when he was fetched by the boots. It was about 12.30. He went downstairs and saw two police officers. They said they would report him for permitting gambling on his licensed premises. They had been in the commercial room. Witness replied that he had no knowledge of their gambling. The constable said “Your boots did, because he has been serving them with drink”. Witness then asked the boots in front of the officer if he had seen any gambling going on, and he replied “No, sir”. The boots could serve them with drinks, as witness had given him the keys.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he saw the gentlemen card playing before he went to bed. He did not give any special instructions to the boots to see that there was no gambling. There was drink on the table when he came down. The gentlemen were playing with their own cards. Witness had no cards. The boots had always had instructions from him as to gambling, but not on that particular night.

By Mr. Groser: He did not think it was possible for a man of the boots` height to see over the glass in the door, a part of which was ground glass.

William Warman said at Easter time he was boots at the Rose Hotel. He had been there eighteen months previously. He remembered the party of gentlemen coming for their Easter holiday. Prior to Sunday night he had not seen any indication on the part of the gentlemen that they were playing cards for money. On Sunday night Mr. Hunt went to bed at about twenty five minutes to twelve. Witness was left to attend to anybody who might require his services. There was no other servant up. His duties were to get the boots down, to put “calls” down, and prepare the coals and wood for the fires. He had nothing to clean up in the bar. He last went in the commercial room about twelve o`clock. When he was rung up he was in the kitchen. Witness answered the bell and went in to take the gentlemen`s orders. He stood at the corner of the table near the door. The gentlemen were sitting at the far end from the door. He could see they were playing cards. He did not see any money on the table. He had not any indication that they were playing cards for money. He was absent about five minutes getting the drinks. When he went back there was no money that he could see on the table. The gentlemen were not saying or doing anything that would lead him to suppose that money was being played for. He was quite sure of that. He had no suspicion in his mind whatever. After serving the drinks, witness went back into the kitchen, and he did not go into the room again for any purpose before the constables came. He heard the bell ring, and when he opened the door the constables pushed by him and went straight to the commercial room and looked over the glass. They opened the door and walked in. When the police came from the room they asked witness where Mr. Hunt was, and requested him to fetch him. Witness said he was in bed and he fetched him, and Mr. Hunt came down. The constables asked Mr. Hunt if he knew gambling was going on on his premises, and he said “No”. The constables took Mr. Hunt into the commercial room and showed him the gentlemen who had been playing, and they said they would have to summon him for allowing gambling upon his premises. The policemen then turned to witness and asked him if he knew thay had been gambling. Witness replied “No, but I knew they had been playing cards”. The late Mr. Hunt and the present Mr. Hunt were very particular about gambling. Witness heard nothing to lead him to suppose that the gentlemen were going to gamble. When the commercial room door was shut it was not possible to hear conversation going on if one was in the kitchen. Witness did not hear anything when he was in the kitchen. When he answered the bell for the drinks the door was shut.

Cross-examined, witness said he went upstairs about three times before the constables came, and he went twice into the bar. He was quite sure he did not see any money on the table in the commercial room. When they rang the bell they had a chance to clear the money off the table.

Mr. Edmund John O`Connell said he was one of the gentlemen composing the hockey party which stayed at the Rose Hotel for Easter. They had the commercial room absolutely to themselves. About twelve o`clock on Saturday night they played cards for the first time for stakes. They were not playing for money when Mr. Hunt retired. Mr. Hunt bade them “Goodnight” about 11.30. It was about a quarter past twelve when they called for their last drinks. The boots, when he took the orders, stood by the door. He was out of the room about five minutes. There was nothing to indicate to the boots that they were playing for money. There was no pile. It was quite possible for the boots to see what was going on. They were playing “farthetto”. The cards were their own property. They did not know there was any wrong in what they were doing.

Cross-examined, witness said he agreed generally with what the constables said.

Mr. Paul Broder, also one of the party, said he agreed with the last witness that it was perfectly possible for Warman not to have noticed that they had changed their game and were playing for money.

Cross-examined, witness said he agreed with what the constables said.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return the Chairman said they were unanimously of the opinion that the charge was proved, and Mr. Hunt would be fined £5 and 14/- costs.

Mr. Groser said he would have to consider his position. The Bench would probably give the usual time for the notice. The fine could be paid at once. He proposed to take the opinion of a Divisional Court.

Folkestone Herald 24-4-1909

Wednesday, April 21^st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Percy William John Hunt was summoned under Section 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for suffering gaming on his licensed premises (the Rose Hotel). Mr. A.W. Groser (instructed by Mr. J.E. Churchill) appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 12.30 on the morning of the 12^th inst., he was in Rendezvous Street, near the Rose Hotel, when he heard voices and the rattle of money in the commercial room of the hotel. The windows of the room were open, but the blinds were drawn. Witness stood by the window, and heard remarks passed, among which were “I`ll go four on red”, “I will have 2d. on black”, “I`ll have 3d. on red”, and other similar remarks. On looking through the window by the side of the blind witness could see some eight men seated round the table playing cards. There was a pile of money beside each of them on the table. They appeared to be playing a game with one card each. Witness saw money passed between them. He kept observation, and at 12.45 he heard one say “Who says drinks?” and the waiter was called. One said “I`ll have a sloe gin”, and another “Mine`s a brandy and soda”. Witness saw the waiter come into the room; the drinks were ordered, and they were brought in by the waiter. During the time the waiter was in the room the card playing was going on. Shortly before one o`clock P.C. Harry Johnson came up on the opposite side of the road. Witnessed signalled to him, and he came over. Witness called his attention to what was going on in the hotel, and he also looked through the window. At about one o`clock witness rang the bell. The door was opened by the waiter. Johnson and witness slipped past him, and went into the commercial room, where they saw eight men sitting by the table in the act of playing cards, and there was money on the table beside each of them. There were glasses on the table, some of which contained liquor. Witness took possession of the cards, and took the names and addresses of those playing. Witness then saw the waiter, and he called Mr. Hunt, who came downstairs. Witness asked Mr. Hunt if he was the landlord, and he replied “Yes”. Witness said “I shall report you for a summons for permitting gaming with cards on your licensed premises”, and at the same time he pointed to the gentlemen in the room, and said they would also be reported. Mr. Hunt replied “They are all staying here, and the room is private. I did not know that they were gambling”. Witness said “Your waiter did; he has been in the room with drinks”. Mr. Hunt replied “He could not serve them, as I have the keys. Is there anything I can do for you?” Witness replied that he would submit a report.

Cross-examined by Mr. Groser: There was a notice on the glass door of the commercial room with “Private” on it. The man witness spoke of as the waiter was “boots” Mr. Hunt was fetched down from upstairs. Witness was there a few minutes after midnight. It was just a quarter to one when he saw the “boots” come into the room with drinks. There was money on the table when the “boots” brought in the drinks. When Mr. Hunt came down he did not say to “boots” in witness`s presence “Did you see them playing for money?” Mr. Hunt, who was at that time carrying on the business of the Rose Hotel, was the son of Mr. Hunt, who died suddenly on Christmas Day. Mr. Hunt carried on the business of the Rose Hotel for some three or four years, and prior to that Mr. Venner carried the business on. During the period that the house was conducted by Mr. Venner and Mr. Hunt, and until that complaint, the house had borne an exemplary character. There had been no complaints, so far as the witness knew. The licence of the hotel had just recently been transferred from the late Mr. Hunt to the defendant.

P.C. H. Johnson deposed that shortly before one o`clock on the 12^th inst. he was called by the previous witness to the Rose Hotel. When a few yards from the hotel he could hear voices, and money rattle. On looking through the window he saw eight persons seated round a table, playing cards. Witness could hear them counting “1, 2 ,3”, and so on, and saw money passed. After waiting two or three minutes, P.C. Sales rang the bell. The door was answered by the “boots”. Witness and P.C. Sales walked past him into the commercial room. There they saw eight persons seated round the table. Some had cards in their hands, and others had theirs on the table. There was money in front of each one, varying from one shilling to five or six. P.C. Sales collected the cards and handed them to witness, and he told the men that they would be reported. He then called the “boots”, and asked him to fetch Mr. Hunt. After a minute or so, Mr. Hunt came down the stairs. P.C. Sales told him he would be reported for permitting gambling on his licensed premises. Mr. Hunt replied that it was a private room, and he did not know that they were gambling. P.C. Sales said “Your waiter did; he has been in there with drinks”. Mr. Hunt asked if there was anything he could do for them, and they then left the premises.

Mr. Groser: Do you know how long the last witness had been watching the premises before you came?

Witness: No. I have no idea at all.

Mr. Groser then addressed the Bench. He said that a part of hockey players came to the hotel on the Thursday before Good Friday. They had a number of matches to play in the neighbourhood, and some fourteen gentlemen arrived at the hotel. They engaged separate bedrooms at the house, and also a private sitting room. The coffee room upstairs could not be allocated to them, and therefore the commercial room was given up, and a placard, as they heard from the constable, was put on the door, indicating that the room was private. There was a piano in the room, and during the time that the gentlemen remained in the house the piano was used, and cards were played. It was not – and this was his case, and he would call gentlemen who were members of this visiting team – until shortly after 12 o`clock that “boots” had served them with drinks, the last drinks that day. He would say that during the time he was in the room serving these gentlemen they were not playing any card game for any stakes at all. As a matter of fact – although he (the speaker) did not say it in any mitigating way – what these gentlemen did play was farthing nap. What he wanted to impress upon the Magistrates was that it was not until after the service of the last lot of drink, after “boots” had left the room for the last time, that those gentlemen played cards for money at all. Mr. Hunt retired to rest on the Sunday night at 11.35. Just before going to bed he went into the room and asked if there was anything he could do, any orders, and they said “No”. He bade them “Goodnight” and went to bed, leaving “boots” to finish his night`s work. “Boots” was in the kitchen. There were between the commercial room and the kitchen two small passages and two or three stairs, and he would prove to the Bench that no sound could be heard to indicate that anybody was playing any game, or certainly playing any game for money. The speaker readily admitted that those gentlemen did play on the Thursday night and on Saturday night. On the Sunday night “boots” was cleaning the boots and laying the kitchen fire, and he was for the last time on the Sunday night rung for by those gentlemen. He went in, and those eight gentlemen – for six of the team had already retired, worn out with the fatigues of the play – these gentlemen had asked for their final drinks, and these were paid for, as “boots” would tell them. He desired that every facility should be given to their Worships to ascertain the exact facts. “Boots” would tell them that when he went into the room to take their orders he saw nothing whatsoever to indicate that those gentlemen were playing for even so small stakes as those he had named, nor had Mr. Hunt the least suspicion that there was any infringement of the licensing regulations. “Boots” served the gentlemen with drinks, the door was shut, and he went back again to his duties, and it was a little earlier than the constable had indicated, namely between 12.30 and a quarter to one, that the police made an entrance. He did not complain of the action of the police. The police made their entrance, and went into the room, and undoubtedly they found those gentlemen playing for money. He was going to call gentlemen who would tell them that there was no indication given to “boots” that they were playing for money. That was the position. Mr. Hunt was called down from his bed. He said that he did not know. Then it was suggested that “boots” knew, but “boots” did not know. If those facts had been established to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, he asked them to remember in aid of his case the testimony that had been given by the constable as to the reputation of the persons who had been associated with that house. He would ask them to accept that testimony, and to say that under the circumstances, although cards were played that night for money, there was no connivance on the part either of Mr. Hunt, or of the man whom he had left in charge to finish up for the night, and if they found those facts, then the application of the law was perfectly clear. He readily admitted that it was not sufficient for him to say that Mr. Hunt did not know that they were gambling. That was not the law; that would not absolve him; but what must be established by the prosecution in that case was that Mr. Hunt knew, or ought to have known, or that if Mr. Hunt was not there and left a person in charge, that person knew, or ought to have known. Their learned Clerk would assent to the proposition of law that he had put to their Worships. Mr. Groser then proceeded to read extracts from the case of Somerset v Hart, which said that “where gaming had taken place upon licensed premises to the knowledge of a servant of the licensed person employed on the premises, but there was no evidence to show any connivance, or wilful blindness on the part of the licensed person, and it did not appear that the servant was in charge of the premises, the justices were right in refusing to convict the licensed person for suffering gaming on the premises under the Licensing Act”. The Chief Constable, in presenting his case did not suggest that there was anu connivance on the part of Mr. Hunt as to what was going on. With regard to “Boots”, he could hardly be called a person who was clothed with authority in that case. After hearing him, the Magistrates would find that “boots” did not think, nor was there anything to put him on suspicion that there was something going on, because that was the first time that cards has ever been played in the house. The late Mr. Hunt never would allow even commercial gentlemen to play in the house, and he had not any cards at all in the house, and these gentlemen were playing with their own cards. When they were playing on the Thursday night, or on the Saturday night previous, there was not the slightest indication, nor was there till past twelve o`clock on the morning of the Monday – not till between twelve and one was there playing of any sort or kind for money.

Mr. Robert Hunt said that he was the Manager of the Rose Hotel, under the direction of his brother, Mr. Percy Hunt, the sole executor of his father. He had been carrying on the management since his father`s sudden death on Christmas Day, 1908. During his father`s lifetime he had assisted him in the management. Prior to the visit of these gentlemen cards had never been played in witness`s house. His father had a strong objection to their being played on licensed premises at all. On the Thursday before Good Friday he had a party of fourteen gentlemen to stay in his house. He allocated to them the commercial room as their sitting room for their exclusive use. The party remained at his house until Monday evening. There was a piano in the room. During the occupation of the room by these gentlemen witness went in there from time to time to see them, and to attend to their requirements. At no time was there any indication that card games of any sorts for stakes of any sort were going on. They had played cards previously to that. On the Sunday, or early morning of Monday he heard nothing to suggest to him that they were going to play for money. He went to bed on Sunday at about 11.35 p.m. Before going to bed he called in the commercial room. There was one gentleman playing at the piano, and the others were all playing cards. They were not playing for money. Only the “boots” was up when witness went to bed. He worked in the kitchen, cleaning the boots. He would have to get the boots ready for the next morning and lay the kitchen fire. He would also have to answer the bell. Between the kitchen and the door of the commercial room there were two passages, and also a few steps. It was an old house with thick walls. It was not possible to hear from the kitchen what was going on in the commercial room if the doors were shut. The piano might be heard, but conversation could not be heard. The next thing witness heard was “boots” calling him to come downstairs. He had been in bed half or three quarters of an hour. It was about half past twelve. Witness went down and saw the two police constables. They first of all said that they would report him for permitting gambling on licensed premises. They took him into the commercial room and pointed out the gentlemen who had been playing cards. Witness told them that he had no idea that they were gambling. One of the officers said “Your “boots” has been serving them with drinks”. Witness then asked “boots” in the presence of the officers if he had seen any gambling, and he replied in the negative. Witness did not say “”Boots” could not serve, as I have the key”.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness left “boots” in charge of the premises when he went to bed. He did not give him any special instructions with regard to the gambling. The door of the commercial room was about two yards from the door that led into the bar. Half of the door of the commercial room was wood. There was a bell in the commercial room. It rang just above the door of the room. There was also a bell on the front door of the hotel, and that rang close to the kitchen door, so that anyone in the kitchen would be more likely to hear the bell of the front door than that of the commercial room. “Boots” had no cleaning up in the bar to do when witness went to bed. If the gentlemen wanted drinks he had power to take their orders and supply the drinks from the bar. Witness left him the key for that purpose. There was drink on the table when he came down. They were their own cards that the gentlemen were playing with.

Re-examined by Mr. Groser: It was not possible for a man the height of “boots” to see into the commercial room through the glass door, as nearly to the top of the door was ground glass.

William Warman said that he was employed as “boots” at the Rose Hotel He had been there eighteen months. He remembered a party of gentlemen coming down for their Easter holiday. He also remembered Sunday night, when the constables came. Prior to Sunday night he had never seen any indication on the part of the gentlemen that they were playing cards for money. On the Sunday night Mr. Hunt went to bed  at about twenty five minutes to twelve, and witness was left to attend to anybody who might require his services. There was no other servant up; everyone was in bed but himself. The last thing he did on Sunday night was to get the boots down from the bedroom doors and mark them, put down the calls for the next morning, and get the coals and wood for the fire. He marked the boots upstairs, and put the calls down in the kitchen. He had not anything to clean up in the bar. It was about twelve when he last went into the commercial room. When he was rung up he was in the kitchen. Witness answered the bell, and went in and took the orders. When he went in he stood by the corner of the table near the door. He could see the gentlemen playing cards, but could not see any money on the table. He could not see any indication that the gentlemen were playing cards for money. He was about five minutes getting the drinks. He went back again into the room with the drinks. When he went back again there was no money that he could see on the table. The gentlemen were not doing anything to lead him to suppose that they were playing for money. After serving the drinks witness went back to the kitchen. He did not go back to the room again for any purpose before the constable came. When the officer rang the front door bell he opened the door. The officers pushed past him and went straight into the commercial room. They afterwards asked witness where Mr. Hunt was, and he replied that he was in bed, and he was then requested to go and bring Mr. Hunt down. When Mr. Hunt did come down the constables asked him if he knew that gambling was going on in his premises, and he said that he did not. Then the constable took him into the room and showed him where the gentlemen had been playing. One of the officers told Mr. Hunt that they would have to summon him for allowing gambling on his premises. The policemen turned to witness and asked him if he knew that they were gambling. Witness said that he did not, but that he knew they were playing cards. The late Mr. Hunt and the present one were very particular as to gambling. Witness heard nothing to lead him to suspect that they were going to gamble when he went in. When one left the commercial room one turned to the right, then down rather a crooked passage, then again to the left, and then down two steps into the kitchen. The kitchen was on the lower level. When the commercial room door was shut it was not possible, when in the kitchen, to hear conversation, unless there were shouts, in the commercial room. Witness did not hear anything, except possibly the piano, when he was in the kitchen. When witness answered the ring for the drinks the door of the commercial room was shut.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness went upstairs for the boots after Mr. Hunt had gone to bed. He went upstairs about three times before police came. He went to the bar twice. To get to the bar one went past the door of the commercial room. When going upstairs he would be about a yard from the door of the commercial room. When he went into the commercial room to take the orders he did not notice any money on the table. He was quite sure about that. He did not think there could have been money there if he had not seen it. The cards were scattered all over the table, and the gentlemen were playing cards. Witness never saw any money on the table. The constables did not ring the bell before witness went into the room. If the players had money they had time to remove it from the table before witness went into the room. They went on playing cards while witness was taking the orders, and when he took in the drinks.

Mr. Edmund John O`Connell said that he was one of those composing the hockey team staying at the Rose Hotel for Easter. They had the commercial room entirely to themselves. It was about twelve o`clock on the Saturday night after their arrival that they first played a game of cards in the hotel. They were not playing for money when Mr. Hunt retired to rest on Sunday. He went to bed at about half past eleven. It was about a quarter past twelve when they called for their last drinks. It was not as late as 12.45 that they rang the waiter for the drinks. Witness remembered “boots” coming and taking the orders for the drinks. He stood by the door. He was four or five minutes out of the room. There were eight of them to be served. They were playing for money when they had their last drinks. There was nothing to indicate that they were playing for money. It was quite possible for “boots” not to see what was going on. They were playing a game similar to farthing nap when “boots” came in for the orders; the cards were scattered all over the table. Witness thought it quite possible that “boots” had no indication that they had altered their game and were playing for money. The cards were their own property. There were some tall palms standing  on the centre of the table, and they were the other side of the palms from “boots”.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: With regard to the evidence of the constables witness agreed with it.

Re-examined by Mr. Groser: Witness did not hear the conversation between the constables and Mr. Hunt outside, nor did he hear the conversation between Warman and the constables.

The Chief Constable: You say “boots” stood at the far end of the table when he came and took the orders. What did he do when he brought the drinks?

Witness: He came half way up the table.

Mr. Paul Broder, another member of the hockey team, agreed that it was perfectly possible for Warman not to have any indication that they had changed their game, and were playing for money. There was nothing said before him in the way of reference to the stakes. He agreed with the last witness that Mr. Hunt had been out of the room for some considerable time, and had locked up for the night. It was not so late as a quarter to one that they called for the last drinks. Witness heard nothing of the conversation between the constables and Mr. Hunt and Warman.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness agreed with the evidence given by the constables.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and after a short deliberation the Chairman said: We are unanimously of opinion that the charge is proved, and Mr. Hunt will be fined £5, and 14s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment.

The money was at once paid.