Imperial (1) 1905 - 1909

Folkestone Daily News 25-1-1905

Wednesday, January 25^th:

Mrs. Hill, widow of W. Hill, applied for a transfer of licence of the Imperial at Foord. The application, which was under the old Act of 1828, was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 28-1-1905

Wednesday, January 25^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The licence of the Imperial Hotel from the late Mr. Hill to his executrix, Mrs. Hill.

Folkestone Herald 28-1-1905

Wednesday, January 25^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

The licence of the Imperial Hotel was transferred from the late Mr. James Hill to his widow 

Folkestone Daily News 6-9-1905

Wednesday, September 6^th: Before Ald. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. W. Carpenter.

Peter Entwistle was charged with stealing a hospital collecting box from the Imperial Hotel.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, said he was in the bar on the 5^th inst., and the box in question stood on the counter. The prisoner came in between 3 and 4 in the afternoon and was served with some drink. No-one else was in the bar at the time. Prisoner stayed about half an hour. About five o`clock witness missed the box. At 6.30 he went to the police station, and there saw the box (produced) and also the prisoner.

P.C. Verrier said: At 4.55 yesterday afternoon, from information I received, I went into a meadow at the back of Mr. Elliott`s shop in Black Bull Road, and there saw the prisoner lying on his stomach. Within a foot of him lay the collecting box. In his right hand he had a knife open. Lying on the grass under his left hand was one shilling and threepence. I said to the prisoner “I shall take you to the police station and charge you with stealing it, belonging to someone and place unknown”. He replied “Do your duty, constable. I`m the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”. I then brought him to the police station, and from enquiries I found the box had been stolen from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. Prisoner was then formally charged with stealing the box and 1s. 3d. in money, and he made no reply.

The prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and said he had been in the employ of the Corporation for two years and four months. He was very sorry for what he had done, but he had been drinking heavily lately and did not know what he was doing.

The Chairman said it was a most despicable action, and prisoner deserved horsewhipping. He would be sentenced to 14 days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9-9-1905

Local News

On Wednesday morning Peter Entwistle, a Corporation employee, was charged with stealing a hospital collection box containing 1s. 3d., the property of Alice Hill.

James Hill, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said that at three o`clock on the previous afternoon prisoner was in the bar of the Imperial. At the time there was one of the Victoria Hospital collecting boxes on the bar. After accused had left the bar the box was missing.

P.C. Vanier said that shortly after five on the previous afternoon, from information received, he went to a meadow in the Black Bull Road, where he saw prisoner lying on his stomach, and within a foot of him was the collecting box. Prisoner had an open pocket knife in his right hand. Lying under his left hand on the grass was one shilling and threepence in coppers. When told he would be charged, prisoner replied “Do your duty, constable. I am the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”.

Prisoner now pleaded Guilty. He said that he had been drinking heavily for days, and did not know what he was doing.

Fourteen days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 9-9-1905

Wednesday, September 6^th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Peter Entwistle was charged with feloniously stealing on the 5^th inst. one collection box and one shilling and threepence in coppers, the property of Alice Hill.

James Hill said he lived at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and assisted his mother, Alice Hill, in the management. At three o`clock the previous afternoon he was in the bar, and he had on the counter at that time a collecting box of the Victoria Hospital. Prisoner came in between three and four, and witness served him. There was nobody else in the bar at the time. He stayed there about half an hour. Witness did not see him leave. He missed the box about five o`clock. At 6.30 witness went to the police station, where he saw the prisoner and also the box, which, as far as he could say, was the box which had been stolen.

P.C. Varrier said about five minutes to five the previous afternoon, from what he was told, he went into a meadow at the back of Mr. Elliott`s shop in Black Bull Road. There he saw prisoner lying on his stomach, and within a foot of him laid a collecting box. In his right hand was a pocket knife open. Lying on the grass under his left hand was one shilling and threepence in coppers. Witness told prisoner he should take him to the police station and charge him with stealing the box and money from some person, or persons, unknown. Prisoner replied “Do your duty, constable. I am the thief. It is the first time I have stolen in my life”. Witness brought prisoner to the police station, and then from enquiries he made, found the box had been stolen from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. When charged prisoner made no reply.

Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Guilty. He said he had been drinking heavily the last few days, and he did not know what he was doing. He had been in the employ of the Corporation for the last two years or more. He had lost that employment now. He had a wife and two children.

The Chairman described the theft as a “mean and despicable one”, and said the prisoner would have to go to prison for 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 9-9-1905

Wednesday, September 6^th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Peter Entwistle was charged with stealing 1s. 3d. in a collecting box, the property of the Victoria Hospital, from the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

Jas. Hill stated that he was the licence holder of the Imperial. At three o`clock on the 5<sup>th</sup> inst. he was in the bar, on which was a collecting box for the Victoria Hospital. Defendant came in between three and four, and witness served him. No-one was in the bar at the time. The defendant stopped half an hour, and at about five o`clock witness missed the box. At 6.30 he went to the police station, where he saw the prisoner and the box, which was the one produced as far as he could say.

P.C. Varrier stated that at about 4.55 the previous afternoon, from what he was told, he went into the meadow at the back of Black Bull Road, where he saw the prisoner lying on his stomach with the box about a foot away from him. In his right hand he had a pocket knife open, and lying on the grass under his left hand were one shilling and threepence in coppers. He told the prisoner he should take him to the police station and charged him with stealing it. Accused said “Do your duty, constable, I am the thief; it`s the first time I have stolen in my life”. Witness took the prisoner to the station, and found that the box had been stolen from the Imperial public house, Black Bull Road. When charged the prisoner made no reply.

Prisoner stated that he had been drinking for the last two days, and did not know what he did. It was the first time he had done a thing of that sort. He had been an employee of the Corporation for the last two years, and was one now, when he was sober.

Alderman Vaughan said it was a mean, despicable thing to take the money away from the hospital. Prisoner would be sentenced to 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Daily News 14-2-1906

Wednesday, February 14^th: Before Messrs. G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, T. Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

Alice Hill was to have appeared to a complaint charging her with selling adulterated whiskey.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the defence, and the case was adjourned with consent until next Wednesday.

Folkestone Daily News 21-2-1906

Wednesday, February 21^st: Before Messrs. G. Spurgen, T. Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

Mrs. Alice Hill was charged with selling a pint of Irish whiskey to which had been added more water than allowed by the Act. Mr. A.F. Kidson, Town Clerk, prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet defended.

Mr. J. Pearson stated that he visited the Imperial hotel, Foord, kept by the defendant, on the 19^th January, and was served by the barman with a pint of Irish whiskey, for which he paid 2s. 8d. He divided the whiskey into three parts, giving the barman one, at the same time informing him that it was purchased for analysis. He put in the Analyst`s certificate which showed that it contained 2.8 percent more water than permitted by the Act, viz., 25 percent.

Mr. De Wet contended that the certificate was not on the form prescribed by the Act.

Mr. Pearson was cross-examined. He admitted Mrs. Hill was not in the bar at the time of the sale.

For the defence Mrs. Hill said she did not know of the sale until after it took place. The licence had been held by her husband and herself for 22 years, and there had never been a conviction for adulterating spirits.

James Hill, son of the last witness, said he “broke down” the spirits. The whiskey served to Mr. Pearson was part of a 30 gallon cask, which the permit produced described as proof spirit. It was broken down to 25 percent under proof. The practice was to pour 2 gallons of spirits into a china keg and then pour in 5½ pints of distilled water, which, according to a table produced, made it 25 percent under proof. The keg was filled up about a week before the sale. The whiskey was first put in, and then the water, and then several pints were drawn and poured in the top again. That was the course always adopted in his father`s time. The funnel used to pour in Mr. Pearson`s whiskey was also used for cordials, which could be sold for 60 under, and for gin, which could be sold 33 under proof.

In reply to Mr. Kidson, witness said he had not had his sample analysed. He could not understand how the whiskey was more than 25 percent under proof.

The table used by witness was produced, and Mr. Spurgen instructed the Bench in the use of it. They said witness`s calculation was correct.

Mr. Hill said he did not test the 30 gallon cask of whiskey when it came in.

Mr. R.B. Straughan, of the Gun Tavern, said his experience was that if whiskey was put into a keg for about a week it lost about two degrees of strength. It might be weaker at the bottom than at the top if it was not properly mixed. He had found on several occasions that spirit he had received had been two or three degrees below that described on the permit, when tested by the hydrometer. Whiskey was apt to absorb moisture from the air if not kept airtight.

Mr. De Wet made a lengthy speech, contending that the prosecution had not made out their case on a number of grounds.

The Chairman said the Bench had no alternative but to convict, but they considered it rather as a case of carelessness. There would be a fine of 40s. with 35s. costs.

Mr. De Wet applied for an extension of time in which to give notice of appeal from three to seven days, but the Bench declined to accede.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-2-1906

Wednesday, February 21^st: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Lt. Col. Fynmore, and Mr. C. Ames.

Mrs. Alice Hill, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, was summoned under the Food and Drugs Act for selling adulterated whiskey. The Town Clerk prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet, who defended, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Mr. John Pearson said on the 19^th of January at two o`clock in the afternoon he visited the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and asked for a pint of Irish Whiskey. He was served by defendant`s son, and paid 2s. 8d. for the pint. Witness then divided the whiskey into three parts, observing the usual custom, and informed Mr. Hill jun. that it was for the purpose of analysis. The certificate of the Public Analyst (Mr. Percy Harvey), now put in, said that there was 3.73 percent of added water beyond the legal limit.

Mr. De Wet: Can you swear that this is the certificate of the Public Analyst?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. De Wet: Did you see him sign it?

Witness: I did not see him sign it, but I know the signature, having seen it hundreds of times.

Mr. De Wet: Did you procure the sample upon your own initiative?

Witness: No; under the direction of the Sanitary Authority.

Mr. De Wet: By a special resolution?

Witness: No, under a general authority (produced) given to me in 1903.

Mr. De Wet: How did you deliver the sample to the Public Analyst?

Witness: Personally.

Mr. De Wet: On the same day?

Witness: No, on the following day.

Mr. De Wet: Was Mrs. Hill in the bar when you were served?

Witness: I did not see her nor hear her at all.

Mr. De Wet: When the whiskey was served to you, can you tell me the procedures it went though in passing into the various bottles?

Witness: The whiskey was put into a pint and a half bottle which I took with me. It was then emptied through a funnel into three smaller bottles.

Mr. De Wet: Had they been used for samples before?

Witness: No; they were 6 oz. bottles and had not been used before. They were washed, turned upside down to drain, and thoroughly dried.

Mr. De Wet: You supplied your own funnel for the division?

Witness: Yes.

By the Town Clerk: The bottle was drained and thoroughly dry.

Mrs. Alice Hill was called by Mr. De Wet. She said she was a widow, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, and defendant in the case. She did not know about the sale of the whiskey until afterwards, as she was not in the bar. Witness put in the permit in regard to a quantity of whiskey of which the sample sold was a part. The Imperial Hotel had been conducted, witness said, by her late husband and herself for 22 years, and there had never been a previous prosecution for adulteration.

James Hill, son of the defendant, said he assisted his mother in the conduct of the business of the Imperial Hotel. It was part of his duty to break down the spirit. The spirit in the sample bottle taken by the Inspector was part of a bulk for which the Excise permit had been put in. In breaking down proof spirit the limit was 25 percent under. Distilled water was used to break down. The process followed by witness was to mix in a china keg (produced) two gallons of proof spirit with five and a half pints of distilled water. That was the formula according to the set rule (table put in); but witness, to be on the right side, only mixed five and a quarter pints of water with the whiskey. The keg had been filled a week previous to the inspector`s call. To mix the water with the spirit, witness said he drew off about three pints from the bottom of the keg and poured the liquid back again into the top of the keg. Witness said he used to assist his father occasionally in breaking down proof spirit, and always adopted the same procedure. After Mr. Pearson had been served with his pint there was about a pint and a half left in the jar. He used the same funnel for serving cordials. In the case of cordials they were allowed to sell 60 percent under proof. The same funnel was used for gin, where the standard for sale was 32 percent under proof.

By the Town Clerk: Have you had the sample in the keg analysed?

Witness: No.

The Town Clerk: Can you explain how five and a half pints of water added to 32 pints of proof spirit bring it down to 25 percent?

Witness: No; all I can say is that the table says five and a half pints to two gallons.

The Town Clerk: You are quite sure that you did not put more water than five and a half pints?

Witness: Quite sure that I did not.

The Town Clerk: Did you test the whiskey to see it was up to proof before adding the water?

Witness: No; the certificate put in says it was “P.S.”, proof spirit.

The Town Clerk: Can you suggest any reason for the whiskey being under 25 percent.

Witness: No, I cannot.

Bernard Ross Straughan, the licence holder of the Gun Tavern, said if whiskey was put into a vessel like the keg produced he would expect it to lose about 2 percent at the end of the week. In his own experience such had been the case. Whiskey being lighter than water was supposed (the spirit) to rise to the top. Witness had received whiskey from different distillers supplied as “proof”, and upon testing it with an hydrometer found it to be 2 percent under proof. Again, from his own experience, he found that whiskey, if left open, would absorb misture from the air.

By the Town Clerk: He did not ask the Magistrates to believe that if the whiskey was well mixed the spirit would rise to the top. He had heard the last witness describe the process of breaking down, and would not like to say the spirit would rise under those conditions. To prevent loss by evaporation, the spirit should be kept air tight. It was quite possible for the spirit to be supplied by the distillers under proof. This particular quantity might not have been proof in the first instance. The certificates were supposed to be correct, but witness remarked receiving a proof cask of 35 gallons, and upon testing it, finding it to be 3 percent under proof.

Mr. De Wet asked the Bench to dismiss the summons. The water, he said, had not been proved to have been added to fraudulently increase the bulk or conceal an inferior quality. In the course of a long address the advocate advanced the theory of the whiskey standing and the spirit rising to the top, and also advanced a number of technical objections as reasons why the summons against his client should be dismissed.

The Chairman, having consulted with Mr. Bradley, said the Bench had no alternative but to convict. They looked upon the case as an act of carelessness. Defendant would be fined 40s., and £1 15s. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of the usual time limit that he might consult the brewers with a view of appeal.

The request was refused, the Clerk remarking that this was not a case for endorsement of the licence.

 

Folkestone Express 24-2-1906

Wednesday, February 21^st: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

Mrs. Hill, the licence holder of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling adulterated whiskey.

Mr. Kidson prosecuted, and said the summons was issued under the Food and Drugs Act

Mr. Pearson said on January 19^th he visited the Imperial Hotel about two o`clock in the afternoon. He asked the barman, named Philpot, for a pint of Irish whiskey. He served witness with it, and he gave 2/8 for it. He then divided the sample into three parts, and told Philpot he had purchased it for the purpose of being analysed by the public analyst. One part he gave to the barman, a second he produced that day, and the third he delivered to the public analyst the following day. He put in the analyst`s certificate, which showed that the sample contained 3.73 percent of added water beyond the legal limit.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, who appeared for the defendant, witness said he could swear that the writing on the certificate was that of the public analyst. Mrs. Hill was not in the bar when the whiskey was sold. He did not see her at all. The whiskey was put by the barman into a pint and a half bottle supplied by witness. He (the inspector) then put the whiskey into three smaller bottles. He supplied all the bottles, which had never been used for samples before. The bottles had been washed and had been turned upside down in order to drain until they had become thoroughly dry.

Mrs. Hill, the landlady, went into the box, and said she did not know of the sale of the whiskey until afterwards. Her late husband and herself had held the licence for 22 years, and during the whole of that time they had not been convicted for selling adulterated spirits.

James Hill, the defendant`s son, said it was part of his duty to “break down” spirits. They broke down proof to 25 under. In breaking down distilled water was used. They usually broke down two gallons at a time, and emptied it into a china keg. To two gallons of whiskey they added 5½ pints of water, which was according to the set rules. He filled the keg the week previous. He put the whiskey in the keg, and kept drawing a quantity and putting it in the top again, until it was properly mixed. After the inspector left there was a pint and a half left in the jar. The funnel used by Philpot for pouring the whiskey into the bottle was also used for gin and cordials.

Cross-examined, he said he did not test the whiskey before adding the water. He could not account for it being below 25 percent. They did not test the pint and a half left in the keg.

Bernard Straughan, the licensee of the Gun Tavern, said he should expect to find whiskey, after it had been in the keg a week, to have lost a matter of one or two degrees. Whiskey rose and water sank, so whiskey drawn from the bottom of a keg would be weaker than that at the top. Whiskey was also apt to absorb moisture from the air.

Mr. De Wet addressed the Magistrates at some length. He contended that the case should be dismissed under a section of the Act, because he could prove that the water was not added fraudulently to increase the bulk or to conceal inferior quality. Then, Mrs. Hill was not in the bar at the time, and in that case it could not be proved that the employer had any fraudulent intention in providing liquor for the employee to sell. That was a serious charge to bring against a licence holder, for if the Magistrates convicted it would be registered, and they had also the option of endorsing the licence. It would also be a serious thing for the owners to have a conviction entered in theregister. In conclusion, he objected to the summons charging the defendant with wilfully adulterating the whiskey.

The Chairman said the Magistrates looked upon it as an act of carelessness, therefore they would mitigate the penalty, which would be 40s. and 35s. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of three days in which he could appeal against the conviction on the ground that the defendant was summoned for wilfully adulterating the whiskey. He asked for the time to be extended to seven days, so that he could consult with the brewers.

The Chairman said they could not grant the request. There would be no question of the endorsement of the licence.

Folkestone Herald 24-2-1906

Wednesday, February 21^st: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Councillor Fynmore, and Mr. T. Ames.

Mrs. Alice Hills, lessee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, was summoned for selling adulterated whiskey. The Town Clerk prosecuted, and Mr. De Wet appeared for defendant. Mr. Kidson stated that the certificate of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the whiskey contained 3.73 percent of water above the legal limit, so that instead of there being 75 percent of spirit, there was only 72.2.

Mr. J. Pearson said that on the 19^th January he went into the Imperial Hotel, and asked the barman for a pint of Irish whiskey. He was served and paid 2/8. He told the barman for what purpose he had bought the whiskey, and then divided it into three parts; the first he gave to the barman, Philpott, the second was now produced in Court, and the third he delivered to the Public Analyst at Canterbury the following day. The analyst`s certificate, produced, showed that the sample contained 3.73 percent of water beyond the legal limit.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the form of certificate was not correct.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, Mr. Pearson said Mrs. Hill was not in the bar when the whiskey was sold. He had a pint and a half bottle with him at the time, and asked for the whiskey in that. The barman poured it in from a pint measure through a funnel. Witness then divided the whiskey from the bottle into three smaller bottles. All this was done in front of the barman. The bottles had not been used for samples before. He had his own funnel to put the whiskey from the big bottle to the smaller ones.

Re-examined by the Town Clerk, Mr. Pearson said that all the bottles and the funnel had been thoroughly rinsed and dried previous to taking the samples.

The Town Clerk said he had another witness who could corroborate Mr. Pearson`s evidence, but Mr. De Wet said he was not disputing the evidence, and the additional testimony was not called.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mrs. Alice Hill, examined by Mr. De Wet, said she had heard nothing of the sale in question until afterwards. The licence of the Imperial Hotel had been in her husband`s name, and – now she was a widow – in hers, for 22 years. To her knowledge, there had never during that time, been any conviction for selling adulterated spirits.

Arthur Hill, examined by Mr. De Wet, said he was the defendant`s son, and assisted her with the management of the business. It was part of his duty to break down spirits. The spirits in the bottle (produced) were part of the broken-down spirits referred to in the certificate produced. (This was an Inland Revenue certificate to the effect that the spirits when delivered in the cask were proof.) He broke down spirits 25 percent under by using distilled water. Two gallons of spirit at a time were broken down, the mode of procedure being to empty the two galloons into a china keg (produced), and then add 5½ pints of water. He last filled the keg up a week previously to the taking of the sample. After putting the whiskey and water in, he drew about three pints out and poured it in again at the top. After Mr. Pearson`s visit there was about a pint and a half of whiskey left in the keg; he had not had that tested. The same funnel used for serving whiskey was also used for selling cordials, which were sometimes at sixty under proof, and gin, which might be sold at 30 under.

Examined by the Town Clerk, witness said the five and a half pints of water to two gallons of spirits was the quantity in books of tables; as a matter of fact he only put five and a quarter pints. He did not test the spirit to see if it really was proof before adding the water, nor did he test the broken-down mixture.

Mr. B.R. Straughan, lessee of the Gun Tavern, examined by Mr. De Wet, said that if whiskey was put into the jar produced he would expect it to have lost about a degree or two in strength at the end of the week. Whiskey rose to the top, and if drawn out from the bottom there was a probability that it would be weaker than at the top. He had sometimes found whiskey two and three degrees under proof when it was certified to be proof spirit by the excise certificate. If there was an illegal addition of water, the addition as shown by the analyst`s certificate was so slight that it could not have been done for the purposes of fraud. Whiskey was apt to absorb moisture from the air.

The Town Clerk: Do you ask the Bench to believe that when whiskey has been well mixed the mixture at the bottom would be inferior to that at the top?

Witness: No, I do not say that.

Under the circumstances would the whiskey have been close to the top after a week? – I could not say that.

Mr. De Wet, in the course of a long speech for the defence, said that by the Acts of 1876 and 1879 it was provided that it was a good defence to prove that an admixture of water had not reduced the whiskey to more than twenty five percent under proof. Also if he could prove that the water was not added fraudulently to increase the bulk, he was, he considered, entitled to have the case dismissed. Mr. Straughan, whom he had seen only that morning, and who had offered to come forward and give evidence, without prejudice, had explained that spirit was apt to deteriorate through many circumstances. He (Mr. De Wet) did not know whether the justices had any experience of sampling whiskey, but if they had they would find that if whiskey was left in an open bottle overnight it was not so strong in the morning. (Laughter, which was speedily suppressed) He maintained that there was no legal limit to the amount of water that might be added. Whiskey was often sold at 33 under proof. The Act provided that whiskey might, sometimes, be sold at any strength. It was a most serious charge, because if there was a conviction, the register had to have the conviction recorded, and the Magistrates might endorse the licence. A very important point he wanted to bring forward was that the prosecution had not made out the charge of “wilfully” adulterating. In conclusion, he said there was a representative present from the establishment that supplied the whiskey if they desired to hear him.

The representative was, however, not called.

Alderman Spurgen said the Bench had no alternative but to convict, and Mrs. Hill would be fined £2 and £1 14s. 6d. costs.

Mr. De Wet asked for an extension of the time to consider whether there should be an appeal. He thought he had a ground of appeal on the use of the word “wilful”.

Alderman Spurgen said he was afraid he could not grant the request. There would, however, be no endorsement of the licence.

Folkestone Herald 12-1-1907

Local News

We regret to record the death of Mrs. Hills (widow of the late Mr. James Hills) of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road. This lady, in a quiet and unostentatious manner, did an immense amount of good amongst the poor. To her children we tender our deep sympathy.

Folkestone Express 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Herald 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 2-3-1907

Wednesday, February 27^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggatt, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The Imperial Hotel, to Mr. J. Hill.

Folkestone Daily News 4-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Mr. Haines made an application in respect to the Imperial Hotel in Black Bull Road for a confirmation of the licence.

The licence was granted, the Chairman calling Mr. Hills` attention to a previous conviction for selling adulterated whiskey, and cautioned him as to his future conduct.

 

Folkestone Express 9-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the renewal of the licence of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, which was formerly held by Mrs. Alice Hill, who died just previously to the licensing sessions. Since then it had been temporarily transferred to Mr. James Hill.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had no objection.

The Chairman, speaking to Mr. Hill, said he noticed there had been a conviction at the house during the last year for selling adulterated whiskey. They were going to grant him the licence, but he must take the conviction as a warning and be careful not to offend against the law.

Folkestone Herald 9-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Imperial Inn

Mr. Haines made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Imperial Inn, Black Bull Road to the son of the deceased tenant. This was granted, but applicant was called forward and warned by the Bench, who reminded him that there had been a conviction against the house in the past year.

Folkestone Daily News 7-8-1908

Friday, August 7^th: Before Messrs. Vaughan and Wood.

John Banks Pegden was charged with being drunk and incapable in Black Bull Road.

P.C. Prebble said at 10.30 last evening he saw the prisoner lying in the middle of the road on his back. Witness helped him up, but found he was too drunk to take care of himself. About a quarter of an hour before prisoner was ejected from the Imperial Hotel.

Prisoner said he fell on his head and stunned himself.

The Chief Constable: Weren`t you drunk?

Prisoner: No, I don`t think so.

He was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 15-8-1908

Friday, August 7^th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. R.G. Wood and C. Jenner.

John Banks Pegden was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous evening in Black Bull Road. He said in reply to the charge that he was not drunk.

P.C. W. Prebble said at about 10.30 the previous evening he saw the prisoner lying in the roadway. He helped him up, and, finding that he was too drunk to stand, he took him to the police station. About a quarter of an hour previously he had seen the prisoner ejected from the Imperial Hotel.

Pegden said he was very sorry it had occurred.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was a local man, but had not been before the Magistrates for five or six years. There were several previous convictions against him before that.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, a week being allowed for payment. Pegden, as he left the dock, promised that it would be the last time he would come there.

Folkestone Daily News 26-5-1909

Wednesday, May 26^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Jenner, Fynmore, Stainer, Linton, and Boyd.

An application was made for permission to make certain structural alterations at the Imperial Hotel. The application was granted with the exception of that portion which related to the Children`s Bar.

Folkestone Express 29-5-1909

Wednesday, May 26^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman Jenner, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

Mr. Bromley presented plans for alterations to the bars at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

The justices retired in order to consider them, and on their return the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had decided to grant the alterations with the exception of those for the children`s bar. They were only following out the decision which was arrived at by the Bench some time ago. They wished also to point out that provision for a children`s bar did not come within section 16 of the 1902 Act.

Folkestone Herald 29-5-1909

Wednesday, May 26^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Fynmore, and G. Boyd.

Mr. Bromley applied for permission to carry out certain alterations in connection with the rearrangement of the bars at the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road.

After viewing the plans submitted, and having adjourned to consider the matter, the Chairman said that the Bench were prepared to grant the alterations, with the exception of those relating to the children`s bar, and in doing that they were only following out the same decision arrived at some little time back by the Bench. The Bench would also point out that the provision for a children`s bar did not come under section 16 or the 1902 Act.

On the understanding that the alterations with reference to the children`s bar would be omitted the application was granted.