Perseverance 1905 - 1909

Folkestone Chronicle 11-2-1905

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.

The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.

Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8^th, 1905. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or one on licence to every 313 persons.

Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year, viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence was transferred twice during the year.

The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.

Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since transferred his licence and left the house.

Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant, and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.

For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case a conviction being recorded.

For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17 persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.

Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42 occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.

The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the renewals be refused.

The houses situate in this congested area which in my opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn, Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

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

The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in theor power to prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief Constable Reeve`s report that there are a very large number of licensed houses in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable`s report, viz., The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these houses are closed the owners will be compensated.

Folkestone Express 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable`s report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6^th.

Folkestone Herald 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Chronicle for details).

The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year. With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses, viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those houses would be compensated.

Folkestone Daily News 6-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.

The Perseverance

This is a beerhouse in Dover Street. Similar evidence was given as in the previous cases. There was no complaint against the house.

Mr. Avery, K.C., addressed the Bench at great length. He objected to the area, and said it was always possible to find clusters of houses in any neighbourhood, and the smaller circle you drew round them, it increased the number, while if you drew a larger circle it lessened the number in proportion. He went into the question at great length, and pointed out that he could not understand why the Perseverance in Dover Street should be selected, because the police had said that it was a well-conducted house, with no complaints against it, while the Welcome had been convicted last year for harbouring prostitutes, and this year for permitting drunkenness, besides which there were two previous convictions against it.

The Magistrates, however, decided to refer the case to Canterbury, granting a provisional licence in the meantime.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr. W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance, tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.

The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory`s objections were practically the same as those which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours with the advocates` objections who represented the other houses.

Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a man`s licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates` consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.

After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent back to Quarter Sessions for reference.

 

Folkestone Express 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

The Chief Constable said he first of all put in a map showing the congested area. The whole of the “on” licensed premises were marked in red. The area he had marked was from the bottom of the steps leading to The Bayle, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Grace Hill, Dover Road, along Radnor Bridge Road, to the sea. Within that area there were 916 houses for a population approximately of 4,580. That included 46 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one “on” licence to about every 313 inhabitants. There were also within the area six “off” licence holders. He should also like to point out that within the borough during the past year they had 171 charges of drunkenness. He had found that 94 of those charges arose within that particular area.

The objection against the renewal of the licence of the Perseverance Inn to Mr. Robert Henry Tracey was next considered.

The Chief Constable said the house was an ante 1869 beer-house situate in Dover Street. The present tenant obtained a transfer of the licence on December 7^th of last year. Messrs. Flint and Co. were the registered owners, and the rateable value was £27. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 29, and within 200 yards there were 39. The accommodation for the public consisted of two compartments, or small bars, and a tap room. In 1902 plans were called for by the licensing justices, but no order for structural alterations was made. In his opinion the house was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said the Welcome, a fully licensed house, was only a very short distance away. Since February 8^th, when the licence of the Welcome was renewed, there was a conviction for permitting drunkenness against that house. There were altogether four convictions against it.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said he considered the house unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. On February 15^th the landlord told him he wished he had not speculated his money in the house, and on March 4^th he also told him that he barely took enough money to pay expenses.

Mr. Tracey said he paid £179 altogether to go into the house. In the summer the house let to a good class of visitors. The amount of beer consumed depended on the fishing trade; sometimes it was four barrels a week, and sometimes only two. Since he had taken the house he had found that a public house was a nuisance and that a publican`s life was intolerable. When he got out he would take no more public houses. He had been a mounted policeman, a soldier, and a gold prospector.

Mr. Alec Ward, a director of Messrs. Flint and Co., said during the year ending October, 1902, 341 barrels of beer were sold in the house. In 1903 there were 300, and in 1904, 266, or an average of five barrels a week.

Mr. Avory contended that the area marked on the map produced an unfair result. If they extended the boundary a mile further away from the cluster of houses they would find the houses were serving a large population of people. He submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates` consideration whether any practical result could follow from a reference of those cases to the Quarter Sessions. He thought that the funda available for compensation would not be sufficient to meet the cases which had already been referred to the Quarter Sessions. The result would be there would be a deadlock when the question came to be considered. The Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to say they must hold their hands or they would be obliged to do what would be a gross injustice – reduce the compensation below what the proper amount should be.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought they were bound to refer the case to the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in which they were situated.

The case of the Perseverance, of which Mr. R.H. Tracey is the landlord, was next proceeded with. Mr. Avory also appeared for the owners in this case.

The Chief Constable put in a large plan showing the congested area, the map being on a scale of 1 inch in 500, and the public houses being marked in red. Taking the area from the Bayle Steps, South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and thence to the sea, there were 916 houses, with a population, approximately, of 4,580. That included 46 on-licensed houses, which meant one on-licensed house to nearly every 100 inhabitants, though for the borough at large there was one house for every 131 inhabitants. There were six off-licence holders in the area under notice. The Chief Constable said that this was an ante 1869 beerhouse. The present tenant made the fifth that had been in the house for twenty years. The house was on the right-hand side of Dover Street, opposite Fenchurch Street, and within 100 yards there were 17 other on-licensed houses, within 150 29 houses, and within 200 39 houses. At the Licensing Meeting in 1903 plans were called for, but no structural alterations had been made. The owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., and the rateable value was £27. The trade was very small, and the house was not necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined: Assuming that five barrels per week were sold, he would call that a small trade. The house was a very short distance from the Welcome Inn, which was a fully licensed house. That house was not being opposed, though it had been the subject of a conviction since the last licensing meeting. There was one other conviction against the Welcome Inn last year against the owner. In 1879 and 1892 there were convictions. There was no opposition at present by the police to that house. There had been no conviction against the Perseverance during the tenancy of the present or past licensee.

Detective Sergeant Burniston considered the licence unnecessary. On the 15^th February witness served the landlord with the notice. The licensee regretted that he had speculated his money on the house, and later said that he took only nearly enough to pay expenses.

Cross-examined by Mr. Avory: He would hardly think that the Welcome Inn was needed.

Mr. Robt. Henry Tracey, the tenant of the house, said that he took possession in November last, and paid altogether £179 to go into the house. In the summer the house was let to fairly good class visitors. To a great extent his beer trade depended on the fishing trade. Since he had taken the public house he had come to the conclusion that a public house was a nuisance to everyone. A publican`s life was intolerable, and he would “lay that if he got outside of that he would take care not to go in another”. He had been a policeman in Bechuanaland, a soldier, and a prospector.

Cross-examined: Although he had been a gold miner, he had not found the public house a gold mine.

Mr. Alex Ward, a director of Messrs. Flint and Co., gave statistics as to the trade done, which showed that it fluctuated; the average of the last three years was being maintained.

Cross-examined: Messrs. Ash owned seventeen houses in the borough, whereas witness`s firm only had seven.

Mr. Avery contended that the marking of an arbitrary area on a plan as had been done by the Chief Constable produced an unfair result, for the reason that in every town one spot could be divided out where there was a cluster of licensed houses. The Bench should not be guided by any line drawn upon a map, because in that way they would not give due consideration to the wants of the people who were outside that district. The Magistrates were not dealing with theoretical questions, but questions of practical politics, namely, as to whether any of the houses should be sent to Quarter Sessions for consideration. He submitted that it was worthy of consideration whether any practical result would follow from a reference of those cases to the Quarter Sessions for the county. He believed, from inquiry, that at the present moment it would be found that there had been referred to Quarter Sessions a number of houses far exceeding any possible strain which the compensation funds could be put to. In other words the compensation funds would not be sufficient for the number of cases which would require to be met. The result would be that a total deadlock would be produced at Quarter Sessions. It could not have been intended by the Legislature that those objections should be multiplied by an enormous number of houses being referred, all of which were to have a claim upon the compensation funds, when there were no funds, or the funds were not sufficient. Quarter Sessions would be obliged to say “We must hold our hands, for we cannot deal with any of the questions, or we shall be obliged to reduce the amounts below what they should be”. Counsel further argued that in the case of Raven v Southampton Justices it was laid down that it was not sufficient to produce a map which, when viewed, showed there were too many houses in any particular neighbourhood, but that there should be some grounds distinguishing it from other licensed houses in the neighbourhood which justified the taking away of that licence rather than the licences of other houses in that street or the adjoining street. He went on to compare the Perseverance and the Welcome Inn, houses practically together, where convictions had been recorded against one and not the other, and yet the Perseverance was opposed while the other was not.

The Bench decided to refer the case to Quarter Sessions

Southeastern Gazette 14-3-1905

The adjourned licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq. (in the chair).

Mr. Minter applied for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant a provisional license in the meantime.

Mr. Mowll next applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster. After hearing the evidence, the Bench came to a similar decision.

They also referred the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs. Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor Else.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11-5-1905

Local News

We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the 15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and four from Elham.

The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The Star.

The Committee have decided that there is no need to interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 13-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.

It was decided that the principal meeting to be held pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the East Kent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26^th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard: Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown, High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.

Folkestone Daily News 26-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports in Seagate Street came up for hearing.

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs. Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.

Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases were proceeded with on their merits.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.

Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation is settled.

The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with at present.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were: Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic), Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr. Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the tenants.

Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective Sergt. Burniston.

Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for the last few years.

As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and paid £180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference between £180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house, when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this year and one last year?

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph, had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of trade, and was of use to the locality.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited, and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria,

Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.

Folkestone Herald 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Yesterday the Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent, to whom the local authorities had referred the licences of five Folkestone houses, under the licensing Act of 1904, sat at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, and considered the reports which had been presented to them, as well as the reasons advanced in favour and against the renewal of the respective licences. Sir William Lucius Selfe was the Chairman of the Committee.

The houses in question were the Victoria, South Street, the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, the Star Inn, Radnor Street, the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, and the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

Mr. Pitkin, barrister, appeared for the Licensing Justices, Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria, the Perseverance, and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.), Mr. Hohler was for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. G.W. Haines represented the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) appeared for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitkin said that at the annual licensing meeting this year the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licences named, and one other, that of the Providence. The notices were served on the people who required notices under the Act, and at the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and his Detective Sergeant gave evidence, while evidence was also called on behalf of the licensees of the houses. At that meeting it was proved that in the area which the Chief Constable had marked out on the map, namely, from South Street, up High Street, down Grace Hill, to the railway arches, and across to the sae, there were in all 916 houses to a population of 4,580. Of these 46 were on-licensed and 6 were off- licensed. That was one licence to rather more than every hundred of the population, and if that was so there could be no doubt that that was a case in which some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority were unanimous in referring the whole of the five licences under discussion. At the preliminary meeting it was decided that the case of the Providence should not be proceeded with. The Chief Constable would tell them that in selecting those five houses he was guided by the fact that the houses were those which were doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared to be the worst of each cluster.

Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, repeated the figures as to population, etc. He said in the whole borough there was one on-licence to every 313 people. During the year 1904 there were 171 cases of drunkenness in the borough, and 94 of those arose within the specified area. The Victoria was in South Street, which was merely a paved passageway from the High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. The owners were Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, and the present holder of the licence was Mr. Alfred Skinner. The rateable value was £24. In South Street there were two houses on one side, and on the other three were adjoining. The accommodation in the Victoria Inn for the public was described by witness, and also that of the landlord. Within a radius of 100 yards of the Victoria there were 18 other on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards there were 34. Witness considered that the landlord did very little trade. There had been four tenants since April, 1894, though the present tenant had been in the house since the 2^nd August, 1899. In selecting that house he had been guided by the principles that it was the house in the vicinity doing the least trade, and was the least suitable for a public house. Dealing with the Perseverance, in Dover Street, witness said that that was an ante 1869 beerhouse, and the registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. The present holder of the licence was Robt. Tracey, who obtained it in December, 1904. In eight years there had been five tenants. The rateable value was £27 per annum. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 on-licensed houses, within 150 yards there 29 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. There seemed to him to be very little trade done at the house. He was past he house a few evenings ago, and saw one of the bars in total darkness, so that it did not appear that they were doing much trade. As to the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the owners of which were Messrs. Flint and Co., that was an ante 1869 beer on-licence. The present licensee had been there since 1891. The rateable value of the house was £24. It was a very small establishment. There were 17 other on-licensed houses within 100 yards, 33 within 150, and 39 within 200 yards. Very little business was done at the house, and the holder of the licence went out working a great deal of his time. The Star Inn was in Radnor Street, and there were 63 houses in the street, of which seven were fully licensed houses. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash, and the present tenant was Mr. Else, who had held it since May of last year, being the seventh tenant since 1881. The rateable value was £20. Witness considered that the trade at the Star Inn was very little, the chief business being that of letting lodgings to those of the tramping class. Within one hundred yards there were four other licensed houses, within 150 yards there were eight, and within 200 yards there were 15 other on-licensed houses. With regard to the Cinque Ports Arms, it was one of a block of three licensed houses in Seagate Street. The owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the tenant was Samuel Webster, who had held it since August, 1901. The rateable value was £24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and on one side of the street was a dead wall, and on the other there were four houses, the first of which was a boot shop. Then came the Cinque Ports house, with a stable, the Chequers public house, and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 houses, within 150 yards there were 32 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses, all of which were on-licensed. The tenant was a basket maker, and very often worked at his trade. Very little trade was done at that house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the Licensing Justices that he received instructions. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered from what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population generally of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until last year it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint at all as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider that the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the last Licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The last tenant of the Perseverance was a Mr. Morgan. He had been there for three years, and the previous tenant to that was a Mr. Riddalls, who had been there four years, as had a tenant before him. In the season the population greatly increased in Folkestone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star Inn was well-conducted, and he had no complaint against it. He could not say that any of the 171 cases were traced to the Star Inn, for, unfortunately, he could not often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: In 1903 the Magistrates called for plans of the Cinque Ports Arms, and no order was made. The tenant had conducted the house properly.

Re-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness had based his opinion that the trade was small at the five houses from his observations. The statistics as to the growth of the town applied to houses outside the congested area. Before the Justices a petition was presented in favour of the renewal of the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that he had known the Victoria Inn for ten years, and also the other houses, which he had had to visit occasionally when making enquiries. Very few people used the houses. He had served Skinner with the notice of objection, and he had said “I wish I could leave this house tomorrow”. He said that on account of the trade being so bad. The Duke of Edinburgh did a very small trade, the majority of the customers being hawkers. He had visited the houses many times during the day, and had usually found the bars empty. Many times the landlord`s wife had said that she did not make enough money to pay the brewer his rent. Witness knew the Perseverance, and there a very small trade was done, the customers being principally fishermen. Tracey, the tenant, when he received the notice of objection, said that he wished he had not speculated his money in the house, and on a later date he said that he did not take sufficient money to pay the rent. As to the Star, that did a very small trade, the landlord depending chiefly on the lodgers he had. Very few people in the street used the house. The landlord often spoke to witness, and had remarked that he was sorry he had taken the house. As to the Cinque Ports, that also did a very small trade, about one barrel a week. Very few residents used the place. From what he had seen, he would think that it was almost impossible for the landlords to get a living. The houses were not necessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The tenant Tracey made his statement after he had been served with a notice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star was a quiet house, though badly constructed.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was under that particular provision of the Act upon which the Committee sat, precisely the same powers as under the old conditions of appeal to Quarter Sessions. He would submit that there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry in reference to the issue to each house as there ever had been under the Licensing Act of 1838. The chief case upon which one must rely in interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case, and in that case a statement was made by the Master of the Rolls, which really gave the key to the whole of the decisions. The Justices in that case formed themselves into a Committee, or appointed a Committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry, made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular houses which they might oppose prima facie before going round and making an inspection, and so finding out what they considered to be absolutely unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was decided as being the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question. Instead of giving notice of objection to individual cases selected out of Court, if he might so express it, they gave notice of objection to every single house in their area. What the Master of the Rolls said was “They (the Justices) were of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all of them might be formally inquired into, and for that purpose authority was given to the Justices` Clerk to object to such renewals on the general ground that the houses were not required, and also on the special grounds set out in that notice. That course gave everyone concerned their opportunity, and the Justices had the opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That is one course that might be taken, and it seems to me the reasonable and proper course”. That procedure had not been adopted in that case. It was very far from it. The procedure in this instance apparently had been to adopt the view of a particular official, the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notices of objection solely on the houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show, by way of comparison of trade, accommodation, situation, the state of repair, and matters of that kind, how discrimination by the Justices should be made, and which should be referred to Quarter Sessions. In doing so, he submitted the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper and legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notice on all houses in that selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions, sitting 50 or 100 miles away from a town, to distinguish between those and other houses in a selected area? A great many of the compensation authority would be absolutely ignorant of the locus in quo. Before any legal decision could be given in reference to any one property, in accordance with the procedure conducted by the Folkestone Justices, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood. The case of Howard and King in Parliament was followed by the Raven and Southampton case, in which it was contended that the procedure adopted in the Farnham case was a reasonable one so that the course adopted by the Folkestone Justices was not equivalent.

The Chairman said that he would advise the Committee that the action of the Committee was sanctioned by an action in the King`s Bench Division. For the purposes of that day they would not act under the decision of the King v Tolhurst. If the King`s Bench had considered that the hearing in the Tolhurst case carried the case any further than the Raven case, they would no doubt have followed the decision in the Raven case.

Mr. Hohler said that he had acted for the Justices in that case, and they said that they had not only acted on the police evidence, but they had also acted upon their own local knowledge. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgement, had referred to that.

The Chairman said the Tolhurst case had decided that the evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrates referring the matter to that Court.

Mr. Bodkin asked the Committee to state a case on that decision.

The Chairman: No, certainly not.

Mr. Bodkin said that he had no authority to say so, but he had every reason to believe that that decision was to be appealed against.

The Chairman replied that the Committee could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of his clients, and he then called his evidences.

The Perseverance

Mr. Robert Henry Tracey, the landlord of the Perseverance, said the trade was improving every week. From two barrels his trade had come up to four barrels, as well as a bottled beer and stout trade. He had made a living in the worst time of the year, and he would like to have a chance of seeing what i was like. He had told the sergeant that he was sorry that he had invested in the business. That was when he was served with the notice of objection. The whole of his savings in South Africa were invested in the business.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: In the first week of his tenancy he sold four barrels, and then it went down to two.

Mr. Alexander Ward, Director of Messrs. Flint and Co., said he regarded the Perseverance as a house of very considerable value. Treating bottled beer as barrelage, the average sale of all kinds for the last four years had been eight barrels a week. The trade was greater in the summer than the winter. During the whole of the time the house was thoroughly well conducted. It was a principle of his company to select the best publicans, and he did not want a better than Mr. Tracey. They had never had any complaint against the structural alterations of the place.

Witness, in reply to the Chairman, corrected his statement, and said that the barrelage averaged six and not eight per week.

After retiring to consider their verdict, the Committee, through their Chairman, announced their decision. Sir William Selfe said that in the course of Mr. Bodkin`s arguments on the question of law, it had been said that the procedure of the Justices below in referring the licences for the consideration of that Court was not in accordance with the law. He (the Chairman) expressed the opinion that it was. The Committee had considered each case separately, without regard to any of the other cases that had been heard, and they had decided to refuse the renewal of all the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Southeastern Gazette 30-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Committee

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday and Saturday. At the first day’s sitting, Judge Sir W. L. Selfe presided.

There were five applications from Folkestone, viz., in respect of the Victoria, the Perseverance, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Star, and the Cinque Port Arms. The licensees were represented by Mr. Bodkin, K.C., Mr. Hohler, Mr. Rutley Mowll and Mr. Haines, while Mr. Pitman appeared for the justices of Folkestone, and Detective Sergt. Bumiston having given evidence, Mr. Bodkin contended that the fact that compensation was now to be given did not affect the question, as to whether a license should be renewed or not, and the onus upon those who came there to prove that a license should be refused on the ground that it was not required was just as great as if they were acting last year instead of in the present year, and he thought it was necessary to bear this in mind because one heard in various quarters views expressed that now compensation was payable, these licensing cases might be got through in as short, and, if he might say so, as perfunctory a way as possible, without any enquiry of any sort, or careful attention given to the interests involved. Mr. Bodkin further argued that the primary duty of the Licensing Justices was that laid down in the Farnham case, viz., that they should personally select the houses which they deemed were not required, instead of leaving such selection to the discretion of the Chief Constable.

All the licenses were refused, with the exception of that of the Perseverance 

Folkestone Express 3-6-1905

East Kent Licensing

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King`s Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. In cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin, he said he received his instructions with regard to the houses from the whole of the Licensing Justices. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered by what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until in 1901 it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

In answer to Mr. Hohler, he said he had no complaint to make against the Star, which was well-conducted. He could not say that any of the 171 cases of drunkenness were traced to the Star Inn. Unfortunately they could not very often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King`s Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin`s contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Perseverance

Robert Henry Tracey next gave evidence with regard to the Perseverance. He said he had been a tenant of the house since November last. He paid £28 a year rent. He had been a prospector and a gold miner. He had been in the Mashonaland Mounted Police and the Cape Police during the war. He paid £179 to go into the house. That sum included fixtures and some furniture and stock. The trade was greatly improving every week, and it had gone up from two barrels to rather more than four barrels a week. He was now satisfied with the trade. He had made a living in the worst time of the year, and he was certain he would in the best time.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said his savings of ten years in South Africa had been put in the house.

Mr. Alexander Ward, a director of Messrs. Flint and Co., said the house was the freehold property of his company. The trade had been thoroughly good ever since he had known the house. It averaged eight barrels a week including bottled ales for the last four years.

The Chairman said he thought the witness had made a mistake with regard to barrelage, and witness, after working the figures out again, said he made the barrelage about six every week.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Folkestone Daily News 28-2-1906

Wednesday, February 28^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

The transfer of the licence of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was granted from Mr. Terry to Mr. Frederick Ralph. The latter formerly held the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, which licence was suppressed last year.

The Chief Constable said he hoped the new tenant would conduct the house as well as the late tenant had done. 

Folkestone Chronicle 3-3-1906

Wednesday, February 28^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, C. Ames, and W. Linton.

Mr. Ben Twyman, brewer`s agent, applied for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Perseverance, Dover Street, from Mr. Tracey to Fredk. Ralph, late of the Edinburgh Castle (sic), Tontine Street.

The application was granted.

Chief Constable Reeve said he hoped the house would be as well conducted by the new tenant as it was under the last.

Folkestone Express 3-3-1906

Wednesday, February 28^th: Before E.T. Ward  Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and T. Ames, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The following licence was temporarily transferred: the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, from Mr. Tracey to Mr. F. Ralph (late of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street).

Folkestone Herald 3-3-1906

Wednesday, February 28^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames.

A special sessions for the transfer of ale house licences was held. The licence of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was transferred to Mr. Fredk. Ralph, late of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street. The Chief Constable remarked that he hoped this house would be as well conducted under the new tenant as under the previous one.

Folkestone Daily News 11-4-1906

Wednesday, April 11^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, R.J. Linton, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Mr. Fred Ralph was given the transfer of the licence of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street. Mr. R.H. Tracey was the former holder of the licence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14-4-1906

On Wednesday morning, at the Borough Police Court, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding, the ordinary business was preceded by a special licensing sessions.

Mr. H. Tracey handed over his licence of the Perseverance, Dover Street, to Mr. F. Ralph, late of the Edinburgh Castle (sic).

Folkestone Express 14-4-1906

Wednesday, April 11^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.J. Linton Esq.

The following licence was transferred: The Perseverance, from Robert Henry Tracey to Frederick Ralph

Folkestone Herald 14-4-1906

Wednesday, April 11^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. E.T. Ward and Mr. R.J. Linton.

A special session for the transfer of alehouse licences was held. Application was made and granted as follows: The licence of the Perseverance to Fredk. Ralph 

Folkestone Daily News 5-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

 

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

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

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

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

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

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

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 licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition being given on the ground of redundancy.

Folkestone Daily News 4-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

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

Perseverance

In the case of the Perseverance, Messrs. Flint`s representative, Mr. Balliscomb, informed the Bench that they should reserve their defence.

Folkestone Express 9-3-1907

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

The Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was next dealt with.

Mr. Battiscombe, the manager for the brewers, said they did not intend to fight the opposition that morning, but they would do so at the East Kent Licensing Sessions.

The Chief Constable said the licensee was Frederick Ralph, who obtained the transfer on April 12^th, 1906. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value of the house was £27. There were three entrances to the house in Dover Street. The accommodation consisted on one bar divided into two compartments – a tap room and public bar. The accommodation for the licensee was on the first floor. The urinal provided for the use of the public was up a flight of steps by the side of the house. Within a radius of 200 yards of this house there were thirty one other on licensed houses. The nearest licensed house was the Bricklayers Arms, in Fenchurch Street. The rateable value of that was £36, while that of the Perseverance Inn was only £27. It was an ante-1869 beerhouse. He frequently passed the house, and it appeared to him that only a small trade was done and it was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said he knew the Perseverance Inn very well, and in his opinion it did a small trade, and was not required for the immediate neighbourhood.

The Justices decided to refer this house, and then adjourned for lunch.

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.

Perseverance Inn

Mr. Battiscomb (manager of Flint and Co., owners) said that he did not intend to bring any evidence in favour of the renewal of the licence of the Perseverance Inn before the Court that day, but would do so at the East Kent Quarter Sessions.

The Chief Constable described the house as being narrow. The accommodation for the licensee was on the first floor. Within a radius of 200 yards there were 31 other licensed houses, the nearest of which was the Bricklayers Arms, in Fenchurch Street. The rateable value of that was £36, while that of the Perseverance was £27. This was an ante-1869 beerhouse, and there appeared to be only a small trade done. He considered the licence unnecessary.

Detective Sergeant Burniston gave corroborative evidence, after which the Bench decided to refer the case.

Folkestone Daily News 12-7-1907

Local News

Our readers will remember that at the recent Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer the licences of the Channel Inn, High Street, the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, to the County Licensing Authority. At a meeting of this body on Thursday the question came up for consideration, and eventually it was decided to withdraw the licences of the Channel Inn, the Perseverance, and the Queen`s Head. The licence of the Railway Inn was renewed. Compensation will, of course, be granted to the owners and tenants of the closed houses.

 

Folkestone Express 13-7-1907

Local News

At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to the houses being closed and compensation given.

The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the others will be compensated.

 

Folkestone Herald 13-7-1907

Local News

Lord Harris presided at the principal meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Thursday.

The Committee had referred to them twenty four houses, including four from Folkestone, viz., the Channel, High Street; the Railway Inn, Beach Street; the Perseverance, Dover Street; and the Queen`s Head, Beach Street.

The Perseverance

Mr. Matthew was for the Justices, and Mr. Bodkin for the brewers.

Mr. Reeve said this was an ante 1869 beerhouse, with inferior accommodation, and did a low class trade. It was frequented by hawkers and fisherfolk.

In reply to Mr. Bodkin, witness said he should be surprised to hear that the present tenant did about four barrels a week. He did not know Mr. Ralph (the tenant) was the tenant of another house for fifteen years.

Mr. Bodkin said the two immediate rivals to this house had now disappeared, and it seemed that this one might well be let alone, especially as the trade had so greatly improved.

The tenant said he paid £114 12s. to go into the house. He was tenant of the Duke of Edinburgh until it was taken away by that Committee, and he then put the valuation money into the present house. When he went there it was doing about two and a half barrels, and he had increased this to four a week.

The Decision

The Committee decided to renew the Railway Inn, but to refuse those of the Channel, Perseverance, and Queen`s Head.

Folkestone Daily News 26-3-1908

Thursday, March 26^th: Before Messrs. Banks, Boyd, and Stainer.

Daniel Cox was charged with being drunk and incapable yesterday.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said he saw the defendant at 1.20 yesterday in Dover Street. He was very drunk, and went down the street; in fact he had to feel his way down the street by the wall. Witness waited a few minutes, and saw the defendant go back into the Perseverance Inn. As he was not ejected, witness and P.C. Simpson went into the bar and saw the defendant sitting on a form, apparently holding himself up. Witness told the landlord about it. On the table was a pint glass with beer in it, but it seemed to have been recently drank from. He was taken into custody.

P.C. Simpson said at 1.25 p.m. yesterday he accompanied Burniston to the Perseverance Inn. He saw the prisoner at the table. He was drunk. On being told to stand up, witness found he was too drunk to take care of himself. By instructions witness brought him to the police station and charged him. On the way defendant had to be supported.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

He asked for time, but was refused.

Folkestone Herald 28-3-1908

Thursday, March 26^th: Before Alderman Banks, Councillor G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Daniel Cox was charged with being drunk. He pleaded Not Guilty.

D.S. Burniston said that at 1.20 p.m. the previous day he saw the prisoner leave the Perseverance public house, Dover Street. He was so drunk that he had to support himself by the side of the house. Prisoner went back into the bar; witness kept observation, and saw he was not ejected, so he went to Beach Street, where he saw P.C. Simpson. He accompanied him back to the house, and saw prisoner in the public bar supporting himself with a table. He told prisoner to stand up, and found he was too drunk to take care of himself. On the table in front of him was a pint glass empty of beer, but with considerable froth in it. Prisoner was then charged and brought to the station.

P.C. Simpson corroborated.

Prisoner had nothing to say.

The Chief Constable said that accused was a hawker. He knew nothing against him.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Daily News 1-4-1908

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Boyd.

Frederick Ralph was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, viz., the Perseverance Inn, on Thursday, March 25^th. Mr. Haines appeared for defendant.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed: I know the landlord. At 1.20 on the 25^th March I was passing the premises, when I saw a man leave the public bar, whom I knew. His name is Daniel Cox. He was very drunk, and I watched him, and he walked down the street to some premises which led to a urinal. He was so drunk that he had to support himself by the side of the building. He did not go up the steps to the urinal, but committed a nuisance at the bottom. He then returned to the public bar of the Perseverance, again supporting himself by the side of the houses. I waited six or seven minutes and found he was not ejected, so I walked down Beach Street and saw P.C. Simpson, and together we went back to the public bar of the house, where I saw Cox seated, he being the only customer. The defendant was behind the counter. Cox was supporting himself by the table, on which stood an empty glass, containing froth, and appeared to have been recently drank from. I said to Mr. Ralph “Have you served this man with drink?”, and he replied “Yes, I served him with a pint which was paid for by the deputy of the Radnor Lodging House. Cox has been here half an hour, and I have been here all the morning”. I then told Cox to stand up, which he did, after some difficulty, and I then found that he was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. I said to Ralph “You see this man`s condition? I shall arrest him for being drunk on your premises and report you for permitting it”. Cox was then brought to the police station and charged with being drunk and incapable. Cox was brought before the Magistrates the following morning.

Mr. Haines: You say you know the defendant? – Yes.

He held a licence for 14 years at the Edinburgh? – Yes.

He has never had a conviction, has he? – Not to my knowledge.

You know the man Cox? – Yes.

Do you know he has been in South Africa? – I don`t know.

Do you know he is very queer in the head sometimes? – No, I don`t know.

You could have taken him into custody when you saw him outside, couldn`t you? – He didn`t fall down.

And so you waited till he got inside? – Yes.

You had a motive for that, I suppose? – Yes.

P.C. Simpson said he accompanied the previous witness to the Perseverance Inn on the day in question, and saw the man Cox sitting in the public bar, supporting himself by his hands on the table. The landlord was behind the counter. Witness heard Burniston ask the landlord if he had served Cox with any beer, and defendant replied “Yes, I served him with a pint of beer”. On Cox being told to stand up, witness could see that he was incapable of taking care of himself, so he was brought to the police station and charged with being drunk and incapable.

The Chief Constable: Was there anyone else in the bar at the time? – No.

The defendant then went into the witness box, and in reply to Mr. Haines, said: I was formerly the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh for 14 years, but that house has been put back for consideration by the compensation authorities. I was not in the bar when the man Cox first came in. Three men came in afterwards, and one of them called for three pints of beer, one of which he handed to Cox. I did not serve him with any beer that morning, and did not see him go out, but saw him return. He did not appear drunk when he came, and I am satisfied he was not. He walked out with the police unassisted. I have never had a conviction against me, and if I had thought Cox was drunk I should not have served him. In my opinion he was sober.

The Chief Constable: Can you tell me the name of the deputy of the Radnor lodging house? – Morris

What time was Morris in your house? – Just after twelve.

Now, be careful, because I have a statement here from Morris. Was he in your house that morning? – Yes.

You say Cox was sober? – No, I didn`t say he was sober; I said he was not drunk.

Mr. Bradley: You said he was sober.

The Chief Constable: Would you have served him if he had asked for more beer? – No.

Why not? – Because I didn`t think he wanted any more.

But you say he was sober, so why wouldn`t you serve him? – Because he didn`t want any more beer.

Did you protest when Cox was taken into custody? – No.

Did you come to the police station? – No.

Why didn`t you if you say Cox was not drunk? – Because I didn`t think it was necessary.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench on behalf of the defence, pointing out that it was necessary to prove that a landlord was cognisant of the state of a man when he was served with liquor. There was a conflict of evidence, because defendant said he did not agree with Burniston when asked if he knew the state of the man Cox. Defendant had never had a conviction against him for 14 years, and he asked the Bench to say that he did not know the state of the man when he was in the house, and dismiss the charge.

The Bench came to the conclusion that defendant was perfectly aware of the condition of the man Cox when he was in the house, and inflicted a fine of 40s. and 11s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 4-4-1908

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick Ralph, of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on March 25^th. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said at about twenty past one on 25^th March he was passing defendant`s premises, when he saw a man whom he knew leave the public bar. His name was Daniel Cox. He was very drunk, and witness watched him. He walked down the street to the entrance which led to the urinal. He was so drunk that he had to support himself by the side of the building. He afterwards returned to the bar of the Perseverance beerhouse. Witness waited some six or seven minutes, and, seeing he was not ejected, walked into Beach Street, where he met P.C. Simpson, and they went back to the public house and entered the bar, where the man Cox was seated. Defendant was behind the bar counter. Cox was supporting himself by the table at which he was seated. In front of him stood an empty pint glass, which appeared to have been drunk from, containing a considerable quantity of froth. Witness asked defendant if he had served Cox with drink, and he replied “Yes, I served him with a pint, which was paid for by the deputy of the Radnor lodging house. Cox has been here half an hour, and I have been here all the morning”. Witness then told Cox to stand up, which he did with difficulty, and witness found he was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. Witness pointed out to defendant Cox`s condition, and said he should arrest him on his licensed premises and report defendant for permitting drunkenness. He replied “I agree with you. He is drunk”. Cox was the brought to the police station by P.C. Simpson and witness, and the charge was taken by Inspector Swift.

Cross-examined: Witness said defendant had previously been the licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh, and during the fourteen years he had been there, there had been no conviction against him to his knowledge. Defendant had been at the Perseverance about two years.

P.C. Simpson corroborated Detective Sergeant Burniston`s statement. Cox was drunk.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he was formerly the tenant of the Duke of Edinburgh for 14 years. He had been at the Perseverance for two years, which had been referred for consideration. During the time Cox was in the bar three men came in, one of them being the deputy of the Radnor lodging house. He called for three glasses of beer, and gave Cox one. Prior to serving Cox with drink, in witness`s opinion, Cox was sober. He was not assisted out of the bar by the police. He walked out. There had been no conviction against him (witness), and if he thought Cox was drunk he should have ordered him out.

Cross-examined: Cox was on the premises about half an hour. The other men remained there about five minutes. Witness did not protest against the police charging Cox on his premises. He did not say to Burniston that he agreed with him that Cox was drunk.

Mr. Haines having addressed the Bench, the Chairman said they were unanimously of the opinion that the case was proved. Defendant was liable to a fine of £10, but in consideration of the way in which he had conducted the house, and having held a licence for so long, he would be fined 40s. and 11s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 4-4-1908

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick Ralph, landlord of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Detective Sergt. Burniston deposed that at 1.20 on Wednesday, 25^th March, he was passing the Perseverance when he saw a man named Daniel Cox in the public bar. Cox was very drunk, and witness watched him. He came out and walked down the street to the end of the premises. He was so drunk that he had to support himself by the side of the building. He returned to the public bar of the Perseverance still supporting himself by the wall of the house. Witness waited six or seven minutes, and seeing that he was not ejected, he walked down to Beach Street. He saw P.C. Simpson, and they went back to the bar of the public house together. There he saw the man seated, defendant being behind the counter. Cox was supporting himself on the table. On the counter was an empty glass, which appeared to have been recently drunk from, as it contained a considerable quantity of froth. Witness said to the defendant “Have you served this man with drink?” He replied “Yes, I served him with a pint, which was paid for by the deputy of the Radnor lodging house. Cox has been here half an hour, and I have been here all the morning”. Witness then told Cox to stand up, which he did after some difficulty, and witness found then that he was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. He said to defendant “You see this man`s condition? I shall arrest him for being drunk and incapable on licensed premises, and report you for permitting drunkenness”. He replied “I agree with you; he is drunk”. Cox was then taken to the police station.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said he knew the defendant. He previously had had the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh for about fourteen years, during which time he had no conviction against him. He also knew the man Cox. He did not know that he had been to South Africa and had something peculiar in his walk.

P.C. Simpson corroborated.

Defendant, being sworn, said that he had been formerly the tenant of the Duke of Edinburgh for fourteen years. He had been in the present house for two years. His house had been referred back. He knew the man Cox. When Cox came in witness was in the cellar. When he returned to the bar Cox was seated by the counter. After he was there three men came in, one of them being deputy of the Radnor lodging house. He gave Cox a glass of beer. Cox had no more in the house that morning. Witness did not see him go out, but he saw him come back and sit down. He had no difficulty in sitting down. From what witness saw of him prior to serving him with drink, he thought he was sober. When asked by the police to walk out, Cox did so without any assistance. During the whole 14 or 15 years witness held a licence he had not had a conviction. If he had thought Cox was drunk he would not have served him.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said that he was certain that the deputy of the Radnor lodging house had been there. If Cox had asked for more drink he would have given it to him. He did not think that he was drunk.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that his client had had a great deal of worry. His boy had tried to take his life. And either he or his wife had been up to the hospital every day. On the day in question he had been down in a cellar, and being busily engaged he did not see Cox enter the house. He (Mr. Haines) did not suggest that Burniston and Simpson did not know when a man was drunk; but Burniston himself asked Cox to stand up, so that he had his doubts as to whether he was drunk or not. He therefore asked them to give him the benefit of the doubt. He also alluded to the fact that the defendant`s house had been referred, and would in all probability be closed.

The Bench fined defendant 40s. and 11s. costs.

Folkestone Daily News 11-4-1908

Saturday, April 11^th: Before Messrs. Fynmore and Wood.

Leslie Ralph was charged with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat.

William Morgan said he lived in Dover Street, and was a fishmonger. On the 17^th February Mrs. Ralph came to him, and he went with her to the Perseverance, where he found defendant lying on the staircase and Mr. Ralph supporting him. Witness helped to carry him to the top of the stairs. Defendant had a large cut in the throat, and was only partially dressed. He did not speak. Three constables and a doctor came, and accused was attended to and taken to the hospital.

P.C. Ashby sais he was called to the Perseverance on the 17^th February, and found the accused in charge of Morgan. Witness found a bloodstained razor in a back room, and also a letter.

The father said the letter was in his son`s handwriting.

The house surgeon at the hospital said the cut had severed the larynx, and the wound was a very dangerous one. The defendant would have to wear a tube in his throat. He might be able to whisper, but would never be able to talk.

The defendant was then committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 18-4-1908

Saturday, April 11^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and R.G. Wood Esq.

A pitiable sight was presented when a young man named Leslie Ralph was brought into Court on a charge of attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat. He looked terribly ill, and was wearing a bandage round his throat. He made that peculiar noise in breathing which is common after tracheotomy has been performed. To make his condition even more pitiable was the fact that he had a wooden leg.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the doctor had informed him that the lad would never be able to speak again.

Henry Morgan, of 15a, Dover Street, said he was a fishmonger. The prisoner lived at home with his parents at the Perseverance Inn, opposite to his house. On Monday, February 17^th, about half past five in the morning, Mrs. Ralph came to his house, and in consequence he accompanied her to the Perseverance. She went upstairs, and in the middle of the narrow staircase he found the prisoner lying on the stairs. His father was trying to get him up. He assisted his father to carry him up the stairs, and they placed him on the floor of the bedroom. He noticed that he had a long cut in his throat, which was bleeding very much. The defendant was dressed in his trousers and undervest, which were saturated with blood. He believed the prisoner was sensible, but he did not speak. He remained there for about a quarter of an hour, when P.C. Ashby came. Dr. Gilbert came ten minutes later and bandaged the throat. He was then removed to the Hospital. The prisoner did not speak during the whole time he was there.

P.C. Ashby said about 5.30 on the morning of February 17^th he was called to the Perseverance public house, where he saw the prisoner. He was lying on the floor of the bedroom, and on examining him he found an extensive wound on the throat. Shortly afterwards Dr. Gilbert arrived. The prisoner had remained at the Victoria Hospital until that day. He traced the bloodstains from where he found the prisoner to a back room on the ground floor. On the floor there was a large quantity of blood, and by the side of it there was the razor produced. The handle of the razor was tied to the blade, and it was covered with blood. On the table close by he found the note produced. That morning he charged the prisoner with attempting suicide by cutting his throat. He made no reply.

Frederick Ralph, the landlord of the Perseverance, said the prisoner was his son, who lived at home with him. He was 19 years old last Christmas day. The razor belonged to another one of his sons. The prisoner was a tailor by trade. He had not noticed his son being depressed of late; in fact he had been most cheerful. The note produced was in his handwriting. It was addressed to his (prisoner`s) mother, and in it prisoner stated that he could not speak, and all he was longing to do was to get to Ned. In conclusion he wrote “Goodbye to all. Leslie”.

DR. J.R. Kemp, house surgeon at the Hospital, said the prisoner was brought to that institution by the police. On examining him he found he was suffering from a deep wound in the throat. It extended right across and had gone through the larynx. He was in a collapsed condition owing to loss of blood and was unable to speak. The wound was sewn up, and Ralph remained under his treatment until that morning. The wound was a very dangerous one, and might have been inflicted with the razor produced. A considerable amount of force was necessary to inflict such a wound. As a result the prisoner would always have to wear a tracheotomy tube in his throat. He might be able to whisper, but he did not think he would ever be able to articulate properly again.

When asked if he understood the charge, Ralph nodded his head, and, in reply to the Clerk, whether he wished to call any witnesses or say anything, he shook his head in the negative.

The prisoner was eventually committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions, on April 22^nd, bail being allowed, his father acting as surety for him.

Folkestone Herald 18-4-1908

Saturday, April 11^th: Before Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore and Councillor R.G. Wood.

Leslie Ralph, aged 19, a youth with a wooden leg, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat.

Henry Wm. Morgan, living at 15, Dover Street, said that he was a fishmonger. Prisoner lived at home with his parents. On Monday, 17^th February, about 5.30 in the morning, Mrs. Ralph came across to his house, and from what she said witness accompanied her to the Perseverance. He went upstairs and found prisoner in the middle of the narrow staircase. He was lying on the stairs. Mr. Ralph was trying to get him up. Witness assisted his father to carry him to the top of the stairs. Witness laid him on the floor of the bedroom. He had a large cut in the throat, which was bleeding very much. He had only got his trousers and a very thin undervest on. They were saturated with blood. Witness believed he was sensible, but the lad did not attempt to speak. Witness stopped with him for another quarter of an hour, when P.C. Ashby came in. Dr. Gilbert arrived at about ten minutes later, and attended to him. He bandaged his throat, and accused was then removed to the Victoria Hospital. Prisoner did not speak during the whole time witness was there.

P.C. Ashby deposed that at bout 5.30 on the morning of the 17^th February he was called to the Perseverance. He saw defendant there in charge of the last witness. He was lying on the floor of the bedroom. He had an extensive wound in the throat. On the floor there was a quantity of blood, and by the side a bloodstained razor. On the table close by he found the note (produced). Witness saw him that morning at the police station, and charged him with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat with a razor. He made no reply.

Frederick Ralph, landlord of the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, said the prisoner was his eldest son and lived at home. He was a tailor by trade. He had always been very cheerful. Witness had not noticed that he had been depressed. The not produced was in his son`s handwriting. In it the lad said that he was “longing to go to Ned”, and bade “goodbye to all”. It was signed “Leslie”.

Dr. J.R. Kemp said that defendant was brought by the police to the Victoria Hospital. He was suffering from a deep wound in the throat, which extended right across and had gone right through the larynx. He was in a very exhausted condition through loss of blood, and was unable to speak. He was put to bed, and the wound was sewn up. He remained under witness`s treatment until that morning. The wound was a very dangerous one, and might have been inflicted by the razor, but a considerable amount of force would have been necessary. The result would be that he would have to wear a tube, and would only be able to whisper; he would not be able to articulate properly.

Prisoner, who did not make any statement, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, to be held on the 22^nd April, bail being allowed, his father becoming surety.

Folkestone Daily News 22-4-1908

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 22^nd: Before J. Lewis Coward Esq.

Leslie Ralph was charged with attempting to commit suicide. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthew prosecuted in this case, and said there was apparently no reason for committing the offence.

Edith Ralph, the mother of the prisoner, said her son had a written statement, but she was too broken-hearted to speak.

The statement set forth that the prisoner had suffered a great deal, and could not sleep.

Mr. Denne said the prisoner had been in his employ for about five years, and his conduct had been exemplary. He could offer no explanation, but when he was fit to work he should be pleased to take him again.

Mr. Kemp, in reply to the Recorder, said he was afraid the prisoner would always have to use a tube.

The father said he was willing to be bound over to see that his son was of good behaviour for one year. Both father and son were therefore bound over.

Folkestone Express 25-4-1908

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 22^nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Leslie Ralph, a tailor, was charged with unlawfully attempting to commit suicide by cutting himself with a razor, on 17^th February. Prisoner, who looked much better than he did when he appeared before the Magistrates, pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthew, on behalf of the prosecution, said apparently, on the depositions at any rate, there was no explanation for the act of the prisoner. Prisoner had cut his throat with a razor, which had apparently robbed himself of the power of speech, as it was thought that he was not likely to speak again.

The Recorder: It seems to have been a very desperate attempt.

Mrs. Ralph, the mother of the prisoner, was called and asked why her son had made the attempt. She replied that she was too heartbroken to speak and that her son had two written statements for the Recorder.

Two statements were then handed to the Recorder, who read them. The first was written by the prisoner, in the course of which he said his sufferings at the time were beyond describing. He could get very little sleep, as he suffered greatly from constipation. He earnestly asked for forgiveness, as his father and mother were in great trouble. He had lost his leg, and he asked God to give him strength in his affliction, to gain prosperity. He publicly returned thanks to the Superintendent of the Police and the policemen who had been by his bed of suffering for so long, the doctor and nurses at the hospital, who had been so kind to him, and to the clergymen who had visited him. He also thanked his master, Mr. Denne, for his past kindness, and also Mr. Morgan, of 15, Dover Street, who kindly came to the assistance of his father and mother. He earnestly asked God forgiveness, and he again pleaded to him (the Recorder) for the greatest mercy. The second statement was from the father and mother, who appealed to the Recorder to be merciful to their afflicted son. They could not give the slightest idea why he had done it, because he was always so cheerful. In their heavy trials he tried to make home as happy as possible. His chief study was to try and prosper by his own industry. He never touched drink or smoked, never had an idle moment after his daily labour. He made his own clothes and those of his father and brother. He had suffered greatly from constipation. For the second time in two years their licensed house which they had occupied had been closed under the new Act. They had had fifteen children and had held a licence for sixteen years, as well as being ratepayers for twenty eight years.

Mr. Denne, a tailor, said the prisoner was an apprentice with him and had served five years. During that time he had had no cause to find fault with his behaviour. He had found him very cheerful, willing, and honest.

Mrs. Ralph informed the Recorder that her son lost his leg when he was nine years of age.

Mr. Denne said he did not know of any cause why Ralph should have done such a thing. He had never any cause to suspect he would do anything of the kind. The prisoner was not fit to work at the present, but when he was he would be pleased to have him back again.

The mother said, in reply to the Recorder, that one of the nurses told her her son would be able to do without the tube in his throat. His voice was also coming back.

Dr. Kemp said the wound was a very dangerous one, and it must have required great force. The razor cut clean through the larynx. The prisoner might recover his speech, but he thought he might always have to have the tube in his throat. He had heard from the burses that when in the hospital the prisoner expressed contrition for his act.

Mr. Denne, recalled, said at the time prisoner was earning 8/6 a week from him. He had advised him to look out for something better, where he might earn more money.

The lad`s father expressed his willingness to be bound over as surety for his son`s good behaviour. He further said he did not believe his son would do such a thing again.

The Recorder said the prisoner had pleaded Guilty to one of the worst attempts of suicide that had come before that Court. He did not believe he was in his right mind when he did it. It was a cruel and wicked thing to do. Had it not been for the appeals for mercy and his past good conduct he should have felt it his duty to send him to prison. He would take a merciful view of his conduct and he would be bound over to be of good behaviour for one year. His father would also be bound over on his behalf.

Folkestone Herald 25-4-1908

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 22^nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Leslie Ralph was indicted for attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat with a razor on the 17^th February. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. T. Matthew prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and remarked that by his action the prisoner had, apparently, robbed himself of the power of speech, and it was a question whether he would ever be able to speak again.

Mrs. Edith Ralph, mother of the prisoner, was called, but said she was too broken-hearted to speak, and she put in a statement which she asked the Recorder to read. She also asked him to read one from her son.

Extracts from the letter were read by the Recorder, and in it the prisoner earnestly appealed for mercy, for at the time he committed the sin his sufferings were beyond description. He could not get much sleep at night. He earnestly asked for forgiveness. He knew that his father and mother were in great trouble owing to his having lost a leg, and he asked God to give him strength to gain the prosperity for which he had long been seeking. He wished publicly to thank Chief Constable Reeve, and the police who had watched by his bedside during the time he had been in the Victoria Hospital. Also he wished to thank the doctors, clergy, and those who had visited him, not forgetting his master, Mr. Denne, for the assistance he had given. He also wished to thank Mr. Morgan, of No. 15, Dover Street, who had kindly come to his assistance, and to that of his father and mother, who had tried so hard to pay their way and bring up the family in the right way. He also earnestly asked God`s forgiveness, and again appealed to the Recorder for forgiveness.

In the second statement, the “broken-hearted father and mother” appealed for mercy. They could not give the slightest idea as to why the boy should have committed that act. He had always been so cheerful in the heaviest trials, trying to make the home happy. His chief study was to try and prosper by his own means. He had never drunk or smoked, nor did he ever have an idle moment, for in his spare time he was engaged in fretwork or music. He made his own clothes, and also tried to do his mother`s and father`s also. He could not understand why boys were ever dilatory or idle. The boy had suffered greatly from physical irregularity. They felt most keenly all the circumstances, and had to work hard in their old age to get an honest living. That was the second time in two years they were having to leave a licensed house in the congested area. The husband had been a licence holder in the town for 16 years, and had been a ratepayer for 28 years. He had had 15 in family, and never had one been a disgrace to the town in any way. The prisoner was just out of his apprenticeship, and his master, Mr. Denne, if in Court would speak on his behalf. They most humbly apologised for writing, but under all the circumstances they were too broken-hearted to speak.

Mr. W. Denne said that the lad had been apprenticed to him for five years, and in that time he had never had any cause to find any fault with him for his behaviour, and had always found him a very willing lad, of cheerful disposition, and honest. He could not explain what had caused him to attempt to take his own life, for he had always been very happy with witness. When he was well enough witness would be pleased to take him back.

Dr. J.R. Kemp, house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital, described the wound as a very dangerous one. It mus have required great force, for there were three glands cut. The lad might recover, but it was more likely that he would always have to wear a tube. He could ot say that for certain. Prisoner had expressed contrition for the offence to the nurses.

Mr. Denne, re-called, said that during his apprenticeship the boy had 8s. 6d. a week. He was getting on in life, and it was a question of bettering himself, and finding a better position. He had served his time, and witness had told him that he was worth more money, and as he was not in a position to give him more he advised him to seek a fresh place, although he did not wish to get rid of him until another opportunity presented itself. Prisoner was quite willing, and he was on the lookout for a situation.

The boy`s father expressed his willingness to be bound over as a surety that he would be of good behaviour for a year. He had no idea as to what had led him to do that.

The Recorder: Now, Leslie Ralph, you have pleaded Guilty to one of the worst attempts of suicide that have ever come before the Court. I cannot believe you were in your right mind when you did it. It is a cruel and wicked thing to have done. If it had not been for the appeals made to me for mercy, I should have felt it my duty to have sent you to prison. It is one of the worst cases that have come before me. However, I will take a merciful view of your conduct, and will let you out. You will be bound over to be of good behaviour for one year If you misbehave in any way, and break the parole under which I put you, it will be a very serious matter if you come before me. This Court takes a very serious view of people who break parole when mercy is extended to them. You will be bound over to be of good behaviour for twelve months. Your father will have to be a surety also for your good behaviour.