Imperial (1) 1920 - 1924

Folkestone Express 1-1-1921

Local News

Yesterday (Thursday) morning about 7.40, Mr. Frank Macklin, of 67, Pavilion Road, was driving a motor lorry down Black Bull Road, when, to avoid colliding with a car going up the road, he tried to turn the lorry into Park Street. The lorry failed to come round, and dashed into the doorway of the Imperial Hotel. The front of the premises was considerably damaged, and woodwork, bricks, and other debris were thrown into the bar, which presented a desolate appearance. Frank Moyles (24), of 36, Queen Street, an employee at the Gas Works, who was riding on the lorry, was thrown off and slightly injured.

Folkestone Herald 1-1-1921

Local News

An alarming accident occurred in Black Bull Road at 7.30 a.m. on Thursday. A large motor lorry owned by Mr. Macklin (who was driving) was coming down the road at a moderate pace, its destination being the Gas Works. When opposite Park Street, the motor swerved in order to avoid a collision with one of Messrs. Gironimo`s vans, and dashed with considerable momentum into the main entrance of the Imperial Hotel. The door was staved in and much brickwork displaced. The interior of the main bar as filled with plaster, glass, and other debris, and adjacent rooms were smothered with plaster and dust.

Mrs. T. Clements, the wife of the landlord, when interviewed, said “It was very quiet at the time, when suddenly there came a sudden something – call it a bang or a crash or both. The thought flashed across my mind that there had been a mine explosion, or something of that sort. My husband and myself dashed downstairs, after making sure of the safety of the children, and on going to the bar we found a motor right on the steps of the door, in fact, the bonnet was inside”.

Mr. Clements added that if the accident had occurred when the public bar was full of customers, someone must certainly have been killed.

Folkestone Express 6-5-1922

Local News

The licence of the Imperial Hotel has been transferred from Mr. T. Clements to Mr. A. Eyles, late motor proprietor, of 4, Bouverie Road, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 25-8-1923

Local News

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Police Court, Mr. Jackson, architect, Ashford, submitted plans for alterations to the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Harvey Hotel, Dover Road, and the plans were approved.

Folkestone Express 6-9-1924

Tuesday, September 2^nd: Before the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Miss Hunt, and Col. Broome-Giles.

Percy Edwin Bates was charged with obtaining £5 by false pretences from Mr. A.G. Eyles on June 18^th.

Alexander George Eyles, the licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said the prisoner came to his house on June 18^th. He had been introduced to him the day before. The prisoner asked him if he would cash him a cheque for £5; it was quite bona fide. He replied “Yes. The man who recommended you said you were quite all right”. The previous day he had cashed him a cheque for £3, but that was not drawn on his account. On the 18^th the prisoner wrote out the cheque (produced) from a book he had in his possession. He observed it was not a cheque. He gave no explanation. He cashed the cheque on the belief that he had the power to draw the money. He paid the chequen into his account the next day, but it was returned.

Mrs. Daisy Bates, the wife of the prisoner, said she had an account at the Canterbury branch in June. Prisoner had authority to write cheques upon it in her name. The account was closed by her after prisoner was sent to Maidstone. Prisoner had every right to draw the cheque (produced). She had always given her authority to draw the cheques as she always had the money there to meet the amount he required. She had not given authority to the bank to pay the cheques, but it was an understood agreement between herself and prisoner that he should draw cheques on her account when he had not sufficient money to meet them. She did not know whether he had an account in June. He had two accounts at the National Provincial Bank. Some of the money was hers. She knew nothing about the cheque.

Alfred Thomas Counter, Manager of the National Provincial Bank at Canterbury, said he was acquainted with the last witness. She had an account that was opened some few months and closed in June this year. The cheque (produced) was presented on the 22^nd June. The cheque was returned marked “irregularly drawn”. He did not communicate with Mrs. Bates.

In reply to prisoner, witness said he did not know of any cheque in that form having been passed by the bank.

The Chairman said they had patiently listened to what Mrs. Bates had to say, and they felt there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction, and the case would be dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 6-9-1924

Tuesday, September 2^nd: Before the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

Percy Edward Bates was charged with obtaining £5 by false pretences from Mr. A. Eyles, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, on June 18^th.

Alexander Geo. Eyles, of the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, said that the prisoner, who had been introduced to him the day before, came to his house on June 18^th. He asked witness to cash him a cheque for £5, saying that it was quite bona fide. Witness agreed, and said that the man who recommended prisoner was quite all right. The previous day witness had cashed a cheque, not drawn on prisoner`s account, for £3. He then wrote out the cheque (produced) from a cheque book in his possession. Witness gave him five £1 Treasury notes for the cheque, which, he observed, was not drawn on prisoner`s account. He made no comment, and prisoner gave no explanation. Witness cashed the cheque, believing that he had the power to draw it, and that it would be met on presentation. The following day witness paid the cheque into his account, but it was later returned, marked “Irregularly drawn”.

Mrs. Daisy Bates, wife of the prisoner, said that in June last she had an account with the Canterbury branch of the National Provincial Bank. Prisoner had authority to draw cheques upon it in her name. The account was closed after Mr. Bates was sent to Maidstone. Prisoner had every right to draw the cheque (produced) on June 18^th. Witness had always given him authority because she had the money in the bank to meet whatever he wanted. She could not say whether he had drawn any cheques in that form, but it was an understood thing between prisoner and herself that he should draw cheques on her account when he himself had not sufficient money to meet them. She could not say of prisoner had an account at the Canterbury bank in June, but he had had two accounts this year. Witness`s account was opened at the end of last year. Some of the money was hers, and at various times defendant gave her money to put in. She knew nothing about the £5 cheque until Mr. Eyles wrote to her about it some time after Mr. Bates was sent to Maidstone. She communicated with Mr. Shea (defendant`s solicitor) for him to deal with the matter. She heard nothing whatever from the bank about it.

Mr. Alfred Thomas Counter, Manager of the National Provincial Bank, Canterbury, said that the last witness had had an account at the bank for some few months. It was closed at the end of June this year, Mrs. Bates calling in the money. The cheque produced was presented for payment some time about June 23^rd. Mrs. Bates`s account was then open, with a sufficient balance to meet the cheque. The cheque was returned marked “Irregularly drawn” because the bank held no authority from Mrs. Bates for cheques to be drawn like that. No cheque had been presented previously in that form for payment.

Prisoner: Why did you take the action you did in returning the cheque to Mr. Eyles immediately, when you could easily have communicated with my wife? Rather a smart thing to do! – We only followed our usual custom.

You are quite sure no other cheque has been drawn in this manner? – None as far as I know. If they were it would have been an oversight. I do not know of any.

The Chairman said that the Bench had patiently heard all that Mrs. Bates had to say. They felt, after listening to her statement, that there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Prisoner would be discharged.

The Bench gave Mrs. Bates permission to see her husband, who was accompanied by two warders from Maidstone prison.