Folkestone
Express 26-4-1930
Obituary
The death took place on Monday of Mr. Charles Landey
Sparrow, at his residence, Silverwood, Westenhanger, who had been in rather
poor health for three years. He was 65 years of age.
The late Mr. Sparrow was a native of Folkestone and
some years ago he was a well-known licence holder in the town, retiring about
eight years ago. He was popularly known amongst a very large circle of friends
as Charlie Sparrow. He held the licences, at various periods, of the Railway
Tavern, in Dover Road, the Globe, on The Bayle, and the Shakespeare Hotel,
which was the last hotel in which he carried on business. He then went to live
at Westenhanger.
He was a well-known sportsman, and took a great
interest in racing and shooting. He was one of the promoters and original
directors of the Central Picture theatre until it was sold in July last. He was
a member of the Folkestone Club for a great number of years. He married late in
life and leaves a widow to mourn his loss.
The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday) at the
Folkestone Cemetery.
Folkestone
Herald 26-4-1930
Obituary
It is with very deep regret that we have to record the
death of Mr. Charles Landey Sparrow, who was well known to numerous Folkestone
people, and who, at the age of 65, passed away at his residence, Silverwood,
Westenhanger, on Easter Monday.
Mr Sparrow, who was born at Folkestone, was a gentleman
of very unassuming character, but possessed many of the finest traits that ever
man could lay claim to. He was always one to study the welfare of a person upon
whom fortune had rarely smiled. His good deeds were never broadcast, but it is
a fact that many of the older people of Folkestone will recollect with
gratitude his benificen concern at Christmastide, and quite a few will
remember, with equal gratitude, the helping hand he extended them when things
appeared at their darkest.
Mr. Sparrow was a good-living sportsman, and one who
always “played the game”. He had hosts of friends in Folkestone, and there are
some at Hythe and Sandgate who will remember him very well. He held the
licences of a number of houses in Folkestone at different times, and was the
licensee of the Shakespeare when he retired from business in 1913. From there
he went to Westenhanger, where Silverwood can be numbered amongst the most
charming residences in a delightfully unspoiled little village.
Sport with Mr. Sparrow was almost a fetish, and his
prowess with the gun is well remembered. At the time of his death he was a
director of the Central Cinema Company.
He never complained, but as the result of a motor
accident several years ago, Mr. Sparrow had ever since been in very indifferent
health, and at times he suffered very severe pain. His death will be mourned in
many quarters, and there will be deep and sincere sympathy felt for his widow,
who is left to bear an extremely heavy loss.
The funeral took place at the Folkestone Cemetery,
Cheriton Road, Folkestone, on Thursday afternoon.
Folkestone
Express 30-8-1930
Wednesday, August 27th: Before Alderman R.G.
Wood, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and J.H. Blamey, and Col. G.P. Owen.
Plans for alterations at the Shakespeare Hotel were
submitted by Mr. Pat Attwood, and were approved by the Justices.
Folkestone
Express 14-2-1931
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 11th: Before Alderman
R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Colonel G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey,
Miss Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.S.
Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.
An application for the transfer of the off licence of
the Gun Brewery to Mr. Pat Attwood, in order that he could sell on the
premises, was adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions.
Folkestone
Express 14-3-1931
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Adjourned Licensing
Sessions, the music and dancing licences were again granted, after the question
had been adjourned for a month, it being explained by Alderman Wood that the
conditions of the licences allowed vocal and instrumental music to be given
during certain hours on Sunday.
There was also another interesting decision in the case
of an application for the transfer of the off licence in connection with the
offices of the old Gun Brewery, it being decided that the licence was null and
void owing to the fact that for 30 years it had been renewed in the name of Mr.
Alfred Leney, who died in 1900.
The Magistrates on the Bench were Alderman R.G. Wood,
The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Alderman A.E.
Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle,
and Miss A.M. Hunt.
An adjourned application for the transfer of the off
licence of the office attached to the old Gun Brewery came before the Justices,
Mr. B.H. Bonniface appearing for the applicant, Mr. Pat Attwood, of the
Shakespeare Hotel, and Mor. Rutlet Mowll, on behalf of Mrs. Luly, and Mr. J.E.
Chapple, for Messrs. Prentis and Sons, two other off licence holders in the
vicinity opposed the application.
The Clerk (Mr. Rootes) said that application was before
the Annual Licensing Sessions, when the Magistrates adjourned it in order that
the licensed premises should be defined. Plans had now been produced showing
that the off licence was in respect of the office in the front portion of what
was known as the Gun Brewery.
Mr. Bonniface said the application was for the transfer
of the existing off beer licence, which had been in existence probably since
the year 1844. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of
opposition, but what that opposition was he did not know. Their worships would
appreciate that it was an existing licence, and he was only asking for a
transfer.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said that he appeared to oppose the
transfer of that licence. He represented Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar
licence immediately opposite those premises. As he understood it, at the annual
licensing meeting the Magistrates renewed all the existing licences and
therefore those premises were then and there renewed with the others.
The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) pointed out that
the matter was adjourned for further consideration.
The Chairman said his remarks with regard to the
renewal of licences did not include that matter now under discussion.
Mr. Mowll:Then may I ask if we are dealing with a renewal
of the licence of the transfer?
Mr. Bonniface: The transfer. Continuing, he said his
point was the application for the transfer was made on the last occasion, when
the Magistrates asked for a plan of the premises. He had complied with their
request, so that from his point of view he had completed the application.
Mr. Rutley Mowll pointed out at the moment he could not
tell the form in which the application was made. He would like to know if the
application for transfer was made by the existing licensee or by the new tenant
and occupier.
Mr. Chapple also said he did not know who was applying
for the transfer.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said the Clerk had handed him the form
of application. He read the application, which stated that Mr. Attwood applied
for the transfer of the licence granted to Alfred Leney. He also contended that
they should have the outgoing and ingoing tenant present.
The Clerk said the applicant had already put his case
before the Court.
Mr. Rutley Mowll: It is immaterial to me. I am having a
careful note taken of these proceedings. If it is the right way of proceeding
according to your opinion I must bow to your judgement.
The Chairman: We had it before us at the last meeting.
You must proceed with your opposition.
Mr. Mowll said if that licence was granted it would be
in direct competition with Mrs. Luly. He was going to oppose it on its merits.
He would like to point out to the Magistrates some technical points in order
that they might go into the whole matter. That licence, as it appeared on the
face of it, stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney. An inspection of the licence
register showed that it was granted in 1898. Mr. Alfred Leney died on the 4th
November, 1900. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of the deceased
person. If those were the facts, the licence was void. It was true that Mr.
Alfred Leney had a son whose name was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know
whether Mr. Bonniface was going to contend that Mr. Alfred Leney, the head of
the firm, was by mistake entered in the register, and in some way confuse with
his son, but knowing their late Clerk as they did, and what a very careful man
he was, he thought it was a fair submission to make to the Bench that he did
not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register if he really meant Alfred
Charles Leney, who was quite another person. Alfred Charles Leney was the son
of the late Alfred Leney. The only way in which Mr. Bonniface could get over
that difficulty was by making out that the Magistrates` late Clerk made a mistake
and entered the licence in the name of Alfred Leney in mistake for Alfred
Charles Leney. He did not think they wanted any authorities on that point, for
he was sure Mr. Rootes would advise them that if in fact the licence was
renewed in the name of a dead person that licence was void, and therefore it
could not be transferred. His second proposition to make to the Bench was that
he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register, that if the licence
had fallen into disuse, as that licence had done, then the Bench were not
entitled to renew it, or to transfer it. It was not a case of compensation or
redundancy, because it was an off licence. His third point was in regards to
the merit of the case. That licence was used by Messrs. Leney. They took it
over with the Gun Brewery property with different public houses. They had other
premises in Folkestone from which they could conduct their retail business. The
premises ceased to be occupied for any licensed purposes for some considerable
time, consequently the licence became in fact, if not in law, a defunct
licence. The property was used as a coal store, and no trade of any sort or
kind had been conducted on the premises for many months past. Now the proposal
was to resuscitate and resurrect that defunct licence and the applicant was Mr.
Attwood, who was the holder of a full licence at premises adjoining. What did
that mean? Mr. Attwood, at the Shakespeare Hotel, had a full licence covering
all that that licence could confer. Why did he want to take a transfer of that
off licence? He submitted that there could only be one real reason. He was
seeking to transfer the licence to himself so that he could sell to someone
else. He (Mr. Mowll) did not ask them to decide on any one point, but he asked
them to decide the matter as a whole – whether it be the legal point or the
meritorious point he did not mind which it was. He thought he ought to call his
clerk to prove the search of the particulars in the register.
The Clerk: The register is there for itself. It has put
something on Mr. Bonniface to prove.
Mr. Bonniface said he did not know that Mr. Mowll had
put anything on him to prove. He was alleging that Mr. Alfred Leney died in
1900, and he assumed he was going to prove it.
The Clerk: That is not the position. I imagine you will
call upon the applicant to go further than he has.
Mr. Chapple said he was quite in agreement with the
terms of the able argument put forward by Mr. Mowll. He could only imagine that
Mr. Bonniface would submit that the Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was in fact the
Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted.
Mr. Bonniface said he quite agreed that their late
Clerk was a most capable and thorough Clerk, and he could not in any way
imagine that the late Mr. Andrew would have allowed the name of Mr. Alfred
Leney to remain upon the register all those years unless it meant the acting
Mr. Leney, Mr. Fred Leney, as he was known. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a
director of that company, and, in fact, the eldest son of the late Mr. Alfred Leney,
and he would tell them that there was not one licence that was held by the
father at all. Mr. Alfred Leney was a retiring sort of a man, and therefore the
licence holder was the son. For ten years before the formation of the company
he was in partnership with his father. He was going to ask the Magistrates to
say that the Mr. Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted in 1898 was Mr.
Alfred Charles Leney. The licensees, Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, also had
the store in front. The licence had been renewed year by year, and they paid
the excise licence down to June, 1930. Mr. Attwood had the tenancy of the shop
and store at the back. From 1925 until 1929 Messrs. Leney let the front part to
Messrs. Anderson as a coal office, but they used the premises at the back, and
a lot of their beer was delivered from that store. It was unfair to say that
Mr. Attwood was coming forward merely to get the licence and then to sell it.
If that was the position was he not attempting to do away with some of his
trade? That must be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, off licences in the
town. Mrs. Luly`s premises were opened subsequent to their premises being
opened. She had built up her trade in opposition to them.
Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, Chairman of Messrs. Alfred Leney
and Co., said the company took over those premises in 1898, when he was
director. He had been connected with the business since 1887. In the last two
years of his life, Mr. Alfred Leney, his father, did bery little in the
business. He (witness) knew of no licence being held by his father. The
licences were held by himself (witness) or the secretary. That licence had been
continuously renewed in the name of Alfred Leney right down to the present time
as he heard to his surprise, because he had always considered himself to be the
licensed holder of those premises. He was never known by his name Charles, but
as Fred. He had paid the excise duty until the lease was up in 1929, and the
licence duty until June, 1930. The whole of the premises until 1925 were used
by the Company. It was only then that the front office was let to Anderson`s,
and the Company used a small store at the back. They had other premises in
Guildhall Street which Messrs. Prentis now had. The beer for those premises was
kept in the store at the Gun Brewery. Beer was drawn from there until the 5th
March, 1928.
In reply to Mr. Mowll, Mr. Leney said the store had not
been in use so far as they were concerned since September, 1929. They had
premises in Tontine Street from which they could supply their beer. They had
got a rebate on the excise licence for the premises.
Mr. Mowll the referred to the articles of association
of Messrs. Leney and Co. He pointed out that company was registered on November
26th, 1896, and Mr. Alfred Leney was to be the first director, and
Mr. Alfred Charles Leney and Mr. Hugh Leney the other directors. He asked the
witness who of the three directors held the licence.
Mr. Leney: To the best of my belief I have always
understood it was in my name. I have taken great pains to get at the truth of
this. I have tried to get the original papers, but they have been destroyed.
Mr. Mowll: You must know whether you came over and took
the transfer of the licence.
Mr. Leney: I do not.
Mr. Mowll: Have you no documents?
Mr. Leney: I have no documents at all, but I have a
memory. To the best of my belief I was the holder of the licence.
Mr. Mowll: Your father held a strong position in the
Company? He was not only by far the largest shareholder, and so long as he
lived he was entitled to outvote all the other directors. You do not suggest
that he was a back number when this Company was formed?
Mr. Leney: I do not.
Mr. Mowll: Why, he was younger than you are now, Mr.
Leney?
Mr. Leney: Yes.
Mr. George Wood said he had been in the employ of
Messrs. Leney and Co. for 40 years. He occasionally took up licences, and
always considered that he was taking up licences for Mr. Alfred Charles Leney.
His brother was for some time secretary for the Company, and he held licences
in his mane.
By Mr. Chapple, witness said he practically certain
that Mr. Alfred Leney never held a licence.
In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said over the door at
the brewery at Dover the name of Alfred Leney, common brewer, was painted.
The Clerk pointed out to Mr. Bonniface that the
position had changed since the annual sessions, and Mr. Attwood should be
called.
Mr. Attwood was called, and said he intended to open
the premises as an off licence shop. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare
Hotel.
Mr. Mowll, examining the agreement between Mr. Attwood
and the owner of the premises, said “Do
you appreciate under this agreement between you and Mr. Tite he can turn you
out by giving you three months` notice at any time?”
Mr. Attwood: Yes.
Does that not tell you something? You are not going to
spend any money on these premises on a quarterly tenancy? – I am prepared to
open them.
You are not going to spend money on them without more
secured terms? – I am trying to buy these premises.
The Magistrates retired, and on their return the
Chairman said with regard to the application the majority of the Magistrates
were of opinion that when the licence was transferred it was transferred to
Alfred Leney, senior, the Chairman of the Company. There was no evidence that
it had been transferred to anyone else since, and in consequence of that, and
in consequence of the oversight of the Company and in their (the Magistrates`)
office, it had not been transferred. The licence was therefore null and void,
and it could not be transferred.
Folkestone
Herald 14-3-1931
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
When an application was made at the adjourned licensing
sessions on Wednesday at the Town Hall for the transfer of a beer licence it
was successfully pleaded that the licensee was a dead man and therefore the
licence was null and void.
Applicant for the transfer was Mr. P.W. Attwood, of the
Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, and he asked that the off licence of the
Gun Brewery should be transferred to him from Alfred Leney.
The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman
A.E. Pepper, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J.
Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. F. Seager.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) stated that at the annual
sessions last month the application was before them, and there was an
adjournment so that the premises licensed should be defined. The premises
licensed were said to be a store.
Mr. B.H. Bonniface, who appeared for Mr. Attwood, said
this off beer licence had been in existence since 1844. In that year Lord
Radnor granted a lease on these premises to a Mr. John Tite, and so far as
could be ascertained the licence had been in existence for all those years. He
understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition. It was
en existing licence, and he was only asking for the transfer ofit. What the
opposition was he did not know.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to oppose the
transfer of the licence on behalf of Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar
licence immediately opposite the premises. An application was made at the last
sessions to obtain the transfer of the licence, and that was what he was
opposing.
The Clerk said at the last sessions the whole point
was: What part of the premises is licensed?
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said according
to his book the whole question was adjourned to March 11th.
The Chairman said his remarks at the annual sessions
when he announced all licences would be renewed did not include this licence.
Mr. Mowll: Are you dealing with the renewal of the
licence now or the transfer?
Mr. Bonniface: The transfer.
Mr. H. Chapple said he represented Messrs. Prentis and
Sons Ltd., Guildhall Street, who opposed the application.
The Chairman asked Mr. Mowll to proceed with his case
for the opposition.
Mr. Mowll said Mrs. Luly held a similar licence on the
opposite side of the road. If the licence was granted it would be in direct
competition with his client. The licence stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney,
to whom it was granted in 1898. He died on November 4th, 1900, and
his will was proved in January, 1901. That licence had gone on ever since in
the name of Alfred Leney. If that be so the licence was void, because a licence
renewed in the name of a deceased person was absolutely void. It was true that
the late Mr. Alfred Leney had a son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know
whether in the entering up of the licence register the names had been confused
by a mistake, but, knowing the late Clerk of the Court as he did, he thought it
was a fair submission that the late Clerk would not have written down the name
Alfred Leney in the register if he had meant another person, Alfred Charles
Leney. If, in fact, the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person the
licence was void and therefore it could not be transferred. His second point
was that if a licence had fallen into disuse, as this one had done, they were
not entitled to transfer it; as it was in regard to the transfer of an off
licence, the Magistrates were entitled to refuse it. The licence was used by
Messrs. Leney, they taking it over with the licensed property, but the premises
ceased to be occupied for any licensing purposes whatsoever some considerable
time ago, and consequently the licence became in effect, if not in law, a
defunct licence. The property had been used as a coal store, and no sort of
licensed trade had been conducted on the premises for many months past. The
proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect the defunct licence, and the
applicant was the holder of fully licensed premises immediately adjoining. He
submitted that the real reason for Mr. Attwood`s application was that he should
have a licence that he could sell to somebody else. He was put forward as the
proposed licensee of this off licence, and he submitted he wanted the licence
for the purpose of bartering, possibly to introduce another brewer. On these
grounds he asked the Bench to refuse the application.
Mr. Chapple said he was in complete agreement with Mr.
Mowll. He also wished to emphasise that the licence was void.
Mr. Bonniface said he agreed that the late Clerk was a
most careful and thorough official and he could not imagine that he would have
allowed the name of Alfred Leney to remain on the register for 33 years. In
1894 Messrs. Leney took a transfer of the premises, and in 1898 the licence was
transferred to Messrs. Alfred Leney and Coy. Ltd; at that time Mr. Alfred Leney
was 70 years of age. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of the company and
he could tell them that there was not one licence of the licences held by the
company that was held by his father. As a result the licences were held by his
son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, who had always been known as Mr. Fred Leney. He
submitted he was really the holder of the licence. The licence had been renewed
for the past 30 years to Mr. Alfred Leney, meaning, he submitted, to Mr. Alfred
Charles Leney. Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, who were the licensees of the
Shakespeare Hotel until September, 1929, also had three adjoining premises.
Each year the company had paid the Excise duty to June, 1930. That was after
their lease had expired. Messrs. Leney until 1925 continuously sold from these
premises. From then until 1929, when they gave up the premises, they let the
front part, but retained the back portion as a store. It was unfair to say that
Mr. Attwood was doing this merely for the purpose suggested by Mr. Mowll. The
licence was one of the oldest, if not the oldest in the town.
Alfred Charles Leney, the chairman of Alfred Leney and
Coy., said they took over these premises in 1898, and he was then a director of
the company. He had been connected with his fathers business before the company
was formed, since 1887. During the last two years of his life his father was
doing very little in regard to the business. He could not place one licence
held by his father. To the best of his belief he had never held one, the
licences being held by witness as the secretary of the company. The licence had
been renewed right up to the present time in the name of Alfred Leney, to his
surprise. He had been under the impression that the licence had been renewed to
him. He had always been known as Fred Leney. His firm had paid the licence
duties of the premises until June, 1930. When Messrs. Anderson`s were granted a
lease of part of the building, his company still used part of the premises as a
store for beer.
By Mr. Mowll: Since the end of the lease they had not
stored any beer there. He had no document to show that the licence was
transferred to his father in 1898, but he had a memory, and to the best of his
belief his father had never held a licence.
Mr. Mowll: You don`t suggest your father was a back
number when the company was formed, Mr. Leney?
Mr. Leney: No.
Mr. Mowll: He was younger then than you are now, Mr.
Leney. (Applause)
George Wood, a brewer`s agent, who stated that he had
been in the employ of the company for 40 years, said he never heard of Mr.
Alfred Leney holding a licence.
Mr. Attwood said he intended using the premises for the
off sale of beer. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel. His premises
did not quite adjoin, there being a store between.
The Bench retired. On their return the Chairman
announced that the majority of the Magistrates were of the opinion that when
the licence was transferred in 1898 it was transferred to the chairman of the
company, Mr. Alfred Leney. There was no evidence that it had been transferred
to anyone else, and in consequence of that oversight on both sides the licence
today was null and void.
Folkestone Herald
21-1-1939
Local News
“You ought to be very much obliged to the police for taking
care of you; you were hopelessly drunk”, said the Chairman (Alderman G.
Spurgen) to James Stuart, 43, of no fixed abode, when he appeared at Folkestone
Police Court on Saturday charged with being drunk and incapable the previous
dat. Stuart pleaded Guilty.
P.C. Mitchell said at 4.50 p.m. the previous day he
was patrolling Cheriton Road when he saw defendant lying on the ground outside
the Shakespeare public house. His breath smelt strongly of drink and when he
lifted him up he found him to be helplessly drunk With assistance he brought to the Police Station,
but he was too drunk to make any reply when charged.
Stuart told the Magistrates that he was very sorry.
He had met one or two pals that afternoon.
Discharging Stuart the Chairman told defendant not
to do it again.
Local News
The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall
Street, was transferred at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday from Mr. Pat
Attwood to r. William A. Powell, formerly of the Fordwich Arms, Canterbury.
Folkestone Express
28-1-1939
Local News
On Tuesday the
Folkestone magistrates granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of
the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. Pat Attwood to Mr. William Powell former
licensee of the Fordwich Arms at Canterbury.
Folkestone Express
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
There was a decrease of six
cases of drunkenness before the Magistrates during last year, the total number
being 24 as against 30 in 1937. There were no proceedings against any licence
holder during the twelve months. These were the main features presented by the
Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) in the annual report he submitted to the Magistrates
at the annual licensing sessions at the Folkestone Police Court
on Wednesday, when the Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) offered congratulations
upon such a satisfactory state of affairs.
The other magistrates on
the Bench were Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R.J.
Stokes, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman W. Hollands, Mr. S.B. Corser, Alderman J.W.
Stainer and Mr. P. Fuller.
The following licence was transferred: The Shakespeare
Hotel from Mr. P. Attwood to Mr. W A. Powell.
Folkestone Herald
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
The Magistrates were: Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E.
Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Alderman
W. Hollands, Dr. P. Wolverson, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Mr. S.B. Corser and Mr. P.
Puller.
The Magistrates confirmed the transfer of the Shakespeare
Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. Pat Attwood to Mr. W.A. Powell.
Folkestone Herald 8-4-1939
 |
| Photo from Folkestone Herald |
No comments:
Post a Comment