Folkestone Herald
25-6-1938
Local News
Stated to have been “unfit to be seen in a public house”, Stanley James
Knight, of 91, Folkestone Road, Dover, was charged at Folkestone Police Court
on Tuesday with being an idle and disorderly person. He pleaded guilty.
P.C. White said at 10.20 the previous evening he went to South Street
where he saw defendant standing outside the Princess Royal Inn, shouting and
attracting a crowd. He had on trousers, a jacket, and shoes, and carried under
his arm a bundle of wet underclothes. When witness approached him defendant said “I have been in the sea at
Sandgate after a child, and the landlord-has refused to give me a pint owing to
my condition”. He was shouting to the crowd, telling them what had happened.
P.S. Allard gave corroborative evidence. Defendant, he said, was surrounded
by a large crowd, and was gesticulating to them with his hands. Witness said to
him “What is your trouble?” and defendant replied “I have no trouble, I have
just rescued a child at Sandgate, and the landlord refuses to serve me”. Defendant
was quite sober but refused to go away quietly. He was not dressed decently enough to be seen in a public house, and for
that reason the landlord had refused to serve him. Defendant refused any
information about himself.
The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins): Was there any rescue at Sandgate?
P.S. Allard: We made enquiries but can find no evidence of a child being rescued.
Defendant said he was extremely sorry for what he had done. He did not
know why it happened.
The Bench bound over defendant in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour
for six months.
Folkestone Herald
15-10-1938
Local News
The Folkestone Magistrates yesterday granted a
Protection Order to Mr. T. Buddell, of Forest Hill, in respect of the Princess
Royal public house, South Street. Mr. Buddell is succeeding Mr. W.K. Heritage
as the licensee.
Folkestone Express
7-1-1939
Local News
At the Folkestone Transfer Sessions on Wednesday,
a protection order in respect of the Princess Royal, the former licensee of
which was the late Mr. F.D. Buddell, who had only been in occupation for a very
short time before his death, was granted to Mr. Horace Robins, of 52 Walton
Road.
Folkestone Herald 7-1-1939
Local News
The Folkestone Licensing Justices on Wednesday
granted a protection order in respect of the Princess Royal public house. Mr.
W.J. Mason, who appeared on behalf of all interested parties, said Mr. F.G.
Buddell, the previous licensee, had died on December 11th last year.
Mr. Mason asked for a protection order for Mr. Horace Robins, of 52, Walton
Road, Folkestone, and stated that application for a full transfer would be made later.
The following licence was transferred: The Princess Royal from the executor of the late Mr. Tom Buddle to Mr. H. Robbins.
The
licence of the Princess Royal was transferred from the executors of the late
Mr. G. Buddle to Mr. H. Robins, the application being made by Mr. W.J. Mason.
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.
Note: Executors not
listed in More Bastions
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.
Note: Executors not listed in More
Bastions.
Folkestone Express
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
On Wednesday, at the
Folkestone Licensing Sessions, the justices had before them applications for
the removal of the licences of the Princess Royal in South Street and the South
Foreland in Seagate Street to premises, for which there were off licences at
present, at Morehall and Cheriton respectively, but they refused both. The
proceedings lasted throughout the whole of the day until the early evening.
The Magistrates who heard
the application with regard to the removal of the Princess Royal to the
Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores, Cheriton Road, were Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr.
A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Dr. F. Wolverson and
Alderman W. Hollands.
Mr. B.H. Waddy
(instructed by Messrs. F. Hall and Co.) appeared for Messrs. Ind Coope and
Allsopp, the owners of the Princess Royal, and Mr. J H. Kent, the licence
holder of the Morehall Wine Stores.
There was a good deal of
opposition. Mr. B.H. Bonniface represented Mr. C. Garland, the licensee of the
London and Paris Hotel and other licensees, Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for Mr.
Samway, the licensee, and also the owners of the White Lion Hotel at Cheriton,
and Mr. L. Pocock for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The Rev. W.J.T.
Brown represented the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers, the
Rev. H. Charleston, the St. Andrew’s Methodist Church and Mrs. Longhurst, 251, Cheriton Road, who, with
others, had prepared and presented a petition against the application.
Mr. Waddy said that
application, if granted, would have the effect of bringing about a
re-distribution of the licences in the borough and a reduction in their number
by one. The latter fact should certainly appeal to those who were opposing in
the temperance interest.
At the outset he might
say if the Magistrates removed the licence of the Princess Royal from the
Harbour district they and the licensees in that district would have no need to
fear that the premises would thereafter be used club premises, because it was
part of the policy of Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, pursued in all parts of
the country, to insert a clause in the agreement for the sale of the premises
that they would not be used as a registered club.
Mr. Bonniface: In that
event I withdraw my opposition.
Mr. Waddv, proceeding,
said the taking away of the licence of the Princess Royal would not hurt the
public in any way. In a quarter of a mile radius of that particular area there
were 28 full licences and if they added to that the beer on-licences and the
off-licences there were within that quarter of a mile circle 45 licensed
premises for the use of the public. Therefore it was quite obvious if they
removed the Princess Royal from that district the public were not going to
suffer through lack of facilities. The opposition from the Customs and Excise
was really on the question of the monopoly value. They all knew of cases where
the little country pub was being shifted to a main arterial road, but it could
not be suggested that in that case they were, in any way, removing a house with
a dying trade. He had figures dealing with the trade at the Princess Royal and
he was in a position to prove them. In 1936 the number of barrels of beer sold
there was 108, in 1937, 132, and in 1938, 150. Therefore in two years there was
an increase of very nearly 50 per cent., so it could not be possibly suggested
that they were removing a house with a dying trade. The spirits sold were 89
gallons in 1936, 89 in 1937, and 92½ in 1938. His clients sought to remove the
licence to the Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in existence since the year
1912, when a justices’ off-licence was obtained for the premises. If the
removal was granted then that particular licence would go. Within a half
mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was only one licensed house on
that side of the railway line, and that was the White Lion Hotel, exactly on
the half mile circumference. South of the railway
was the Railway Bell (sic), which did not oppose the application.Concerning the opposition of the White
Lion Hotel, they would find on looking up the records that in 1904 the
proprietors of that hotel actually applied for a full on-licence within 100
yards of the present Morehall Wine Stores. If anyone was going from Cheriton to
Folkestone they had to go a long way into Folkestone before they could reach a
fully licensed house. There had been a
very considerable increase in the number of houses in the district since the
magistrates granted the off-licence. He could not give them the actual accurate
figures concerning the number of houses, but in the quarter mile radius of the
Morehall Wine Stores there were 900 houses and within a half mile area there
were 1,915. Therefore they had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 or
10,000 people in the area. The number of houses erected since 1927 in the area
was no less than 727. If the application was granted it was quite obvious substantial
alterations would have to be made.
The Chairman: Is the
building coming down?
Mr. Waddy: No. He then
proceeded to explain the alterations to be carried out according to the plans
which he submitted. He said accommodation would be provided for Mr. Robbins,
the temporary manager at the Princess Royal, who would be the manager under Mr.
Kent if that application was granted.
The Chairman pointed out
that the magistrates did not see on the plans any special room for women and
children.
Mr. Waddy said there was
not such a room at the Princess Royal and they had kept in the plans as near to
the accommodation as they had there, because if they had more accommodation the
Customs and Excise would say at once they were building bigger premises.
The Chairman intimated
that the magistrates that day had decided to deal with the application as an
ordinary removal of a licence.
Mr. Waddy said regarding
the opposition concerning the monopoly value, a removal was allowed without
monopoly value. They were only removing the licence to slightly bigger
premises. The White Lion Hotel opposition was purely a trade opposition, which
should not carry any weight. The opposition of the Churches was always
difficult. His clients respected the views of such opposition, but they thought
they were mistaken as to the effect of the granting of such a licence. It
would certainly not be putting a licence in the district where there was not
one before. He did not know whether a petition was to he presented against the
application.
The Rev. W.J.T. Brown
said there was a petition signed by 220 people, 21 of whom were nearby
residents. The canvass had been taken within the quarter of a mile.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes)
was handed the petition by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown. It stated that in the
petitioners’ opinion the opening of a fully licensed house would be detrimental
to the wellbeing of the locality.
Mr. E.F. Carr, manager of
Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp, said the Company would give an undertaking that
if the premises of the Princess
Royal were sold a clause
would be included preventing their use as a club. The figures concerning the
trade at the house given by Mr. Waddy were correct.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Rutlev Mowll, Mr. Carr said the Railway Bell (sic) was their house. They hoped
by the removal of the Princess Royal to have an increased trade, and it might
be a much more increased trade.
Mr. J.H. Kent said he had
held the licence of the Morehall Wine Stores since 1912, when it came in
existence. His experience during the whole of that time definitely
was that full licence facilities were required at that particular spot. Almost
daily he had had that opinion expressed by people who came to the Stores. If
the Bench granted the facilities for the premises, he was prepared to have Mr.
Robbins, the present licence holder of the Princess Royal, as the manager.
Mr. W.B. Macgowan, of 7,
Beachborough Villas, said he knew the area very well. He supported the application.
He happened to be a life long abstainer. They were, in that particular area,
expecting a large increase of population which had not been taken into account
because a huge building of flats, probably as big as the Grand Hotel, was in
course of erection within a few hundred yards of the licensed premises. He
thought the licence was very useful and necessary
Mr. W. Wood, of 285,
Cheriton Road, said he was a retired builder and his home was about 50 yards
from the Morehall Wine Stores. If he wanted a drink he had either to go to the
White Lion, or come into Folkestone, where he went to the Bodega to have a full
two pennyworth ride on the bus.
Mr. Mowll: Do you drink
beer or do you drink spirits?
Mr. Wood: I drink
anything I can get hold of.
Mr. George A. Wood, 11, Trimworth
Road, said he was a retired Civil Servant, and had resided in Folkestone since
his retirement. He was not a relation of the previous witness. He certainly
supported the application. In his case, the only time he went into a public
house was to have an opportunity of having a chat with his friends, and under
present conditions to do that he had either to go to the White Lion or the
Railway Bell (sic), quite a long distance.
Mr Rutley Mowll said if that
removal was likely to receive the large amount of custom, which he presumed
Messrs. Ind Coope and Allsopp expected, he suggested it was a case where
monopoly value should be paid. He could not go back 30 years as Mr. Waddy
suggested, but he did not think that could have any bearing on the position
that day. He represented Mr. Samway, of the White Lion Hotel, and if that application
was granted his trade was going to be redistributed. Mr. Samway`s prosperity
would not be enhanced. He also represented Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, the
Kent brewers, who opposed the application as a full licence at the Morehall
Wine Stores would affect the business of the White Lion Hotel. With regard to
the people who resided in the area, they went there knowing perfectly well
there was no public house in it.
Mr. Pocock said it would
be unfair for a licensee or the owner of a licence not to pay a fair value for
being allowed to go to such an area as suggested in that application. He did
not think it would be a fair thing to allow a new licence in that rapidly
growing area without some payment. Therefore he opposed the application
strongly.
The Rev. W.J.T. Brown
said he had seen practically all the new houses grow up and he knew quite a
number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing such an application had previously
been refused by the magistrates it was clear there was no demand for such a house
among the old residents. The people who occupied the new houses were not the kind
of people to frequent public houses. Twenty-one tradespeople in the nearby
locality had signed the petition against the granting of the licence. There
were moral arguments which should be borne in mind by the magistrates, but he
did not think there was any need for him to stress some of the evil effects of
strong drink to them.
The Rev. H. Charleston
said he associated himself with Mr. Brown’s remarks.
Mrs. Longhurst said she
owned and lived in a house practically opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. They
did not want a public-house because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She
and two others obtained the signatures for the petition, and she only had three
people who said they wanted a public house there.
The Magistrates retired
for some time to consider their finding and on their return to the Court the
Chairman said the application for the removal of the licence of the Princess
Royal to the Morehall Wine Stores was not granted.
Folkestone Herald
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
Two applications were made at the annual Folkestone
licensing Sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the removal of the
licences of two public houses to other premises in the borough. There was a
considerable amount of opposition to both proposals, which affected residential
districts that have developed rapidly during the past few years. After a
lengthy hearing both applications were refused.
The first application was for the removal of the
Justices` Licence respect of the Princess Royal public house, South Street, to
the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road. The second application was to remove the licence
of the South Foreland public house, Seagate Street, to the Imperial, Tile Kiln
Lane.
Mr. B. H. Waddy, instructed by Frederic Hall and Company,
Folkestone, appeared for Mr. J.H. Kent, who made the application in the first
case. Mr. B.H. Bonniface opposed on behalf of a number of licensees in the
immediate neighbourhood of the Princess Royal; Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on
behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and Mr. H.T. Samway,
the licensee; and Mr. L. Pocock appeared for H.M. Commissioners of Customs and
Excise. The proposal was also opposed by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown on behalf of the
Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he had before him a
letter or two. There were resolutions opposing from the Cheriton Baptist
Women`s Meeting, and the Ashley Avenue Congregational Church Women`s Meeting.
Mrs. Longhurst and the Rev. H.E. Charleston, of St.
Andrew`s Methodist Church, Morehall, also opposed the application.
Mr. Waddy said it was an application which if
granted would have the effect of bringing about a redistribution of the
licences in the district and a reduction in their number by one. That was a
fact which might well appeal to those who opposed in the temperance interests.
If they agreed to the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal they need
have no fear that the premises would be used as club premises because part of
the policy of the owners of the property, Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, was
to insert a clause, when disposing of the premises, barring its use as a
registered club.
Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw entirely my
opposition; the application now has my support. Continuing, Mr. Waddy said
Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp owned both premises. The Magistrates had to be
satisfied that the removal of the premises would not hurt the public in any way.
Within a quarter mile radius of the Princess Royal there were already 28 full
licences, and if they added to that all the other licences in the area, beer
licences, “off” licences, etc., there were 45 licensed premises in the quarter
of a mile circle. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsop had no other house in the area
so it could not be said that they hoped to transfer the trade of the Princess
Royal to some other house belonging to them In the same district. The trade
would go to other houses. Referring to the Excise opposition, Mr. Waddy said on
an application for a removal monopoly value did not have to be paid; Parliament
made provision for such applications He realised that there had been abuse in
some cases in the past, for instance where a little country “pub” had been
shifted on to an arterial road perhaps several miles away and had blossomed out as a roadhouse, but no
suggestion of that kind could be made in regard to that application. Nor could
it be suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade out of a
congested area. The beer consumption at the Princess Royal for the year ending
1936 was 108 barrels, said Mr. Waddy. For 1937 the figure was 132 and for 1939,
150 barrels, which showed an Increase over 1936 of very nearly 50 percent. In
regard to the wines and spirits trade, the figure for 1936 was 89 and in 1938
it had risen to 92½.They were seeking to remove to “off ” licence premises
known as Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in business under a Justices’ Licence
since 1912. Before that the business had been carried on there under an Excise
Licence. If they granted the removal then that licence would go because an “on”
licence included an “off”. In that way the number of licences would be reduced
by one. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was the
White Lion Hotel to the west, and south of the railway there was the Railway
Hotel, which did not oppose. In his submission the opposition of the White Lion
Hotel was very much of "a dog in the manger” character because in 1904 the
owners of the White Lion applied for a full “on” licence actually within 100 yards
of his client's premises. Since 1912 there had been a very considerable
increase in the district, and many of the houses there today had been erected
since 1927. A count had been made and the number of houses in a quarter-mile
circle of the premises was 900, and in a half-mile radius was 1,975. In the
district they had some 8,000 to 10,000 people. Since 1927 the number of houses
erected was 727. Mr. Waddy said alterations would be carried out to the
Morehall premises, but no-one would be able to suggest that what they were
going to do there would be an eyesore.
The Chairman: Is the present build-ing coming down?
Mr. Waddy: No.
Continuing, counsel said if the application were
granted arrangements would be made for Mr. Robbins, who was temporary manager
of the Princess Royal, to help at these premises at Morehall under Mr. Kent.mHe submitted it was just the right sort
of house for the district. It dealt with the situation with the minimum amount
of trouble or alteration and it would provide all the accommodation required.
The Chairman: We don`t see any room available for
women and children.
Mr. Waddy: There is not one at the Princess Royal.
If we propose to put in accommodation like that, we at once het the Customs
people saying “You are building bigger premises”.
Referring to the church opposition, Mr. Waddy said
it was always a difficult type of opposition to deal with from an advocate’s
point of view, but they were quite mistaken in thinking that the granting of
that facility would do any harm to anyone. He did not know whether any petition
was going to be laid before them, but if so he would ask them to scrutinise it
with the greatest possible care. Petitions might be some evidence of local feeling,
but sometimes they were not evidence at all.
The Rev W.J.T. Brown then put in a petition signed
by about 220 persons, 21 of whom, it was stated, lived in the immediate area.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petitioners
asked the Magistrates to refuse the application on the grounds that in their
opinion a licence was not necessary and would be detrimental to the well-being
of the locality.
Mr. Waddy then called evidence in support of his
application.
Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen Street, Folkestone, and
Frank Haisell, employed by Messrs. Frederic Hall and Company, gave formal
evidence of serving notices in connection with the application.
Edward Carr, General Manager of Messrs. Ind, Coope and
Allsopp, stated that his firm were the owners of the premises known as the
Morehall Wine Stores. His company were prepared to give an
undertaking that the site of the Princess Royal would not be used as a
registered club as that was against the policy of the company. The Princess
Royal lost its tenant during the latter half of 1938 and Mr. Robbins was installed
as temporary manager, but he would be found a position under Mr. Kent in the
new premises.
Mr. Mowll: It was stated by your counsel that the
Railway Hotel did not oppose the application?
Witness: That is so.
Isn't it a fact that the Railway Hotel is owned by
your company? - Yes.
I suggest to you that you would not be making this
application unless you knew you were going to do a much greater trade at Morehall?
- I understand from Mr. Kent that there need for a full “on” licence there.
Mr. Pocock: Do you seriously mean to tell me that
the reason for your application for a removal order is purely to benefit the
public?
Witness: Naturally we expect to get something out
of it.
Enough to justify these alterations? -That remains
to be seen.
Mr. Pocock: The phrase "re-distribution of
licences’’ means getting away from fierce competition to an area where there is
little or none, so your order is to enable you to remove from a place where
there are 45 other licensed premises to another district where there are only
two in a half- mile radius? - I think it is sound.
James Henry Kent said he was the licence holder of
the Morehall Wine Stores. He had held a Justices’ Licence there since 1912 and
he had also held “on” licences at three other houses in other parts of the
country. He was definitely of the opinion that “on” licence facilities were
required in that district. He was to be the tenant of the new premises.
William Bertram Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas,
Folkestone, stated that he had lived there for 34 years. He supported the
application although he happened to be a total abstainer. Witness said it was expected that there
would be a large increase in the population Of Morehall shortly. A large block
of flats was being built and he considered that when they were completed there
would be only two bigger buildings in Folkestone, the Grand and the Metropole
hotels. He was of the opinion
that full licence facilities were required.
Many people had complained to him that there was not an “on” licence in
Morehall.
William Wood. 285, Cheriton Road, a retired
builder, said that his house was opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. He also supported
the application. If anyone wanted a drink they had to go either to the White
Lion Hotel, or to the Bouverie, Cheriton Road.
Mr. Mowll: I understand you do
drink?
Witness: Yes, sir, anything I can get hold of.
(Laughter)
Do you have beer in your house? - Yes, but I have
to put it on the mantlepiece otherwise I can’t get the atmosphere. (Laughter)
George Arthur Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, Morehall, a
retired civil servant, also gave evidence in favour of the application.
Mr. Mowll said if those making the application expected a large custom,
then he suggested it was case in which they should pay monopoly value. If that
were not suggested, then there was no need for a licence. He represented Mr.
Samway, who was the tenant of a very expensive house. If this trade was going
to be re-distributed, then it was obvious that Mr. Samway`s prosperity was not
going to be enhanced. His submission to the Bench was that having regard to all
the circumstances there might not be any need for further accommodation. People
who had come to reside in the district knew that there was no public house at
Morehall and they also knew probably that the Magistrates had persistently
refused to grant an application for one there in the past.
Mr. Pocock asked the Magistrates to consider
whether that was a proper case in which they could exercise the discretion
which was theirs. Was it not unfair competition when all over the country other
licensees were made to pay, made to pay dearly, when opening up in a district
like this one? He did not think it would be fair to allow this new licence in this
rapidly growing area without monopoly value being paid.
The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had been in the
district for over nine years. He had seen nearly all the new houses built and
he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing that an
application was refused some years ago on the grounds that there was no demand
for it by the older people, an application was now being made on the grounds
that people who had since come into the district required such facilities. He
submitted that the people who occupied the type of houses in the district were
not the kind of people who frequented public houses. Legal arguments were not
the only arguments in those cases; there were also moral arguments against the
granting of such applications. The effects of strong drink were only too well
known to some of them. As Magistrates they had to consider the welfare of the
community, and he respectfully asked them not to grant the application.
The Clerk said a count showed that 223 people had
signed the petition. In some cases there was more than one surname to the same
house.
The Rev. H.E. Charleston said he associated himself
very definitely with Mr. Brown’s remarks.
Mrs. Longhurst said they did not want a public
house there because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She had
collected a number of the signatures to the petition and only three persons out
of the large number of people on whom she called wanted a public house there.
The Magistrates retired and after being absent some
time the Chairman announced that the application was not granted.
Sitting with Councillor Wood were Dr. W.W. Nuttall
Mr. A.E. Pepper. Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands and Dr. F.
Wolverson.
No comments:
Post a Comment