Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 29-4-1765
Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. William
Pope, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. Thomas Rolfe, and Mr. John Baker.
Neat Ladd, James Francklyn, Chas. Hill, Thos. Wilton, Ambrose
Dadd, Ric Boxer, Widow Jeffery, Widow Gittens, Ric Beear, Mary Gittens, and
Joseph Trevillon were fined at this Session 3/4 each for having false measures
in their houses, which fines were paid into the hands of the Overseers of the
Poor.
Neat Ladd, George; James Francklyn,
Rose; Charles Hill, White Hart; Thomas Wilton, no record; Ambrose Dadd,
Chequers; Richard Boxer, Fishing Boat; Widow Jeffery, Royal George; Widow
Gittens, North Foreland; Richard Beear, Three Compasses; Mary Gittens,
Privateer; Joseph Trevillon, Crown.
Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 26-6-1777
Wm. Cressey, Benham Beecrot, Rob Martin and Mary Gittens,
victuallers, were fined 6/8 apiece for having short measures in their custody.
Notes: William Cressey, Red Cow. Benham
Beecrot, Unknown Premises. Robert Martin, Chequers. Mary Gittens, Privateer.
Folkestone Chronicle 19-4-1856
Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 20-8-1792
Before David Puttee, Edward Andrews, John Harvey, Thomas
Farley, Joseph Sladen and Robert Harvey.
Petitions were received from Thomas Steddy Baker to licence
a house in Folkestone, in Mercery Lane, late in the occupation of Thomas
Jordan, deceased.
Note: No record of either Thomas
Steddy Baker or Thomas Jordan.
And also from Robert Walker, of Dover, Brewer, to licence a
house in Fisherman`s Row, which he purchased of Richard Hart, deceased.
Note: No record of Richard Hart
Ordered that the said licences be granted, provided they
apply for and take out the said licences on or before the next licensing day,
being the last Monday in April next.
Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 30-5-1809
Tyers Major applied for an Ale licence. Ordered that no
licence be granted him.
Maidstone Gazette
7-9-1847
Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before Capt. W. Sherren, Mayor, S. Bradley, J. Bateman and S. Mackie Esqs.
General Licensing Day: All the licenses were renewed. There were ten applications for new licenses, two of which only were granted for spirit vaults, one for Mr. Smith, of the King`s Arms, for a house in the High Street, conditionally, and the other to Mr. Thomas Maycock (the agent for Guinness`s stout). Liberty was also granted to Mr. Field to remove his licence from his present house to more commodious premises opposite.
Notes: It is not known that the licence granted to Smith was ever taken up. Also the only person by the name of Field(s) to hold a licence at that time was William Fields who was at the short-lived Folkestone Arms Tavern and it is at present not known that that house ever moved. It is not outside the realms of possibility that Fields DID move premises across the road and that the original “Folkestone Arms Tavern” is the unknown “old Folkestone tavern” which was demolished in January, 1848.
Maidstone Gazette 11-1-1848, Canterbury Journal, Kentish Mercury 15-1-1848
The much talked of new street from the High Street to the Mill Lane has at last been commenced by pulling down the old Folkestone tavern, and clearing the garden grounds adjacent. We regret to hear that much opposition has been manifested, but the work will nevertheless be proceeded with as fast as the weather will permit, so that there will be no necessity for the ultimatum of our Boulogne contemporary, viz., “a lighted torch and a south-wester”.
Kentish Gazette 18-1-1848
The projected new street, from High-street to the Mill-lane, has at last been commenced by the
pulling down of the old Folkestone tavern, and clearing the garden grounds adjacent.
Maidstone Gazette 25-7-1848
Advertisement: Folkestone, Kent. To innkeepers and the public generally, to be let, and entered upon immediately, an old-established and good-accustomed public house, near the harbour, in the town of Folkestone, containing eight airy and spacious sleeping rooms, good club and bagatelle rooms, convenient bar, kitchen and excellent nine pin alley. The house immediately faces the South Eastern and Continental Steam Packet Station, and has most commanding views of the Channel and French Coast. The external appearance is inviting, having recently been painted with much taste. The present occupier has a good connection, and the only motive for wishing to dispose of it is in consequence of the ill-health of his wife. The furniture and fixtures (which are very good), with the stock, will not exceed £300. Any person who can command the like sum will find this well worthy of attention.
Every information may be obtained of Mr. Major, Auctioneer, Appraiser, House and Estate Agent, Folkestone
Dover Telegraph
5-4-1851
Advertisement: To Builders. Parties desirous for contracting for the erection of an inn, at Folkestone, may see the drawings and specifications, and obtain a copy of the quantities at the offices of the Architect, West Cliff Gardens, Folkestone, or Bridge Street, Canterbury, on or after the 9th instant.
The tenders to be delivered in to the offices, Folkestone, before 12 o`clock, on Wednesday, the 16th instant.
The architect reserves to himself the power of rejecting the lowest or any other tender.
Joseph Messenger, Architect. Folkestone, April 2nd, 1851.
Southeastern Gazette 1-6-1852, Dover Telegraph 5-6-1852, Maidstone Journal 8-6-1852
An illicit still was discovered on Thursday last on the premises of Mr. Vigor, brewer, which was at once seized by the Excise, and conveyed to the Custom House. The still was not at work, but a quantity of molasses and wash was on the premises.
Canterbury Journal
5-6-1852
An illicit still was discovered last week on the premises of Mr. Vigor, brewer, which was at once seized by the Excise, and conveyed to the Custom House. The still was not at work, but a quantity of molasses and wash was on the premises.
Dover Chronicle
5-6-1852
An illicit still was discovered on Thursday week on the premises of Mr. Vigor, brewer, which was at once seized by the Excise, and conveyed to the Custom House. The still was not at work, but a quantity of molasses and wash was on the premises.
Southeastern Gazette 8-6-1852
Letter
Sir, You will please contradict in your paper of next Tuesday that any such thing as a still was found on my premises.
W. Vigor, Folkestone, June 6th.
Southeastern Gazette
15-6-1852
Our
correspondent states that the still alluded to in a letter from Mr. Vigor last
week was found on premises rented of Mr. Vigor by a person named Foord, who
stated to the officers when it was seized that it was left there for Mr. Vigor.
Molasses and spirits 35 per cent under proof were also found, which will no
doubt form a subject of future investigation.
Canterbury Journal 11-9-1852, Kentish
Gazette 21-9-1852, Kentish Independent 25-9-1852
Thomas Foord appeared before the magistrates on Tuesday to answer an information, charging him with having a still on his premises in High Street, and also having molasses there, contrary to the statute. Mr. Lewis, of Dover, collector of Excise, attended to prosecute. Mr. Foord pleaded guilty to the first count, which charged him with having the still on his premises; and the second and the fourth counts the collector called on the magistrate» to dismiss, which was done. The third count charged him with having on his premises (he being a brewer of beer) 150lbs. weight of molasses, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. A. Avery, riding officer at Folkestone, deposed: On the 28th of May last I went to the defendant’s brewhouse, situate in High Street. I surveyed the brewhouse, and found a cask, and asked defendant what it contained, and he said finings. I then took out the bung of the cask, and found it contained molasses. He then admitted that it contained molasses, and said he had used some in porter. I then seized the molasses, and on further search found a second cask which contained impure spirits. There were 6½ gallons of this, and the cask of molasses was 150 lb. weight.
Mr. Henry Mutton deposed: I am supervisor of Excise of the Dover district. I corroborate the font witness’s testimony in every particular.
The defendant said that he bought the still for old copper, and did not think there was any harm in having it on his premises. As to the molasses, they were there before he took the brewhouse, and he had only removed the cask from the yard into the brewhouse, because the sun caused it to leak.
The magistrates convicted him in the mitigated penalties of £50 each on both counts, and ordered immediate payment.
Dover Chronicle
11-9-1852
Police Court, Sept. 7: Before John Bateman Esq., in the chair, Wm. Major, David Major, Samuel Mackie, Thos. Golder, and Wm. Bateman Esqs.
Thomas Foord appeared to
answer an information, charging him with having a still on his premises in High
Street, and also having molasses there, contrary to the statute. J. Lewis, of
Dover, collector of Excise, attended to prosecute. Mr. Foord pleaded guilty to
the first count, which charged him with having the still on his premises; and
the second and the fourth counts the collector called on the magistrates to
dismiss, which was done. The third count charged him with having on his
premises (he being a brewer of beer) 150lbs. weight of molasses, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. A. Avery, riding officer at Folkestone, deposed: On the 28th of May last I went to the defendant’s brewhouse, situate in High Street. I surveyed the brewhouse, and found a cask, and asked defendant what it contained, and he said finings. I then took out the bung of the cask, and found it contained molasses. He then admitted that it contained molasses, and said he had used some in porter. I then seized the molasses, and on further search found a second cask which contained impure spirits. There were 6½ gallons of this, and the cask of molasses was 150 lb. weight.
Mr. Henry Mutton deposed: I am supervisor of Excise of the Dover district. I corroborate the first witness’s testimony in every particular.
The defendant said that he bought the still for old copper, and did not think there was any harm in having it on his premises. As to the molasses, they were there before he took the brewhouse, and he had only removed the cask from the yard into the brewhouse, because the sun caused it to leak.
The magistrates convicted him in the mitigated penalties of £50 each on both counts, and ordered immediate payment.
Southeastern Gazette 14-9-1852
Petty Sessions, Tuesday: Before J. Bateman, D. Major, W. Major, T. Golder, S. Mackie, and W. Bateman Esqs.
Thomas Foord, beer-shop keeper and brewer, in High Street, appeared to answer an information, charging him with having a certain private and concealed still, for making low wines and spirits, in a shed occupied by him.
Alfred Avery, officer of Inland Revenue, stationed at Folkestone, deposed that on the 28th of May last he went to the brewhouse, occupied by the defendant. He surveyed it, and found a cask. He asked defendant what it contained, and he said finings. He then examined it, and found it to contain molasses, about 150 lbs.
Henry Mutton, surveyor of this district, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.
The defendant said that he bought the still for old copper, and the molasses were at the brewhouse before he took it; that it was in the yard, but that the sun caused the cask to leak, and he then took it in the brewhouse.
Fined £50 on each of the first and third counts, and to be paid forthwith, distress warrants being immediately issued.
General Licensing Day, Wednesday: Before J. Bateman, D. Major, W. Major, T. Golder, S. Mackie, and W. Bateman Esqs.
The licenses already granted were renewed. There were six applications for new licenses. Mr. J.B. Tolputt, auctioneer, applied for a license for the Pier Hotel, now erecting on the harbour. Mr. Pain, of Dover, appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Furley, of Ashford, on behalf of a numerously signed memorial, in opposition. A long and somewhat stormy discussion ensued, which ended in the Magistrates granting the license, the house being an improvement to the locality. The other five applications were refused.
Maidstone Journal
21-9-1852
Thomas Foord appeared before the Magistrates last week to answer an information charging him with having a still on his premises in High Street, and also having molasses there, contrary to the statute. J. Lewis, of Dover, collector of Excise, attended to prosecute. Mr. Foord pleaded guilty to the first count, which charged him with having the still on his premises.
Mr. A. Avery, riding officer at Folkestone, on the 28th of May last went to the defendant’s brewhouse, situate in High Street, and found a cask containing molasses; seized the molasses, and on further search found a second cask which contained impure spirits. There were 6½ gallons of this, and the cask of molasses was 150 lb. weight.
The defendant said that he bought the still for old copper, and did not think there was any harm in having it on his premises. As to the molasses, they were there before he took the brewhouse, and he had only removed the cask from the yard into the brewhouse, because the sun caused it to leak.
The magistrates convicted him in the mitigated penalties of £50 each on both counts, and ordered immediate payment.
South Eastern Gazette 21-9-1852
It was Mr. W.H. Payn, of Dover (not Mr. Pain, as stated in our last), who successfully applied, on the 8th inst., for a license for the new Pier Hotel.
Kentish Mercury 25-9-1852
Thomas Foord appeared before the Magistrates last week to answer an information, charging him with having a still on his premises in High Street, and also having molasses there, contrary to the statute. Mr. Lewis, of Dover, collector of Excise, attended to prosecute. Mr. Foord pleaded guilty to the first count, which charged him with having the still on his premises..
Mr. A. Avery, riding officer at Folkestone, on the 28th of May last went to the defendant’s brewhouse, situate in High Street, and found a cask containing molasses; seized the molasses, and on further search found a cask containing impure spirits. There were 6½ gallons of this, and the cask of molasses was 150 lb. weight.
The defendant said that he bought the still for old copper, and did not think there was any harm in having it on his premises. As to the molasses, they were there before he took the brewhouse, and he had only removed the cask from the yard into the brewhouse, because the sun caused it to leak.
The magistrates convicted him in the mitigated penalties of £50 each on both counts, and ordered immediate payment.
Southeastern Gazette 16-11-1852
Extract of a letter: The principal desideratum will be to remove the block of old houses and buildings between the Royal George and the newly erected Pier Hotel, so as to make a direct communication from the harbour to High Street and Tontine Street, by forming a new street, which could not fail to be not only an ornament, but a great public convenience and accommodation to persons frequenting that part of the town.
Dover
Chronicle 19-3-1853
Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before Samuel Mackie and Thomas Golder Esqs.
John Gilbert was fined 1s., and costs 9s. for keeping his beer-house open after 11 o`clock at night on Saturday last.
Unknown name and premises.
Southeastern Gazette
22-3-1853
Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before S. Mackie and T. Golder Esqs.
John Gilbert, beer-shop keeper, was fined 1s. and costs for keeping his house open after eleven o`clock on Saturday night.
Note: Unknown house and licensee.
Folkestone Chronicle 15-9-1855
Monday September 10th :- Present S. Mackie Esq., Mayor, T. Golder Esq., W. Major Esq., G. Kennicott Esq., and W. Bateman Esq.
The General Annual Licensing meeting was held this day, when 46 Licences were renewed in the township of Folkestone, and 3 in Sandgate. The licence of the Radnor Inn was transferred to Henry Waith, until 10th October next. A Billiard licence was also granted to William Terry, Sandgate.
Spencer Hayward, Bellevue Field, John Hobbs, Bellevue Field, Thomas Austin Hobbs, Bridge Street, made application for new licences, but were in each case refused.
Notes: Spencer Hayward is Belle Vue Hotel, John Hobbs is Mechanics Arms, Thomas Austin Hobbs is unknown.
Wednesday April 16th :- Before J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott, W. Major and S. Godden esqrs.
John Jungwith, a beer retailer, was charged with not having his name up as licenced to sell beer. The defendant, through Mr. Minter, pleaded guilty. Convicted in the penalty of 1s. and 8s. 6d. Costs.
Note: Unknown premises
Southeastern Gazette
28-10-1856
Inquest.
Yesterday week an inquest was held at the New Inn, Cheriton,
on the body of Joseph Insole, a sergeant-major in the 6th Enniskillens, who
shot himself on the previous Friday morning.
The deceased, it appeared, had borne a high character in his
regiment, had served through nearly the whole of the Crimean campaign, and was
decorated with medals for Balaklava, Inkermann, and Sebastopol. It is stated,
however, that, at the time the suicide was committed, there were serious
defalcations, to the amount of £150 in his accounts, and it is therefore
presumed that the fear of discovery and disgrace so weighed on his mind as to
prompt him to self destruction. No one saw the act committed, but he seems to
have gone out towards the moor, put a pistol in his mouth, and discharged the
shot into his brain.
Captain Congers Towers stated that on the previous Thursday
he had spoken to the deceased about furnishing some accounts, which should have
been furnished before, and he had no doubt that that conversation had led to
Insole’s destroying himself.
Deceased was to have been married to a young woman residing
in St. Peter’s-street, Canterbury, on Monday (the day of the inquest.)
The jury returned a verdict of “Temporary insanity”.
Note: No record of this house is
known. Could be New Inn, Sandgate.
Southeastern Gazette
10-11-1857
Local News
Monthly Meeting of the Town Council.—Present, the Mayor;
Aldermen Kennicott, Tolputt, Gardiner; Councillors, Jinkings, Caister, Baker,
Gambrill, Cobb, Banks, Meikle, Pledge,
Major, Baker, Hunt Jefferey (Walton,) Hunt Jefferey (Coolinge,) Tite, and Boorne.
The minutes of
the last meeting having been read and confirmed, Messrs. John Banks, John
Boorn, Meikle, and Jinkings, the newly-elected councillors, were sworn in.
The purchase of
the premises once used as a brewery belonging to Messrs. Calvert and Co.,
London, was considered. The Mayor reported what had taken place in reference
thereto, and the sum which Mr. Tweed, of the Royal George, would take for his
interest therein, but as notices had been served by the town-clerk on those
parties, the further consideration of this business was postponed.
Kentish Gazette 5-5-1863
The Local Government Act: A meeting of ratepayers resident in the lighting district was held at the Crown Hotel, Folkestone, on Thursday evening, for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting this Act. Mr. E.E. Cronk presided, and there was a good attendance. The powers of this Act were fully gone into, and their advantages for the town were admitted, and although there was a very feeble attempt at opposition, a resolution approving the proposal for the adoption of the Act, and pledging the meeting to support it, was carried unanimously.
Possibly Radnor Street
Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1866
Licensing Day
A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.
The sixth applicant was Mr. William Tite, for a license to his private residence in the Cheriton Road.
Mr. Tite said he heard that Mr. Elliott, who lived opposite to him, meant to apply for a license and he thought he should like one too, but he should not make use of it just directly if it was granted.
Folkestone Chronicle 2-3-1867
Saturday February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.
Joseph Faulkner, landlord of the Star coffee house, having a beer license, was summoned for keeping his house open after eleven o`clock on the 15th inst.
P.C. Newman proved finding persons in the house at one o`clock in the morning of the 16th inst., and P.C. Reynolds said the house was closed at eleven as usual.
Defendant said he had a private party, and no beer was drawn. The case was dismissed with at caution.
Note: No record of anyone with this name having a license in Folkestone according to More Bastions. In More Tales, this coffee house is mentioned as being in Seagate Street, whereas the Star was in Radnor Street.
Folkestone Observer 2-3-1867
Saturday, February 24rd: before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and C. Doridant Esqs.
Joseph Faulkner, Star Coffee House, was charged with keeping his house open at illegal hours.
P.S. Newman said that he was on duty at one o`clock on the morning of the 16th inst. and heard music and dancing in defendant`s house. He went to the side door, which was not fast, and on going in found several persons in the bar, with 3 or 4 glasses, one of them apparently containing beer. Defendant said he had a private party there, and that no beer would be supplied, only tea and coffee. In a room upstairs were twelve or fourteen persons without hats or bonnets dancing to the sound of a fiddle. They were all orderly and respectable, He saw no beer about. Downstairs, by the bar, there was a table laid as though for supper.
P.C. Reynolds corroborated the evidence of the sergeant. He had seen the house closed at 11 o`clock.
The Bench said defendant had complied with the terms of his license, which provided that his house should be closed at eleven. They did not wish to prevent him enjoying himself, but this must not occur again. If he wanted to have a party he had better speak to the Superintendent of Police. The case would be dismissed.
Folkestone Observer 24-8-1867
Wednesday, August 21st: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.
Licensing Day
This being the day for granting certificates of publicans for renewal of licenses, or for new licenses, there was a large attendance of the “victualling” craft.
Mr. Minter supported an application by Mr. George Ham Tite for a license for a house opposite to the house for which Mr. Purday had applied. He made the application on the ground, not that there was any necessity for a public house in that locality, for he did not believe there was, but on the principle of free trade.
Mr. Joseph Faulkner applied for a license for his eating house, the Star, Seagate Street, and was opposed by Mr. Minter for Mr. Jordan, South Foreland, who said his house was about twelve feet from applicant`s. He said he could stand at his door and count thirteen public houses and four beer shops within fifty yards, and if they took a hundred yards they might count thirty. There was sufficient accommodation for the public with houses already licensed.
The applications were adjourned for a fuller Bench of magistrates to deal with.
Mr. Minter enquired if they were to go into fresh evidence at the next hearing. The evidence had been heard on both sides by the present Bench. A hint had been dropped about a fuller Bench of magistrates. He apprehended that other magistrates would not have heard the evidence.
The Mayor said the question was whether they should have free trade in licenses or not.
The Court was then cleared, and the magistrates deliberated in private. When the public were again admitted, the Mayor announced that the license were refused, so that gentlemen would understand that it was not exactly free trade.
Folkestone Chronicle 29-8-1874
Licensing Day
The annual brewsters` licensing day was held on Wednesday last. The magistrates on the Bench were The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and W. Bateman Esqs. Mr. Dickenson applied for a provisional license for an hotel which he proposed to erect on the corner of Harbour Street and Beach Street, which was opposed by Mr. Spurrier and Mr. Wedderburn, but the Bench decided to grant it. Mr. Spurrier gave notice of appeal against it at the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone Express 29-8-1874
Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Annual Licensing Sessions
The seventy four licensed victuallers, twelve beershop keepers and twenty three grocers and wine merchants had their licenses renewed, with the exception of those named.
New Licenses
A New Hotel: Mr. Charles Dickenson applied for a provisional license for a new house which he proposed to build at the corner of Harbour Street and Beach Street, and submitted plans for the same.
Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application, and said that Sec. 22 of the Licensing Act provided that any person interested in any premises about to be constructed might apply for a provisional license, provided such premises were constructed according to the plans submitted to the licensing justices. It was no doubt well known to the Bench that Mr. Dickenson had entered into an agreement with the Corporation, he giving a piece of ground at the corner of Harbour and Beach streets in exchange for a piece to be given by the Corporation, which was just the place for building a large and commodious hotel for giving accommodation to visitors, and if erected according to the plans submitted would be a great improvement to the neighbourhood. At the present moment a more deplorable place could not exist. Accommodation for visitors was very much required in the neighbourhood. He did not know whether there was to be any opposition, although he saw there were rival hotel keepers present, but he had no doubt they would rather see more hotels and thus encourage the trade of all. It was well known that the Pavilion Hotel, large as it was, had to turn numberless customers away, who went to the Paris and other hotels, and these in their turn had to send away customers, and he believed they had no means of increasing their accommodation. The question was, what did the inhabitants think of having another hotel? In answer to that, he held in his hand a memorial signed by from 300 to 400 persons, and every reasonable man must say that the proposed hotel would be a great improvement, independent of the increased accommodation. There were only two or three hotels in the neighbourhood, and being near the sea, visitors preferred staying there, and the more hotels the merrier, and the more accommodation there was, the more visitors there would be. He would ask the Bench to take into consideration the number of signatures to the memorial, and to examine them, and they would find that they were residents in the neighbourhood, and some were members of the Corporation. It was not a memorial of an ordinary kind.
Applicant was then sworn and said he had an interest along with his brother in the ground referred to, and proposed to build an hotel according to the plans produced.
Mr. Spurrier, Alexandra Hotel, said: Mr. Mayor, and gentlemen, I rise to oppose the application on behalf of myself and other hotel keepers. You are aware that there is already an immense number of hotels and public houses in the neighbourhood where it is proposed to erect another hotel, and there is ample accommodation for all classes, from the lowest to the highest, and I have no hesitation that even now, with all the influx of visitors at the present time, some of the hotels are not full, and scarcely have been full yet. It was suggested some time ago by the magistrates that no more new licenses should be granted. There are ten public houses close to the proposed site, and within a radius of seventy-five yards there are no less than twenty public houses. There is only about a month or six weeks a year that we can get full ourselves, and for ten months in the year it is as much as we can do to get a living, and I hope, on behalf of hotel keepers who have property there, as well as myself, you will not grant another license so close. If you allow another you will depreciate property in the neighbourhood. I would not oppose it if another hotel were required, but you know another is not required, and every hotel keeper will tell you he is scarcely able to get a living. I have been in the business eight years, and I have no hesitation in saying that another hotel is not required and I am instructed by other hotel keepers to oppose this application. The magistrates should look to see if this hotel is required. There is another reason why we oppose it. You will see by the plan that it is intended to build the house with a circular front, and I submit it would cause a great nuisance by causing persons to assemble there in the evening. If you allow another house, which I believe will contain an ordinary bar, you will cause a greater nuisance than already exists; many of the neighbours now complain of persons standing on that ground. I hope you will not grant the application.
Mr. Wedderburn, Paris Hotel, said: I thoroughly endorse the remarks just made by Mr. Spurrier. I have kept the Paris Hotel, or rather it has kept me, three years, and it is perfectly ridiculous to say that more hotel accommodation is wanted. I could mention hotels which have not been full this season, although we have had more visitors than ever we had before, and for months in the year they hardly let a bed and would be glad if they had a few more customers.
By Mr. Minter: I have been obliged to send customers away to other hotels close by. I first sent them to Mr. Spurrier`s and then to the Royal George. The Clarendon has not been half full, and the True Briton, Princess Royal, and others let beds.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Spurrier said he had no memorial from the inhabitants; he might have had, but he had not time to get one up. Many of the names on the memorial in favour of the house were not of those living in the neighbourhood because they did not want another hotel there.
Mr. Wedderburn said Mr. Dickenson went to a number of people and induced them to sign the memorial by telling them that his name was on, and among them was Mr. Hart, of the Clarendon Hotel.
Mr. Hart said he did not sign the memorial as he could not get his own hotel filled, and could not understand why another was wanted.
Mr. Minter said the other hotels were doing a good trade and wanted to keep it all in their own hands. Mr. Spurrier had said there were twenty public houses near, but what sort of houses were they? He need not ask the cause of the opposition – the answer was obvious.
The provisional license was granted, and Mr. Spurrier gave notice of appeal against it at the Quarter Sessions.
Southeastern
Gazette 29-8-1874
Annual Licensing Day
At the
annual licensing, on Wednesday, most of the licences were renewed.
Mr.
Charles Dickenson, brewer, applied for a provisional licence for a new hotel
about to be built at the corner of Harbour and Beach Streets. Mr. Spurrier,
Alexander Hotel, and Mr. Wedderburn, Paris Hotel, opposed the granting of the
licence on the ground that there
are already in the neighbourhood no less than twenty public houses within a
radius of 75 yards, and that more accommodation was not needed.
On the Bench granting a provisional licence, Mr. Spurrier gave notice of an appeal at
the Quarter Sessions.
Kentish Gazette 1-9-1874
At the annual licensing, on Wednesday, most of the licences were renewed. Mr. Charles Dickenson, brewer, applied for a provisional licence for a new hotel about to be built on the corner of Harbour and Beach Streets. Mr. Spurrier, Alexanrda Hotel, and Mr. Wedderburn, Paris Hotel, opposed the granting of the licence on the ground that there are already in the neighbourhood no less than twenty public houses within a radius of 75 yards, and that more accommodation was not needed. On the Bench granting a provisional licence, Mr. Spurrier gave notice of an appeal at the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone Express 17-10-1874
Advertisement
Persons desirous of tendering for the erection of an hotel at the corner of Harbour and Beach Streets, Folkestone, for Charles Dickenson Esq. are requested to leave their names and addresses at my office at Guildhall Street, where the drawings may be seen and all information obtained.
G.S. Ansell,
Architect,
Folkestone, 8th October, 1874
N.B. The lowest, or any tender, will not necessarily be accepted.
Folkestone Express 20-3-1875
Wednesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and W. Bateman Esqs.
Mr. Austin Dickenson obtained a license to sell strong beer on premises in Tontine Street.
Folkestone Chronicle 11-9-1875
Notice
TO HENRY HARROLD IVERSON, one of the Overseers of the Poor of the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent, and the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough.
I, CHARLES DICKENSON, now residing at Manor Road in the Parish of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, aforesaid, Brewer, do hereby give you Notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Twenty-ninth day of September ensuing, for a License for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other Intoxicating Liquors, to be drunk or consumed in a certain House and in the Premises thereunto belonging, situate at the corner of Beach Street and Harbour Street, in the Borough aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this Twenty-eighth day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred And Seventy Five.
CHARLES DICKENSON
Folkestone Chronicle 2-10-1875
Licensing Business
Last Wednesday was the adjourned annual licensing business day, the magistrates present being J. Tolputt, T. Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs. Mr. Charles Dickenson applied for a license for an hotel to be built at the corner of Beach and Harbour Streets. Mr. Dickenson stated that the legal difficulties which had prevented the building being erected were now removed. The Bench granted the renewal of the license, intimating that if the hotel was not erected by next year the magistrates probably would refuse to grant the license.
Folkestone Express 2-10-1875
Wednesday, September 29th: Before J. Tolputt, T. Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.
This being the adjourned annual licensing day, the Magistrates were occupied for some time in confirming licenses granted on the general licensing day.
Mr. Charles Dickenson, of the firm of Messrs. A. and C. Dickenson, applied to the Bench to grant him a license for an hotel that he proposed to build on the corner of Beach and Harbour Streets.
The Magistrates` Clerk explained that a license for the same hotel was granted by the Bench last year, but nothing had been done towards building the premises. Under the provisions of the Act he found that Messrs. Dickenson were entitled to apply, not for a fresh license, but for a renewal.
Mr. Caister asked a number of questions as to whether Messrs. Dickenson really intended to build the premises, as matters had been so long on hand.
Mr. C. Dickenson stated that the legal difficulties which had hindered the carrying out of the firm`s original intention had now been removed and tenders had been invited for the building of the premises. He produced the plans of the proposed hotel, which would be a great public improvement, as the corner, in it`s present state, was an eyesore and a nuisance.
Mr. Caister agreed with this remark, and in the end the Bench decided to renew the license, intimating to Mr. Dickenson, however, that if the hotel were not opened within the year they should probably decline to grant it next year.
Folkestone Chronicle 29-7-1876
Notice
To THOMAS PREBBLE, one of the Overseers of the Poor of the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough
I, HEZEKIAH MARCHANT, now residing at No. 11, Clifton Gardens, in the Parish of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, do hereby give you notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Twenty-third day of August next ensuing, for a License for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other intoxicating Liquors, to be drunk or consumed in a certain House, and in the Premises thereunto belonging, situate at No. 11, Clifton Gardens, aforesaid, in the borough aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this 25th day of July, one thousand, eight hundred and seventy six.
HEZEKIAH MARCHANT.
To THOMAS PREBBLE, one of the Overseers of the Poor of the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough
I, JOHN GASPARD TOURNIER, now residing at No. 9, Gloucester Place, in the Parish of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, do hereby give you notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Twenty-third day of August next ensuing, for a License for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other intoxicating Liquors, to be drunk or consumed in a certain House, and in the Premises thereunto belonging, situate at Ingles Park, Castle Hill Avenue, in the borough aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this 25th day of July, one thousand, eight hundred and seventy six.
J.G. TOURNIER.
Folkestone Express 27-7-1878
Notice
To the Overseers of the Poor of the township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough
I, Robert Webster, now residing at Claremont Road, in the Parish of Christ, in the Borough of Folkestone, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the twenty first day of August next ensuing for a License for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be consumed in a certain House and in the Premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a House for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors, to be consumed on such Premises, situate at Bouverie Road in the Borough aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this Twentieth day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Eight
ROBERT WEBSTER
Notice
To the Overseers of the Poor of the township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough
I, Howard Nalder, Brewer, now residing at Croydon, in the County of Surrey, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the twenty first day of August next ensuing for a License for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter, Cider, Perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be consumed in a certain House and in the Premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a House for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors, to be consumed on such Premises, situate at Beach Street and Harbour Street in Folkestone aforesaid, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this Twenty Fifth day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Eight
H. NALDER
Folkestone Chronicle 24-8-1878
Brewsters` Session
The Annual Brewsters` Session was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last. The Magistrates on the Bench were, The Mayor (J. Fitness Esq.), Ald. T. Caister, Capt. Crowe, and J. Clark Esq. Considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings, as it was known that some of the applications for licenses would be opposed.
The West End
Mr. Minter said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Webster, to ask for a provisional license for an hotel, to be built on Bouverie Road, on land leased for that purpose by Lord Radnor. The building would cost about £3,000. Mr. Glynn was there to oppose on behalf of the West Cliff Hotel, and Mr. Mowll, on the part of the brewers, Messrs. Moxon and Co., and Messrs. Leney and Co., who did not wish the monopoly they enjoyed interfered with. The neighbourhood in this part was increasing very fast. The class of house would be one that was required, and would be of the annual value of £200. It would be surrounded by stables, the men employed in which would need the advantages offered. Lord Radnor had granted the lease, and it was well known that His Lordship was most particular as to the property erected on his estate, and therefore it was fair to assume that the lease would not have been granted if the house had not been required. The only other place near was the West Cliff Tap, which was not sufficient to supply the neighbourhood. It was only very natural that the brewers should oppose. They wanted to protect a monopoly, which applicant desired to break through, and to supply a better and perhaps a cheaper article. (Laughter) He hoped the Bench would agree that such a place was needed, and grant the application.
Mr. Robert Webster, builder, sworn, said he had built several houses in Bouverie Road. He had liberty to build an hotel on the ground leased, to cost £3,000. It would be let for £200 a year and have 11 bedrooms, and 3 sitting rooms. The hotel would be surrounded west, east, and north by livery stables, and he believed it would be a great convenience to the locality.
Cross-examined by Mr. Glynn: The Leas Hotel, the Skating Rink Bar, and the Radnor Club were in the neighbourhood. He called the place an hotel.
Mr. Glynn said he was there strongly to oppose this application on behalf of the proprietor of the West Cliff Hotel, and the residents in this locality. A memorial, most numerously and influentially signed, had been sent to the Bench from the neighbourhood, praying that no fresh license should be granted. They could get in Folkestone what they could not obtain at Ramsgate, or in any other part around the coast – a quiet, delightful locality, where people could be free from the inconvenience of noise and, fortunately, public houses. The position and style of people who lived in this locality did not want refreshment bars. He had been stopping at the West Cliff Hotel, and could say that a better managed hotel could not be desired. There was everything there in the way of accommodation that the most fastidious taste could require. There was a handsome, capacious bar at the back where the cabmen and others could go and find every accommodation. Besides this, the Leas Hotel and Clarence Hotel were licensed houses, and there was the Skating Rink Bar and the Albion. The influential petition he had referred to was signed by such names as Sir. W. Knatchbull, Lord R. Montague, Dr. Bowles, the Vicar of Christ Church, Lady Sargent, Gen. Flue, indeed by all the influential inhabitants. Mr. Glynn referred to the great expense incurred by Mr. Wedderburn, who had started the hotel on another and more generous management. Improvements, involving the expenditure of £1,200, had been made there, and he would be seriously injured by the erection of this building.
After a few remarks from Mr. Mowll, The Mayor said that the Bench were unanimous in their intention to refuse the license.
Tontine Street
Tontine Street
Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer for a license for a house to be built on a piece of ground at the bottom of Tontine Street. In 1870 a provisional license was granted to Messrs. Dickenson, who had since sold the land to the present applicants. It was proposed to spend £1,500 in building a very ornamental place. Mr. Mowll would, of course, oppose on behalf of the brewers, and Mr. Glynn on behalf of the landlord of the Clarendon Hotel, and of other houses in the neighbourhood.
The Town Clerk here entered the Court, and presented to the Clerk to the Magistrates a resolution passed by the Council that morning, praying the Bench to grant no further licenses.
Mr. Minter wished to know as there were members of the Council on that Bench, whether they had made up their minds, because it seemed to him that they were prejudicing the application.
Ald. Caister: I was not present at the meeting.
The Mayor said they would not allow that to influence them. The Bench would only take cognisance of it.
Mr. Minter said that two gentlemen were on the Bench belonging to the body from whom that resolution had emanated. It looked like prejudicing the case, and he did hope the magistrates of that Bench would not be dictated to by outside influences. The Corporation should confine themselves to the discharge of those functions they were sent to the council to represent. (Cries of “Hear, hear”)
Mr. Glynn, on behalf of the inhabitants, showed the nuisance it would be to the neighbourhood, and Mr. Mowll, producing a plan, showed the large number of houses, represented on it by black spots, and alluded to a petition signed by the Vicar of Folkestone, Rev. E. Husband, Rev. W. Sampson, and Rev. C.J. Palmer against bringing more temptations to drink in this neighbourhood.
The license was refused.
Folkestone Express 24-8-1878
Wednesday, August 21st: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, and Alderman Caister.
This was the Annual Licensing Meeting. There were two applications for provisional licenses for houses not yet built, both of which were refused, but all the old licenses applied for were again granted.
Application for a Provisional License in Bouverie Road
Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of Mr. Robert Webster, builder, for a provisional license for a house proposed to be built in Bouverie Road.
Mr. Glyn, barrister, opposed on behalf of Mr. Wedderburn, proprietor of the West Cliff Hotel, and Mr. Mowll on behalf of other licensed premises in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Minter said the application was for a license for a house proposed to be built on land which Mr. Webster had agreed to lease from Lord Radnor in Bouverie Road.
The plans were before the Bench, who would see that it was proposed to expend some three thousand pounds in the erection of the hotel, and although his friend Mr. Glyn appeared to oppose on behalf of the West Cliff Hotel, and Mr. Mowll on behalf of Moxon and Company, Mr. Leney and Messrs. Kingsford, brewers, he felt that opposition would not prevail because there was really nothing in it, and the neighbourhood was increasing very fast.
The plans were handed in, and Mr. Mowll produced a photograph of the spot and houses adjoining.
Mr. Minter continued that an hotel of the class proposed was very much required, because the West Cliff Hotel was of an entirely different character. The proposed hotel was surrounded by stabling of a very good class, with a number of dwellings over for servants, and it was very necessary for their convenience that this house should be erected. It was leasehold land belonging to Earl Radnor. He, however, did not for a moment suggest that the Bench should take Lord Radnor`s diction, but it was a fact that he made restrictions in his different leases as to the businesses which should be carried on and the mode in which the houses should be erected, and he had specially granted this lease for an hotel, providing the Bench would give a provisional license. He mentioned that to show that the Bench would not have persons coming there another year for licenses unless the neighbourhood increased in such a manner as to require further accommodation.
Mr. Robert Webster was called and produced the plans of the proposed hotel, and said the cost would be £3,000, and the annual value £200 a year. It would contain eleven bedrooms, three sitting rooms, and every convenience for carrying on the business. He also said there were several dwellings and no public house in the neighbourhood, but the West Cliff Tap. In reply to Mr. Glyn, Mr. Webster said there was no public house within a quarter of a mile. He knew the Leas Hotel, the Skating Rink and the Club. He called it an hotel, but it would be small. He was not aware of what Lord Radnor`s views were on the question at the present time.
Mr. Glyn said he was armed with a memorial to which was attached a list of names of some weight. He did not wish to suggest that the Bench must be ruled by these names, because it was for the Bench and not for those gentlemen, however high they might be in the social scale, to decide whether further hotel accommodation was required. But in arriving at a decision they would consider a little what was the feeling of those who lived in the neighbourhood and who had a certain stake in the welfare of the town. As to Lord Radnor`s opinion, it was impossible for him, having granted the lease, to express either directly or indirectly what he felt with regard to the matter. Mr. Glyn went on to expatiate on the beauties of the Leas, and said that the people of position and fortune who lived in the handsome houses there were not such as would want to frequent a public house bar. He paid a high compliment to Mr. Wedderburn for the very excellen manner in which the West Cliff Hotel was conducted. They knew the history of that hotel, and that if opposition was established it would be impossible for Mr. Wedderburn to continue to provide that accommodation. There was a bar in connection with it, fitted up in a style equal to any of Messrs. Spiers and Pond`s London establishments, and altogether he had to pay a rental of twelve hundred guineas yearly. Then there was the Leas Hotel, the Skating Rink, and Clarence House, all with licenses, and within a short distance there was the Albion. He then read the memorial, praying the licensing committee to refuse to grant the license asked for on the ground that there was already ample accommodation, and among the signatures he said were those of Mr. Wyndham Knatchbull, Mr. Watkin, Lord Robert Montagu, Lady Sergeant, Dr. Bowles, and also added that he had another memorial of a different class altogether.
Mr. Mowll followed, saying the real question was whether there was a want of the accommodation, and that even Mr. Webster, the applicant, did not venture to say there was such a want.
The magistrates consulted for a few minutes, and the Mayor then said that the Bench were of opinion that the house was not required.
The Site at the bottom of High Street
Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of Mr. Howard Nalder, who applied for a provisional license for a house proposed to be erected on a plot of land at the corner of Harbour Street.
Mr. Glyn opposed on behalf of Mr. Wilton, proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel, and Mr. Mowll on behalf of several brewers.
Mr. Minter said the Bench came to a conclusion three years ago to grant a provisional license to the former owner of the ground, Mr. Dickenson, who then proposed to erect an hotel. The land had since been sold to Messrs. Nalder, brewers, of Croydon, who proposed to do the same as Mr. Dickenson, only on a much more improved scale. The plans would show that they proposed to expend something like £1,500 on a very ornamental house. He apprehended that the Bench would not stultify themselves by saying his clients were not entitled to the provisional license which their Worships` predecessors had granted to Mr. Dickenson.
Mr. Mowll produced a plan showing the public houses already existing in the locality, all marked in black.
Mr. Minter remarked that because there were a lot of licensed houses there which really ought never to have had licenses, not being in any way fit for public houses, it was no argument against a license being granted for a house which really would afford proper accommodation.
The Mayor asked if four black spots together represented four houses in a row, and Mr. Mowll replied that there were two sets of four.
Mr. Joseph Gardner produced the plans for the proposed house.
At this stage a communication was received from the Town Council, enclosing a copy of the memorial which had been passed at that morning`s meeting, and which is referred to in our report of the proceedings of the Council.
Mr. Minter said the Mayor was one of the Council, and Alderman Caister was another. He asked if he was to understand that they were the persons sending the memorial.
Alderman Caister said he was not at the meeting.
Mr. Minter said he was merely going to observe that it would be folly to proceed with the application if the magistrates themselves had already expressed an opinion on the subject as members of another body.
The Mayor said that as far as he was concerned, sitting as he did as Mayor and as a magistrate, it would not influence any decision he, in his magisterial capacity, might arrive at. At the same time the Bench thought that as the resolution had emanated from the most important body in the town it would have been discourteous if they had not entertained it.
Mr. Minter said just so, but they ought to know whether the magistrates were parties to the resolution. If so, it would be evidence that they had prejudged the application that was coming before them. The word of the Mayor and Aldermain Caister was sufficient for him to know that they were not parties to the resolution. He quite agreed with the Mayor that the Council was a most important body, and he did not wish to say anything against them. But he did say that he thought if the Mayor and Alderman Caister had been present at the meeting, the Town Council would have been properly instructed as to what their duties were, and would not have done such an ill-advised act as to attempt to dictate to the magistrates as to the course they should take. He thought they had better attend to the duties which the burgesses had sent them there to perform as their representatives.
Mr. Glyn said of course his friend was instructed by his client to say what he had said, or he would not have done so, because he must know that such observations were quite out of character. But he asked if he said that a large and important body, who held considerable power, and who entertained a strong opinion upon a matter, were to be debarred from the exercise of the rights which an ordinary inhabitant himself had. And nobody but Mr. Minter, instructed by his client, had put the matter upon a higher ground. Nobody ever thought the Town Council would have tried to dictate to the Bench, or that the Bench would allow them to do it. He did not entertain the same opinion of the rights of the Town Council as Mr. Minter, and he could not see that because a man happened to be a member of the Council he was to lose all his civil rights and privileges. With regard to the license granted three years ago, he asked that the Bench let bygones be bygones.
Mr. Mowll referred to the evils of drinking to excess and to the enormous amount of public houses throughout the length and breadth of the land. He hoped, unless the want of accommodation was made out to the satisfaction of the Bench, that they would not grant the license. And no-one dared to get into the witness box and say there was insufficient accommodation in the neighbourhood. He also handed in a memorial, bearing the names of several inhabitants in the immediate locality, and also those of the Vicar of Folkestone, Rev. A.J. Palmer, Rev.W. Sampson, the Rev. E. Husband, and concluded by saying that on every possible ground he most strongly asked the Bench to dismiss an application of that sort.
The Mayor, at the conclusion of the case, said the Bench had decided to refuse the application.
Southeastern Gazette
24-8-1878
Annual Licensing
Session
On Wednesday the
annual licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall. The Mayor (J. Fitness,
Esq.), Alderman Caister, Mr. J. Clarke, and Captain Crowe were on the bench.
The renewal of
one existing licence and the applications for the granting of two new ones were
opposed.
Mr. Minter applied
on behalf of Mr. Robert Webster for a provisional licence for an hotel proposed
to be erected in the Bouverie Road. Mr. Glyn, barrister, opposed on behalf of
Mr. C. W. Wedderburn, proprietor of the West Cliff Hotel, and Mr. Mowll opposed
on behalf of Messrs. Kingsford, Messrs. Leney, and Messrs. Moxon, brewers.
Mr. Robert
Webster deposed that he was a builder carrying on business in Folkestone, and
proposed to erect an hotel at a cost of £3,000, and to be of the value of £200 per annum. It would contain eleven bedrooms and three sitting
rooms. In his opinion such an hotel was necessary to meet the requirements of
the neighbourhood.
Mr. Glyn
addressed the Bench and read a memorial signed by Sir Wyndham Knatchbull, Lady
Sergeant, Mr. A. M. Watkin, M.P., Lord Robert Montague, M.P., and numerous
other influential residents against the licence being granted, and in the end
the bench refused the licence.
Mr. Minter
applied on behalf of Mr. Thos. Nalder, of the firm of Nalder and Co., brewers,
carrying on business at Croydon, for a provisional licence for a public-house
proposed to be erected on a piece of vacant land at the corner of Harbour St. Mr.
Glyn opposed on behalf of the proprietor of the Clarendon, and Mr. Mowll on
behalf of rival brewers.
Mr. Minter said
it was intended, if a licence were granted, to build an hotel or a public-house
at a cost of £1,600. A provisional licence was granted to a Mr. Dickenson in
1874, but he had not been able to carry out the scheme he proposed.
At this point a resolution
which had been passed by the Town Council against any new licences being
granted, and directed to be forwarded to the Bench, was read by the Clerk to
the magistrates, Mr. Hart.
Mr. Minter
remarked that two of the presiding magistrates, the Mayor and Alderman Caister,
were members of the Town Council. Alderman Caister said he did not attend the
meeting that morning, and the Mayor remarked that the resolution would not
influence his decision.
Mr. Minter
thought the Town Council would have been better advised if they had not attempted
to usurp functions which did not belong to them, and said they had better
attend to the duties whioh the ratepayers sent them to perform.
Mr. Glyn and Mr.
Mowll then addressed the Bench in opposition, and ultimately the Bench refused
the licence.
Kentish Gazette 27-8-1878
On Wednesday the annual licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall. The Mayor (J. Fitness, Esq), Alderman Caister, Mr. J. Clarke, and Captain Crowe were on the bench. The renewal of one existing licence and the applications for the granting of two new ones were opposed.
Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Mr. Thomas Nalder, of the firm of Nalder and Co.,. brewers. carrying on business at Croydon, for a provisional licence for a public house proposed to be erected on a piece of vacant land at the corner of Harbour Street. Mr. Glyn opposed on behalf of the proprietor of the Clarendon, and Mr. Mowll on behalf of rival brewers. Mr. Minter said it was intended, if a licence were granted, to build an hotel or a public house at a cost of £1,500. A provisional licence wm granted to a Mr. Dickenson in 1874, but he bad not been able to carry out the scheme he proposed.
At this point a resolution which had been passed by the Town Council against any new licences being granted, and directed to be forwarded to the Bench, was read by the clerk to the magistrates, Mr. Hart.
Mr. Minter remarked that two of the presiding magistrates, the Mayor and Alderman Caister, were members of the Town Council. Alderman Caister said he did not attend the meeting that morning, and the Mayor remarked that the resolution would not influence his decision.
Mr. Minter thought the Town Council would have been belter advised if they had not attempted to usurp functions which did not belong to them, and said they had better attend to the duties which the ratepayers sent them to perform.
Mr. Glyn and Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench in opposition, and ultimately the Bench refused the licence.
Folkestone Chronicle 31-8-1878
To THOMAS PREBBLE, one of the Overseers of the Poor of the Borough of Folkestone, in the County of Kent,and to the Superintendent of Police for the same Borough
I, JOHN BANKS, Auctioneer, now residing at No. 16, Tontine Street, in the Parish of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at an adjournment of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall, in the said Borough, on the 25th day of September next ensuing, for a license for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be consumed in a certain house, and in the premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to be consumed on such premises, situate at Bouverie Road, in the Borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of the Albion Hotel, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling house.
Given under my hand this 28th day of August, 1878.
John Banks
Southeastern Gazette
23-8-1879
Annual Licensing
Sessions
The annual licensing
sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. There were several
applications for new licences, but with one exception they were refused.
Mr. T. W. Cobb
applied for a provisional licence for a house in course of erection near the
Canterbury Road. Mr Minter appeared in support of the application, and Mr.
Mowll opposed on behalf of Mr. Langton and others. Applicant stated that his
house was in the midst of a new and rapidly increasing neighbourhood, where
there was a want felt for the accommodation which his house would afford. The
application was refused.
Kentish Gazette 26-8-1879
The annual licensing sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. There were several applications for new licences, but with one exception they were refused.
Mr. T.W. Cobb applied for a provisional licence for a house in course of erection near the Canterbury Road Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application and Mr. Mowll opposed on behalf of Mr. Langton and others. Applicant stated that his house was in the midst of a new and rapidly increasing neighbourhood, where there was a want felt for the accommodation which his house would afford. The application was refused.
Kentish Gazette 30-8-1881
On Wednesday, before the Mayor (J.B. Tolputt Esq.) and J. Clark, T. Caister, A.M. Watkin, F. Boykett and W. Bateman Esqs.
Mr. Minter applied for a licence for Thomas Parks to sell in a new house in New Bridge Street, which was a new neighbourhood. Mr. Mowll opposed for the owner of the Wheatsheaf and the application was refused.
Folkestone Express
1-8-1885
Notice
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Folkestone,
in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police for the same
Borough.
I, George Kemp, the Younger, Gentleman, now residing at
Marine Parade, in the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, do
hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual
Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough on the
Twenty Sixth day of August next, for a licence to hold any Excise Licence or
Licences to sell by retail under The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1828, all
intoxicating liquors to be consumed either on or off a certain House or
Premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed, for the purpose of being
used for a House for the sale of all intoxicating liquors, to be consumed on
such Premises, situate at the corner of an intended new street there called
Park road and Cheriton Road, in the Parish and Borough aforesaid, of which
Premises I am the Owner or Lessee.
Given under my hand this Twenty Eighth day of July, One
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-five.
G. Kemp, JR.
Folkestone Express
29-8-1885
Wednesday August 26th:
The Annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. The
Magistrates present were The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Capt. Carter, Alderman
Caister, F. Boykett and J. Clark Esqs.
Application For New Licence
Mr. George Kemp applied for a licence for premises
proposed to be built on the corner of Park Road. Mr. Minter supported the application,
and urged that it was desirable that a properly constructed hotel should be
erected where there was a new neighbourhood about to spring up.
Mr. Wightwick opposed the application and put in a
memorial against it. He said the application was certainly premature.
Mr. Minter pointed out that many of the signatories on
Mr. Wightwick`s memorial were those who had signed in favour of Mr. Huntley`s
application. (Laughter)
The application was refused.
Folkestone
Express 17-9-1887
Notice
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of
Folkestone, in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of Police of the
Borough of Folkestone aforesaid
I, Howard Frederick Nalder, now residing at Croydon, in
the County of Surrey, a member of the Firm of Nalder and Collyer, carrying on
business as Brewers, at The Brewery, Croydon, aforesaid, do hereby give you
notice that it is my intention to apply at the Adjourned General Annual Licensing
Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, aforesaid, to be holden at the Town Hall
in the said Borough, on the Twenty Eighth day of September instant, for the
provisional grant of a licence for the sale of Spirits, Wine, Beer, Porter,
Cider and Perry, and other intoxicating liquors, to be drunk or consumed in a
certain House and in the Premises thereunto belonging, about to be constructed
in accordance with plans, which will be submitted to the Justices at the time
of making the aforesaid application, upon a piece of leasehold land which my
Firm is interested, situate on the North side of Cheriton Arch, at the corner
of Park Road, at the junction of the same road with Cheriton Road and Wiltie
Lane (otherwise Broadmead Road), in the Township and Borough of Folkestone
aforesaid, and which said house and premises, when completed, are intended to
be kept as an Inn, Alehouse, or Victualling House.
Given under my hand this sixth day of September, One
thousand eight hundred and eighty seven.
Howard F. Nalder.
Folkestone
Chronicle 29-9-1888
Wednesday, September 26th: Before The Mayor,
J. Clarke Esq., Alderman Banks, F. Boykett Esq., and Major H.W. Poole
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Mr. W. Mowll appeared on behalf of Mr. Charles
Frederick William Rust, tenant of No. 1, Marine Crescent, for a full licence to
sell beer, wine, and spirits on the premises. Mr. Mowll stated that Lord Radnor
had given his client permission, and he trusted the Bench would see their way
also to give theirs. He handed in a couple of memorials, one signed by visitors
using the house, testifying to the inconvenience caused by having to send out
for liquor, and the other by neighbours who considered the respectability of
the applicant was worthy of a licence.
The application was refused.
Folkestone
Express 31-8-1889
Notice
To William Whitehouse, one of the Overseers of the Poor
of the Parish of Cheriton, in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of
Police of the Division of Elham, in the said County.
I, Abraham Huntley, now residing at Nos. 11 and 12,
Fair View Cottage, in the Parish of Cheriton, in the County of Kent (out of
business), do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the
adjourned Annual General Licensing Meeting for the division of Elham, in the
said County, to be holden at the County Sessions Hall, Hythe, on the nineteenth
day of September next ensuing for a certificate of Justices for the grant of a
licence to sell by retail Beer, Cider, and Perry, in pursuance of the Act 11 George
4, and 1st William 4, chapter 64, to be drunk or consumed on the
premises at a house situate at Nos. 11 and 12, Fair View Cottage, Cheriton, in
the said County, and rented by me of Henry Maycock. The premises in respect of
which this Certificate is applied for shall be closed during the whole of
Sunday.
Given under my hand this Twenty seventh day of August,
One Thousand eight hundred and eighty nine.
A. Huntley.
Folkestone Herald
31-7-1897
Notice:
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone,
in the Borough of Folkestone, in the County of Kent. To the Superintendent of
Police of the said Borough. To William Charles Newton Chapman, Francis Gibbon
Oliver, and George Alexander Chapman, trading under the name or style of
“George Beer and Company”, of the Star Brewery, in the city of Canterbury,
Brewers and Maltsters. To Joseph Henry Burton, of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor
Street, in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid. To Alfred Skinner, of the
Tramway Tavern, aforesaid, and to all whom it may concern:
I, Alfred William Goldsack, now residing at 2, Clifton
Cottages, Cheriton Street, Cheriton, in the said County of Kent, Foreman
Platelayer, being a person interested in certain premises about to be
constructed on a certain plot of land, forming part of the Morehall Building
Estate, situate on the north side of Cheriton Road, in the Township of Folkestone,
in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, and at the junction of Cheriton Road
aforesaid, with a proposed new road called or intended to be called Coombe
Road, for the purpose of being used for a house for the sale of Intoxicating
Liquors by Retail, to be consumed either on or off the said premises, do hereby
give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing
Meeting, to be holden at the Town Hall, in and for the said Borough of
Folkestone, on Wednesday, the 25th day of August next, at eleven
o`clock in the forenoon, for the grant to me of a Provisional Order,
sanctioning the removal of a licence now in force, and granted to Joseph Henry
Burton at the General Annual Licensing Meeting held at the Town Hall, in and
for the Borough aforesaid, on the Twentysixth day of August last, authorising
him, the said Joseph Henry Burton, to apply for and hold any of the Excise
Licences that may be held by a publican for the sale by retail at a house,
situate at Radnor Street in the Borough aforesaid, and known by the sign of the
Tramway Tavern, of intoxicating liquor, to be consumed either on or off the
premises, from the said premises to the premises about to be constructed as
aforesaid on the plot of land herein before described, of which licence, when
removed, I desire to be the holder.
Given under my hand this 30th day of July, 1897.
ALFRED WILLIAM GOLDSACK.
Notice
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish and Township of
Folkestone, in the County of Kent, and to the Superintendent of Police of the
Borough of Folkestone, in the said County.
I, Henry Mackeson, of Hythe, in the County of Kent, Brewer,
and residing at St. Olaves, Trinity Crescent, Folkestone, in the said County,
hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual
Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town Hall,
in the said Borough, on Wednesday, the 25th day of August next
ensuing, for a Provisional Licence to hold any Excise Licence or Licences, to
sell by retail under the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828, all
intoxicating liquors to be consumed on certain premises about to be constructed
for the purpose of being used for a house for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors
to be consumed on such premises situate on a certain piece of land in the
Parish of Folkestone, in the said County of Kent, and abutting to the Cheriton
Road, towards the south and admeasures on that side 90 feet. To Broadmead Lane
on the east and admeasures on that side 70 feet. To land of the Earl of Radnor
towards the north and west and admeasures on those sides 90 feet and 70 feet
respectively, which I intend to keep as an Inn, Ale House, or Victualling
House. And I hereby give further notice that in the event of my said
application being refused it is my intention to apply at the said meeting for a
licence to hold any Excise Licence or Licences to sell by retail Beer, Cider
and Wine to be consumed either on or off the said premises.
Given under my hand this 30th day of July, 1897.
Henry Mackeson.
Folkestone Chronicle
28-8-1897
Brewster Sessions
Wednesday, August 25th: Before Captain Willoughby
Carter, and Messrs. J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and J. Pledge.
The whole of the existing licences were granted.
Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, applied on behalf
of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., of Hythe, for a provisional licence for an hotel
to be constructed on a plot of land at the corner of Broadmead Lane and
Cheriton Road, at the north side of Shorncliffe Station.
Mr. Creery opposed on behalf of occupiers in the
neighbourhood, and of Mr. Quested, the landlord of the Railway Inn (sic).
Mr. Bodkin produced the plans of the proposed hotel. He said
that such a place was required by the reasonable necessities of the
neighbourhood. The owner of the land was the Earl of Radnor, who had granted a
lease on condition that the value of the building should be not less than
£2,500. He also imposed other stringent conditions. It was to be conducted
mainly as an hotel,, although there would be a bar, but that must be at the
side, and not in the front. It was true that the station had a refreshment
room, but that was mainly for the train traffic. The nearest houses were the
Railway Inn, 700 yards away, the White Lion, 1,000 yards, and the Bouverie
Arms, 1,800 yards. The Railway Inn did not cater for the class of customers
Messrs. Mackeson expected. The football ground was near, and also the golf
links. Messrs. Mackeson had made arrangements, if the licence was granted,, to
surrender one at Sandgate (in the Borough of Folkestone). The learned Counsel
wrote the name of the house on a piece of paper and handed it to the
Magistrates, saying it was inadvisable to name it in public. However, it soon
became known that it was the Castle at Sandgate. This house, he said, was fully
licensed, old, and doing a most substantial trade, the occupier having held it
for 15 years. He earnestly appealed to the Bench to grant the new licence.
Mr. Henry Mackeson bore out the statements made by Mr.
Bodkin.
Mr. Ernest Wilks, the architect, gave evidence as to the
plans.
Mr. William Horace Norman, Lord Radnor`s agent, spoke of the
negotiations that had taken place, and the conditions imposed by his Lordship.
Mr. Creery, addressing the Bench for the opponents, said not
a tittle of evidence had been produced to show any necessity for the licence.
He was proceeding to call witnesses when the Bench stopped him and refused the
licence.
Mr. Minter next applied on behalf of Mr. Alfred William
Goldsack, Cheriton, for a provisional licence on similar lines to the last, the
site being on the Moor Hall Estate, about 200 yards from that of Messrs.
Mackeson`s.
Mr. Bodking, in this case, opposed on behalf of Lord Radnor
and owners of adjoining property.
Mr. Creery opposed for the same parties as in the previous
application.
The Bench intimated to Mr. Minter that unless he could make
out a far stronger case than Mr. Bodkin had they should not grant the
application.
Mr. Minter replied that he believed he could. The position
was different, as it was nearer the houses in course of erection, the land was
freehold, and the building was far more “taking”. Messrs. George Beer and Co.,
of Canterbury, who proposed to erect the hotel, were prepared to surrender the
licence of the Tramway Tavern, which they absolutely held, while Messrs.
Mackeson did not yet possess that of the Castle; indeed Messrs. Beer held it at
present.
The Bench here stopped Mr. Minter, and said they failed to
see any difference in the two cases. The application was refuse.
Mr. Minter remarked that when he applied for a licence for
the Metropole Hotel it was refused, but it was granted the next year. Mr.
Herbert said that was granted on totally different grounds, as it was
manifestly for the public benefit.
Folkestone Express
28-8-1897
Licensing Sessions
The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, the Justices
on the Bench being Captain Carter, Alderman Pledge, and J. Fitness, W.G.
Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
There was no opposition to any of the existing licences, and
they were all renewed.
Applications for new licences
Mr. Archibald Bodkin, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, applied
on behalf of Mr. Henry Mackeson for a provisional licence for an hotel proposed
to be erected at the corner of Broadmead Road and Cheriton Road. He said Mr.
Henry Mackeson was a member of the well known firm of Mackeson and Co.,
brewers, of Hythe, and he had acquired a right in the site. There were three
questions for the Magistrates` consideration – one, whether the applicant was a
proper person to receive a licence; the second, whether the premises proposed
to be built were of a character to afford accommodation which the Bench could
approve of for licensed premises; and, thirdly, whether there was a reasonable
necessity for the granting of the licence which the applicant asked for. He
thought the first point could be dismissed in a word; the second, as to whether
the premises were of a character that a licence should be given to them, was a
point on which he should ask the permission of the Bench to say a word. He
referred to Section 22 of the Licensing Act of 1874, which dealt with the
point, and then went on to say that the frontage of the building to Cheriton
Road would be 90 feet, and the return frontage to Broadmead Lane about 70 feet.
It was proposed to keep the front of the house facing the main road for hotel
purposes solely. There would be no bar of any sort or kind in the main road.
But at the side, in the return frontage, there would be what was always a
necessity in a house like that, to be used for the purposes mentioned, a small
but sufficient bar for the use of that class of customers who did not wish to
make a prolonged stay. The accommodation on the ground floor would include a
smoking room, billiard room, reading room, and coffee room, all for the use of
the public, and apart from and in addition to the bar facing Broadmead Lane.
The rest of the ground floor would be taken up with kitchen, offices, lavatory,
&c., and there would also be stabling for five horses, and coach house
immediately adjoining. On the first floor, in addition to a bath room and
lavatory, there would be ten bedrooms, and on the second floor, five more. From
the plans put in the Bench would see the kind of house Mr. Mackeson proposed to
erect. Then as to the third point – as to the reasonable necessities of the
neighbourhood. Before he dealt with that, he would remind the Bench that Lord
Radnor had granted the land subject to certain conditions, one of which was that
he should erect a house of not less value than £2,500, but it would be very
much nearer £3,000. The road on the east side (Broadmead Lane) was to be
widened, and it would become an important thoroughfare. The site was within
some 60 or 70 yards of Shorncliffe Station. Of course it would be said by Mr.
Minter, who opposed him in that case, that there were refreshment rooms, but
the Bench would bear in mind that they were not always open.
Mr. Minter: I am not opposing you. (Laughter)
Mr. John Creery, who was sitting by the side of Mr. Minter,
said he was opposing on behalf of some of the owners and occupiers in the
locality, and also on behalf of Mr. Quested, of the Shorncliffe Arms.
Mr. Bodkin said it was all the same. (Laughter) But, as he
said, the refreshment rooms were not always open, and they were entirely for
travellers, and afforded no accommodation such as would be afforded by a
comfortable well-arranged hotel, such as that for which that application was
made. In the immediate neighbourhood there were one or two places he should
mention to the Court. There was the football field, and the golf links, and he
contended that the house would be an accommodation to the frequenters of these
places. It was proposed to shift the football field exactly opposite that
house. There were no licensed houses near it. The Shorncliffe Arms was the
nearest, and that was 480 yards, and it was a public house pure and simple, but
no doubt it was a well conducted house. Then there was the White Lion, which
was 1,000 yards away, and on the main road. In the other direction the nearest
public house was the Bouverie Arms, 1,800 yards away, and just in the town
itself. Then, Mr. Mackeson felt that the hotel accommodation of Folkestone was
to a great extent confined to one particular part of the Borough. The nearest
hotel to that proposed house was the Hotel Metropole, 1,600 yards away, and of
course that was for the very best class of visitors to Folkestone, and did not
in any way appeal to the class of visitors thay proposed to attract. There was
a certain amount of building going on in the immediate neighbourhood. The
houses were not yet erected, but it would take at least a year to pull down the
existing buildings and erect that hotel for which he was asking for a provisional
grant. Further, he said that Mr. Mackeson had made arrangements to secure the
licence of a fully licensed house in the borough, which it was his intention to
surrender and extinguish if that provisional licence was granted.
(Mr. Bodkin wrote down the name of the house and said there
was no necessity to disclose it. But in the course of the proceedings it leaked
out that it was the Castle at Sandgate, which is within the borough of
Folkestone.)
Mr. G.W. Haines proved the service of the notices.
Mr. Henry Mackeson, of St. Olave`s, Trinity Crescent,
Folkestone, gave evidence in support of the counsel`s opening statement. His
concluding remark was that the Shorncliffe Arms was a well conducted house, but
it was not big enough.
Mr. Creery: You are an honest gentleman. (Laughter)
Mr. Bodkin: Don`t answer that. (Laughter)
Mr. Creery: He is not asked to answer.
Mr. Bodkin: You asked him if he was an honest gentleman.
Mr. Creery: No. I said he was. (Laughter) You acknowledge
the Shorncliffe Arms is well conducted, but you don`t think it quite big
enough. Why not? – There are no bedrooms.
Is there a demand for bedrooms in that part of
Folkestone? This kind of low class
trade? – I believe there would be if a proper place was erected.
Would they go to stop there? – Yes.
Country residents? – Yes.
What kind of low class trade? Soldiers? – No.
Not laundry girls? - There is no laundry about there.
Have you an agreement with Lord Radnor? – Yes. (It was put
in).
This building is chiefly of wood, isn`t it? – No. No wood at
all.
No beams? – There may be beams, but it is a brick building.
It seems to me there is a lot of wood about it. Are you
married, and a father? – No. (Laughter)
If you were a father, would you send your children to a
school diagonally opposite to a public house? – That case has not occurred.
But would you? – I don`t think I should.
Have you satisfied yourself that there is a reasonable
demand for this kind of building? – Yes, or I should not spend the money if I
did not.
Do you know how many houses there are within a radius of 800
yards? – No.
Say, 600 yards? – No. I cannot tell you.
Have you not satisfied yourself that there is a want? – I am
satisfied with the demands of the people coming from the station.
Why do you think there is a demand for this class of hotel
near the Shorncliffe Station? – Because the traffic is increasing.
You don`t think there is a demand created by the traffic
along the road? – There is the raod traffic, which might bring some demand. If
people saw a nice building they might be induced to strop there.
Is it to the bedrooms you look to get a profit from? –
Partly. We don`t disguise the fact that we look partly to the sale of liquor.
Isn`t it to the bar principally? – Not in this case. There
are 15 bedrooms.
Supposing the Magistrates grant you a licence, as soon as
the licence is granted the value is increased £1,000, isn`t it? – From that you
must deduct the cost of the other licence.
But the other licence does not belong to you? – It will be
ours at the time.
But it does not belong to you at present? – I did not say it
did. As soon as this one is granted we would hand over the other.
But you haven`t got it to hand over? – We shall have it.
Should you be surprised if I told you that directly the
Magistrates grant this licence this site will be worth £1,000 more than at
present? – I don`t doubt it would be worth something more.
Would you be surprised if I could get it for you? – Yes.
I think I could, and be very glad to.
Mr. Bodkin: Then don`t oppose any more. (Laughter)
Now, with regard to the Golf Club. I happen to belong to one
or two golf clubs, and the whisky and soda is generally provided on the club
premises, isn`t it? – No. Not at Folkestone. But I don`t make much point of the
Golf Club.
There is no demand so far as golfers are concerned for a
place like this. Are you applying for a licence at the Elham Petty Sessions, in
the Parish of Cheriton?
Mr. Minter: You are not bound to answer that question.
Mr. Bodkin: This is unforeseen help.
Mr. Creery: You are not appearing for the applicant. As a
fact he is applying for another licence that will affect this.
Witness said he was not personally applying for a licence at
Cheriton.
Mr. Wilkes, the architect, was examined briefly as to the
plans, and cross-examined as to whether the bar could not be enlarged.
Mr. William Horace Norman put in the agreement between Mr.
Mackeson and Lord Radnor.
Mr. Bodkin: Is Broadmead Lane to be a much more important
thoroughfare than it is now? – Yes. It is intended to widen the road, and
connect it with another road to be made under the hill, and carried round to
for a connection with Canterbury Road.
And is the Football Ground to be removed? – Yes. It has
always been thought that the sports should be concentrated in a field opposite
the cemetery.
So that all kinds of sports should be centralised? – Yes.
And the Castle? (Laughter) Does that agreement take effect
from the 29th September? – Yes
On or after that date the property is absolutely Mr.
Mackeson`s to do as he pleases with? – He is to be the owner and tenant with
power to surrender the licence.
Mr. Creery: Have the owners and occupiers strongly objected
to this “pub”? – I don`t think they know of it.
You know there are soldiers and laundry girls about there? –
We should expect Mr. Mackeson to charge such prices as would prohibit laundry
girls and soldiers.
Oh, this is getting interesting. What price would be charged
for a pint of beer? – Certainly not less than 4d.
Can`t a soldier pay 4d.? And laundry girls? Is that
prohibitive? – Not necessarily.
Is it a prohibitive charge? – No. Certainly not.
Mr. Creery then urged that there was not a tittle of
evidence adduced to show there was reasonable ground existing for granting the
licence. It would also seriously damage the houses in Beechborough Villas, and
as to the members of the Golf Club, not one of them would think of going into
the house for whisky and water. Further, there were not thirty houses within
600 yards, and Colonel Moore Lane and other residents strongly objected to it.
He called Mr. Vanderpant, the owner of Nos. 2 and 3, Beechborough Villas, who
said in his opinion the proposed house would seriously depreciate the value of
his property.
Captain Carter, having consulted with the other Magistrates,
said they would not trouble Mr. Creery further. They had made up their minds,
and they considered, having paid every attention to the evidence, that there
was no reasonable ground for granting the application at present, whatever
there might be in the future. The Bench were unanimous in saying the
application must be refused.
Another like application
Mr. Bodkin, who was engaged to oppose the next application,
suggested that Mr. Minter, who appeared for the applicant, should withdraw the
application. The proposed house was within fifty yards of the first, and if he
might express an opinion, it would only be a waste of time to go on.
Mr. Minter: My friend has made his application, and he has
most earnestly told you the necessity of giving notice for his public house and
for you to decide in his favour. We have given ours. Our position is totally
different, and I hope to convince you we are entitled to it. It is a kind of
dog in the manger policy with them. We can`t get ours, and you shan`t get
yours.
Mr. Creery said he was opposing for Mr. Quested.
(The Court then adjourned for luncheon.)
Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Arthur William Goldsack for
a transfer of the licence o the Tramway Tavern to premises about to be erected
for Messrs. Beer and Co. on the Moorhall Estate. Mr. Archibald Bodkin,
instructed by Mr. Haines, opposed on behalf of Lord Radnor and some of the
adjoining owners of property, and Mr. Creery on behalf of the licence holders
of the Station Hotel.
Captain Carter, at the outset, said they hoped Mr. Minter
would be able to give a stronger case than was given in the other case,
otherwise he was afraid they would not be in his favour. They were quite ready
to hear him.
Mr. Minter said that was a matter of opinion. He hoped to be
able to do so, but he felt that he was somewhat prejudiced by the remark of his
friend, Mr. Bodkin, that as he had failed, the second application should be
withdrawn. But it would to a very great extent save time if Mr. Bodkin would
permit him to adopt every word of his argument by which he tried to induce them
to grant his application.
Mr. Bodkin: If the cases are different, how could my
observations fit in?
Mr. Minter went on to explain that it was proposed to get
rid of a licence which had been renewed that morning in the eastern part of the
town, and remove it to the Cheriton end, where there was a rapidly growing
neighbourhood. He put in plans, which he said had been prepared, so that as
time progressed they could enlarge the premises, and that it would be an ornament
to the neighbourhood. Further, there was a stipulation that no licence should
be granted to any other house on the estate. He ventured to hope that the Bench
would alter their opinion in that case, and say that a licence was required.
Captain Carter said it was a case, so far as the Bench could
understand, in which the evidence would be similar in all respects to the
former case, and if that was so it would be scarcely necessary for Mr. Minter
to call any evidence.
Mr. Minter said of course he should not force the evidence
if that was their opinion.
Captain Carter: Then I should like to say a population
hardly exists in the neighbourhood you speak of, and is hardly likely to exist.
Mr. Minter: How many houses are there to be built upon the
estate?
Mr. Swoffer (in the rear of the Court): 250
Captain Carter said in his opinion there was no necessity
for a licence.
Mr. Fitness: And if you call all the evidence you have
suggested it would not alter our opinion.
Mr. Minter: Then it is useless for me to tender it. I
remember I applied to you for the Hotel Metropole and you refused it. But I
came again another year and you gave it to me. Perhaps if I come again next
year you will grant me this one.
Mr. Herbert said the licence of the Hotel Metropole was
granted on totally different grounds. In that case it was a question of general
utility for the whole town. Your application today is utterly different. It is
for a licence for a certain plot of land on which a building will eventually be
put up.
Captain Carter: In this case we are not quite unanimous.
There has been one exception.
Folkestone Herald
28-8-1897
Licensing Sessions
The Annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone
were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last, the sitting justices being
Captain Willoughby Carter (Chairman) and Messrs. Pledge, Fitness, Herbert and
Pursey.
The old licences were renewed without opposition.
The following applications were considered by the Bench:
Mr. Bodkin made an application on behalf of Mr. Henry
Mackeson for a provisional licence authorising the erection of a new hotel on
the corner of Broadmead Lane and Cheriton Road. The applicant, said the learned
counsel, is a member of the well known firm of brewers in this neighbourhood,
and had acquired a long and substantial interest on the particular site of land
on which it was proposed that this hotel should be built. He thought that in
this class of case there were three questions before the Bench to consider –
firstly, whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to receive a
licence; secondly, whether the premises which it was proposed should be built
were of a character and afforded the accommodation which the Bench would
approve of for licensing purposes; and thirdly, whether, having regard to the
condition of the neighbourhood, or the circumstances of the case, there was a
fair and reasonable necessity for the granting of the licence which the
applicant was asking for. Dealing with the matter on those three questions, the
first, he thought, might be dismissed in a word. Of course Mr. Mackeson, at any
rate by name, would be known to each member of the Bench. Secondly, this was a
matter on which he would ask the Bench to let him say a word. Here the speaker
drew the attention of the Bench to Section 22 of the Licensing Act, 1874, which
dealt with what was called provisional grants. The section under which the
proceedings were taken specifically gave to the justices a right to say whether
or not the plans were proper and sufficient for the purposes for which the
houses were to be used. The plan now before them showed that the house had a
frontage to the main Cheriton Road of some 90 feet, and a return frontage to
Broadmead Lane of about 70 feet, and it was proposed in the front of the house
facing the main road to keep the front of the house as and for the hotel part
of the business solely. There would be no bar of any sort or kind facing the
main Cheriton Road, but at the side, in the return frontage, there was what was
always necessary in a house to be used for the purposes he would mention in a
moment, a small bar for the customer who did not wish to make a prolonged stay.
On the ground floor the statutory accommodation, essential to be provided since
1872, had been provided and more than provided for. There were two public rooms
irrespective of the part of the house which were apportioned to the landlord
and his private needs. On the ground floor plan there was shown a smoking room,
a billiard room, a reading room, and coffee room, all for the use of the
public, and all apart from and in addition to the bar which he had already
mentioned, facing Broadmead Lane. The raised ground floor had kitchen, offices,
and lavatory accommodation, and on a little way was a stable for five horses
and a coach-house immediately adjoining, so that the ground floor would appear
to be well appointed and well arranged for the purposes. In addition to ten
bedrooms on the second floor were five more bedrooms for the use of the
landlord and servants. (Plans were here produced for the inspection of the Court.)
The bar accommodation was subsidiary to the main purpose of the hotel, that of
providing hotel accommodation. As to the third point, the reasonable
necessities of the neighbourhood, he would remind the Bench of what that
neighbourhood was. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that the freeholder of
the site on which this hotel was proposed to be built was Lord Radnor, and Lord
Radnor had agreed to grant a lease to Mr. Mackeson of this site on condition
that he should erect these premises at a cost of not less than £2,500, but when
completed with fittings probably it would be very much nearer £3,000. For that
sum a well-appointed, substantial house could be put up on this plot of land.
Lord Radnor, who had a considerable interest in the Borough of Folkestone, had
thoroughly understood that this house was to be used for the purpose of
licensed business if a licence could be obtained, and in order to safeguard as
far as he possibly could – and there was no-one who would look more keenly at
that matter than his lordship – he had put Mr. Mackeson under stringent
conditions that the particular plans should be in no way departed from, and the
house should be conducted mainly as an hotel, and that the entrance to the bar
should not be in the high road, where it might be said people would be
attracted to it, but should be at the side of the premises in Broadmead Lane,
which was a road in contemplation not only to be widened, but in the course of
time would unquestionably be built upon, and become a very important thoroughfare,
being within 50 or 60 yards of the Shorncliffe Station. At the Shorncliffe
Station, it might be said by Mr. Minter, who was opposing him on this case,
that there were refreshment rooms, but he thought the Bench would thoroughly
understand the reason for which the refreshment rooms were allowed at
Shorncliffe Station. (Mr. Minter said that he was not opposing, and Mr. Creery,
of Ashford, intimated that he was opposing on behalf of neighbouring owners and
occupiers and the Shorncliffe Inn.) Mr. Bodkin commented on this, which he
called a curious combination, and suggested that the Shorncliffe Inn should be
put first, and the owners and occupiers last. The refreshment rooms were only
for the actual convenience of the people travelling by the railway, and only
open when the railway was open. There was no hotel accommodation to be gained.
It was for the purpose of providing decent, comfortable hotel accommodation in
the neighbourhood of what is and what will be an important station. The
application was made, and the plans showed a really substantial ground for the
application. In the immediate neighbourhood of this proposed house there were
one or two matters that he should mention to the Court. First of all there was
the football field, which was a little further. (A tracing of the Ordnance
sheet was here put in.) This house would be practically just outside the exit
of the Shorncliffe Railway Station, and the house (which he could not help
hearing a Magistrate mention), the Shorncliffe Inn, was distant by road some
460 yards. The Shorncliffe Inn was a public house pure and simple, and had no
proper bedroom accommodation to give to travellers. It was a wayside inn,
perfectly respectable and well conducted. The White Lion, which was also shown
by the plan, was over one thousand yards away by the same main road, and in the
other direction the nearest public house was the Bouverie Arms, about 1,800
yards away, which was just in the town. Between the Bouverie Arms and the White
Lion there was a distance of some 2,800 yards. This proposed house would afford
accommodation half way between these two points. The Shorncliffe Inn was upon
the other side, and was not of a character to afford the accommodation proposed
at this hotel, and also was a place which perhaps would not be very desirable
for any person to go if they wanted quiet refreshment, because it did not cater
for that class of trade. Owing to the line of omnibuses the main road had
become a more important route, and was also a main road to Shorncliffe Camp
from Folkestone. With regard to the reason for the granting of this licence, it
was thought and believed to be a very good reason that the hotel accommodation
of Folkestone was, to a great extent, confined to this particular part of the
Borough and the front, because although he had mentioned the Bouverie Arms and
the White Lion as being the two nearest public houses or licensed houses, there
was the Metropole on the front, which was only some 1,600 yards away, but that
was, of course, a hotel for the very best class of visitors to Folkestone, and
did not cater for what they hoped to attract, the more commercial or less
well-to-do part, who would go to such a place near to this important railway
station and be able to come into Folkestone by means of this line of omnibuses,
and would equally well be able to get down to the sea front. It was that
particular class of trade, not the very best class of trade but a middle class
trade, it was hoped to attract here, and to provide proper accommodation for,
in addition to the trade of that kind going from the station, and attracted to
that place by the nearness of the station. There was near this plot of ground
the football ground, at which were matches in the season once or twice a week.
A number of persons came there, and this would be a very great assistance to
those actually taking part in the match, there being plenty of room to provide
a proper dressing-place. Further, on the opposite side of Broadmead Lane only,
there was a large ground not at that moment being used, but he was in a
position to call the agent of Lord Radnor as to negotiations having been going
on to acquire that ground as a cricket, football, and sports field. Then this
house would be the nearest house to it, and a licensed house of the proper kind
was a very great convenience indeed to persons coming to a field of this sort
to watch open air sports. In addition to that there was the golf links, and he
believed, although he could not personally say so, proper accommodation of a
hotel character would be a very great convenience to golfers coming from other
parts of Folkestone. There was a certain amount – although he quite agreed at
that moment not a very large amount – of building going on in the immediate
neighbourhood, and it might be said should not they wait till the neighbourhood
had actually begun. This building was in fact going on, and what was asked for
was a provisional grant, and it would take at least a year or not more to pull
down the old building and erect in its place this hotel of which plans were
produced. They might hope there would be a very large increase of building
operations in the neighbourhood. A further question that might be raised by his
friend was that the Bench were asked to increase the number of licences, but there
was an answer, and a twofold one. This borough was not in a ring fence by any
means. The neighbourhood was probably among the very foremost of the developing
towns in the way it was worked, and there were outlying districts in the
borough, just as here was in the centre of the borough a great probability of
building. Building operations were going on, and the neighbourhood,
particularly in this part, was developing rapidly. The second one was this, Mr.
Mackeson had made arrangements to secure, and had in fact secured, the licence
of a fully licensed public house within this borough, which it was his
intention if this was confirmed, to extinguish forever. The application was now
technically one for the removal of the licence, which would practically be called
a provisional removal, but an application for a new licence on condition that
the old licence should be given up, and when Mr. Mackeson passed his word that
this would be surrendered, the Bench would consider that would be as good as
the actual extinguishing of the licence in question. (The learned counsel wrote
out the name of the house proposed to be surrendered on a piece of paper, for
the information of the Court and Mr. Creery.) Although in Sandgate, it was
within the borough and a fully licensed house. Sometimes rubbish was offered by
way of surrender, bait to catch an unwary bench of magistrates, but in respect
of this house the occupier had been there some 15 years, and a thoroughly
respectable, well-conducted house it had been during that time, and doing a
substantial trade, and not rubbish merely for getting a licence exchanged for
what was really nothing at all. The only other houses within the mile distance
were the Shorncliffe Inn, Bouverie Arms, Eagle Tavern, West Cliff Hotel,
Metropole Hotel, White Lion, the Unity, and the Star, at Newington.
Mr. Henry Mackeson, living at St. Olave`s, Trinity Crescent,
and a member of the firm of Mackeson and Co., Hythe, gave evidence
substantially bearing out his counsel`s statement. His agreement was that the
cost of the house should not be less than £2,300, and he expected more would be
expended. Negotiations had been carried on since March, 1896. He was under
condition to carry on business mainly as an hotel, not to have any bar in the
main road at all, and not to make alterations in the plans. He proposed to
carry on the premises as people who could not afford the more expensive hotels
would go there as buses passed. He thought there was a demand for a good
middle-class hotel, and believed the football field was to be moved on the
other side of the road. He would be in a position to give up the house proposed
to be surrendered when this house was erected.
Cross-examined by Mr. Creery: Witness acknowledged the
Shorncliffe Inn to be a well-conducted house, but thought the number of
bedrooms was not big enough. He believed a kind of middle class would stop
there. (The agreement for the lease with Lord Radnor was produced.) There was
no wood at all in the building. Asked if he would like to send his child to a
school opposite a public house, the witness said that the case did not occur,
as he had not a child. He did not think he would if he had one. He would not
spend the money if he was not satisfied there was an opening.He did not know
the number of houses within a radius of 300 or 600 yards. He was satisfied with
the demand from the station, because the railway traffic of Shorncliffe station
was increasing. He could not say they looked to the bar for all the profits.
Supposing the Magistrates granted the licence, the removal of the other licence
would have to be taken off the value of the property. The house he proposed to
surrender he would acquire on the 29th September, the next month. He
would be surprised to hear it would be worth a thousand pounds more if the
Magistrates granted the licence.
Mr. Creery asked: Would he be surprised to hear he could get
that for him?
Mr. Bodkin: Well, do not oppose any more. (Laughter)
Witness continued that the refreshment rooms at the station
were open all day. There were no refreshments at the Golf Club. He would not
say there was any demand so far as the golfers were concerned at present.
Witness was asked if he was applying next month for an on
licence at Cheriton, and Mr. Minter rose and advised the witness to decline to
answer that question.
Re-examined: The agreement for the taking of the other house
already mentioned was handed in. He believed building operations would extend
themselves very much. Land, to the best of his knowledge, was already let.
Mr. Ernest Wilks, architect, Folkestone and Hythe, gave
evidence that he prepared the plans of the proposed house, having in view the
erection of a good, substantial, well-appointed hotel. The length of the
counter in the bar would be about 16 feet. It was the only counter. There were
15 bedrooms above. He prepared a large scale tracing from the Ordnance showing
the distances, which were approximately correct.
Cross-examined: The bar could be extended only by throwing
in a room.
Mr. Bodkin said that the agreements were against any
alteration, without the consent of the landlord or the Bench. The Bench had it
absolutely in their hands.
Mr. Wm. Horace Norman, of Messrs. Brown, Norman and Co.,
agents for Lord Radnor, also gave evidence. There were negotiations pending some
time before it was finally settled, in the course of which the character of the
proposed house was considered. He was in the strictest covenant not to alter
it. Broadmead Lane was to become a much more important thoroughfare, and a road
was to go behind the hills to connect the road with Canterbury Road. The field
on the opposite corner was to be used for cricket, football, and other sports.
The house proposed to be surrendered belonged to Lord Radnor, and the agreement
entered into, produced, took effect as from September 29th. He was
under no obligation to keep it as a licensed house after that date.
Cross-examined: This house would take the overflow. He
thought the residents would want to put the overflow in this house. He would
suppose they would charge prices to prevent soldiers and laundry girls coming
to the pub. Not less than fourpence for a pint of beer. Fourpence was not a
prohibitive charge.
This was the case for the applicant.
Mr. Creery thought he would put the residents and private
owners first and the tenant of the Shorncliffe Arms second. He submitted there
was not one tittle of evidence to show reasonable necessity for the house. The
White Lion was near, and could easily be enlarged if not big enough, and the
Bouverie Arms at Folkestone, and the most thirsty man could go one mile without
stopping to refresh himself. The applicant himself did not know the number of
houses in the district, and simply said it was the railway traffic, which he
submitted to the Bench could be quite well catered for by the tenant of the
Shorncliffe Arms. He submitted there was no evidence to satisfy them. With
regard to the first two points of his learned friend, he talked about peaceful
and quiet refreshment. He thought if any had this it would be the Shorncliffe
Arms. The kind of middle class. It was this kind of class that was most
objectionable and would most seriously damage his clients. One of his clients
was a school opposite for the sons of gentlemen. He was sure not one of their
worships would send a child to a school opposite a public house. He understood
the Folkestone Golf Club was a very select one, and he did not think they would
come here for their whisky and water. Lord Radnor could revoke his agreement.
The White Lion was about 1,100 yards from the site of this house, and
application was to be made on behalf of Messrs. Beer and Co. for one that side
of the White Lion. He did not think within 300 yards there were 30 houses. His
client`s houses were Beechborough Villas. The refreshment rooms at the station
were always open on both sides.
He called Mr. Francis Young Vanderpant, owner of 2 and 3,
Beechborough Villas. He had let one as a school to Mr. and Miss Gilmore for £60
for three years. The other was £40. He had no knowledge of the public house when
purchasing, or he would not have purchased. He did not think there was a
demand, and he knew the whole neighbourhood. The Beechborough Villas were all
private houses. Officers occupied some of them. He thought it would seriously
affect him.
The Chairman here said they would not trouble him, the Bench
had made up their minds. They considered after having paid every attention to
the evidence that there was no reasonable ground for their undertaking to
authorise the erection of a house or to authorise any licence whatever. The
population at present did not at all justify their giving a licence at present,
whatever it might be in the future. (Applause) They were convinced there were
sufficient public houses in the neighbourhood. The opinion of the Bench was
unanimous in this case.
The Court decided to adjourn half an hour, and Mr. Bodkin,
who was opposing in the next case, an application by Mr. Goldsack for a licence
for a site within a short distance from the last, suggested that Mr. Minter,
who appeared for Mr. Goldsack, should withdraw after the decision of the Bench
in the first case.
Mr. Minter said his friend had made his application, but the
position in the present case was a totally different one, and he hoped to
convince the Bench they were entitled to have it granted. It was a sort of
dog-in-the-manger policy with the others.
After the adjournment the application was proceeded with,
Mr. Bodkin on behalf of Lord Radnor and some of the adjoining owners of
property, and Mr. Creery on behalf of the same people as in the last case.
Mr. Minter said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Alfred William
Goldsack, of 2, Clifton Cottage, Cheriton Street, Cheriton, former platelayer,
for a removal of the licence from the Tramway Tavern to premises, which, he
said, were about to be erected on an estate within a couple of hundred yards of
a site on which it was proposed to erect a house. A provisional licence for
this was refused. Considerable prejudice had been created by the observation
Mr. Bodkin made suggesting to him publicly that he should withdraw his
application because he had been refused. Having mentioned that, the Bench would
not allow it to prejudice their minds. This, he thought, was in a somewhat
different position.
The Chairman said he hoped he would be able to give them a
very much stronger case than in the last, otherwise they would not be able to
agree in his favour.
Mr. Minter said that in his opinion he could present a much
stronger reason why they should grant this application than his friend, Mr. Bodkin.
He hoped it would, and he hoped they would be able to agree with what he had
suggested. He was bound to say this, and it would to a very great extent save
time if Mr. Bodkin would allow him to adopt every word of his arguments which
he had offered the Bench in support of his application. His was practically the
same except it was 200 yards from Cheriton and land belonging to the Morehall
Estate. If the Bench intimated that the neighbourhood did not require an hotel,
his application must go, but he hoped they would alter their view on that
subject. With reference to one hotel being built there, they had given their
notices, in which they had given their reasons openly, of why they were going
to ask for the licence, that they gave up one in reference to the Tramway
Tavern. Evidently his friend`s role was to decry the Tramway Tavern, to which
the Bench had granted a licence that day, and it aws an existing licence in the
hands of Messrs. George Beer, who asked them to transfer the Tramway Tavern
licence to this site, where they proposed to erect a good hotel. After seeing
their designs, which he produced, he thought the Bench would come to the
conclusion it would be worthy of consideration, an ornament to the
neighbourhood, and of necessity an improvement. It was so designed that it
might be enlarged, not for the purposes of a bar trade, but hotel trade. He
proposed to give evidence as to the number of houses which were now going to be
built there immediately, and would be going on concurrently with the hotel, if
the Bench gave permission. There was a large population there now, and when the
Bench considered how anxious they were to get rid of the houses in the lower
end of the town, where they thought there were too many, here was a bona fide
offer, which could be carried out and the Bench could remove a licence from the
bottom end of the town, which they thought was essential, if it could be done
with justice and equity to the owners of the licences. The ownership was in the
hands of George Beer and Co. in both cases. But he did not think this was the
proper light to look at it. This town was a growing neighbourhood, extending
rapidly on the Cheriton Road towards this part, and according to Mr. Norman the
whole of the plots next to Shorncliffe Station were being covered. The owners
of property would have been anxious to begin building. Two houses were up, and
there were plenty of contracts for the others. It would be an advantage and
convenience to everybody, and it would encourage the growth of the neighbourhood.
It was urged that stringent covenants had been entered into, and he did not put
that forward, because he knew that they were bound to carry it out according to
the plans the Bench sanctioned, but they had got out covenants that there
should not be another public house on the Morehall Estate, but where the sole
right was given to Messrs. George Beer and Co., and the owners had entered into
a covenant, practically, it meant there could not be, and there would not be
another house in that neighbourhood. He could call witnesses, and he submitted
that an exception be made in this case if there was to be any preference. They
were the first in the field, but it was a kind of dog-in-the-manger principle
in the other application. It was like a game at chess with the brewers.
Immediately a brewer took a plot of ground the others came.
The Chairman said he thought that the case was, as far as
they could understand, so similar in all respects to the evidence given in the
other case, there was scarcely necessity to call a witness.
Mr. Minter said that, of course, he would not force the
evidence upon them.
The Chairman said that they would like to see the population
absolutely existing in the neighbourhood, not as likely to exist.
Mr. Fitness said the Bench seemed to be unanimous. He
thought if he proved all that he had said it would not alter the decision.
Mr. Minter asked what was the use of continuing. He applied
for the Metropole and they gave it him the second time.
Mr. Herbert said that was a question of general utility
afforded. This was for a certain plot of ground on which a building would be
put up.
Mr. Bodkin said that the Bench had not heard what the
opposition had to say.
Application refused.
Sandgate
Weekly News 28-8-1897
Local News
The annual borough Brewster Sessions took place at
Folkestone on Wednesday. One application was of rather exceptional interest. It
was one by Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, for a licence for a hotel which they proposed
erecting on the Morehall estate, close to the Shorncliffe Station and the
Folkestone football ground.
Mr. Bodkin, barrister-at-law, appeared on behalf of the
applicants, and produced evidence showing that under an agreement with Lord
Radnor the hotel, providing a licence was granted, would be a first class one,
and would cost £3,000 to erect, his Lordship only consenting to a good-class
hotel being built.
Messrs. Mackeson also offered to allow the licence of a
house at Sandgate (the Castle Inn), which would shortly come into their
possession, to lapse, if the Bench granted the application.
Mr. J. Creery, of Ashford, opposed on behalf of
adjoining freeholders and the proprietor of the Shorncliffe Inn.
The Bench, without hearing the whole of the opposition,
declined to grant the application.
Folkestone Programme
30-8-1897
Notes
The Folkestone Licensing Sessions on Wednesday were not so
interesting as Brewster Sessions generally are. The whole of the existing
licences were renewed, an evidence that the houses had been well conducted
during the past twelve months. Following the example of the Hotel Metropole,
where a band plays during table d`hote and at other intervals, applications
were made for music licences and for dancing in the event of balls being given.
These were, of course, granted. The applications for full licences were
rejected, some of them with much regret by the Magistrates. The Magistrates,
both at Folkestone and elsewhere, are somewhat loth to grant additional
licences. If they did so the liability of a community in the event of
compensation having to be paid at any time would of course be greater, and
since a certain section of the people have suggested compensation as a means
for getting rid of licensed houses, this point weighs heavily with the
licensing justices.
One or two applications were made for new hotel licences.
Mr. Bodkin, barrister, instructed by Mr. W.G. Haines, solicitor, of Folkestone
applied for such licence on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe. This hotel,
it was shown, was intended to be built near the Shorncliffe Railway Station, at
a cost of £3,000. Lord Radnor, as Lord of the Manor, stipulated that the class
of house to be built there should be an hotel, costing in its erection about
this sum, and Mr. Bodkin stated that it would be such a house as could be used
by the middle-class tradesmen, who might come to Folkestone. There was much in
favour of such an hotel, for it would be near an “important” railway station,
and the `bus traffic between Folkestone and Cheriton was very great. In
addition to the usual smoking, billiard, reading and coffee rooms, there were
to be 15 bedrooms, and a small bar, over which the thirsty traveller could be
supplied with a glass of ale or other refreshment.
This bar was not to be approached from the main road. The
hotel entrance would face the main road, and the bar would be approached from
Broadmead Lane. Then Mr. Norman, agent for Lord Radnor, stated that the
football ground was close to this site; but now a field for sports of all kinds
was to be given up for the purposes of games. Both during the winter and summer
months there were games here, and usually very large numbers of people. Then
again, the applicant was to give up the licence of another house if this one
was granted.
But Mr. Creery, solicitor, of Ashford, had something to say
on this application. He was opposing on behalf of freeholders, and also on
behalf of the Shorncliffe Inn, “which has supplied the wants the new hotel
would supply” for twenty or thirty years past. This gentleman had to be
satisfied that the notices of the application were alright, and this done, he
spoke of the hotel and the “15 bedrooms” which would be reduced considerably by
the time the landlord, and his family, and his servants, were provided with
bedroom accommodation. Then, though the bar was a small one, as shown on the
plans, it was easy of enlargement, and he was afraid that this palatial looking
“hotel” would come to be nothing more or less than an ordinary public house and
a resort for soldiers and laundry girls. There were other houses not so very
far away, including the Shorncliffe Inn, in the interests of which he was
opposing, and the refreshment rooms at Shorncliffe Station were open all day
long. Mr. Creery was going to call witnesses in support of his arguments, but
the Bench did not think this necessary, as they had decided in their own minds
not to grant the licence.
Mr. Minter then mad an application for a licence for a
“convenient” hotel to be built by another firm of brewers, a hundred or two
yards from the site on which Messrs. Mackeson proposed to build. He endeavoured
to show that a good hotel was really necessary. Mr. Bodkin opposed this
application, and used practically the same arguments against it as Mr. Creery
did with regard to his own application. The Bench declined to grant the licence
applied for in this case either.
Captain Willoughby Carter occupied the Chair, and the other
Justices present were:- Alderman James Pledge, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and
J. Fitness. The business of the Court occupied the attention of the Magistrates
for nearly five hours, but the applications to which we refer were the most
important.
Southeastern Gazette
31-8-1897
Local News
The Borough
Brewster Sessions took place on Wednesday, when various applications of minor
importance were dealt with. One application was of rather exceptional interest.
It was one by Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, for a licence for an hotel which they
proposed erecting on the Moorhall Estate, close to the Shorncliffe Station and
the Folkestone Football Ground. Mr. Bodkin, barrister-at-law, appeared on
behalf of the applicants, and produced evidence showing that under agreement
with Lord Radnor the hotel, providing a licence was granted, would be a first-class
one, and would cost £3,000 to erect, his lordship only consenting to a
good-class hotel being built. Messrs. Mackeson also offered to allow the
licence of a house at Sandgate, which would shortly come into their possession,
to lapse if the Bench granted the application. Mr. J. Creery, of Ashford,
opposed on behalf of adjoining freeholders and the proprietor of the
Shorncliffe Inn. The Bench, without hearing the whole of the opposition,
declined to grant the application.
Folkestone Express
25-9-1897
Hythe Brewster Sessions
The Licensing Justices were Captain Baldwin, Commander
Mansell R.N., and A.S. Jones Esq.
Superintendent Waghorn reported that the licensed houses in
the district had been generally well conducted. There had been 34 convictions
for drunkenness in the year.
Mr. R. Lonergan applied for a provisional licence for a
house to be built on the Oaks Estate, Cheriton. Mr. F. Hall supported the
application, and Mr. Mowll and the Rev. R.E. Johnson opposed. The application
was refused.
Sandgate
Weekly News 25-9-1897
Local News
The annual Brewster Sessions for the Elham Division was
held at Hythe on Thursday. Superintendent Waghorn`s report stated that the
houses in the district had been generally well conducted. There had been 34
convictions for drunkenness during the year.
All the licences were renewed.
Three applications for new licences, viz.: Mr. Quested,
of the Imperial Inn, Cheriton, for a full instead of an off licence; Mr. John
Bartter for an on-licence for Albion House, Cheriton; and Mr. R. Lonergan for a
provisional licence for a house to be built on the Oaks Estate, Cheriton, were
all refused.
Folkestone Herald
24-9-1898
Hythe Licensing Sessions
The Adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Elham Division of
Kent was held at Hythe on Thursday before Captains Baldwin (Chairman), Mansell,
and Smythie.
Messrs. Mackeson Brothers, Brewers, Hythe, applied for a
full licence for the Imperial Inn, at Cheriton, which they intended to rebuild.
The owners of the White Lion, the opposition public house, contested the
application. Mr. Lonergan wanted a licence for an hotel which he proposed to
erect at Cheriton. The White Lion proprietors opposed this application, as also
did the trustees of the Unity Inn, Cheriton. Both these cases were heard
together.
Mr. Minter, solicitor, Folkestone, appeared for Messrs.
Mackeson; Mr. Martyn Mowll (Mowll and Mowll, Dover), for Messrs. George Beer
and Co., brewers; Mr. Frederic Hall, Folkestone, for Mr. Lonergan; and Mr.
Barron, New Romney, for the Unity Inn trustees.
It was urged against Messrs. Mackeson`s application that as
only six houses had been built in the vicinity of the Imperial there was no
need for another full licence.
The Bench granted the application.
In the latter case, Mr. Lonergan said that out of an estate
of 300 houses which were in the course of erection, 24 were already built, and
a public house was a necessity. Opposing counsel denied that 24 houses were
erected, reducing the number to six.
This application was refused.
Folkestone Herald
30-9-1899
Cheriton Urban District Council
Tuesday, September 26th
Councillor Harriss said that there were applications for new
licences to be made in the district. One was by Mr. Lonergan, but they would
not want him to withdraw because it was a matter that concerned all of them. He
suggested that it should go forth that the Council were willing to support what
they thought would be of most advantage to the Parish – the application of Mr.
Lonergan for a licence.
Councillor Lonergan said that he had some intimation that it
might come on that day, and he brought the plan. There was urgency if it was to
be done at all.
Councillor Greenstreet said that it should be understood
that in the event of a licence being granted the opinion of the Council should
be directed to the question of which would be the better site. They were not
backing up Mr. Lonergan as a member of the Council. If they were going to have
any public house, by all means let them have that in the best situation, never
mind whether it was Mr. Lonergan, or who it was.
Councillor Dunster also considered that they were not
dealing with Mr. Lonergan or anyone else personally.
The Chairman said that they had heard what Mr. Harriss said.
Would anyone second his resolution?
Councillor Harriss thought that it was a very important
matter. If they were going to improve Cheriton they should do their utmost to
have the improvement in the right part.
The resolution was seconded. It was to the effect that the
Council are of opinion that if the Licensing Justices are prepared to grant
fresh licenses, preference should be given to the site at the junction of
Queen`s Road with Church Road.
Carried.
Folkestone Express
7-10-1899
Local News
At the adjourned licensing session held at Seabrook on Friday,
Mr. Charles Robert Quested applied for a provisional licence for a public house
to be erected on a site abutting to Church Road. Mr. Minter supported the
application, and Mr. Mowll opposed on behalf of the White Lion Inn. There was
also an application by Mr. Robert Lanergan for a provisional licence for a
public house proposed to be erected at the junction of Queen`s Road and Church
Road. The latter, it will be remembered, was supported by a resolution of the
District Council. After a good deal of evidence, and some very long arguments,
the Bench granted the application of Mr. Quested, but declined to grant that of
Mr. Lonergan.
Note: I believe Quested`s application will become Victoria (2)
Note: I believe Quested`s application will become Victoria (2)
Folkestone Up To Date
7-10-1899
Local News
The decision of the Cheriton Urban District Council at its
last meeting to favour the application of Mr. Lonergan, one of their own
members, with reference to his application to the Cheriton Licensing Bench for
a licence, met with a rather rough rebuff from Mr. John Minter, of Folkestone,
on the occasion of his appearing to represent local interests.
The case for Mr. Lonergan was that it would be more to the
advantage of the district as a whole that a licence should be granted to a
house at the junction of the Queen`s and Church Roads, but it is always a
difficult thing for a local body to interfere in questions of transfer from one
public house to another. There is no doubt, however, that the members who voted
in favour of bringing influence to bear on the Magistrates intended to act in
the way best calculated to further develop the district.
Summary of Cheriton News
The little difficulty as to who was to have the licence
which it was expected would be ussued in place of the licence of the Unity
public house, which is coming down, was disposed of in favour Mr. Quested, the
application on behalf of Mr. Lonergan, the well-known Clerk to the Board of
Guardians, for a licence for a place at the corner of the Queen`s and Church
Roads being refused.
Licensing
The Adjourned General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on
Friday last at the County Police Station, Seabrook, before Messrs. Brockman,
Day (Mayor of Hythe), Wightwick, A.S. Jones, Capt. Smythies, Capt. Baldwin, and
Dr. Lovegrove. The chief business of interest was the application by Mr.
Charles Robert Quested for a provisional licence for premises to be constructed
abutting to Church Road, and a like application by Mr. Robert Lanergan for
premises to be built on the junction of Queen`s Road and Church Road.
Mr. J. Minter appeared for Mr. Quested; Mr. F. Hall for Mr.
Lonergan; and Mr. Mowll for the owners and occupiers of the White Lion,
Cheriton.
Mr. Minter, in the course of his remarks on behalf of Mr.
Quested`s application, referred in caustic terms to a resolution with regard to
the licensing recently passed by the Urban District Council of Cheriton. He
said that he had noticed that the Cheriton Council had been taking some extraordinary
proceedings at their meetings, and he understood that Mr. James, the Clerk, was
here to oppose the application.
Mr. James: I put in the resolution of the Council. I am not
here to oppose.
Mr. Minter said that Mr. James was going to put in an extraordinary
resolution.
Mr. Wilks said that a copy of the resolution and a letter of
Mr. James had been sent to him.
Mr. Minter said it was a most improper and scandalous
proceeding, such as in the course of 50 years` experience he had never heard of
before, but he was not at all surprised at it, when he read the nature of the
resolution which they had presumed to pass, and which they had had no power to
do. It was totally illegal, and it had been passed really in the interests of
one of the members of that Council, and he had never seen such a scandalous
proceeding. The resolution was, to a certain extent, a work of art. It showed
that they must have been studying the Transvaal matters a good deal, and they
had come to the conclusion that they were an independent and sovereign state.
(Laughter) They issued their ultimatum to a Bench of Magistrates – (Laughter)
to tell them not to grant the application of Mr. Quested, but they were to
grant the application of one of their own body, Mr. Lonergan, who was a member
of the Council, and present at the meeting. Where were they to stop if a body
like the Urban Council of Cheriton would so act in the interests of one of
their own members (Mr. Lonergan) as to pass a resolution to suggest to the
Magistrates that they should grant the licence to him? Certainly the Cheriton
Council had immortalised themselves. (Laughter) They would go down to posterity
– (Laughter) as one of the most extraordinary bodies of men that were ever
created. (Loud laughter) He was afraid that it did not show that they were
worthy of being entrusted with the powers which the Local Government Board had
given them. (Laughter) Mr. James did not hesitate to attend, notwithstanding
that he must know that it was a most illegal act on their part to have passed
this resolution. (Laughter) With regard to the Unity Inn, Mr. Minter said it
was known that that house had been sold to the War Office, and the Camp was
going to be extended. He alluded to the marvellous extension of Cheriton, and
the extensive building operations going on. He understood that Mr. Mowll, on
behalf of Messrs. Beer, the landlords of the White Lion, was there to oppose.
It was simply a trade and selfish opposition. The White Lion had been rebuilt
to the benefit of Messrs. Beer, but at the same time that did not get away from
the fact that they were out of an easy distance of the people who were living
near the site of the house to be erected, and for which he was applying for the
provisional grant.
Mr. Wilks, architect, gave evidence as to the plans and the
number of houses in the neighbourhood. He stated that building operations were
going on very fast indeed; also that in his opinion the site was a suitable and
proper one for the erection of a house. The estimate of cost was £2,000.
Mr. Percy Greenstreet (an Overseer) stated that he resided
at Cheriton and was a member of the Council. (Laughter)
Mr. Minter: I hope you won`t be offended by what I just
said. (Laughter)
Mr. Greenstreet (continuing) said that the population of
Cheriton was well over 3,000. Houses were increasing very rapidly on the south
side of the railway. The rateable value had increased very much indeed within
the last three years. He believed that the rateable value had almost doubled
recently. At the present moment he believed that it was well over £15,000.
Building operations were still going on, and there seemed to be no limit to
them.
Mr. George Conley stated, with regard to the number of
houses near Mr. Quested`s site, that he had been round to count them. On the south
side, including 55 for Horn Street, there were 123. There were buildings going
on close to the site. He considered it a very admirable site, and thought that
a second licence was required.
Mr. F.W. Solley also considered that this was a proper site.
He thought that another fully licensed house was required.
The Rev. R.E. Johnston: Do you hold any official position in
the parish?
Witness: Not at all.
Mr. Minter: You are not one of the immortalised Council, I
expect? (Laughter)
Mr. Quested (the applicant) gave formal evidence.
Mr. Mowll here said that he had a couple of witnesses.
Mr. W.J. Jennings gave evidence as to a plan, which showed
every house erected or in the course of erection. He stated that the old White
Lion had been demolished and a large building had been erected instead. Nearly
all the houses were within a convenient distance of either the Unity or the
White Lion. The White Lion was enlarged for the better accommodation of the
public.
Mr. G.D. Wood, managing director of the Cheriton Omnibus
Company, stated that in his opinion it was the worst thing that could happen to
have a public house outside the stable gates. He had great difficulty now. He
did not think it was required. He would rather not have one.
By Mr. Minter: All stablemen were in the habit of drinking
when they got the opportunity. He did not mean to say that his men were worse
than others.
Mr. F. Hall then addressed the Court on behalf of Mr.
Lonergan. He observed that the applicant in this case was the owner of the Oaks
Estate, which he purchased from Mr. Minter. Feeling that some time, sooner or
later, a licence would be granted, he, being the owner of so much land, had
made this application, not in the ordinary sense as a brewer or brewer`s
tenant, but as the owner of the property. This house would not be in any sense
a tied house. As to the opposition, he said that the White Lion was a veritable
Klondyke – (laughter) – and he had no doubt far and away the best house that
Messrs. Beer had. He could not understand the nature of Mr. Johnston`s
cooperation, that he should be present to assist the brewers in protecting
their interests and creating a gigantic monopoly. The Bench must come to the
conclusion, as they had twelve months before, that the existing licensing accommodation
was not adequate for the population. He would put in a memorial signed by 122
people in Cheriton, including the Chairman of the Urban District Council and
members of it. His friend Mr. Minter had alluded to the Council in not very
complimentary terms. He did not hold a brief to defend them, but the Council
did not attempt to dictate to the Bench. They simply passed a resolution that
the Council were of opinion that if the justices considered it expedient to
grant a fresh licence, preference should be given to the site at the junction
of Queen`s Road and Church Road. He was surprised somewhat to hear his friend
anathematising them. Perhaps he had been wrapt up in the doings of Tommy
Atkins, and his martial spirit was excited. (Laughter) He suggested that there
had been no dictation.
Superintendent Hollands stated that he was directed by the
Chief Constable to oppose the application.
Mr. Wilks produced plans and gave evidence as to the
accommodation of the house.
Mr. Lonergan, the applicant, in the course of his statement,
said that he bought 13 acres, and was developing it for building. The houses
let before they are finished. He made his application on purpose to have
control of the house near him. He was speaking as the owner of the houses. He was
not going to make anything out of it.
By Mr. Minter: He had no intention of keeping the house
himself. If he had a veru good offer he would not sell it. He would not do so
at any price; it would spoil his property. The class was not that of people who
would drink beer and want controlling.
Mr. Minter: You are a member of the celebrated Cheriton
Council? (Loud laughter)
Mr. Lonergan, continuing, said that there was nothing on the
agenda about the resolution. He was present. He did not produce his plans until
the motion was brought forward.
Mr. Minter: It came as a surprise to you. (Laughter)
Mr. Lonergan said it did. They had power to pass such a
resolution.
Mr. Shead was the next witness. He mentioned that he
obtained signatures for the memorial.
Mr. Minter: You were employed to do it?
Witness: No, sir.
Was it out of love for Mr. Lonergan? – I suppose it was.
(Laughter)
Who asked you? – Not Mr. Lonergan.
Who did? – That has nothing to do with you, sir. (Laughter)
Who asked you to get this memorial signed? – One of Mr.
Lonergan`s men.
Mr. Cust deposed that, in his opinion, there was necessity
for a fresh licence, and Mr. Lonergan`s site was the best, being more central.
Mr. Mowll and Mr. Bannon addressed the Bench subsequently.
The latter contended that no-one had the authority to state that the Unity
would be taken down and destroyed by the War Department. The Rev. R.E. Johnston
and the Rev. F.D. Hodgson also opposed the application.
The Chairman, after a short interval, announced that the
Bench granted Mr. Quested`s application, as they considered the Unity would be
done away with by the War Office. The other application would be refused.
Folkestone Express
21-10-1899
East Kent Quarter Sessions
Mr. C.F. Gill, Q.C., and Mr. G.F. Hohler, applied for the
confirmation of a licence granted by the Justices of the Elham Division to
Charles Robert Quested in respect of premises at Cheriton. This was unopposed
and confirmed.
