British Colours, Beach Street c1855 - 1893

Licensees

Edward Hughes c1855

James Powell 1869 1885 ?? Same as Brewery Tap

Thomas Wilson 1885 1890 From Prince Of Wales, To Bradstone Tavern

Richard Kennett 1890 1892

Walter Jefford 1892 1893 From Granville Inn, To Welcome Inn. Renamed Wellington

 

Southeastern Gazette 13-2-1855

Notice: In the county of Kent at Folkestone.

Whereas a petition of Edward Hughes, of No. 1, Beach Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, beer shop and eating house keeper; formerly of Lenham, in the same county, carrier and general dealer; then of the same place, general dealer and ostler; then of Saint Peter`s Street, in the town of Folkestone aforesaid, general dealer, an insolvent debtor, having been filed in the County Court of Kent, at Folkestone, and an interim order for protection from process having been given to the said Edward Hughes under the provisions of the statutes in that case made and provided, the said Edward Hughes is hereby required to appear at the next Court, to be holden at the Guildhall, at Folkestone aforesaid, on the seventeenth day of March, 1855, at ten o`clock in the forenoon precisely, for his first examination touching his debts, estate, and effects, and to be further dealt with according to the provisions of the said statutes. And notice is hereby given that the choice of assignees is to take place at the time so appointed.

All persons indebted to the said Thomas Hall, or who have any of his effects, are not to pay or deliver the same but to Mr. Ralph Thomas Brockman, the Clerk of the Court, at Folkestone, the official assignee acting in the matter of the said petition.

Thos. Harris, High Bailiff, Messenger of the said Court.

Note: Edward Hughes is previously unknown, and although no name is given to the house the address is that of the Commercial Coffee House, albeit a much earlier date than previously known.

Southeastern Gazette 27-3-1855

Notice: A Final Order will be made in the matter of the following person, petitioner for Protection from Process, at the County Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, in the said county, before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge of the said Court, unless cause be shewn to the contrary, on Saturday, the 14^th day of April next, at 10 o`clock precisely.

Edward Hughes, of Number 1, Beach Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, beer-shop and eating house keeper; formerly of Lenham, in the same county, carrier and general dealer; then of the same place, general dealer and ostler; then of Saint Peter`s Street, in the town of Folkestone, aforesaid, general dealer.

Thos. Harris,

High Bailiff, Messenger of the said Court.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-10-1884

Advertisement

Notice of Auction Sale of Valuable Freehold Dining and Refreshment Rooms.

Messrs. Harrison and Son have been favoured with instructions to sell be auction at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, on Monday October 27^th, 1884, at Three o`clock in the afternoon, all that valuable Freehold Corner House and Shop, Situate and Being No. 1, Beach Street, Folkestone.

Facing seven of the principal thoroughfares in Folkestone.

An Ale and Beer license is granted to the premises, and has been used for the last 20 years by the present proprietor as Dining and Refreshment Rooms.

The premises comprise on the Ground Floor: Double Fronted Shop, Dining Room, Sitting Room and Kitchen

1^st Floor: Three Sitting Rooms, Small Bedroom

2^nd Floor: Four Bedrooms and W.C.

3^rd Floor: Four Bedrooms

In the occupation of the owner, and arrangements can be made for early possession.

The Auctioneers beg to draw special attention to the fact that the premises, facing seven of the principal thoroughfares in Folkestone, are well situated for any kind of business.

Particulars and Conditions of Sale may be obtained at the offices of the Auctioneers, 17, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, and of Mr. J. Minter, Vendor`s Solicitor, Folkestone.

Note: This was the sale of the former British Colours, which, when sold, would later become the Wellington

Folkestone Chronicle 1-11-1884

On Thursday Messrs. Harrison and Son submitted to auction a freehold house and corner shop with yard and premises, known as No. 1, Beach Street, and which was sold for the large sum of £1,400.

Folkestone News 31-1-1885

Wednesday, January 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Hoad, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Boykett.

Mr. Wilson applied for and obtained a transfer to himself in respect of the Commercial Coffee House, Beach Street. Granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-1-1889

Local News

At the police court on Saturday, John Heron, who did not appear, was charged with assaulting Mr. Wilson, landlord of the British Queen (sic), Beach Street.

The prosecutor stated that the prisoner came into the bar for some drink. He was drunk, and witness would not serve him. In consequence of that the defendant struck him a heavy blow in the face.

Supt. Taylor said the defendant was convicted three times last year for drunkenness and obscene language.

Alderman Banks said he considered Heron had treated the court with contempt by not being present to answer the charge, and he would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-9-1890

Monday, September 15^th: Before Captain Crowe, Alderman Banks, W.G. Herbert, J. Brooke, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Thomas Taylor was charged with stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., the property of Richard William Kennett, landlord of the British Colours.

Prosecutor said on Saturday afternoon he found the prisoner in the kitchen eating bread and butter. He had no right in the kitchen. He was ordered out, and shortly after he left prosecutor missed a shirt which had been hung in front of the fire to air. Prisoner returned about six o`clock, and was then wearing the shirt. Prosecutor desired him to take it off and return it to the man it belonged to. He refused and was very abusive. Prisoner was drunk when he went in the second time, but not the first time.

Sentenced to 21 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 20-9-1890

Monday, September 15^th: Before Captain Crowe, Alderman Banks, W.G. Herbert, J. Brooke, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Thomas Taylor, a stranger, was charged with stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., the property of Richard William Kennett.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the British Colours. On Saturday afternoon he found the prisoner in the kitchen eating bread and butter. He had no right in the kitchen. He was ordered out, and shortly after he had left prosecutor missed a shirt which had been hung in front of the fire to air. Prisoner returned about six o`clock, and was then wearing the shirt. Prosecutor desired him to take it off and return it to the man it belonged to. He refused and was very abusive. Prisoner was drunk when he went in the second time, but not the first time.

P.C. Dawson said the prisoner was given into his custody. He charged him with stealing the shirt which he was wearing.

Prisoner was sentenced to twenty one days` hard labour.

Folkestone News 20-9-1890

Monday, September 15^th: Before Capt. Crowe, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole, J. Brooke, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Thomas Taylor was charged with stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., the property of Richard William Kennett.

Prosecutor said that the prisoner came into the British Colours on Saturday morning and called for a pint of beer, but only put down a penny, and was served with half a pint. About three the same afternoon he found the prisoner in the kitchen, where he had no right to be, and he was ordered out, prosecutor telling him that he did not want such characters in his house. Shortly after, a shirt which had been placed in front of the fire to air, was missed. Prisoner returned about six o`clock wearing the shirt, and he told him to take it off and give it to the man it belonged to. Taylor refused, and was very abusive, and he was consequently given into custody. Prisoner was drunk when he came in the evening, but not in the afternoon.

P.C. Dawson proved taking the prisoner into custody and finding that he was wearing the shirt produced.

Prisoner said he was very sorry such a thing had happened. It would not have occurred if he had not been drunk.

Twenty one days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-10-1890

Local News

As a labouring man was passing the British Colours public house on Saturday morning, a dog, which appeared to be asleep, flew at him, catching hold of his trousers. The man turned round sharply, and in doing so slipped and fell against the window, smashing two squares.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-4-1891

Saturday, March 28^th: Before The Mayor, Major Penfold, E.T. Ward, J. Sherwood, J. Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

John Smith, and old offender, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in High Street on the 25^th of March, and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Butcher said he met the defendant in High Street about half past ten on the night in question. He had blood on his face and said to witness “I want to give George Ratcliff into custody for kicking me in the mouth”. Seeing he was drunk, witness advised him to go home quietly and summons him on Monday. He then went down to the British Colours, where a large crowd of people had assembled, and waited outside, saying he meant to have satisfaction when Ratcliff came out. Some women eventually got him away. He caused a large crowd to collect.

Rose Cooper, a hawker, said she got the defendant to go away from the British Colours.

Defendant said he was in the British Colours and Ratcliff commenced to quarrel with him and wanted to fight, but he would not because he did not want to get into trouble. He was always annoying him.

The Mayor said the case would be dismissed. Defendant should have taken out a summons, and he would advise him to keep out of the public houses.

Folkestone Express 4-4-1891

Saturday, March 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, S. Penfold, J. Fitness, J. Holden, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

John Smith was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street on March 14^th.

Sergeant Butcher said he met the defendant in High Street. He had blood on his face, and said he wanted to give George Ratcliffe in custody for kicking him in the face. He saw defendant was drunk, and advised him to go home and summon Ratcliffe on Monday. He refused to go away, and caused a crowd to collect while he was waiting “to have satisfaction” from Ratcliffe, who was in the British Colours.

Defendant called Rose Cooper, a hawker, living in Bridge Street with the defendant, who said the defendant was not disorderly or the worse for drink. He was talking to Sergt. Butcher, who said he should go home or he should “take him up top”.

The Bench dismissed the defendant with a caution as to his future conduct.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 22-4-1891

Saturday, April 18^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk, Sherwood and Pledge, J. Fitness, J. Holden and J. Clark Esqs.

Rose Hogben pleaded Guilty to breaking a window at the British Colours on the previous evening.

The landlord of the Colours said that about 10.30 the prisoner came to his house and asked for half a pint of beer. He refused to serve her and asked her to leave. She refused and he put her out. She then took a stone from the road and threw it through the window. He estimated the damage at 3s. 6d.

Rose evinced a desire to “nag” the prosecutor, but was brought to with a round turn.

Fined 1s; damage 3s. 6d.; costs 4s. 6d.

Not being able to find the “needy” she was removed to the dungeon.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-4-1891

Saturday, April 18^th: Before The Mayor, J. Sherwood, J. Pledge, J. Dunk, J. Clarke, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Rose Hogben was placed in the dock, charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass at the British Colours on the previous night.

Richard Kennett was called, and stated that the prisoner went to his house about half past ten on Friday night. She asked for half a pint of beer and he refused to serve her. She appeared to be sober, but he did not care to serve that class of women. He had to turn her out of the house. He asked her to go several times, but she would not. After she got outside she picked up a stone and threw it through the window.

Superintendent Taylor said the defendant was a widow and a woman of questionable character. Her husband died in the Workhouse, where she at present had a large family. One of the Magistrates on the Bench (referring to Mr. Holden, as Chairman of the Elham Board of Guardians) could probably tell them more about the woman.

She was fined 1s., 3s. 6d. damages, and 4s. 6d. costs. In default of payment she was sent to prison for seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 25-4-1891

Saturday, April 18^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Clark, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Rose Hogben was charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass, value 3s. 6d., at the British Colours, Bridge Street (sic).

Richard Kennett said the defendant went to his house and asked for half a pint of beer. He at first refused to serve her as he did not like women of her class in his house, but afterwards he served her with the beer. She was creating a disturbance, and he requested her to leave. When she got outside she threw a stone through a window in the bar.

The defendant said the reason for her throwing the stone was that the prosecutor encouraged other women, but was continually abusing her. It transpired that the defendant is a widow, who has a family of children in the workhouse.

She was fined 1s., and 3s. 6d. damage, and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.

Sandgate Visitors` List 9-10-1891

Local News

Three privates of the Provisional Battalion, named Richard Thorpe, Thomas Moore, and George Jackson, stationed at Shorncliffe, were charged at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday with stealing £4 from the person of Charles Port, a gardener, residing at Cheriton, on the previous Friday. Prosecutor went into the British Colours beerhouse in the afternoon, and there saw the three prisoners with two women. He got into conversation with them, and treated them, paying for the liquor with money which he took from his purse. He left the house about seven, in company with one of the women, and they went up the Tram Road to the Folly Fields. The prisoners followed them, and got hold of him, and knocked him down, and Moore knelt on him and took the purse from his pocket. He followed them, but they swore at him and threatened to do for him. He gave information to the police, and afterwards identified the prisoners at the Camp. The prisoners, who were also identified by other people who were in the house, were committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10-10-1891

Local News

At the Folkestone Borough Police Court on Monday, before Captain Carter and E.T. Ward Esq., three privates of the Liverpool Regiment, belonging to the Provisional Battalion at Shorncliffe Camp, named Thorpe, Moore, and Jackson, were charged with stealing a purse and the monies of Charles Port, amounting to £4 on the 2^nd inst.

Charles Port, gardener, residing at Cheriton, said: On Friday I went to the British Colours beerhouse about three o`clock in the afternoon. The three prisoners were in the house. I conversed with them and stood treat, but I don`t know how much I paid for. I took my purse from my trousers pocket. We were all together in the taproom. I left about seven o`clock, and the prisoners remained in the house. There were some women in the bar. One of them was named Back. A woman went with me from the house to the Tram Road and on Folly Fields. I don`t think I was drunk. When in the fields the prisoners caught hold of me and threw me down, and, I believe, Moore knelt on me and took the money from my left hand trousers pocket. They then went away towards the Convalescent Home. I followed them; they swore at me and threatened me, and I then went away. I gave information to the police, and on Saturday morning met Sergeant Lilley at Shorncliffe Camp. I recognised Jackson and the other prisoners I saw in the afternoon paraded in the Guardroom. My purse contained three half sovereigns, one sovereign, two 5s. pieces, a 4s. piece, and other silver.

Henry Betts, painter, Alexandra Mews, said: I saw the prosecutor at the British Colours on Thursday, but not the next day. I saw the prisoners Thorpe and Moore there between six and seven o`clock. There were two women there. I know them. One is called Dunn, and the other I have heard called Phoebe. Port treated the man to a quart of ale, and he showed some money, and remarked on the difference between a 5s. and 4s. piece. They all went out together.

Eliza Kennett, landlady of the British Colours, said the prisoners were in the house on Friday till seven o`clock. Charles Port was there during the time, and the women named Back and Dunn were present. I saw Jackson there, and the witness Petts was there on Friday, as well as Thursday. He is a daily visitor.

Richard Kennett, landlord of the British Colours said he got home on Friday about six o`clock, and saw prisoners in the bar, and two females. They were talking to Port. Mrs. Dunn went with him when he left the house. The soldiers left a few minutes afterwards.

Annie Dunn, wife of Stephen Dunn, boatman, 37, Mill Bay, said: I went to the beerhouse with Phoebe Back in the evening. I saw prosecutor there. I did not know him before. He treated three soldiers as well as us. He opened his purse. I saw he had a lot of money, and told him to be careful of it. I went up Dover Street with Port to the Folly Fields. I can`t tell you for certain which way I went. I had had a glass or two, and it affects my head. I saw three soldiers behind us, and I went away at once, frightened, and went straight home by the Tram Road.

Police Sergeant Lilley said he went on Saturday to Seabrook and met the prisoners Thorpe and Moore and arrested them. He found on Thorpe 18s. and a purse. On Moore he found 21s. He took them to the Provisional Battalion guardroom at Shorncliffe, where prosecutor identified the prisoners. He brought them to Folkestone, and on searching Jackson found 6d. on him.

In answer to the charge, Thorpe and Moore said they wished to call the other woman who was in the house. Moore said the money he had was the property of their kit.

Phoebe Back was called, and said she was a charwoman, living at 37, Mill Bay.

In answer to Thorpe, she said she was drinking with him.

In answer to Moore, she said that he might have paid for some beer. The prosecutor did not hand his purse to the other female. He dropped a 4s. piece and she picked it up. She did not beckon Moore to come with her; she went home.

Committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, which will take place on Monday next.

Folkestone Express 10-10-1891

Monday, October 5^th: Before Captain Carter and E.T. Ward Esq.

Robert Thorpe, Thomas Moore, and George Jackson, privates in the Provisional Battalion at Shorncliffe, were charged with stealing £4 from the person of Charles Port on the 2^nd October.

Charles Port, a gardener, residing at Cheriton, said on Saturday afternoon he went to the British Colours beerhouse. The three privates were in the house. He got into conversation with them and treated them, but did not know to how much. He paid for the beer with the money he had in his purse, which he took from his trousers pocket. He left the house about seven, the prisoners still being in the house, and there were some women in the house when he left, and one of them went out with him and they went up the Tram Road to Folly Fields together. Whilst in Folly Fields the prisoners came up and caught hold of him and threw him down, and Moore knelt on him and took his purse from his left hand trousers pocket. After taking the purse they went in the direction of the Tram Road and across to the East Cliff. He followed them to near the Convalescent Home, when the prisoners swore at him and threatened him. He afterwards gave information to the police, and on Saturday he went with Sergeant Lilley to the Camp, and there he identified the prisoner Jackson, and in the afternoon he identified the other two, who were paraded with others in the guardroom. The prisoner produced three half sovereigns, one sovereign, two 5s. pieces, one 4s. piece, and other silver.

Henry Betts, a painter, living at Alexandra Mews, said he saw the prosecutor for the first time in his life on Thursday last at the British Colours. He recognised Thorpe and Moore as having been in the house between six and seven, and there were two women in the taproom, one being named Gunn, but did not know the name of the other woman. Whilst in the house Port treated the soldiers to a quart of ale.

Eliza Kennett, wife of the landlord of the British Colours, Beach Street, recognised the prisoners as having been in the house on Friday, and staying until about seven o`clock. During the time they were there Charles Port went to the house, and whilst he was there the two women named Dunn and Back came in.

Richard Woodland Kennett, landlord of the British Colours, said he returned home on Friday afternoon, when he saw Betts, Port, the three prisoners, and two females, who were talking to Port, who left the house about a quarter to seven with Mrs. Dunn The prisoners left the house a few minutes after.

Annie Dunn, wife of Stephen Dunn, a boatman, of 37, Mill Bay, said she was in the British Colours on Friday evening with Phoebe Back. She went into the bar and saw prosecutor there with Betts. He treated her and Back, and the three soldiers. He opened his purse and she saw he had a lot of money, and told him to be careful of it. She left the house with Port and went up Dover Street with him to the Folly Fields, but she did not know which way they went, as she had had a glass or two. After they got into the Folly Fields she heard someone behind, and on looking round saw three soldiers. She did not see them do anything to Port as she went straight home as she was afraid of getting into a bother.

P.S. Lilley said on Saturday he went near to the Seabrook Hotel, where he met the two prisoners, Thorpe and Moore. He arrested them, and told them they would be charged in connection with another man with assaulting and robbing a man named Charles Port. Moore said “All right, we`ll come with you”. Two military police came up, and with their assistance he took them to the Seabrook Police Station and searched them. He found on Thorpe 18s., and on Moore 21s. He afterwards took them to the guardroom of the Provisional Battalion, where they were stripped of their greatcoats and red serge jackets, and dressed in blur serge and placed with Jackson and several others. The prosecutor at once identified Thorpe and Jackson, and, after some hesitation, identified Moore. He the brought the three prisoners to Folkestone and searched Jackson, and found 6d. on him.

Moore said the money found upon him and Thorpe was the property of their kit, which was sold.

Phoebe Back, a charwoman, of 37, Mill Bay, was called by the prisoners and said she was not dinking with Thorpe, neither did he pay for any beer. She did not see the prosecutor hand his purse to the other female.

The Bench committed the prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Visitors` List 14-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

The Quarter Sessions on Monday occupied seven hours – an unusual time for Folkestone.

Robert Thorpe, Thomas Moore, and George Jackson, three private soldiers belonging to the Provisional Battalion stationed at Shorncliffe, pleaded Not Guilty to stealing from the person of Charles Port a purse containing £3 4s. on the 2^nd of October.

The evidence adduced stated that the parties were drinking together at the British Colours beerhouse, that the prosecutor went from there at seven o`clock in the evening to the Folly Fields with a woman, and that the prisoners followed them, threw the prosecutor down on the ground, and took the purse out of his pocket.

Port could only identify the prisoner Moore as one of the soldiers in the Folly Fields.

The jury found Moore Guilty, and acquitted Thorpe and Jackson for want of sufficient evidence.

The learned Recorder, addressing the latter, said they had had a very narrow escape.

Moore, who received a very bad character, was sentenced to nine months` imprisonment, the Recorder telling him that if he ever came before him again he would receive a long term of imprisonment.

Sandgate Visitors` List 16-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Robert Thorpe, Thomas Moore, and George Jackson, privates in the Provisional Battalion, stationed at Shorncliffe, were brought up to answer the charge of stealing a purse containing £4 from the person of Charles Port, residing at Cheriton. The prisoners, who were only committed for trial on the 5^th inst., followed prosecutor from the British Colours public house, Beach Street, Folkestone, to the Folly Fields, where they knocked him down and took the purse from him. The prisoner Moore was found Guilty, but there was not sufficient evidence to convict the other two. An officer of the Provisional Battalion gave Moore an extremely bad character. In June last he was tried by District Court Martial for receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, and he had been convicted of assaulting a constable. There was also a long list of military crimes.

Prisoner was sentenced to nine months` hard labour, the Recorder telling him that unless he checked his evil course he would find himself undergoing a long term of imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, 12^th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

True bills were returned against Robert Sharpe, 21, Thomas Moore, 21, and George Jackson, 20, soldiers, belonging to the Provisional Battalion at Shorncliffe Camp, who were charged with stealing a purse containing £3 4s. from the person of Charles Port on the 2^nd of October.

The evidence was given fully in our columns last week, and it will be remembered that the prosecutor went to the British Colours about three o`clock on the afternoon of the 2<sup>nd</sup> inst., and saw the three prisoners in the bar. He had a conversation with them, and left about seven o`clock in company with a woman named Dunn. Whilst crossing the Folly Fields the prosecutor was attacked from behind by some soldiers, who wore greatcoats similar to the men who were at the British Colours. Moore knelt on him and took the purse out of his left hand pocket. That was the only man Port could identify. The prisoners Thorpe and Jackson were arrested at Seabrook by Sergeant Lilley the next day. He told them they would be charged in connection with another man with assaulting and robbing Charles Port. Moore replied “All right, we`ll go with you”. They were taken to the Seabrook station and searched. He found 18s. on Thorpe, and 21s. on Moore.

Evidence was given by Henry Betts, Eliza Kennett and Richard W. Kennett, who saw the prisoners in the British Colours, and also the woman Dunn, who left with the prisoner. The latter, however, stated that she ran away immediately Port was attacked, and, being short sighted, could not recognise the prisoners.

Sergeant Jackson, of the Provisional Battalion, stated that the prisoner Moore was absent without leave on the day in question, and had made away with a portion of his kit.

Mr. Hume Williams prosecuted, and Mr. T. Matthew watched the case on behalf of the  prisoners, and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty against Thorpe and Jackson, and Guilty against Moore.

Captain Campbell stated that the prisoner Moore had been in his company of the Provisional Battalion about one year, and had borne a very bad character. He had been convicted for receiving stolen goods, the property of a comrade, and for assaulting a constable.

The prisoners Jackson and Thorpe were then discharged, and Moore was sentenced to nine months` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11^th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Robert Thorpe, 21, Thomas Moore, 21, and George Jackson, 20, soldiers in the Provisional Battalion, were charged with stealing a purse containing £3 4s., from the person of Charles Port on the 2^nd October.

Mr. Hume Williams prosecuted, and Mr. Matthews was asked by the Recorder to watch the case on behalf of the prisoners.

The case was fully reported in our columns last week.

The prosecutor went to the British Colours in Beach Street, where he met the prisoners. He unwisely showed the contents of his purse. He paid for some beer for them, and left the house with a female. They went to the Folly Fields. Prisoners followed them, one of them knocked Port down, one knelt on him, and another stole his purse from his pocket, and then made off. Port subsequently went to the Camp and identified the prisoners.

P.S. Lilley said on Saturday he went near the Seabrook Hotel, where he met the two prisoners, Thorpe and Moore. He arrested them and told them they would be charged in connection with another man with assaulting and robbing a man named Charles Port. Moore said “All right, we`ll go with you”. He took them to the Seabrook police station and searched them. He found on Thorpes 18s., and on Moore 21s. He afterwards took them to the guardroom of the Provisional Battalion, where they were stripped of their greatcoats and red serge jackets, and dressed in blue serge, and placed with Jackson and several others. The prosecutor at once identified Thorpe and Jackson, and after some hesitation, Moore. He then brought the three prisoners to Folkestone and searched Jackson, and found 6d. on him.

After a few minutes deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Moore, but said there was not sufficient evidence to convict Thorpe and Jackson.

Captain Campbell said that since Moore had been in the regiment he had borne an extremely bad character. On the 11^th June, 1891, he was tried by the District Court Martial for receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. He had also been convicted for assaulting a constable. Witness here handed the Recorder a list of prisoner`s offences.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said that there was a long record of crime against him, and unless he checked his evil course he would find himself undergoing a long term of imprisonment. The sentence that he would pass upon him would be that he be imprisoned with hard labour for nine calendar months.

Folkestone Herald 17-10-1891

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 12^th:

Robert Thorpe, 21, Thomas Moore, 21, and George Jackson, 20, soldiers in the Provisional Battalion, were charged with stealing a purse containing £3 4s. from the person of Charles Port on the 2^nd of October.

A verdict of Guilty was returned against prisoner Moore, who was sentenced to nine months` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-12-1891

Wednesday, December 2^nd: Before J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Two men, named Lacey and Keates, were charged with assaulting William Moore, and stealing £12 from his person on the previous night.

William Moore, a discharged soldier from the 1^st Dragoons, said he left the Regiment last October. A fortnight ago he drew £29 at Dover as deferred pay. He lived in Bridge Street, Dover, and on Tuesday afternoon he went to Folkestone. At one o`clock he went to the British Colours, where he found the two prisoners and another man, not present. He treated the men with some drink. Witness went out during the afternoon. He returned to the British Colours at eight o`clock and left with the prisoners at eleven. Keates asked him to go to his stable to look at a horse he was going to exchange. He went to the stable in Mill Bay with them. He did not want to go, but he was dragged there by Keates and the man not in custody. When they got him into the stable they threw him down and stole £10 from his belt, and about £2 from his pockets. There was a candle burning in the stable, but it was put out after he got there. He tried to resist the prisoners, but it was useless, as there were three to one. Witness had had a drop of drink. After they had committed the robbery they went away, and witness gave information to the police. He went back to the stable with P.S. Swift and found Lacey there.

Police Sergeant Swift said he was on duty in High Street on Tuesday night, and, in consequence of what the prosecutor told him, he went to the stable in Mill Bay. He found Lacey sleeping there. Prosecutor said he was one of the men who robbed him, and witness told him he would be charged with robbing and assaulting Moore. He replied “Me? You have made a mistake”. When charged at the police station he replied “Who else is going to be charged with me?” At quarter past eight that morning he was near the British Colours with the prosecutor and saw Keates leave. Prosecutor said “That`s the man who took me down to the stables”. Keates, seeing witness going towards him, ran off. Witness pursued him and caught him at No. 8, Mill Bay. He took him to the police station, where he said to the prosecutor “You know who you were with”. Witness searched both prisoners. He found 1s. 2½d. on Lacey, and 2s. 4d. on Keates.

The case was remanded.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-8-1892

Wednesday, 10^th August: Before Mr. J. Fitness and Alderman Pledge.

R.W. Kennett, landlord of the British Colours public house, Harbour Street, was charged with allowing his house to be the resort of prostitutes on the 31^st July.

P.S. Lilley deposed to watching the house on the 26^th, 27^th, 29^th, 30^th and 31^st July, and on each occasion he saw several prostitutes enter the house and stay there a considerable time. He saw women named Rye, Gower, Sandford, Rogers, and Reed enter the house and leave with soldiers several times. At 9.55 on Sunday the 31^st ult., he entered the house accompanied by Swift. He then found Sandford, Rye and Gower drinking in front of the bar. Swift asked Kennett if he knew they were prostitutes, and he replied “No, not particularly”.

Sergeant Swift corroborated the above statement.

In defence Kennett said there was no immorality going on in the house to his knowledge! Soldiers came in and drank what they ordered, and left in the ordinary course.

Mrs. Kennett gave evidence showing that the women named did not remain in the house an inordinate length of time on any one occasion.

In reply to the Bench, Superintendent Taylor said the general character of the house was bad. It was a frequent resort of women of that class, and disturbances were continually occurring there. The house was the cause of much trouble to both the civil and military police. Last October a case at the house resulted in three men being sent for trial, and on that occasion he told Kennett to exercise more care in the future.

The Bench were quite satisfied that the defendant knew the character of the women. Therefore they would impose such a fine as would teach him that he could not do that sort of thing in Folkestone with impunity. The fine would be £5, and 11s. costs. The licence would also be endorsed.

Folkestone Express 13-8-1892

Wednesday, August 10^th: Before J. Fitness and Alderman Pledge.

Richard William Kennett, landlord of the British Colours, was charged with harbouring prostitutes on the 31^st July. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Lilley said on Monday, the 25^th July, at 10.45, he watched the defendant`s house, and at 11.0, two prostitutes, named Rye and Rogers, left and went up Dover Street with three soldiers. On Tuesday the 26<sup>th</sup> he watched the house from ten minutes past ten, and at 25 minutes to eleven Rye went in, and at a quarter to eleven a woman named Read, a flower hawker, came out with two artillerymen, drunk. At five minutes to eleven Rogers came out and went away with a soldier. At eleven Rye and Brown came out with two soldiers, having been in the house since ten minutes past ten. On Wednesday he watched from 10.15, and at five minutes past eleven Rye and Rogers came out and went away with two soldiers. On Friday the 29<sup>th</sup> he watched from 10.15, and at eleven o`clock Rogers came out and went away with a soldier, followed shortly by Rye alone. On Saturday he watched from ten o`clock, and at 10.15 two prostitutes, named Gower and Sandford, came out and went away with two soldiers. At 10.20 Brown came out with five soldiers, and went in again twice before 10.40. On Sunday the 31^st he watched from 9.15 p.m., and at 9.20 Rye came out with three soliers; at 9.35 Gower and Sandford went in with two soldiers, and at 9.45 Rye went in again with two soldiers. At 9.55, in company with Sergeant Swift, he visited the house, and found there  Sandford, Rye and Gower in front of the bar, drinking, the bar being full of soldiers. The women were pointed out to the landlord by Sergeant Swift, and he was asked if he knew them. He said “No, not particularly”. They were known to him as prostitutes, more or less.

Sergeant Swift gave evidence of a similar character.

Defendant said the women came in and had something to drink, and went out. He desired to conduct the house respectably. There were no improper proceedings allowed in the house.

Eliza Kennett, defendant`s wife, said she was in the bar on Sunday night when the women came in with two corporals. They were served and were peaceable and orderly. One woman was a perfect stranger to her. They had a quarter of “Shandygaff” and had not drank it all when the police entered. Rye was not served at all.

Defendant said all he could say was that the women went in and out the same as they did in all other houses in the town.

Superintendent Taylor said the general character of the house was bad. There were continual disturbances, and the house was a trouble both to the civil and military police. There had been a prosecution at the Quarter Sessions arising out of an occurrence there. At that time he cautioned the defendant.

The Bench fined the defendant £5 and 11s. costs, as a caution to him and others that they could not do that kind of thing with impunity. They also ordered the licence to be endorsed.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-8-1892

Wednesday, August 17^th: Before Major H.W. Poole and Mr. J. Holden.

Mr. Walter Jeffrey (sic) made application for the transfer of the licence of the British Colours to himself from Mr. Kennett.

Mr. Hall appeared for the applicant, and the transfer was granted.

Folkestone Express 20-8-1892

Wednesday, August 17^th: Before H.W. Poole and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the British Colours was temporarily transferred to Walter Jeffrey. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the applicant.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-9-1892

Wednesday, September 14^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and Messrs. Brooke, Wightwick, and Herbert.

Mr. Haines made an application for the transfer of the licence of the British Colours public house to his client, Mr. Walter Gifford. He stated that Gifford had had temporary permit to draw for the last month, and he now asked that the licence might be transferred to him.

The licence was granted.

Mr. Wightwick: I hope you will conduct this house better than the former tenant did.

Applicant: I will try, sir.

Folkestone Express 17-9-1892

Wednesday, September 14^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Brooke Esqs.

Mr. Haines applied for a temporary transfer of the licence of the British Colours to Mr. Walter Giffors. Granted, and Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the house would be conducted better than it was by the last tenant.

Folkestone Herald 17-9-1892

Police Court Jottings

The British Colours – the public house of that name – has got itself into rather disrepute of late years, engaging the attention of the police more than has been considered by the Authorities to be justifiable. The licence, however, was on Wednesday last transferred from the former tenant to Mr. Gifford, whom the Magistrates – the Mayor, Messrs. Clarke, Herbert, Wightwick and Banks – expressed the hope would endeavour to improve the general tone of it`s conduct.

Folkestone Chronicle 1-10-1892

Adjourned Licensing Session

The Adjourned Licensing Session for the Borough was held at the police Court on Wednesday morning, on which occasion considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings by reason of the fact that the renewal of the licenses of several well known and old established houses in the town was opposed by the Superintendent of Police, acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee of the Bench.

The Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.

Mr. Martyn Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the objections of the police, and Mr. J. Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared on behalf of the claimants.

At the opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the business commenced he wished to make one announcement. It referred to something which had been done in other towns, and which the Committee thought it best to do in Folkestone. It was the opinion of the Committe that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they therefore suggested that the owners of the houses should talk the matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to which houses it would be best to close. If nothing was done before the next Licensing Session, the Committee would be obliged to suppress some of the licensed houses themselves. But if the owners would talk the matter over amongst themselves and agree upon the houses to be closed it would save a great difficulty.

The renewals of the British Colours, Harbour Street, to J. Gifford (sic), and the Granville, Dover Street, to Thomas Mitchell, were granted.

Folkestone Express 1-10-1892

Wednesday, September 28^th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The British Colours

The licence of this house was renewed to Mr. Walter Jifford, he being a new tenant, and the Superintendent saying the house was well conducted.

Folkestone Express 4-3-1893

Wednesday, March 1^st: Before H.W. Poole, W.J. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the British Colours was transferred to Charles Gatley.

Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1893

Local News

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it`s walls at eleven o`clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it`s tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it`s everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o`clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn`s Opening

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen`s Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen`s Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some £1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than £305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen`s Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

Beer Houses

With regard to the British Colours, Cinque Ports and the Wonder beer-houses, Mr. Glyn said they existed before 1869, and no objection could be made unless it was suggested that there had been impropriety. Evidence as to the dates of the existence of the licenses was given by Mr. F. Nops, Supervisor of the Inland Revenue, and the matter was not gone further into.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates` Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1893

Adjourned Licensing Session

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it`s value was £1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than £305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The British Colours

Mr. Glyn said this was a house which had existed before 1869. There was nothing against it.

Francis Nops, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, said the British Colours, the Cinque Ports, and the Wonder were all licensed before 1869.

Superintendent Taylor said he proposed to give evidence as to disorderly conduct at teh British Colours.

It was ruled that it could not be given.

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients` licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The lowest value was put at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices` predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1893

Editorial

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices` Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing

It will be remembered that on the 23^rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13^th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen`s Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices` Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John`s Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen`s Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent  for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don`t know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don`t know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen`s Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

The cases not eliminated by this decision were then proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were called.

The British Colours, Cinque Ports and Wonder

Mr. Glyn said this was a beerhouse which existed before 1869, and therefore no objection could be taken to it, unless the Superintendent suggested that there had been any impropriety in the house.

Mr. Francis Knops, Superintendent of Inland Revenue proved that the licences of the British Colours, Cinque Ports, and Wonder existed before 1869.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line?  There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three?  I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients` property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of £10 or £15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is £800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o`clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal, notice of appeal served on the Justices` Clerk should be accepted by the Justices.

This was at once acceded to.

Mr. Glyn: My clients all feel, sir, what the professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr. Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893

Licensing

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13^th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it`s conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin`s work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen`s arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

The Victoria, the Oddfellows, the Welcome, British Colours, and Granville were all objected to on the ground that they were not wanted; and the Tramway for the additional reason that disorderly conduct had taken place, this consisting of a civilian and a soldier coming out and having a fight; the disturbance, however, was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.

Folkestone Express 26-12-1908

Inquest

On Tuesday afternoon Mr. Thomas Willson, of Folkestone, was returning from the races at Westenhanger, when he collapsed and died on the platform at the station. The body was removed to Folkestone the same night, and an inquest was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. G.W. Haines (Borough Coroner) conducting the inquiry.

John Willson, residing at Sidney Villa, Denmark Street, a labourer, said he identified the body as that of his father, Thomas Willson, who lived at the same address as witness. He was a retired publican, and was about seventy years of age. Deceased had not enjoyed very good health lately, and had complained of shortness of breath. Witness last saw deceased at 11.30 on Tuesday morning. He was then going to the races at Westenhanger. He had attended race meetings on previous occasions. Deceased, who went alone, appeared to be in his usual state of health. Witness did not see any more of deceased until he heard of his death.

Dr. Thornton Gilbert, honorary medical offiver to the Folkestone Racing Club, said on Tuesday, as he got into the train at Westenhanger, he was told a medical man was wanted. He got out of the down side, and saw deceased laying on the floor dead. He had known deceased for a good many years. He had made a post mortem examination The heart was very much enlarged, and in his opinion death was due to fatty degeneration of the heart. Failure of the heart might have been brought on by excessive exercise. The story was that deceased had hurried to the station. There were no marks of a fall or injury.

James Albert Port, of 77, High Street, Cheriton, a jobbing gardener, said he was a member of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. He was on duty at the racecourse, under the direction of Dr. Gilbert. On Tuesday, about 3.35, he left the racecourse, and was proceeding to the old station, when he passed deceased. Witness was accompanied by Alfred Downs, who was also a member of the Ambulance Brigade. Deceased, who was alone, was staggering, and they told him to “buck up” or he would miss the train. They did not think he was ill. He replied “All right. I shall catch the train”. They went on about half a dozen paces, when they heard something fall, and turning round saw deceased on the ground. They helped him up and assisted him towards the station. When they got to the steps to go on to the bridge, deceased said “Stop a minute, till I get my breath”. On the bridge he stopped again. They went across the road to go down the steps and when they got to the bottom of the steps deceased collapsed. They assisted him to the platform. Subsequently witness felt deceased`s hands and they were clammy and his breathing ceased. Witness then sent for a doctor. Deceased`s speech was clear.

Sergt. Martin, K.C.C., said shortly after four o`clock on Tuesday afternoon he was on duty, accompanied by Supt. Hollands, outside Westenhanger Station, when they were informed that a man had died on the down platform. Witness proceeded there and saw the body of deceased, who was quite dead. They were told that Dr. Gilbert had seen him and had pronounced life extinct, and they also ascertained that deceased was a resident of Folkestone. Witness, with assistance, took deceased to a brake van, and in the meantime his relatives were communicated with, Superintendent Hollands stating that if they chose to remove the body that night and take it home he should not raise any objection. If it remained there until the morning it would be reported to the County Coroner. The body was removed to Folkestone Mortuary on Tuesday night. Deceased had in his possession a purse containing £2 17s. 4d.

The Coroner asked the sergeant whether it was part of his instructions when a body was found to give the relatives the option of removing it out of the Coroner`s jurisdiction before the next morning, and after the morning if the body had not been taken away, to communicate with the Coroner?

Sergt. Martin said those were not his instructions.

The Coroner: As a matter of fact, it is not for you to say whether the body shall be removed out of the Coroner`s jurisdiction. It is for the Coroner.

The Coroner asked whether the County Coroner was communicated with before the removal of the body to Folkestone.

The sergeant said he should not think he was.

The Coroner said he should have to make some further inquiries about the matter. It seemed to him that the body was out of the jurisdiction of the borough of Folkestone, and yet Folkestone was put to the expense of holding an inquiry. Supt. Hollands gave the relatives the option of removing the body out of the County Coroner`s jurisdiction, but if it was left till the morning then he should communicate with the County Coroner. Immediately the body was dead it was under the County Coroner`s jurisdiction.

The Coroner produced a telegram sent by Superintendent Hollands to the relatives, and after reading it, he said it bore out what the sergeant had said. The telegram said that the body could be removed that (Tuesday) night by the relatives, but if deferred until the morning he must communicate with the Coroner.

The jury returned a verdict of “Death from natural causes”.

Folkestone Daily News 23-12-1908

Inquest

An inquest was held on the body of Thomas Wilson, who expired suddenly at Westenhanger on Tuesday, was held on Wednesday afternoon by the Borough Coroner.

John Wilson, son of the deceased, identified the body as that of his father, aged 70, who lived at Sydney Villa, Denmark Street. He was a retired publican. Deceased was all right when he left home on Tuesday morning, but had lately complained of shortness of breath. He left home alone at 11.30 in the morning to go to the Folkestone races at Westenhanger.

Dr. Thornton Gilbert deposed that he was at Westenhanger on Tuesday afternoon. When he arrived at the station he was called to the down side of the station, where he saw the body of Thomas Wilson lying dead. Witness had known him for many years. He had examined the body of deceased and found the heart was fatty, the stomach contained undigested food, the liver was enlarged, and the kidneys enclosed in fat. In his opinion death was due to degeneration of the heart, which might have been hastened by hurrying.

James Albert Port, a gardener, and a member of the St, John Ambulance Corps, said he was on duty at the racecourse, under the direction of Dr. Gilbert. At 3.35 he passed the deceased, who was staggering on his way to Westenhanger Station. Witness told him to “Buck up” or he would lose the train. In witness`s opinion he had had a glass too much. Witness went forward about half a dozen paces, when he heard a fall, and found deceased had fallen in the road. Witness helped to pick him up. Deceased did not say anything until they got to the steps to go over the bridge, when he asked to rest in order to get his breath. They stopped, and then went on again, but on reaching the platform deceased fell down. Witness tried artificial respiration, and then sent for a doctor.

In reply to the Coroner, witness said it was possible that the state of deceased`s heart may have led him to think that he (deceased) had been drinking.

Sergeant Martin, of the Kent County Constabulary, said shortly after four p.m. on Tuesday he was informed that a man had died on the platform. Witness went to the down platform and found the deceased quite dead. Witness assisted to remove him and put him into a brake van for the purpose of conveying the body to Folkestone. In the meantime deceased`s relatives were communicated with and told that they could remove it, but that if it remained till the morning the matter would have to be reported to the County Coroner. The body was eventually removed to the Folkestone mortuary the same evening. A purse found on the deceased contained £2 17s. 4d.

The Coroner said he could not understand why the option had been given to the relatives to take the body away.

Sergeant Martin said he acted under the instructions of Superintendent Hollands.

The Coroner said Superintendent Hollands had no authority to sanction the removal of any body until such removal had been sanctioned by the Coroner, and he (Mr. Haines) would have to make a note of it.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

Folkestone Herald 26-12-1908

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday afternoon regarding the death of Thos. Willson, a retired Folkestone publican, who expired suddenly on Westenhanger Station on Tuesday afternoon.

John Willson, of Sidney Villa, Denmark Street, a labourer, identified the body as that of his father, Thomas Willson, of the same address. The deceased was a retired publican, and was 70 years of age. Deceased had complained recently of shortness of breath He got about well. About 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday deceased said he was going to the races at Westenhanger. He was accustomed to go occasionally to the races, and he went alone. Apparently he was in his usual state of health.

Dr. J.W. Thornton Gilbert, Hon. Medical Officer to the Folkestone Racing Club, deposed that on Tuesday last a railway official at Westenhanger Station told him that he was wanted. He alighted from the train, and on the platform he saw the body of Thomas Willson, He was dead. Witness had known the deceased for many years. That (Wednesday) morning he made a post mortem examination. He attributed death to syncope due to fatty degeneration of the heart, which might have been brought on by any excessive exercise. There were no marks of injury or violence.

James Albert Port, of 77, High Street, Cheriton, a jobbing gardener, stated that he was a member of the St. John`s Ambulance Brigade. He was on duty at the racecourse, under the direction of Dr. Gilbert. About 3.35 p.m. he left the racecourse, and on his way to the old station, in company with Pte. A. Downs, of the same Brigade, he saw deceased, who was staggering. They told him to “buck up”, or he would miss the train. Witness thought that the deceased had had a glass too much. He replied “All right, I shall catch the train”. Witness went forward half a dozen paces, and then he heard a fall. On turning round he saw the deceased on the ground. They helped him up and assisted him to the station. When they got to the steps to go to the bridge, deceased said “Stop a minute till I get my breath”. They did so. On the bridge the same thing happened. Deceased then asked witness to get his ticket clipped. At the bottom of the steps the deceased collapsed. Noticing that his hands were clammy, and as he did not breathe, witness started artificial respiration, which he maintained till the doctor arrived. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he thought perhaps the man was not altogether the worse for drink.

P. Sergt. Martin, K.C.C., stationed at Westenhanger, proved receiving information of the death. He went on to the down platform and learned that Dr, Gilbert had pronounced life extinct. He also ascertained that deceased was a resident of Folkestone, so wit assistance the body was placed in a brake van. The relations were informed that if they chose to move the body to Folkestone he would raise no objection, but if they allowed to remain till the morning the matter would be reported to the County Coroner. The body was removed to the Folkestone Mortuary the same night. In a purse found on the body was £2 17s. 4d.

The Coroner: You are a sergeant, and have had some experience. Do you give people, in such cases, the option of taking the body away before the morning if they like?

Witness: That is hardly a fair question.

The Coroner: That is for me to decide.

Witness: Well, I was acting under instructions.

In reply to further questions, witness said it was not the usual thing to do.

The Coroner said that he would have to make some further enquiries with regard to the removal of the body. It seemed that the deceased had died outside the borough, and yet they were holding an inquest which it was the duty of the County Coroner to hold.

The jury returned a verdict of “Death from natural causes”.