Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street c1861 - 1905

 

The former Cinque Ports Arms (with bow window) can be seen in this 1930 image. Credit Alan Taylor

 

Licensees

Mary Goord c1861 c1861 (1861 Census)

Henry Bird c1862 c1866 
J.W. Mullett 1866 1866

Abraham Allcorn c1866 1869

James March 1869 1870

J. Poune c1870 1872

James Hyham 1872 1874

Richard Court 1874 1876

John Brough 1876 1877
William Hutchins 1877 1877

William Fletcher 1877 1880

Henry Newman 1880 1880

Daniel Gregory 1880 1881

William Lywood 1881 1883

Henry Dorrell 1883 1883

Henry Nethercorn 1883 1884

James Stickles 1884 1885

William Kerslake 1885 1886

Hermann Lyons 1886 1888

Albert Farr 1888 1889 To Richmond Tavern

Robert Weatherhead 1889 1898

Fanny Weatherhead 1898 1901

Samuel Webster 1901 1905

Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1866

Licensing Day

A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.

The fourth applicant was Mr. J. W. Mullett, for a license to a house called the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street.

Mr. Minter opposed the application and said the remarks which he had previously made respecting Mr. Hogben`s house applied with equal force to this one. It was not at all necessary, as the Chequers stood next door but one to it, and it was surrounded by licensed houses in the neighbourhood. It was a small house, and till lately used as an eating house, and it was not the proper class of house to which a spirit license ought to be granted.

The court was then cleared for a short time, and on the re-admission of the public Captain Kennicott said the magistrates had decided to refuse the application.

Notes: No record of Mullett at the Cinque Ports appears in More Bastions. Was this house already licensed and applying only for the addition of a spirit license as in the case of the Gun?

Folkestone Express 16-1-1869

Saturday, January 9^th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N. and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Gas Summons

Abraham Allcorn, proprietor of the Cinque Ports Arms, in Seagate Street, appeared to answer a summons for balance of account owing to the Folkestone Gas Company.

Mr. S. Page said: I am a collector of gas rents for the Folkestone Gas Company. Defendant owes the company 19s. 6d. for gas supplied to his house, the Cinque Ports Arms, for the quarter ending September 30^th; 1s 6d. is for the hire of meter. I have demanded payment of the amount. The original bill was £1 19s. 6d., and I have received £1 on account. I took the state of the meter about the 3^rd or 4^th of October; it stood at 39,200, against 31,600 in the previous quarter, showing a consumption of 7,600 feet, which at 5s. per 1,000 feet will amount to £1 18s., and 1s. 6d. for the hire of meter.

The defendant said the reason he did not pay was because he thought the amount excessive, and he had an impression that the meter was a bad one and registered more gas than was actually consumed.

The Bench said they must make the usual order, the money to be paid in seven days, or distress; in default of distress, 14 days.

Folkestone Observer 11-9-1869

Thursday, September 9^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq.

Henry Grayling was charged with being drunk and assaulting Thomas Murch in Seagate Street on the 8^th instant.

Prosecutor said he was a stoker on board the S.E.R. steamboats. The prisoner came into his house, the Cinque Port Arms about half past nine or ten o`clock on Wednesday evening. He was in drink. Witness ordered him out. Prisoner up fist and hit him on the eye, tore his waistcoat and shirt off him, and broke two panes of glass and tried to throttle him. He gave him in the custody of P.C. Ovenden.

Henry Hart, a lodger at plaintiff`s house, gave corroborative evidence.

P.C. Ovenden proved taking him into custody from Murch.

Prisoner said he meant no harm to the complainant, and was very sorry for what he had done. He was not solely to blame for this assault.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk, and sentenced him to 21 days` hard labour for the assault.

Folkestone Observer 16-10-1869

Wednesday, October 13^th: Before R.W. Boarer, John Gambrill, John Clark, and – Dashwood Esqs.

Mr. Murch applied for a transfer of the licence granted to Mr. Mercer to sell beer at the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 16-10-1869

Wednesday, October 13^th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Transfer of license.

Cinque Ports Arms beerhouse, from Mr. Mercer to Mr. March.

Note: More Bastions lists no record of a Mercer at the Cinque Ports.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-12-1869

Wednesday, December 15^th: Before R.W. Boarer and John Gambrill Esqs.

Alfred Offen was charged with stealing on the 6^th inst. a blue cloth jacket and scarf of the value of £1 0s. 6d., the goods and chattels of Thomas Reynolds.

The prosecutor, a seaman lodging at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, deposed he knew the prisoner, who also lodged in the same house, and slept with him. On Monday morning when he got up, he missed a blue monkey jacket and a check sea shawl – the jacket from his bedroom, and the scarf from the kitchen. The prisoner got up before witness awoke. Yesterday he went to Dover with P.C. Swain and found prisoner at Mr. Bryson`s, the baker in Market Square. He gave prisoner into custody and returned to Folkestone. He next went with Swain to Webb`s, the rag and bone man on The Narrows, where they found the jacket and scarf produced, which witness identified as his property. The jacket was worth £1, and the scarf sixpence.

Fanny Linkink, servant at the Cinque Ports Arms, deposed to prosecutor and prisoner lodging together at the house. She called the prisoner at half past five on Monday morning, the 5^th inst., and saw him leave the house at seven with prosecutor`s coat on, and asked him what business he had with it. He replied that prosecutor lent it to him. She heard prosecutor tell him on the Friday night previous that he was not to wear the coat any more. The scarf she had to wash on the Saturday, but had not time to wash it, and left it on the window sill in the kitchen, where prisoner washed, and cleaned his boots. It was there at half past six, and gone at half past seven o`clock.

Henry Webb, marine store dealer, said prisoner came to him on Wednesday the 8^th inst. between six and seven in the evening and said “Mr. Webb, I`ve passed the doctor, and my sergeant tells me it`s no use taking the jacket to the Camp, so I may as well sell it here as there”. Thereupon he gave him 3s. for the coat, and 2d. for the scarf. He saw prisoner at the Shakespeare on Monday wearing the coat, which he then offered to sell, but witness refused to buy it.

P.C. Swain said he went to Dover with prosecutor, and found prisoner working at a confectioner`s shop in Biggin Street. He charged him and took him into custody. He made no reply. Afterwards he said he had sold it to Mr. Webb, the last witness.

Prisoner was formally cautioned, and pleading guilty, was sentenced to six weeks` hard labour.

Kentish Gazette 21-12-1869

On Wednesday, a lad named Alfred Offen was sent to Petworth for six weeks’ bard labour for stealing a coat. He lodged at the Cinque Ports Arms, with a seaman named Thos. Reynolds, and on the 7^th inst. got up first and went off with a monkey jacket and scarf belonging to his bed-fellow. The servant of the house challenged him with it as he was leaving, and he said prosecutor had lent them to him. He went off and sold them to a marine store dealer named Webb.

Southeastern Gazette 27-12-1869

Local News

On Wednesday a lad named Alfred Offen was sent to Petworth for six weeks’ hard labour for stealing an overcoat. He lodged at the Cinque Ports Arms, with a seaman named Thos. Reynolds, and on the 7th inst., got up first and went off with a monkey jacket and a scarf belonging to his bed-fellow.

 

Folkestone Express 7-1-1871

Friday, January 6^th: Before R.W. Boarer, C.H. Dashwood and J. Clarke Esqs.

Andrew Keogh was charged with being drunk and riotous in Seagate Street.

John Pound, of the Cinque Ports Arms, said the prisoner lodged at his house. After he and his wife had retired to rest they had a row, and knocked the furniture about.

The Magistrates` Clerk: The charge was being drunk in Seagate Street. Was there any disturbance in the street?

Witness: No, it was in my house.

The Clerk: There is no law for charging a person getting drunk in a house.

The charge of being drunk and riotous was dismissed, and the prisoner was then charged with wilfully damaging the furniture to the extent of 1s.

The prisoner said he could repair the damage if any was done.

This charge was also dismissed.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-10-1873

Wednesday, October 1^st: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The following house was qualified by rating according to the Wine and Beerhouse Act:

James Hyam, Cinque Ports Arms

Folkestone Express 4-10-1873

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

Tuesday, September 30^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Cinque Ports Arms

The application of James Hyham was adjourned from the annual meeting for the purpose of ascertaining the annual value of the house. Mr. Banks having proved that it was £23, the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 21-7-1877

Saturday, July 14^th: Before J. Clarke Esq., Alderman Caister, and General Armstrong.

William Hutchins applied for a temporary authority to sell beer at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street. Granted.

Note: No record of this listed in More Bastions

Folkestone Express 18-8-1877

Advertisement

Notice To Tradesmen And Others. I hereby give notice that I will not be answerable for any debt or debts my wife, Mary Brough, late of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, may contract after this date.

John Brough

Folkestone, 17^th August, 1875

Folkestone Express 31-8-1878

Monday, August 26^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, and Captain Carter.

Thomas Jeffery was charged with being in unlawful possession of a fowl on the 24^th inst.

Sergeant Reynolds said that on Saturday evening he was standing by the Wonder tavern and se saw the prisoner pass him very quickly with a fowl under the tail of his coat, kicking and struggling. He ran after him and stopped him in Radnor Street. The fowl`s neck had been broken, but it was not dead. He asked him where he had obtained it, and he replied that he had just given a man 2s. for it. He took him into custodu and walked into the Tram Road, when prisoner asked him if he would go to the Cinque Ports Arms. He went and saw the landlady, who is the prisoner`s sister, and asked her if she had lost a fowl. She said she didn`t know, but thought the one produced belonged to her.

Superintendent Wilshere applied for a remand until the next day, which was granted.

Tuesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, and Captain Carter.

Thomas Richardson Jeffery was brought up on remand charged with being in unlawful possession of a fowl.

William Fletcher, landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, and brother-in-law of the prisoner, was called, and he asked not to give evidence as he did not wish to press the charge.

The Bench, however, said it was a duty he owed to public justice to give evidence.

He then said that he kept a number of fowls, but he could not say of what kind they were. His wife missed some fowls.

The Mayor again cautioned him that being a licensed victualler he was bound to assist the police in protecting property.

Witness said he would speak the truth, and that he only knew what his wife had told him. His wife, Elizabeth Fletcher, was then sent for, and said the prisoner was in their house on Saturday evening. He left about eight. He had been gone about a quarter of an hour when he returned in company with Sergeant Reynolds. The Sergeant had a fowl with him and he asked witness if it was hers. She took it in her hand and said it was not hers. She, however, went to see if one was missing, but she did not miss one then, but afterwards. The fowls were kept in a yard. She could not swear to the fowl produced. The wings of her fowls were clipped.

Prisoner wished the case to be tried by the Bench, pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 15-3-1879

Saturday, March 8^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

Amelia Spearpoint appeared to a summons charging her with threatening Elizabeth Fletcher, who asked that she should be required to find sureties to keep the peace. Mr. Wightwick appeared for the defendant.

Complainant said her husband was landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street. She, however, left him about a fortnight ago, and was lodging at the Albert Edward. On the 5^th February she saw defendant in the street outside the Albert Edward, and hearing her name mentioned by Mrs. Spearpoint, she asked whether she wanted her. She replied by using “very ungrateful language”, and accused her of being in the company of her husband the night before. Mrs. Spearpoint also attempted to strike complainant and said “I`ll do for you or you shall do for me”. She then sent for a policeman and P.C. Knowles came.

Thomas Rough Cryer, of the Albert Edward, said the complainant was now lodging at his house. On the 5^th inst. Mrs. Spearpoint came and asked if Mrs. Fletcher was in. He told her she was not. Just at the time, complainant came out of the next door, and Mrs. Spearpoint abused her and called her foul names. He also heard her say “I`ll do for you when I catch you out”.

Emily Goodchild, sister of the defendant, who was present when the occurrence took place, was called for the defence and denied that defendant used any threats. Both women were very much excited. Mrs. Spearpoint did raise her hand, but did not strike complainant, because “she did not get nigh her”. (Laughter)

Defendant was ordered to find one surety in £10 to keep the peace for three months.

Note: The Albert Edward is a complete mystery. Initial reaction was that the reporter got the name of the Prince Albert wrong (there had been reports about the new cross-Channel steamer running out of Folkestone – called the Albert Edward), but no record of Mr. Cryer being at the Prince Albert – or indeed any pub – exists. It may be that the Albert Edward was a lodging house, but so far no records of that have come to light. Update: It appears that this was a coffee tavern, located next to the Royal George.

Folkestone Express 26-8-1882

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before J. Clark, F. Boykett and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Licensing Day

All the old license were renewed with the exception of three – that of the Skylark, the George, and the Cinque Port Arms – against which there were complaints, and the consideration of the applications was postponed till the adjourned licensing day.

Southeastern Gazette 26-8-1882

Annual Licensing Session

This session was held on Wednesday.

On the tenants of the Skylark, the George Inn, and the Cinque Port Arms applying for a renewal of their licences, Supt. Taylor said he had received information from Inspector Gosby that all three houses were meeting places for women of ill-fame, and the Bench decided to adjourn each case till the 27th Sept.

Kentish Gazette 29-8-1882

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. On the tenants of The Skylark, The George Inn and The Cinque Ports Arms applying for a renewal ol their licences Superintendent Taylor said he had received informa­tion from Inspector Gosby that all three houses were meeting places for women of ill fame. Mr. Minter, on behalf of the tenant of The Skylark, said it was not just to give the house a bad character without letting the tenant have a chance to refute it. A word of caution from the Bench was all tbat was sought for, and the tenant would, in future, conduct his house properly. The Bench decided to adjourn all three cases until the next sitting of the court, on the 27^th September next.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-9-1882

Wednesday, September 27^th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Ald. Caister, F. Boykett, J. Clarke and J. Holden Esqs.

Disorderly Houses

Opposition was made to the granting of the licenses to the George, George Lane, the Skylark, and the Cinque Ports, on the ground that they harboured bad women.

The Bench administered a severe caution, but especially to the landlord of the George, impressing on them that they would lose their licenses if the offence was repeated.

Folkestone Express 30-9-1882

Wednesday, September 27^th: Before W. Bateman, F. Boykett, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

The granting of the licenses to the George, the Skylark, and the Cinque Port Arms was adjourned at the last meeting, the Superintendent of Police opposing their renewal on the ground that women of bad character were allowed to resort there.

Inspector Gosby was called, and said he occasionally visited the houses and found prostitutes at the bar. They went in for refreshments, but hung about the house. A month ago there were some of these women lodging at the Cinque Ports.

The Superintendent said in the cases of the George and the Skylark there had been a great improvement since the annual licensing meeting.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on behalf of the licensees of the George and the Skylark, urging that they were doing their best to conduct their houses properly, and the Bench renewed all three, but with a strong caution in the case of the Cinque Ports.

Southeastern Gazette 30-9-1882

Licensing Meeting

An adjourned licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday morning, the magistrates present being Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, Messrs. J. Clark, F. Boykett, and J. Holden.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of G.L. Quin, of the George Inn, Robert Carter of the Skylark, and William Lywood of the Cinque Ports, explained that the cases had been adjourned from the last court in order that Inspector Gosby, of the Metropolitan Police, might be present. The cases were of a similar nature, and he asked that the evidence in all three should be taken together. The suggestion was that the houses were the resorts of fast women. Evidence was called, and Messrs. Mowll and Ward addressed the Bench on behalf of the tenants.

The magistrates, after a short deliberation, said that in the cases of the George and Skylark they were quite satisfied that it was the intention to discontinue any irregularities. The other case was a very different one, for it appeared if the tenant had been prosecuted for having women of that class in his house he would have been convicted. If the tenant allowed such women to live in his house, he would have his licence taken away, but the Bench would not do so on this occasion. They, however, desired to caution him that if the practice was not discontinued his licence would be taken away.

 

Folkestone Express 14-4-1883

Advertisement

To Let: The Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone. Doing a good trade, and rent very low. Apply Steam Brewery, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1883

Wednesday, June 20^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

The transfer of the license for the Cinque Ports was confirmed.

Folkestone News 8-3-1884

Monday, March 3^rd: Before W. Bateman, J. Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs.

Upon application the licence of the Cinque Port Arms was transferred to James Stickles, formerly of Dover.

Folkestone Express 6-12-1884

Advertisement

To Let: The Cinque Port Arms Public House, Seagate Street, Folkestone. Rent and Valuation to incoming tenant low. For particulars apply to Messrs. Nickoll and Furner, Steam Brewery, Folkestone

Folkestone Chronicle 31-1-1885

Wednesday, January 28^th

Licence Transfer

At the Police Court on Wednesday morning the following transfer of licence was effected:

The Cinque Ports Arms: to Charles Caseley

Note: No mention of Caseley in More Bastions. Most likely a mishearing of Kerslake.

Folkestone Express 31-1-1885

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

The Licence of the Cinque Port Arms was transferred to William Kerslake

Folkestone News 31-1-1885

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

Mr. William Carsley (sic) obtained a transfer to himself of the licence of the Cinque Ports Arms.

Folkestone Express 17-4-1886

Saturday, April 10^th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Capt. Carter, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Herman Lyons to carry on the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

Folkestone News 17-4-1886

Saturday, April 10^th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Capt. Carter, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Herman Lyons to carry on the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

Folkestone News 1-5-1886

Wednesday, April 28^th:

Transfer was granted as follows: H. Lyons, Cinque Ports Arms.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-11-1886

Saturday, October 31^st: Before Colonel De Crespigny, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Martha Ann Fuller was charged with committing an assault on Mary Ann Lyons, whose husband keeps the Cinque Port Arms. Mr. Ward prosecuted.

Mrs. Lyons stated that on Sunday evening defendant`s husband was quarrelling with another man in the bar, and her husband asked them to leave the house, but they refused. He then turned Fuller out. There was a scuffle, and as she went round to save the glasses from being broken the defendant struck her in the eye and made use of bad language.

The defendant was fined 2s. 6d., and 11s. costs, or seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 14-12-1889

Wednesday, December 11^th: Before Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Transfer

Mr. Ward applied for a transfer of the licence of the Cinque Ports Arms from A. Farr to Robert Weatherhead, and the transfer was granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-2-1892

Wednesday, February 17^th: Before J. Holden Esq., and Alderman Pledge

Robert Weatherhead, landlord of the Cinque Ports Arms, was charged with allowing prostitutes to remain on his premises longer than the time required for refreshments.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Harman said on Tuesday the 9^th inst., about quarter past nine in the evening, he watched the Cinque Ports Arms in Seagate Street. He saw several women go in, and at quarter to 10 he visited the house, where he saw a prostitute named Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter standing in the bar drinking. About 15 soldiers were around them, and several civilians. He left the house then, and at half past 10 he saw Mrs. Spearpoint come out with a soldier belonging to the Dragoons. About a quarter of an hour afterwards – quarter to 11 – she returned to the house. At five minutes to 11 witness visited the house again, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter in company with 15 or 20 soldiers, and another prostitute sitting on a seat with a soldier, who had his arm round her waist. Defendant`s wife and her daughter were behind the bar. The defendant afterwards came up, and witness said to him “You know those women are prostitutes? I shall report you for harbouring”. He said “I don`t know how they get their living”. He had frequently seen prostitutes in the house. It was almost a nightly occurrence.

By Mr. Watts: Mrs. Weatherhead was serving when he went in. He had never timed women staying there before.

Sergt. Swift said he accompanied Sergt. Harman to the house at 10.30, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint leave with a soldier. She returned about ten minutes afterwards. Witness and Sergt. Harman went into the house at 10.30 and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter in front of the bar with eight or ten soldiers round them. On the previous night he watched the house from 10.55 until 11, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter leave. They did not enter during the period. On two occasions within the last six weeks he had had to go to the house at 11.20, and had found Spearpoint and some soldiers on the premises.

By Mr. Watts: It was a very low neighbourhood, but he had never seen any other prostitutes frequent the house.

Mr. Watts said he would be obliged to dispute the facts, and called the defendant as a witness: He stated that he went into the house at 10.40, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint go in with two soldiers. Witness went down into the kitchen, and was almost immediately called up by Sergt. Harman, who said “Are you aware you are serving prostitutes?” and he said “No”.

Mrs. Weatherhead stated that Mrs. Spearpoint came in at 9.20, had a glass of beer, and went out. Miss Spearpoint came in at 10.40 with two soldiers. Her mother came in directly afterwards, and before she had time to serve her “the two Sergeants came in like lions”. (Laughter)

By Mr. Bradley: She was in the bar all the evening. Sergt. Harman came in at 9.45, but it was untrue that there were any women in the house then. There were only four soldiers in the house when Harman came in the last time.

Henry Morley, an able seaman, said he was at the Cinque Ports Arms all the evening on the 9^th, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter go into the house at 9.30. They stayed about three minutes, and went out. The women came in again about 20 minutes to 11. Mrs. Spearpoint called for a glass of beer, but before she could be served the policemen came in.

Mr. Bradley: What were you doing in the house all that time? – I`m a teetotaller, sir. I was drinking ginger beer all the time. (Laughter)

Stephen Moore, a mariner, said he was in the house from 8.30 to 11. He saw the two Spearpoints come in about 9.20, and remain two or three minues. The youngest came in again about 20 minutes to 11 with two soldiers, and they were served with a quart of beer. The elder one followed. They had been there two or three minutes when the police came in. They were not in the house at 10.30.

Mr. Holden said they fully believed the case to have been proved. They were perfectly satisfied with the evidence of the two Sergeants, who were honourable men. They would not come there and give false evidence; they knew them too well. The defendant`s house was constantly open to receive prostitutes, although it was not so bad as some of them. The maximum fine was £10, but that would be mitigated to 40s. and 14s. costs.

Defendant: I shan`t pay it!

The Chairman: One month in default. You may think yourself very well off.

Folkestone Express 20-2-1892

Wednesday, February 17^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, Geo. Spurgen and J. Holden Esqs.

Robert Weatherhead was summoned for allowing his house, the Cinque Ports Arms, to be used as a resort for reputed prostitutes, and allowing them to remain longer than was necessary for them to obtain refreshment.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the defendant.

Sergeant Harman said on Tuesday, the 9^th inst., he watched the defendant`s house. He saw several women go in. At a quarter to ten he went into the house and saw Mrs. Spearpoint, a widow, and her daughter standing in the bar drinking. They were surrounded by a number of soldiers – there were about fifteen in the house, and several civilians. He left the house, and at half past ten saw Mrs. Spearpoint leave with a Dragoon and go down Dover Street and along Harbour Street. She returned in about a quarter of an hour, and again went into the house. At five minutes to eleven he visited the house with Sergeant Swift, and saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter with about 15 or 20 soldiers in the public bar, and another woman named Hopkins sitting by the side of a soldier. Defendant`s wife and daughter were behind the bar. He had some conversation with them, and asked for defendant, who came up from the kitchen, and in the presence of Mrs. Spearpoint he told them he knew they were prostitutes and he should report him for harbouring them. Defendant replied “I don`t know how they get their living – You can report it”. The whole company left the house at eleven o`clock. Mrs. Weatherhead also said she did not know how they got their living. He had frequently seen the Spearpoints and Hopkins there.

Sergeant Swift gave corroborative evidence. On two occasions he had had to go to the house a few minutes past eleven, and on each occasion saw the Spearpoints there.

Robert Weatherhead, the defendant, was called by Mr. Watts, and said when he went into the kitchen there were no women there. About twenty minutes to eleven he saw Mrs. Spearpoint`s daughter go in, followed by two sergeants. A few minutes after, he was called up by the Sergeant, who asked him if he was aware he was serving prostitutes. He replied that he did not know. Nothing of the sort had happened before.

Fanny Weatherhead, defendant`s wife, said the woman went in and had a glass of beer, but did not stay more than three minutes. The young woman went in again about twenty minutes to eleven with two soldiers, and the other woman followed. She did not know them to be prostitutes.

Henry Morley said he was in teh Cinque Ports Arms all the evening on the 9^th of February. He saw Mrs. Spearpoint and her daughter go in at 9.30, have a glass of beer, and go out. They were not there more than about three minutes. He saw them go in again about twenty minutes to eleven. Sergeant Harman and Sergeant Swift followed them in. He was a teetotaller and drank nothing but ginger beer all the time. There were not fifteen soldiers in the bar at any time – only about six.

Stephen Moore, a seaman on the diving boats, said he was in the Cinque Ports from 8.30 till 11, and saw the woman go in at 9.20, have a glass of beer, and go out. The younger one returned about twenty minutes to eleven with two soldiers, who called for a quart of beer. The older woman went in a minute or two after and asked for a glass of beer. Before it was drawn the police sergeants went in. He only knew the women by sight. They were not in the house at half past ten.

Mr. Holden announced the decision of the Bench. They were satisfied the case was proved by the two sergeants, who were honourable men and would not come to give false evidence. The house, it was proved, was habitually open to prostitutes – it was not as bad as some. The Magistrates would not deal with the licence, nor impose the maximum fine of £10. Defendant would be fined 40s. and 14s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-8-1892

Saturday, August 6^th: Before Messrs. J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, W.G. Boykett, and Alderman Pledge.

Robert Weatherhead, the boatman, was charged with having a quantity of tobacco, the same being uncustomed goods..

Mr. Rolt asked that the case might be adjourned so that he might have an opportunity of communicating with the Honourable Board of Customs. They had very grave information that tobacco was being landed in very quantities.

Defendant said he would rather have the case disposed of at once, as he wished to go to London on Wednesday.

The Bench adjourned the case until Saturday

Folkestone Express 13-8-1892

Saturday, August 6^th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Robert Weatherhead was charged with having a quantity of tobacco, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt said he should ask for the case to be adjourned. They had very grave information that tobacco had been landed in large quantities, and he desired to communicate with the Honourable Board of Customs and await further instructions.

The case was therefore adjourned until Saturday.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before Mr. J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick.

Annual Licensing Session

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that they might know the Society`s views upon the subject, to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

Adjournments

The Superintendent of Police having reported that convictions for offences against the Licensing Act had been obtained against the following in the course of the past year, the Bench decided to refer their applications for renewals to the Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28^th: Chidwell Brice, Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren Inn; Laslett, Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday, Wheatsheaf Inn.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer`s licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Adjourned Applications

The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28^th of September.

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 Cinque Ports Arms

Robert Weatherhead applied for the renewal of this licence.

The ground of objection in this case was that the defendant had been convicted of allowing his house to be frequented by prostitutes, and further that he had been charged with having a quantity of uncustomed tobacco on the premises. In this case there were 15 other houses within a distance of 100 paces.

Mr. Hall appeared for the claimant.

In reply to Mr. Wightwick, the Superintendent of Police said he did not consider the house to be of a disorderly character now.

The Chairman said the Bench were not unanimous in their decision with reference to this case, but the majority of the Magistrates were in favour of the licence being renewed, but the claimant must be on his guard, for should there not be any alteration in the house he would stand a chance of having the licence refused next year.

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 Cinque Ports Arms

Robert Weatherhead applied for a renewal of the licence to this house. Mr. Mowll opposed, and said the grounds of opposition were somewhat different in this case. The applicant was convicted on the 17^th February for harbouring prostitutes, and on the 5^th August the applicant was charged with having uncustomed tobacco on his premises. The charge was withdrawn, the case being settled by the Custom Authorities. There was a third ground – that the licence was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were 15 other houses within 100 paces.

Superintendent Taylor was called to prove the charge of harbouring tobacco being preferred and withdrawn.

Mr. Hall, who appeared for the applicant, objected to the evidence. He also elicited from the Superintendent that the applicant did his best to conduct the house properly, but he was very much away from home.

In reply to Mr. Wightwick, the applicant said the house was conducted better now, and he did not consider it a house of a disorderly character.

Mr. Hall said the fine of only 40s. showed that the Bench did not consider it a very serious offence – it was for allowing women to remain longer than was necessary. They were entitled to be served, and it was extremely difficult to decide what the time was. Mr. Belgrave, the owner, felt it would hardly be fair to turn the man out under the circumstances, otherwise he would have got another tenant.

The Chairman said the Bench were not unanimous in that case, but there was a majority in favour of renewal. The applicant must be on his guard, because probably his was one of the licenses that would be suppressed at the next licensing day.

Folkestone Herald 1-10-1892

Police Court Jottings

Considerable interest was manifested on Wednesday in the proceedings at the adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing Committee had instructed the police to serve notices of six objections. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the police in their opposition by instruction of the Watch Committee.

The Chairman, Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been suggested that the same plan adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was the unanimous opinion of the Licensing Committee that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone and they would suggest that the owners of licensed houses should talk it over among themselves and agree, before the next annual meeting, which houses should be dropped out. The Licensing Committee felt compelled to suppress some of the houses in the town, and if the owners would carry out that suggestion it would do away with a great difficulty and relieve the Magistrates of an invidious task.

The Cinque Ports Tavern was objected to on the ground that the landlord had been convicted for harbouring dissolute women. Mr. Hall made an earnest appeal on behalf of the tenant, and the licence was renewed.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-5-1893

Thursday, May 4^th: Before Major Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne

James Butler was charged with stealing three cigars, the property of Robert Weatherhead, valued at sixpence.

Harriett Crocker, living at the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, said she was coming downstairs that morning shortly after nine o`clock, when she saw the prisoner behind the counter, close to a recess where the cigars were kept. She called out and asked the prisoner what he was doing there, when he jumped over the counter and ran out of the house.

Fanny Weatherhead, landlady of the Cinque Ports Arms, said she knew prisoner as a customer. She had served him with a pint of beer and a “screw” of tobacco that morning and left him in the bar alone. The last witness called her and she saw the prisoner run out of the house.

P.C. Keeler apprehended the prisoner in the Lower Sandgate Road, and on searching him found the three cigars produced.

In defence, prisoner said he was not in want of three paltry cigars, and made a rambling statement that he bought them in Radnor Street, at a shop “round the corner”, and that his witness, whose name he did not know, lived at a lodging house in Radnor Street.

The Magistrates did not believe the prisoner`s statement, and sent him to prison for 21 days with hard labour.

Folkestone Visitors` List 10-5-1893

Police Court Jottings

Three twopenny cigars, which involve seven days` hard labour, constitute a rather dear smoke, especially when the cigars have also to be handed over before what enjoyment there may be in a twopenny regalia can be obtained. Such was the lesson learnt by James Butler, a travelling musician, who on Thursday was charged before Major Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne with stealing the above articles from the Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street.

The prisoner had gone into the house about nine in the morning and had been served with a pint of beer and a “screw”. He was left alone in the bar, but, the servant coming down the stairs rather suddenly, he was discovered behind the counter. Seeing that he was observed he jumped over it and ran away, and when, shortly after, he was apprehended by P.C. Keeler, the cigars were found on him. His statement was that he had bought them “at the little shop around the corner”, but unfortunately for him he could not further identify it, nor was his witness to the transaction present.

The Magistrates declined to accept his version of the affair as a sufficient explanation of his gymnastic performance over the counter, and characterising it as a paltry theft, awarded him twenty one days` hard labour.

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 Chronicle 17-1-1896

Monday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. Banks and Wightwick.

Thomas Baker was charged with stealing a piece of pork from the Cinque Port Arms, on Saturday, January 11^th, the property of George Piddock.

The prosecutor said he was in the Cinque Port Arms on Saturday evening. He had a piece of pork with him. While he was receiving some money from the landlady, the pork was taken. He did not see the prisoner. There were a lot of people in the room.

Elizabeth Weatherhead, daughter of the landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said she saw Piddock come into the house on Saturday. He complained before he left that he had lost a piece of pork. Prisoner was there. He came in before Piddock. He was not there when the prosecutor complained of losing the pork.

P.S. Swift said that about quarter to nine on Saturday night, he went to 25, Bennett`s Yard,. He saw the prisoner there. Witness asked him where the pork was he took from Piddock`s basket in the Cinque Ports. He replied “I`ve got it”. In the back room he pointed out the pork produced, in a recess, wrapped in paper. He handed it to witness and said he was going to take it back – he only took it for a game. Witness showed the pork to the landlady of the house in prisoner`s presence. She said it was not hers, the prisoner brought it in. He was brought to the police station, and charged by the prosecutor. He replied “I only took it for a game. I should have brought it back”.

Prisoner elected to be tried summarily. He said he was not guilty of stealing the pork, he only took it for a joke. It was handed to him by another man. A witness he desired to call was not present.

The prosecutor said he did not wish to press the charge. It might have been a joke. He understood it was since.

The Mayor said they had carefully considered the case, and would give him the benefit of the doubt. It should be a lesson not to play jokes of that sort. He was then discharged.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1896

Monday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Thomas Baker was charged with stealing a piece of pork, value 3s., the property of George Piddock.

Prosecutor said he was a pork butcher at 25, Dover Street. About nine o`clock on Saturday night he was in the Cinque Port Arms. He took some potatoes for the landlady, and a piece of pork in a basket. He stood another piece of pork on a table behind him in the bar. He stood taking his money from the landlady, and on turning round the pork was gone. He did not see prisoner there, nor did he know him. The pork weighed 5lbs. or 6lbs, and the value he put at 3s. There was a lot of people in the bar.

Elizabeth Matilda Weatherhead, daughter of Robert Weatherhead, landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said she was in the bar on Saturday night, and saw Piddock go in with his basket, and was there when he left. He complained before leaving of having lost a piece of pork. She saw prisoner in the bar. He entered just before Piddock, and she did not see him leave. He was not there when Piddock complained of losing the pork.

Sergeant Swift said about a quarter to nine on Saturday night, he went to 25, Bennett`s Yard, Fenchurch Street, and saw prisoner there. The house was tenanted by man named Marshall, a fisherman. He asked prisoner “Where is the pork you took from Piddock`s basket at the Cinque Ports?” He replied “I`ve got it”. He went into the back room with him, and he pointed at the pork which was lying on the table, wrapped in paper. He said “I was going to take it back. I only took it for a game”. Witness showed the pork to Mrs. Marshall in prisoner`s presence, and asked her if she knew anything about it. She said “No. It`s not mine – he brought it in”. Prisoner was charged at the police station with stealing the pork, and he again said he only took it for a game.

Prisoner said he was not guilty of stealing the pork. It was handed to him out of the basket. He wished to call Mrs. Weatherhead to prove that she saw someone take the pork and give it to him.

Piddock said he did not wish to press the charge. He believed it was only done in a joke.

The Bench dismissed the charge, but cautioned him not to take things again in a joke.

Folkestone Herald 18-1-1896

Police Court Jottings

On Monday Thomas Baker was charged with stealing about 5lbs. of pork, value 3s., on the 11^th January.

George Piddock, pork butcher, 35, Dover Street, stated that at nine o`clock on the day in question he was in the Cinque Port Arms. He left a basket containing pork on the table, and went into the bar-room for the purpose of taking money for what the landlady had bought of him. When he returned, the basket and pork had gone. There were plenty of people in the room.

Elizabeth Matilda Weatherhead, daughter of the landlord of the Cinque Port Arms, said that she was in the bar on Saturday night. She saw the last witness bring a basket into the house. Before leaving he complained of having lost his basket of pork. Witness saw the prisoner come in on that night, before the last witness. She did not see the prisoner leave the house.

P.S. Swift stated at about a quarter to nine on Saturday night, from information received, he went to No. 25, Bennett`s Yard, where a man named Marshall lived. He saw the prisoner, and asked him where the pork was that he took from the Cinque Port Arms. He replied “I`ve got it”. They then went to the back room, where the pork was on a table in a recess. Prisoner said “I was going to take it back. I only took it for a game”. Mrs. Marshall said that the prisoner had brought the pork in. When charged at the police station, the prisoner said “I only took it for a game. I should have brought it back”.

The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and added that the pork was handed out of the basket to him. Mrs. Weatherhead was present at the time, and would prove it. He had worked at Mr. Francis` for 18 months.

Mrs. Weatherhead was not in Court.

The prisoner was discharged, there being, in the opinion of the Bench, a doubt in the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-6-1898

Wednesday, June 15^th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mrs. Weatherhead was granted the licence of the Cinque Port Arms, her husband having died.

Folkestone Up To Date 18-6-1898

Wednesday, June 15^th: Before J. Hoad, and Justices Pledge and Vaughan.

Transfer was granted to Mrs. Weatherhead, widow of the late Mr. Weatherhead, of the Cinque Port Arms.

Mr. Hall appeared on behalf of Mrs. Weatherhead.

Folkestone Herald 18-6-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday transfer was granted Mrs. Weatherhead for the Cinque Ports Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3-9-1898

Monday, August 29^th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Salter and T.J. Vaughan.

John Weatherhead was charged with breaking four panes of glass, the property of his mother, Fanny Weatherhead, in Seagate Street, on the previous day.

The mother said prisoner lived with her at the Cinque Port Arms. At half past two on Sunday he came home the worse for drink. Witness said “Make haste, Jack, and get your dinner and go to bed”. After partaking of dinner he tried to cut witness`s throat. He afterwards went out and smashed the windows with his fists.

Prisoner, in defence, said his mother induced his brother to knock him about “something awful”. He had fits and couldn`t get a word in anyhow.

Fined 5s., costs 4s. 6d., and the cost of the glass, 16s., or 14 days` hard labour. He was given a week in which to pay the money.