Granville Inn, Dover Street 1880 - 1932

Folkestone Express 4-9-1880

 

The former Granville Inn (behind gas lamp) awaits demolition in this 1958 photograph. Credit Folkestone Library

 

 

Licensees

Charles Howe 1880 1882

John McKay 1882 1887

Robert McKay 1887 1888

Henry Wood 1888 1888

Robert Leach 1888 1890

Walter Jefford 1890 1890

Henry Abbott 1890 1891
Carlo Maestrani 1891 1892

Walter Jefford 1892 1892 To British Colours

Frederick Stickles 1892 1897

Stephen Wickenden 1897 1899

Thomas Oliver 1899 1902

Charles Partridge 1902 1903

Frederick Skinner 1903 1922 From Tramway Tavern

George Ralph 1922 1923

Arthur Perrin 1923 1928

Harry Kennard 1928 1932

Folkestone Express 6-8-1881

Saturday, July 30^th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Charles Howe, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for opening his house for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on the previous Sunday, and George Jacobs, William Roberston, James Bradshaw and John Childs, three soldiers and a waiter, were charged with being on the premises during prohibited hours.

Superintendent Rutter said on the day named, at half past three in the afternoon, he visited the Granville public house, Dover Street, kept by defendant, in company with Sergeant Ovenden. He knocked at the front door four times. Defendant, he believed, came to the door and asked who was there. He replied “Police”. Defendant called to some person “It`s the police. Bring the key”. Finding the door was not unlocked, he knocked again twice, but received no reply. Sergeant Ovenden then knocked at the side door, and it was opened by defendant`s wife. Witness went into the house, and on the table in the taproom on the left hand side he noticed wet marks of pots on the table. He then went into the back room and saw the defendant, Mr. Howe, at the dinner table. There was also Henry Newman in the house. Defendant`s wife said “There is no-one in the house, Mr. Rutter, for I would not even serve a pint of beer this morning”. Defendant said he had been very bad with rheumatic fever and could not get about. Witness asked defendant`s wife to accompany him over the house. She did so. They went down to the kitchen, and found a door leading out at the left hand corner, which defendant`s wife said was a spirit cellar, and added “You don`t want to go in there, it`s dark”. He asked her to bring him a light, and the defendants Childs and Jacobs then came out into the kitchen. Hearing a further scuffling in the cellar he went in, and noticed some other people on the stairs. Robertson and Bradshaw, with two other men, went into the room in which Mr. Howe was. He called to them to wait, and took their names and addresses. Defendant`s wife said in his presence “They have had no beer, Mr. Rutter, and we didn`t know they were in the house. The side door must have been left open, and they walked in without our knowing it”. He told defendant he should take proceedings against him. He said he was very sorry, and hoped witness would make it as light as he could.

Defendant admitted that the men were in the house, but said they had nothing to drink, and called a man named Newman to substantiate his statement.

The Bench decided to convict the defendant, and ordered him to pay a fine of £5 and 9s. costs, to be levied by distress, or in default one month`s imprisonment.

In the case of the three soldiers, it transpired that a conviction against them would involve the loss of a good conduct stripe and a penny a day for 175 days. The charge against them was therefore withdrawn on payment of the costs, 8s. The other defendant was fined 2s. 6d., without costs.

Folkestone Express 26-11-1881

Wednesday, November 23^rd: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Colonel De Crespigny, Aldermen Sherwood and Caister, J. Holden, J.B. Tolputt and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mary Ann Smith pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street, and also to breaking two panes of glass, value 3s., the property of Charles Howe.

Charles Howe, landlord of the Granville, said the defendant was refused drink. She then became very violent and committed the damage.

P.C. Reid said he saw the defendant take off her shoe and break the windows. She used very foul language.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and for the second a fine of 5s., damage 3s., and costs 3s. 6d., or fourteen days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 11-11-1882

Tuesday, November 7^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Capt. Crowe, and M.J. Bell Esq.

Annie Young, a hawker, was charged with stealing a gilt chain and locket, and various other articles, the property of Elizabeth Gomez.

Prosecutrix said she met the prisoner at the Lifeboat Inn, and as she could not obtain lodgings, and appeared to be a respectable woman, she took her to her room at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. She stayed a few days, and after she had left, prosecutrix missed several things, among them being a gilt chain and locket, a pocket knife, a pair of earrings, a pocket handkerchief, a piece of carpet, and two lace falls. On Friday she saw the prisoner at a public house and asked her if she had the things. She denied having taken them, and said she had not got them. On the following day she went to a bedroom occupied by the prisoner, and there found the piece of carpet, which she identified as her property. The value of the whole of the things stolen would be 5s.

Prisoner was remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, November 8^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, and M.J. Bell Esq.

The woman Young was brought up on remand charged with stealing articles belonging to Elizabeth Gomez. No further evidence was offered.

Mr. Minter said the locket and chain could not be traced, and the only article found belonging to prosecutrix was the piece of carpet, which was of very trifling value.

It transpired that there had been a disturbance between the prosecutrix and the prisoner, and after the prosecutrix had been questioned on the point the Bench dismissed the charge.

Folkestone News 2-8-1884

Friday, July 25^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, J. Holden Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Mary Gower was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Granville in Dover Street.

John McKay, the landlord, said the defendant had lodged at the Granville for a week, and on the previous day at about half past two she was very nearly drunk. He ordered her out of the house, and she refused to go, defying him and the police. He had to send for a constable to assist in getting her out, and they had almost to lift her bodily in doing so.

P.C. Hogben corroborated.

In the course of a lengthy statement in defence, the woman said her husband, who was working at Sandgate, was in the habit of getting too much to drink and knocking her about, and under these circumstances she did appear to some people to be in liquor herself. On the day in question she had only shared two pints with her husband, and had half a pint to herself, and she appealed to the Bench if it were possible for her to have been drunk on that. Her husband on one occasion last week drank eight pints of beer before he came up to their room to tea.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-12-1884

Wednesday, December 3^rd: Before J. Bell Esq., and Ald. Hoad.

Charles Hopkins, a young man, was charged with stealing an overcoat from outside Mr. Logan`s shop, Tontine Street.

It appears that Mr. Logan missed a coat and gave information to the police. A constable went the next morning to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, where the prisoner was lodging, and found him in his bedroom, and in possession of the stolen coat.

In defence prisoner said he met a man in High Street, who asked him if he would like to earn a shilling, which he said he would. He then told him to pawn the coat for 14s., as they would give more to a stranger for it than they would him. Prisoner went into the pawn shop and they would give him no more than 8s. on it. He took it away, and on looking for the man he could not find him, so he kept the coat in his possession.

On being asked by the Bench if he would prefer to be summarily dealt with, prisoner said he would.

The Chairman stated that the Bench did not believe his story and were convinced that he stole the coat. He would be sentenced to two months` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 6-12-1884

Wednesday, December 3^rd: Before Alderman Hoad and M.J. Bell Esq.

Charles Hopkins was charged with stealing a black overcoat, value 27s., the property of Thomas Logan, clothier, of Tontine Street, on the 2^nd December.

Prosecutor said on Tuesday evening he missed a coat from outside his shop. It had been hanging on a rail in front of the private door. It was there about four o`clock. P.C. Lilley brought the coat to him the next morning.

P.C. Lilley said from information received he went that morning to the Granville Inn, in Dover Street. He found the prisoner in a bedroom there. The coat produced was hanging on a nail inside the door. He asked prisoner if it was his, and he said “Yes”. He asked him where he bought it. He replied “Pringle`s, Upper High Street, Margate”. Witness told him it answered the description of one stolen from Tontine Street, and that he must go with him. They went to Mr. Logan`s, who identified the coat, and prisoner was then taken to the police station. On being charged he made no reply.

Prisoner said he did not steal the coat. He met a man, who asked him to go and pawn it. He took it to a pawnbroker`s and asked 14s. on it, and they offered him 7s. When he got outside with the coat, the man was gone.

The prisoner was sentenced to two months` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-3-1887

Monday, March 7^th: Before Dr. Bateman, Ald. Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

James King was charged with having stolen a bag containing four half sovereigns and fourteen shillings in silver; also a silver watch, Albert, and trinket, the property of W. Taylor.

William Taylor, a fish hawker, of No. 4, Radnor Street, said he was at the Granville public house, Dover Street, on the previous Thursday evening. He went into the tap room and the prisoner was there in company with several others. He had a bag in his possession containing £2 14s. He “stood treat” to the company and took out the bag to pay. He afterwards put it into the inside pocket of his jacket. He left about eleven o`clock. Prisoner was in the room part of the time. He went home with a man named Johnson, and the next morning found that his purse was missing. On going with Sergt. Pay to the Granville on Friday morning, the landlord showed him the bag produced which contained his money.

John McKane said he was manager of the Granville Inn. He saw Taylor in the tap room on the evening in question. He could not say if he was in drink. Prisoner had been in his service four weeks. He played the piano and was paid 1s. per night, and had his lodgings free. Yesterday week was the last time he paid him, and last Tuesday he borrowed sixpence.

Alice Stanley said the prisoner went to her at the coffee house in Dover Road, and asked her to go to Dover with him. Prisoner offered her a watch chain. They went to Dover and stayed all night, the prisoner paying expenses.

Fredk. Parsons, an assistant at Mr. Logan`s in Tontine Street, deposed to the prisoner purchasing there a coat and waistcoat for 13s. When taking out the money to pay, prisoner also displayed two half sovereigns in addition to the one tendered, with three shillings in payment.

P.S. Pay said that about half past four last Saturday afternoon he went to the Granville with prosecutor and saw the prisoner. He put several questions and prisoner denied having had a watch chain. Prisoner said the prosecutor must be mistaken in charging him with stealing his property. He knew nothing about it. Prisoner made no reply when charged at the police station by the Superintendent.

Upon the usual formula being read over to the prisoner he pleaded Guilty and asked that the case should then be disposed of.

The Bench passed a sentence of three months hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12-3-1887

Monday, March 7^th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

James King was charged with stealing a bag containing £2 14s. in money, a watch guard and two trinkets, the property of William Taylor.

Prosecutor, a fish hawker, living in Radnor Street, said on Thursday night he was at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. Several men were there in front of the bar. He went into the tap room. Prisoner was there. He treated prisoner and a man called King. He had then four half sovereigns and 14s. in a bag, which he took out of his pocket to pay with, and then put it back in his jacket pocket. He stayed till about eleven o`clock, then left. Prisoner was in the room all the time. A man named Johnson, a fish hawker, saw him home. On Friday morning when he woke up he missed his money. On Saturday he went with Sergt. Pay to the Granville about half past four in the afternoon and saw the landlord, who showed him the bag produced. He saw prisoner at the Granville. Sergt. Pay asked if he was at Dover on Friday. He said “Yes”. Pay then asked if he had a watch and chain, and he said “No”. Witness gave prisoner into custody. He identified the trinkets produced as his property.

John M`Kay, landlord of the Granville Inn, said on Thursday evening Taylor went to his house about eleven o`clock and went into the tap room with several lodgers, John Jeffrey, Tom Jeffrey, Charles Wilson, the man King, and another called King, but whose name was Major. Taylor sat down in the tap room. He was not very drunk. He had something to drink. After they had all gone, witness went into the tap room and found a small black bag. On Saturday morning Taylor went to the house with Sergt. Pay and he gave him the bag. Prisoner had been in his service four weeks, his occupation being to play the piano, for which he had 1s. a night, his lodgings and a pint of beer. He paid him 5s. on the 27^th February, and on the following Tuesday lent him 6d.

Alice Stanley, a young woman living at Mempes` coffee-house, said she knew the prisoner King. On Friday morning, about ten or half past, he asked her to go to Dover with him. Before she left she said if she was going to Dover she would get her watch out of pawn. She asked a young woman if she had a chain. Prisoner said he had a chain he would give her, and gave her the chain produced. They went to Dover and stayed at the Pier Inn, and returned to Folkestone on Saturday. Prisoner paid expenses – she could not say how much.

Frederick Parsons, assistant to Mr. Logan, clothier, of Tontine Street, said he recognised the prisoner, who went to Mr. Logan`s shop on Friday morning and purchased a coat and vest, for which he paid 18s., and tendered a half sovereign and 8s. in silver. He laid all his money on the counter. He had two other half sovereigns and some silver.

Sergt. Pay said on Saturday afternoon he went to the Granville with prosecutor and saw prisoner. He asked him if he went to Dover on Friday. He said “Yes”. He asked him if he had a watch and chain at the Commercial Quay. He said “No”. He then said “Taylor accuses you of stealing some money and a silver chain”. He replied “You must be mistaken. I know nothing about any money or chain”. Taylor gave him into custody. When charged at the station, he turned to prosecutor and asked him if he was aware what he was doing. He was searched, but nothing relating to the charge was found on him. The bag he received from Taylor, and the chain from Stanley. The coat and vest produced he found in prisoner`s bedroom.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to three months` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-5-1887

Saturday, May 7^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Holden and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with keeping his house open for the sale of beer during prohibited hours.

Defendant`s brother, who is manager of the house, appeared in answer to the summons. He was represented by Mr. Minter, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared to watch the case on behalf of the owners.

Sergeant Harman said at midnight on the 1^st of May he was duty with police constables Dunster and Bailey in Dover Street. He went to the Granville Inn, tried the doors, and found they were fastened. He heard a number of people talking in the taproom, and money rattling. He knew John Mackay`s voice, and heard him in the bar. He also heard pots and glasses rattling in the bar, as though he was serving. He was going to visit the house, but another charge occupied his attention. At a quarter to one he returned to the house, and about 12.55 he heard a door leading into a passage open. He then saw a number of people in the house. The door was pushed to in his face, but he stuck his feet in so that it could not be shut. He told them who he was, and John Mackay said “All right”, but he kept him five minutes or more before he let him go in. He heard the men escaping through the house to the back, into a private yard at the back of another house. He sent Dunster to prevent anyone from escaping. He was afterwards let into the house, and found seven men in the taproom. Four pint glasses were standing in the room – three on the table, and one on the mantel. One was half full of beer, another a third full, and two others had had beer in them. He knew the men by sight. He took their names and addresses. One was named Wilson, a lodger in the house. The others were people residing in the town. One man, named Wilson, drank the contents of one of the glasses and said “I suppose we can have some more beer, sergeant, if we can get it?” Defendant had conducted the business three years and nine months. He told the men they would be summoned, and told Mackay he should report him. He replied “You see, sergeant, my bar is closed. I hope you will look over it this time. If you don`t, you will ruin me and my family”. He reported the matter to the Superintendent.

By Mr. Minter: He said no beer had been drawn. He did not say the men had broken in after the house was closed. His wife said so. The house was cleared at eleven by the police, but he was not present.

Police constables Bailey and Dunstan corroborated. The latter said he visited the house at ten minutes past eleven and told the defendant to clear his house, which he did. He went away and returned with Sergeant Harman at midnight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: One or two of the men I saw there at ten minutes past eleven, I saw at a quarter to one. He had to tell them twice to go.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Mackay had tried in every way during the last five years to conduct the house in a respectable way, and had done everything in his power to assist the police. It was a house which the lower classes frequented, but no offences against the licensing laws had been committed. He said the men got into the house by forcing up a cellar flap and refused to go away, and while the altercation between Mackay and the men was going on the police came. If no beer was drawn the charge would fail.

He called John Mackay, who said he managed the Granville public house for his brother, Robert. On the 20^th April the house was closed a few minutes after eleven. He closed the bar at eleven, and requested the men to go. P.C. Dunstan went in and cleared the house. After they were gone he was waiting for his wages. He heard someone at the cellar flap, which was broken off. He went outside, and when he opened the door the men rushed in. He told them he would charge them with breaking into the house. They sat down in the taproom and would not move. From the time he locked up he never opened the bar or drew any beer. It was after twelve when the men broke in, he thought. He was quite sure he never served the men with anything. When Sergt. Harman went in he told him the men had broken in, and that no beer was drawn. One of the men in the bar was a lodger.

Ann Mackay, wife of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence.

William Finn, a lodger in the house, said he went out with Mackay to help him put the flap on. The men then went into the house, but no beer was drawn for them. They sat in the taproom talking.

Robert Downie, a plumber, living opposite to the Granville Arms, said the house was kept very orderly.

By the Clerk: He had not complained to the police that the house was a brothel. Three years ago he complained of being assaulted by the police when he complained of a nuisance outside his house. He had never complained to the police about the house. It was only of the manner in which the police used him.

After a short consultation the decision of the Bench was announced by Mr. Holden, who said the defendant would be fined £5 and 15s. costs, or a month`s imprisonment, and they further ordered the licence to be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll made an earnest appeal to the Bench to reconsider their determination to endorse the licence. He pointed out that for five years the house had been well conducted, and that his clients had taken the utmost care to find a respectable tenant who had, as they had heard, altered the character of the house, and conducted it in a respectable manner.

Mr. Holden replied that they had allowed Mr. Mowll to make his statement, and the answer was that they had taken the whole of the matter into consideration, and they had inflicted a moderate fine of £5. When they might have made it £10.

Six young men, named George Harris, Robert Featherbee, Fagg, Carter, Weatherhead and Wilson, were then charged with being found on the premises during prohibited hours, and they were each fined 2s. 6d. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 14-5-1887

Saturday, May 7^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, J. Holden, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with keeping his house open for the sale of beer during prohibited hours.

Defendant`s brother, who is manager of the house, appeared in answer to the summons. He was represented by Mr. Minter, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared to watch the case on behalf of the owners.

Sergeant Harman said at midnight on the 1^st of May he was on duty with police constables Dunster and Bailey in Dover Street. He went to the Granville Inn, tried the doors, and found they were fastened. He heard a number of people talking in the taproom, and money rattling. He knew John Mackay`s voice, and heard him in the bar. He also heard pots and glasses rattling in the bar, as though he was serving. He was going to visit the house, but another charge occupied his attention. At a quarter to one he returned to the house, and at 12.55 he heard a door leading into a passage open. He then saw a number of people in the place. The door was pushed to in his face, but he stuck his toe in so that it could not be shut. He told them who he was, and John Mackay said “All right”, but he kept him five minutes or more before he let him go in. He heard the men escaping through the house to the back, into a private yard at the back of another house. He sent Dunster to prevent anyone from escaping. He was afterwards let into the house, and found seven men in the taproom. Four pint glasses were standing in the room – three on the table, and one on the mantel. One was half full of beer, another a third full, and two others had had beer in them. He knew the men by sight. He took their names and addresses. One was named Wilson, a lodger in the house. The others were people residing in the town. One man, named Willson, drank the contents of one of the glasses and said “I suppose we can have some more beer, Sergeant, if we can get it?” Defendant had conducted the business three years and nine months. He told the men they would be summoned, and told Mackay he should report him. He replied “You see, Sergeant, my bar is closed. I hope you will look over it this time. If you don`y, you will ruin me and my family”. He reported the matter to the Superintendent.

By Mr. Minter: He said no beer had been drawn. He did not say the men had broken in after the house was closed. His wife said so. The house was cleared at eleven by the police, but he was not present.

Police constables Bailey and Dunster corroborated. The latter said he visited the house at ten minutes past eleven and told the defendant to clear his house, which he did. He went away, and returned with Sergeant Harman at midnight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: One or two of the men I saw there at ten minutes past eleven I saw at a quarter to one. He had to tell them twice to go.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Mackay had tried in every way during the last five years to conduct his house in a respectable way, and had done everything in his power to assist the police. It was a house which the lower classes frequented, but no offences against the licensing laws had been committed. He said the men got into the house by forcing up a cellar flap, and refused to go away, and while the altercation between Mackay and the men was going on the police came. If no beer was drawn, the charge would fail.

He called John Mackay, who said he managed the Granville public house for his brother, Robert. On the 20^th April the house was closed a few minutes past eleven. He closed the bar at eleven, and requested the men in the house to go. P.C. Dunster went in and cleared the house. After they were gone he was waiting for his wages. He heard someone at the cellar flap, which was broken off. He went outside, and when he opened the door the men rushed in. He told them he would charge them with breaking into the house. They sat down in the taproom and would not move. From the time he locked up he never opened the bar or drew any beer. It was after twelve when the men broke in, he thought. He was quite sure he never served the men with anything. When Sergt. Harman went in he told him the men had broken in, and that no beer was drawn. One of the men in the bar was a lodger.

By the Clerk: The men were only sitting down and they refused to go. He went out to the front of the house, but could not see a policeman.

Ann Mackay, wife of the last witness, gave similar evidence.

William Finn, a lodger in the house, said he went out with Mackay to help him put the flap on. The men then went into the house, but no beer was drawn for them. They sat in the taproom talking.

Robert Downie, a plumber, living opposite to the Granville Arms, said the house was kept very orderly.

By the Clerk: He had not complained that the house was a brothel. Three years ago he complained of being assaulted by the opolice, when he complained of a nuisance outside his house. He had never complained to the police about the house. It was only of the manner in which the police used him.

After a short consultation the decision of the Bench was announced by Mr. Holden, who said the defendant would be fined £5 and 15s. costs, or a month`s imprisonment, and they further ordered the licence to be endorsed.

Mr. Mowll made an earnest appeal to the Bench to reconsider their determination to endorse the licence. He pointed out that for five years the house had been well conducted, and that his clients had taken the utmost care to find a respectable tenant, who had, as they had heard, altered the character of the house and conducted it in a respectable manner.

Mr. Holden replied that they had allowed Mr. Mowll to make his statement, and the answer was that they had taken the whole of the matter into consideration, and they had inflicted a moderate fine of £5 when they might have made it £10.

Six young men named James Harris, Robert Featherbee, Fagg, Carter, Weatherhead and Wilson were then charged with being found on the premises during prohibited hours, and they were each fined 2s. 6d. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 21-5-1887

Thursday, May 19^th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

William Finn, a lad, was charged with stealing a silver watch, value 25s., the property of George Finn, on the 5^th May.

Emily Finn, mother of the prisoner, living at 154, Dover Road, said she had a silver watch left in her custody by her brother, who was now in America. She placed it in a box in a bedroom. Prisoner had been in the habit of coming to and fro the house, but did not live with her. She missed the watch on Tuesday evening.

John Mackay, of the Granville Inn, said he received the watch from prisoner about a fortnight ago as security for money he owed. He said he would pay the money on Saturday.

Sergt. Pay apprehended the prisoner in the race field at the back of Caesar`s Camp on Wednesday. He said the watch was as much his as it was his father`s.

Prisoner`s father said his son was a great trouble to him. He threatened on Saturday to murder him and he was obliged to take the course he had done.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 16-6-1888

Saturday, June 9^th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, F. Boykett and J. Brooke Esqs.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, was summoned for refusing to admit the police to his house, and with permitting drunkenness on his premises.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the defendant and Mr. Minter prosecuted.

Mr. Mowll applied for a remand until Saturday next. Mr. Minter said he had no objection. The case was therefore remanded until the 16^th inst.

Henry Allen, a blind man, was summoned for being found drunk on the above premises.

Supt. Taylor said this was a portion of the last case and asked that it might also be remanded until next Saturday, This was granted.

Folkestone Express 16-6-1888

Saturday, June 9^th: Before The Mayor, J. Brooke, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

A publican named Mackay was charged with refusing to admit the police, and permitting drunkenness. The summons was adjourned until the following Saturday.

Note: Granville Inn

Monday, June 11^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and J. Brooke Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Stephen Gosby was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street on Saturday night, and with assaulting P.C. Charles Smith.

Supt. Taylor said the constable was unable to attend as he was suffering from a fractured rib.

Mr. Richard Hills Barwick, grocer, of Dover Street, said he saw the prisoner struggling with a policeman on Saturday evening, opposite his shop. They fell three times, and on one occasion the policeman fell on his side on to the kerb. He went out and helped the policeman put on the handcuffs. The prisoner offered no resistance to the constable beyond trying to get away. He did not strike the constable.

Prisoner was remanded until Wednesday.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-6-1888

Saturday, June 16^th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Major Poole, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W. Wightwick and J. Brooke Esqs.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness, and unlawfully refusing to admit the police to his premises on the 3^rd inst.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll (of the firm of Mowll & Mowll, Dover and Ashford) defended.

Defendant pleaded Guilty and therefore it was not necessary to call the evidence.

Mr. Minter, in acquainting the Bench with the facts, stated that the defendant had been a great trouble to the police, and other convictions had been recorded against him. On the night in question the police, having suspicions, went to the house but the defendant refused to admit them. When, however, they did gain admittance two men were found hidden on the roof and another lying on the sofa in the back parlour, drunk.

Mr. Mowll said he would leave the case to the merciful consideration of the Bench. They all knew that such a house was no easy task to keep. He was sure the Bench would take a lenient view of the case when they knew that the defendant had been turned out of the house by the brewers, and consequently both he, his wife, and ten children were thrown upon the streets or the Union. He (Mr. Mowll) would also ask the Bench to transfer the licence.

The Chairman remarked that the Bench thought it necessary to endorse the licence altogether.

Mr. Mowll said he sincerely trusted they would not do so. The brewers turned the defendant out of the house immediately they knew the summons had been issued. They could not have done more.

After a short consideration, the Chairman said the defendant would be fined £5 and 9s. costs for permitting drunkenness on the premises, and £2 and 9s. costs for refusing to admit the police. In default of paying the first amount he would be imprisoned for a month, and the latter 14 days. The licence would not be endorsed this time.

Henry Allen was then summoned for being found drunk on the premises on the same day.

After hearing the evidence, the Chairman said as there was a doubt in the case the prisoner would be dismissed with a caution.

Henry Wood was then granted permission to draw at the Granville Inn.

Stephen Gosby was brought up on remand charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Smith.

The constable, who had been suffering from a fractured rib, now attended, and stated that his attention was called to the Granville Inn, Dover Street, on the previous Saturday night. When he got there he found about forty people standing outside. The prisoner was standing inside the door, drunk and in a fighting attitude. When witness got him outside he asked him to go away, and as he would not do so, witness took him into custody. The prisoner became very violent, and after witness had closed with him they fell three times, and once on the edge of the kerb. With the assistance of Mr. Barwick and P.C. Stannage the prisoner was taken into custody. When they arrived at the police station, witness discovered that he was badly hurt in the ribs, and had been under the police surgeon ever since.

Prisoner stated that he asked the policeman to allow him to go back into the house for his wife and children. He admitted being drunk at the time.

The Chairman: And more disgrace to you for being drunk.

Prisoner, continuing, hoped the Bench would deal leniently with him, as he had a wife and two little children. It was solely for them that he wanted to go back into the house.

The Chairman: Still more disgrace to you.

For being drunk and disorderly prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, and for assaulting the constable, 20s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`.

Prisoner was removed below.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1888

Advertisement:

To Let:

The Granville Public House, Dover Street, and the Lifeboat beerhouse, North Street, Folkestone. Particulars of Mr. Loftus Banks, Hotel valuer, Folkestone.

Saturday, June 16^th: Before F. Boykett, W. Wightwick and J.W. Brooke Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Stephen Gosby was brought up on remand, charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting the police on the 9^th June.

P.C. Smith said he was on duty in Dover Street on the 9^th of June at about 7.30 in the evening. His attention was called to a fight at the Granville, and he saw between 40 and 50 people outside. The prisoner was inside, drunk, his face covered with blood, and he was standing in a fighting attitude. He pulled prisoner out into the street and asked him to go away, but he refused and made a great disturbance. He then took prisoner into custody. He resisted violently, and they fell three times in the street. In the struggle the prisoner nearly “wriggled” himself out of his clothes. He then put the handcuffs on with the assistance of Mr. Barwick. Upon reaching the police station witness felt very unwell. He was ordered off duty, and had remained so since. His ribs were fractured.

The prisoner admitted he was drunk, and he was very sorry. He had a wife and two children waiting for him in Canterbury.

The Bench fined prisoner 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days` hard labour; and for resisting the police, 20s. and 14s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days` hard labour.

Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 3^rd of June, and with refusing to admit the police.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Mowll defended.

The defendant pleaded Guilty, and Mr. Minter stated that the police demanded admittance to the house, and upon gaining admittance they found two men out on the roof, and one man drunk downstairs.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on defendant`s behalf.

The Bench inflicted a fine of £5 on defendant and 9s. costs for permitting drunkenness, and £2 and costs for refusing to admit the police, or in default, one month and fourteen days` respectively.

Henry Allen was charged with being drunk at the Granville in on the 3^rd inst.

Defendant said he was not drunk, but asleep.

P.C. Lilley said he visited the Granville at 2.25 a.m., and found the defendant lying on a sofa in the back room, drunk. The defendant was a pipe maker, and lived in Bridge Street.

P.C. Scott said at 4.50 the same morning he saw the defendant going up Dover Road, and he said to him “You`ve left your lodgings very early this morning”, and he replied “I was too boozed last night. I`m tired and want to get home”.

The Bench took a merciful view of the case and dismissed it.

Southeastern Gazette 25-6-1888

Local News

At the police court on Saturday, Robert Mackay, landlord of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, and with refusing to admit the police, on the 3rd inst.

Fined £5 and 9s. costs for the first, and £2 and costs for the second offence, or, in default, six weeks’.

Henry Allen was charged with being drunk on the above-named premises, on the 3rd inst. The case was dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 15-12-1888

Wednesday, December 12^th: Before H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Transfer of License

The licence of the Granville was transferred to Robert Leech

Folkestone Chronicle 21-9-1889

Wednesday, September 17^th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and Major Poole.

Robert Leach was charged with selling beer on the beach, he not being authorised by his licence to do so.

Thomas Smith, “Punch and Judy showman”, said on Friday, the 6^th, about half past twelve, he was on the beach. His son, Thomas Smith was with him. He saw defendant on the beach, and sent his boy to him. Leach handed the boy some beer in the ginger beer bottle produced, for which he paid a penny.

Thomas Smith, son of the last witness, said he went to defendant and asked for half a pint of beer. He said “Who is it for?” and he replied “For my father”. He said “Who is your father?” and he answered “He works up by the Bathing Establishment”. It was taken from a stone jar in a little locker behind the camera obscura. He had seen defendant serve beer to boatmen.

By Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant: Saw defendant serve beer to boatmen, but did not know their names.

William Carden said he was part owner of the locker. Leach brought his dinner beer at half past one in a glass bottle. He lodged with defendant, and had a pint of beer usually with his dinner.

By Mr. Minter: Also ordered the defendant to bring half a gallon of beer and was responsible for payment when he returned home.

Mr. Minter urged that the defendant had committed no offence.  The evidence of Carden showed that he had ordered the beer. It was simply a trap, and the defendant was caught in committing an indiscreet act.

The Bench considered the case proved. Defendant was liable to a fine of £50, but they reduced the fine to £5, and 15s. costs, or a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21-9-1889

Wednesday, September 18^th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Robert Leach was charged with selling beer on the beach, he not being authorised by his licence to do so.

Thomas Smith, “Punch and Judy man”, said on Friday, the 6^th, about half past twelve, he was on the beach. His son Thomas Smith was with him. He saw defendant on the beach, and sent his boy to him. Leach handed him some beer in the ginger beer bottle produced, for which he paid a penny.

By Mr. Minter: I took the bottle to Mr. Fagg at the Baths.

Do you combine some other occupation with your “Punch and Judy” – that of an amateur detective? – No. I was not employed by anybody to do it, but I was told the beer was ordered, and determined to find out whether it was. I am a teetotaller, and was not thirsty.

Thomas Smith, a boy, said he went to defendant and asked for half a pint of beer. He said “Who is it for?” and he replied “For my father”. He said “Who is your father?” and he replied “He works up by the Bathing Establishment”. It was taken from a stone jar in a little locker behind the camera obscura. He had seen defendant serve beer to boatmen.

By Mr. Minter: I saw defendant serve beer to boatmen that day, but do not know their names.

William Carden said he was part owner of the locker. Leach brought his dinner beer at half past one in a glass bottle. He lodged with defendant, and had a pint of beer usually with his dinner.

By Mr. Minter: He also ordered the defendant to bring half a gallon of beer, and was responsible for payment when he returned home.

Mr. Minter urged that the defendant had committed no offence. The evidence of Carden showed that he had the order for the beer. It was simply a trap, and the defendant was caught in committing an indiscreet act. With regard to the Punch and Judy man, who said he was a teetotaller, he was either one of those rabid teetotallers who would do anything to trap a person who sold beer, or merely a creature of the police, or of Mr. Fagg, of the Bathing Establishment, and had better by half have been attending to his business.

The Bench considered the offence was proved beyond doubt. Defendant was liable to a penalty of £50, but they reduced the fine to £5 and 15s. costs, or a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 3-5-1890

Wednesday, April 30^th: Before F. Boykett, J. Brooke, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Mr. Jefford to sell intoxicating liquors at the Granville Inn.

Folkestone Express 23-8-1890

Saturday, August 16^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Stephen Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the 10^th of August.

P.C. Dunster said the defendant, with several others, was near the Alexandra Hotel, very drunk. He asked defendant to go away, but he declined, and asked his companions to go to the back of the Alexandra to get a drink. He used bad language and refused to go away with his companions. He told witness he had been in public houses many a night playing nap with the Superintendent and the Sergeants.

Defendant replied that this was “a pack of lies”. He told Dunster he was drunk in the Granville, and Dunster replied that he was a “----fop”. He denied that he was drunk; the constable was more drunk than he was.

Sergeant Butcher said he saw the defendant in Tontine Street at ten minutes to eleven, being led home drunk by two young men. Defendant pushed one of the men against him.

Defendant conducted himself in a most unseemly manner, accused the police of misconduct and card playing.

There were two recent convictions against the defendant, and he was fined 10s. and 10s. costs. The Bench refused to allow time for payment, and he was removed to the cells.

Folkestone Express 15-11-1890

Saturday, November 8^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

Licence Transfer

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Mr. H.J. Abbott.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-12-1890

Wednesday, December 3^rd: Before Dr. Bateman, J. Fitness and J. Clarke Esqs.

Henry Bennett and George Noble, labourers, were charged with stealing a cellar flap from the Granville Inn, Dover Street, value 13s., on the night of the 2^nd of December.

P.C. Dunster said he was on duty in Dover Street at half past eleven on Tuesday night when he met the prisoners. They were carrying the cellar flap produced. Witness asked them what they had got. Bennett said “A piece of the wreck off the beach”. Noble said “That`s right, mate”. Witness examined the wood, and found it to be a cellar flap, and charged them with stealing it. Bennett said “For God`s sake, don`t do that. If you`ll only give us a chance we will take it back from where we got it”. Witness asked him where that was. Bennett said “From the Granville Inn, Dover Street”. They both said they took it for a lark. Noble was sober. The other appeared to have been drinking.

Edward John Abbott, landlord of the Granville Inn, said the cellar flap was his property. It covered the entrance to his cellar. He last saw it in it`s proper place about nine o`clock on the previous night. They came to the house after closing time for half a gallon of beer in a bottle, and he refused to serve it. Witness was called up by a policeman at half past twelve, when they found the flap was gone.

Prisoners said they did not take it with the intention of committing a theft. It was done as a joke.

The Chairman said the Bench believed the prisoners` story, and they would be discharged with a caution.

Note: More Bastions lists landlord as Henry Abbott.

Folkestone Express 13-12-1890

Wednesday, December 10^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Transfer

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Henry John Abbott

Folkestone Chronicle 26-9-1891

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 23^rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

The application of Mr. Carlo Maestrani for a licence for his premises in Sandgate Road again came on for hearing.

Mr. Martin Mowll appeared on behalf of the applicant, whilst Mr. Minter opposed for the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers` Association, Mr. Rooke for the Temperance Association, and Mr. Hall for the four Societies of Good Templars.

Mr. Mowll said the application had been made several times before and the chief obstacle which presented itself was that it would increase the number of licensed houses in the borough. There was a very proper feeling throughout the country that the number of licences should be reduced. He understood that the object of the Temperance Party was to prevent drinking for the sake of drinking, so as to limit it to legitimate drinking at meal times. Mr. Maestrani`s premises were just the premises he should have thought the Temperance Party would have supported, because it would help, in a small way, the cause of Temperance. He, however, came before the Bench that day on a different footing. Mr. Maestrani had secured the licence of the Granville Arms, Dover Street, which was a house which the police would be glad to see closed. It had been a low class of house, and if the Bench granted the application Mr. Maestrani would undertake to hand in the licence to the Magistrates at once and the house would be closed. Therefore the number of licences would not be increased. There were a very large proportion of the public who would have stimulants with their meals to assist digestion. Of course, at the present time, Mr. Maestrani had no power over the quality of the liquor he supplied, and it was a great detriment to his business.

Carlo Maestrani was called, and stated that he was the owner of the restaurant at 16, Sandgate Road. His dining saloon could accommodate 200 people. There was also a refreshment room and a ladies` room. The latter would accommodate about fifty. He had spared no expense to make his premises complete. Wines were often required at his premises, and he had to send out to neighbouring places. Between eighty and one hundred people generally dined at his premises in the middle of the day during the season, and, on an average, 200 daily. He also provided public dinners. It would ruin his business to turn it into a beer-shop. He simply wanted to supply liquirs to people with their food.

Mr. Wightwick: Do you intend to close the Granville Arms if you get the licence?

Mr. Mowll: Yes, sir. I will give an undertaking that the house shall be closed down before the other licence is handed down.

By Mr. Hall: Nearly all the 200 people would require drink. Customers had to suffer by waiting. Did not intend to have a public bar, and did not want people to come in for a pot of beer.

By Mr. Rooke: He had only to send across the road for liquor. People had to wait about twenty minutes. Not always, but very often. There were no customers present to say they suffered. He wanted to make his business complete. He did not keep an account of the amount of drink he supplied. It was hardly necessary when other people got the profits. (Laughter) He would not keep a bar. If a man came in for a drink it would be placed on a table. Ladies often came in for a glass of sherry and a biscuit. He could not supply them and they walked out.

Mr. Hall contended that the licence was not required and that there were no special circumstances to induce the Bench to grant it. If it were granted there would be nothing to prevent a gang of navvies going in there with pick-axe and shovel for drinks.

Mr. Rooke said the application was for a fully licensed house, which was not required. No person had been called to say they suffered any inconvenience, neither was there any evidence to show that he was handicapped by any other restaurant keeper.

Mr. Minter said the objection on the part of the licensed victuallers was that it was unfair to grant a new licence in the town. But, now that Mr. Maestrani had undertaken to extinguish one licence, he was sure they would not object, and he would, therefore, withdraw his opposition.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and, after a long absence returned, the Chairman remarking that the majority of the Bench were of opinion that the licence was not required. Therefore the application would be refused.

Folkestone Express 26-9-1891

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

Note: During this sessions, in an application for a licence for the Central Cafe by Mr. Carlo Maestrani, it was revealed that Mr. Maestrani had secured the licence of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and he was prepared to give an undertaking that the licence of that house should be handed in and the house closed if his application was successful.

Mr Minter said that the opposition on behalf of the licensed victuallers was to point out that unless a licence was extinguished it would be unfair to grant a new licence. He was not going to say the licence was not required, because they all knew it was, and it must be a benefit to the town when they came to consider that the licence of the Granville was to be extinguished. Therefore the opposition of the licensed victuallers was withdrawn.

The magistrates then retired, and after a long absence, on their return, Mr. Clark said “Mr. Maestrani, it is the opinion of the majority of the Magistrates present that the licence is not required. Therefore the application is refused”.

Note: No record of Maestrani having held the licence appears in More Bastions. Confusingly, in Maestrani`s own evidence to the Bench, it states “He had made arrangements to acquire the licence of the Granville Inn if his application was granted”, so perhaps he never DID have the licence.

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

Extract from application for licence to Central Restaurant:

Mr. Worsfold Mowll: This year, should the Magistrates think fit to grant the full licence, Mr. Maestrani was willing to hand over the licence of the Granville public house, which had already been granted and applied for that morning.

Mr. Carlo Maestrani: “was willing to hand to the Bench the licence of the Granville Arms should the Bench grant his application for a full licence”.

Note: Again, Maestrani appears to have the licence of the Granville, but there is no record of this according to More Bastions.

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

Extract from Maestrani`s application

“In addition this year Mr. Maestrani was willing to take up and hand over the licence of the Granville public house, which had been renewed that morning, if their worships saw fit in their discretion to grant them a full licence......... The Bench would have to understand that they had had to make terms with the owner of the licence of the Granville.”

Folkestone Express 17-9-1892

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

The licence of the Granville Inn was temporarily transferred to Mr. F.G. Stickalls.

Folkestone Chronicle 1-10-1892

Adjourned Licensing Session

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

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

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

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

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

Note: No mention of Mitchell at the Granville in More Bastions. This is probably Stickells misheard.

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 Granville

The licence of this house was renewed to Mr. Stickells.

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.

The Granville Arms

Mr. Glyn said this was a fully-licensed house in Dover Street, and belonged to Messrs. Moxon.

There were two licensed houses within 100 paces of it.

Mr. Taylor, in answer to Mr. Glyn, said he objected to two of the houses in Dover Street.

Mr. Moxon said the house was valued at £800. It had been kept in good repair on the faith of having the licence renewed. The present tenant was a very good one.

The witness was questioned by Mr. Taylor as to previous tenants being convicted of breaches of the Licensing Laws and Mr. Moxon replied that when the police made an objection to a tenant they gave him notice to leave.

Francis Mempes, coffee house keeper, Dover Street, Frederick Edwards, commission agent, and Robert Downey, plumber, Dover Street, gave evidence in support of the renewal.

Downey said he had no objection to the house.

Mr. Taylor: I suppose you would not object to it being closed?

Downey: How would you like to walk further for your drinks up to your neck in snow?

Mr. Glyn: You must not question the Superintendent as to his drinks; it is very irregular. (Laughter)

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 Granville Arms

This house belongs to Messrs. Moxon. The ground of objection was “not wanted”.

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

Superintendent Taylor said there were four licensed houses in Dover Street, out of about 130. He opposed two. There had been seven tenants at the Granville Arms since 1885.

Mr. Moxon said the house had belonged to them for many years. It`s value was about £800. It would naturally diminish the value if the licence were taken away. Stickells, the tenant, was a highly respectable man. The house was in good repair.

Supt. Taylor: What did Mackay leave for?

M. Minter: Because you had a complaint against him.

By Superintendent Taylor: Leach left for a breach of the Licensing Act. When you object to them we give them notice to leave.

Superintendent Taylor said he admitted the house was better conducted than it was.

Francis Mempes, keeper of a coffee house next door to the Granville, said he raised no objection to the house. He was a total abstainer.

By Superintendent Taylor: I should not suffer any inconvenience if the house were closed.

Robert Downey, plumber, of 58, Dover Street, opposite to the Granville, said he had no objection to it.

By Superintendent Taylor: The house is well conducted. It has not always been so. The Perseverance, the Cutter, and the Oddfellows are within 150 yards of my house. It would affect me if the Granville were closed, because my customers go there. It would affect you if you had to go out for beer in a snowstorm. (Laughter)

Mr. Glyn: You must not refer to the Superintendent`s drinks. (Laughter)

Frederick Edwards, a commission agent, said he had lodged in the house for over twelve months. It was a thoroughly respectable house.

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 Bench proceeded to the next case, that of the Granville Arms, which is situated in Dover Street, a fully licensed house, belonging to Messrs. Ash and Co. The ground of objection was that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift and Superintendent Taylor gave evidence, and the latter said that of the four licenced houses in Dover Street he objected to two, the Welcome and the Granville.

Mr. Moxon, called by Mr. Glyn, said the value of the Granville Arms to his firm was £800. The present tenant, Stickles, was a very respectable man. To the Superintendent he admitted that in 1887 a man named Mackay, the tenant, was convicted of a breach of the licensing laws, and left because of this. When the police objected they were obliged to get rid of the tenant.

Superintendent Taylor conceded that the house was better conducted than it was.

Francis Mempes, a coffee house keeper, whose premises adjoin the Granville Arms, and Robert Downey, a neighbour, gave evidence of the respectability of the house. Both admitted it would cause no inconvenience to them personally if the house was closed, but the latter asked the Superintendent whether in the snow he would care to go further for a drink than was necessary.

Mr. Glyn: You must not refer to the Superintendent`s drinks. It is a very particular matter. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor: I suppose Mr. Glyn is jealous – he has been round to all these houses. (Renewed laughter)

Fred. Edwards, a commission agent and lodger also spoke as to the respectability of the house.

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

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

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

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

This was at once acceded to.

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

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893

Licensing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Chronicle 13-1-1894

 

Inquest

On Tuesday morning the body of a man, which has since transpired to be that of a journeyman carpenter named George Henry Wyatt, presumably belonging to Hammersmith, was found hanging in a house which is in the course of erection at St. John`s Church Road. An inquest on the body was held at the Town Hall by the Deputy Coroner (Mr. Haines) on Wednesday afternoon, when the following evidence was given.

Frederick Stickings (sic), of the Granville, identified the body as that of Wyatt. The deceased was a carpenter by trade and was about 50 years of age. He went to witness`s house for a bedroom about five or six weeks ago. He stayed about a week in search of employment, and during that time witness found him to be a very respectable, steady man. The deceased went to Ashford to get work and came back to witness on Boxing Day. He said he was in employment and stayed the night at witness`s house. Witness last saw him alive on Saturday last. He told witness he had family troubles, but he never complained about his health.

Jesse Godfrey, of 66, St. Michael`s Street, said he was a bricklayer working for Mr. Farley in the construction of houses in St. John`s Church Road. He went to the buildings on Tuesday morning after having been away from them for several days, and he saw the body of the deceased hanging by a rope from the joists of the first floor. He gave information to the police.

Frank Colin Manktelow, of 4, Claremont Street, a parcels clerk at the Junction Station, said on the 3^rd instant he took in two baskets of tools from the deceased. He gave him a ticket for them and on Tuesday he handed over the baskets to the Coroner`s Officer, who produced the duplicate.

Edwin John Chadwick, Coroner`s Officer, who gave evidence as to going to the house and cutting down the deceased, said there were two bundles of laths standing up on end in a corner of the room close to the man`s feet, and he had apparently got up on these in order to suspend himself. Among the articles found on the deceased was a membership card of the Carpenters and Joiners Union, Hammersmith Lodge, a travelling ticket of the London Building Trade Federation, and a Savings Bank book taken out at Hounslow in August, 1885. The book showed that the deceased had made recent withdrawals, and that there was now only a balance of 2s. 3d. The cloakroom ticket for the two baskets of tools referred to was also found on the body.

Dr. Barrett said death was due to suffocation by hanging and added that the deceased had been dead at least 24 hours. The body was frozen and it might have been hanging there for two or three days.

Superintendent Taylor handed in a telegram which he had received from the Superintendent of Police at Hammersmith stating that George Henry Wyatt left 11, Rothschild Road, Acton, in November last.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide while temporarily insane”.

Southeastern Gazette 16-1-1894

Inquest

A horrible discovery was made in an empty house in St. John’s Church Road, Folkestone, by a bricklayer named Jesse Godfrey on Tuesday. The house in question is approaching completion of erection, and on entering a back room on the ground floor Godfrey saw the dead body of a man named George Henry Wyatt suspended by a scaffold rope from a joist of the room above.

At the inquest on Wednesday it was stated that deceased had formerly been in the employ of an Ashford builder, and on Boxing Day he passed the night at the Granville Inn, Folkestone, when he stated to the landlord that he had family troubles. On January 3rd deceased left two baskets of tools in the cloak room at the Junction Railway Station, and in one of these was discovered a Savings Bank book taken out at Hounslow in 1885, while on deceased was found a leather purse containing 1s. 7d. According to the medical evidence deceased was very badly diseased.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide while temporarily insane.”

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2-6-1894

Saturday, May 26^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Herbert, Messrs. Brooke and Pursey, and Surgeon General Gilborne.

Frederick George Stickells, landlord of the Granville, Dover Street, was summoned by Israel Brown for an assault on the 18^th. Mr. H Watts appeared for the defendant.

According to the evidence of the complainant, he and his wife lodged at the house of the defendant, and on the morning in question he was going to his room when the defendant seized him by the arm, wrenched it round, and punched him in the ribs. He got away upstairs and was followed by the defendant, who threatened to give him a good hiding and would have done so but his (witness`s) wife got between them and kept him off. In reply to Mr. Watts he denied defendant had previously told him to leave the house and that he had replied, making use of bad language, that he would leave when he liked. Neither did he challenge defendant to put him out and offer him out to fight. He was positive defendant followed him upstairs.

A different complexion was, however, put upon this by a Mrs. Richmond, a charwoman employed by the defendant, who denied that he struck the complainant or twisted his arm. All he did was to put his hand on his shoulder and tell him to leave the room. Defendant did not follow him upstairs, but complainant made use of bad language and challenged him to strike him.

The Bench immediately dismissed the case, and complainant had to pay 3s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-12-1897

Wednesday, December 8^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert.

Mr. S. Wickenson was granted the transfer of the licence of the Granville.

Folkestone Express 11-12-1897

Wednesday, December 8^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Stephen Wickenden.

Folkestone Herald 11-12-1897

Local News

The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the sitting of the Folkestone Justices: Granville Inn to Mr. S.S. Wickenden

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18-12-1897

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Thursday, by Mr. J. Minter, Borough Coroner, on the death of Isaac Wade.

Edwin Frank Baker, 14, The Bayle, labourer, identified the body. He said deceased came from Ramsgate, and was lodging at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. He was employed as a labourer by Mr. Rigby on the works near the Warren. On Tuesday evening witness was proceeding to his work with deceased at about 7 o`clock. They passed through the tunnel, and were near the Abbot`s Cliff signal box. They were walking on the line on the path by the side of the up line. There was no other way of getting there so far as he knew. Witness knew nothing as to the trains. Deceased had never been to work before there, and witness borrowed a lamp from the watchman to see through the tunnel. Deceased asked witness how they got through the tunnel, and he replied that there was plenty of room to get out of the way of trains. Deceased remarked that if a train came he should lie down. At the end of the tunnel he gave up his lantern and could see well. He saw a train coming from Dover round a curve. Witness told deceased an up train was coming, and he said “We lean on the bank, don`t we?”, and witness replied “Yes”. Witness did so, and thought Wade did the same. There were steep cuttings at the place. There was six feet between the bank and the train. They faced the train. After it had passed, witness found Wade lying on the ballast by the side of the line. Finding he did not answer, witness struck a match and saw the blood coming from his head. He took his coat off and laid deceased`s head upon it, and went to the workmen`s cottages and called a platelayer named Reed. Two men came, and a trolley was fetched, and deceased was brought to Folkestone Junction.

Dr. James Thornton Gilbert said there was a wound extending from the right eyebrow over to the back of the head. The whole mass of flesh was hanging over the side of the head. There were two or more fractures of the skull. The left hand had been cut off and was hanging in ribbons. The wounds were dressed, and deceased was conveyed to the Victoria Hospital, but he was dying as he left the station.

Dr. Alfred Horne, locum tenens for the house surgeon at the hospital, said deceased died at midnight. He was 27 years of age.

A verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-9-1898

Saturday, September 10^th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, J. Pledge, and T. Salter.

Stephen Wiginton (sic) was charged with assaulting his wife, Sarah Wiginton, on the 6^th inst.

Mr. H.W. Watts appeared for the prosecution, and said the Bench would perhaps think it advisable to remand the defendant in custody with a view to the state of his mind being examined.

The prosecutrix said she lived at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. On the previous Tuesday, about noon, the defendant came in with a sharp carving knife and said “I could stab you to the heart with it”. He then put the knife in his pocket. Witness took up the poker, and said she would hit him over the head. She did not know whether he would stab her or not, for “he did say such rummish things”. He knocked her down on the sofa, and she was insensible. He hit her three times. Mrs. Downie then came in. Witness hit him over the head with a stick. He had continually threatened her for a year, and she was in bodily fear of him. He said he “would make pictures of her brains on the wall”. The house and everything in it belonged to witness.

Mrs. Downie, 58, Dover Street, said she was called to the Granville on the previous Tuesday, and the last witness said she had been assaulted by her husband. She should think the defendant had been drinking. They were both struggling with the poker. Defendant threatened to scatter his wife`s brains on the wall. On Thursday night the complainant stopped at witness`s house, being locked out at midnight.

Defendant said it was a case of a drunken woman. He alleged his wife stabbed him. He used no knife; it was his wife who used it.

The Chairman said the Bench took a lenient view of the matter, and defendant would be bound over to keep the peace for six months, himself in one surety of £20, and another in the same sum. In default he would go to prison for 14 days. He would also have to pay 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Up To Date 17-9-1898

Saturday, September 10^th: Before J. Holden Esq., Aldermen Pledge, Salter, and Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan Esq.

Stephen Wickenden was summoned for assaulting Sarah Ann Wickenden, the landlady of the Granville Hotel, Dover Street.

Mr. Watts appeared for the complainant, and asked that the defendant might be put under medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was of sound mind.

The complainant said: I am the wife of the defendant, and live at the Granville Inn, Dover Street. I had been taking the dinner up last Tuesday, when the defendant came in with a sharp pointed knife, and said “I could stab you to the heart”. I got hold of the poker and said “I will strike you over the head with it” A man then ran over with Mrs. Downey. He struck me three times. My ear bled, and I fell down insensible. I got hold of a stick as soon as I had recovered sufficiently, and hit him over the head. He has often assaulted me, and about a fortnight ago he said if it was not for the law he would make pictures of my brains. The night before last I had to run out of the house. I have reason to fear that his mind is affected. The Granville Hotel really belongs to me. It has really been obtained with my money.

Ellen Downey said: I am the wife of Robert Downey, plumber, Dover Street, and saw the complainant bleeding from the ear and very much upset. I should think he had been drinking. I heard him threaten on one occasion to spatter her brains on the awll. She came to my house on Thursday night after she had left her house.

The defendant said his case was that the complainant was a drunken woman. He wished to conduct the house in a respectable manner. She struck him with a knife. He was too much a man to bring witnesses into Court.

The Chairman said the matter in dispute was a very serious one, but the Court were disposed to take a lenient view of the case. The defendant was ordered to find one surety in £10, and enter into his own recognisances of £10, in default 14 days`, and another 14 days` for non-payment of the costs.

Folkestone Herald 17-9-1898

Police Court Record

On Saturday – Mr. Holden presiding – Stephen Smith Wickenden was summoned for assaulting his wife. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Watts, who appeared on behalf of complainant, alluded to the facts of the case, the alleged offence having taken place on the 6^th. He thought it would be a question whether the Bench should not remand the defendant in custody in order that the Medical Officer might examine as to his state of mind. There were difficulties in the way of asking for a separation order.

Sarah Ann Wickenden, defendant`s wife, deposed that she lived at the Granville, Dover Street. On the day in question, just after 12, the defendant came in with a sharp pointed knife. He said “I could stab you to the heart”, and he put it in his pocket. Witness picked up the poker, and said “I`ll hit you over the head with it”. Defendant hit her, and knocked her down on the sofa. He hit her in the ear. Three blows were struck by defendant. He knocked her senseless. She hit him after he struck her. He was always assaulting her, and he had threatened her. He said that if it were not for the law he would make pictures of her brains on the wall. She went in fear of her husband. She thought his mind was affected. She had money of her own and took the Inn. Everything there belonged to her. She thought defendant was under the influence of drink. She did not see him drink.

Ellen Downey, married, a neighbour, deposed that she saw Mrs. Wickenden, who was bleeding very much from the ear. She was upset. Her husband was present. She said her husband had given her two blows, one on the ear. Defendant was very greatly excited; she thought he had been drinking. The wife and husband were each holding a poker. Witness heard Wickenden threaten to splatter her brains on the wall. On Thursday night she was locked out at 12 o`clock.

The defendant said this was the case of a drunken wman. He was proceeding, when the Clerk reminded him that he was charged with assaulting.

Defendant said that he was cutting tobacco, and it was his wife that used the knife.

The Chairman said this was a very serious matter, but the Bench took a lenient view. They called on him to find two sureties, one himself of £10, to be of good behaviour, or 14 days`. He also had to pay 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Herald 29-7-1899

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday last, William S. Wickenden, landlord of the Granville Inn, was summoned for serving liquor on licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 16^th inst. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant. Defendant was ill, and was represented by his wife.

Sergeant Osborne said on the morning in question, he kept observation on the house, in company with P.C. Burniston, from 6.20 to 8.10. At 7.30 witness saw a man tap at the window. The door was locked, but Mrs. Wickenden unbolted it. She then looked up and down the street, and the man then followed her into the house. Other men entered after. Witness visited the house with Burniston at 8.10. They went to the side door, which was open. Four men were in the bar, and one in the tap-room. One man witness believed to be a lodger. The others he knew to be living in other parts of the town. Glasses of beer were standing on the counter, and one man drank from out of the glasses in his presence. Witness said to Mrs. Wickenden “What are these men doing here?” She replied “They are all lodgers”. Witness then told her that he should report the case. Later in the morning witness saw defendant, and repeated this. Wickenden said they were obliged to keep the side door open, but if witness saw anything wrong he must do his duty.

By Mr. Minter: It was a public house and a lodging house.

P.C. Burniston gave corroborative evidence and read notes of the times when the men entered the house. He also gave the names and addresses of the men who were living in different parts of the town.

By Mr. Minter: Witness was not aware that the men were lodgers.

Mr. Minter, in the course of an able defence, said, of course in this case the defendant was responsible for the acts of his wife. Unfortunately Wickenden was ill, and his wife represented him. He (Mr. Minter) was in somewhat of a difficulty, for, after the evidence of the two constables, he felt it his duty to advise Mrs. Wickenden not to go into the box. But she persisted in her desire. As an advocate he should refuse to tender her as a witness, and whatever she did would be on her own responsibility. He should withdraw the plea of not guilty for one of guilty, and throw his client on the mercy of the Court.

In spite of Mr. Minter`s repeated advice, Mrs. Wickenden then entered the box and swore that she did not come downstairs on the morning in question until 7.55. The men were all lodgers, with the exception of two, who were travellers from Westenhanger.

By the Superintendent: All the men had slept in my house with the exception of the two she had mentioned.

Mr. Herbert, in announcing the decision of the Bench, said: The Bench think the case is fully proved. You will be fined £5 and 11s. costs, and the Bench feel that you acted very unwisely in going into the witness box after the advice given you by Mr. Minter.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 29-7-1899

Wednesday, July 26^th: Before The Mayor, J. Banks, J, Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Prsey Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

William S. Wickenden, landlord of the Granville public house, was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act by serving drink during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 16^th inst.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the defendant, who was represented in Court by his wife.

Sergt. Osborne deposed that on the morning in question he kept watch over the defendant`s house in Dover Street from 6.20 to 8.10, and saw a number of men there during prohibited hours.

P.C. Burniston corroborated, and stated that he saw a number of men in the house during prohibited hours. Amongst the men were Farley, Philpott, Smith, Minter, and Gillingham.

Mr. Minter said he had recommended Mrs. Wickenden to plead Guilty, and not enter the witness box.

Notwithstanding Mr. Minter`s remarks, the defendant`s wife persisted in being heard. She said she never saw anyone in the house, only the lodgers.

Chief Constable Reeve said he would have further inquiries made, because h was informed the truth was otherwise than would appear from Mrs. Wickenden`s testimony.

Mr. Herbert said the Bench felt very strongly she should not have entered the witness box. The defendant was fined £5, but under the circumstances they did not endorse the licence.

 

Folkestone Express 12-8-1899

Saturday, August 5^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Medhurst, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden, and G. Spurgen Esqs.

John Farley, Patrick Gillingham, George Philpott, and Geo. Minter were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. Farley did not appear, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Philpott was under the influence of drink, and was remanded in custody till Monday. These were the men who were alleged to be on the premises at the Granville Hotel on a Sunday morning, the landlord having been convicted of serving them with drink. The landlady on that occasion said the men were all lodgers. Gillingham lives at 52, Dover Street, Minter at 63a, Marshall Street, and Philpott in the Lower Sandgate Road.

Sergt. Osborne gave evidence, and said he saw all the defendants enter the house, and P.C. Burniston corroborated his evidence.

In reply to Gillingham, Burniston said he knew he slept at 52, Dover Street on Saturday night, and in reply to Minter he said he had ascertained that he did not go home on Saturday night.

Minter went into the witness box, and said he slept at the Granville Inn on Saturday night. He went out for a walk on Sunday morning and returned at a quarter to eight. He had no beer.

Gillingham said he had paid for his lodgings, and he considered he had a right to be there until he had had a wash and a brush up in the morning.

The defendants were each fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days.

On the application of the Superintendent, permission was given to bail out the man Philpott, to appear on Tuesday morning.

Tuesday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, J. Pledge, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and J. Stainer Esqs.

John Thomas Farley was charged on a warrant with being on licensed premises, the Granville Inn, Dover Street, during prohibited hours, and George Philpott, who was remanded on Saturday, was similarly charged.

Farley said he went about some luggage, and had nothing to drink. Philpott denied that he was in the house.

P.C`s Burniston and Osborne said they saw him enter and leave the house.

Philpott was fined 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, and Farley 2s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. costs, or 14 days` hard labour in each case.

Folkestone Up To Date 12-8-1899

Saturday, August 5^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Holden, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

John Farley, Patrick Gillingham, George Philpott and George Minter were summoned for being on licensed premises, to wit, the Granville Hotel, Dover Street, during prohibited hours. They pleaded Not Guilty.

Farley failed to put in an appearance, and the Chief Constable applied for a warrant. Philpott, appearing in court drunk, was remanded in custody until Tuesday, but was bailed out the same day.

P.C. Osborne said on Sunday morning, the 6^th July last, he watched the Granville public house between six and eight o`clock, and saw the defendants there. He told them he should report them.

P.C. Burniston gave corroborative evidence.

George Minter then gave evidence for the defence, to the effect that he was sleeping out the night previous to his being found at the Granville public house. He was a lodger on the morning in question. When the policemen came in he was not having any drink.

Gillingham made a statement that he also was a lodger, but he did not go into the witness box. He added that he could prove that he was a lodger, but could not call a number of working men witnesses because of the expense.

The Bench considered the charge proved, and Minter and Gillingham were fined 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, in default seven days` hard labour each.

Tuesday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Captain Willoughby Carter.

George Philpott and John Thomas Farley were summoned for being found on licensed premises, the Granville Hotel, during prohibited hours.

P.C. Osborne and P.C. Burniston gave evidence in support of the charge, which has been before the Court in different forms on several occasions.

Philpott was fined 2s. 6d. and 11s. costs, and Farley 2s. 6d. and 12s. costs, in default seven days` hard labour.

  

Folkestone Express 26-8-1899

Folkestone Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Captain Carter, J. Hoad, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

The Granville

Temporary authority to sell at this house was granted to Thomas Augustus Olver.

Folkestone Up To Date 26-8-1899

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Licensing Day

The Granville, Dover Street

The licence of this public house was transferred from Mr. Wickenden to Thos. Augustus Olver.

The Chief Constable said there was a long list of convictions against this house, and he only hoped that the new tenant, who bore a good character and was a naval pensioner, would be able to conduct the place properly.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1899

Wednesday, September 13^th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Granville Inn was transferred to Thomas Augustus Olver.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday the transfer of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, was granted to Mr. Thomas Augustus Olver.  

Folkestone Herald 23-9-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday the renewal of the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, was granted to Mr. Thomas Augustus Olver.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 23-9-1899

Wednesday, September 20^th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The Granville

The transfer of the Granville, Dover Street, from Mr. Wickenden to Mr. Olver was granted.