 | ||
| Former Lord Nelson, 1928. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown |
Licensees
Stephen Kennett c1798 c1810
Joseph Taylor c1810 c1825
Christian Taylor c1825 1840
William Harrison 1840 1848 From Black Bull
Margaret Harrison 1848 1864
Richard Godden Sanders 1864 1880
William Harrison Marsh and William Ellen 1880 1889 William Harrison Marsh From Raglan
Elizabeth Marsh 1889 1897 Ex Tramway Tavern
George Taylor 1897 1902
Mr. Bunney 1902 1902
John Miles 1902 1903
William Heritage 1903 1908 From Marquis Of Lorne. To Princess Royal
Albert Minter 1908 1909
Albert Champion 1909 1912
James Monk 1912 1913
Frank May 1913 1914 Perhaps Later Alexandra Hotel
Maidstone Gazette 4-1-1848,Canterbury Journal, Dover Telegraph 8-1-1848 & Kentish
Gazette 11-1-1848
On Sunday morning last several fishermen put off to a Dutch schooner from this harbour; one of the boats was towed by the owner, Mr. William Harrison, of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, who, on attempting to land on his return, was observed to fall backwards into the boat. Assistance was immediately rendered, but life was quite extinct. It is conjectured that the deceased had used much exertion to get his boat first out of the harbour, and had thereby ruptured a blood vessel.
Maidstone Gazette
15-2-1848
Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before Charles Golder Esq., Mayor, and William Major Esq.
Licenses were transferred from Mrs. Mary Hart, of the South Foreland, to Mr. William Smith; from Mr. Wm. Harrison, of the Lord Nelson, to his widow; from Matthew Henderson, of the Northumbrian to Mr. Thomas Spain.
Note: Matthew Henderson does not appear in More Bastions. South Foreland transfer gives finishing date for Mary Hart and new date for Smith.
Dover Telegraph 2-6-1849, Kentish Gazette, Maidstone Gazette, Maidstone Journal 5-6-1849
Auction Extract:
Canterbury: Important sale of the extensive brewery of Messrs. Flint, including thirty old-established inns and public houses. Mr. V.J. Collier has received instructions to sell by auction, at the Fountain Hotel, Canterbury, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 26th and 27th of June, at twelve o`clock each day (in consequence of the death of the senior acting Partner and the retirement of the surviving Partners), the valuable property known as Messrs. Flint`s Brewery, in Stour Street, Canterbury, and the inns, public houses, and other valuable property connected therewith.
The second day`s sale, on Wednesday, 27th June, will comprise the following property:
Lot 46 – The Lord Nelson, Radnor Street,
near the harbour, Folkestone – Freehold
Lot 47 – The Bricklayers` Arms, Fancy Street, Folkestone - Freehold
The Public Houses are for the most part in the occupation of unexceptionable tenants, and the majority of them are
doing trades, both in beer and spirits, considerably above the average run of country houses, (none of them here
been beer-shops; they are old licensed houses, with connections of long standing, thereby affording ample security
for the permanence of the trade.) The premises generally are in a superior state of repair.
Particulars and plans (price 1s. Each) may be had of Messrs. Furleys & Mercer Solicitors, Canterbury; at the
Fountain Hotel; and of Mr. V. J. Collier, 3, Moorgate Street, Loudon.
Canterbury Journal 30-6-1849
The sale of the extensive premises of Messrs. Flint, brewers, of this city, took place on Tuesday and Wednesday at the Fountain Hotel. The competition for most of the lots was very keen. The following is a statement of the result.
Lord Nelson, Folkestone, £360, Mr. Ash: Bricklayers Arms, not sold
Kentish Gazette 3-7-1849
Messrs. Flint`s Property: The sale of the extensive property of Messrs. Flint, brewers, Stour Street, Canterbury, took place on Tuesday and Wednesday, at the Royal Fountain Hotel, under the able administration of Mr. V.J. Collier. The sale room was crowded by respectable company, and the competition for most of the lots was very keen. At the close the auctioneer received many compliments for the gentlemanly and straightforward manner in which he conducted the business throughout. The following is a statement of the result:
Second day`s sale:
Lot 46 Lord Nelson, Folkestone £300 Mr. Ash
Lot 47 Bricklayers` Arms, Folkestone Not sold
Maidstone Gazette
18-2-1851
Petty Sessions; Before R. Hart Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, T. Golder and J. Bateman Esqs.
There were six publicans charged by the police with serving beer, &c., contrary to the law. Mr. R.T. Brockman appeared for the Watch Committee; Mr. Delasaux (Canterbury) for several of the defendants.
James Hall, Old Marquis of Granby, was charged on the information of police constable Collins with serving beer before the hour of half past twelve o`clock p.m., on Sunday, the 2nd instant. Police constable Collins having proved the case, the Mayor addressed the defendant, telling him that the only object of the magistrates was to keep the town in an orderly and proper manner. The magistrates or the police were not actuated by any ill-feeling towards him or anyone else in his business, but they felt that the law had been disregarded, and that it was necessary now for all parties that the public houses should not now do as they had done; the Bench taking all circumstances into consideration, would mitigate the penalty to 1s. and costs.
Note: The name “Old” Marquis of Granby suggests that this was the house in the High Street. However, at the time of the 1851 Census, he was in Radnor Street at what was the Ship, the name of which was crossed out and Marquis of Granby overwritten. Also, the Post Office Directory for 1851, information for which would most likely have been compiled in 1850, has him at the Marquis of Granby in Radnor Street. I feel, therefore, that this report refers to the Marquis of Granby, Radnor Street.
John Welch, Bricklayers Arms, for a similar offence, was fined 1s. and costs.
Margaret Harrison, Lord Nelson, was similarly fined.
The case against William Burvill, Carrier`s Arms beer shop, was dismissed, for want of sufficient evidence.
William
Vigor, Rose Inn, for a similar offence, was fined 1s. and costs.
Southeastern Gazette
15-5-1855
Local News
Monday. Before the
Mayor, Wm. Major, and J. Kelcey, Esqs., and Capt. Kennicott.)
Richard Underdown was charged with having committed an
assault upon James Grant.
It appeared that complainant left the Lord Nelson
public-house, which is kept by his sister, about 12 o’clock on Saturday night,
having heen there to fetch his washing, and was proceeding home to Capel, when,
near Mr. Johnson’s stone yard, the defendant rushed upon him and knocked him
down ; someone took his bundle away from him into a house. He was struck three
times by the defendant, and much punished (which his appearance clearly
showed); his bundle was afterwards given
to him, when he found a pair of drawers missing from it, which he had not seen
since.
The defendant, in answer to the charge, said he was leaving
Johnson’s house between 12 and 1 o’clock on Saturday night, and the complainant
was standing against the gate; he told him to get away, as he wanted to go out,
when ne received a blow from the complainant under the ear; he then jumped over
the gate and struck the complainant twice.
Mr. Johnson stated that as he and the defendant were coming
out of the stone yard, the complainant was leaning against the gate ; he was
requested to move, but would not, and struck the defendant, who jumped over the
gate and struck in return.
The magistrates, after cautioning Underdown, who had
previously been before them, fined him£1 and 8s. costs, which were paid.
Folkestone Chronicle 27-7-1861
Coroner`s Inquest
An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at the Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, before s. Eastes Esq., coroner for the borough, and a respectable jury of which F. Denibas was chosen foreman. The enquiry was held on the body of a man which was found as detailed in the following evidence.
The jury, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which was lying in the tan house. The coroner, in opening the proceedings, said he felt bound to hold the inquest from the concluding words on a piece of paper which showed a determination to commit suicide in his opinion; he had at first thought it not necessary, but to remove any responsibility from himself he had determined to make the enquiry.
James Grant, fisherman, residing in Folkestone, identified the body as that of a man he brought ashore yesterday. About half past three witness went off in a punt alone, and about quarter of a mile off the harbour saw the body of a man floating; witness rowed to it, put a rope round it, and towed it into the harbour. Deceased had clothes on, but no hat nor cap, and only one slipper on his left foot; no stockings. Saw no marks of violence on him; judged him to be a French fisherman from his dress; should think he had been in the water eight or ten days; as soon as witness came to shore he gave information to the Coroner, who desired him to have it removed to the tan house; had heard the body was floating out at sea, and went out on purpose to find it.
William Woodland, P.C., deposed, yesterday afternoon, about half past three, found the dead body of a man lying on the beach, covered up with a sail; witness had it removed to the tan house.
Thomas Morford, town sergeant, deposed, about half past six last evening he first saw the body of deceased lying in the tan house; in looking at the body witness found he had earrings, and by request of the Coroner he searched the body; he searched the pockets, and found the leather purse produced in the left hand trousers pocket; it contained three gold 20 franc pieces, 2 ten franc pieces, 3 five franc pieces, a two franc and one franc piece, and 20 centimes, one shilling (English) and a paper with something written on it; the earrings were very small ones. He was dressed in a flannel jacket next the skin, a pink plaid shirt with white enamelled buttons, a good blue Guernsey of English manufacture, trousers of coarse grey cloth, light coloured, no stockings, and one cloth sock on the left foot, similar to those worn by the peasantry in France. He man was about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches, with dark brown whiskers, no moustache, bald headed about the front part; thought he was about 45 years of age; the face was disfigured.
Copy of the letter written in French:-
“On board the lugger Young Charles, of Nantes, Captain Peron. I can tell the number. I have taken my turn at an early hour (two lines not intelligible). Farewell for ever. Pray for me.” (no name).
The coroner thought from the paper that he appeared to have destroyed himself.
The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned”, no evidence being forthcoming as to the cause of death.
The French Consul had intimated to Mr. Eastes that he intended to follow the body to the grave, being a French citizen. Part of the money found would be devoted to paying for a plain coffin, and the Consul intended to write to Nantes to make enquiry respecting the lugger “Young Charles”, and also respecting any person being missing from the vessel.
Southeastern Gazette 30-7-1861
Inquest
An inquest was held before the borough coroner, S.
Eastes, Esq., at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, on the body of a man, name
unknown, which was found floating outside the harbour by a fisherman named
Grant. On his person were found upwards of 50 francs in gold and silver, and a
part of a letter written in French, “Onboard the lugger Charles of Nantes,
Peron master. I cannot tell the number. Pray for me.”
The coroner
thought that by the manner it was written the deceased did not know what he was
about.
Verdict, “Found drowned.”
Folkestone Observer 15-2-1862
Saturday February 8th:- Before the Mayor and W.F. Browell Esq.
Selling Beer On Sunday Morning
Margaret Harrison, Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, pleading guilty to a charge of selling beer at half past 11 on Sunday morning, was fined 1s. and costs.
Folkestone Chronicle 31-1-1863
Coroner`s Inquest
An inquest was holden on Thursday last before John Minter Esq., the coroner, and a respectable jury, at the Lord Nelson Inn, touching the death of William Hall.
Thomas Hall deposed he was a mariner, residing at Folkestone. He identified the body as that of his son from his clothes and from wearing a silver ring on his finger.
Edward loach deposed he was a mariner, living at East Cliff, Folkestone. He went alongshore last evening, and found a flannel shirt on the sand, in East Wear Bay, about a quarter of a mile from where he found the body. He took the shirt to the last witness this morning; witness went along shore to search for the deceased, and found it abreast of Copt Point, on the rocks, one arm being jammed in the rocks. Witness helped put the deceased in a hammock; found a ring on deceased`s finger, which witness gave to Mr. Hall.
William Henry Bradley deposed he was a timekeeper in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company; knew the deceased; saw him on Monday the 29th December about 5 minutes past 9 a.m.; saw him leave the blacksmith`s shop on the new pier, Folkestone, and jump over the railings, and saw him go into the sea at the west side of the pier, and get astride a piece of timber floating close to the shore; he had a cord or line in his hand. Directly he got on the timber it turned round three times; he went under each time, but got on the timber again; he next got off the timber and swam towards the pier, apparently to get away from the timber; the piece at the same time gave a half turn and struck him on the head; deceased called out, I believe “Life-buoy”. Witness sent a man for a life buoy and tried to throw it out, but could not for the wind. Witness then saw deceased sink; the sea was unusually rough.
The jury returned a verdict that deceased was accidentally drowned.
Folkestone Observer 31-1-1863
Inquest
An inquest was held on Thursday before J. Minter Esq., coroner, at the Lord Nelson, on the body of Thomas Hall, 19 years of age, which had been washed ashore at Copt Point, unrecognisable except by portions of dress and a ring.
Thomas Hall, father of deceased, identified the body.
Edward Loach found the flannel shirt of deceased on Wednesday evening on the shore, and went next morning to look for the body, which he found at Copt Point, one arm jammed in the rocks.
William Henry Bradley, timekeeper, in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company, saw William Hall on Monday the 29th December, about five minutes past nine, leave the blacksmith`s shop against the new pier, jump over the railings on to the beach south of the pier, and go into the water. He walked in breast deep, and got astride a piece of timber floating there. He had a cord in his hand at the time. The timber immediately turned over, and he went under and came up, and got on the timber again. This occurred three times. The timber had by this time got out seawards, and he struck out in the direction of the pier to get away from it. As he did this the timber turned over and struck him on the head. He called out for a lifeboat. Witness sent a man for a lifebuoy, and tried to throw it out to him, but could not reach him in consequence of the wind. As witness saw he was going down, he went for a lifeboat, but could not save him; the sea was very rough. Every now and then he turned his head to see if another sea was coming.
Verdict: accidentally drowned.
Dover Chronicle 7-2-1863
An inquest was held on Thursday before J. Minter Esq.,
coroner, at the Lord Nelson, on the body of Thomas Hall, 19 years of age, which
had been washed ashore at Copt Point, unrecognisable except by portions of
dress and a ring.
Thomas Hall, father of deceased, identified the body.
Edward Loach found the flannel shirt of deceased on
Wednesday evening on the shore, and went next morning to look for the body,
which he found at Copt Point, one arm jammed in the rocks.
William Henry Bradley, timekeeper, in the employ of the
South Eastern railway Company, saw William Hall on Monday the 29th
December, about five minutes past nine, leave the blacksmith`s shop against the
new pier, jump over the railings on to the beach south of the pier, and go into
the water. He walked in breast deep, and got astride a piece of timber floating
there. He had a cord in his hand at the time. The timber immediately turned
over, and he went under and came up, and got on the timber again. This occurred
three times. The timber had by this time got out seawards, and he struck out in
the direction of the pier to get away from it. As he did this the timber turned
over and struck him on the head. He called out for a lifeboat. Witness sent a
man for a lifebuoy, and tried to throw it out to him, but could not reach him
in consequence of the wind. As witness saw he was going down, he went for a
lifeboat, but could not save him; the sea was very rough. Every now and then he
turned his head to see if another sea was coming.
Verdict: Accidentally drowned
Folkestone Chronicle
25-9-1869
Local News
On Wednesday, a little fellow, six or seven years old, son
of Mr. Saunders, of the Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, was gathering blackberries
in the Warren, and partook of some poisonous berries. He lay insensible for
hours, but we are glad to hear he is now out of danger.
Folkestone Express 28-2-1880
Monday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and Captain Fletcher.
Mark Coombs, an old man with only one leg, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street, with refusing to quit licensed premises, assaulting the landlord, and breaking a square of glass. He pleaded Guilty to being drunk, and said he knew nothing about the other charges.
Wm. Marsh, landlord of the Lord Nelson in Radnor Street, said the prisoner went to his house about nine o`clock on Sunday evening. He appeared to be sober, and said he only wanted a light. Witness told him to take a light, and the prisoner then became very abusive. Witness attempted to remove him, and prisoner then struck him with a stick on the forehead, and at the same time broke a window, doing damage to the amount of 1s. 6d. Witness secured him, and when a policeman came he was taken into custody.
P.C. Hogbenm said he was sent for to the Lord Nelson, and on going he found Mr. Marsh was holding the prisoner down, and he took him into custody on a charge of assaulting Mr. Marsh and breaking the window. When in the street, prisoner “unshipped” his wooden leg, and the assistance of P.C.s Sharp and Swain had to be obtained to get him to the station.
For the first offence he was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days`, for breaking the window, 5s., the damage 1s. 6d, and costs 3s. 6d., or seven days`.
Folkestone
Chronicle 17-10-1885
Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman
Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.
William Ellen, butcher, was charged with keeping open a
public house, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours.
Mr. Ellen, in answer to the charge, said he did not
carry on the business. He only held the license for Mrs. Marsh and received no
benefit from the business.
Sergt. Harman, sworn, said: On Sunday morning last I
was in company with P.C. Smith in Radnor Street about 7-40. I sent Smith to the
front door and I went to the back door of the Lord Nelson public house. I found
two men standing outside in the yard. I knocked at the door, and found it was
fastened. In a few seconds there was a rush down some steps to the back door,
where I was standing, and a noise and confusion inside, sounding like pots and
glasses. Some of the men present here on another charge opened the back door. I
saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw me they turned
and ran back to the tap room. I ran after them, pursued them through the tap
room and passage to the front room, and from there to a room looking like a
store-room. I noticed a servant standing in the tap room. When I got into the
store-room I saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducts the business of the
house. She was opening a window leading into the back yard and assisting a man
to jump out the window, which he did, a distance of about nine or ten feet into
the yard. In preventing a further escape that way I lost one man, who went out
of the door as I went in. When they had quieted down I requested Mrs. Marsh to
open the front door and let in P.C. Smith. At that time her husband, Mr. Marsh,
came down and said “Hello. What`s up? This is all through me laying a-bed”. I
told them I should have to report them, and they would be summoned for keeping
their house open and serving intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours.
Marsh said “All right, we must make the best of it”, or words to that effect.
Mrs. Marsh said she did not know what she should do. I reported them, and also
the men here for being in the house. I searched, and in the tap room saw from
eight to ten stains of fresh beer marks on the table. The defendant is a
butcher living in Beach Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carry on the business.
P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Galbraith, in defence, said Mr. Ellen was trustee
for Mrs. Marsh, who had been parted from her husband. He would prove that the
door had been opened for domestic purposes, when some men had taken the
advantage and rushed in; and he would further show that Mrs. Marsh had not
served any beer.
Mrs. Marsh and a servant were called as witnesses for
the defence and stated that they drew no beer on the occasion, and the stains
on the table were the remains of liquors consumed on the previous evening.
The Magistrates said they were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but
they considered the charge proved and they had no alternative but to inflict a
fine, which would be £2 10s., with 12s. costs, and they would advise him to get
rid of his trusteeship as soon as possible.
Mr. Ellen said that was what he intended to do.
G. Brewer, R. Fagg, G. Hill, J. Longhurst, J. Hail and
J. Todd were then charged with being in a public house during prohibited hours,
and pleaded guilty. Fined 2s. 6d. each, or three days` imprisonment.
The Bench said the fine was very lenient, as they
considered it was a great temptation to them for public houses to be open.
Folkestone Express
17-10-1885
Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman
Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.
William Ellen was summoned for keeping open licensed
premises, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours. Mr. Ellen said he was
merely the trustee to the landlady of the house, and had nothing to do with the
management of the business. Mr. Bradley, however, told him he was responsible.
Sergeant Harman said on Sunday last, at about 7.40 in the
morning, he went to Radnor Street and visited the Lord Nelson. He sent P.C.
Smith to the front door, and went to the back door himself. He found two men
standing outside in the yard. He knocked at the door and found it was fastened.
In a few seconds he heard a rush down some steps leading from the taproom, and
a confusion inside sounding like pots and glasses. Someone opened the back
door. He saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw him
they turned and ran up into the taproom. He ran after them through the taproom
and a passage into a front room, and from there to the back of the house into a
room resembling a storeroom. He noticed the servant standing in the taproom. In
the storeroom he saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducted the business of
the house. Mrs. Marsh was opening a window leading into the back yard, and
assisting a man to jump out, which he did. In preventing a further escape that
way he lost one man who got out of the door as he went in. P.C. Smith was then
let in at the front door. Mr. Marsh came down and said “Hello, what`s up? This
is all through me laying abed”. He told them he should report them and they
would be summoned. Marsh said “All right, we must make the best of it”. He then
let Brewer, Fagg, Hills, Longhurst, Hall and Todd out. Two others he was not
certain about. In the taproom there were from eight to twelve round wet marks
on the table where glasses or mugs had stood. Defendant did not conduct the
business himself. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business.
P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Galbraith said the defendant was a trustee for Mrs.
Marsh, who he understood was separated from her husband. He said the door was open
for domestic purposes, and the men ran in, the constable following them. Mrs.
Marsh and the servant would tell them no beer had been drawn, and therefore
there was no offence on the part of the holder of the licence.
Eliza Marsh said she carried on the Lord Nelson, and Mr.
Ellen was trustee for her. On Sunday morning she was frying fish in the
parlour. The girl was cleaning the taproom and steps, and the back door was not
open to her knowledge. She heard someone coming up the steps to the parlour, and
she thought they were her lodgers, who were “Hastingers”. She then heard the
men rush through, and immediately after she saw Sergeant Harman. She did not
serve them with a drop of beer. The marks on the taproom table were left from
the night before. The men tried to get out of the house, and she was confused.
Sarah Brand, servant to Mrs. Marsh, said she was sweeping
the taproom back steps down on Sunday morning, and carried the dust to the
dustbin, leaving the back door open. She went out a second time to shake the
mats, but saw no-one enter the house, nor did she see a constable. She saw the
men rush in, and Mrs. Marsh asked her why she let them in. The men had not been
there two minutes when the police came. They had nothing to drink, and did not
ask for any. The taproom table had not been scrubbed, and the marks were on it
from Saturday night. The men said “Is there any chance for a glass?”, and she
replied “No. Mrs. Marsh never draws any beer on a Sunday morning. You had
better go out again”.
The Bench said there was no doubt the charge was proved.
They were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but he must pay a fine of 50s., and 12s. costs.
It appeared to them that it was not for the benefit of Mr. Ellen that the
people who conducted the house should continue to do so, and they advised him
to get rid of his trusteeship as soon as he could.
Mr. Ellen: You may depend upon it, gentlemen, I shall.
Mr. Bradley said he did not think it was at all likely
the Magistrates would transfer the licence to Mrs. Marsh or to Mr. Marsh.
The six men whose names are given above were fined 2s.
6d. each, without costs.
Folkestone
News 17-10-1885
Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman
Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.
William Ellen was summoned for keeping open licensed
premises, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours.
Mr. Ellen said he was merely the trustee to the
landlady of the house, and had nothing to do with the running of the business.
Mr. Bradley said defendant was responsible.
Sergeant Harman said on Sunday last, about 7.40 in the
morning, he went to Radnor Street and visited the Lord Nelson. He sent P.C.
Smith to the front door and went to the back door himself. He found two men
standing outside in the yard. He knocked at the door and found it was fastened.
In a few seconds he heard a rush down some steps leading from the taproom, and
a confusion inside sounding like pots and glasses. Someone opened the back
door. He saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw him
they turned and ran up into the taproom. He ran after them through the taproom
and passage into a front room, and from there to the back of the house into a
room resembling a storeroom. He noticed the servant standing in the taproom. In
the storeroom he saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducted the business of
the house. Mrs. Marsh was opening a window leading into the back yard, and
assisting a man to jump out, which he did. In preventing a further escape he
lost one man who got out of the door as he went in. P.C. Smith was then let in
at the front door. Mr. Marsh came down and said “Hello, what`s up? This is all
through me laying abed”. He told them he should report them, and they would be
summoned. Marsh said “All right. We must make the best of it”. He then let
Brewer, Fagg, Hills, Longhurst, Hall and Todd out. In the taproom there were
from eight to twelve round wet marks on the table where glasses or mugs had
stood. Defendant did not conduct the business himself. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh
carried on the business.
P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Galbraith said the defendant was a trustee for Mrs.
Marsh, who he understood was separated from her husband. He said the door was
open for domestic purposes, and the men ran in, the constable following them.
Mrs. Marsh and the servant would tell them no beer was drawn, and therefore
there was no offence on the part of the holder of the licence.
Eliza Marsh said she carried on the Lord Nelson, and
Mr. Ellen was trustee for her. On Sunday morning she was frying fish in the
parlour. The girl was cleaning the taproom and steps, and the back door was not
open to her knowledge. She heard someone coming up the steps to the parlour,
and she thought they were her lodgers, who were “Hastingers”. She then heard
the men rush through, and immediately after she saw Sergeant Harman. She did
not serve them with a drop of beer. The marks on the taproom table were left
from the night before. The men tried to get out of the house, and she was
confused.
Sarah Brand, servant to Mrs. Marsh, said she was
sweeping the taproom back steps down on Sunday morning, and carried the dust to
the dustbin, leaving the back door open. She went out a second time to shake
the mats, but saw no-one enter the house, nor did she see a constable. She saw
the men rush in, and Mrs. Marsh asked why she let them in. The men had not been
there two minutes when the police came. They had nothing to drink and did not
ask for any. The taproom table had not been scrubbed, and the marks were on it
from Saturday night. The men said “Is there any chance for a glass?”, and she
said “No, Mrs. Marsh never draws any beer on a Sunday morning. You had better
go out again”.
The Bench said there was no doubt the charge was
proved. They were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but he must pay a fine of 50s. and 12s.
costs. It appeared to them that it was not for the benefit of Mr. Ellen that
the people who conducted the house should continue to do so, and advised him to
get rid of his trusteeship as soon as he could.
Mr. Ellen: You may depend on it, gentlemen, I shall.
Mr. Bradley said he did not think it was at all likely
the magistrates would transfer the licence to Mrs. or Mr. Marsh.
The six men whose names are given above were fined 2s.
6d. each without costs.
Folkestone
Express 28-8-1886
Wednesday, August 25th: Before Dr. Bateman,
Alderman Caister, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs., and Capt. Carter.
This being the Annual Licensing Day the magistrates attended
at ten o`clock in order to prepare for the issue of licenses at eleven o`clock.
Upwards of 100 licenses were granted.
Mr. Minter appeared for Wm. Ellen, trustee to Mrs.
Marsh, of the Lord Nelson, against whom the Superintendent had raised an
objection that Ellen was not the resident landlord, and also that in October
last year he was convicted for keeping open the house during prohibited hours,
and fined. Mr. Minter stated that the notice of objection had not been served
in time for him to give notice to have the licence transferred to Mrs. Marsh,
but he would take steps to have the licence transferred.
The Bench granted the licence on the understanding that
a transfer be applied for at the adjourned sessions.
Folkestone
Chronicle 31-8-1889
The Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at
the Town Hall on Wednesday, before Dr. Bateman and a full Bench.
Objection
Supt. Taylor objected to the licence of the Nelson Inn
on the grounds that the house had not been properly conducted, and the Bench
decided to let the case stand over until the adjourned meeting.
Folkestone
Express 31-8-1889
Wednesday, August 28th: Before Dr. Bateman,
Captain Carter, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole, J. Pledge and F. Boykett Esq.
The General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on
Wednesday.
All the old licenses were renewed without opposition or
comment except the following:-
The Lord Nelson, in which case the Supt. called
attention to the fact that the house was not conducted satisfactorily. The
police had, on Sunday, the 25th June, been refused admission. There
was also an undertaking given on the last licensing day that the licence should
be transferred to Mr. Marsh, the present applicant`s husband. It was decided to
let the application stand over till the adjourned licensing day.
Folkestone
Express 21-9-1889
Wednesday, September 18th: Before Aldermen
Banks and Pledge, and H.W. Poole Esq.
Mr. Minter applied for a transfer of the licence of the
Lord Nelson from Mr. Ellen to Mrs. Eliza Ann Marsh. Mr. Ellen, he said, was a
trustee for Mrs. Marsh under a settlement, and Mrs. Marsh carried on the
business. The Superintendent made some objection to Mr. Ellen holding the
licence, he not being a resident. Mrs. Marsh had conducted the house, he would
not say to the entire satisfaction of the Superintendent, because probably he
was not entirely satisfied with the conduct of the house, but it had been
satisfactorily conducted.
There was no objection, and the transfer was
sanctioned.
Folkestone
Chronicle 30-8-1890
Annual Licensing Session
Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor,
Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.
Upon Mr. Marsh applying for a renewal of the licence of
the Lord Nelson, Superintendent Taylor said a couple of men were found on these
premises at ten minutes to twelve on one occasion, but this was the only
offence against the applicant.
The licence was granted.
Folkestone
Express 30-8-1890
Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor,
Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.
The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of
the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent
of Police.
The Lord Nelson
Supt. Taylor said some people were found in this house
at 10 minutes to 12 at night. It was the only complaint since the applicant had
held the licence.
Granted.
Folkestone
Chronicle 6-12-1890
At the Police Court on Thursday before Mr. Fitness and
Major Penfold, Thomas ryan was charged with assaulting William Marsh, of the
Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street.
Prosecutor said the prisoner, with several other
soldiers of the Leinster Reguiment, had some beer at his house, and ran out
with a jug and a glass. He pursued them, and when the prisoner got to the Tramway
Tavern he poured some of the beer into a bottle which a girl named Lily Hogben,
who lived at the Tramway, was holding. Witness asked him to give up the jug,
when he “butted” him in the chest with his head, knocking him down.
Lily Hogben was called, but stated that prisoner was
not the man at all. It was one of the prisoner`s witness`s, named Cunningham,
who committed the assault. She could swear to it, as she knew him well.
The Magistrates discharged Bryan, and Cunningham was
placed in the dock and ultimately fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs.
The
following licence was transferred on Wednesday at the sitting of the Folkestone
Justices: Lord Nelson inn to Mr. Geo. Taylor
Folkestone Chronicle
8-5-1897
Saturday, May 1st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert and
others.
Eliza Ann Marsh appeared in answer to a summons charging her
with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 18th
April. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.
P.S. Lilley said that on the day in question, in company
with P.S. Swift, he watched the defendant`s house, the Lord Nelson, in Radnor
Street, from St. Peter`s Working Men`s Club, from a window that looked down the
yard. At 8 a.m. a man went to the window and was served with a pint of beer.
Mr. Minter objected to any evidence as to the supply of beer
except that to H. Roach. The Bench decided to hear all evidence.
P.S. Lilley, resuming, said he could not see who served the
man. He came from The Stade. Immediately after three men went up, and were
served with glasses and paid for them. Between 8.10 and 9.15 in all forty four
men were served, chiefly by the defendant`s daughter, with beer or spirits.
Witness gave the evidence in detail, both as to the drink supplied, and the
time served. All paid for their drink. At 9.20 two men were served with a pint
of beer by defendant. Witness and Sergt. Swift then went to the back of the window,
and the two men – Horace Roach and Thomas Hogben – had a pint of beer each.
There were two other men there then, and one was about to be served with a pint
of beer by the defendant`s daughter, but when she saw them she took it back.
Mrs. Marsh was standing behind her daughter, and when she saw them she shut
down the window.
By Mr. Minter: They could see clearly for about a yard into
the room. All the sales up to 8.36 were made by Mrs. Marsh. After, some were
served by her, and some by her daughter. It was not witness`s idea of a
constable`s duty to warn people when they knew perfectly well that they were
breaking the law.
P.S. Swift corroborated his fellow sergeant`s evidence.
Mr. Minter, addressing the Bench, said it was new to him to
admit the evidence he had objected to. Much of the evidence was a surprise to
him, as the defendant denied a great deal of it. He thought the admission of it
was straining the law. They were indicted on a specific offence, and then
called to answer 50 charges.
The Magistrates` Clerk said that if Mr. Minter thought the
defendant`s case had been prejudiced, he had better ask for an adjournment.
Defendant`s husband, who was at the back of the Court,
desired Mr. Minter to ask for an adjournment, so that he could call witnesses.
Mr. Minter said it was a matter of very serious moment to
the defendant and also for the police if they were not speaking the truth. He
frankly hesitated to disbelieve the police evidence, but he could not help
noticing that they gave their evidence with a considerable amount of animus. He
was anxious to call evidence to contradict the police, and therefore asked for
an adjournment until Wednesday. He also requested that P.S. Lilley be asked for
the names of the people he saw served.
P.S. Lilley said they were Golder, Ashby, Bailey, Carter,
Cronk, Austin, Kosh, Stockton, Stiff, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and
Spearpoint. The majority of them were served more than once.
Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said he should
withdraw his application for an adjournment so far as he personally was
concerned. If defendant persisted she must find another advocate. He could not
be a party to suggesting that the police were telling untruths when giving the
names. He advised his client to plead Guilty and throw herself on the leniency
of the Bench.
The defendant did, but she said the policemen had always
been against her.
P.S. Lilley said this was the first charge against
defendant.
Mr. Minter appealed for mercy, and urged the Bench not to
endorse the licence, as the house was the woman`s livelihood. She had received
a severe lesson.
The Bench said they had considered the case, and it was a
most serious one. There was not the slightest doubt as to her guilt. Mr. Minter
had exercised a wise discretion in advising defendant not to contradict the
evidence of the police. She would be fined £10 and 10s. costs. The licence
would not be endorsed, but they warned her not to offend again.
Mr.
George Taylor was granted the transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson
The
licence of the Lord Nelson was transferred to George Taylor
Folkestone Express
8-5-1897
Saturday, May 1st: Before W.G. Herbert and
others.
Eliza Ann Marsh was summoned for selling intoxicating
liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday the 18th April. Mr. John
Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.
Sergeant Lilley said on Sunday, the 18th April,
in company with Sergeant Swift, he watched the Lord Nelson public house, in
Radnor Street, from half past seven in the morning. They watched from the
windows of St. Peter`s Working Men`s Club, which looked down into the yard. The
distance was about 15ft. between them and the public house and they were
perhaps 80ft. up away from it. At eight o`clock a man went to the window and
was served with a pint of beer.
Mr. Minter objected to any evidence except as to the supply
of beer to one Horace Roach. The Bench, however, overruled the objection.
Sergeant Lilley resumed: He could not see who served the
man. He came from a covered passage from The Stade, which led to the Lord
Nelson and one or two other houses. The window was only about 7ft. from the
ground Immediately after three other men went up and were served in glasses.
Mr. Minter again objected. He said they were charged with
selling to one Horace Roach – at a certain time.
Mr. Bradley said his advice to the Bench was to admit the
evidence.
Sergeant Lilley resumed: These men were served with pints of
beer, and each paid for them. At 8.10 four other men were served, one with a
pint, one with half a pint, one with a small glass of apparently white spirit,
and one with a bottle, apparently beer. One man paid for three, and one for
what was in the bottle. At twelve minutes past eight another man was served
with a pint of beer by defendant, and received change. At 8.16 two other men were
served, and both paid. At 8.24 one man was served with beer in a bottle, and
received change. At 8.25 a man was served with half a pint by defendant, paid,
and received change. At 8.28 one man was served with beer in a bottle by
defendant. At 8.30 eight men were served, six with pints of beer, and with two
small glasses of apparently white liquor by defendant, and all paid. At 8.34
one man was served with two bottles, and paid. At 8.36 two men were served with
a pint each, and paid. At 8.41 one man was served with a pint by defendant`s
daughter, and paid. At 8.44 one man was served with a bottle of beer,
apparently by the daughter, and paid. At 8.47 two men were served by the
daughter with a pint each, and paid. At 8.49 two men were served, one with a pint
of beer, and one with a glass of liquor, by the daughter. (In reply to Mr.
Minter, witness said he made the memoranda he was reading from as the men
left). In all cases the man with the bottle was the same man. He was known to
witness. At five minutes past nine, seven men were served by defendant with a
pint each, and received change. At ten minutes past nine, seven men were served
with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 9.15 three men were served with a
pint each, and one with a small glass containing liquor. At 9.20 two men were
served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. The latter were Horace Roach
and Thomas Hogben. The witness and Swift then went to the back of the window,
and the two men, Roach and Hogben, had a pint glass each, containing beer.
There were two other men there, and one was about to be served with a pint of
beer by defendant`s daughter, but when she saw them she took it back again.
Mrs. Marsh was standing behind her daughter, and on seeing them she shut the
window down. Witness asked to see her, and she went to the window, and he told
her she would be charged with selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited
hours. She said “All right”. There were 59 different sales to 45 men – some
were served twice, and some three times – and the man with the bottle six
times. They left off watching at 9.20. All the liquor was sold from the window.
By Mr. Minter: We could see clearly for about a yard into
the room from where we were. All the sales up to 8.35 were made by Mrs. Marsh.
I have no doubt about that. Afterwards some were served by her and some by her
daughter.
Mr. Minter: Why didn`t you go in after the first sale and
warn her?
Witness: That is not my idea of police duty, when people
know perfectly well they are breaking the law.
Sergeant Swift corroborated Sergeant Lilley`s evidence.
Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench. He first referred to
the admission of the evidence which he had objected to, and said it was new to
him that such evidence should be admitted. The summons said that at a certain
time, to wit, twenty minutes past nine in the forenoon, on the same day, she
sold to Horace Roach a certain quantity of beer. All the evidence which had
been given had been an utter surprise to him. It had not been disclosed by the
defendant, who, on his asking her, denied a very great deal of it. However, it
was ruled that it was admissible. It seemed to him to be most unfair and most
unsatisfactory as an indictment (because they were really there on an
indictment) for a specific offence, yet 50 other charges were brought against
the defendant. He really thought it was
a straining of the law.
Mr. Bradley: If you think the defendant is prejudiced you
can ask for an adjournment.
Defendant`s husband, who was at the back of the Court,
requested Mr. Minter to ask for an adjournment so that they could call
witnesses.
Mr. Minter said it was a matter of very serious moment to
the defendant, and it was a matter of serious moment for the police if they
were telling that which was untrue. Frankly, he might say (and he was sure it
would not prejudice the defendant`s case), he hesitated to disbelieve a great
portion of what the police constable had stated, because if he was telling an
untruth he certainly was not fit for the post he occupied. But one could not
help noticing that there was a great deal of animus in the way in which he gave
his evidence. It appeared to be full of hostility against the defendant, and it
made the husband of the defendant (who was the man they had heard speak just
now in the Court), desire to have an adjournment. The defendant was also
naturally desirous, and he (Mr. Minter) was desirous, that there should be an
adjournment of the case in order that they might call evidence to contradict
that which the police had stated. As he had said, he could not believe the two
policemen would be guilty of such atrocious conduct as to come there and tell
such a tissue of lies. He therefore asked for an adjournment until the next
Wednesday, and, further, he asked that Sergeant Lilley should be requested to
give the names of those whom he knew were served by defendant, in order that
they might be summoned to give evidence.
Sergeant Lilley said the first was known to him as Golder,
and other names he gave were Ashby, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Austin, Kosh,
Stockton, Stiff, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint. He said the
majority of those he named were served more than once.
Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said he should
withdraw, so far as he was concerned, his application for an adjournment. If
the defendant persisted, she must get someone else to act for her. Although he
could not say he could always put implicit faith in what policemen said, he
could not be a party to suggesting that they were telling an untruth in giving
the names of the men who were there. His advice to the defendant was to plead
Guilty, and ask for the merciful consideration of the Bench, and he was sure
she would not be prejudiced by that course.
The defendant then pleaded Guilty, and asked the Bench to
deal leniently with her, She added that the policemen had been against her for
years.
Sergeant Lilley, in answer to Mr. Bradley, said it was the
first charge of the kind against the defendant.
Mr. Minter then appealed to the Bench to be merciful, and
remarked that it was perfectly well understood that publicans believed that
policemen had their favourites, who were favoured by them, but he was loth to
believe in that. He urged that the Bench should not endorse the licence, as the
house was the woman`s livelihood. It would be a lesson to her in the future to
obey the law, and not to open her house at hours when she was not allowed to do
so.
The Bench said they considered it was a serious case, and
there was not the slightest doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the
defendant. They considered that Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in
advising the defendant not to go into the witness box to contradict the
evidence of the police. She would be fined £10 and 10s. costs. The licence
would not be endorsed, but they cautioned her not to offend again in a similar
way.
Folkestone Herald
8-5-1897
Folkestone Police Court
On Saturday – Mr. Herbert presiding – Mrs. Eliza Ann Marsh
was charged with selling intoxicating liquors to Horace Roach at prohibited
hours on the 18th April. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.
P.S. Lilley said on Sunday, 18th inst., in
company with P.S. Swift, he watched the Lord Nelson public house, Radnor
Street, commencing at half past 7 a.m. They watched from the windows of St.
Peter`s Working Men`s Club, the back of which was in a yard, and a door led
from the back of the Lord Nelson into this yard. Between where they were and
the public house there was about 30 feet. About 8 o`clock a man came to a
window and was served with a pint of beer or ale, he could not see by whom.
Mr. Minter here objected to any evidence except as to the
supply to Roach, as that was the charge, but the Bench ruled that the evidence
was admissible.
Witness, continuing, said that the man came from a covered
passage leading from The Stade into the yard and to the houses. The back door
of the Lord Nelson opens into the yard, and the window is about 7 feet from the
level of the ground. Immediately after this three other men came and were each
served with a pint by the defendant from the window, and each paid. At 8.10
four more men came to the same place, one being served with a pint, one with
half pint, one with a small glass of spirits, and one with a quart bottle,
apparently containing beer. One man paid for the three, another for what was in
the bottle. Shortly after, another man came, and was served with a pint of
beer, paid, and received change from the defendant. At 8.16 two men were served
with a pint each, and each paid. At 8.24, one man was served with beer in a
bottle, paid, and received change. At 8.25 a man was served by the defendant
with a pint, paid, and received change. At 8.28 one man was served by the
defendant with beer in a bottle, and he paid. At 8.30 eight men were served by
defendant with six pints of beer and two small glasses containing liquor, and
all paid. At 8.34 one man was served with two bottles, and paid. At 8.36 two men
were each served with a pint and paid. At 8.41 one man was served with a pint
by defendant`s daughter, and he paid. At 8.44 one man was served by the
daughter with a bottle, apparently of beer, for which he paid. At 8.47 two men
were served with a pint each by the daughter, and paid. At 8.49 two men were
served by the daughter, one with a pint of beer and the other with a small
glass containing liquor.
Mr. Minter: When did you make all these memorandums?
Witness said he made them at the time. At 8.51 eight men
were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 8.56 one man with a
bottle was served, and received change. In all cases the man with the bottle
was the same one, and witness knew him. At 9.05 seven men were each served with
a pint by defendant, paid, and two received change. At 9.10 seven men were
served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 9.15 three men were served,
two with a pint each and one with a glass apparently containing liquor. At 9.20
two men were served by the defendant with a pint each and they paid. Horace
Roach and Thomas Hobson were the names of these men. P.S. Swift and witness
then went to the back of the window, and Roach and Hobson had pint glasses of
beer about half emptied. There were two other men there, and one was just about
to receive a pint glass of beer, which was being handed to him by the
defendant`s daughter, who, on seeing the police, took it back again. Mrs. Marsh
was behind her daughter at the open window, and he told her she would be
charged with selling intoxicating liquors in prohibited hours. She replied “All
right”. There were 59 different sales and 45 different men, the man with the
bottle being served six times. All the liquors were sold from the window to the
men in the yard, none of them entering the house.
Cross-examined: From where they were they could see the
window by looking obliquely, and could see about a yard into the room at the
farthest end of the window. All sales up to 8.36 were made by Mrs. Marsh, he
had no doubt about that. Afterwards some by the defendant and some by her
daughter.
Asked why he did not warn the defendant at first, witness
said it was not his idea of police duty to warn people who knew they were
breaking the law, and he used his discretion.
P.S. Swift said he had heard the previous witness`s evidence
and it was correct. The evidence given agreed with witness`s notes, which he
made at the time.
Mr. Minter said that notwithstanding the ruling of the Bench
he must observe that it was new to him that this evidence should have been
admitted while the summons charged them only with selling a certain quantity of
beer to one Horace Roach, at twenty past nine on Sunday. All this evidence was
an utter surprise to him, and upon his asking her, the defendant denied a very
great deal of it. Of course if a person was indicted, and this was equal to an
indictment, for a specific offence he would know how to answer it. The matter
was of very serious moment to the defendant and to the police if they were
telling that which was untrue. He was sure it would not prejudice the
defendant`s case when he said that he did not hesitate to believe most of what
the police sergeant had said. He could not help noticing that there was a great
deal of animus in the awy he gave his evidence, it appeared to him to be a
feeling of hostility against the defendant. The defendant and her husband, who
was in court, desired to have an adjournment of the case in order to call
evidence, and as he was taking on himself the responsibility of defending the
defendant he would not be a party to allowing her to go into the box. He could
not believe that the policeman could be guilty of such atrocious conduct as
telling a tissue of lies. They desired an adjournment so that they would have
time to consider and get the evidence of these different men. It would be an
advantage if the police would give the names of the men, as they might be
summoned as witnesses.
P.S. Lilley said the men were:- Golder (this might not be
his real name, but he was known by it), Ashley, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Anslow,
Kosh, Stockton, Smith, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint.
Mr. Minter now said he had advised the defendant to plead
guilty, but she must exercise her own judgement. He was sure the Magistrates
would not be prejudiced by the observations he had made.
The defendant then pleaded guilty, and said these men (the
police sergeants) had been against her for years.
Mr. Minter said it was his experience that they had their
favourites amongst the police and their enemies. They imagined that one was
persecuted and one was favoured, but he was loth to believe that. It was quite
clear in this case that although the defendant did not serve as often as they
said she did, still her daughter must have, and the defendant could only ask for
their merciful consideration, and hope they would not endorse the licence, as
she had to earn her own living. It would be a lesson for her in the future.
The Chairman said that the Bench had listened very carefully
to the evidence and considered there was not the slightest doubt that she did
wilfully serve these men with beer, and they thought Mr. Minter had used a very
wise discretion in advising her as he had. It was a bad case, but as it was the
first offence they would not go to the extent of endorsing her licence, but
would fine her £10 and 10s. costs. She might be perfectly certain it would be
endorsed if she came there again.
Folkestone Up To Date
8-5-1897
Police Court Proceedings
Eliza Ann Marsh was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor
during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 18th April. Mr. John Minter
appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.
The Bench said they considered it was a serious case, and
there was not the slightest doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the
defendant. They considered that Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in
advising the defendant not to go into the witness box to contradict the
evidence of the police. She would be fined £10 and 10s. costs. The licence
would not be endorsed, but they cautioned her not to offend again in a similar
way.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-12-1897
Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor,
Messrs. J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert.
Folkestone Express
11-12-1897
Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, J.
Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Folkestone Herald
11-12-1897
Local News
No comments:
Post a Comment