Morehall, Cheriton Road 1912 - c2009

The Morehall c1914
The Morehall, 1978

The Morehall, May 2012

 

The Morehall, 2012. Credit Phil Nicholson (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Morehall-Folkestone.html)

The Morehall, 2016. Credit Kay & Mick Yates (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Morehall-Folkestone.html)

 

 

Licensees
James Kent 1912 1917
Annie Kent 1917 1919
James Kent 1919 1942 Also Rose Hotel 1927
Leonard Kenward 1942 1949 Also Princess Royal 1943-44
Archibald Hopper 1949 1952
Peter Balean 1952 1953
Peter Heneage 1953 1953
Frederick Dunwell 1953 1954
Leslie Mudd 1954 1956
Peter Cash 1956 1958
Thomas Wilson 1958 1959
Michael Robinson 1959 1963
Albert Bundy 1963 1975 Previously Black Bull?
William Grainger 1975 1977
David Jenkins 1977 1981
Ahmed Mossahebi and David Griffiths 1981 1983
Derek Brown and David Griffiths 1983 1984
Raymond McLaren and David Griffiths 1984 1986
David Griffiths 1986 1988FH of 28-3-88 still names McLaren
Edward Clark and Gerald Hodgson 1988 1990
Gerald Hodgson and Simon Blyth 1990 1991
Malcolm Berry and Simon Blyth 1991 1991
Ellen Aldred and Simon Blyth 1991 1994 Simon Blyth also Black Bull
Maureen Coles and Geoffrey Griffiths 1994 1998 Ex Black Bull. Maureen Coles To Black Bull
Shane Parker and Dennis Cooke 1998 1998
Shane Parker, Dennis Cooke and Sarah Bolster 1998 1999
Gordon Cooke, Clive Russell and Rosemary Vincent 1999 2000
Gordon Cooke, Clive Russell, Rosemary Vincent and Richard Kean 2000 2001
Maureen Coles and Geoffrey Griffiths 2001 2004 + Ex Black Bull

Folkestone Chronicle 21-9-1901

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 18^th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pursey, Herbert, and Hamilton.

There were but two new applications, and both these were refused. The legal luminaries engaged included Mr. Minter, Mr. Mowll (Dover), Mr. Hall, Mr. G. Haines, Mr. Norman (Lord Radnor`s agent), Mr. M. Bradley (Dover), and Mr. James (Cheriton). The most remarkable episode of the morning was a powerful speech by Mr. Minter, who, in opening the application in respect to a proposed new hotel at Cheriton, occupied over forty five minutes, during which time (figuratively speaking) he unmercifully belaboured the representatives of the opposition. There were those in Court who were of opinion that the appeal made by Mr. Minter was one of the most brilliant he had made these ten years past, and it must have been disappointing to him that after all the case was overthrown on a technical objection cleverly raised by Mr. Martin Mowll.

Cheriton`s Proposed New Hotel

In this case Mr. Minter said he appeared to support the application of Mr. Hanns for a provisional licence for an hotel which it was proposed to erect on the Moorhall estate near Cheriton. He argued that the continual erection of houses in addition to those already in existence was a sufficient reason for the granting of the licence. He was certain that the Magistrates, in their own minds, would be satisfied and that the application was a most reasonable one. Looking at the already large and increasing population it would be unnecessary to labour the application inasmuch as the merits of the case were beyond opposition. He saw that his friend Mr. Mowll was present, and also Mr. James of Cheriton, and at that stage he would like to know whom they represented. As it was the practice not to reply to their opposition, he felt he was entitled to know what and whom he had to meet, and would invite those gentlemen to give the requisite information.

Mr. Bradley: I represent the Folkestone Temperance Council.

Mr. Mowll: I appear to oppose for Messrs. George Beer and Co., owners of the White Lion, Cheriton.

Mr. James intimated that he opposed on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association, while Mr. Norman opposed for Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter: Very well. There are four opponents to deal with. Mr. Bradley`s is a stock objection. The Temperance party, who no doubt man right, are taking a wrong course. If, instead of opposing applications, they devoted their money to the better habitation of the lower classes they would be doing some good. The advocate here quoted Mr. Ritchie, who in reply to a deputation, said that although the licensed houses during a period of 20 years had decreased by 20 percent, yet drinking had during the same period been on the increase, and that to create reform attention should be given to the housing of the working classes. He also read passages from a speech by Lord Derby, who said the Temperance question was on of class. Temperance reformers were not honest in their opposition. They pitched into the lower classes and left the others alone. They divided between that part of the population which possessed cellars and those that did not. Those with the cellars were left alone. The reformers did not fly so high. Continuing, Mr. Minter said that with regard to Mr. Mowll, he was there to oppose for Messrs. Beer and Co., who held a licensed house in Cheriton. It was for the Magistrates to decide if he had any locus standi. If Mr. Mowll was entitled to speak, then the Bench would discount the opposition, which was only trade opposition. They had the loaves and fishes in Cheriton, and wished to keep them. It was human nature. What they had they liked to keep and did not wish anyone to interfere with. Then there was Mr. James, who appeared on behalf of a body called – What?

Mr. James: The Licensed Victuallers.

Mr. Minter: Oh, the Licensed Victuallers? Their opposition is impertinent. My clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, are members of the Licensed Victuallers` Association, and subscribe to it, and I am sure they have given Mr. James no instructions to oppose. Mr. James has got our money in his pocket (laughter), and comes here to oppose us. There never was a more impertinent or ridiculous opposition. Coming to Lord Radnor, he stood amazed to hear that his Lordship had given his agent authority to oppose. He was astonished that a nobleman in such a position should come there and oppose a humble individual, especially when only two or three years ago Mr. Norman applied for a licence within a hundred yards of the spot in respect to which the present application was made. He (Mr. Minter) was loth to think that Lord Radnor knew anything about the opposition. Why? Because (and he was bound to say so), the opposition would be from the most sordid motives. His Lordship could not say that the opposition was on the ground that the licence was not necessary, as only two or three years ago he made a similar application; it would appear, therefore, that he wanted to get the profit himself. He was sorry to drag Lord Radnor`s name in, but if his Lordship`s agent dragged his name in the mire, then he (Mr. Minter) was bound to deal with it. Referring to Mr. Norman`s presence at a recent auction sale, the speaker said that if Mr. Norman had his way “we should neither be allowed to eat, drink, or sleep without Lord Radnor`s agent`s permission”.

Thomas John Taylor, ex-Supt. of Folkestone Police, was Mr. Minter`s first witness. He said: I live on the Moorhall estate, and I know the plot of land upon which it is proposed to erect the hotel. I prove the formal exhibit of the usual advertisement in connection and with regard to this application.

Mr. Montagu Bradley took exception to the form of the application notice, as it did not comply with Section 22 of the Act, 1874.

Mr. Mowll followed in the same strain, the objection being that no provision in this Section of the Act was made for provisional licence, and that the formal application was not in order.

The Bench overruled the objection.

Mr. Charles Hanns, a collector in the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said : I am the lessee of land on which the provisional licence is asked for, and produce certificates as to character. I have known Folkestone in my business capacity for years, and know the district in question very well. In my judgement the locality is likely to increase and develop, and I am desirous in retirning from the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, and making this my living.

By Mr. Bradley: The site is not far from Shorncliffe Station. At the station there are two fully licensed refreshment rooms. Within ½ mile is another licensed house, the property of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer. The houses in the immediate district would be rented at about £50 per annum. The houses on the estate I look upon as weekly tenements for the middle classes. The term of the lease is to commence when the hotel is complete.

By Mr. Mowll: If the application is not granted, I shall continue with Messrs. Nalder and ollyer until I find a suitable site.

By Mr. James: With the exception of a few properties, the houses in the neighbourhood are at rather high rentals. There are 148 houses now built on the Moorhall estate.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: The station hotel is half a mile from the proposed site, and the White Lion is another half mile.

Mr. Mowll again raised a technical objection. He said that under Section 22 of the Act, 1874, the person making an application should be interested in the property. He held that applicant was not interested, inasmuch as he would not take the property unless the application was granted. Therefore he held no real interest in the present application.

Mr. Bradley and Mr. James supported the objection.

Mr. Minter: It shows what desperate straits my friends are in. The mere showing o a letter from Messrs. Nalder and Collyer to my client is sufficient evidence of interest. The advocate also quoted specific terms contained in the lease, which he held was clear evidence of interest.

The Chairman: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that the agreement is bad. There is a proviso dealing with an Hotel which does not exist and the land not conveyed. If there had been a proviso dealing with the land it would have been showing an interest, which, however, does not exist in the agreement, which we are unanimously of opinion is bad.

Mr. Minter: But we say in the agreement “Hotel and premises”. I submit that “premises” mean land.

The Chairman: The Bench are unanimous that the agreement is bad.

Mr. Minter: Very well. I submit.

Thus a case which opened brilliantly and promised some warm cross-examination came to a tame and abrupt ending.

Folkestone Express 21-9-1901

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 18^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. Hands applied for a provisional licence for a house proposed to be built on the Morehall Estate, nearly opposite Shorncliffe Station.

Mr. Minter, for the applicant, pointed out that there was a large growth of houses and population in the neighbourhood, that the application was reasonable, and that the house was necessary. He alleged that the application was beyond opposition, but he understood it was opposed by two gentlemen – one from Dover and one from Cheriton, and he would like to know on whose behalf they were opposing.

Mr. Bradley said he appeared for the Folkestone Temperance Society, Mr. Mowll for Messrs. Geo. Beer and Co., owners of the White Lion (Cheriton), Mr. James, on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, and Mr. Norman on behalf of Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter, in continuing his remarks, said the Folkestone Temperance Society had better devote their attention to the improvement of the houses of the working classes, and he quoted the remarks of Mr. Richie upon the subject, who said during the last 30 years the licensed houses had decreased 20 per cent, but notwithstanding this, the consumption of alcoholic liquor had greatly increased. As far as the opposition of the Temperance Society, he said they only attacked the poorer classes, and those who possessed cellars were not interfered with or censured, and no-one tried to make them sober. Everyone knew there were more licences than were necessary in certain congested districts of Folkestone. They all admitted it. But that was no reason for refusing a licence in a new district. He asked the Bench if Mr. Mowll would be allowed a locus standi, he appearing for the owner of a house outside the district. Anyhow, it was a mere trade opposition, which he was sure would have very little weight. In dealing with the Licensed Victuallers` opposition, he said it was an impertinent opposition, and Mr. James had no right there, because his clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, were members of that association, and they were actually being opposed with their own money. In dealing with Lord Radnor`s opposition, he said he was amazed to hear of it, and he doubted whether Mr. Norman had the authority of Lord Radnor to come there and oppose that application. It was not perhaps right for him to say Mr. Norman had no authority. But he was going to suggest it, and he should ask him the question distinctly. He referred to the respect and affection in which his Lordship was held, and said he could not believe he would oppose the application of a humble individual for a licence. If he did so, it could only be from the most sordid motives, and because he wanted to enhance his income by getting a licence himself for the plot of land for which he applied for a licence a few years ago. He felt sure Lord Radnor would not be a party to such an opposition as that. If he did, then it was only a trade opposition. His agent was there, and if he was the cause of his Lordship`s name being dragged through the mire he could not help it. Whenever there was a sale, his agent was present trying to depreciate the value of the property, so that he might purchase it for less than it was worth. He felt sure his Lordship did not know of those proceedings, and did not know what was taking place. Only the other day even the name of an estate was grabbed at. Mr. Norman contended that the vendors had no right to use the name of “West Cliff”, which was the name of Lord Radnor`s estate. Presently they would neither be able to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep without the consent and permission of Mr. Norman. (Laughter)

At the end of Mr. Minter`s address, which occupied half an hour, Mr. Videan put in the plans, which were explained by Mr. Minter, who pointed out that several hundred houses would be erected not only on the Morehall Estate, but on Mr. Edwards`s estate adjoining, and the Football Field was to be developed also.

Formal evidence of the notices having been given, Mr. Montague Bradley raised an objection on the ground that the application was not for a provisional licence under the Act of 1874, but was simply for the grant of a licence.

Mr. Mowll said the Bench could only grant a provisional licence under Section 22 of the Licensing Act of 1874, and not under the Act of 1828, which contained no section relating to a provisional licence, and he submitted that the application could not proceed.

Mr. Minter said he could not appreciate the objection, and contended that the form of notice was good.

The Magistrates overruled the objection.

Charles Hand, of Croydon, brewers` collector in the employ of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, owners of the land, said he was the lessee of the land, and put in the lease and certificates as to character. He knew the district well, and in his opinion the inhabitants were likely to increase considerably.

By Mr. Bradley: The site was not very far from Shorncliffe Station, but more than two minutes` walk. There were refreshment rooms at the Station, and an inn a short distance away on the south side. His lease would commence when the hotel was completed.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, he said he did not know that Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were prepared to give up a licence.

In reply to Mr. James, he said the houses in the neighbourhood were middle class houses as a rule. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were the owners of the site, but he could not say of whom they purchased it. He did not know that on a former occasion, when Messrs. Beer and Co. applied for a provisional licence, they were supposed to be the owners.

Mr. Mowll pointed out that the section provided that this application must be made by a person interested. He contended that the applicant had no interest whatever until the house was completed.

Mr. Bradley followed by saying there was no clause binding the owners to erect the house, and Mr. James suggested that it was very probable there was only a provisional agreement for sale.

Mr. Minter replied that there was no necessity for an agreement at all. A simple letter from the owners to the applicant promising to grant him a lease would be sufficient.

Mr. Mowll: Where is his present interest?

Mr. Minter: Too frivolous. I can`t explain a thing to a man who won`t understand.

Mr. Mowll said he always was avers to taking technical objections, but he must do so in the case of that agreement. Inasmuch as it did not grant a lease of the land upon which the house was to be built. Therefore the applicant had clearly no present interest in it.

Mr. Bradley (the Magistrates` Clerk): It is a badly drawn document. It should have been a lease of the land, with a covenant to erect an hotel upon it.

Mr. Minter: It says “All the hotel and premises intended to be built”.

Mr. Bradley said there could not be any present interest in that which did not exist. There ought to have been a lease of the plot of land. It was only an agreement to erect an hotel upon it.

Mr. Minter: Don`t you think this is sufficient interest?

Mr. Wightwick: I don`t think we need discuss it further. We are unanimous that the agreement is not sufficient, and we are so advised by our Clerk.

The application was refused.

Folkestone Herald 21-9-1901

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 18^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Minter appeared in support of an application for a provisional licence for the Morehall Hotel, which is to be built on the Morehall Estate, nearly opposite Shorncliffe Station.

It was within the knowledge of the Magistrates, he said, that there was a rapid extension of Folkestone in that direction, and a continual erection of houses there. He was certain that in their own minds they would feel convinced that the application he was now making was a reasonable one, and one it was necessary should be granted for the convenience of a large population which was now resident there, and the increased population which would be there by the time the hotel was erected. He did not know whether there was any opposition, but from the faces he saw around him he should judge that there was. Before going any further he should ask what the opposition was.

Mr. M. Bradley said he was opposing on behalf of the Temperance Society; Mr. H. Mowll said he represented Messrs. Beer and Co., the owners of the White Lion, Cheriton; Mr. W.C. James represented the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association; and Mr. Norman opposed on behalf of Lord Radnor.

Mr. Minter went on to deal with the opposition. First, he said, Mr. Bradley on behalf of the Temperance Society made the stock application. Whilst doing credit to their intentions, he said one could not help feeling that the Society was taking the wrong course. If, instead of opposing applications for licences, they would devote their energies and their money to the better habitation of the working classes, they would be doing more towards preventing the lower classes from going into public houses. That was not merely his opinion, but that of Mr. Ritchie, and he quoted it as the opinion of the Home Secretary. Then again, Lord Derby had said that the Temperance party divided the country into rich and poor, those having power and those not having power. The Temperance reformers did not interfere with those persons who had cellars, but they did with those who did not possess cellars. It was well known to everyone that there were more licences than necessary in certain congested districts, but that was no argument against granting a licence where it was needed. It was for the Magistrates to determine whether r. Mowll had any locus standi. Why should he come into Folkestone and interfere with them just because he had a public house in Cheriton? Even if he was entitled to appear, they would discount his opposition, because he was out of the district. One wondered what the Association which Mr. James represented was. The Association had the impudence to dare to come here and oppose. It had no right there at all, for the simple reason that his clients, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, were members of the Association, and paid their three, four, or five guineas a year to it. They had given no authority to Mr. James to appear. The Association were actually taking his client`s money to oppose their application. (Laughter) A more impudent opposition he had never heard of. Now he came to Lord Radnor. It was well known that Lord Radnor was looked upon in Folkestone with a degree of affection, and they knew he would do what he could for the town. He stood amazed that his agent should come there and say he had Lord Radnor`s authority to oppose. If he had that authority he was astonished that a nobleman in his position should come and oppose a humble individual who was desirous of getting a licence for a living. For his Lordship, with his thousands and his many public houses in Folkestone, to come and oppose that application, it must be from the most sordid motives. It must be made to enhance the value of the property in order that he might come there next year and apply for a licence on the very spot which was applied for two years ago. He said Lord Radnor would not be a party to such an application, and he could not say that the licence was unnecessary, for he applied for it himself two or three years ago. The application was then refused because the neighbourhood was not developed enough. It appeared that Lord Radnor wanted to get the licence himself. That was trade opposition. He was sorry he had been obliged to use Lord Radnor`s name in that way, but he could not help it, because his agent was there, and if he was dragging his Lordship`s name in the mire, it was not his fault. Whenever there was a sale his agent was there to depreciate the value of the property. He was sure his Lordship did not know of those tactics. He was too high-minded a gentleman for that. If the people of Folkestone were to be under Lord Radnor`s agent, they would soon not be able to sleep, drink, eat, or live without his permission. The estate was about 30 acres in extent, and was formerly owned by Messrs. Hall and Swoffer. There were 148 houses on the estate, and close handy there were 240. There would be roughly a population of about 1,500. In addition to that, a number of other houses were being erected on the Ashley Grange estate, a little further to the west, and the football field was to be built upon.

Mr. Jn. Taylor, retired Superintendent of Police, who resides on the Morehall Estate, and Mr. Andrew gave evidence as to the posting of the notices.

Mr. Bradley said the notice itself did not ask for a provisional licence, but for an excise licence under the Alehouse Act, 1828.

Mr. Mowll said they could only grant a provisional licence under Sec. 28 of the Licensing Act, 1874. He submitted that the application could not proceed.

Mr. Minter said the form of notice was the proper form, and he could see nothing in the objection. He submitted that the form of notice was perfectly good.

The Chairman said the Magistrates overruled the objection.

Charles Hanns, a collector employed by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, brewers of Croydon, said he was the lessee of the land, and produced hios agreement, together with certificates as to character. He had known Folkestone for years, and, in his judgement, that locality was likely to develop.

By Mr. Bradley: The site is about five minutes` walk from the station, where there were two fully-licensed refreshment rooms. The fully licensed house which belonged to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer was half a mile from the station.

By Mr. Mowll: I do not think Messrs. Nalder and Collyer are prepared to give up a licence if this is granted.

By Mr. James: The houses on the Morehall Estate are let out at £30 to £40 a year.

Mr. Mowll pointed out an important point in the agreement. In the Section of the Act under which the application was made, it stated that an application can only be made by anyone interested in the property. He submitted that the applicant had no interest in the house.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Hanns` interest was quite sufficient. He was promised a lease if the Bench would grant the provisional licence. The objection was too frivolous.

The Chairman said the Bench were of opinion that the agreement was bad, because it did not grant any land whatever. It granted a hotel which did not exist, and then all the premises. They were unanimously of opinion that the agreement was not sufficient, and were so advised by their Clerk.

Mr. Minter: Very well then, sir, I must submit.

Folkestone Programme 23-9-1901

Local News

At the adjourned Licensing Sessions on Wednesday there was an application for a new licence, being for the Morehall Hotel. The Folkestone Temperance Party, the Licensed Victuallers, and private residents offered opposition. The application was not granted.

Folkestone Express 10-1-1903

Notice

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish and Township of Folkestone in the County of Kent and to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough of Folkestone in the said County and to Henry Barrell Bradley, Esq., the Clerk of the Licensing Justices of the aforesaid Borough of Folkestone.

I, Walter Tom Tame, now residing at the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, Folkestone, in the County of Kent, Licensed Victualler, and being a person interested in the premises hereinafter mentioned, hereby give you notice that it is my intention to apply to the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden at the Town hall, in the said Borough, on the Fourth day of February next ensuing, for the provisional grant of a licence for the sale by retail of all intoxicating liquors to be drunk or consumed in a certain House and in the premises thereunto belonging about to be constructed for the purpose of being used as a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail to be consumed on such premises, the same being about to be constructed on a plot of land situate on the Morehall Estate in Cheriton Road (at its junction with Coombe Road), and having a frontage to Cheriton Road of fifty feet or thereabouts, in the Township and Borough aforesaid, of which premises Nalder and Collyer`s Brewery Company Limited, of Croydon, in the County of Surrey, Brewers is the owner, and I am the tenant or lessee, and which I intened to keep as an Inn, Alehouse or Victualling House.

Given under my hand this Ninth day of January, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Three.

Walter Tom Tame.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

New Application

Mr. T. Matthew, barrister, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, applied, in the interests of Mr. Walter Tame (at present holding the licence of the Queen`s Head), for a new full licence for a house fronting the Cheriton Road at the Folkestone and Cheriton boundary.

Said Counsel: If ever there was a meritorious application for a new licence, this was one. The site of the house is on the Moorhall building estate, and Messrs. Nalder and Colyer had entered into an agreement with Mr. Tame for seven years, one of the provisions of the agreement being that no more licensed houses were to be allowed on the estate. At present the number of houses on the estate alone was about 360, with a surrounding population of 2,000, while there was no other licensed house within a considerable distance. Having dealt at length with the merits of the application, Mr. Matthew formally proved that the usual legal formalities had been complied with.

Mr. Videan, architect, said that over 40 acres had been developed upon the Moorhall estate at a cost exceeding £265,000, which had been spent upon building operations. Under the instructions of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer he had prepared plans of the proposed hotel, which was estimated to cost £3,000. With reference to other licensed houses, the Railway Hotel was four ninths of a mile away, the White Lion half a mile, and the Bouverie Arms (Folkestone), one and one sixth of a mile away, while to the north there was not another public house in the Borough. He was strongly of opinion that there was a necessity for a licensed house upon the proposed site.

Mr. Montague Bradley (Dover), representing the Temperance Council, cross-examined, and witness, under pressure, could not give any particular reasons as to the necessity of the house.

Mr. Matthew handed to the Bench the name of a licence which his client was prepared to surrender providing the application was granted. He did not disclose the name of the house publicly, but stated that it was in the congested area.

Mr. Walter Tame said that his agreement with the brewers was for seven years at a rental of £100 per annum. Of course the agreement was conditional upon the application being granted.

Mr. Mowll (Dover), appearing for the owners of the White Lion, Cheriton, asked witness whether he was a member of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers` Association.

Witness replied that he was, but that he was unaware that his Association had opposed an application in reference to the same site in 1901.

Mr. William White and Mr. Mercer, builders, were examined by Mr. Matthew, and both gave it as their opinion that a new licence was necessary.

Mr. Thomas Hesketts, the engineer of the Folkestone Electricity Company, also supported the application, and while under cross-examination by Mr. Mowll caused roars of laughter by pretending to impart secrets to the advocate, the information being accompanied by a deal of quiet pantomime.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, and Mr. Graham Hills, draper, of Folkestone, who reside upon the estate, both gave very definite evidence as to the necessity for a licence on the estate.

Mr. John Taylor (late Chief Constable of Folkestone) produced a memorial signed by 48 occupiers upon the estate who were in favour of the new licence.

Mr. Mowll and this witness had about five minutes` good natured banter, the advocate suggesting that with Mr. Taylor`s great popularity only 48 signatures were but poor evidence of the necessity of the licence.

The Bench, without calling upon the opposition to address them, said, through the Chairman, that they had decided to refuse the application.

Folkestone Express 7-3-1903

Wednesday, March 4^th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

New Application

Mr. Walter Tom Tame applied for the grant of a full licence for a house proposed to be built on Cheriton Road on a corner plot of what is known as the Moorhall Estate.

Mr. T. Matthew, in opening the case, said if ever there was a justifiable application for a new licence, he could not help thinking it was that one. The site was on the Moorhall Building Estate. The landlords were Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, an eminent firm of brewers, who had entered into an agreement for a lease at a rent of £100 per annum to Mr. Walter Thomas Tame. There was no fear of the district ever being a “congested district”, and he described the situation of the nearest houses.

Mr. Mowll said he opposed on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, at Cheriton.

Mr. Videan, architect, put in and described the plans, and also the nature of the estate, and the property upon it. The owners expected to expend about £3,000 on the house for which the licence was asked. He resided on the estate himself, and said he considered the licence was necessary for the accommodation of the residents.

It was stated that it was proposed to give up the licence of a house in another district. The name of it was not disclosed, but on the application of Mr. Mowll it was communicated to the gentlemen retained to oppose.

Mr. Walter Tame gave evidence, and was cross-examined by Mr. Mowll and Mr. Bradley at some length as to the nature of the trade likely to be done, and he said he hoped there would be both “on” and “off” trade. There would be six bedrooms – more than would be required by the licensee and his staff.

Mr. Wm. White (builder) and Mr. Alfred Edward Mercer (builder) gave evidence that in their opinion a licence was required there.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, manager of the Electric Lighting Company, also supported the application, on the ground that it would be a convenient house for the men employed at the works, varying from 50 to 100.

Mr. Edward Gibbons and Mr. Graham Hill also gave evidence in support.

Mr. John Taylor put in a memorial signed by 74 persons – 12 owners and occupiers, 15 owners, and 47 occupiers.

Mr. Mowll caused some fun by his cross-examination of this witness, who, he said, with all his influence and suavity of manner could only get 74 signatures out of 360 houses on the estate,

Mr. Mowll wanted Mr. Nalder to be called, but Mr. Minter objected.

The Bench refused the application.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

New Application

All the existing licences now having been dealt with, the Court adjourned for lunch.

Upon resuming at two o`clock, the Justices proceeded to consider the new application for a full licence. This was that of Walter Tom Tame, at present the landlord of the Queen`s Head, who applied for a full licence in respect of a house on the Morehall Estate in Cheriton Road. Mr. T. Matthew, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Minter), represented the applicant, and Mr. M. Bradley, solicitor, Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. Mowll, Dover, on behalf of the landlord of the White Lion, Cheriton, opposed the application.

In opening, Mr. Matthews observed that if ever there was a meritorious application for a new licence this was one. The site in respect of which the application was made was on the Morehall building estate, the house being on two plots fronting Cheriton Road. The land was owned by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, a firm of brewers, and they had entered into an agreement with applicant on a lease of seven years. There was no fear of the district ever becoming congested, because there was a restricted covenant by which it was agreed that there should be no oter house on the estate. Until quite recently it was, so to speak, a rural district, but of late it had been very extensively developed, and upon the adjoining estate there were some 360 houses, of which 330 had been erected quite recently. Land to the extent of 40 acres had been developed, and he was told that something like £260,000 had been spent in recent years on buildings in that district. At present the houses accommodated about 2,000 persons. In a short time those 360 houses would be increased to 400, providing accommodation for some 2,400 folk. In addition to this large growth of houses there were three considerable establishments adjoining the estate – the electricity works, the brickyard, and the joinery works. If they examined the plan showing the distances of the nearest public houses they would see that there was insufficient accommodation for the supply of intoxicants. The nearest was the Railway Tavern, four ninths of a mile away, the White Lion was half a mile away, and the Bouverie one mile and a sixth away. As to the White Lion, he could quite understand why they opposed the application, because it was a rival house. Two years ago the White Lion applied for licensed premises to be erected, not exactly on the very spot, but within 100 yards. As to the opposition from the Temperance Party, of course, one had the greatest respect for temperance organisations, but it was the duty of Justices to grant licences where they thought a reasonable case of need had been made out.

Mr. Craven, clerk to Mr. Minter, proved the service of the necessary notices in connection with the application.

Mr. Henry Videan, civil engineer and architect, said that up to a few years ago the Morehall Estate was open country. He had been instructed by Messrs. Nalder and Collyer to erect an hotel for them, and the cost of the building would be about £3,000. Being half a mile away the White Lion was no use whatever to the neighbourhood. He thought there was a great necessity for a licensed house.

Mr. Bradley: What particular class of trade do you think this house will do in this neighbourhood?

Witness: I think licensed premises are required there.

Do you mind particularising? Do you think it is required for the on trade? – I think it is required for both.

Do you consider the people of this locality require it for on purposes alone? – I don`t say that.

I take it your view is that it is required for the off licence chiefly? – It is required because it is a licensed premises, because it is a necessity to the neighbourhood.

Do you think people living in that locality are of a kind to use a public house other than for sending for beer? – I could not say that.

Many of these houses in the plan are of a greater rental than £50. – No, sir.

It was stated just now that this was the only plot available for licensed houses on the Morehall Estate. The Morehall Estate affects only one side of Cheriton Road. – That is so.

There will be nothing to prevent licensed houses on the other side of any of these plots? – Certainly, they are not all tied.

You did not mention the Station refreshment room. – I think there is a bar there.

Practically you have four rooms supplied with bars on the ground floor. – No, three.

What accommodation upstairs? – Six bedrooms.

They would not go very much beyond an ordinary family and servants. – Well, I should think so. (Laughter)

At this stage Mr. Matthews intimated that they were willing to surrender another licence if this application was granted.

Mr. Bradley asked counsel to state the name and particulars of the house they were willing to give up, but Mr. Matthews refused to disclose the name, at the same time handing to the Justices a photograph of the house.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, then gave evidence. He stated that on the 8^th of January this year he entered into an agreement with the company to take the house on a lease for seven years, the rent to be £100 per year. He certainly thought a licensed house was necessary in the locality.

Replying to Mr. Bradley, applicant said that so far he had not paid any rent, but it was to be £100 per year.

Here Mr. Matthews interposed with the remark that the rent would only be nominal until the licence was granted.

Mr. Bradley: It is £1 a year for the first year till the house is up.

Mr. Bradley (to applicant): Until the house is built you won`t pay your £100 a year. – Certainly not. (Laughter)

Therefore the lease will fall through if the licence is not granted? – It would be so.

Are you fully tied by this lease to the brewers? – In the ordinary way in which tenants are tied.

Is this a usual clause, as far as you know, “Provided always, and it is hereby agreed, that the Company shall be the sole judge as to the quality, character and brand of the alcoholic liquors”? – Yes, sir.

What character of trade do you expect to do at this house, off or on? – Both.

Which do you attach most importance to? – I should hardly be prepared to say.

You hope to do both? – Certainly I do.

But as to the convenience of the locality. Isn`t it a question of the off licence? – As much one as the other, likely to be more on than off.

Now you know this is on the main road? – Certainly.

And the road is used very largely by soldiers coming from the Camp into the town? – Yes.

I expect you would get some of the trade? – Naturally you could not avoid it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: I have been the licence holder of the Queen`s Head 14 years. I am a member of the Licensed Victuallers` Association. I am not aware that the Association opposed this licence last time.

Having known the place some time, you know the White Lion some years ago was quite a small place, was it not? – Yes.

And then it was rebuilt. It`s a beautiful place now isn`t it? (Laughter) You don`t expect this to be any better than the White Lion, do you? – No.

Or to be quite as good? – Probably much the same. (Laughter)

You think the class of people who live up there will be the class of people who will use your house? – Yes, sir.

You propose to serve people as they come in, and to conduct a restaurant there? – I shall try to.

Have you had any experience in that class of business? – Yes.

But you want to conduct this as a public house, don`t you? – Yes.

Mr. Mowll then resumed his seat, his cross-examination of applicant having caused much amusement.

Mr. White and Mr. Mercer, builders, said they thought a public house there was a necessity, the former remarking it was not convenient for the people to go to the White Lion, as it was too far.

In answer to Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mercer said he was not asked to attend and give evidence.

Mr. Bradley: You came here voluntarily! I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Mowll (smiling): How does that gentleman (pointing to Mr. Matthews) know your name if he did not know you were coming?

Witness: I told Mr. Minter I was coming.

Mr. Mowll: Ah! That is very good of you.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, resident manager and engineer of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Company, whose works are situate on the estate, also stated that he thought the house was needed. Sometimes they employed between fifty and one hundred men, most of whom stayed to their dinners. If they wanted drink they had to cross the line.

Mr. Mowll: Have you come here in order that you may have better facilities for your men in getting their dinner beer? – Yes.

In the very strictest confidence, are you a teetotaller? – No. (Loud laughter)

Are you a semi-teetotaller? (Renewed laughter) – Well, I don`t know what a semi means. I am a temperate man.

You come here today as an employer of labour? – Yes.

Do you think as an employer of labour that it is a good thing to have a public house just opposite your works? – I do.

Rather curious statement to make, isn`t it? – No, certainly not.

You think it is a constant thing for employers to always insist upon a public house for their men to be in all day? – That is a statement of your own.

Is that your opinion? – No.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, also thought that it was necessary that there should be licensed premises there as he thought it would be a great advantage to the district.

Mr. Bradley: Are you one of those independent gentlemen who signed your name as being so anxious to come here this afternoon? – I was not aware a gentleman had sent it in.

Has a friend spoken to you? – A gentleman asked me to come.

Are you living on the estate? – Yes.

Mr. G. Hills, draper, High Street, who lives on the estate, was also called as a witness, and he also gave it as his opinion that licensed premises were necessary.

A memorial signed by 12 owners and occupiers, 15 owners, and 47 occupiers making a total o 74 residents in the district, was presented in favour of the establishment of the public house, and asking that the application should be granted.

This closed the case for the applicant.

After a brief consultation, the Justices, without calling upon Mr. Bradley or Mr. Mowll to reply for the opposition, refused the application.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-2-1904

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

Mr. Minter applied for full licences for Mr. W.T. Tame and Mr. Gregory, but no new facts were forthcoming and the Bench declined to grant them, stating that they would grant no new licences this year.

Folkestone Express 13-2-1904

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

New Application

Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Mr. Tame for a full licence for a house proposed to be built in Cheriton Road.

This application was refused last year.

Mr. Wightwick said unless Mr. Minter had any fresh facts, the Bench would not be disposed to grant it.

Mr. Minter replied that with regard to this house, it was in an important neighbourhood, but they could well understand how it embarrassed him for the Bench to tell him really in a word that they would not grant the application.

It appeared there were really no new circumstances, and therefore, after some argument, Mr. Minter said he would withdraw.

Folkestone Daily News 7-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.

Mr. Clarke Hall applied on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer and Mr. Walter Tame for a transfer of the Queen`s Head licence to the Morehall Hotel on the Morehall Estate. He pointed out that the locality comprised over 1,000 acres without a licensed house. Four hundred and forty one houses had been erected, and the population numbered 2,646. By a covenant in the agreement only one licence was allowed on the estate.

Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed the application on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, Messrs. Beer and Co.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association.

Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Temperance Party.

The Rev. W. Bennett opposed the application on his own behalf, and the application was also opposed by the military authorities.

The applicants were also prepared to give up a second licence, the name of which was given to the Bench, but was not for publication.

Mr. Crouch, manager to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, proved the conveyance showing that no other licensed house would be allowed on the Morehall Estate. He consented to the transfer of the two licences.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: The two licences to be transferred were the freehold of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, and were embodied in the debenture holders. He did not know if their consent had been obtained.

Mr. Mowll then took the objection on the ground that the consent of the trustees of the debenture holders was necessary in order to give the Bench jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Bench, however, overruled the objection.

Mr. Videan, who prepared the plans, confirmed counsel`s statement.

Mr. Bradley, Mr. Haines, and Mr. Mowll cross-examined vith a view to showing that no necessity existed for an additional licence.

Mr. W.T. Tame said he had held the licence of the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, for 16 years. It was a good house, and the rent was £40 a year. He thought the proposed house at Morehall would do a good trade, while the Queen`s Head was situated in a congested district.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: This was his fourth application. He expected to do a somewhat better class of trade at Morehall. It would be chiefly bar trade, but he expected to do well in teas and refreshments. He thought there would be a good jug and bottle trade. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer by their usual agreement, which stated that the firm were to be the sole judges of the quality and character of the liquor supplied.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He still had the agreement with the brewers formerly produced, and it remained uncancelled. He had paid no rates for the site.

By Mr. Clarke Hall: Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had never offered to transfer a licence before.

Mr. Thomas Hesketh, engineer to the Electric Light Company, said there was a need for a licensed house in the neighbourhood of Morehall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall. He declined to say who asked him to give evidence and the Bench agreed.

Mr. W. White, builder, said he had 29 plots on the estate, and had built 15 houses, of which 10 were let. He thought a licence might help to let the property.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.

Mr. Gibbons, builder, and Mr. W. Attwood, landlord of the Castle Inn, both spoke of the necessity for a licence.

Mr. Clarke Hall handed in a memorial signed by 135 persons in favour, and Mr. Montague Bradley one signed by 230 against.

Major Long, Brigade Major, Shorncliffe, said the General Commanding opposed on the ground that it would offer further inducement to soldiers to drink, when going to the station especially.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: there were other houses both at Cheriton and Sandgate, and bars on both platforms of the station.

Mr. Montague Bradley addressed the Bench on behalf of the Folkestone District Temperance Council, and said he did not propose to call any evidence.

Mr. Haines, on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, said they opposed on the ground that there was no necessity for another house. He called Mr. J.G. Parsons, builder, who owned property opposite, and did not oppose as such, although a teetotaller. He felt sure a public house would injure his property.

Cross-examined: He did not say there was always drunkenness where there were public houses.

Mr. Archie Tolputt opposed as a property owner because he contended there was no necessity.

Cross-examined: Perhaps he did sign the petition in favour two years ago. Anyway, he was opposed now.

The Rev. W. Bennett, Chart Road, said that there were altogether 63 empty houses in the neighbourhood of the site. He opposed as a resident. He admitted the residents were sober and respectable.

Cross-examined: He was a teetotaller, and did not like public houses anywhere.

Mr. Mowll said he understood that the name of the house whose licence would be given up had been handed in, and he should like to know the name of the house.

Mr. Clarke Hall refused to give it, the Bench upholding him.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of the owners of the White Lion, addressed the Bench, arguing that the district was already fully supplied.

The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said the application was refused.

The adjourned licensing sessions will be held on March 5^th.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C. Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.
 
On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:-
 
“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons. Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons. At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences were refused and two renewed. The licences which were refused were:- the Victoria Inn, South Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street; and Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the houses closed. Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting,24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31^st December last 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred the licence and left the house. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing. With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested area, also the public houses within the area. Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 109 persons. There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”. The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained. The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope, Fenchurch Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.
 
Mr. Walter Thomas Tame, licensee of the Queen`s Head, made an application for a new licence to be granted for a proposed hotel, to be called the Moorhall Hotel, on the Moorhall Estate. The applicant offered to surrender the licence of the Queen`s ead and the brewers further offered the surrender of another house if the present application was granted. Mr. Clark Hall, instructed by Mr. Fredk. Hall, appeared for applicant; Mr. Montague Bradley, Dover, opposed on behalf of the local Temperance Council; Mr. Haines opposed for the licensed victuallers; and Mr. Martin Mowll, Dover, also opposed the granting of the licence on behalf of Mr. Smiles, the licensee of the White Lion.
 
Mr. Clark Hall, in opening the application for Mr. Walter Tom Tame, said that his client asked for the transfer of the licence of the Queen`s Head and the provisional grant and confirmation of a new licence for new premises on the Moorhall Estate, to be known as the Moorhall Hotel. The estate comprised about 17 acres, and one of the covenants was that only one licensed house could be erected on the estate. The covenant, by the agreement, would have to be observed in perpetuity. The Moorhall Estate was adjoined by two other estates, the boundaries, and Lord Radnor`s, the three covering an area of one square mile, upon which at present there was no licensed house. Since a similar application had first been made there had been an enormous increase of buildings on the three estates. There were 441 houses; of that number only 28 were old houses, while there was a population at the present time of 2,646. In a very short space of time on this estate would have been 400 houses erected upon it, and would approximately have a population of 2,000. With regard to the opposition, Counsel could not quite see the logic of Mr. Mowll, who a few years since had made an application on behalf of Messrs. George Beer for a licence almost on the present site. He could quite understand the opposition of the licensed victuallers, who naturally wished to protect themselves, but it was for the Bench to determine the value of that opposition, as to whether it was merely selfish or not. Counsel also dealt with the opposition of the Temperance Party. In his opinion that party were not acting in their own interest when they opposed a new licence, the main consideration of which was the closing of a house in what was admitted a congested area. In offering to give up the licence of the Queen`s Head, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were making a great sacrifice indeed, and in addition to that they were offering to give up a second licence. The Bench would note that neither of the houses offered were included in those objected to, therefore a very substantial offer was made. In conclusion, Counsel made out a strong argument in favour of the Bench granting a licence which he submitted was required by the inhabitants of this now thickly populated and growing area.
 
Mr. Douglas De Wet formally proved the service of requisite notices.
 
Mr. Charles Edward Wenham, clerk to Mr. Fredk. Hall, proved the publication of the intended application on the door of the Parish Church.
 
Mr. W.T. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, also put in the necessary authorities granted by the brewers to the applicant in relation to the proposed transfer.
 
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, this witness said he had been with Messrs. Nalder and Collyer about 40 years. He knew Mr. C. Hands, one of the firm`s collectors. Mr. Hands had made an application for a licence on this site a few years since. When Mr. Hands made the application, he told the Magistrates that he was thinking of retiring. The licence was not then granted, and Mr. Hands was still with the firm. (Laughter) The property of the Queen`s Head, witness understood, was included in the holdings of the debenture holders. He did not know whether the consent of the debenture holders had been obtained with regard to the proposed transfer and surrender of a licence.
 
Mr. Mowll here raised a technical objection, and invited the Magistrates to say that they had no jurisdiction to hear the application unless it was proved to them that the consent of the trustees of the debenture holders had been obtained. The advocate quoted authorities and submitted that his objection was fatal to the further progress of the application.
 
Counsel said his friend, Mr. Mowll, had made his objection upon an entirely erroneous assumption of the reading of the section. The debenture holders had an interest invested in the bricks and mortar, not in the licence.
The Bench retired to consider the objection, and after an absence of ten minutes returned into Court, when the Chairman said the Bench overruled it.
 
Mr. Videan produced the plans of the proposed house, the estate, and adjoining estates. Forty acres of the three estates, he said, were developed, 17 acres on the Moorhall Estate.
 
At this stage Mr. Videan`s evidence was dispensed with until the conclusion of the applicant`s evidence.
 
Mr. Walter Tom Tame, examined by Mr. Clark Hall, said he paid Messrs. Nalder and Collyer £40 per annum for the Queen`s Head, where he did a good trade. He considered that a licence on the Moorhall Estate was necessary, and it was his intention, if the transfer was granted, to take over such licence.
Arguments, etc., were here put in.
 
In reply to Mr. Bradley, Mr. Tom Tame said that this was the fourth time of asking. The trade he expected to do at the new house would be similar to that he now did at the Queen`s Head, of course slightly better. He also expected to do a good trade in teas and refreshments. A number of the military frequented this road. The house would be the first licensed house after passing the station. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer.
 
Mr. M. Bradley: One of their usual agreements; I have seen them before. (Laughter)
 
Witness (continuing): One of the terms of the agreement was that Messrs. Nalder and Collyer should be the sole judges of the goods supplied.
 
By Mr. Mowll: Witness said the old agreement which he produced two years ago was still in existence. He had not exercised any tenant rights over the site, except to walk over and see that it had not run away. (Laughter)
 
Mr. William White, a builder, largely interested in the estate, gave an emphatic opinion that a licence was required on the estate, and would improve the property.
 
By Mr. Bradley: There were a number of houses on the estate which were empty, but not beyond the average, as compared with elsewhere.
 
Mr. T. Hesketh, manager of the Electric Light Works, was called. This gentleman said he lived on the road of the proposed site, and he considered that a licence was required, and would be a convenience to the surrounding householders, etc.
 
Mr. Mowll: Who asked you to come here and give evidence?
 
Mr. Hesketh: I can assure the Magistrates that I am here of my own free will; there has not been the slightest pressure from anyone. I do not think I should be called upon to answer that question.
 
Mr. Mowll: It is because you do not want to answer that I want to know.
 
The question, however, was not pursued.
 
It was now 1.30, and the Chairman announced the adjournment for one hour.
 
On the resumption of the hearing at 2.30, the case for the opposition was opened by Mr. M. Bradley, who called Major Long, the Brigade Major of Shorncliffe Camp, who spoke from a military point of view, and gave a number of reasons why the licence, in the interest of sobriety, should not be granted.
 
Mr. Montague Bradley, for the Temperance Council, said that the surrounding circumstances of the present application were practically the same as when last year the licence was refused by the Bench. He quite agreed with Mr. Clark Hall as to the necessity of reducing the number of licences in congested areas, but that was no reason for granting a new licence in a new area. The reasons for refusal were many. One weighty one was the memorial (previously handed in) signed by 235 residents in the immediate neighbourhood, and other influential residents in the locality of the proposed hotel. It was shown that the people in the locality did not require the hotel, then it was clear that the application must fall to the ground. From a perusal of the plans, it became quite clear that the main object was not to cater for visitors staying in the hotel, but simply the provision of large bar space and large rooms where people could congregate. The real trade would probably come from those using the road, soldiers and other pedestrians.
 
Mr. G. Haines made a short protest against the granting of the transfer to new premises on behalf of the licensed victuallers. The feeling throughout the county, he said, was to reduce, not create, new licences. A licensed house on that site, too, would be detrimental to a number of influential residents in the locality, a number of whom he represented. One of the features of the case which one could not help noticing was the fact that of all the witnesses called who had taken notice of the number of empty houses in the locality.
 
Mr. J.G. Parsons, a builder, was called by Mr. Haines, and said that although a teetotaller, he did not oppose the granting of the licence on those grounds, but on the general ground that the licence was not required. Close to the estate he had between £3,000 and £4,000 at stake. A public house, he contended, would materially damage his property. The site, he contended, was placed among the best residential property, and it would be a great injustice to the owners to allow a licensed house to be erected so near to valuable buildings, etc.
 
Mr. Clark Hall: It is because you are a teetotaller, Mr. Parsons, that you are assisting the licensed victuallers? (Laughter)
 
Mr. Parsons: No, it is quite an accident. I instructed Mr. Haines this morning; until then I did not know he represented the licensed victuallers.
 
Mr. A. Tolputt was next examined by Mr. Haines. This gentleman said he was not interested in the licensed victuallers` opposition. He objected to the erection of a licensed house close to his property. There was no necessity for a licensed house on the estate. At present the soldiers on the way to and from the Camp were extremely orderly; true, in passing on chars-a-banc, etc., they sang songs, etc., but they were well behaved; it might be different if a licensed house was put up, and an additional inducement for them to stop on the road offered. The site of the proposed hotel was within three doors of his own house.
 
Mr. Clark Hall: Did you sign in favour of a public house two years ago?
 
Witness said he did not; at least he did not think so. He did not remember.
 
Mr. Clark Hall: Would you like to see your signature?
 
In re-examination, witness said that even if he did sign in favour two years ago, he was certainly opposed to it now.
 
The Rev. W. Bennett, of Chart Road, said he opposed the application as a resident who considered the erection of a licensed house would be detrimental to the neighbourhood. During the adjournment he had counted the empty houses in the block comprising the three estates (naming the roads), and found that there were 63 empty properties. With two years` residence in the road, his experience was a decrease of inhabitants in the neighbourhood. He thought that was a correct statement. There was no need for a licensed house, and further, in his opinion, it would decrease the value of the property in the locality.
 
By Mr. Clark Hall: He was a teetotaller, and was proud to say so.
 
Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench on behalf of the owner of the White Lion, Mr. J. Smiles. In opening, he said he was somewhat handicapped, as he was in complete doubt as to the house which Messrs. Nalder and Collyer proposed to surrender in addition to the Queen`s Head.
 
Mr. Clark Hall could not see any reason for disclosing the name of the house; the Bench had it, and that was sufficient. Mr. Mowll was the least entitled to the name, as his opposition was only in the interest of rival owners, the White Lion.
 
The Chairman said Mr. Mowll was not entitled to the name of the house.
 
Mr. Mowll, continuing, said a few years since, his clients, Messrs. George Beer, were refused a licence on an adjoining site. His clients then set to work to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood by increasing the accommodation at their own house and building a palatial house. Subsequent to that Mr. Minter applied to the Magistrates at Seabrook, and was granted a licence for the Victoria, on the other side of the line. Their trade (the White Lion`s) was taken away on that side, and now Messrs. Nalder and Collyer came along and wished to take the trade from the other side.
 
At 3.30 the Bench retired, and ten minutes after returned into Court, when the Chairman made a brief announcement “The Committee refuse the application”.

The adjourned licensing meeting will be held on Monday, March 5^th.

Folkestone Express 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone Chronicle for details)

The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their premises.

All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of misconduct.

Mr. W.T. Tame, the licence holder of the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, applied for the transfer of the licence to the Moorhall Estate.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, instructed by Mr. De Wet, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Clarke Hall said the application was under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for the transfer of the present licence, which Mr. Tame held at the Queen`s Head in Folkestone, to be taken to the Moorhall Estate, near Cheriton. It was also an application under Section 22 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for a licence to be granted to new premises to be called the Morehall Hotel, situate on the Morehall Estate. The estate consisted of 17 acres. One of the covenants contained in the plan of the property was that upon the estate only one licensed house could be erected, so that if the Justices decided that the application could be granted, no other at any time could be given to any house on the estate. Adjoining the estate were two other estates, the Boundaries Estate and Lord Radnor`s estate. The whole of that area comprised one square mile, and upon it there was no licensed house. The houses on the estate were rented at 7s. per week, and new roads were being constantly opened. There were 443 houses on the area mentioned, and only 28 of them were old houses. They gave at the present time a population of something like 2,646. On the estate there were at present 237 houses, and there were 400 houses arranged for. He understood he was being opposed by various persons, and he would be glad to know who they were, as it was difficult for him to deal with the opposition.

An officer from the Camp said he objected on behalf of the Camp. The Rev. W. Bennett objected as a resident.

Mr. Haines appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. Rutley Mowll on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel.

Mr. Clarke Hall then proceeded to deal with the opposition he would have to meet. Having done so he said the duty of the Justices was to consider whether or not the requirements of the district needed a licence. He commented upon the offer of the brewers, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, to give up the licence of the Queen`s Head, which was in the congested area in Folkestone. It was not suggested that that house was not a valuable and useful house. It was a prosperous house doing a very considerable trade, and in offering to give up the licence the brewers were making a very great sacrifice indeed. The White Lion at Cheriton was the nearest house to the site, and it was something like half a mile away. The only other house in the neighbourhood was the Railway Tavern, which, although not a long distance away as the crow flies, yet by road it was further than the White Lion. In addition to the Queen`s Head, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were prepared to give up a second licence, the name of which he would hand to the Magistrates. In conclusion he said there was very strong ground for the justices to grant the application, and he suggested it was impossible to put forward a strong case against it.

Mr. De Wet, Charles Edward Wenham, and Walter Tom Tame proved the serving and posting of the notices.

Mr. W.F. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder, produced the conveyance for the four plots of land. His firm were the freeholders of the site of the Queen`s Head, and the house, the name of which was handed to the Magistrates.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Hands, who was in their employ as a collector, had applied for a licence for the house a few years ago. He did not know whether the debenture holders of the Queen`s Head had consented to the licence being given up.

Mr. Clarke Hall: I am not bound to prove the consent of the debenture holders.

Mr. Mowll said he thought he was, and he asked for the justices` ruling on the point. The application was made under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872. The words of the Section were; “The justices to whom the application is made shall not make an order sanctioning the removal of licence unless they are satisfied that no objection of such removal is made by the owner of such premises, or by the holder of the licence, or by any other person whom such justices shall determine to have a right to object to the removal”.

Mr. Clarke Hall said the debenture holders had no interest in the licence. Their interest was in the bricks and mortar.

The justices retired to consider the point, and on their return they said they must overrule Mr. Mowll`s objection.

Mr. Videan, an architect, said he had surveyed the district, and had prepared the plan produced. There had been upwards of 48 acres developed in the district, including 17 acres on the Morehall Estate. The plan showed that on the ground floor there would be a restaurant, bar parlour, parlour, dining room, tenant`s room, and enquiry office, and on the first floor there were six bedrooms. The entrances to the house were all recessed from the public footpath. The estimated cost of carrying out the plans was £3,000.At the present time on the Morehall Estate there were 237 houses and shops, of which over 200 were occupied. On the Boundaries Estate there were 82 houses and shops, and on Lord Radnor`s Estate there were 94 houses and shops. That made a total number of houses and shops of 443. During the past three years there had been an increase of 20 percent in the number of houses. In the area there was the Electricity Works and three brickyards, but there was no licensed house. The houses varied from 7s. per week to £55 per year, and principally consisted of cottage property. He estimated the population at 2,400, and the nearest licensed house for those people was the White Lion, half a mile away. The Railway Tavern was about five ninths of a mile away. About 50 or 60 houses would complete the Morehall Estate.

Cross-examined by Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said there would be six separate rooms or lobbies in which liquor would be served from a bar. The bedrooms numbered six altogether. There were five entrances to the house. There had been a twenty percent increase of houses since the last application was made. There were upwards of twenty empty houses on the estate. The site was about 700 feet from the railway station. A considerable number of houses on Lord Radnor`s Estate were between the site and the railway station. Those houses would be very little nearer to the station and to the Railway Tavern than to the site.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he did not think that the people on the estate could get their drink more conveniently from the site than the White Lion. The distance from their site to the north east corner of the estate was a mile and two thirds.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, and licence holder of the Queen`s Head, said he had been a licence holder for sixteen years, and during that time he held the licence of the Queen`s Head. The Queen`s Head was a good house, and he was paying Messrs. Nalder and Colyer £40 a year. He had entered into an agreement to take over the house if the application was granted. His opinion was that the house would do a good trade.

In answer to Mr. Montague Bradley, he said that was the fourth time of asking. The class of trade he expected to do was much the same class as he was doing now, or in fact slightly better. He was principally doing a bar trade now. He expected to cater for tea and light refreshments. He expected to do a large bottle and jug trade, but it had not struck him that more provision was being made for the bar trade than the bottle and jug trade in comparison. A large number of military used that road, and that would be the first house they would come to after leaving Folkestone. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Colyer for everything. They were to be the sole judges of the quality, brand, and character of the liquor sent to him according to the agreement. The rent would be £100 a year.

Re-examined, th applicant said Messrs. Nalder and Colyer had never offered to give up another licence.

Mr. T. Hesketh, residing at No. 116, Cheriton Road, said he was the manager of the Folkestone Electricity Co., who employed on the average about 80 men. In his opinion there was a need for the licence.

Mr. Mowll: Who asked you to come here?

Mr. Hesketh: I came here. I do not think I should answer the question.

The Magistrates thought the question should not be answered.

Mr. White, builder of Folkestone, said he had purchased 29 plots on that estate. He had built 15 houses, ten of which were let. He thought the licence would be in the interests of the people in that neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said there was a large percentage of houses empty.

Mr. Mowll: Have you not built any houses on the estate for twelve months?

Mr. White: I have not.

The Court then adjourned for lunch, and after the adjournment Mr. Clarke Hall called Mr. Henry Gibbons, a builder, residing at 99, Morehall Avenue, in the estate. People who had been thinking of taking houses on the estate had asked where the nearest hotel was. He had been inconvenienced at nights by having to go such a long way to get the supper beer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said he had built 15 houses on the estate during four years, thirteen of which he had sold. There were a good few houses empty, but he could not say how many there were.

Mr. Attwood, the licence holder of the Castle Inn, said he owned five houses on the estate. He considered a licensed house there was necessary. He had had tenants who complained of there being no licensed house near.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: Who is your brewer?

Mr. Attwood: Messrs. Nalder and Colyer.

Mr. Clarke Hall handed in a memorial signed by 135 people, 129 of whom were residents and six were owners of property.

This was the case for the applicant.

Mr. Montague Bradley handed in a memorial against the granting of the licence, which had been signed by 235 residents. He said it was not merely a temperance memorial, but signed by residents generally who objected to it on the ground that it was not required.

Major Long, on behalf of the General Commanding at Shorncliffe Camp, said that General Lomax wished him to say that there was a very large number of men, varying between three and four thousand, and they used that road a great deal in order to get to Folkestone. In addition all the men arrived at went from the Shorncliffe Station by train when on furlough, and if they had to wait a few minutes there would be a great tendency on their part to go into that public house. They thought if the licence was granted it would not be in the interests of discipline and sobriety as far as the Army was concerned.

Mr. Montague Bradley said the petition presented by him was signed by several town councillors and ministers of religion. The brewers were catering for a public house pure and simple, and his opinion was that the residents in that part would be annoyed of the licence was granted, while it would be a detriment to them and the property in that neighbourhood as well.

Mr. Haines said his objection was on the ground that the licence was not necessary, and he also referred to the feeling existing throughout the country against the increase of licensed houses. On behalf of several residents in the neighbourhood, he also wished to object.

Mr. J.G. Parsons, builder, said he owned several properties almost opposite to the site. The rental of the houses was £42 and £36 a year. There were two of the houses empty. He contended if a licence was granted it would materially injure his property. The site was right in teh centre of the best residential property.

Mr. A. Tolputt also objected on the ground that it would be detrimental to his property, and would not be to the interests of the inhabitants of the district. The road was fairly quiet at night at present.

In answer to Mr. Montague Bradley, the witness said there were close to him eight houses empty in the district.

The Rev. W. Bennett said he appeared as a resident near to the site, and during the adjournment he went round the neighbourhood to try and find the number of empty houses in the district. In Surrenden Road there were eight houses empty, in Chart Road fourteen, in Morehall Avenue 21, in Trimworth Road four, and in Cheriton Road eight houses. There were also at present eight Morehall shops. He objected to the licence being granted on the ground that there was no need for it.

Mr. Mowll asked for the name of the second licence to be made known to him, although he did not wish it to be publicly known. Mr. Clarke Hall refused to tell him the name of it.

Mr. Clarke Hall: How can it affect the White Lion? - They are our rivals as brewers and as publicans

The Chairman said the information could not alter Mr. Mowll`s case, therefore they could not give him the name.

Mr. Mowll stated his objections to the granting of the licence. They were to the effect that it would injure his house, which he contended was quite sufficient to meet the needs of the district.

The justices retired, and on their return the Chairman said they refused the application.

The adjourned licensing sessions, when the six licences will be considered, were fixed for March 5^th.

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Chronicle)

After the various licensees had paid over their fees to the Assistant Clerk (Mr. John Andrews), interest centred in the application by Mr. Clarke Hall (Barrister, instructed by Mr. F. Hall), on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, brewers, of Croydon, for a licence for a new hotel at the corner of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road, Morehall. Mr. Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Temperance Council, Mr. Haines on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association, Mr. Martin Mowll on behalf of Messrs. Beer and Co., and Major Long (Brigade Major) on behalf of the Military Authorities.

Mr. Clarke Hall said this was an application, under Section 22 of the Act, for the transfer of the licence of the Queen`s Head Hotel to new premises proposed to be built, and known as the Morehall Hotel. The Morehall Estate comprised 14 acres, and one of the covenants was that only one licensed house should be erected on the estate. There were, at present, 237 houses at Morehall, and upwards of 400 within a comparatively short distance of the proposed hotel. The population comprised 2,400 persons, and he (the learned counsel) submitted that there was a great need for such accommodation as the proposed hotel would give. His friend, Mr. Bradley, was opposing on behalf of the Temperance Party, and they were all agreed with him that houses in congested districts should be reduced. There were those, perhaps, who honestly took the view that public houses should be abolished altogether; but he submitted that they must take things as they found them, and he put before them the legal view – that was, did this new and growing district need a licence or not? He thought the opposition from the Temperance Party was somewhat mysterious, for there they proposed not a new licence, but a transfer of two houses – one the Queen`s Head (in an admittedly congested area), and another, the name of which had been handed to the Bench. He thought he ought to have the support of all real temperance reformers. The very fact that under the new Act it was proposed to extinguish six licences proved that there was no question as to the congestion. It was not suggested that the Queen`s Head was a very important house. However, a considerable trade was done there, and it was the best of the four licensed houses that stood in that row. The nearest public house to Coombe Road was half a mile away, with the exception of the Railway Hotel across the line. Mr. Hall concluded a most able speech by claiming that he had proved that the need of the transfer of the proposed licence was unanswerable, and he submitted it was impossible to produce a stronger case that ne had brought before the Bench.

Mr. De Wet and Mr. Denham proved serving and posting of notices.

Mr. Crouch, one of the managers of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, supported the application, but said he was not prepared to say that the debenture holders in the firm he represented had knowledge of it.

Mr. Martin Mowll: I submit to the Bench that the application must fall under Section 50 of the Act, 1872, and on the ground that consent has not been obtained from the debenture holders.

Mr. Clarke Hall submitted that the debenture holders had no interest legally.

The Bench retired, and on again coming into Court, the Chairman said: The objection raised by Mr. Mowll is overruled.

Mr. Videan, architect, produced plans, and said the estate was 40 acres in extent, upon which there were considerably over 200 houses. There were, witness said, also 820 on the Boundaries Estate, and 443 on Lord Radnor`s. These houses were let at prices ranging from 7s. per week to £50 per year. The population would probably be equal to 2,500. Several new houses were projected.

In answer to further questions, witness said there would be three bedrooms in the proposed hotel, and six public rooms downstairs. The hotel would practically have five entrances, and it would be 500 feet from the Boundaries Estate.

In answer to Mr. Haines, witness thought many of the people in this neighbourhood would prefer to have their malt liquor from a public house rather than by bottle, or through the grocers.

Mr. Walter Tame, the applicant, said he had been tenant of the Queen`s Head for 16 years, and was paying a yearly rental of £40. He had entered into an agreement, and was quite ready to give up his present house, which was adjoining and opposite other licensed premises.

Examined by Mr. Bradley (Dover), witness said that that was his fourth application before the Bench. If the licence he asked for was granted he hoped to do the same class of trade. His was not altogether a bar trade, and he proposed at Morehall to cater also for teas and light refreshment. He honestly believed such a house would be useful to visitors and others who were going to and from Shorncliffe Camp. He was tied to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, who were sole judges of the quality of the liquor he supplied.

By Mr. Mowll: The old agreement between himself and Messrs. Nalder and Collyer remained uncancelled. He had walked over to Morehall to see if the partly-erected hotel had not walked away.

Mr. T. Hesketh, manager at the Folkestone Electricity Works, gave it as his opinion that such an hotel was wanted. They employed over eighty hands at the works, and if any of the men needed any refreshment they had to walk either to the White Lion of the Railway Tavern (sic).

Mr. Mowll: May I ask who induced you to come here and give evidence?

Mr. Clarke Hall: I object.

The Bench: The question is disallowed.

Mr. Hesketh: I may say, in reference to this, that no pressure of any sort has been brought to bear on me. I came here entirely of my own free will.

Mr. White, builder, said he was the owner of 29 plots on the estate, principally in Surrenden Road, and he was naturally anxious to see the neighbourhood develop. Such a hotel as was proposed he thought desirable. He finished his last pair of houses about twelve months ago.

Major Long (Brigade Major, Shorncliffe) said he appeared on behalf of the General commanding the district. There were from 3,000 to 4,000 troops, and he thought that if the proposed licence was granted it would be opposed to discipline and sobriety.

Mr. Bradley said he had opposed, on behalf of those he represented, on three different occasions, and in spite of what had been advanced, he still submitted that such a hotel would be contrary to the best interests of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Haines submitted, on behalf of the “Trade”, on broad principles, that such a house was not required by the existing necessities of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Parsons, builder, in answer to questions, said he had been a lifelong teetotaller, but not a bigoted one. He owned seven houses, valued at between £4,000 and £5,000, directly opposite where it was proposed to erect the hotel. Such an establishment, if erected, he considered would materially deteriorate his property, and if the licence was granted it would be doing him a great injustice.

Mr. L.A. Tolputt also objected, on the ground that such an hotel was not necessary. His property was near at hand. At present the soldiers going to and from the Camp were extremely orderly. Perhaps they indulged in a song now and then – that was all. If another public house was erected it might have an undesirable effect in this connection.

The Rev. W. Bennett, of Chart Road, also expressed himself strongly against the granting of a licence. He said there were 68 empty houses in the near vicinity of the proposed hotel.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of the owners of the White Lion. To meet the requirements of the case the owners had built palatial premises which had been set back from the road. He protested against the granting of a licence in order to gratify some of the builders, so that their houses might be full.

The Bench retired at 3.20, and in a short time the Chairman announced their decision. The licence, he said, was refused.

Folkestone Daily News 5-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Tuesday, February 5^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions. He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such offences.

The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were illegal. Every licence hiolder must understand that they were to be immediately removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be removed.

The Morehall Hotel Licence

The fifth application for this licence was made by Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet), on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, the brewers, and Mr. Walter Tame, the prospective tenant.

The application was opposed by Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of other interested parties.

A letter was read from the Commandant at Shorncliffe Camp to refuse the licence on behalf of the military, and an officer from the Camp attended.

The Chairman, with a view to saving time, asked Mr. Clarke Hall if there were any new phases in the case, as this was the fifth application in four years before the same licensing committee. He said they were bound to hear any application Mr. Hall might make, but with a view to saving time he thought it was not necessary to traverse the old ground.

After these remarks it was apparent that the licence would be refused, and after Mr. Clarke Hall had addressed the Bench and called a few witnesses, which were duly cross-examined by the opponents, they refused the application without adjourning to give it any consideration.

Folkestone Express 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

New Application

Walter Tom Tame applied for a full licence for a house in the course of erection on the Morehall Estate.

This was an application really to transfer the licence of the Queen`s Head to a house in the course of erection on the Morehall Estate, and it waws also proposed to give up another licence, but which one did not transpire.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, instructed by Mr. De Wet, appeared for the applicant, and said before he addressed the Bench he would like to know what opposition he had to meet.

The Chairman said before they went any further with the application, the Committee would like to hear what fresh grounds there were. The application had been before them four times in five years.

Mr. Clarke Hall gave several fresh grounds. He did not want to waste the time of the Committee. There were several new houses on the estate and the number of occupiers was greater.

The Chairman said they could not refuse to hear Mr. Hall.

Mr. Haines said he appeared to oppose on behalf of two licensed houses and some 200 residents; Mr. Mowll said he appeared for Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion Hotel, and Mr. Montague Bradley for the temperance societies.

Mr. Clarke Hall proceeded to address the Bench. He said the Morehall Estate covered 17 acres, and there was room for 400 houses upon it. Two hundred and forty eight had been erected, and 190 of those were occupied when the figures were given to him. At the present time there were more. The nearest house was the Railway Inn, half a mile distant, and there was no other house this way until they came to the Bouverie Arms, over a mile away. There was no other house in the vicinity except the White Lion, more than half a mile distant. There would shortly be 2,000 inhabitants, and no house nearer than the Railway Inn where they could obtain refreshments. Half the owners of houses thought  it desirable that the licence should be granted.

The Chairman here intimated to Mr. Clarke Hall that there was opposition on behalf of the Camp. Colonel Cunningham, the Colonel Commanding at Shorncliffe, had written pointing out that on several grounds it was very undesirable to have a public house where it was proposed.

An officer attended from the Camp to support the opposition.

Services of the necessary notices having been proved by Mr. Charles Wenham, a clerk in the employ of Mr. F. Hall, Mr. Crouch, manager for Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, produced the conveyance of the property, which contained a proviso that no other licensed house should be allowed on the estate.

Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, said he had held a licence at the Queen`s Head for over seventeen years. He produced an agreement with Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, and thought the conditions fair and reasonable. He was satisfied a good trade could be done there. Since the last application a private entrance had been added to the plans.

In reply to Mr. Montague Bradley, witness said the brewers were to be the sole judges as to the quality of the beer supplied for sale. There would be five bars and five bedrooms to be let. He had no memorial in favour.

In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Clarke Hall said Mr. Videan would explain the alterations in the plans.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, applicant said he did have a try to get a memorial in favour, but he did not produce it. He paid a rent of £1 a year for the unfinished house. He did not get it repaid the next moment. The agreement, all well, would be for seven years. It never struck him that the place might be converted into shops. If it were, his tenancy would come to an end. A new agreement was prepared each year, and the old one cancelled when the licence was refused. He could not say when the £1 was paid. (The receipt was put in, and it was dated December, 1906).

Mr. Mowll: It seems you were paying rent for premises in which you had no interest.

In reply to Mr. Haines, he said he was satisfied with the business he did at his present house, but he thought he would do better business in the new house if a licence was granted. The memorial referred to was not got up by his direction. On every previous occasion the Licensed Victuallers` Association had opposed the application.

Mr. Videan produced the plans of the house, and explained the alterations to the Bench.

The Chairman said the Bench had not the old plans before them to compare with the new. As far as they could see, they were most unsatisfactory. The alterations had been explained, but they did not commend themselves to the Bench. He asked if they had any evidence as to the number of houses. That was what they wanted.

Mr. Videan said eleven new houses had been erected since last year, making 248, of which 190 were occupied, and the population would be about five per house.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, he said two of the new houses were in Chart Road, where there were 36 houses occupied and 22 unoccupied. In Morehall Avenue there were 17 unoccupied, and in Cheriton Road six. The total alteration was eleven more houses.

By Mr. Mowll: I do not know that I stated last year there were 200 houses occupied and now 190. That was a newspaper invention. I said there were 237 houses on the estate.

Mr. Hall: Even a Folkestone newspaper can sometimes make a mistake.

Mr. William White, builder, said he purchased 29 plots, and erected 15 houses in Surrenden Road; about £500 houses. Twelve of the fifteen were let. In his opinion the grant of a licence would be advantageous.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, he said one new fact was that a new school was to be erected in the locality.

Re-examined: The houses could not let worse than they do without a licensed house there. The school would tend to increase the number of residents.

The Chairman told Mr. Clarke Hall that they had no new facts before them

Mr. Pilcher said he was the owner of nine houses on the estate, all occupied. He thought a licensed house was very much needed. When the Victoria Inn was built in Risborough Lane a number of small new houses were erected.

Mr. Mowll: It is the old story of a builder with all his houses full, and he wants a public house to keep them full.

The Chairman said the Bench had heard nothing to induce them to alter their views. The licence was refused.

Folkestone Herald 9-2-1907

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey

Morehall Hotel Application

Mr. Walter Tom Tame applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, which is being constructed on the Cheriton Road.

Mr. Clarke Hall, barrister, appeared in support of the application, and before addressing the Bench asked what opposition he had to meet.

Mr. A.M. Bradley: I appear for the Church of England Temperance Society and the Diocesan Temperance Council.

The Chairman: I think this is the fifth application in five years. You come again before us and ask us to renew the application, but what fresh facts are there?

Mr. Clarke Hall said he thought there were fresh grounds. If he was right, one matter which seriously weighed with the Bench on the last occasion was that there were a large number of empty houses on the Morehall Estate. These were filling very rapidly. More than that, the house in respect of which the licence was asked was, on the last occasion, in an entirely incomplete state, but was now practically finished, and would have been finished were it not for the severe weather. The estate was increasing in development, while the tramway scheme had been allowed, and would pass the estate. Then there was an elementary school to be erected there, and by that time Morehall would form a small town of itself. He thought that these facts were sufficient for the Bench to hear him.

The Chairman: We cannot refuse to hear you.

Mr. Clarke Hall went on to say that an additional reason for being heard was that the Queen`s Head was considered redundant, and that was the house of which the applicant was at present the licensee.

Mr. Haines: I appear for Mr. P.T. Rule and Mr. Burvill, and about 200 other people.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: And I appear for Mr. J.G. Smiles.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Are there any more? (Laughter) Proceeding, he said that the Morehall Estate consisted of some seventeen acres, on which it was proposed to build some 400 houses. At the present time there had only been 248 houses erected, and out of that no less than 190 were actually occupied, though he learned that since the figures had been given to him several more of the houses had been taken. There was no doubt whatever that the estate was becoming popular. There was no house licensed in the district nearer than the Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, which was on the other side of the railway line, and that was just under half a mile away. The only other house was the White Lion at Cheriton, and in the Folkestone direction there was nothing nearer than the Bouverie Arms. So beyond question that was a case in which there was a complete dearth or absence of licensed houses to which people living in the neighbourhood, numbering about 2,000, had to go for refreshment. The speaker then went on to deal with the number of cases dealt with by the Bench in what was known as the congested area, and the amount of compensation which the East Kent Committee were having to pay as compensation for licences not renewed. If the Bench acceded to his application that day, that the Queen`s Head licence should be transferred to the Morehall Hotel, then the application would have been in the best interests of the Compensation Committee, and of the town. The offer made was a generous one. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had only eight licensed houses in Folkestone, but they were ready to give up one and to transfer another.

The Chairman announced the receipt of a letter from the Brigadier at Shorncliffe, who was against an additional house on the Cheriton Road, as there was already one at Cheriton, and one at the Shorncliffe Station.

Major Long (Brigade Major) said he represented the Camp authorities in that matter.

Mr. Charles Wenham, a clerk in the employ of Mr. F. Hall, proved service of notice in this case, and also the deposit of plans.

Mr. W. Crouch produced the conveyance of the land at Morehall to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, in which it was said that no other licensed houses should be erected on the estate.

Mr. Walter Tom Tame, the applicant, said that for over seventeen years he had been the licensee of the Queen`s Head, Beach Street. He was desirous of becoming the licensee of the proposed hotel on the Morehall Estate. The conditions under which the brewers asked him to take the house were perfectly reasonable. He was satisfied that there was a good trade to be done at Morehall. On the last occasion the Licensed Victuallers` Association opposed the licence, but they did not now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Messrs. Nalder and Collyer were to be the sole judges of the quality of the beer sold. There were to be eight bedrooms in the house, and five bars. He would require about three bedrooms for himself and servants, but there was sufficient room for three attics if necessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He was aware that a memorial had been got up on his behalf, but he was not going to produce it. He had been charged £1 a year rent for the house at Morehall. If the licence were granted he would be the tenant for four years. If the Magistrates decided against him his lease with the brewers would terminate. Last years agreement was cancelled immediately after the licence was refused. He paid the rent, and produced the receipt.

Mr. Mowll (looking at the receipt): Dear me, you are a good tenant, and pay it in advance. (Laughter)

Mr. Tame: No.

Mr. Mowll: Then you paid it when the agreement was cancelled.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Mowll said the receipt was dated four days ago.

Witness further said he had been over the Morehall Estate, but he had not counted the empty houses. By walking round he came to the conclusion that the house was necessary. A memorial was not got up by his instructions, and although it was started, it was not given up because it could not make a good show.

Re-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall: The agreement he held would terminate at the end of the year unless the licence was granted.

Mr. Mowll: More interest is in the agreement than the memorial.

The Chairman: It is the only fresh point, as far as I can see.

Mr. Walter Videan, architect and surveyor, produced plans showing alterations as proposed.

The Bench scrutinised the plans, and, after a while, the Chairman said that he was very sorry to find that the old plans were not put in.

Mr. Clarke Hall said they were deposited last year with the Justices, and had not been returned.

The Magistrates` Clerk replied that that was not the case.

Mr. Videan said that eleven new houses had been added since last year, making a total of 248 on the estate. Of that number 190 were occupied. Six new houses had been erected on the boundary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Ten of the new houses were in Chart Road, and there were 22 in that road unoccupied. Four or five of them, however, were unfinished. In all there were 43 unoccupied. In Morehall Avenue 17 were empty, but two of them were let. In the Morehall Estate portion of Cheriton Road there were six empty houses. He did not say 200 houses were occupied.

Mr. Clarke Hall: As a matter of fact, you did not give particulars of the unoccupied houses, but of the number on teh Estate.

Witness: Yes.

The Chairman: I am very sorry that the Bench have not with them the old plans. The present were unsatisfactory.

Mr. W. White, builder, said he had erected fifteen houses on plots in the Surrenden Road, and twelve of them were let. More houses had been let this year.

Mr. A.M. Bradley: Are you not going to give any fresh facts?

Mr. Clarke Hall: It is not for this witness to do that.

Mr. Bradley: Somebody will have to give us something new.

The Chairman: We have not had much yet.

Mr. Bradley: Are you going to give us any new fact?

Mr. White: There is the new elementary school to be built. (Laughter)

Mr. Bradley: And you suggest the erection of the elementary school is sufficient for a new licence?

Witness: I don`t say so.

Mr. Bradley: That is the inference.

Mr. R. Pilcher said he thought a licence would increase the development of the Estate.

Mr. Mowll: You are a new phase in this case, are you not?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Mowll: But you give us no new phase of evidence. It is the old story of the builder whose houses are full wanting a public house to keep them full.

The Chairman: Mr. Clarke Hall, I may as well tell you that the Bench have heard nothing to make them alter their minds.

Mr. Clarke Hall: I have indicated everything fresh we have on behalf of my client.

The Chairman: Very well, we must refuse the application.

Folkestone Daily News 5-2-1908

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

Mr. James Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, and also for a beer off licence for the Morehall Hotel.

The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.

The application for a licence for the Morehall Hotel was made by Mr. Clarke Hall.

The Chairman pointed out that he hoped new arguments in favour of a licence would be submitted, as six applications had been made in 7 years.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he had new arguments to offer in support of his application. There was no licensed house within half a mile, and he thought under the new Act the Magistrates would see it was within their power to grant a licence  without inconvenience to the residents in that particular vicinity. The surroundings of the particular neighbourhood fully justified a licence, because there was no other house to supply the requirements of the residents there. The only opposition came from those who thought no licence should be granted anywhere, and also from those who would like to have the licence themselves.

The Chairman at this point said Mr. Clarke Hall had not produced any fresh arguments in favour of a licence being granted, and the application must therefore fail.

Folkestone Express 8-2-1908

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, February 5^th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Superintendent`s Report

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen`s Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28^th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates` certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31^st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5^th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

The Morehall Application

This application was on behalf of Mr. James Henry Kent, Morehall Hotel, for a full licence.

The application was opposed by Mr. H. Maurice, on behalf of Mr. A. Hart, St. Francis House, Cheriton Road; Mr. W.R. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White Lion, Cheriton; Mr. Montague Bradley, for the Temperance Council and private owners and residents; and Major Long, on behalf of the War Office Department.

When Mr. Clarke Hall rose to address the Bench on behalf of the applicant, the Chairman said he remarked last year that it was the fifth application in six years, and the present was the sixth in seven years before a Committee of the same Justices as last year. He advised Mr. Hall to base his application upon new grounds.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he quite appreciated that. Last year they proposed to transfer the licence from a valuable house in another part of the town, whereas the application this year was for a new licence. He proceeded to ask the Magistrates to grant a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1904, by virtue of which they could impose conditions which they thought right to put upon any licence granted in the neighbourhood if the Bench was satisfied there were requirements for a new licence. He submitted there were very few districts where there had been such a development as in the Morehall district, where there was no licence at all. The population was something over 2,000. The nearest public house was the White Lion, which was half a mile away, and the nearest public house coming towards Folkestone was the Bouverie Arms, which was nearly a mile away. The brewers were anxious to meet in every possible way what the Bench thought was right in that matter. It was not a sort of freehold, but could be terminated at any time the Bench liked to mention. Dealing with the opposition, Mr. Clarke Hall said the opposition was of two kinds. First, there was the opposition of those persons who honestly thought there ought never to be licences of any kind. Then there was the opposition of those who would like to have the licence for themselves. (Laughter) That kind of opposition had very little value indeed. One could fully appreciate the point of view of those who thought the Bench ought not to grant licensing facilities of any kind. It was a perfectly reasonable and tenable one, but it was not a proposition that the legislature recognised. The Act of 1904 was at present the final word upon the licensing question, and if a certain number of people required that licence it was the duty of the Bench to afford those facilities, subject to the conditions which the Act required. He submitted there was that requirement. The speaker then put in a petition signed by 300 persons resident in that neighbourhood.

The Chairman said he did not quite see what new grounds there were. He (Mr. Clarke Hall) said there were thirteen more houses occupied  since last year. Did he mean to say that was sufficient new ground for the Bench to grant the licence?

Mr. Hall said the hotel had a wholesale excise licence, and he pointed out that the number of persons signing the petition was much larger than the number last year. If the Bench did not think he could add to his case by calling evidence, well, he wouldn`t.

The Chairman said the Committee thought that Mr. Hall had really not put in any new grounds. He had only said there were 13 more houses occupied since last year. Did he think that was sufficient ground?

Mr. Clarke Hall said the house was completed now and had a wholesale licence.

The Chairman: We know that. We are thoroughly conversant with the neighbourhood.

Mr. Clarke Hall said then it was not worth while to call evidence. He was about to proceed with his second application, for an off licence, when the Chairman said: I don`t think we should be inclined to grant that either.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Then I won`t say anything further.

Folkestone Herald 8-2-1908

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 5^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report. (For which see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well conducted.

The various licensees then came forward for their renewals.

Applications for new licences were then considered. Messrs. Stainer and Boyd retired from the Bench while these were being considered.

Mr. James Henry Kent applied for a full licence for the Morehall Hotel, Cheriton Road, Morehall. He was represented by Mr. Clarke Hall. Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on behalf of Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion, Cheriton, Mr. Howard Morris, on behalf of Mr. Hart, who was applying for a beer off licence at Morehall, Mr. Montague Long, on behalf of the Temperance Council, Col. Greek, Messrs. Green, Thos. Lean, Tolputt, Parsons, Rule, and others, and Major Long on behalf of the War Office Authorities.

The Chairman said that this was the sixth time in seven years that this licence had been applied for, having been previously refused each year, and the Bench therefore wanted Mr. Clarke Hall to keep to perfectly new ground.

Mr. Clarke Hall said his position was altered in a very material respect. Last year the proposal he put before the Bench was that they should grant a transfer from the congested area to Morehall. That was refused. The present application was for a new licence. That made a great difference, because if the Bench granted a new licence they would be able to impose all the conditions granted them by their powers under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, whereas if a transfer was applied for, they could not impose those conditions. They asked the Bench to say, therefore, under that Section, what conditions they thought should be laid upon any licence that was granted in the Morehall district, and they, of course, would carry them out. The Act of 1904 was a very important one, because the view the Legislature had taken was that an applicant for a new licence must satisfy the Bench that there were needs in that neighbourhood for a new licence. He did submit that there were very few districts where there had been such a development as in Morehall, and where there was no licence at all. The population represented was something over 2,000, and since last year the number of houses in the district had increased by 13. The nearest licensed house to the Morehall Hotel was the Railway Inn, which was half a mile away, and then there was the White Lion, which was over half a mile off. Bearing in mind the minority report of the Commission as to what was about the proper number of licences for a district, here they had, he thought, a clear case in which it would be allowed that a licence was a necessity. The present application was a very different thing from trying to obtain the transfer of a licence which the Bench thought was one that ought not to exist. The brewers had been anxious right through to meet what the Bench thought was right in the matter. They placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Bench to grant a licence, which should be safeguarded in every possible way in which a licence could be safeguarded. The population in the district had increased since last year, and it would, he repeated, be difficult to find any locality with such a population where there was no licensed house within a radius of half a mile to supply that population. The opposition was of two kinds. First of all there was the opposition of those persons who thought that there ought to be any licence of the kind, and then there was the opposition of the persons who thought that they ought to have the licence. The kind of opposition they ought to attach considerable importance to was the first class. One could fully appreciate the point of view of those who said that no Bench ought ever to grant licensing facilities to any man. That was a perfectly reasonable and tenable position, but it was not a position which the Legislature recognised, because the Act of 1904 was, at present, at any rate, the final word upon the licensing question, and that final word was that if a sufficient number of people required that licence, it was the duty of the Bench to furnish that licence, subject to the conditions which they had power to impose. He would put before them a petition for the licence signed by over 300 persons in the district, and he was told that in nearly every case the signature was that of an actual occupant.

The Chairman: Mr. Hall, we do not quite see what new ground you have got. You say there are 13 more houses occupied. Do you mean to say that that is sufficient new ground?

Mr. Hall: And that the house has actually applied for, and that it actually has a wholesale licence. Then I have this petition of over 300 occupiers, which is a very much larger one than I was able to present last year.

The Chairman: The Committee think it is of no use your calling evidence in this matter.

The application was therefore again refused.

Mr. Hall then applied, on behalf of Mr. Kent, for a beer off licence in respect of the same premises, but this application was also at once refused.

Folkestone Express 9-1-1909

Notices

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Boro` of Folkestone, to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough aforesaid and to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough aforesaid.

I, James Henry Kent, now residing at the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, Strong Beer Dealer, hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden in the Town Hall in the said Borough, on Wednesday the 3^rd day of February next for a Certificate of Justices for the grant to me of an additional Excise Licence to sell by retail at the House and Premises thereunto belonging situate at the junction of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid and known as the Morehall Hotel, Beer to be consumed off the premises in pursuance of the Act 26 and 27 Victoria, Chap. 33, sec. 1.

Given under my hand this 7^th day of January, 1909.

James Henry Kent.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Boro` of Folkestone, to the Superintendent of Police of the Borough aforesaid and to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough aforesaid.

I, James Henry Kent, now residing at the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid, late Licensed Victualler, hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone, to be holden in the Town Hall in the said Borough, on Wednesday the 3^rd day of February next for the grant to me of a licence to hold any Exclise Licence or Licences to sell by retail under the Alehouse Act, 1828 all intoxicating liquors to be drunk or consumed either on or off a certain House and Premises thereunto belonging situate at the junction of Coombe Road and Cheriton Road in the Borough of Folkestone aforesaid and known as the Morehall Hotel, and which I intend to keep as an Alehouse, Inn, or Victualling House, and of which premises Nalder and Collyer`s Brewery Company Ltd., of Croydon, is the Owner and I am the Tenant.

Given under my hand this 7^th day of January, 1909.

James Henry Kent.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3-2-1909

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions for the borough were held on Wednesday before the licensing magistrates, Mr. E.T. Ward being in the chair. No opposition was raised to the renewal of any of the licences, and after these had been handed to the several applicants the Chief Constable read his annual report. (See Folkestone Express for details)

Mr. Clarke Hall, instructed by Mr. De Wet, applied for an off licence on behalf of the owners of the Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Montague Bradley (on behalf of the local Temperance societies) and Mr. Mowll (on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel) opposed the application.

The Chairman asked Mr. Clarke Hall if he had any further evidence to offer to that produced when the last application was made.

Counsel replied in the negative, but added that he thought his modest application (he was only applying for an off licence) might appeal to the Bench.

Mr. Mowll (to Mr. Clarke Hall): But you applied for an off licence at the last sessions.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Yes, that was a subsidiary application.

The Chairman said the Bench had decided not to grant the application.

Folkestone Express 6-2-1909

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 3^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, C. Jenner, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Morehall Hotel

Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet) applied for a beer off licence on behalf of Mr. James Henry Kent, of the Morehall Hotel (Messrs. Nalder and Collyer).

The application was opposed by Mr. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White Lion; Mr. Bradley, for the Temperance Council; an officer from Shorncliffe Camp, for Brigadier General Stuart-Wortley; and Mr. G.W. Haines, for Mr. A.J. Hart.

The Chairman (smiling): The hardy annual.

Mr. Clarke Hall said it had been before the Bench on several previous occasions. The application was very modest in character, and he hardly anticipated any serious opposition that day.

The Chairman inquired if Mr. Clarke Hall had any new facts to put before them.

Mr. Clarke Hall said he must honestly say “No”. The estate, however, was continuing to develop. Last year there were 49 empty houses; this year there were only 22, which showed the estate was gradually filling up. He felt he should not have been justified in coming there that day on the evidence he had before him as to any change in the neighbourhood, to ask for a full licence. Therefore he only asked that day, although it was true that they had been served with regard to a full licence, for an off licence for the house. He had entirely abandoned the full licence. There was a great deal of opposition, but he ventured to think that they did not understand the nature of the application. Possibly the applicants were to blame for that opposition. For instance, his friend who represented the Temperance Party only came there on the supposition that what they were asking for was a full licence. They were responsible for that impression, but he thought if it had been known throughout that district what they were really asking for, which was only an off licence, probably a great deal of the opposition would not have been there. He ventured to submit that so far it did not concern, and could not concern, many of those who were there if the Bench granted that application. Mr. Clarke Hall then read the section of the Act under which the application was made and, continuing, he said if the Bench granted the application the licensee would be able to sell, in addition to quantities of 4½ gallons and a large number of bottles, one single bottle and a jug of beer, not to be consumed on the premises. It did seem reasonable that those people living in the neighbourhood should be able to send their sons or go themselves for a jug of supper beer without going a great distance to other public houses situated in that district. The Bench had to consider the wants of the neighbourhood, and there ws a large number of people in that district who did want a place to which to send for their beer, and that being so, they were entitled to have some place to which to send. It was surely more desirable to send or go to a house of this kind, which could not permit any drink to be consumed on the premises, than to send or go to a fully licensed house, where they might consume spirits or anything else before they took away their jug or bottle. It was in the interests of Temperance, and not against it. With regard to the Army opposition, that clearly must be upon the basis that what they were seeking was to set up a public house. He therefore ventured to submit that the application was very modest and that it was desirable in the interests of the people residing in that district, 253 of whom had signed a petition asking for it. He thought the licence should be granted. It would be said that that was an attempt to get in the thin edge of the wedge, but the argument was wholly fallacious.

The Chairman said Mr. Clarke Hall applied for an off licence last year.

Mr. Clarke Hall: In a subsidiary way. I think I was too greedy. (Laughter) Now I am very modest.

The Chairman said the Bench refused both last year.

Mr. Clarke Hall said if the Bench were against him, he did not wish to waste their time.

The Chairman said the Bench were strongly against him.

Mr. Clarke Hall said if he could show those 253 were genuine residents and really needed it he did not know whether it would have any weight?

The Magistrates refused to grant the application.

Folkestone Daily News 3-2-1909

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions for the borough were held on Wednesday before the licensing magistrates, Mr. E.T. Ward being in the chair. No opposition was raised to the renewal of any of the licences, and after these had been handed to the several applicants the Chief Constable read his annual report. (See Folkestone Express for details)

Mr. Clarke Hall, instructed by Mr. De Wet, applied for an off licence on behalf of the owners of the Morehall Hotel.

Mr. Montague Bradley (on behalf of the local Temperance societies) and Mr. Mowll (on behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel) opposed the application.

The Chairman asked Mr. Clarke Hall if he had any further evidence to offer to that produced when the last application was made.

Counsel replied in the negative, but added that he thought his modest application (he was only applying for an off licence) might appeal to the Bench.

Mr. Mowll (to Mr. Clarke Hall): But you applied for an off licence at the last sessions.

Mr. Clarke Hall: Yes, that was a subsidiary application.

The Chairman said the Bench had decided not to grant the application.