The Raglan, Dover Road 1866 - 2016

The Raglan, 1978

 

Raglan 1999. Credit Martin Easdown

 

Raglan c1908. Credit Folkestone Library

Raglan, 2009. Credit Nick Smith (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Raglan-Folkestone.html)

 

 

Licensees

Godfrey Lepper 1866 1869 Later George III

James Morford 1869 1872

George Pearson 1872 1873

Henry Sutton 1873 1873 To Martello

William Summers 1873 1878 Also Brewery Tap 1874-1875

William Harrison Marsh 1878 1879 To Lord Nelson

William Cheeseman 1879 1880

James Hall 1880 1882

Alfred Elliott 1882 1883

Jane Gregory 1883 1884

Thomas Smith 1884 1884

Joseph Muller 1884 1885

Charles Quinton 1885 1893

Frederick Cullen 1893 1895

Sydney Robson 1895 1898

Henry King 1898 1907

Charles Barker 1907 1920

Herbert Twigg 1920 1933

Rosetta Twigg 1933 1934

Richard Stanley 1934 1937

Lewin Hall 1937 1938

Harry Wraight 1938 1941

Wilfred Martin 1941 1942 Holding Manager

Frank Lesser 1942 1951

Cyril Holbourn 1951 1962

Frederick Pepper 1962 1964

William Davis 1964 1969

Alfred Skingle 1969 1970

Leonard Loader 1970 1976

Kenneth Lehmann and Stuart Gresswell 1976 1987

John Mitchell 1987 1996

Malcolm Rowling 1996 2001 Ex Richmond Tavern

Patricia Rowling and Victoria Rowling 2001 2004 +

Folkestone Observer 24-8-1866

Licensing Day

The magistrates issued their licensing certificates on Wednesday to all established publicans who applied for them, Mr. Morford, of the Fountain, being the only pub who got a lecture, and that a not very severe one. There were seven applications for new houses, and certificates were granted for four, namely: The Rendezvous, Mr. S. Hogben (another publican lost a £10 bet over this, we hear); Alexandra, Mr. Spurrier: Raglan, Mr. Lepper; and a house in Bouverie Mews, Mr. J. B. Tolputt

Notes: If this is the first license for the Raglan it puts the accepted date of 1864 into doubt. Also, no record of Tolputt having a license anywhere. Could this, however, be the first license for the Albion Hotel?

Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1866

Licensing Day

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

The third applicant was Mr. Godfrey Lepper, for a license to the Raglan Tavern, a house recently erected in the Dover Road, to which no special opposition was offered.

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

Note: The granting of the license for the Raglan seems to throw doubt on the 1864 date claimed in More Bastions

Southeastern Gazette 28-8-1866

Local News

Wednesday last was the annual licensing day, when the magistrates on the bench were Capt. Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt and A. M. Leith Esqrs.

All the old licenses were renewed. There were seven applications for new licences namely, Mr. Hogben for the Rendezvous, in Broad Street, (lately opened as a luncheon bar); Mr. Spurrier, for the Alexandra, in Harbour Street; Mr. Lepper, for a new house, the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Road; Mr. J. B. Tolputt, for a house in Bouverie Square; Mr. Elliott for the Gun, Cheriton- Road; Mr. Tite, for the Shakespeare, Oheriton Row; and Mr. Mullett, for the Star, in Seagate Street (sic). The Bench granted licences to the four first-named, and refused the other applications. Mr. J. Minter presented a petition signed by all the publicans in the town against new licences, and appeared specially to oppose the granting of licences to the Rendezvous and Star.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-12-1866

Court Of Bankruptcy, London.

Wednesday December 12^th (Before Mr. Registrar Roche)

Re. Godfrey Lepper – This was the first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees, under the bankruptcy of Godfrey Lepper, described as of the Raglan Tavern, 1, Dover Street, corner of Mill Lane, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, Builder, Contractor, and Licensed Victualler.

Mr. J.F. Holmes, solicitor, 6, Milk Street, Cheapside, appeared for the bankrupt, who petitioned the court on the 28^th day of November last, attributing his bankruptcy to the following cause, viz: inability to sell or let the property built by bankrupt. The total amount of his debts is £1300 unsecured, due to creditors residing in Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury and Dover; and to creditors holding security about £2500, making an aggregate of about £3800.

After the admission of a number of proofs, Mr. J. Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Company), of Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of court under the 110^th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1863, the Registrar reported that the resolution was duly carried, and adjourned the sitting till Saturday next, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Winslow to stay further proceedings.

It was stated to the reporter that the bankrupt`s assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the £.

Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting, and the proceedings ended.

Southeastern Gazette 18-12-1866

Local News

Re Godfrey Lepper: The first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees under this bankruptcy took place before Mr. Registrar Roche, on Wednesday last.

 The bankrupt, who was described as of the Raglan Tavern, No. 1, Dover Street, Folkestone, builder, contractor, and licensed victualler, attributed his bankruptcy to inability to sell or let the property built by himself. The total amount of the bankrupt’s debts is £1,300 unsecured due to creditors residing at Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury, and Dover, and to creditors holding security about £2,600. Mr. James Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Co.), Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of court under the 110th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the sitting was adjourned, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Winslow to stay further proceedings. It was stated that the bankrupt`s assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the £. Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting. 

Folkestone Chronicle 22-12-1866

Wednesday December 19^th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Thomas Sandford and Edward Stone, alias Bayley, were charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, of the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday the 16^th.

Godfrey Lepper deposed that the prisoners were at his house on Sunday afternoon just after five o`clock, when he came back from the Harbour. They were in the bar, Bayley sitting down, Sandford standing up by the counter. They remained there the greater part of the evening. Before they left he missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf by a clock in the bar, which were there when he closed the house at five minutes past three that afternoon. The shelf is eight feet from the ground, and cannot be reached except by standing on the counter. He did not accuse prisoners of taking the cigars, but asked his wife if she had taken them down. She said not, but neither of the prisoners answered. Superintendent Martin brought the loose cigars produced tied up in a handkerchief to him at half past eight o`clock last evening. They were his property, and the same as had been stolen on Sunday last. He identified them by the ribbon that tied them. He accompanied the Superintendent to the prisoner Stone`s house, at a quarter to eleven o`clock, in Charlotte Place. I found two bundles of cigars buried in the garden at the back. He saw Sandford in custody at the police station and heard him say “Stone took the cigars and gave them to me”. Saw Stone arrested: at first he said he was innocent, but when shown those taken from Sandford`s garden, admitted that he had taken them, and that the others were concealed in a heap of shavings.

Cross-examined by the prisoner Sandford: There are other cigars in the town like those, but I know these are the ones that were stolen.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull said he knew both prisoners well. Sandford lives about fourteen yards from him. About four o`clock on the previous afternoon, as he was out in his meadow looking at the sheep, he saw in the dyke between his meadow and that of Sandford`s a bundle, which on opening he found to be the loose cigars produced. There were 96 cigars, which he handed over to the police.

P.C. Sharpe said that last evening at seven o`clock he went to the Black Bull Inn, and received from the last witness the cigars, which he gave to Supt. Martin.

Henry Newman, a bricklayer, said he knew both the prisoners. He was in Stone`s company on Sunday afternoon at the Raglan Tavern at twenty minutes to three o`clock. He saw prosecutor on Monday morning, who told him the cigars were stolen, and afterwards he met Stone and told him that Lepper said if he would return them he would forgive him. Stone said he hadn`t had them. He then said Lepper was going to send a policeman after Sandford, and Stone asked what had Sandford done with his box of cigars?

P.C. Reynolds said: from information received he went last evening about eight o`clock to the prisoner Sandford`s house, charged him with stealing the cigars, and took him into custody. Sandford said “I don`t know nothing about it”. He took him to the police station, and on the way there told him some cigars had been found at the back of his premises. At the police station Supt. Martin charged him and he said “Stone took them and gave them to me”. Afterwards apprehended Stone at his house in Charlotte Place, about ten o`clock, and charged him with the robbery, but he said he was innocent, and that the house might be searched, and no cigars could be found. He brought him to the police station, where Sandford repeated before him his statement that Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. Stone afterwards said “I took `em and you`ll find mine buried in the garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief under some shavings”. Witness went and found the cigars as he said.

Supt. Martin deposed that he had received the first bundle of cigars produced from P.C. Sharpe last evening, and the second bundle from P.C. Reynolds. He had heard that constable`s evidence, and it was correct as far as regards the statement of the prisoners.

Stone pleaded Guilty. Sandford refused to plead. They were then formally committed to the next Quarter Sessions, and applied to be released on bail, but after a consultation the bench decided to refuse Stone, but admitted Sandford – if he could find bail for £120 – himself in £60, and two sureties of £30 each, thus practically refusing bail to both prisoners.

Folkestone Observer 22-12-1866

Wednesday December 19^th:- Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

William Sanford, 20, and Edward Stone, 28, were charged with stealing some cigars.

Godfrey Lepper said: I am a carpenter, and landlord of the Raglan Tavern at the corner of Mill Lane. I know both the prisoners. I saw the prisoners in my house at five minutes past five on Sunday afternoon the 16^th instant. They were in the bar. The prisoner Stone was sitting down and the prisoner Sandford was leaning against the counter. They remained there from half an hour to three quarters of an hour. Before they left I missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf beside the clock in the bar. I had seen them safe at five minutes past three o`clock in the afternoon. Both the prisoners were in the bar at that time. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor, and you have to get on the counter to reach it. Superintendent Martin showed me some cigars last evening tied up in a handkerchief. I compared the cigars with some which I had in a box, and I am able to identify them as my property. The cigars produced are the same cigars as those produced by Superintendent Martin showed me. The value of the two boxes of cigars I lost is 25s. I went with Superintendent Martin to the prisoner Stone`s house in Charlotte Place last evening about a quarter to eleven o`clock. P.C. Reynolds, who was with us, dug a hole in the back garden by the wall, and found the handkerchief now produced, containing two bundles of cigars. I identify them by comparison with the other cigars that I have, and by the ribbon with which they are tied up. I saw the prisoner Sandford in custody at the station house last night about half past ten o`clock. I heard the prisoner Sandford say Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. I was present at Stone`s house when he was taken into custody by P.C.s Woodlands and Reynolds, and accompanied them to the station house, where we arrived about half past ten o`clock. I heard Stone say he was innocent. When the cigars had been produced which had been taken from Sandford, Stone then said he had taken the cigars, and told us we should find the others at the back of his house in the garden.

Cross-examined by Sandford: I can swear that the cigars were my property, and I have cigars in court with which they can be compared.

Robert Fisher said: I am landlord of the Black Bull. I know both the prisoners. Sandford lives about forty rods from me. Last night about four o`clock I was in my meadow at the back of my house, and happening to turn my head I saw lying in the dyke between my meadow and Sandford`s garden a parcel tied up in a red and white cotton handkerchief. I took it up and opened it, and found it to contain ninety six cigars and a cork. I took them indoors and thought someone had taken them from my house. My wife told me that P.C. Reynolds had been up the night before enquiring about some cigars. I handed the cigars to P.C. Sharpe.

P.C. Sharpe said: I went to the Black Bull last night about seven o`clock, and received from the last witness the parcel of cigars now produced, which he said he had found at the top of the meadow near Sandford`s garden.

Henry Newman, bricklayer, living at No. 23, Darlington, said: I know both the prisoners. I was in the company of Stone on Saturday, about twenty minutes to three in the afternoon at the Raglan Tavern. On Monday morning I saw Mr. Lepper, and he asked me if I knew anything about two boxes of cigars, which he had missed on Sunday afternoon. I told him No. He said “There were only you, Stone and Sandford there yesterday afternoon”. Afterwards, while at work behind the Chequers, I saw Stone and asked him if he knew anything about the cigars. He said No. I told him if he had anything to do with them, if I was he, I would take them back to save any farther bother, for Mr. Lepper said if they were taken back he would forgive them. He said he knew nothing about them. I said Mr. Lepper was going to send a policeman and have Sandford locked up. He then said “What`s he done with his box of cigars?”. I took him on one side and told him if he had got the cigars and would let me have them I would take them back to Mr. Lepper and try to make it up. He said he had not got them.

Cross-examined by Stone: I believe I came and saw you on Monday morning. It was not four o`clock in the afternoon.

Prisoner: I will settle up with him next year. I have nothing more to ask him.

P.C. Reynolds said: Last evening about half past eight o`clock, from information I received I went to the prisoner Sandfard`s house. He came and opened the door and I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. I took him to the station. On the road I told him there had been some cigars found at the back of his premises. After I had him at the police station the Superintendent charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he said. He then asked hm if he wished to give any explanation as to the cigars that were placed on the table in front of him. He said Stone took them and gave them to him. I afterwards, about ten o`clock, apprehended Stone at his house in Charlotte Terrace. I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars at Mr. Lepper`s house on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it; he was innocent. I asked him if he had any cigars about his premises. He said No, he was innocent. I might search the premises where I liked. I then took him into custody and brought him to the police station. Superintendent Martin charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he had to say. He fetched the prisoner Sandford out of the cell, put him in front of Stone, laid the bundle of cigars on the table and the question was asked Sandford if Stone did not give him the cigars. He said “Yes, Stone took them and gave them to me”. Stone made no answer, but directly afterwards Stone said “I took them, and you will find mine buried in a garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief, underneath some shavings”.  I went about a quarter to eleven last night and dug in the garden, and found the bundle of cigars produced (a second bundle) tied up in a handkerchief.

Superintendent Martin Said: I received the handkerchief, paper and cigars produced (the first bundle) from P.C. Sharpe last evening; and from P.C. Reynolds the handkerchief and two bundles of cigars now produced (the second bundle). They have been in my possession since I received them. I heard the deposition of Reynolds, and it is quite correct so far as the statements made by the prisoners are concerned.

The prisoners being cautioned, Stone pleaded Guilty; Sandford said nothing.

The bench then committed the prisoners for trial at the next quarter sessions, and bound the witnesses to prosecute.

Both prisoners then applied to be permitted to give bail. The bench refused to allow bail to Stone, who admitted his guilt, but would take bail for Sandford in two sureties of £30 each and himself in £60.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-1-1867

Quarter Sessions

Thursday January 3^rd:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Larceny

The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Edward Stone and Thomas Sandford for stealing on the 16^th December last two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, of the Raglan Tavern. A second count charged Sandford with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen.

This being all the business of the Grand Jury, the Recorder thanked them for their attendance and discharged them.

The indictments having been read over to the prisoners, Stone pleaded Guilty; Sandford Not Guilty to both counts. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner Sandford.

The first witness, Godfrey Lepper, had been called, when the Grand Jury returned and said there was some misunderstanding. They had found a true bill against Sandford on the second count only, and thrown out the first count – that of stealing. On reference to the bill, it was endorsed “True Bill”, and the Recorder said he did not know what to do, the Grand Jury being discharged, they were no longer in existence, and he could not take notice of them.

The facts of the case having been fully recorded in our issue of a fortnight since, it will only be necessary to give an outline of it.

Godfrey Lepper, the prosecutor, deposed that the prisoners were drinking together in his house on Sunday afternoon and evening, the 16^th December. During that time two boxes of cigars were stolen from the bar, where prisoners were. On Tuesday a bundle of cigars, wrapped in a handkerchief, being half the quantity stolen, was found by Robert Fisher, of the Black Bull Inn, in a ditch between his field and Sandford`s garden, and the rest of the cigars were found in Stone`s garden. On the prisoners being apprehended, Stone admitted taking them, in the presence of the prosecutor, Superintendent Martin, and P.C. Reynolds, at the police station, and at the same time Sandford said “Stone took them, and gave them to me”.

While Supt. Martin was giving his evidence, Mr. Minter objected to his repeating the words used by Sandford, as it was not a voluntary statement, but the cigars were shown the prisoner, and he was asked what explanation he could give.

The Recorder said there decidedly was nothing to prevent the prisoner`s words being given in evidence; there appeared to be no threat, intimidation, or promise held out to him, but he said it after being duly cautioned. The evidence might be given.

Mr. Minter, in an ingenious speech, proved to his own satisfaction doubtless, that prisoner was quite innocent. He had no knowledge of the other prisoner, who admitted having taken the cigars, and therefore Sandford had not done it. Stone gave him some cigars, and he took them as a gift, not even dreaming they were stolen. Afterwards hearing that cigars had been stolen from the Raglan, and that Stone was suspected, instead of returning them to Lepper as he should have done, he foolishly threw them away out in the garden, and forgot all about them, hence when he was apprehended, he said “I don`t know anything about any cigars”. Afterwards, when reminded of the circumstance, and shown the cigars, he said “Stone took them and gave them to me”, meaning that Stone must have taken them, not speaking of his own knowledge; and he further laid down the law that if Sandford did not know at the very moment of receiving the cigars from Stone, know that he had stolen them, he could not be found guilty.

The learned Recorder then summed up, and told the jury that as no-one had been seen to steal the cigars, they must use their own judgement in their decision; the prisoner Sandford had been in the company of Stone, in the place and at the time the cigars were stolen, and half the proceeds of the robbery were found in Sandford`s possession. They must therefore see if his explanation of the circumstance was a sufficient explanation. If they thought it satisfactory entirely, and the facts to be consistent with an innocent man receiving them as a gift, they must find him not guilty. Each of the witnesses had stated that Sandford was of good character so far as they knew, and that must be taken into account; but so must also the circumstances of his being in the company of a person who had been previously convicted of felony.

The jury retired to consider, and after an interval returned a verdict of “Not Guilty”, to the manifest surprise of everyone in the court who had heard the evidence. Sandford was then discharged.

The Recorder then addressing Stone, told him that a previous conviction being held against him, he was liable to a long term of penal servitude. A mild sentence seemed to have no effect on him, but he had done the best thing he could do now in pleading guilty. He was sentenced to twelve months` hard labour. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

Folkestone Observer 5-1-1867

Quarter Sessions

Thursday, January 3^rd: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Edward Stone, 28, plasterer, who can neither read nor write, pleaded guilty to stealing two boxes of cigars, the property of Godfrey Lepper, on the 16^th of December, and to a previous conviction on the 9^th July, 1857, for felony.

Thomas Sandford, 20, plasterer, imperfectly educated, pleaded not guilty to indictments – one for stealing two boxes of cigars, and one for receiving with guilty knowledge.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Mr. Thomas Cobb, addressing the Recorder, said it was the intention of the Grand Jury to find a true bill on the count for receiving and not for stealing.

The Recorder looked at the indictment and said it was endorsed “A true bill”.

Mr. Brooke, foreman, and other members of the Grand Jury confirmed Mr. Cobb`s statement.

The Recorder said as a Grand Jury they did not then exist (the learned gentleman had previously dismissed them), and he could not take notice of them. They were dead.

After some consideration the Recorder proceeded with the case, complaining, however, that no legal gentleman appeared for the prosecution.

Godfrey Lepper, being sworn, said: I am a carpenter. I recollect Sunday afternoon the 16^th of December. On that afternoon I missed two boxes of cigars off a shelf in the bar of the Raglan Tavern. I am landlord of the Tavern. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor. I saw them at three in the afternoon. I missed them about half past five. I saw Sandford there about five o`clock outside the bar. He was in and out the whole of the evening. I cannot say that I saw him go out. I saw Stone there, sitting down. They were the only two in the bar at that time. I saw the cigars through Superintendent Martin bringing them to me on the following Tuesday evening, about eight o`clock. They were tied up in a red handkerchief in paper. One box of cigars was Henry Clay`s; the next were Mexican cheroots. I compared others that I had with them. The cigars brought me were some of the same kind. It is only from the general appearance that I believe them to be mine. When I missed the cigars I used every exertion to find out the persons who had taken them. After Superintendent Martin brought me the cigars, I went with police constables Reynolds and Ovenden to Stone`s house to take him, and afterwards I went to the station house, and there Sandford said in the presence of Stone that Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone then said the other portion of the cigars would be found at the back of his (Stone`s) house, in the garden, buried in a handkerchief. Superintendent Martin and P.C. Reynolds and myself went to Stone`s back garden and found them there. Superintendent Martin took those cigars. (Cigars produced). There is nothing but their general appearance that makes me think they are mine.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There were other people in the house, but there were no persons in the house during the time that these cigars must have been taken. I did not see them taken. I did not go with the policeman when Sandford was taken. There was not much general conversation when I was at the station. There was a conversation about the stealing of the cigars. Sandford did not say that he did not steal them at all; he said Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone denied taking them at first, but when he saw the cigars  that had been found at the Black Bull, he admitted that he had taken them, and that some of them would be found at the back of his house. Part of the cigars had been in my house eleven months and three weeks. The Mexican cigars had been there that time; the others had been there five months. I was adjudicated bankrupt on the 28^th of October. I have not received my order of discharge.

Mr. Minter here took objection to the indictment, the cigars being the property of the assignee, but the Recorder said it would be a mere misdescription, if anything, and he had full power to amend. The indictment was accordingly amended.

Mr. Lepper: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minter; they are my property. It was arranged on the 12^th that the property is to remain mine, and I am to pay for it by instalments.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull: I live near the prisoner Sandford. On the 19^th December I found a handkerchief in the dyke between my field and Sandford`s garden. I opened the parcel and found ninety six cigars in it. It was a red handkerchief. I believe the handkerchief produced to be the same. I took them indoors and said “I have found a prize”. I told P.C. Sharpe that I had found some cigars, and let him have them.

Cross-examined: Prisoner lives next door to me, and has lived there three or four years. He has always borne a good character.

P.C. Sharpe received the cigars from last witness, and handed them over to Superintendent Martin.

Henry Newman, being called, said he had nothing to do with Sandford`s case, and the Recorder looking over his deposition directed the next witness to be sworn.

P.C. Reynolds said: In consequence of information received I went to Sandford`s house and he came to the door. I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper`s on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. On the way to the station I told him some had been found on the back of his premises. He made no answer. I brought him to the station. Superintendent Martin told him he was charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, and putting the cigars on the table, asked him if he wished to give any explanation. He said Stone had taken them and given them to him. I searched him, but did not find anything on him.

Cross-examined: I have known the prisoner for some years, and his friends are very respectable, and he has borne a very good character himself, as far as I know. When I took him into custody, I did not take him to the Black Bull, nor call there, nor see Mr. Fisher. I did tell him something, I believe, about Stone stealing the cigars.

Superintendent Martin received the first lot of cigars from P.C. Sharpe, and was himself present when Reynolds dug up the second lot in Stone`s garden. The cigars had been in his possession ever since. Was present when Sandford was brought in, and cautioned him about what he should say. Asked him if he had any explanation to give respecting the cigars.

Mr. Minter submitted that what followed could not be received in evidence on the ground that Superintendent Martin had no business to produce the cigars and say “Now what have you to say about them? What explanation have you to give?”. In fact it was holding out a theft – not in language, but in substance.

The Recorder said he thought the evidence might not be excluded.

Witness continued: I charged him with stealing the cigars, and asked him if he had any explanation to make about their being found on his premises, having previously cautioned him. He said Stone took the cigars, and gave him the cigars produced.

Cross-examined: I have known prisoner for some years, and considered him to be a respectable young man living at home with his father.

Mr. Minter then addressed the jury, contending that Sandford had no knowledge of Stone`s theft when he took the cigars, and that when he became aware of that theft through the enquiries of the prosecutor he threw the cigars away, and his statement of Stone`s having stolen them was but a repetition of the policeman`s statement to himself.

The Recorder summed up the evidence very carefully, and the jury retired, but in a short time returned with a verdict of Acquittal.

The Recorder then sentenced Thomas Day to twelve months` hard labour.

Southeastern Gazette 8-1-1867

Quarter Sessions

The winter Quarter Session for Folkestone was held on Thursday, at the Town-Hall, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., .Recorder.

Edward Stone pleaded guilty and Thomas Sandford not guilty to an indictment charging them with stealing, on the 16th December last, two boxes of cigars value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, and the latter prisoner also pleaded not guilty to a second count, charging him with receiving the same, knowing them, to have been stolen. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner Sandford.

Just as the trial commenced, the grand jury, who had been discharged on their bringing in true bills against these prisoners, as there were no other cases, said they only meant to return a true bill on the second count against Sandford  but on examination the whole bill was found to be endorsed as a true bill, and the Recorder said as they had been discharged he could not take notice of the mistake.

The facts of the case were that both prisoners were in the prosecutor’s house, the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday, the 10th December, nearly all the afternoon and evening. During that time prosecutor missed two boxes of cigars from a high shelf in the bar. On Tuesday evening the contents of one box were found in a ditch by the side of Sandford's garden, and given to the police, and the contents of the other box found in Stone’s garden in some shavings. After the prisoners were taken into custody, and when they were at the police station, Sandford said before Stone and three of the witnesses, “Stone took them and gave them to me,” although previously he had denied all knowledge of the cigars.

Mr. Minter addressed the jury in defence of his client, urging that he received the cigars as a gift without the slightest knowledge or suspicion that they were stolen.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Stone, who had pleaded guilty, was sentenced to twelve months` hard labour. 

Folkestone Chronicle 9-2-1867

Advertisement:

Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Property

........ A Public House, known as the Lord Raglan in a most commanding situation in Dover Street, and near to the South Eastern Railway Station.

Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward have received instruction from the Assignees, under a Deed Of Assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Godfrey Lepper, to offer for sale by public competition, at the Lord Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone, on Thursday February 28^th, 1867, at two for three o`clock precisely, the above property.

Lot 1: The Lord Raglan Tavern, a free Public House, in a most commanding situation, near the Junction Station of the South Eastern Railway, having a double frontage to Dover Street and Mill Lane, recently erected, and from it`s undeniable position certain to command a large trade. The house contains on the Basement, large cellar, kitchen, scullery, W.C., coal and wine cellars; on the Ground Floor, bar, bar parlour, counting house, and tap room. On the First Floor, club room, bagatelle room, and bedroom, with seven bedrooms and W.C. above; and is now in the occupation of Mr. G. Lepper. Possession could be had immediately on completion of the purchase.

Lot 1 is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor, for a term of 99 years, from the 29^th of September, 1864, at an annual Ground Rent of £5.

Note: This is almost certainly proof that the Raglan was not built for Kingsford of Dover, but, as previously noted, built by Lepper himself.

Kentish Gazette 12-2-1867

Auction advertisement extract: Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward have received instructions from the

 assignees, under a Deed of Assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Godfrey Lepper to

 offer for sale by public competition, at the Lord Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone, on 

Thursday, February 28^th, 1867, at two for three o`clock precisely

Lot 1:The Lord Raglan Tavern, a free Pub­lic-house in a commanding situation, near the Junction 

Station of the South-Eastern Railway, having a double frontage to Dover Street and Mill Lane, 

recently erected, and from its undeniable position certain to command a large trade. The house

 contains on the basement, large cellar, kitchen, scullery, W.C., coal and wine cellars; on the ground

 floor, bar, bar parlour, counting-house, and tap-room; on the first floor, club-room, bagatelle room,

 and bedroom; with seven bedrooms and W.C. above; and is now in the occupation of Mr. G. Lepper.

 Possession could be had immediately upon completion of the purchase.

Lot 1 is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor, for a term of 99 years, from 29^th September, 

1864, at an annual Ground Rent of £5.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-11-1867

County Court

Monday November 18^th: Before W.C. Scott

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for £1 3s. 8d. for goods supplied. Defendant said he owed some; he did not know how much. The fact was, he used to go into the Raglan (plaintiff`s house) and sit there playing cards from morning till night. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept no account. Order for 5s. per month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought forward after this year.

Folkestone Observer 23-11-1867

County Court:

Monday, November 18^th: Before J.C. Scott Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for £1 3s. 8d. for goods supplied.

Defendant said he owed some, but did not know how much. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept no account.

Order for 5s. a month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought after this year.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-1-1868

County Court

Monday January 20^th: Before W.C. Scott

Godfrey Lepper v Hughes: Claim for 14s 3d. Ordered to be paid in a month: defendant pleaded a set-off, but not having given notice of it, it was not allowed.

Folkestone Observer 25-1-1868

County Court

Monday, January 20^th: Before J.C. Scott

Lepper v Hughes: This was a claim for 9s. for refreshments.

To be paid in a month.

Lepper v Memphis: This was a case where defendant was ordered to pay 5s. a month, but had failed to comply.

Ordered to stand over for a month to allow defendant to pay the first instalment of 5s., or sent to prison for 14 days.

Lepper v Newman: This was a claim for £1 2s. 5d. for refreshments generally, and the defendant had been ordered to pay 5s. per month, but had not done so. The defendant said that he did not owe the money, and he should not pay the debt; he would rather go to prison. Ordered to stand over for a month, or 14 days` imprisonment.

Lepper v T. Newman: In this case the defendant denied the debt, and said he would rather be in prison all his lifetime than pay what he did not owe. Committed for 14 days.

Lepper v Hollis: In this case the defendant admitted the debt, but had been unable to pay his instalments of 5s. per month in consequence of being out of employ. To pay in a month or 14 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-8-1868

County Court

Monday August 10^th: Before W.C. Scott

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was a claim to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, held by defendant as tenant to plaintiff, a brewer at Buckland, Dover. Mr. Percy Claris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Claris produced the agreement for letting the house: It was dated 21^st October last, and the tenancy was to commence on the 29^th September: the rent was to be £25, and the tenancy was to be determined at any time at the expiration of three calendar months, after notice had been given by either party, with the usual proviso for entry in twenty one days, after non-payment of rent when due. Notice had been given to defendant to leave on the 6^th July, but he had refused to go till paid for fixtures, which were the property of the landlord.

Plaintiff was sworn, and two letters produced by him, one from defendant dated 4^th June, stating that he would go out at any time, on a fair valuation, that he would settle all demands, and transfer the licenses; the other was from Mr. Minter, stating that the fixtures belonged to defendant, subject to a loan of £45 from plaintiff; that the notice was insufficient, but that he would not complain of that, and that defendant would not go out till the valuation had been made.

Charles Browning, clerk to plaintiff, proved serving the notice to quit on Mrs. Lepper, at half past two on the afternoon of April 6^th.

The defence was that a proper notice had not been served, for two reasons. First, that the “any time” in the agreement must mean at any quarter-day, and that as the rent was payable on the new quarters, the notice to quit must not expire on an old quarter-day, as otherwise the agreement must have contained a proviso that a proportionate part of the rent should be paid at the time of leaving. Then in the second place the agreement required three calendar months, after notice is served to quit, while the notive, served on the afternoon of the 6^th April was “to quit on the 6^th July”, so that three months after notice was not allowed, the day of service being excluded.

His Honour said it was a curious point, but he thought he must allow it to be a proper notice, and that the clause in the agreement precluded the limitation of the notice to quarter days. The objection was too technical, and he decided on the merits of the case that possession must be given. He reserved the date of giving up till the other cases were heard.

Same v Same: Claim £17 5s. 6d., £14 9s. 3d. being balance of beer account, and £2 16s. 3d. for one and a quarter years` hire of fixtures. The account was commenced in November 1865, the defendant became bankrupt at the end of 1867, when plaintiff purchased the house, there being then a balance due of £29 8s., which had not been claimed since.

Plaintiff was examined on these points, but a bill was produced by Mr. Minter, in which the sum due at defendant`s bankruptcy was included. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he bought the house at the sale, and defendant afterwards came over to Dover to say that he might buy the fixtures for £45; he perhaps might have asked witness to lend him the money, but he certainly should not have done so. He was not anxious to have defendant as a tenant. Messrs. Dickenson bought the house, but defendant refused to stay in it with them, and so witness bought it. Witness did not advance £54 on the fixtures and agree to take five percent on it, nor agree to take it back £10 at a time, nor say he would rather have it all at once. After a great deal of questioning witness said that what he might have offered was that if defendant could get a tenant who would buy the fixtures, he migt keep any overplus, after paying the £45, his rent, and the beer score.

Mr. Minter said that was all he wanted to know.

Judgement was given for plaintiff within seven days.

Same v Same: This was a claim for a year and a quarter`s rent, £31 5s., up to the 24^th June.

Mr. Minter said it would perhaps save time if he said at first his objection to the case was that the County Courts Act prohibited splitting claims for the purpose of adding to the expense.

This was overruled and the plaintiff called. He stated that the rent due was £31 5s., and produced the agreement for letting and taking the house.

Mr. Minter objected that according to that agreement the tenancy only commenced on September 29^th so that only three quartrs` rnt was due.

Mr. Claris characterised the defence as dishonest and dishonourable, and His Honour protested against such recriminations.

Plaintiff was proceeding to say that he purchased the house in March, but Mr. Minter objected to hear anything about that unless the conveyance was put in, especially as Mr. Claris had not opened the case, except as to the agreement.

Mr. Minter argued that defendant was left in charge of the house by the assignees to keep the business together, and that the tenancy could not commence till the date fixed in the agreement. Then the County Court Act specially provided against a multiplicity of suits, and here were three plaints and a proceeding in equity in this court, so that plaintiff, having obtained judgement in one case, was precluded from obtaining one now. In the first cause, that for ejectment, the clause claiming rent was struck out and a separate action brought, while the rent and beer score, with the rent of fixtures, were again separated because, had they been included in one suit, it would have amounted to more than £50, and would have been out of the jurisdiction of the court.

His Honour asked for an explanation, and Mr. Claris said it was intended to distrain for the rent when the action for ejectment was commenced, but there was nothing to distrain on (Mr. Minter said there was £40 or £50 worth), and the rent and beer account were quite distinct.

An order for payment for four quarters` rent was made.

Same, in Equity: Mr. Minter called His Honour`s attention to an injunction granted by him forbidding defendant to remove the fixtures, and the order had been obeyed, although no other proceedings having been commenced in equity, the injunction ought not to have been issued. He therefore asked His Honour to say that he had no power to make the injunction, and to discharge it with costs, because it was agreed that the fixtures should be valued, and possession given. The fact was, the fixtures were the bona fide property of defendant, who would be damaged to the amount of their value if he had to give up possession of the house without removing his fixtures. He could not understand why these proceedings should have been taken, instead of carrying out the arrangement entered into. The defence had not been a factious defence, for plaintiff now owed defendant more than he claimed. However, he would consent to an order for possession in a fortnight, and continue the injunction to the next court, if plaintiff would undertake not to make the giving up possession a technical objection to the suit.

An order to deliver up possession in ten days was then made, and an immediate order for the rent.

Notes: This case appears to be conclusive proof that the Raglan was built by Lepper himself, and that the granting of his license in 1866 was, indeed, the first license that the Raglan had, rather than the date of 1864 mentioned in More Tales. It is mentioned during the case that Kingsford`s purchased the house from Dickenson`s (who took over from Hills at the brewery in Tontine Street), and therefore any idea that the house had been built for Kingsford seems to be mistaken.

Folkestone Observer 15-8-1868

County Court

Monday, August 10^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone.

Mr. Percy Claris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Claris, in opening the case, said this was an action brought by plaintiff, a brewer residing at Buckland, near Dover, to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, let by plaintiff to defendant under an agreement dated October, 1867, at the yearly rental of £25, the tenancy commencing on the 29^th of September of that year. The agreement contained a clause to the effect that the tenancy could be determined at any time after three calendar months notice any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding; and in addition to this there was the usual “provision for entrance in 21 days” upon non-payment of rent. Notice was served on the defendant on the 6^th of April to quit on the 6^th of July, but defendant had not quitted, giving as an excuse that he would not leave until plaintiff had agreed as to the payment for certain fixtures, but as those fixtures belonged to the plaintiff he did not agree to that little proposition.

Mr. Minter, on seeing the agreement, said he did not think it was properly stamped; it was a half crown stamp instead of a lease stamp.

His Honour overruled the objection.

Plaintiff then gave evidence in corroboration of his lawyer`s statement, adding that he received the letter produced from the defendant. (It was to the effect that as plaintiff had decided to let the house, he would be prepared to give up possession upon a fair valuation being made of the fixtures and agreed upon between them. A letter from Mr. Minter was also read which stated that defendant had directed him to say that the fixtures belonged to him and he would not part with the possession of the house until the valuation was settled and agreed upon.)

Charles Browning proved the service of the notice at half past two on the 6^th of April.

Mr. Minter said that was not a proper notice to quit for two reasons; first, they must take the notice to quit as it stands – that the tenancy should be a yearly tenancy from the 29^th of September, at the yearly rent of £25, giving the quarter days upon which that rent was payable, and he contended therefore that the notice should be given on one of those days. The agreement said the tenancy should cease and determine at any time after three calendar months` notice. Now he contended that that clause meant at any time after three months` notice expiring upon one of the quarters named in the agreement. He cited the case of Kemp v Derritt, Campbell`s Law Reports, where it was decided that it must be at one of the quarters upon which the rent was payable that notice to quit was to be given and expire. If the agreement meant that the tenancy should be determined at any moment after three months` notice had been given and expired, then there would have been a provision that a proportionate part of the rent should then and there become and be made payable to the proprietor, but explicit as the agreement otherwise was, it contained no such thing. Taking this, his friend`s contention, to be right, then the defendant would occupy the house for six weeks without paying any rent. He said, in the reasonable meaning of the agreement, and also in law, by which the case had to be decided, the quarter should be taken to end at some quarter named in the agreement. If His Honour was against him on this point, he had a second to fall back upon. The agreement stated that three calendar months should be given, and this should be exclusive of the day of service; therefore the notice was informal because that day had been calculated in the time. The notice was specific in itself and binding upon them, giving the day which it expired, and including both the first and last days to make the three calendar months notice. It had been decided that the time must be exclusive both of the first and last days, both of which in this case the matter was quite clear; the agreement – three calendar months after notice had been given. He confidently submitted the first point as being entitled to secceed upon it; if His Honour was against him, then he called his attention to the second.

His Honour said this was a close point to take.

Mr. Claris said in ninety nine cases out of a hundred notices were served as this had been.

Mr. Minter said he must call His Honour`s attention to the agreement which stated clearly that it must be three calendar months after the notice in writing, which, he contended, must be given on a quarter day.

His Honour replied that there was a special clause introduced in that agreement, that at any time whatever notice should be given, any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding. He therefore overruled Mr. Minter`s first objection; and as to the second, he should overrule that too, because it was too technical to notice. He would decide the case upon it`s merits.

Mr. Minter then asked His Honour to defer judgement until the next case had been heard.

His Honour consented.

Plaintiff brought a further claim against the defendant, for £17 5s. 6d., of which £14 9s. 3d. was the balance, and £2 16s. 3d.for one and a quarter years` hire of fixtures to the Raglan Tavern.

Mr. Claris stated that defendant had admitted his liability over and over again by the payment of sums on the account, and he therefore thought His Honour would have no difficulty in deciding in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff stated that defendant agreed to give £2 5s. per year for the use of the fixtures, that being a charge of 5 percent on the purchase money. The account had been delivered, but never disputed.

Cross-examined: I know nothing of defendant being asked to stay in the house as a tenant. I was not at the sale; my son was there. I simply bought the fixtures as belonging to the house. The defendant was to pay me rent for those fixtures – 5 percent on the purchase money. I did not advance the £45 as a loan at interest to Lepper at 5 percent, and it was not agreed that he should pay me back at £10 at a time. I never said I would rather have the whole £45 back at one time; you are putting words into my mouth that I know nothing about. The understanding was that if another person accepted the house the fixtures were to be taken by him at a valuation, and any over-plus to go to defendant.

His Honour: That is, would you have been satisfied with the return of the £45 you paid for them?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Minter: I don`t call any witnesses, and it it not necessary for me to address Your Honour on the present case.

His Honour then gave judgement for plaintiff.

A third case was then gone into, being a claim for rent.

Mr. Claris said he did not know what defence could be set up to this, as defendant had been in the house and paid no rent. Mr. Minter had given them two very ingenious defences, and perhaps he would now give them a third.

Mr. Minter said he would give his defence at once, and referred to the 63^rd Section of the 9^th and 10^th Victoria, chapter 95, which refers to splitting the accounts, under which he contended that by plaintiff`s first case he was debarred from obtaining a judgement on the second.

His Honour: Not at all.

Mr. Claris: We are not bound to bring the action for rent and beer together. This defence is still more ingenious.

His Honour: That is no defence to it.

Plaintiff then gave evidence stating that £31 5s. 0d. were due for five quarters` rent.

Mr. Minter contended that under the agreement under which they were suing, three quarters` rent only were due.

Mr. Claris replied that he was suing for three quarters under the agreement, and two quarters due before that agreement was entered into. This was simply a dishonest and dishonourable defence set up by the defendant.

Mr. Minter did not know what his friend meant by those terms, but he should learn the law before he came there.

Mr. Claris replied that defendant ought to have paid the money, knowing as he did that it was owing.

His Honour: Stick to the law upon the matter, please.

Mr. Minter still contended there was no tenancy before the agreement existed, defendant having lived in the house, and it was his own property up to the time of his bankruptcy, after which he continued to reside there.

Plaintiff, however, stated there was an agreement between them on his purchasing the house, but failed to prove more than one quarter previous to the agreement.

Mr. Minter then fell back upon the statute relating to a multiplying of suits. Three cases had been taken against the defendant besides one in equity, making four, simply, it seemed to him, to multiply the costs. The whole of the accounts together, with the £29 odd due before the bankruptcy, would have taken it out of the jurisdiction of that Court, and he contended that plaintiff had no right to split up his accounts to bring it there, therefore the latter claim must be adandoned.

His Honour having asked for some more explanation, Mr. Claris said he had intended to distrain for rent as his best mode of obtaining it, but on sending in he found that defendant had taken great care there was nothing there to distrain upon. If the defendant had any ground of complaint, it was against himself. The summons for the beer account was taken out in the meantime, consequently the claims were not made separate. If Lepper had abided by his agreement made on his first interview with him, not a sixpence might have been expended in these matters.

His Honour gave a verdict for four quarters` rent.

Mr. Minter then made an application with reference to the fourth case, viz., that the injunction issued – to restrain the defendant from removing any of the fixtures of the Raglan Tavern, should be dissolved. He was in a position to prove that the fixtures belonged to the defendant, subject to £45 lent by plaintiff, and such being the case, defendant would be damnified by that injunction.

His Honour ordered possession to be given up in 10 days, and renewed the injunction to that time.

Folkestone Express 15-8-1868

County Court

Monday, August 10^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Plaintiff is a brewer at Dover, and the defendant the landlord of the Raglan Tavern in Dover Street. This was an action to recover possession of the said premises.

Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said plaintiff is a brewer near Dover, and the action was brought to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Street, which was let to defendant for £25 per annum, the tenancy being a yearly one. An agreement had been drawn up between the plaintiff and defendant, in which there was a clause that said three months notice to quit should be sufficient, and that the tenancy was to terminate at the end of three calendar months “notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary”. On the 6^th April last plaintiff`s clerk served a notice to quit on the defendant. His tenancy therefore expired, according to the agreement, on the 6^th July, but he would not give up possession unless plaintiff paid for some fixtures.

He called Mr. Kingsford, the plaintiff, who deposed he had received some letters from Mr. Lepper, one of which said that he should be prepared at any time to deliver up possession on a fair valuation being made. On that taking place he would give up possession and transfer the license. Witness the put in a letter he had received from Mr. Minter, which objected to the notice because it was not a sufficient one, although he would leave if a proper valuation was made and the fixtures paid for.

Mr. Charles Brownrigg, clerk to plaintiff, proved serving the notice on Mrs. Lepper on the 6^th of April.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He came by the two o`clock train, and the notice was served at half past two in the afternoon.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had not received a proper notice to quit. It was shown by the agreement which was made on the 29^th September last that the tenancy was a yearly one, and that the rent became due at the end of one of the usual quarters. The meaning of the tenancy clause is that three months` notice is sufficient, and the notice is to expire at the expiration of one of the quarters for which rent was payable. If the tenancy was to determine at any moment, there would have been a provision in the agreement how that portion of the rent should become payable. No claim could be made on the defendant for a portion of a quarter, and he could therefore occupy the tenancy for six weeks without paying any rent at all. He contended that the tenancy ought to end on one of the quarters mentioned in the agreement. He would next show that he had not received a proper notice. The agreement provides that the tenant is to give up possession after three months notice has been given, therefore it ought to be dated and served on April 5^th, when actually it is delivered on April 6^th, and the notice says they must deliver up possession on July 6^th. Strictly speaking the time ought to be exclusive of the first and last days, and it is quite plain that the agreement must mean three clear calendar months.

His Honour stated that the clause relating to the notice was a special one and is intended for special occasions; the second objection is too technical. He should decide the case on it`s merits, although he would make note of the two objections. Possession to be given up in ten days.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was a claim for £17 15s. 6d., being a balance due to plaintiff for beer, &c., supplied. The same counsels as in the previous case.

Verdict for the plaintiff, the amount to be paid in seven days.

Kingsford v Lepper: The plaintiff claimed £31 5s., being five quarters` rent. Same counsels both for plaintiff and defendant.

Mr. Minter objected to the case proceeding, as it was specified in the County Courts Act that actions could not be multiplied, and this claim ought to have been combined with the previous one.

Mr Claris: One is a claim for rent, and the other was a debt incurred, and therefore could not be included in one action.

His Honour overruled the objection and allowed the case to proceed.

Mr. Kingsford said defendant had possession by verbal agreement up to the 29^th September.

Mr. Minter took objection to the case proceeding unless the conveyance was produced.

His Honour did not consider this necessary.

Mr. Kingsford (in answer to Mr. Minter): The property was not conveyed before the 25^th March.

His Honour thought there was something in the fact that defendant was his own landlord previously, and that the assignees had left him in possession.

Mr. Minter: Defendant could not have been a tenant without he made an agreement, and the agreement was not made till September 29^th.

Mr. Claris: But plaintiff made a verbal agtreement with the defendant.

Mr. Minter said that under the County Courts Act the plaintiff could not recover, as there was a clause which specially stated that no multiplication of suits should be allowed, to prevent the increasing of costs. He quoted some cases which had been decided in support of the view taken by him of the question. According to this the two claims ought to have been combined; if they had the plaintiff would have no right to bring the action in this Court, as it would be a bar to the claim, the total amount exceeding £50. The splitting up one action into two was not lawful, and they could not sue for the whole amount as it would have been out of the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Claris said they had distrained for the rent, but they found none worth distraining.

Mr. Minter: There is £50 worth of property on the premises.

His Honour gave a judgement for £25 for four quarters` rent, as there was no proof that the property was conveyed on March 25^th.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-10-1868

County Court

Monday October 12^th

Equity Court

Kingsford v Lepper: Mr. Claris applied on behalf of plaintiff for leave to proceed to execution to obtain possession of the Raglan Tavern, for which a suit was prosecuted at the August court. Mr. Minter said his client had been readmitted as a tenant by the plaintiff, and His Honour said in any case there was no need to apply to the court for leave.

Folkestone Express 17-10-1868

County Court

Monday, October 12^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

G. Lepper v Charles Hughes: Claim for 7s. 6d. Plaintiff stated this claim was for beer supplied last year.

Defendant alleged Mr. Lepper owed him 8s. 11d. for seeds and labour.

His Honour said whatever set-off defendant had against plaintiff was a separate claim. He must give judgement for plaintiff with costs.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Mr. Claris, who appeared for the plaintiff, said at the last sitting of the Court, a judgement in the case of Kingsford v Lepper gave plaintiff possession of the property of the defendant in 10 days. On the 20^th of August notice of appeal was given, but no case had been submitted for His Honour`s notice.

His Honour said there was no necessity for this application, as the previous order stands good.

Folkestone Express 21-11-1868

County Court

Monday, November 16^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was a claim for £25 for rent, but on account of the absence of defendant`s counsel the case was ordered to be adjourned, on defendant paying the costs of the day.

Folkestone Chronicle 19-12-1868

County Court

Monday December 14^th: Before W.C. Scott

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Mr. P. Claris appeared for plaintiff, the brewer of Dover, and Mr. Minter for defendant, the landlord of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street.

Mr. Claris said the case had been adjourned from last court, because Mr. Minter was at that time engaged in another cause. The facts were rather peculiar, for judgement in the case was obtained at the August court, notice of appeal being given, but not prosecuted, and judgement not being enforced. Then through some inadvertence on the part of plaintiff`s clerk, a demand for rent up to the 11<sup>th</sup> October had been made, and that had perhaps revived the tenancy, and it was now necessary to take some other proceedings. Defendant was either a tenant from year to year – under the agreement with plaintiff – or on sufferance. Under the agreement was a proviso that if six months` rent should be in arrears, after twenty one days the tenancy should cease. It would then only be necessary to prove that the value of the house was under £50 a year, that half a year`s rent was due, and that no sufficient distress could be made, for an execution for £17 had been issued and a return made of nulla lona. It was particularly hard on plaintiff, who had purchased the house and fixtures, and the scheme was merely to extort money from him. The fixtures were let to defendant at a yearly rental, but he wished to assert that plaintiff had only lent £35 on them, and to make him have in a valuer and pay the difference between £35 and the value of them. The arrangement really was, that if defendant could get a customer for the fixtures when he left, he might have all they realised over £35, after paying all debts due to plaintiff.

Mr. Kingsford was called to prove the tenancy agreement, and that more than six months` rent was due on the 3^rd November.

Cross-examined: Subsequent to his obtaining judgement against defendant in August, he did refuse to supply any more beer. He recognised the writing (of the demand for rent) as that of his son or clerk, but it was unauthorised.

Mr. Fowle was called to prove that the value of the house was under £50 a year.

Examined: He had never been over the house, nor did he know how many rooms it contained.

That was the case.

Mr. Minter would not go into the hardship of the case, or he could make out a good one. Defendant paid £130 for his fixtures, and states that plaintiff lent him £35 on them, and it was very strange that the rent charged on them should amount to just £5 per cent on that sum. But the question was – could His Honour grant the order asked for? If plaintiff proceeded on the agreement (which was determined by the proceedings of the August court) half a year`s rent was not due, for judgement was recovered for rent up to the end of June, and if he proceeded under the implied tenancy, he could not succeed.

His Honour remarked that judgement had been recovered, but it appeared that no money for rent had yet been received. Was therefore the rent less in arrears than before?

Mr. Minter said decidedly so, for it is an axiom in law that a man cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. Plaintiff had got judgement once, and if he did not choose to enforce it he could not come to the court and ask His Honour to forget that judgement and give another. The fact was, there was a new tenancy created by the demand for rent, the first quarter due on the 11^th October, and there was nothing but the fear of the consequence of that act to prevent plaintiff going to the Registrar and issuing judgement.

His Honour said that would certainly appear to be the best way, as he could not make an order when less than half a year`s rent was due. But judgement had once been given, and there had been no appeal. Judgement for defendant would be entered with costs, but defendant must pay the costs of the adjournment.

Same Plaintiff and Defendant – Margaret Court, garnishee

Mr. Claris said that in the August court, plaintiff obtained judgement for £17 15s. 6d., and as there was no satisfaction, he had taken out this summons in the form of a sci fa. Mrs. Court had a son apprenticed to defendant, and on the 18^th ultimo there was a sum of £10 due for premium, which he asked His Honour to order to be paid into court.

Mr. Minter protested against the production of the indentures, which could not have been seen but for a breach of professional confidence on the part of Mr. Claris, who prepared them, as solicitor for Mrs. Court and defendant, and therefore had no right to tell Mr. Kingsford of their existence. His Honour was not, however, bound to make the order, and he thought, under the circumstances, he would not do so. For the premium was a consideration of apprenticeship – defendant being bound to pay the lad certain sums of money weekly, and if this premium were attached, the apprentice would be damnified by the defendant not being able to pay those sums. As to the argument that no return could be made to execution, the judgements obtained in this court were pleaded as a set-off to a suit carried on in the Queen`s Bench.

His Honour decided that this was not a case in which he could make an order.

Folkestone Observer 19-12-1868

County Court

Monday, December 14^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street.

Mr. Claris said the facts of the case were very peculiar. It appeared that in August last His Honour gave judgement for plaintiff in this case, and on the defendant`s becoming bankrupt plaintiff had bought the house  of Mr. Lepper, and afterwards let it to him. He fixtures were also bought of and let to defendant, which was an unusual proceeding on the part of the plaintiff, but he was obliged to do so. The defendant now wished to extort money from plaintiff for the fixtures, and on the demand being refused, he declined to give up possession.

The agreement was put in and read, and Mr. Kingsford proved that there was more than half a year`s rent due on the 3^rd of November.

By Mr. Minter: He had refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The letter, which was a demand for rent, was in the handwriting of a clerk.

Mr. Minter made a lengthy speech on behalf of the defendant, after which His Honour thought they had better enforce the judgement of the last court.

Folkestone Express 19-12-1868

County Court

Monday, December 14^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, a brewer at Dover, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said this action was brought forward at the last court, but was adjourned at the defendant`s request. The plaintiff wanted to recover possession of the Radnor Tavern (sic), Dover Street, and the circumstances were rather peculiar. At the court held last August, His Honour made an order that possession was to be given up in ten days, and against that order the defendant`s counsel, Mr. Minter, made an appeal, as a demand for rent had been sent in to the defendant; perhaps this revived the tenure. In consequence of this he was obliged to adopt some other proceeding. Mr. Claris then produced the agreement under which the house was let, and the Act bearing on the question. He would prove that the yearly value of the premises was under £50 if there was an objection that the case did not come within the jurisdiction of that court. In the August court they had recovered a whole year`s rent in August last, of which there was not one farthing paid. He could prove power to re-enter, and he thought the case was a particularly hard one for his client, and the opposition appeared only to extort money. Mr. Kingsford, when he bought the house, bought the fixtures with it, which was certainly rather an unusual circumstance for the landlord to do. The house was sold in consequence of Mr. Lepper becoming a bankrupt, and then when the plaintiff bought the house he let it to the devendant, as he had lost a considerable sum of money, and told him if he could get more than what he gave for the fixtures he had no objection to his having the surplus. Now the defendant wants the plaintiff to buy the fixtures over again.

He called Mr. Kingsford, who said there was more than a half year`s rent due on the 3^rd of November last.

By Mr. Minter: He refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The demand for rent produced was in the handwriting of his clerk or son.

By Mr. Claris: Did not instruct his clerk to send in any demand.

By His Honour: The demand was sent in after the judgement of the court was given.

Mr. Fowle was then called. He said that he was a clerk to Messrs. Brockman and Harrison; was experienced in valuing. He knew the Raglan Tavern. To the best of his judgement it was not worth £50 a year.

By Mr. Minter: Did not know how many rooms it contained; had never been in the house.

Mr. Minter said he should contain his observations to the point before them. He did not know whether His Honour had the power to make the order because there may be a half year`s rent in arrears. On no other ground can the plaintiff succeed in his right to re-enter, as the condition mentioned must continue in force at the time, but Mr. Kingsford can`t prove that there was a half year`s rent in arrears, but only one quarter. His Honour made an order for the rent and possession in August. Then a demand for rent was made, which made it a fresh tenancy. He contended that there is a half year`s rent due; the defendant contends there is only a quarter. The demand was a waiver of the right to re-enter. His Honour has already given judgement in this case, and if the plaintiff does not choose to enforce that judgement, he has no right to come here and ask His Honour to pronounce another judgement on the same case. The first action was for the possession of the premises, and now the action is for the same object. Unless there is some fresh reason or new set of circumstances to recover, they could not come there and try to get His Honour to deliver another similar judgement. So far as this is concerned, the argument is null and void, and now a new tenancy has commenced, and the landlord can`t take any course. There is nothing at the present moment to prevent him going to the registrar`s office and executing His Honour`s judgement in this case, only he may fear the consequences.

Mr. Claris was almost ready to accept the proposition that there was a fresh agreement.

His Honour thought it would be the best way for the plaintiff, to act on Mr. Minter`s suggestion. He must non-suit the plaintiff. Defendant`s costs allowed.

Kingsford v Margaret Court: This was proceedings taken under the Court Garnishee.

In August last the plaintiff recovered an action for £17 15s. 6d. with Mr. Lepper, which had not been paid, and Mrs. Court was indebted to Mr. Lepper under an indenture of apprenticeship to the amount of £10, which was half the amount of premium to be paid.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the court ought not to have known of the existence of these indentures. Mr. Claris was Mr. Lepper`s solicitor, and he has betrayed confidence by producing them.

Mr. Claris denied that he had been Mr. Lepper`s solicitor.

Mr. Minter: The indenture of apprenticeship produced was one by which the defendant`s son was to learn the business of a carpenter and builder, and Mr. Lepper was bound by that indenture to pay the apprentice certain sums of money. He is still an apprentice, and has half his time to serve. Mr. Lepper has had to sue Mr. Kingsford for £30 or £40 by action in a superior court.

Mr. Claris replied.

His Honour said he would give judgement in favour of the defendant on the first point, as the money was given for the apprentice to learn his trade. If it had been a clear debt he would have given in favour of the plaintiff.

Kentish Gazette 22-12-1868

Folkestone County Court: Kingsford, brewer of Dover, v. G. Lepper, publican, of Folkestone. 

The plaintiff brought the action to recover possession of a public house called the Earl Radnor (sic),

Dover Street, Folkestone, of which he was the proprietor. The defendant was represented by Mr.

Minter, solicitor. Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff.

He said the circumstances were rather peculiar. In August last an action was brought in this case,

and his Honour gave a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, who had bought the house when Mr.

Lepper was a bankrupt, and had relet it to him. He also bought the fixtures at the same time, and 

let the plaintiff have the use of them at an annual rent. This was rather an unusual thing for a 

land­lord to do, but he was compelled almost to do so, and now the defendant wished to extort a 

sum of money from the plaintiff for those very fixtures, and because his client would not submit to 

this demand he would not give up possession. He then produced the agreement and called Mr. 

Kingsford, who said there was more than half a year’s rent due on the 3^rd of Novem­ber.

By Mr. Minter: He had refused to supply the de­fendant with more beer; the letter produced was in 

the handwriting of his son or clerk.

By His Honour: The letter was sent after the judgment of the Court in August, without his 

authority. It was a demand for rent, but was a mistake altogether.

Mr. Minter said he would just ob­serve that the fixtures were bought for £30 when they were worth 

£130; and the money to purchase them was lent to Mr. Lepper at £5 per cent interest, and if he 

should sell them when he left the house for more than the pur­chase money, he should have the 

difference. There was some doubt if his Honour would have power to make the order if a half-year’s 

rent was due. If that was so, the case could not succeed, as, for the plaintiff to have the right to 

re-enter the condition must remain in force. Mr. Kingsford could not, however, prove that a half-

year’s rent was due; there was only one quarter in arrears. His Honour made an order for rent and 

possession in August; and since then a fresh tenancy had commenced by a fresh demand for rent 

being made. Already a judgment had been pronounced, and if the plaintiff did not choose to 

enforce 

that judgment because of the consequences, he had no right to come to the court and ask for a 

judgment to be pronounced again on the same matter, or unless there was some new state of 

circumstances.

Mr. Claris said he was almost ready to accept the proposition that there was a fresh agreement.

His Honour thought the best thing they could do would be to act on Mr. Minter's suggestion and 

enforce the last judgment. An application was made for defendant’s costs, which were granted

Folkestone Express 30-1-1869

County Court

Monday, January 25^th: Before W.G.S. Harrison Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Thomas Newman: The order was made in November, 1867. Defendant had paid 17s., and there was 9s. 2d. due. His Honour committed him for 14 days; order suspended for 14 days.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-2-1869

Wednesday, February 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

License of the following house was transferred at a special sessions:- The Raglan Tavern –

Mr. Percy Claris, of Dover, appeared for Mr. Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover, the landlord of this house, and applied for permission to sell excisable liquors to be granted to James Morford. A license for the house was granted to Godfrey Lepper, who had left the house and refused to transfer the license. Under these circumstances the magistrates had power, if they pleased, to grant temporary permission to sell. He put in the agreement under which Lepper held the house, and said they had spent £60 on him, and as Lepper had no money to pay it was no use to waste any more.

He called James Morford, who stated he was now tenant of the house. He took possession on the 25^th of January, before which the house was empty. He applied to Lepper to transfer the license, but was told Mr. Minter was keeping it as security for his costs.

Godfrey Lepper attended to oppose the application. A suit had been pending since August last, and was now removed to a superior court. Mr. Claris came into the house last month with five men, and ejected him with his goods, throwing them into the street. Mr. Minter could not attend that morning.

Mr. Claris said the case was not in a superior court. An action was brought in August for ejectment, and judgement given for plaintiff, possession being ordered in ten days. Notice of appeal was given, and they could not proceed till the next court in October, and by some mistake a claim for rent was made, not under the agreement. A fresh action was brought in November, but the former judgement being still in force, plaintiff was directed to act on it. The time for taking out execution was just expired, and as it was no use wasting more money on him, Lepper was forcibly ejected from the house as an intruder, leaving him, if he pleased, to take action for it.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Claris said Lepper was not ejected under the order of the court.

Permission granted.

Folkestone Observer 27-2-1869

Tuesday, February 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Mr. Claris, solicitor, Dover, applied on behalf of Mr. James Morford for permission to sell excisable liquors at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street. A license had been granted to Mr. Lepper, but as he had been ejected for non-payment of rent, he had refused to transfer his license, contrary to his agreement with Mr. Kingsford. They had offered to pay for the unexpired term of the license, but Mr. Lepper would not accept it, his object being to keep the house shut up, that he might extort money from Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Claris then called James Morford, who said he was the tenant of the Raglan Tavern, and took possession on the 20^th January. The house had been shut up previously. On asking Mr. Lepper to transfer the license and sign the necessary papers, he said he could not do it.

Mr. Lepper opposed the application, stating that this case had been going on since August last, and had been carried into a superior court. Mr. Minter would have been there that morning, only that he was engaged. Mr. Kingsford had broken the agreement by refusing to supply him (Mr. Lepper) with beer; and as to the tenancy, Mr. Kingsford had acknowledged him as such by sending in a demand for money.

Mr. Claris said an action was brought to eject Mr. Lepper from the premises, and a verdict was given for ejectment in 10 days, and Mr. Minter gave notice of appeal, but at the October court he stated that he should not go on with the case. It appeared that during that time a clerk of Mr. Kingsford`s had, in mistake, sent in a demand to Mr. Lepper for rent, thereby, Mr. Lepper said, renewing the tenancy, but at a subsequent court it was ruled that the mistake was not sufficient to make a new tenancy, and the verdict of the former court should remain in force. There was money due to Mr. Kingsford from Mr. Lepper for rent, beer, &c., to the amount of £60 18s. 6d.

Mr. Lepper said the fittings did not belong to Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Bradley asked if he was ejected under the orders of the court.

Mr. Claris said he was an intruder, and was therefore put out.

The Bench granted the application.

Folkestone Express 27-2-1869

Wednesday, February 24^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License

The Raglan Tavern – James Morford applied for a transfer, and the application was supported by Mr. Claris.

Mr. Claris, in making the application, said the license was in Mr. Lepper`s name, and he refused to transfer it. His object in doing so was to extort money from Mr. Kingsford, the brewer, to whom the house belonged. He hoped the Bench would exercise the power they had, and grant the application of his client notwithstanding this.

Mr. James Morford, sworn, said: I am the present occupier of the Raglan Tavern. I know Mr. Lepper, and I took possession after he left. That was on the 20^th of January. The house was shut up. I have asked Mr. Lepper to transfer the license, but he said he could not let me have it, as Mr. Minter held it. I have also asked him to transfer; he said he could not do so.

Mr. G. Lepper said this case has been pending since August last. Mr. Minter could not attend as he is engaged in very important business. Five men came to the house and turned him, Mr. Lepper, out, and at present a case concerning that was in a superior Court. The landlord broke his agreement with me by not supplying me with any beer.

Mr. Claris: So the real facts of the case are these: that the August County Court gave Mr. Kingford power to eject Mr. Lepper in ten days; then Mr. Minter gave notice of appealing to a superior Court, consequently nothing could be done till October, when Mr. Minter said he could not appeal as Mr. Kingsford had admitted Mr. Lepper as tenant. At the next Court the time had expired for the appeal to be made, and consequently he, the speaker, sent some men there to turn out Mr. Lepper, leaving him to take such steps as he thought proper. Mr. Kingsford has not received one farthing of rent during the time Mr. Lepper has been his tenant, and he has been put to expenses amounting to £60 18s. 6d., besides the cost of an ex parte injunction, and it will be impossible to get any of this back.

Mr. Lepper: There is £30 2s. 8d. due to me for work done in the house.

Mr. Claris: We were compelled to carry out these extraordinary measures, and although Mr. Lepper was not ejected under the process of the Court, there is no doubt he was simply an intruder. We had a judgement from the County Court, but the time had just expired. His conduct during the time he had been connected with Mr. Kingsford would not bear investigation.

Mr. Lepper said Mr. Kingsford acknowledged him as his tenant. He was sorry his solicitor was not there.

The Bench could see nothing to deter them from granting the license.

Southeastern Gazette 1-3-1869

Transfer of Licence.— James Morford, of the Raglan Tavern, applied for a transfer of license from Lepper, the late occupier. Mr. Lepper opposed the transfer. Mr. Claris supported the application on behalf of Mr. Kingsford, brewer, of Dover, proprietor of the house. He addressed the Bench, and entered into the details of the transactions that had taken place between Mr. Lepper and his client, who was put to a great deal of trouble and expense to obtain possession, having to resort to forcible measures to eject the tenant, and now he did all he could to thwart the present tenant in obtaining the license. Mr. Lepper alleged that he was the injured party, but the bench did not entertain his statement, and granted the license.

Kentish Gazette 2-3-1869 

The following license was applied for on Wednesday and granted: James Morford, of the Raglan 

Tavern, applied for a trans­fer of license from G. Lepper the late occupier. Mr. Lep­per opposed the 

transfer. Mr. Claris supported the appli­cation on behalf of Mr. Kingsford, brewer, of Dover, pro­prietor 

of the house. He addressed the Bench, and entered into the details of the transactions that had 

taken place be­tween Mr. Lepper and his client, who was put to a great deal of trouble and expense 

to obtain possession, having to resort to forcible measures to eject the tenant, and now he did all 

he could to thwart the present tenant in obtaining the license. Mr. Lepper alleged that he was the 

injured party; but the bench did not entertain his statement, and granted the license.