Richmond Tavern after closure September, 2015
Richmond Tavern, 1978
Richmond Tavern, 1978
Richmond Tavern, 1981. Credit Bert Storey |
Richmond Tavern, May 2012 |
Licensees
George Burgess 1866 1884 To
Rendezvous
Cornelius Burgess 1884 1887
George Burgess 1887 1889
Also Rendezvous 1884-88. Later Folkestone Cutter
Frederick Burgess 1889 1889
Albert Parr 1889 1890 From
Cinque Port Arms
John Major 1890 1892
Henry Arthur Farr 1892 1892
Henry Arthur Farr 1892 1892
George Sandilands 1892 1896
Harriet Hogben 1896 1898
Charles Richards 1898 1898
Charles Ovenden 1898 1912
To Foresters Arms
Edmund Finn 1912 1920
Alice Finn 1920 1921
Adam Ingleton 1921 1931
Ted Jordan 1931 1934
Thomas Goldsmith 1934 1948
Amy Goldsmith 1948 1949
Edward Saunders 1949 1955
Frederick Summers 1955 1964
Peter Oulds 1964 1969
Ronald Nixon 1969 1973
John Palmer 1973 1977
Malcolm Rowling 1977 1981
Later Raglan
Derek Martin 1981 2001
David Matthews and Jan
Pedersen 2001 2001 David Matthews Also Earl Grey
Jan Pedersen and Yvonne
Salsbury 2002 2004
Patrick Clarke and Alison
Kirby 2004 2004 +
Folkestone Observer 24-8-1867
Wednesday,
August 21st: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt
Esq.
Licensing Day
This being
the day for granting certificates of publicans for renewal of licenses, or for
new licenses, there was a large attendance of the “victualling” craft.
Mr. Minter
supported an application for a license to Mr. Burgess, for the Richmond Tavern,
Prospect Place, the ground for which had been purchased last year by Mr. Cobb,
and the house had been built purposely for a public house.
The Bench
consulted together, and then the Mayor announced that the application was
adjourned for a fuller Bench of magistrates to deal with.
Mr. Minter
enquired if they were to go into fresh evidence at the next hearing. The
evidence had been heard on both sides by the present Bench. A hint had been
dropped about a fuller Bench of magistrates. He apprehended that other
magistrates would not have heard the evidence.
The Mayor
said the question was whether they should have free trade in licenses or not.
The Court was
then cleared, and the magistrates deliberated in private. When the public were again
admitted, the Mayor announced that the license was refused, so that gentlemen
would understand that it was not exactly free trade.
Folkestone Observer 29-8-1868
Wednesday,
August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman
Tolputt.
This was a
special session for granting alehouse licenses, and the various licensed
victuallers attended for the renewal of their licenses, the whole of which were
granted, with one exception which was suspended for a fortnight, until the
adjourned licensing day.
George
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern public house appeared for a license, and Mr.
Minter supported the application, and put in a memorial signed by a number of
the inhabitants of the neighbourhood.
After hearing
the evidence for and against the application the court was cleared, and on the
re-admission of the public the Mayor said the Magistrates were unanimous in
refusing the the application, inasmuch as there was no necessity for it. They
did not wish to make free trade of this matter, and he thought the Bench would
carry out this course in future, and not grant any licenses unless the houses
were actually required.
Folkestone Express 29-8-1868
Wednesday,
August 26th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, and Alderman
Tolputt.
The licensing
day was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.
Fresh
Application:
George
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, Harvey Square, applied for a license. Mr.
Minter, who supported the application, said that a number of new houses had
been built in this neighbourhood, and, the house being of a very respectable
character, he did not see what interest they could have in objecting to grant
one. Houses are more likely to keep respectable when they have a license, which
places them under the surveillance of the police.
Mr. Minter
called the attention of the Bench to the fact that at Liverpool the magistrates
granted licenses to every respectable applicant, and the houses there were of a
good class and character. He did not think this ought to be a question of
necessity, but one of respectability.
After a short
consultation, the Mayor stated that the magistrates were unanimous in refusing
the application. They did not see any necessity in the application, and they
wished it to be understood that they will not grant licenses without the
necessity is shown.
Southeastern Gazette 31-8-1868
Local News
The annual licensing day was held on Wednesday. There
were two new applications for licenses, George Burgess, Richmond Tavern, Harvey
Square, and R. P. Smith, Marquis of Granby, High Street, but they were refused.
Kentish Gazette 8-9-1868
The annual licensing day has been held here. There were two new applications for licenses, George Burgess, Richmond Tavern, Harvey Square, and R. P. Smith, Marquis of Granby, High Street, but they were refused.
Folkestone Express 28-8-1869
Wednesday,
August 25th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt,
A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.
Spirit
License (Fresh Application)
George
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, applied. Mr. Minter supported the application,
and put in a memorial.
The Court was
then cleared. When re-opened the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to
the unanimous decision that no more licenses should be granted, but in
exceptional cases, as they were of opinion that too many licensed houses
already exist. The application would be refused.
Southeastern Gazette 30-8-1869
Local News
Annual Licensing Day.—A full bench of magistrates attended on Wednesday to
grant renewals and hear fresh applications.
Mr. Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Hotel; Mr.
Burgess, Richmond Tavern ; Mr.Thomas Wilson, of the Prince of Wales; and Mr.
Chittenden, of the Star and Garter, made fresh applications but were refused;
the magistrates stating that no more licenses would be granted except under
exceptional circumstances.
Folkestone Chronicle 20-11-1869
The
Bankruptcy Act, 1861
George
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, Harvey Square, Folkestone, in the County of
Kent, beer retailer, having been adjudged bankrupt on the 16th day
of November, 1869, is hereby required to surrender himself to Ralph Thomas
Brockman, the Registrar of the County Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, at
the first meeting of creditors, to be held on the sixth day of December, 1869,
at three o`clock in the afternoon precisely, at the County Court Office,
Folkestone.
John Minter,
of Folkestone, is the Solicitor acting in the Bankruptcy.
At the
meeting the Registrar will receive the proofs of the debts of the creditors,
and the creditors may choose an assignee or assignees of the bankrupt`s estate
and effects.
All persons
having in their possession any of the effects of the said bankrupt must deliver
them to the Registrar, and all debts due to the bankrupt must be paid to the
Registrar.
Ralph Thomas
Brockman
Registrar and
High Bailiff
Folkestone Chronicle 27-11-1869
The
Bankruptcy Act, 1861
In the County
Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern,
Harvey Square, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, beer retailer, having been
adjudged Bankrupt on the sixteenth day of November, 1869, a public sitting for
the said bankrupt to pass his last examination, and make an application for his
discharge, will be held at the said Court, at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on the
sixteenth day of January, 1870, at ten o`clock in the forenoon precisely, the
day last aforesaid being the day limited for the said bankrupt to surrender.
The Registrar
of the Court is the Official Assignee, and John Minter, of Folkestone, is the
solicitor acting in the bankruptcy.
Ralph Thomas
Brockman
Registrar and
High Bailiff
Folkestone Chronicle 22-1-1870
The
Bankruptcy Act, 1861
In the County
Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone. In the matter of George Burgess, of the Richmond
Tavern, Harvey Square, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, beer retailer,
adjudged bankrupt on the sixteenth day of November, 1869.
An order of
discharge will be delivered to the bankrupt after the expiration of thirty days
from this date, unless an appeal be duly entered against the Judgement of this
Court, and notice thereof be given to the Court.
Ralph Thomas
Brockman
Registrar and
High Bailiff
County Court
Monday,
January 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.
Bankrupts
George
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, passed his last examination, without
opposition.
Folkestone Express 22-1-1870
County Court
Monday,
January 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.
George
Burgess came up for his last examination. Mr. Minter supported the application
for discharge. As there was no opposition, the application was granted.
Folkestone Observer 25-8-1870
Annual
Licensing Meeting
Wednesday,
August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott R.N., R. Boarer, J.
Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.
Spirit
License
George
Burgess applied for a spirit license for his house in Harvey Square. Mr. Minter
supported, producing a memorial from several householders near that it would be
an accommodation. There was no opposition, but a license was refused.
Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1870
Wednesday
August 24th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt,
A.M. Leith and C.E. Dashwood Esqs.
This was the
annual licensing day.
Application
for spirit license:
Mr. George
Burgess, of the Richmond Inn, applied for a license to sell spirits. Mr.
Minter, in supporting the application, said the house had been conducted in a
most respectable manner, there was no licensed house near, and a memorial
signed by nearly all the inhabitants, had been drawn up. He could not say that there
were many “mansions” in the neighbourhood, but a license would be looked upon
by the neighbours as a convenience.
This
application was refused.
Folkestone Express 27-8-1870
Wednesday,
August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M.
Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.
Annual
Licensing Meeting
The Richmond
Tavern: Mr. George Burgess applied for a spirit license. Mr. Munter appeared on
behalf of the applicant, who, he said, had conducted this house as a beerhouse
for the last four years without any complaint. He had a memorial signed by
nearly all the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, which was a largely increasing
one, and Mr. Minter hoped they would accede to his request, the number of
houses that had been erected there rendering some accommodation really
necessary, as it would be very convenient to the inhabitants.
The Bench
decided on not granting the above application.
Folkestone Chronicle 31-8-1872
Annual
Licensing Day
The Annual
Brewster Licensing Day was held on Wednesday last at the Town Hall. The
magistrates present were The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esqs.
The
magistrates held a conference before the court was opened, when the new
Licensing Bill was discussed. It was decided that the Act should be enforced, and
each publican was informed by Superintendent Martin when he came up for his
license, that henceforth he would be expected to close at 11 o`clock on
weekdays, and 10 o`clock on Sundays.
Mr. Minter
applied on behalf of Mr. Burgess, landlord of the Richmond Inn, for a license
for that house, and produced a memorial asking for the license, signed by most
of the respectable inhabitants in the neighbourhood of this house. He said that
Mr. Burgess had now made the sixth application, he was personally known as a
most respectable man, he had lived in the town for many years, and during that
time had kept the house in a most orderly and proper manner. In that
neighbourhood there was no house nearer than the North Foreland, and the
inhabitants required accommodation. No complaint had ever been made against
this house, and he hoped on this occasion patience would be rewarded, and the
Bench would grant the application.
Mr. Burgess
wished the Superintendent of Police called to speak to the character of the
house.
The Mayor
said it was because the magistrates thought that another house was not required
in that neighbourhood that the license had hitherto not been granted.
Mr. Clarke
said that there was the Harvey Inn not far from it.
Superintendent
Martin, being sworn, said the house, as far as he knew, had always been
conducted in a most respectable manner. No complaint had been made against it
by the police.
The
Magistrates` Clerk said that according to the Act the rental of the house must
be £30 a year, and two rooms set aside for the public use before the license
could be granted. It would be necessary to swear the applicant to ascertain
these facts.
Mr. Burgess,
having been sworn, said that his brother was landlord of the house, for which
he (witness) paid £35 a year rent. It contained 8 rooms. There were two public
rooms, besides the bar, which were used by his family during the day time. They
were always, however, open to the public, and anyone could enter them, and find
accommodation there, when the house was open.
The Court
having been cleared, at the expiration of a quarter of an hour, the Bench gave
their decision, refusing to grant the license on the ground that the
accommodation in the house for the public was not sufficient, and that the
license was not required in that neighbourhood.
Folkestone Express 31-8-1872
Wednesday,
August 28th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke
Esqs.
Brewster
Sessions
The
proceedings were of a routine nature and, contrary to expectations, no allusion
was made by the Bench to the new Licensing Act.
There was not a single complaint against any licensed victualler or
beerhouse keeper. The applicants had merely to pay their eight-and-sixpence
each and, under the provisions of the new Act, give the names and owners of
their respective houses, and receive their licenses. Each holder of a license
was informed by Mr. Martin, Superintendent of Police, that he must close his
house at eleven o`clock on working days and ten o`clock on Sunday nights, an
announcement which did not cause any manifestation of feeling on the part of
those whom it concerned.
It was
incidentally stated that the North Foreland public house had been bought by Mr.
Hodge for the purpose of preventing it being used as a public house.
The only application
for a new wine and spirit license was made by Mr. George Burgess, of the Richmond
Tavern, Harvey Road.
Mr. Minter,
in supporting the application presented a numerously signed memorial from
inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and stated that the tavern had been in the
occupation of applicant several years and no complaint had been made against
the house. There was a large and increasing neighbourhood, and the house stood
at a corner, surrounded by other houses. There was a necessity for a spirit license,
which the memorialists strongly recommended the Bench to grant, and all the
signatures were genuine, and were those of persons living in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Minter called the attention to the fact that the license of the North
Foreland would be stopped, so that if the granted the new application, which
was the only one made, there would be the same number of public houses in
Folkestone as at present. The granting of the licnse would be a great
convenience to the neighbourhood.
Mr. Martin,
at the request of the applicant, was asked as to the conduct of the house, when
he gave the negative testimony that he had had no complaints from the police.
He had known the house several years.
Applicant was
sworn and stated that the rent of the house was £35. There were eight rooms in
it, two of which besides the bar would be for the use of the public. The house
belonged to his brother.
The Court was
cleared for a short time and on the re-admission of the public the Mayor said
the Bench were of opinion that applicant had not made out his case, and that
they did not intend to grant any more licenses for that neighbourhood at
present. The application was therefore refused.
This was Mr.
Burgess`s sixth application for the spirit license, and on this occasion there
was no opposition.
Folkestone Express 30-8-1873
Wednesday,
August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J.
Clarke Esq.
Annual
Licensing Meeting
The licensing
committee met at ten o`clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the
question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public
houses. Shortly after eleven o`clock the licensed victuallers present were
called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with
reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.
Mr. Till
appeared in support of an application by Mr. George Burgess for a spirit
license to the Richmond Arms (sic) beerhouse, Harvey Street, and said that Mr.
Burgess had occupied the house thirteen years, and the present was the sixth
application he had made for a spirit license, and on no occasion had there been
any opposition to his applications, and he had never had the slightest
complaint against his house. The neighbourhood was increasing in population and
there was no house with a spirit license very near. Applicant had spent a
considerable amount of money in improving his premises. Mr. Till having
presented a memorial from inhabitants of the neighbourhood said he must leave
the matter in the hands of their Worships as he had an engagement which
necessitated his going away at twelve o`clock.
The Bench
took time to consider the application, and at a later hour informed Mr. Burgess
that they saw no reason to alter the decision they arrived at on former occasions
and refused to grant the license.
Note:
This was the SEVENTH application.
Southeastern
Gazette 3-9-1872
Annual Brewster Sessions
These sessions
were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last. The magistrates present were the
Mayor, Alderman Tolputt, J. Clarke, Esq., and Alderman Caister.
The Bench
intimated to the publicans that in future they would have to close at eleven
o’clock on week days and on Sundays at ten o’clock.
Mr.
Burgess, landlord of the Richmond Inn made the seventh application for a spirit
license, but the Bench decided not to grant the license on account of the house
not being large enough, and there being accommodation in the neighbourhood.
Southeastern
Gazette 2-9-1873
Local News
The
annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday, when the magistrates present
were J. Hoad, Esq. (Mayor), J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark, Esqrs.
Mr. Till made
an application on behalf of Mr. George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, for a
spirit license. He said there was no house in the neighbourhood, which was an
increasing one, for the sale of spirits, and the applicant bore a good
character. The magistrates ultimately decided not to grant the application.
Folkestone Chronicle 29-8-1874
Licensing Day
The annual
brewsters` licensing day was held on Wednesday last. The magistrates on the
Bench were The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and W. Bateman Esqs. A license was granted to
the Richmond Tavern.
Folkestone Express 29-8-1874
Wednesday,
August 26th: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Annual
Licensing Sessions
The seventy
four licensed victuallers, twelve beershop keepers and twenty three grocers and
wine merchants had their licenses renewed, with the exception of those named.
New Licenses
Richmond
Tavern: Mr. George Burgess applied for the eighth time for a spirit license for
the Richmond Tavern.
Mr. Minter
appeared in support of the application, and having shown that the house was
well conducted as a beershop, and that it was a suitable place for a license,
the application was granted.
Southeastern
Gazette 29-8-1874
Annual Licensing Day
At the
annual licensing, on Wednesday, most of the licences were renewed.
Mr. G.
Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern beerhouse, applied for the eighth time for a
spirit licence, which was granted.
Kentish Gazette 1-9-1874
At the annual licensing, on Wednesday, most of the licences were renewed. Mr. G. Burgess of the Richmond Tavern beerhouse, applied for the eight time for a spirit licence, which was granted
Southeastern
Gazette 6-9-1875
Local News
At the Police Court, on Wednesday, before W. Bateman, J. Tolputt, and T.
Caister, Esqs., George Burgess, landlord of the Richmond Tavern, Harvey Street,
was charged with trespassing in search of conies on land in the Warren, in the
possession of Lord Elibank and other gentlemen, on the 24th ult. Mr. Till
appeared for the prosecutors; Mr. W. R. Mowll, of Dover, for the defence.
Mr. Till opened the case, saying that the shooting in the Warren was
hired by Lord Elibank, Colonel Lenon, and one or two other gentlemen. They had
been much annoyed by the depredations of trespassers, and had indeed been
obliged to keep a looker” for the
express purpose of watching the estate. It would, he thought, be clearly
proved in evidence that the defendant was found trespassing in search of
rabbits with a gun on land in the Warren rented by Lord Elibank, and the other
gentlemen who owned the right of shooting.
For the defence it was shown that Burgess had a perfect right to be
where he was found, and the case was dismissed
Folkestone Express 16-6-1877
Tuesday, June
12th: Before W.J. Jeffreason and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Alderman
Caister.
Catherine
Harrington once more made her appearance in the dock, charged as of yore with
being drunk and disorderly.
The scene of
her exploit on this occasion was the Richmond Tavern, from whence P.C. Sharpe
was called about ten o`clock on the previous evening to remove her owing to her
violent conduct and abusive language. He used all his persuasive powers to make
her go away, but she resisted his kindly endeavours and deposited her gentle
frame in the muddy road and blasphemed to her heart`s content. So contrary was
the fair and gentle creature that P.C. Sharpe was reluctantly obliged to convey
her to the place where she had often been before, viz., the police station.
Prisoner in
accordance with her usual custom promised the Magistrates to repent and reform
from her evil ways, and to leave the town directly she quitted their august
presence. She pathetically informed the Justices that she only came out of the
Union on Monday morning, and not a mouthful of victuals passed her lips from
half past six o`clock, when she left that noble institution, till she arrived
in Folkestone in the afternoon, when she met a female who treated her to a
single glass of beer, which took seven hours to drink, and at the expiration of
that time “got into her head”, owing to her not having anything to eat “the
whole day long”.
The Bench
disbelieved her promises of amendment, and being afraid that she would not
leave the town if they let her go, sent her over to Dover gaol for three weeks,
and ordered her to be set to hard labour during that period.
Folkestone Express 16-8-1884
Saturday,
August 9th: Before General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Aldermen Hoad
and Banks, and F. Boykett Esq.
Robert
Hawkins pleaded Guilty to refusing to quit the Richmond Tavern. Mr. Minter
appeared for the prosecutor, and stated that the defendant had promised not to
go into the house again. Therefore he would be satisfied with a nominal fine.
The Bench
inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. and 8s. costs.
Folkestone News 16-8-1884
Saturday, August 9th:
Before General Armstrong C.B., Aldermen Hoad and Banks, and F. Boykett Esq.
Robert Hawkins was charged
with being drunk on licensed premises at the Richmond Tavern.
Mr. Minter, on behalf of
the prosecution, said that the landlord had no wish to press the charge against
the defendant, but he wished to prevent any complaint being made as to his
management of the house.
Fined 2s. 6d. and 8s.
costs.
Folkestone Express 25-10-1884
Saturday,
October 18th: Before Captain Carter, Colonel De Crespigny, J.
Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.
Temporary
authority was granted to George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, to carry on
business at the Rendezvous.
Folkestone Express 1-11-1884
Wednesday,
October 29th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett and A.M. Watkin Esqs.
Transfer Of
Licence
The licence of the Richmond
Tavern was transferred to Cornelius John Burgess
Folkestone Express 21-3-1885
Wednesday, March 18th:
Before The Mayor, Captain Fletcher, Captain Crowe, and Alderman Hoad.
John Lewis was charged with
being disorderly and refusing to quit the Richmond Tavern.
Mr. Burgess, the landlord,
said the defendant went to his house about four o`clock on Saturday afternoon.
He was “as near sober as possible”, and he let him have two half pints of beer.
He then became excited, and remained nearly two hours. His wife was there, and
they began quarrelling. Witness ordered defendant to leave the premises, and he
refused. Witness then sent for the police, who removed him. About half an hour
after the defendant returned, and demanded some more beer, and again refused to
leave the house, saying he would lay wait for witness, and in five or six days
he would “pay him for it”.
P.C. Lilley said he was
called to the Richmond Tavern about eight o`clock to put the defendant out.
Defendant was fined 10s.
and 10s. costs, or 14 days` imprisonment.
Folkestone Chronicle 18-6-1887
Wednesday,
June 15th: Before Capt. Crowe, W. Wightwick, J. Brooke and H.W.
Poole Esqs.
Mr. Minter applied
on behalf of Mr. G. Burgess for the transfer of the licence of the Richmond
Tavern. He said that Mr. Burgess was joint owner with his brother of the
furniture, fixtures, &c., and that his deceased brother, the late landlord,
had died intestate, leaving no property, and that the furniture &c. had
been lent to him. The application was made with the concurrence of his brother,
who was living at Weston-Super-Mare. Mr. Burgess was sworn and detailed the
circumstances as stated by Mr. Minter and the application was granted.
Folkestone Express 18-6-1887
Wednesday,
June 15th: Before Capt. Crowe, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and J.H.
Brooke Esqs.
There were
several applications for transfer of licenses. Mr. Burgess, of the Rendezvous
Tavern, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern, which
was held by his late brother, who died leaving no estate for which letters of
administration could be taken out. The Magistrates granted the application.
Folkestone Chronicle 26-1-1889
Bankruptcy
A sitting of
the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court was held at the Guildhall on Friday, before the
Refistrar (Mr. Walter Furley). The Official Receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll) was
in attendance.
Re. George
Burgess, former license victualler, Folkestone: Mr. Lewis (Dover) appeared for
Messrs. Binfield, wine and spirit merchants, Dover; and Mr. Ward (Folkestone)
for the debtor.
The Official
Receiver said there was a deficiency of £707 11s. 2d. Debtor was a guarantor to
the Folkestone Exhibition for £100. He had been bankrupt on a previous
occasion.
Under
examination, the bankrupt stated that in 1867 he took the Richmond Tavern,
which he had carried on ever since. In 1881 he took a market garden and laid
out a large amount on the construction of forcing pits, greenhouses, piggeries,
stables, a well, &c. He subsequently bought the Dover Castle coffee house;
in 1884 he took the Rendezvous Hotel; and he also purchased a house in Richmond
Street and a cottage at Capel. Messrs. Flint and Sons, brewers, in July, 1888,
proceeded against him for £900 which he owed them, and he had to leave the
Rendezvous Hotel. He was next compelled to pay off a load he had obtained from
the National Provincial Bank. His market crops had failed; he found in July
that his potato crop was a total failure. In November or the beginning of
December he made over his possessions to Messrs. Flint, in satisfaction of
their Rendezvous Hotel account. Mr. Flint knew that he owed other people money
at the time. He was left with £200, out of which he subsequently paid £167 more
to Messrs. Flint. When he signed the deed making over the property to Mr. Flint
he received £70 odd. Subsequently he went to the White Hart with Mr. Flint.
They stayed about an hour, and witness got intoxicated. He then gave Mr. Flint
the £70, as he was not in a condition to take care of it, and told him he might
deduct £50 owing on the Richmond Tavern account. £15 of the remaining money was
paid to Mr. Ward (solicitor, Folkestone) for the filing of witness`s petition.
The money was forwarded by cheque, on witness`s order, by Messrs. Flint. Lord
Radnor was the owner of witness`s garden. He owed His lordship £182 rental. He
received nothing on account of the money he had laid out on the property.
The Official
Receiver said the sum of £117 appeared to have been allowed for the
improvements he had made.
The debtor
said he considered that about £450 short. Mr. Banks (Lord Radnor`s agent)
called in Mr. Pilcher, sen., to value the work done in the garden. Mr.
Pilcher`s son had since taken possession of the garden on the payment of the
valuation.
Witness only
kept books in reference to the market garden business.
The
examination was adjourned until the 8th February.
Folkestone Express 26-1-1889
Re Burgess
Bankruptcy:
The report is
identical and verbatim as was in the Folkestone Chronicle of this date, but
with the following footnote:
Mr. James
Flint states that the evidence given by the debtor with reference to his having
been with him at the White Hart for an hour is entirely incorrect. They were
not in the house for more than five minutes, and subsequently took the bus from
Hythe to Folkestone, where the bankrupt cashed his cheque, and certainly was
not intoxicated when Mr. Flint left him.
Folkestone Express 2-2-1889
Wednesday,
January 30th: Before F. Boykett Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and
J. Brooke Esq.
The licence
of the Richmond Tavern was transferred to Mr. Burgess, brother of the late
landlord, and owner of the premises.
Folkestone Chronicle 16-2-1889
Canterbury
Bankruptcy Court
A sitting of
this Court was held at the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Friday, before Mr.
Registrar Furley.
Re. George
William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the
examination was adjourned for a week as a private examination was going to be
held.
Folkestone Express 16-2-1889
Canterbury
Bankruptcy Court
Before the
Registrar (Mr. W. Furley), on Friday, at the Guildhall.
Re. George
William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the
examination was adjourned for a week.
Folkestone Express 23-2-1889
Local News
Re. George
Burgess. At the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court on Friday, the Official receiver
(Mr. Worsfold Mowll), said the case was adjourned to enable certain parties to
be examined privately. That had been done, and as a result of that private
examination there would no doubt have to be motions before the court. As far as
the bankrupt was concerned he had no further questions to ask him. The bankrupt
was then allowed to pass the public examination.
Folkestone Express 9-3-1889
Wednesday,
March 6th: Before F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.
The licence
of the Richmond Tavern was transferred to Frederick Burgess
Folkestone Express 17-8-1889
Canterbury
Bankruptcy Court
His Honour
Judge Selfe held a sitting of this Court on Monday at the Guildhall.
Re. George
Burgess
The petition
was filed in December, 1888. This was an application for discharge. The total
debts amounted to £650 14s. 1d., and the assets realised £142 8s. 5d. A
dividend of 3s. 3d. had been paid.
The Official
Receiver (Mr. Mowll) alleged that the debtor had not kept proper books of
account, and that he had traded after knowledge of insolvency. The debtor had
been bankrupt about 24 years previously. He also said that the bankrupt had put
one of his creditors, viz., the Committee of the National Art Treasures
Exhibition, to unnecessary expense by a frivolous defence to an action brought
against him.
Mr. Ward said
the debtor had intended to appeal against the decision given in the case of the
Art Treasures Exhibition, but he had thought better of it. The defence was that
the guarantee was obtained by fraud and that Lord Radnor had promised to
contribute £3,000. The Official receiver drew the attention of the Court to the
transaction with Messrs. Flint. The bankrupt, on the eve of his bankruptcy, and
when he admitted he knew he was insolvent, gave a security to Messrs. Flint.
This security was carefully considered by the Official Receiver and Messrs.
Flint paid £100 to the trustee of the estate and were allowed to prove for
£113, the balance of the account. A sum of £5 was also paid to a man named
Barrow by the bankrupt after he knew he was insolvent.
The Judge:
What are your prospects now?
Debtor:
Haven`t any.
By the
Official Receiver: The distress by Lord Radnor for rent was put in at the end
of December. The valuation of the bankrupt`s garden was completed a day or two
before the distress was put in.
The Official
Receiver said the debtor ought to have filed his petition directly after the
valuation was made.
In reply to
His Honour, Mr. Mowll said that his own personal opinion was that the mere
suspension of the discharge was no punishment at all. What he would ask was
that where a man might be in a position to earn money, and where the
liabilities were not large, that the man should be ordered to pay an increased
dividend. He did not think it would be too hard to make up the dividend to 5s.
in the £.
His Honour
said that the question was what was a practical and proper order to make upon
the facts made known. In one case the Court of Appeal strongly condemned the
clogging of a case with conditions of payment. How could an order be made upon
the debtor? It was useless to make an order when there was no probability of
the money being paid. Under the Act of Parliament the report of the Official
Receiver was made prima facie evidence of the facts of the case. It was for him
to consider how far the charges were sustained. Having entered into the facts
of the case, His Honour said with regard to the allegation of trading with
knowledge of insolvency, there was no doubt that the debtor traded on in the
hope that a good season would, as he said, “bring him back to his bearings”. It
was not a thing which should be dealt with very seriously. Loss had occurred to
the creditors from the debtor not having called independent advice upon his
position. With respect to the Folkestone Art Exhibition, he thought if the
promised guarantee was not obtained by fraud, as asserted in the defence of the
debtor and others, it was at least obtained in such a way as to render the fact
of the debtor`s objection to pay a very light matter indeed. In one case he
knew, a railway guard, earning about two guineas a week, was induced to
guarantee £25 towards the Exhibition upon the representation that he would only
be liable for a small portion. He did not feel disposed to order a larger
dividend to be paid. If no dividend had been paid it would have been a proper
course to make such an order. The discharge would be suspended for 12 months.
Folkestone Express 14-12-1889
Wednesday,
December 11th: Before Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne,
H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Transfer
Mr. Ward
applied for a transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern from George
Burgess to A. Farr and the transfer was granted.
Folkestone Chronicle 21-5-1892
Wednesday,
May 18th: before J. Fitness & E.T. Ward Esqs.
Richard
Major, landlord of the Richmond Tavern, was summoned for having his premises
open during prohibited hours on Sunday week. Mr. Minter defended.
Sergeant
Harman said he went with P.C. Dunster to the Richmond Tavern on Sunday morning,
the 8th inst., at two a.m. They went into the house and found five
men there, and glasses and pots which had contained drink. The defendant said
“They have all engaged beds, Sergeant, so what can I do?” He took their names
and addresses, and at five minutes past two saw a man named Mercer leave with
another man. He found one man in bed. There were only three bedrooms in the house.
Mr. Minter,
for the defence, stated that the landlord of the house was away at Chatham, and
had left a properly qualified manager in charge. A lodger named Aird, who had
lived there for the past three months, gave a supper party, and those men were
his guests.
The Bench
imposed a fine of 50s. and 13s. costs.
Note:
More Bastions lists John Major
Folkestone Express 21-5-1892
Wednesday,
May 18th: Before J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.
Richard
Major, landlord of the Richmond Tavern, was summoned for having his premises
open during prohibited hours on Sunday week.
Mr. Minter,
instructed by the Licensed Victuallers Protection Society, defended.
Sergeant
Harman said he went with P.C. Dunster to the Richmond Tavern on Sunday morning,
the 8th inst., at two a.m. They went into the house and found five
men there, and glasses and pots which had contained drink. The defendant said
“They have all engaged beds, Sergeant, so what can I do?” He took their names
and addresses, and at five minutes past two saw a man named Mercer leave with
another man. He found one man in bed. There were only three bedrooms in the
house.
Mr. Minter,
for the defence, stated that the landlord of the house was away at Chatham, and
had left a properly qualified manager in charge. He did not dispute the facts
as stated, but said that the cause of these men being there was that a lodger
named Aird, who had lived there for the past three months, gave a supper party,
and those men were his guests. He quoted a case which had been tried in the
Queen`s Bench, in which Baron Pollock quashed a conviction of the justices.
Mrs. Alice
Saunders, employed at the Richmond Tavern, said that on Saturday at midday she
received an order to prepare a supper for Mr. Aird and his friends for 9.30 the
same night. The order was for four persons, but six sat down. The house was
closed at ten o`clock.
By the Bench:
She had been there about three months. She went there the latter end of March.
Hamilton
Aird, a butcher, said he had been living at the Richmond Tavern about three
months. He occupied a bedroom, and had his meals in any room that was
convenient. When he went to dinner on Saturday he ordered the supper to be
prepared for that night between nine and ten o`clock. There were three guests
invited to the supper, and everything was paid for by him.
Henry Arthur
Parr, manager at the Richmond Tavern, said Mr. Aird had been lodging there for
about three months, and he had his bills to prove it. He asked for supper to be
provided on Saturday night for two or three or perhaps five or six. Supper was
laid in his private room. His house was closed at eleven o`clock, not ten as
stated by Mrs. Saunders. The man in bed had been there two hours before the
sergeant came.
The Bench
retired, and on their return announced that they had decided to convict, the
defence set up not being made out. The licence would not be endorsed, but
defendant would be fined 50s. and 18s. costs.
Folkestone Herald 21-5-1892
Police Court
Jottings
Another
public house prosecution occupied the attention of their Worships on Wednesday
last, when, however, only two magistrates were in attendance – Messrs. Fitness
and Ward.
The defendant
in this case was Richard Major, landlord of the Richmond, who was summoned for
having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sunday week
previous. The Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association engaged Mr. Minter
to defend him, which he did in a vigorous and able manner, but without avail.
On Sunday,
the 8th inst., at 2 a.m., Sergeant Harman, in company with P.C.
Dunster, went to the defendant`s house, and there found five men with glasses
and pots before them, which had contained drink. Spoken to by the officers, the
defendant said they had all engaged beds there, “so what was he to do?”, but
about five minutes after that two of the men were seen to leave the house. The
defence was that it was a private party given by a lodger in the house, and
Hamilton Aird, a butcher, the said lodger, was called, and declared that the
men present were his guests, and that everything that was consumed was paid for
by himself. The landlord also swore that he received from Aird an order for a
supper for five or six persons to be served in his own private room, which was
executed on the evening in question, and was the occasion of the men being
found upon his premises.
The
Magistrates retired, and on their return intimated they were unable to accept
the defendant`s version of the affair, and fined him 50s. and 13s. costs; his
licence, however, not to be endorsed.
Folkestone Chronicle 28-5-1892
Wednesday,
May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
George
Lepper, Richard Penny, Edward Down, Thomas Mercer, and David Larkin were
summoned for being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 8th
May. Lepper and Larkin pleaded Not Guilty.
Sergeant
Harman said on Sunday morning, May 8th, he visited the Richmond
Tavern. He found six men there. Down tried to escape by a side door, Mercer
tried to conceal himself in the kitchen, and Penny and Lepper were in the
smoking room. He went upstairs and found the defendant Larkin in bed, and as
far as he could see, he was undressed.
Lepper said
he was employed by the landlord of the house as potman.
Henry Arthur
Farr was called and said Lepper was employed by him as barman and potman.
By Mr.
Minter: He was not acquainted with Larkin before this evening. About a quarter
past 12 he went to the house and asked witness if he would oblige him with a
bed, as he had lost his key. He showed him upstairs at once. He paid eighteen
pence for the bed. He went to bed and did not leave till eight o`clock in the
morning, when he made him a cup of tea. Larkin had nothing to do with the other
defendants. He was a perfect stranger to him. He asked Sergeant Harman to go
upstairs and see there was nobody concealed.
P.C. Dunster
was called, and in answer to Mr. Minter he stated that he saw Larkin go to No.
4, Richmond Street. He saw him come out the Richmond Tavern at 1.20. About
three he saw Larkin leave. He did not go to 4, Richmond Street.
Mr. Minter
said he was very sorry to say it came to a case of perjury one way or another.
Larkin happened to be down here as the holder of a special mission. He was a
member of the detective force of Scotland Yard, and was not a person who was in
the habit of running about to public houses. On the occasion n question, he was
in bed when the police went into the house, and thought he had his latch key
with him, but he had not. He denied utterly what Dunster had said.
Edward Down
said he did not know Larkin at all. He was not drinking with them that evening.
He was not in the room at all.
Thomas Mercer
also said he did not know Larkin. He was not with them, nor was he in the room.
Defendant was
called, and said he was a detective officer on special duty attached to
Scotland Yard. He had been here for five months. The statement of Dunster that
he saw him leave the Richmond Tavern at a quarter past three was not true. He
passed the Town Hall about five minutes to 12. He lodged in Richmond Street
with a widow. When he got there he found he had not got his key, and instead of
knocking the landlady up, seeing a light in the Richmond Tavern he went there
for a bed. He did not know any of the defendants except Lepper, nor had he ever
spoken to either of them. Farr let him in to the Richmond Tavern at the side
door, and he went to bed. He had nothing to drink. From the time he went in
until past eight in the morning he did not leave the room.
The
Magistrates fined Down and Mercer 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, Lepper and Penny 2s.
6d. and 10s. costs. Larkin was dismissed.
Note:
According to More Bastions Farr had left in 1890!
Folkestone Express 28-5-1892
Wednesday,
May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
George Lepper,
Richard Penny, Edward Down, Thomas Mercer, and David Larkin were summoned for
being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 8th May.
Lepper and Larkin pleaded Not Guilty.
Sergeant
Harman said on Sunday morning, May 8th, he visited the Richmond
Tavern. He found six men there. Down tried to escape by a side door, Mercer
tried to conceal himself in the kitchen, and Penny and Lepper were in the
smoking room. He told them he should report them. Down said he should not have
been there had it not been for Aird. The others made no reply. He went upstairs
and found Larkin in bed, and as far as he couls see he was undressed. He told
him he should report him for being there during prohibited hours, and he made
no reply. He saw Mercer leave about ten minutes past two. He left P.C. Dunster
with instructions to watch. He saw on the smoking room table five glasses and a
pewter pot.
Mr. Minter
appeared for Larkin, and cross-examined the witness, who said he did not ask
the landlord if there was anyone upstairs. The landlord asked him to go
upstairs. He saw Larkin`s clothes on a chair. He had some difficulty in waking
Larkin. He did not go upstairs a second time, but went into the bedroom a
second time. Larkin was still lying in bed. He did not ask “What is the
matter?”
P.C. Dunster
said he saw Larkin leave the Richmond Tavern at twenty minutes past one, go
into No. 4, Richmond Street, and close the door. He did not know who lived
there. About ten minutes to two he visited the Richmond Tavern in company with
Sergeant Harman, and there found Larkin in bed. The other defendants were in a
room below. About ten minutes past two he saw two men leave the house – Mercer
was one. About half past two another man left; he could not say who that was.
About three two others came out and one of them was Larkin.
By Mr.
Minter: I don`t know that Larkin lodges at 4, Richmond Street. I did not see
him leave to go back to the Richmond. I was not then watching the house.
Lepper said
he was employed by the landlord of the house as potman.
Henry Arthur
Farr was called, and said Lepper was employed by him as barman and potman. His
wages were 12s. a week. He had no stated hours.
By Mr.
Minter: He was not acquainted with Larkin before this evening. About a quarter
past twelve he went to the house and asked witness if he would oblige him with
a bed, as he had lost his key. He showed him upstairs at once. He paid eighteen
pence for the bed. He went to bed and did not leave till eight o`clock in the
morning, when he made him a cup of tea. Larkin had nothing to do with the other
defendants. He was a perfect stranger to him. He asked Sergeant Harman to go
upstairs and see there was nobody concealed.
Dunster was
re-called, and in answer to Mr. Minter, he repeated that he saw Larkin go to No.
4, Richmond Street. He saw him come out of the Richmond Tavern at 1.20. About
three he saw Larkin leave. He did not go to 4, Richmond Street.
Mr. Minter
said he was sorry to say it came to a case of perjury one way or the other. He
could not help it. They must accept the responsibility. But he should like to
make an observation or two on Larkin`s case, because it had assumed an aspect
of a very serious nature. If Dunster had told an untruth, which he suggested he
had, the question came, had he deliberately told an untruth, or was he
mistaken? He was under the impression that he was mistaken. It was terrible to
suggest that a police constable was deliberately telling an untruth without
some real motive, and he did not wish to suggest it. But what he wished to
suggest was, that he was utterly mistaken with regard to Larkin. He had very
likely mistaken him for the man next to him, who was very much like him. The
defence he was instructed to make was clear and distinct, and when he told them
who Larkin was, he thought the Bench would agree that he was a man as much
entitled to credence as the police constable, who was evidently mistaken.
Larkin happened to be down here as the holder of a special mission. He was a
member of the detective force from Scotland Yard, and was not a person who was
in the habit of running about to public houses at night, or of stopping out at
night. On the occasion in question, he was in bed when the police went into the
house. He had been to Hythe, and if it was necessary to trace his movements on
that evening he should apply for an adjournment. He lodged in Richmond Terrace,
close to the Richmond Tavern. A widow occupied the house, and he himself was in
the habit of getting in early. But, as he said, he had been to Hythe, and he
thought he had his latch key with him, but he had not. He would not quibble
about the hour, although the policeman was mistaken as to that also. He said he
saw Larkin come out of the house at a certain time after one o`clock, and go
down towards Richmond Terrace to his own lodgings. Then again he said he saw
Larkin come out of the Richmond Tavern at half past three, and go he did not
know where. Now, that was rather important, for this reason. He was still
standing close to the Richmond Tavern (within 20 yards), and where could Larkin
go at that time, supposing it was he, except to his own house? Dunster said he
did not know where he went to, and for a very good reason, because he never saw
him. Larkin went in between twelve and one o`clock. He went to his own door,
thinking he had got his latch key, but he had not got it, and seeing a light in
the Richmond Tavern went there and asked for a bed. He was told to go round to
the side door; he went there and went straight upstairs exactly as the landlord
had described, and went to bed. On the former occasion the two defendants who
had pleaded Guilty said they had been to supper with a man named Aird, who was
not summoned there that day. But the magistrates did not swallow that supper.
(Laughter) They did not believe in the tale that it was a bona fide supper, and
they convicted the landlord for having them there. On that occasion it was
distinctly proved that Larkin was in bed. Unfortunately for him the supper
party caused the landlord to be summoned and fined. Then the Superintendent,
acting no doubt on the information of Dunster, who said he saw Larkin come out
of the house at half past one and again at half past three, felt bound to
summon Larkin as well as the others. The Superintendent knew Larkin, and he
should appeal to the Superintendent as to Larkin`s conduct, to show that he was
not in the habit of drinking, or of breaking the law. On the contrary, he
occupied a position which would prevent his doing that. He was an utter
stranger to the other defendants, and also to the manager of the house. It was
very hard that Larkin, who had committed no offence at all, and who had a
perfect right to go to a public house for a bed – it was very hard on him
because a dunder-headed policeman, which he said he was, had made a mistake in
regard to him – that he should be brought there. The Superintendent ought to
have exercised a little judgement in cross-examining Dunster before putting
Larkin to the indignity of coming there to defend himself. It was intolerable
that a man should be put to the trouble of coming there to defend himself and
to give this explanation because a dunder-headed policeman had mistaken one man
for another. If they were satisfied with the explanation he had given, they
would dismiss the summons. He denied utterly what Dunster had said. But
Sergeant Harman, with the lively imagination which all those policemen had,
when they got into the box and wanted to get a conviction, was not satisfied
with saying he had trouble to wake the man, but wanted to suggest that he was
only shamming. The policemen should be taught to give evidence in a proper way.
He could understand that the Superintendent desired to avoid any imputation of
partiality, and therefore, on the information before him, decided to summon the
detective as well as the other men, lest it should be said that he favoured a
member of the police force. After a few further remarks he called the following
witnesses:
Edward Down
said he did not know Larkin at all. He was not drinking with them that evening.
He was not in the room at all.
Thomas Mercer
also said he did not know Larkin at all. He was not with them, nor was he in
the room.
David Larkin
himself was called, and said he was a detective officer on special duty
attached to Scotland Yard. He had been here for five months. The statement of
Dunster that he saw him leave the Richmond Tavern at a quarter past three was
not true. He passed the Town Hall about five minutes to 12. He lodged in
Richmond Street with a widow. When he got there he found he had not got his
key, and instead of knocking the landlady up, seeing a light in the Richmond
Tavern, he went there for a bed. He did not know any of the defendants except
Lepper, nor had he ever spoken to either of them. Mr. Farr, the landlord, let
him in at the side door, and he went upstairs to the bedroom and went to bed.
He had nothing to drink. He got up next morning about a quarter past eight.
From the time he went in until past eight in the morning he did not leave the
room. He had a cup of tea with the landlord in the morning. When Sergeant
Harman entered the bedroom he was asleep. When he entered the second time he
asked what was the matter. Harman saw his clothes on the chair. On Sunday he
saw the Superintendent and explained the matter to him. It was about a quarter
past twelve in the morning when he went to the Richmond Tavern.
The
Magistrates fined Down and Mercer 2. 6d. and 9s. costs, Lepper and Penny 2s.
6d. and 10s. costs,. With regard to Larkin, there was great discrepancy in the
evidence, but they were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The
summons against him would be dismissed.
Folkestone Herald 28-5-1892
Police Court
Jottings.
At the Court
five men were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours
on the 8th of May. They respectively answered to the names of Geo.
Lepper, Richard Penny, Edward Down, Thos. Mercer, and David Larkin. The first
and last pleaded Not Guilty.
These
summonses arose out of a case heard about a week previously, when the landlord
of the Richmond Tavern was fined for keeping his house open during prohibited
hours.
Sergeant
Harman, who was concerned in the first case, proved the present, and as
regarded all the defendants, except Larkin, there was no doubt they were there
for the purpose of breaking the law.
Larkin, who
is said to be a Scotland Yard detective, and has been here for the last five
months, for what business it was not stated, was found by the police in bed,
and presumably asleep. His excuse was that on the evening in question, finding
himself without the latch key to his lodgings, he most considerately refrained
from waking up his landlady, a widow living in Richmond Street, and instead
went to the Richmond Tavern. Mr. Minter, who appeared for him, made a vigorous
defence, and the Magistrates, allowing for the “discrepancy in the evidence”,
gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The other
defendants were fined half a crown and costs each.
Folkestone Chronicle 25-6-1892
Saturday,
June 18th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Dunk, and Mr. J. Holden.
The licence
of the Richmond Tavern was temporarily transferred to Wm. Sandilands.
Folkestone Chronicle 6-8-1892
Wednesday,
August 3rd: Before Mr. J. Holden and Mr. Fitness.
The licence
of the Richmond Tavern was transferred from Mr. J.R. Major to Mr. Sandilands.
Folkestone
Chronicle 11-7-1896
Wednesday, July 8th: Before Messrs. J.
Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Sherwood, and T.J. Vaughan.
Mrs. Hogben, the wife of Mr. Walter Hogben, was granted
temporary permission to sell at the Richmond Tavern until next transfer day.
On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mr. Ovenden, Richmond Tavern
Folkestone Express
11-7-1896
Wednesday, July 8th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge,
T.J. Vaughan and J. Fitness Esqs.
Mr. F. Hall applied on behalf of Mrs. Harriet Hogben for
temporary authority to sell at the Richmond Tavern until the next transfer day.
The application was granted.
Folkestone
Chronicle 1-8-1896
Wednesday, July 29th: Before Messrs. W.
Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and General Gwyn.
Mrs. Walter Hogben was granted the transfer of the licence
of the Richmond Tavern.
Folkestone Express
1-8-1896
Wednesday, July 29th: Before W. Wightwick and
W.G. Herbert Esqs., and General Gwyn.
Several transfers of licence were granted, including the
Richmond Tavern to Mrs. Hogben.
Folkestone
Chronicle 12-12-1896
Wednesday, December 9th: Before Mr. W.
Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.
Mr. Charles Richards was allowed further temporary
authority to sell at the Richmond Tavern, some misunderstanding having arisen.
Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.
Folkestone Chronicle
6-8-1898
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge,
W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Mr. Charles Ovenden, of the Richmond Tavern, was granted
temporary authority to sell.
Mr.
Charles Ovenden was granted the transfer of the Richmond
Transfer was made to Charles Ovenden, Richmond Tavern
Folkestone Up To Date
6-8-1898
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C.
Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.
Transfer was sanctioned to Mr. Charles Ovenden, Richmond
Tavern, Richmond Street.
Folkestone Herald
6-8-1898
Police Court Report
On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Charles Ovenden,
Richmond Tavern.
Hythe Reporter
13-8-1898
Folkestone Police Court
At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday,
the following licence was transferred:
Mr. C.P. Ovenden was granted temporary authority to sell at
the Richmond Tavern.
Folkestone Chronicle
17-9-1898
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Messrs. J.
Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Folkestone Up To Date
17-9-1898
Wednesday, September 14th: Before Ald. Banks, J.
Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Transfer was made to Charles Ovenden, Richmond Tavern
Folkestone Herald
17-9-1898
Police Court Record
On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mr. Ovenden, Richmond Tavern
No comments:
Post a Comment