Richmond Tavern, Margaret Street 1866 - 2015

Richmond Tavern after closure September, 2015
Richmond Tavern, 1978

Richmond Tavern, 1981. Credit Bert Storey

Richmond Tavern, May 2012

 

Richmond Tavern 1999. Credit Martin Easdown

 

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

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 21^st: 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 26^th: 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 26^th: 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 25^th: 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 16^th 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 17^th: 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 17^th: 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 24^th: 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 24^th: 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 24^th: 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 28^th: 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 27^th: 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 26^th: 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 12^th: 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 9^th: 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 9^th: 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 18^th: 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 29^th: 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 18^th: 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 15^th: 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 15^th: 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 8^th 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 30^th: 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 6^th: 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 11^th: 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 18^th: 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 8^th 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 18^th: 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 8^th 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 8^th 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 25^th: 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 8^th May. Lepper and Larkin pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday morning, May 8^th, 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 25^th: 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 8^th May. Lepper and Larkin pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday morning, May 8^th, 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 8^th 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 18^th: 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 3^rd: 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 8^th: 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.

Folkestone Express 11-7-1896

Wednesday, July 8^th: 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 29^th: 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 29^th: 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 9^th: 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 3^rd: 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.

Folkestone Up To Date 6-8-1898

Wednesday, August 3^rd: 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 14^th: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Charles Ovenden was granted the transfer of the Richmond

Folkestone Up To Date 17-9-1898

Wednesday, September 14^th: 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