Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street 1846 - 1972

Shakespeare Hotel, c1905. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown

 

 

 

Guildhall Street c1900. Shakespeare Hotel on left. Photo kindly supplied by Alan Taylor

 

 

Shakespeare Hotel, Date unknown

Peggy Powell, landlady, 1949. Credit Rory Kehoe (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Shakespeare-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

 

 

Licensees

William Larkins 1847 1849
Ann Free 1849 1853
Thomas Richards 1853 1854
John Blackman 1854 1858
William Elliott 1858 1866
James Scott Poole 1866 1868
Edward Whybourne 1868 1869 To Mechanics Arms
Thomas Taylor 1869 1870 Ex Darlington Arms
Henry Payne 1870 1871
Henry Augustus Herwigg 1871 1874 From Oxford Tavern
William Tite 1874 1877 Later Belle Vue Hotel
John Mellows 1877 1879 To Rendezvous
William Allard 1879 1880
Thomas Dixon 1880 1897
George Coles 1897 1898
Frederick Woolcott 1898 1898
Charles Sparrow 1898 1913 From Globe (2)
Joseph Sidney Venner Smiles 1913 1913
Joseph George Smiles 1913 1918 Ex Railway Bell
Frederick Hatfield 1918 1922
Edward Mason 1922 1929
Percy Attwood 1929 1939 From Castle Inn. Later London And Paris
William Powell 1939 1942
Daisy Powell 1942 1946
William Powell 1946 1959
William Harris 1959 1961
Richard Williams 1964 1968
Ronald Balsom 1968 1972

Maidstone Gazette 10-11-1846

We desire to call the attention of the directors of the gas company to the want of additional lights in various parts of the town, which become necessary as the buildings increase. We may mention three of the most important, viz; the entrance into the town from the railway station, from Cheriton by the Shakespeare Inn, and at the end of the new road by the Shades Inn and stables, all of which places are in total darkness, and must be of great inconvenience to travellers and the inhabitants, who are sufficiently numerous to pay for the additional expense of lights.

Note: This is an earlier reference to the Shakespeare.

Dover Telegraph 2-10-1847

Advertisement: Shakespeare Hotel, Folkestone. The first meeting of the Chess Divan will be held in the large room of this hotel this evening (Saturday). The chair will be taken at 7 o`clock and quitted at 10. Any respectable person will be admitted upon sending his name and address to the Chairman. The second meeting will be held at the same place on Tuesday evening, Oct. 5^th.

Dover Telegraph 13-11-1847

Marriage: At Margate, Mr. Starkey, of London, to Hannah, fourth daughter of Mr. Wm. Larkin, of the Shakespeare Inn, Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette, Maidstone Gazette 16-11-1847

Marriage: At Margate, -- Starkey Esq., of London, to Hannah, fourth daughter of Mr. William Larkin, of the Shakespeare Inn, Folkestone

Dover Chronicle 28-5-1853

Petty Sessions, Monday: Before David Major, Wm. Major and Thos. Golder Esqs.

Thomas Bidlea, a tinker, was charged with assaulting Thomas Richards, landlord of the Shakespeare Inn. Fined £1 and costs, or 14 days` imprisonment.

Southeastern Gazette 31-5-1853

Petty Sessions, before D. Major, M. Major and T. Golder Esqs.

Thomas Bidlea, tinker, was fined £1 and costs for assaulting Thomas Richards, landlord of the Shakespeare Inn.

Southeastern Gazette 15-8-1854

Local News:

At the petty sessions, the following license was transferred: The Shakspeare Inn, Folkestone, from Thos. Richards to John Blackman.

Notes: Date is at variance with More Bastions.  

Dover Chronicle 19-8-1854

Petty Sessions: The following licences were transferred: The Clarendon Hotel, from the agent to the assignees of Ward`s bankruptcy to Mary Ann Malcolm; the True Briton, from John Andrews, deceased, to his widow; the Rose Inn, from Wm. And Richard Medhurst to Richard and Ann Medhurst; the Ship Inn, Sandgate, from Richard Best to George Ward; the Shakespeare Inn, Folkestone, from Thomas Richards to John Blackman.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-7-1865

Shocking Death

Yesterday a labouring man named Henry Stokes, from Brighton, but lately employed on the new buildings now erecting in Shellon`s Terrace, came by his death in a most lamentable manner. From what we can learn the unfortunate man had been drinking rather freely for a day or two, and on Friday morning was in the Shakespeare Inn, where he had a large share of beer with some other of the labourers employed on the buildings. Ultimately he was induced to drink two half pints of gin, soon after which, about 11 a.m., he became insensible, but was unaccountably allowed to lie in that insensible state till about half past four when three or four surgeons were sent for. They found him in a state of collapse, with the pupils of his eyes dilated, and insensible to light or touch. They advised his immediate removal to the infirmary, where every means were resorted to for his recovery, but without avail, as he died a short time after his admission. We understand an inquest will be holden on the body today, Saturday, when we trust a searching enquiry will be made into this sad affair.

 

Kentish Gazette 25-7-1865

On Saturday, Mr. Coroner Minter and a respectable jury held an inquest, at the Town Hall, on the body of a bricklayer's labourer, named George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half pints of gin in succession, at the Shakespeare public house on the previous day.

It appeared from the evidence that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half-past nine o’clock on Friday morning till 12, when, as one of the witnesses described him, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked someone to stand treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Read, then said to deceased “If you want anything to drink I’ll give you a glass; what will you drink?”  Deceased said “Some gin.” Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could dunk a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, calling on God to strike him blind if he could not drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan't give you a pint, but I'll give you a half-pint if you like” The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin, and wished God might strike him blind if he did not. After deceased had drank the first half-pint of gin, he asked Read whether he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (de­ceased), then said to William Tite, the landlord’s son, “Give me another half-pint." William Tite drew the gin and put it on the counter, and Stokes took it in his right hand and drank it up at once. No one was sitting near him at the time; no one interfered with him, but deceased drank it down vo­luntarily at one draught, fie never spoke a word afterwards, neither did he light his pipe. About a quarter of an hour after he had drank the gin, the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser, and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for about a quarter of an hour, when Read said, “We had better lay him down,” and they carried him in his chair into the tap room, where they laid him on the floor, and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any other drunken man. The deceased was sub­sequently removed to the Dispensary, where he died about seven o'clock in the evening.

Mr. C. E. Fitzgerald, surgeon, said the symptoms presented by the deceased were those of poisoning by alcohol.

Other evidence having been called, the Coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict that de­ceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

Folkestone Observer 29-7-1865

On Saturday Mr. Coroner Minter held an inquest at the Town Hall on the body of a bricklayer`s labourer named George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half pints of gin in succession, at the Shakespeare public house the previous day. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half past nine o`clock on Friday morning till 12, when, as one of the other witnesses described him, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked someone to treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Read, then said to deceased “If you want anything to drink, I`ll give you a glass; what will you drink?”. Deceased said “Some gin”. Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, calling on God to strike him blind if he could not drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan`t give you a pint. I`ll give you half a pint if you like”. The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin and wished God might strike him blind if he didn`t. After deceased had drunk his first half pint of gin he asked Read whether he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased) then said to William Tite, the landlord`s son, “Give me another half pint”. William Tite drew the gin and put it on the counter, and Stokes took it in his right hand and drunk it up at once. No-one was sitting near him at the time: no-one interfered with him, but deceased drank it down voluntarily in one draught. He never spoke a word afterwards, neither did he light his pipe. About a quarter of an hour after he had drunk the gin the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for about quarter of an hour, when Read said “We had better lay him down”, and they carried him in his chair into the tap room, where they laid him on the floor, and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the dispensary, where he died at about seven o`clock in the evening. Mr. C.E. Fitzgerald, surgeon, said the symptoms presented by the deceased were those of poisoning by alcohol. Other evidence having been called, the Coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-7-1865

Coroner`s Inquest

On Saturday, Mr. Minter, Coroner, and a respectable jury held an inquest at the Town Hall on the body of a bricklayer`s labourer, George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half pints of gin in succession at the Shakespeare public house the pervious day. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half past nine o`clock on Friday morning till twelve, when, as one of the witnesses described him, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked someone to stand treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Head, then said to deceased “If you want anything to drink, I`ll give you a glass. What will you drink?”. Deceased said “Some gin”. Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, calling on God to strike him blind if he could not drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan`t give you a pint, but I`ll give you a half pint if you like”. The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin, and wished God might strike him blind if he did not. After deceased had drunk the first half pint of gin, he asked Read if he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased) then said to William Tite, the landlord`s son, “Give me another half pint”. William Tire drew the gin and put it on the counter, and Stokes took it in his right hand and drunk it up at once. No-one was sitting near him at the time; no-one interfered with him, but the deceased drank it down voluntarily in one draught. He never spoke a word afterwards, neither did he light up his pipe. About a quarter of an hour after he had drank the gin, the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser, and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for a quarter of an hour, when Read said “We`d better lay him down”, and they carried him in his chair into the tap room, where they laid him on the floor and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the Dispensary, where he died about seven the same evening. C.E. Fitzgerald, surgeon, said he was sent for to the Dispensary, and found deceased lying in a bed on one of the dormitories, attended by Mr. Tyson and Mr. Bowles. Deceased was in a state of insensibility and total collapse. Witness proceeded to have him undressed, to apply the stomach pump, and drew from his stomach three or four pints of a dark fluid, consisting entirely of beer and spirits. Deceased appeared somewhat relieved with this, and his pulse, which was almost imperceptible, grew somewhat stronger. Witness then had him placed in bed and hot water bottles applied to his feet, with blisters behind the ears. Witness remained with him till about a quarter before six; he then left deceased and returned in about half an hour, when he found deceased was dead. Witness had no doubt in his own mind but that deceased was poisoned by alcohol, the symptoms being such as would have arisen from excessive drinking. Other evidence having been called, the Coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

Southeastern Gazette 1-8-1865

Inquest

On Saturday, Mr. Minter, borough coroner, held an inquest, at the Town Hall, on the body of a bricklayer’s labourer, named George Stokes, whose death had resulted from drinking two half-pints of gin in succession at the Shakespeare public house on the previous day.

It appeared that the deceased and other persons were drinking at the Shakespeare from about half-past nine o’olock on Friday morning till twelve, when, as one of the witnesses described it, he was neither drunk nor sober. About that hour he asked some one to stand treat. One of the other men, whose name was Robert Read, then said to deceased, “If you want anything to drink I’ll give you a glass; what will you drink?” Deceased said “Some gin.” Read asked him how much he could drink, and deceased said he could drink a pint, at the same time, with a fearful oath, stating that he could drink all the gin there was in the house. Read said “No, I shan’t give you a pint, but I’ll give you a half-pint if you like.” The gin was served, and the deceased drank it up at once. Deceased sat a long time after, smoking and swearing, and said he wanted some more gin. After deceased had drunk the first half pint of gin, he asked Read whether he intended to give him any more, and Read said he might have a little more if he liked. Stokes (deceased), then said to William Tite, the landlord’s son “Give me another half-pint.” William Tite drew the gin, and he drank it up. He never spoke a word afterwards. About a quarter of an hour after he had drunk the gin, the deceased laid his head on the side of the dresser, and looked as if he was tipsy. He lay there for about a quarter of an hour, when Read said “We had better lay him down,” and they carried him in his chair into the tap-room, where they laid him on the floor and put something under his head to raise it up a little, the same as they would any other drunken man. The deceased was subsequently removed to the Dispensary, where he died about seven the same evening.

 Mr. C.E. Fitzgerald said he had not doubt but that deceased was poisoned by alcohol, the symptoms being such as would have arisen from excessive drinking.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased had died from the effects of intoxication.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28-8-1866

Local News

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

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

Folkestone Chronicle 25-1-1868

County Court

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

Poole v Whybourne: Claim for £1 6d. for beer &c.

G.H. Tite v Poole: Claim for £1 5s. 7d. for dilapidations.

These cases arose out of the transfer of the Shakespeare Inn, in Broadmead Road from Poole to Whybourne. The former refused to hand over his licence to the latter when he left the house because he was not paid for the beer left there, and which the landlord, Mr. Tite, had sent in to his brewery to pay for diliapidations in the house. Mr. Tite was willing to pay for it if he was paid for the dilapidations, consisting of thirteen cracked glasses, a quart jug, a cellar door lock, a broken grate, several keys lost, and a sash removed.

Judgement was given for defendant in the first case, and for plaintiff in the second, on the understanding that Mr. Tite paid for the beer.

Note: Tite was the owner of the Gun Brewery.

Folkestone Observer 25-1-1868

County Court

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

Poole v Wyborne: Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the defendant.

This was an action for a claim of 7s. 6d., plaintiff stating that he was the late landlord of the Shakespeare beershop, which house he had subsequently let to Mr. Wyborne, the 7s. 6d. being money spent by the plaintiff for a transfer of license, which defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff had also a further claim of £42 on the defendant for stock and fixtures. The defendant called his wife to corroborate his statement as to the transactions.

The defendant denied liability.

Mr. Minter stated that he would explain to His Honour that the defendant did not take the house from the plaintiff, and would call a witness to prove the fact. It appeared that Mr. Tite was the actual person who took the house from the plaintiff, and agreed to give £42 for stock, &c., but Mr. Tite found several articles broken as represented sound, and therefore wished to have £1 5s. deducted for breakage, &c. Was quite willing to pay if that sum were deducted.

Mr. Tite said he was landlord of the Shakespeare prior to Mr. Poole; Mr. Poole gave him £42 for the stock, fixtures, &c., and witness agreed to give plaintiff the same amount if he should leave the house at any future time. But witness could not obtain the license from the plaintiff, and he had therefore been obliged to go to the magistrates to obtain a certificate for selling beer. Witness found 13 glasses on a shelf, apparently sound, but they were all broken or cracked – a perfect deception on the part of the plaintiff. He also missed a spring lock from the cellar door, jugs were broken, &c. He was quite willing to pay the amount, minus £1 5s. for breakage &c.

Allowed accordingly.

Kentish Gazette 28-1-1868

Folkestone County Court: At the County Court held on Monday, Jan. 20, 1868, before W. C. Scott, Esq., judge, there were an unusual number of cases, as- although there were many struck out - it was past one o’clock before his Honour rose. There were but two solicitors present - T. Fox, Esq., of Dover, and J. Minter, Esq. The following are particulars of the principal pleas:

Poole v. Wyborne: A claim of £1 0s. 6d. The claimant in this case was the late landlord of the Shakes­peare Inn, of this borough, and the defendant the present landlord; and the following case arose out of the transfer of the house between the two. In this case, Mr. Tite, brewer, and the landlord of the house were called, who said that he took the house from Poole, and sent the beer in to the brewery next door. This he was willing to pay for. He never had the license from Poole. Poole refused to give it up, because the beer was not paid for - and the beer was not paid for on account of the dilapidations. 

G. H. Tite v. Poole: A claim of £1 5s. 7d. for dilapidations. Plaintiff said that defendant took the house of him at a valuation of £42, for glasses, stock, and fixtures, two years ago. On his leaving, as he had added several things, it was agreed that he should receive £48 16s., on the understanding that all was sound; but on examination he found 13 cracked glasses, made to look sound, a quart jug with a hole in the bottom stopped up with putty, a good lock gone from the cellar door, various keys missing, the kitchen grate broken, and a sash taken out of place.

After hearing both sides, his Honour gave judgment for defendant in the first case, and for plaintiff in the second case, Mr. Tite agreeing to pay for the beer he had taken.   

Folkestone Observer 4-4-1868

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before The Mayor, Captain Leith, and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Transfer of license was granted to Mr. Wyborne, Shakespeare Tavern, Gun Terrace

Folkestone Express 4-4-1868

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before The Mayor, Capt. Leith, and Alderman Boarer.

Transfer of License

The Shakespeare, from Mr. Poole to Mr. Whybourne.

 

Folkestone Observer 16-10-1869

Wednesday, October 13^th: Before R.W. Boarer, John Gambrill, John Clark, and – Dashwood Esqs.

Mr. T. Taylor applied for a transfer of license granted to Mr. Wyman to sell excisable liquors at the Shakespeare Inn. The application was granted.

Note: Wyman appears to be a misprint for Whybourne according to information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 16-10-1869

Wednesday, October 13^th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Transfer of license.

Shakespeare Tavern, from Edward Wyburn to Thomas F. Taylor.

Southeastern Gazette 18-4-1871

County Court

This court was held at the Town Hall, on Saturday, before the Judge, W. C. Scott, Esq.

Win. Tite v. Henry Payne: A claim for £26 10s. 6d. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant.

Mr. Minter, in his opening statement, said plaintiff was a brewer of Folkestone, and defendant held a public-house called the Shakespeare Inn, and the action was brought to recover a sum. of money due for beer, &c., supplied. Plaintiff had made a mistake of £7, and although the summons was issued for the above amount, only £19 10s. 6d. was due; against this defendant had paid into court £12 9s. 3d., leaving £7 Is. 3d., as a balance of amount in dispute. Against that another question arose. In settling up accounts last November the plaintiff allowed defendant, who is a carpenter, a sum of £6 5s. 3d. for some timber supplied to him by a man named Maycock, and which was used in the brewery. On enquiry plaintiff found that the timber had not been paid for by defendant; if he could satisfy plaintiff that this money had been paid Maycock, the sum then in dispute would be only 16s., which was for a half barrel of beer supplied on the 11th of January last.

Plaintiff and a man employed by him deposed positively to the delivery of the beer.

Mr. Towne in an able speech said the beer was not delivered, and produced a book in the handwriting of plaintiff with an entry dated 11th January, where 36 gallons were entered instead of a hogshead.

Defendant was called and in cross-examination by Mr. Minter he swore that according to his recollection he only received 18 gallons.

Mr. Maycock was called and said he considered that Payne ordered the timber and was responsible for the money.

This satisfied plaintiff with regard to the sum of ￡6 5s. 3d.

His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, as amended, with costs.

George Sam. Tite v. Henry Payne: This action was brought to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, of which plaintiff was the owner.

 The plaintiff is the father of Wm. Tite of the Gun Brewery. On the 25th of March he let the Shakespeare Inn to his son for one year, at a rental of £40 per year. Subsequently the son sublet the premises in his father’s presence to defendant, at a rental of £24 on condition that he purchased his beer at the Gun Brewery. A quarrel bad taken place between Payne and plaintiff’s son, and as the former refused to have his beer from the Gun Brewery, the son threw up the premises, while Payne would only pay £24 per annum instead of £40.

His Honour thought that the father had, by his presence when the agreement was entered into, acquiesced in the agreement between his son and Payne. Judgment for the defendant.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 22-4-1871

Saturday, 15^th April: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Wm. Tite v Henry Payne: This was a claim for £26 10s. 6d. for liquor supplied to defendant (who is landlord of the Shakespeare Inn ), by the plaintiff.

Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the case had some peculiar features in it, but he thought the facts were so clear as to prevent His Honour having any difficulty in arriving at a decision favourable to his client. The summons had been issued for £26 10s. 6d., but that was a mistake, as only £19 10s. 6d. was due, and therefore £7 would be deducted from the amount for which defendant was summoned for that day. Defendant had paid into Court £12 9s. 3d., and £7 1s. 3d. was the balance they sought to secure. An arrangement was made between plaintiff and defendant last November, by which plaintiff permitted defendant, who is a carpenter, to pay £6 5s. 3d. for timber supplied to him by a man named Maycock. He was surprised on enquiry to learn that the money had not been paid by defendant, and if defendant could satisfy his client that the money had been paid, the amount would then be reduced to 16s. He believed defendant intended to dispute the amount of porter that had been delivered at his house, but Mr. Tite could prove that what he had charged for had been delivered, and received by defendant.

Mr. Tite said he was a brewer, carrying on business close to defendant`s house, and which place was known by the name of The Gun Brewery. Defendant was his tenant, and was supplied with beer from his brewery. He made an entry of every cask as it went out from his place. He remembered defendant`s little girl coming to him and giving him an order for 18 gallons of porter. Shortly afterwards defendant came to him and countermanded the order, and told him, if he thought it would keep, to send him 36 gallons instead.

Thomas Darrell, a porter in the employ of Mr. Tite, deposed to delivering the liquor, which was received by defendant.

Mr. Towne addressed His Honour for the defence, and said that there was a great discrepancy between the evidence of the plaintiff and his own book, as there was not in that a mention of a hogshead being supplied, and surely the book supplied by the brewer to his tenant, and duly receipted by him, should be most conclusive evidence. As for the promise to pay Mr. Maycock, that gentleman would tell them that he was quite satisfied about that, and considered that Payne ordered the timber and was responsible for the debt.

Mr. Maycock was called, and said that he always held Mr. Payne responsible, and he acknowledged the bill.

This satisfied plaintiff with respect to £6 5s. 3d., and His Honour gave judgement for 16s., the remainder of the sum for which defendant was summoned.

Geo. Ham Tite v Henry Payne: This was an action to recover possession.

Mr. Towne appeared for defendant, and Mr. Minter for plaintiff.

Mr. Minter said this was an action to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, as the lease or terms on which the defendant obtained this house had now expired, and he refused to give up possession. The Shakespeare was let by plaintiff to his son William Tite, from the 25^th of March at a rental of £40 for one year, and the son afterwards sublet the premises to defendant for £24. A quarrel had taken place between the son and defendant about some matter or other that it was not the business of that court to enquire into, and defendant refused to have any more beer from Mr. William Tite, who immediately gave up the premises. Defendant`s plea was that he was the tenant of Mr. Ham Tite, and not of the son, but the son would tell them that the agreement was made with him, and that defendant held himself responsible to him as his landlord.

Mr. George Ham Tite said he let the Shakespeare to Mr. Wm. Tite from the 25^th of March for one year, and for £40 a year. There had been some dispute between his son and defendant, and his son gave him notice, but he said he had not received legal notice and would not go.

In cross-examination it was elicited that witness was present when the arrangements were made between his son and defendant.

Mr. Towne said plaintiff had practically put himself out of court by coming there on his own title. If he let the house to his son that was nothing to them, it was to the father they were responsible, as he was present at the time when the transaction took place, took part in it, and was, in the opinion of defendant, his landlord.

Henry Payne said that he paid £24 10s. a year, and entered the house with the understanding that he should pay for the fixtures, and there was no agreement about leaving it at the termination of a year. It was to the father he was responsible, as he looked upon him as his landlord. He was present when the arrangements were made, and acquiesced in all that passed.

His Honour said that as there was decided acquiescence on the part of plaintiff, defendant was entitled to look upon him as his landlord, and therefore he should nonsuit plaintiff.
 

Folkestone Express 22-4-1871

County Court

Saturday, April 15^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

William Tite, brewer v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover money due for beer supplied by plaintiff to defendant, who occupied the Shakespeare Inn. The summons was originally taken out for £26 10s. 6d. The total amount of the bill was £50 14. 9d., of that £24 4s. 3d. had been paid, leaving the amount mentioned in the summons. In addition there should have been cash credited, amounting to £7 paid on the 13^th February last. This reduced the claim to £19 10s. 6d., which was the amount now sued for. Plaintiff had paid into Court £12 9s. 3d., leaving £7 1s. 3d. as the amount in dispute. Against that another question arose of £6 5s. 3d. In November, 1870, plaintiff applied to defendant for the settlement of a bill. Defendant asked him to allow him a sum of £6 5s. 3d., being the amount of a bill for timber, which plaintiff was indebted to a Mr. Maycock, because Maycock owed him a smaller amount. Plaintiff agreed to this if defendant paid the amount of the bill. He made out the bill and receipted it. A little time after Tite saw Maycock and asked him if he had been paid for the timber. He said he had not, and also said the amount charged was larger than that credited to Tite. In consequence of this, plaintiff wrote to Payne, who too no notice of the letter. The plaintiff was still responsible for this debt by Maycock, but if the defendant produced the receipt of payment to Maycock it would be as good as cash for the amount. Perhaps defendant`s counsel would say what part of the account was disputed.

Mr. Towne: You charge us on the 11^th of January £2 8s. for one hogshead of porter, which we have not had.

Mr. Minter: With regard to the question of 36 gallons of beer, he was fortunately in a position to prove the delivery of the articles.

He called Mr. William Henry Tite, who said: I am a brewer, of Folkestone, and have supplied defendant from time to time with beer. I always make an entry on my book from time to time of the number on the cask. I remember in January last defendant`s little girl coming to the brewery and giving me an order for 18 gallons of porter. It was immediately put in his cellar. He came to me directly after and said “Why did you not put in the barrel the same as the little girl ordered?”. I said “I must have made a mistake, but I will send a barrel”. He said “If you think it will keep, you may put in a barrel and leave the eighteen there”. I sent in the barrel, and that made the hogshead, as charged. The number of the barrel was 2, and the 18 gallon, 501.

By Mr. Towne: I am in the habit of entering the beer in a book kept by defendant. (Book produced) That is my handwriting.

Thomas Darrell, a man employed by plaintiff, remembered delivering 18 galls, and afterward putting in 36 galls. I was in the brewhouse when Payne came in, and heard the conversation.

By Mr. Towne: I take the number of the casks and make an entry of them.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I took the number of each cask on this occasion.

Mr. Towne, for the defence, contended that the beer book of the defendant ought to be conclusive, and in that book the defendant was charged with one barrel, not one hogshead. The book was made up on the 27^th od Janury by the plaintiff. If the book was not conclusive, the defendant was quite at the mercy of plaintiff.

His Honour thought the book ought to be relied on very strongly, but he could not admit it as positively conclusive.

Mr. Towne: The next point, the question of timber, was this: Tite employed Payne to buy him some timber. The price of the timber was £5 14s. 6d.., and Payne charged 9s. 10d. more for commission and working it up. It was no difference to plaintiff whether defendant had paid for the timber of not. Defendant did not certainly give Maycock the money for it because he had a counter charge against him of something like £10.

Mr. Payne, the defendant, was then called. He said: I have been in the habit of dealing with Tite. The book produced is the one kept between us, and it is in Mr. Tite`s writing. On the 11^th of January I was charged £1 12s; that charge is altered into £2 8s. in the bill for one hogshead. I recollect sending for a barrel; am certain no more came in that day. On the 11^th of January I had a barrel. I have done about half a barrel of porter per week; that is my average all through the year. I did not have any bill prior to the summons. Tite gave me some work, to supply oak timber to a well. I bought the stuff of Maycock. When one of our accounts was balanced I put in a bill of £6 5s. 3d. That included my charge of 9s. 10d. Maycock owns that this is an account between him and me.

By Mr. Minter: I gave the dimensions for the timber. I ordered goods for myself too. I never received a barrel on the 11^th of January. I told the child to go and order a barrel; he sent 18 gallons. I went to him and asked him how it was he did not execute the order. I said to him “If you think the porter will keep, you can send in the remainder in a few days”.

Mr. Minter: But your book says that he sent in 36 gallons on that day.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I do not remember receiving any more on that day. Should say from the book the beer came in a barrel. I know the book is right.

Mr. Maycock was called and deposed to receiving an order from Payne. It was his son`s business. They had no claim against Mr. Tite for this timber.

Mr. Minter replied on the whole case, and showed that the evidence of the defendant entirely confirmed that of Mr. Tite.

His Honour believed that a mistake had occurred, and the mistake was on Payne`s part. Judgement for 16s. beyond the money paid into Court, and costs.

George Ham Tite, gentleman v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, against the defendant, who neglected to give up possession. Plaintiff for many years had carried on the business of the Gun Brewery, and he also owned the Shakespeare Inn. He let the brewery to his son, and also the Shakespeare Inn from the 25^th of March, 1870 to the 25^th of March, 1871; the Inn was to be £40 per year. The son underlet to the defendant for a sum of about £24 per year, subject to some arrangement. A dispute arose between W. Tite and Payne, and although the present plaintiff did try to settle matters, he was unsuccessful, and Payne was informed that if he did not come to some terms he would have to leave the house at the end of the year (25^th March). William Tite, the actual tenant, gave up possession at that date, but Henry Payne, the defendant, alleging that he had received no notice from W. Tite, refused to give up possession.

Mr. George Tite said he let the premises to his son for one year, at £40. He saw Mr. Payne, and told him he should require possession on the 25^th of March. He demanded possession on that day, and Payne replied by saying there was no legal notice.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son as an ordinary tenant for one year. He was to try it for one year only; that and the brewery. I think I was present when my son let it to Payne. I did not make any objection at the time to Payne having it. My son would not have the Shakespeare any longer as Payne refused to have his beer of him.

Mr. Towne submitted that the plaintiff was out of Court, as he was here to recover on his own title. He said the property was his and he let it to his son, and he admits he was present at the time when the son let it to Payne. Payne was not the tenant of the plaintiff; he was the tenant of the plaintiff`s son. Plaintiff came to Court on his own title, but he had not made out that title. Before he could proceed he must establish that title. Defendant never admitted him to be the landlord. Plaintiff ought to have told his son that he could not let Payne have it.

Mr. Payne said: I took the Shakespeare at a rental of £24 10s. per year, and £2 per year for the use of fixtures in the house. I took it as a yearly tenant. I know Tite`s father; he was present at the time. He took the greater part in the letting; they wanted £65; this was afterwards reduced to £40. Nothing was said about the son letting it.

By Mr. Minter: He let me have it for £24 10s. per year, but he did not say what he was paying. He did not make a statement to anyone. Tite agreed to let the house without beer. Did not say I was to pay £40 per year and 30s. per barrel for beer, or £24 10s. per year and 32s. per barrel for beer. I refused to have any more of Tite`s beer.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had any notice to quit.

Mr. Minter contended that the dispute was entirely the fault of the defendant. Plaintiff let the house for a year, and a year only, to his son. The son declined to go on with the tenancy after the year had expired. It was on the evidence that Mr. Tite jun. paid his father £40 and sub-let it at £24 10s. There must have been some reason for this, and that was that the defendant should have his beer of William Tite. A dispute had arisen about this beer, and defendant refused to have any more. What the plaintiff required was £40 per year for the premises, or possession.

His Honour thought in this case the house had been let to defendant with the acquiescence of the plaintiff. There must, therefore, be a judgement for the defendant. As to it`s being a quarterly or yearly tenancy, that was another question.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20-5-1871

County Court

Saturday May 13^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Application for a new trial

Tite v Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for defendant. This case was heard at the last sitting of the Court. It was brought by Mr. Tite to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn.

Mr. Minter detailed the facts of the case as given on the last occasion. The legal consequences of His Honour`s decision would be that Mr. Tite could not recover his rent of £40 a year, and the question arose, Who is the landlord of defendant Payne? If Mr. G.H. Tite, then Mr. W. Itte had nothing to do with it. From the evidence given at that time, it was shown that the under-tenant, Payne, paid the plaintiff, and it came out in evidence that Mr. G.H. Tite was present at the time the agreement was made, and that fact, from his acquiescing in the agreement, precluded him from obtaining a favourable judgement. Mr. Minter commented on the ungenerous manner in which Mr. Towne had asked Mr. Tite if he was present when the agreement was made, but did not ask one word in reference to the terms of the agreement. The only question was “Was your son present when you let the house?”, and the plaintiff replied “I think I was”. The plaintiff now came forward, on the ground of a surprise, to claim a new trial, and two affidavits were put in, in which plaintiff and son swore that plaintiff was not present when the agreement was made between son and defendant, but he was present on a subsequent occasion when they agreed about the fixtures.

Mr. Towne stigmatised it as a most vague application, and it was made on the ground of surprise, and yet plaintiff had not ventured to bring in an affidavit of the fact.

The point was argued by both legal gentlemen, after which His Honour said he could not help thinking that the evidence given by defendant at the trial must have amounted to a surprise to the plaintiff. The terms of the two affidavits showed that the plaintiff could not have been present at the time when the agreement was made, and he thought there was sufficient grounds for granting a new trial. 

Folkestone Express 20-5-1871

County Court

Saturday, May 13^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George H. Tite v Henry Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. It will be remembered that at the last sitting of His Honour an action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, held by the defendant, which was decided in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Minter now rose to apply for a new trial and recapitulated the facts of the case. The plaintiff let the Shakespeare Inn on the 25^th March, 1870 to his son, William Tite, at a rental of £40 per annum, and his son sub-let it to defendant. It was evident that an agreement was made between William Tite and the defendant to take the house as a yearly tenant at £24 10s. per annum. At the trial defendant said that Mr. George H. Tite stood by and heard this agreement made, therefore they contended that there was acquiescence on his part, which precluded him from bringing this action. This evidence took the plaintiff by surprise, and he now applied for a new trial. His friend, Mr. Towne, in a very ingenious manner asked the plaintiff the question – “Were you present when your son let the house to defendant?”. Mr. Tite answered “I think I was”. Mr. Towne went on cross-examining very ingeniously, but he did not ask one word as to the terms of the letting. Defendant was then brought before His Honour and swore that the house was let to him as a yearly tenant. These two pieces of evidence dovetailed together showed acquiescence on the part of plaintiff to the letting. Plaintiff did not know at the time such a defence would be set up. The affidavit of the defendant would show that.

Mr. Towne objected to the affidavit. It was filed only the previous night, and he was as surprised at the affidavit as his friend was at the evidence.

His Honour: The affidavits are very short.

Mr. Towne: But the rules of the Court say they should be filed before.

Mr. Minter, while admitting that the affidavit should have been filed before, said there was nothing in the rules of Court that they should be filed.

Mr. Minter said they were not applying for a rule nisi. It would be seen from paragraph 3 of the affidavit that plaintiff understood from plaintiff and his son that a quarterly tenancy had been entered into and he went to the Shakespeare Inn for the purpose of negotiating with the defendant for some fixtures. From the affidavit of William Tite he let the premises to defendant at £24 10s. per year on the condition that defendant paid 32s. per barrel for his beer, and he goes on further to say that no other person was present at the time the agreement was made. After it had been entered into defendant requested him to obtain the presence of his father to see about the fixtures, and they did meet the next evening, after the agreement had been entered into. If his friend had examined the plaintiff as to the terms of the agreement it would have enabled him (Mr. Minter) to have called Mr. William Tite, who would have explained the matter. If plaintiff is bound by the agreement between his son and defendant, how is he to recover £40 per year rent? Is he to be debarred from recovering his rent? Who is the landlord of the defendant Payne? Is Mr. George Ham Tite? If the defendant considered Mr. G.H. Tire his landlord he would have paid plaintiff the rent. Instead of that he pays the plaintiff`s under-tenant, William Tite. And there was direct evidence of this, as in October last he paid him half a year`s rent. If the plaintiff had been treating with Payne, why should he stand by and let it at less rent than he was actually paying himself, for he believed that George Ham Tite was only a yearly tenant of the premises at £40 per year? There  must have been some motive actuating him to let it at a smaller rent.

His Honour: If the affidavits are true, then the evidence by which I came to my decision must be untrue.

Mr. Towne said this was one of the most vague applications he had ever heard. Although his friend said on the last occasion he was taken by surprise, he had not ventured to being on affidavit of that fact. The plaintiff now comes forward and swears distinctly the opposite to which he did before. A legal surprise was something that could not reasonably come into his head, but plaintiff swore distinctly that he was present at the time the agreement was made; if he had denied that he was present, they had witnesses present to prove that he was there.

Mr. Minter pointed out that the plaintiff could if he liked brought the action against Mr. W. Tite, and an order of ejection by default would have turned Payne out without any trouble whatever. But the plaintiff did not wish to act harshly, and he had done all he could to make up the dispute between Payne and his son. He had no desire to get rid of Payne; all he wanted was the rent of the house.

His Honour could not help thinking that the evidence given by the defendant Payne must have amounted to a surprise. The two affidavits showed that the plaintiff was not present at the time the agreement was made. He thought there was just sufficient to say there was surprise, and he therefore granted the application.

Southeastern Gazette 23-5-1871

County Court

At the last monthly sitting of this court, the only case that came before his Honour was William Tite v. Henry Payne. This was an application by the plaintiff for a new trial. Mr. Minter asked for a new trial on the ground of surprise at the evidence given for the defendant at the last occasion. Mr. Minter produced affidavits to show that he was not present when the agreement was made between defendant and his son, but on a subsequent occasion, when he called at the Shakespeare Inn in reference to the fixtures, plaintiff was willing to accept defendant as a tenant at £40 a year; but as at present situated he was in a difficult position, not knowing who was responsible for the rent. Mr, Towne, of Margate, appeared for defendant, and contended that there was no ground for a new trial. His Honour granted the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24-6-1871

County Court

Saturday, June 17^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George Ham Tite v Henry Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for defendant.

Mr. Minter said this was an action brought to recover possession of a public house named the Shakespeare, of which defendant was the tenant, and plaintiff the landlord. Mr. Tite sen. let his house to his son for £40 a year, who underlet it to defendant, who was under notice to quit the premises. The time having expired, defendant did not leave, and an action was brought before His Honour in that Court to obtain possession, and a verdict in defendant`s favour given. That verdict was given in consequence of His Honour being under the impression that Mr. Tite sen. was looked upon by Payne as his landlord, and that he actually filled that relation towards him. Since then, however, evidence of a different character had been brought forward, and a new trial had been granted. He should prove that Mr. Tite sen. was not present when the arrangement was made, nor was he in any way related towards, nor looked upon by defendant, as his landlord, and he thought when His Honour heard the evidence that would be brought forward he would reverse his previous decision.

George Ham Tite said he was a maltster, and kept the Gun Brewery, Folkestone. In 1870 he made an agreement with his son to let him the Shakespeare Inn from March 1870 to March 1871 for £40 a year. He was not present at the time when the house was underlet to defendant. There were some fixtures in the house, and he went there to sell them. He heard there was a dispute between his son and defendant. On the 25^th of March he went to the house to demand possession, which was refused him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: The fixtures in the house were mine. Before Payne took the house I went there to settle about the fixtures. Payne went on the first occasion to meet me by appointment. He wanted to know what I wanted for the fixtures, and I asked £60 for them. I did not propose that he should pay £2 a year more rent instead of paying me for the fixtures. He agreed to pay me £2 a year for the fixtures, and I accepted this instead of the sum asked. I heard a certain conversation passing between my son and defendant in reference to the house, but was not present the whole of the time.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: Payne offered me £50 a year.

Witness was further cross-examined as to whether he took any part in the letting of the house, and said that he did not.

The Judge said that his decision on a previous occasion was based upon what was stated, viz., plaintiff was present and took part in the letting of the house. It was his impression that plaintiff said so on the first hearing of the case.

Mr. Towne said that that was the case.

Mr. Minter said that it certainly was a mistaken interpretation of what defendant said.

Mr. Towne replied that he had a paper, the Folkestone Chronicle, which reported the case, and in the  evidence given plaintiff made that statement.

Mr. Minter: I object to you reading the Chronicle. That is only a remark of the reporter`s. If you want the evidence you must look at the Folkestone Express.

(For the information of Mr. Minter we state that the report of the case given was in every particular, and plaintiff did make the statement ascribed to him by Mr. Towne.)

Mr. Towne said the would hear from further evidence whether that was the case or not.

In reply to the Judge, plaintiff denied taking any part in the transaction when the house was let by his son to defendant.

William Tite, son of plaintiff, said that he hired the Shakespeare of his father for £40 a year. He underlet it to Payne. He was present at the time, and had received money from Payne, which included the rent and the fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I let the house the Saturday after Good Friday. I did not let the fixtures; my father let them. The fixtures were let for £2 a year, and the house for £24 10s. I did not agree to let the house for £24 and £2 for the fixtures. I have receiced £13 as half a year`s rent. The receipt produced includes half a year`s payment for fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: My father let the fixtures.

Mr. Towne, in defence, said he could not see the advantage gained by plaintiff in again bringing the case into Court, as he had no new evidence to offer, and the features of the case presented no new phase, excepting as favourable to his client. The plaintiff, on this occasion, gave different evidence to what he had previously done, and said he was not present when the house was underlet to defendant. They had defendant`s evidence that he was there, and the plaintiff himself said that he was present before the house was let to arrange about the fixtures. The son said the father had never made any arrangement about the letting, and they both made different statements. By some hocus pocus process between the father and son, they had agreed to come to that Court and make these arrangements for turning defendant out of the house before his time had expired. However, they had on this occasion stronger evidence, in favour of Payne, than that received on the first occasion when this case was brought into Court. There was a most respectable party present when the house was let to Payne, and he would swear that the father was the man who let the house, that he negotiated the proceedings, and that he was looked upon as the landlord. They met by an appointment expressly made to make these arrangements. In reply to Payne, Tite sen. said, in reference to the fixtures “I don`t want money for them. Add the fixtures to the rent”. Accordingly an agreement to that effect was entered into, and he would produce a receipt for £13, which was a receipt for a half year`s rent. That receipt admitted that the house was let by plaintiff. If plaintiff acquiesced in the letting of the house, as he would prove that he did, he had no reason now to complain. Payne`s defence was confirmed on the previous trial, and on that occasion, by plaintiff`s statement, by the receipt given, and by the evidence of the father and the son. This was a combination between Tite jun. and Tite sen. to get defendant out of the house, and he thought His Honour would not sanction such an object on the evidence produced by plaintiff that day.

Henry Payne said that he was the landlord of the Shakespeare Inn, and went into the house on Good Friday. He took the house on the Monday or Tuesday after. An appointment was made to meet old Mr. Tite, and he met him on the Monday, and Mr. Button, also Mr. Tite jun., and Mr. Tite sen. negotiated with him, and he agreed to take the house at £24 10s. a year. There was some conversation about fixtures, but ultimately it was agreed that he should pay £2 a year for them in addition to the rent. The receipt produced was for rent and fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The money, for which I have a receipt, was paid to Mr. Wm. Tite.

Mr. Minter: To your landlord.

Defendant: Yes, to Mr. Wm. Tite, my landlord. There was nothing said about purchasing beer. I have had beer from other people besides Mr. Tite. I have paid 30s. a barrel for beer, and I paid Mr. Tite 32s. a barrel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: Mr. Button was present when the terms were agreed on. Mr. Button drew up a bit of an agreement which, however, was not signed. He had had beer of Mr. Tite, but was obliged to leave off dealing with him as the beer was so bad that his customers could not drink it.

Mr. Button said that he was a carpenter and knew Mr. Ham Tite. Mr. Payne asked him to come up to the Shakespeare, as he thought about taking it. He went, and met Mr. Tite there. He observed that there were not many fixtures. There was some conversation about the value of the fixtures, and the house was let for £24 10s., and £2 a year for the fixtures. Mr. Tite jun. did not take part in the proceedings, but the father negotiated. He was asked by Mr. Tite sen. to draw up an agreement, and he did so, but it was not signed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I am not sure that I did not say “You had better have an agreement drawn up”. I will not swear that Mr. Tite sen. did not say “There is no occasion to have an agreement drawn up among honest men”. I do not remember handing the agreement to Mr. Wm. Tite, and his saying that it would not do, as it did not contain the price of beer.

Mr. Minter said that he thought the observations of Mr. Towne were not called for, certainly by the evidence, when he remarked that this was a combination between the father and son to turn defendant out of the house, and the evidence brought forward that day conclusively proved plaintiff`s case, viz., that the son was the landlord of the house, that he let it to defendant, and that the father only took part in the transaction so far as the fixtures were concerned. They had been promised additional evidence from Mr. Button, who he must say had given his evidence in a most fair manner, but which had not altered the aspect of the case in one particular, but on the contrary rather strengthened and confirmed the truth of their statements. There were many things that took place which proved that plaintiff was the landlord and Mr. Button did not deny them. Whatever was done at the interview about which so much had been said, Mr. William Tite let the house, and defendant believed him to be his landlord. If there was a combination at all to do an injustice, it was certainly on the part of defendant. He was a tenant living in a £40 house, and Mr. Tite had let his brewery to his son, and was it likely that Mr. W. Tite would let the house, or the house be let at all, for £24, unless some conditions were attached to it? It was understood that defendant should purchase his beer of Mr. Tite, and that was the reason he had the house at a reduced rental. Was it consistent with good reason, or common sense, that the house would be let for such a rental, without some such understanding? Defendant left off dealing with Mr. Tite, and that created a difficulty, and said he refused the beer because he alleged it was so bad. If such an agreement was not made, how came it that defendant paid 32s. a barrel when he could have got it for 30s.? The fact was that if defendant had not left off dealing with Mr. Tite, quietude would have remained between them, and this would not have occurred. The evidence was such that he thought His Honour would see good reasons for reversing his former decision.

His Honour said he had given his decision on a former occasion on the understanding that there was an acquiescence on the part of plaintiff to the letting of the house, and that he took part in the transaction. There was no evidence before him on the present occasion to confirm that, and Mr. Tite sen. was not to be bound by any acts of his son. Upon the facts given he should give a verdict for plaintiff.

Mr. Towne asked for time to be given defendant to remove.

Mr. Minter said there was no disposition to deal harshly on the part of plaintiff, and His Honour might leave him to fix a time.

Mr. Towne said he would rather His Honour would fix a time.

His Honour said he would give seven days.
 

Folkestone Express 24-6-1871

County Court

Saturday, June 17^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

The Shakespeare Inn, George Ham Tite v Henry Payne: This action was brought to recover possession of the above inn. The case had been previously heard, when His Honour gave judgement for the defendant. The plaintiff applied for a new trial at the last Court; this application was granted by His Honour. As on the previous occasions Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. By the request of the last gentleman all witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Mr. Minter recapitulated the facts of the case – That the plaintiff let the house to his son on March 25^th, 1870 for one year only; the latter sub-let it to the defendant in April of the same year. The tenancy between plaintiff and son expired on the 25^th of March last and the defendant refused to give up possession. Whether the plaintiff was present or not at the time the agreement was made it would not have the effect of binding him to it`s terms. If the defendant was aggrieved he would have his remedy against the plaintiff`s son.

Plaintiff was then sworn, and said: I am a maltster, living at Folkestone, and I am the tenant of the Shakespeare Inn. In 1870 I made an agreement with my son and let the inn to him for one year, from the 25^th of March, 1870, to the 25^th of March, 1871, at £40 per year. I was not present when he let the premises to Payne, the defendant. I had some fixtures in the house. I went to the Shakespeare and saw Payne with reference to the fixtures. I heard there was a dispute between Payne and my son, and I tried to make peace between them. I went to the house and demanded possession. I found Payne there, but he refused to give it up.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son, William, at £40 per year. He was to take the house alone for £40; the fixtures were mine. I went to the house before Payne took it to settle about the fixtures. Payne met me there by appointment; he asked how much I wanted; the most I asked was £50, and the lowest £40. He did not buy them of me; he went home and consulted and came back again the next night. He did not propose to pay £2 a year more rent instead of paying for the fixtures. He agreed to pay £2 a year more for the use of the fixtures. He held them on those terms. I remember your asking me if I was present when the agreement was made. I heard certain conversation between them about it.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I made him an offer to accept £40. Afterwards I said I would be satisfied with £5 per cent of that amount.

His Honour said his judgement on the previous occasion was based on the plaintiff being present at the time the agreement for letting was made.

Mr. Towne said he had the shorthand writers` notes to prove that the plaintiff said at the previous trial that he was present. The Folkestone Chronicle said in cross-examination it was elicited that the plaintiff was present.

Mr. Minter: That is not a report of what he said, that is merely a reporter`s observation. The Folkestone Express contains the correct report.

Mr. William Tite was here called, and Mr. Towne created a sensation in Court by asserting that he saw the witness listening at the door of the Court. This was emphatically denied both by the witness and the door keeper. Ultimately, as witnesses were about to be called in support of Mr. Tite`s statement, Mr. Towne withdrew his accusation. The examination of the witness was then proceeded with. He said: I hired the Shakespeare from my father for one year, from March, 1870, to March, 1871, at £40 per year. My father was not present at the letting of the house to Payne. The fixtures belonged to my father. I have received rent from Payne for the house and for fixtures.

By Mr. Towne: I let the house to Payne the Saturday after Good Friday. I did not let the fixtures at the same time. My father let the fixtures. Payne could not afford to take them, and they were let at £5 per cent, or £2 per year. We agreed on a rent of £24 10s. per year and £2 for the fixtures. That receipt is mine. It is the only one he ever had of me. It says “Received £13 5s. for rent of Shakespeare Inn from April 22^nd to October 22^nd”. I did not let the Shakespeare at £26 10s. per year rent. He took possession and the rent commenced from the 22^nd of April.

Mr. Minter: Does the receipt include rent for fixtures?

Witness: It includes £1 for the fixtures.

This concluded the plaintiff`s case.

Mr. Towne said the plaintiff now utterly contradicted the evidence given by him on the previous occasion. It was excessively probable that the plaintiff was present at the time the agreement was made, and now by some “hocus pocus” he hoped to turn him out without notice to quit because the younger Tite has given up possession. He was fortunately in a position to place the matter beyond any doubt whatever as to the presence of the plaintiff. He was really the man who let the house and the fixtures; he arranged about the whole affair. It would be a cruel thing if the father and son were allowed to combine to turn him out.

The defendant was then called and said: I am the landlord of the Shakespeare Inn. I took it on the 22^nd of April, 1870. I took the house on the Monday or Tuesday evening. I made an appointment to meet old Mr. Tite. I had not taken the house up to that time. I met him in the evening at the Shakespeare. Mr. Button was there, and Mr. Tite jun. was out in the room. Old Mr. Tite was particularly active in the letting; he negotiated about the letting of the house. We had a talk about the house, and after the rent was named at £24 10s. Mr. Tite went on to negotiate about the fixtures. He wanted £40 for them, and I said it was too much money; they were not worth it. He then said I should have them at £5 per cent on £40. It was then settled that I should take the business at £24 10s. rent and £2 for fixtures. (Receipt produced) This is a receipt I received from Tite; it says received for rent, but it was for rent and fixtures. Old Mr. Tite has never asked me anything for the fixtures.

By Mr. Minter: The half year`s rent was paid to William Tite, my landlord. Nothing was said to William Tite on Good Friday about taking the house. Nothing was said until the following Monday or Tuesday by either one or the other of us. Nothing was said about the beer or anything of the kind. I was to have the house at that rent. I have beer from other people. I have paid 30s. a barrel for beer. I paid William Tite 32s. There was a dispute about the beer. Mr. G.H. Tite tried to reconcile the difference.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: Mr. Button was present when the terms were agreed upon. He was asked to draw up an agreement by Mr. George Ham Tite. He did draw up an agreement and I had a copy and they had one. It was never signed, as Mr. Tite said I could do as well without. I ceased to have the beer because I did not like it.

Mr. Button said: I am a carpenter. I know Mr. Ham Tite and Payne. I met Payne and he asked me to come and have a look at the Shakespeare as he had some thoughts of taking it. I said to Payne “There are not many fixtures”. We then went into the parlour. Mr. Ham Tite came in and he and Payne talked about the fittings and the rent. Mr. Tite said he considered the fittings were worth £40, but if he did not care to pay the money down he could pay £2 a year for the fixtures and £24 10s. as rent, making the rent altogether £26 10s. I am quite positive this took place. Young Tite was not present; he was about the bar. I don`t think he said a word about the case. It was the father who negotiated about this house. I was asked to draw up a memorandum, and I drew up two copies. Mr. Tite sen. asked me to make the agreement. I wrote just as I heard them agree. (Agreement read) Those terms were agreed upon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Did you say that an agreement had better be drawn up?

Witness: I might have said so. I cannot tell the day I was there. Do not know the reply given when I took the agreement. I will not swear it was not signed.

Re-examined: It was Mr. Tite senior that proposed an agreement should be drawn up and I prepared one.

Mr. William Tite, re-called, said: When Mr. Button handed me the agreement I read it and told him it was of no use as it did not contain the price of the beer. He said “I will put anything you require on the back of it”.

Mr. Towne contended that the evidence of his witness had not been contradicted.

Mr. Minter, in reply, again contended that if the defendant was in any way injured by his eviction he would have his remedy against Mr. Tite jun.

His Honour said on the previous occasion he based his judgement on the one ground of acquienscence on the part of the plaintiff in the letting; that had now been disproved, and there was no further evidence of his acquiescence with regard to the letting of the house. There was acquiescence with regard to the letting of the fixtures. Plaintiff was present at the time when the fixtures were let but not when the house was let. He was therefore entitled to what he asked. If defendant was aggrieved on that account, his remedy is against Tite jun.  Possession to be given in seven days.

Southeastern Gazette 24-6-1871

County Court

This court was held at the Town Hall on Saturday last, before W.C. Scott Esq., judge.

The time was principally taken up by a rehearing of the case G.H. Tite v Henry Payne, an action brought for the recovery of possession of the Shakespeare Inn. His Honour on the previous trial gave judgement for the defendant, as the evidence showed there was an acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff, who is a superior landlord, to the letting of the house. Affidavits had since been filed in which the plaintiff denied his presence on that occasion, but he was present on a subsequent, occasion to treat for the fixtures.

Plaintiff was called and also his son gave evidence to the effect that he was not present when the house was let, and that he had an interest in the letting of the house to the defendant.

After hearing the whole of the evidence, his honour reversed his decision, and ordered possession of the house in seven days. He also remarked that if the defendant was in any way injured he could proceed against Wm. Tite, jun., the plaintiff’s son.

 

Folkestone Express 8-7-1871

Transfer Of License

At the Petty Sessions on Wednesday morning  Louis Herwigg applied for a license for the Shakespeare, the late tenant, Mr. John Payne, having left without surrendering the old license. It was granted.

Note: According to More Bastions it appears that the names at the Shakespeare are wrong, Herwigg being Henry Augustus, and Payne being Henry.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22-7-1871

County Court

Saturday July 15^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Henry Payne v G.H. Tite: This was another action in reference to the Shakespeare Inn under the following circumstances: At the last Court Mr. G.H. Tite obtained an action for ejectment against Henry Payne. Before Payne had given up possession Mr. G.H. Tite distrained him for half a year`s rent, £13 5s. Payne paid the money under protest, and the present action was brought to recover the sum thus paid.

Mr. Towne appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Towne, in the course of a long argumentative address, placed the position of plaintiff before His Honour, and read extracts from several Acts of Parliament bearing on the case, and in which he designed to show that in consequence of the defendant having taken such proceedings he had no longer any right to recover rent due.

Henry Paine was called, and said: I am the occupier of a house named the Shakespeare Inn, and after the last Court I was served with a summons to leave. I left the premises on the 24^th of June, and before I did so a distress was levied on me by Mr. G.H. Tite. In reply to a telegraph which I sent to Mr. Towne, he advised me to pay under protest, which I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I took possession of the Shakespeare in 1870, at £26 per year, and my rent was due half-yearly. I paid the first half year`s rent, and on the 22^nd of April last I was in possession of the house, and offered the rent to G.H. Tite, which he refused. I have occupied the premises for eight months without paying any rent at all. Mr. Pledge distrained on the premises, and I gave him a cheque on the London and County Bank.

Mr. James Pledge said: I am agent for the defendant, and was called upon to make a distress on Payne. I gave the receipt produced to plaintiff. No-one made any objection that I know of concerning the right to distress. He might have protested against my doing so, but that is not an unusual thing. He gave me a cheque, and I paid Mr. Tite. The cheque has been paid into my account, and has not been returned.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The plaintiff forcibly ejected my men. He did not eject me, or attempt it (laughter), for I went out and he locked the door. In the evening he told me that he had a communication with his solicitor, and Mr. Towne had advised him to pay the money. He gave me a cheque for £18, and I gave him the difference on the cheque. I cannot say whether the cheque is paid or not.

Mr. Minter, in defence, said there was no case whatever for His Honour to decide on. The plaintiff had suffered no injury, as he owed the rent which was due on the 22^nd of April last. The fact was the action had been taken on false grounds, as it should have been for trespass or replevin as provided by the Act of Parliament. He contended there was nothing for the Judge to decide on, as the action was brought in a wrong manner, and defendant had not offended the law.

Mr. Towne, in reply, reviewed the whole case, and submitted many quotations from Acts of Parliament bearing on the subject, which he said showed that he was in the right. He was quite sure that if the case was adjourned he could bring abundance of testimony to support his view of it.

His Honour said the law was plain on the point. That was not the proper way for Mr. Towne to bring an action, and the case could not, under the circumstances, be supported.

Mr. Towne asked for a case which His Honour refused. He then gave notice for a new trial.

Folkestone Express 22-7-1871

County Court

Saturday, July 15^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Henry Payne v George Ham Tite: This was a plaint out in for the recovery of £13 6s., which was paid by the plaintiff, under protest, to the defendant on the 20^th June.

Mr. Towne, of Margate, appeared for the plaintiff, as on a former occasion when an action was brought against him by the defendant for the recovery of the Shakespeare Inn. Mr. Minter again appeared for Mr. Tite.

Mr. Towne opened the case in a lengthy speech, and stated that a distress had been taken out by the defendant against his client, and £13 6s. had been paid under protest. He thought there would be no difficulty with that as he held the receipt given for the money. He then proceeded to recapitulate the circumstances of the late action against the plaintiff, and denounced it as a conspiracy against him. On the 31^st of arch a summons was issued against the plaintiff calling on him to quit possession of the Shakespeare Inn, the tenancy of the defendant`s son having expired on the 25^th. Mr. Towne contended that the very issue of that summons was an admission that the person was a mere trespasser, and that the tenancy between the father and son (Tites) had expired. And if that tenancy had expired, why, the, of course, the power to make a distraint had expired and the defendant had no right to make it.The question was whether the distress was issued on Henry Payne during the possession of George Ham Tite. The latter, having admitted the tenancy between his son and himself to have ceased on the 25^th of March, and having issued a summons in the shape of an ejectment against the present plaintiff, and got possession under that summons, the question was whether Henry Payne was the tenant. He never was the tenant of George Ham Tite. The son of the latter was, and that tenancy having ceased, he had the audacity to do that, and they now simply wanted back the money. The right to make a distress was determined by the issue of the summons, which amounted to an eviction. He contended that after an eviction the landlord loses his power of a distress, that power existing only during the tenancy of the person from whom the arrears of rent become due. The rent does not become due from the sub-tenant, and here the sub-tenant was treated as a trespasser.

Mr. Towne quoted authorities on these points, and then called the plaintiff, who deposed to having been served with a summons from George Ham Tite to quit possession of the Shakespeare. At the last County Court he was ordered out of possession.

Mr. Minter said no oral testimony could be given as evidence of the acts of the Court.

Mr. Towne said he produced the order.

Mr. Minter said it was entered in the proper Court book – that was merely a minute from the book.

His Honour (to Mr. Minter): What do you want?

Mr. Minter: I want him to prove it in the proper way.

Mr. Towne said the minutes of the Registrar were the best evidence.

Mr. Minter said the proper way was by the office copy.

Mr. Towne said he could not submit to such ill-bound technicalities.

Mr. Minter said he was there on behalf of his clients and to make all the objections he could.

Mr. Towne: You must not take your objections for law.

Mr. Minter said it was not a proper thing for the Court to send for the copy.

Mr. Towne: We have been led away; the summons put in is evidence. (Summons put in)

Examination of the witness continued: I left the premises on the 24^th of June. Before that day the distraint was made upon me by Mr. George Ham Tite. I paid, under protest, to his agent.

By Mr. Minter: I entered into possession on the 22^nd April, 1870, at a yearly rental of £26 10s., payable half-yearly. I paid the first half year`s rent. I have not paid the second half-year`s rent. Kept possession from April till June without paying rent. Have been in for eight months without paying rent at all. I paid Mr. Pledge a cheque for £13 6s. under protest.

By Mr. Towne: The cheque is paid.

Mr. Minter: He can`t tell that.

Witness: I have not had it back.

Mr. James Pledge deposed he was agent for the defendant. He was called upon to make a distress on the plaintiff. Acting for Mr. Tite he gave the plaintiff a receipt, and received from him a cheque, which he gave to Mr. Tite. He had not had the cheque back.

By Mr. Minter: I distrained on the Shakespeare. The plaintiff forcibly ejected my man from the house as soon as I had gone out, and then locked the door. The plaintiff afterwards told me he should see his solicitor to know if the distraint was right or not. He afterwards said he had communicated with Mr. Towne and should pay under protest. He then gave me a cheque for £18, and I gave him the difference.

Mr. Towne: If the Judge is satisfied that the protest was made, that is my case.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court. After alluding to the fact that the attorney for the plaintiff had used some harsh words, he submitted that the action had been brought in a wrong form, and that there was no case for His Honour. The illegality of the distress had not been proved, neither had the actual payment of the money. It might be the cheque had not been paid. No doubt ordinary businessmen would assume it had been, but that was not what they had got to decide there today.

Mr. Minter then made voluminous quotations in support of his case to which Mr. Towne objected in warm terms.

His Honour (to Mr. Towne): You bring books to show the illegality of the distress. He objects to your method of bringing forward the case.

Mr. Towne: Something in the shape of a distress was made, and without .......

His Honour: He has his remedy. An action could have been entered into for illegal distress.

Mr. Towne: Because we have not brought forward an action for illegal distress, we are not to bring this action for the recovery of money paid under protest?

His Honour: I have no doubt that was the proper way to recover this money. Whether the distress was good or bad, this is not the proper way to bring your claim.

Mr. Towne: I deny a man a right to enter my premises at all; he puts in a distraint, and we afterwards pay him under protest. The facts are before us in evidence. Under these circumstances I should like to have a case for a higher Court.

His Honour: I am not in the slightest doubt on this occasion, and therefore I do not think I ought to grant a case.

Mr. Towne said he would ask His Honour to adjourn the case until the next County Court, and give them an opportunity to satisfy His Honour.

His Honour: I am satisfied.

Mr. Towne: Then you would be more satisfied. I must trouble Your Honour seriously with a notice to apply for a new trial.

His Honour: I can`t prevent you doing that.

Judgement was given for the defendant.

Southeastern Gazette 1-2-1873

Local News

Court of Exchequer, Jan. 28^th:

Payne v Tite: This was an action to recover damages for an alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentation of the right of the defendant to let to the plaintiff a certain dwelling house and beershop at Folkestone, whereby the plaintiff sustained the loss of profits. The defendant pleaded “Not Guilty.”Mr. Willis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Byron for the defendant.

The plaintiff was a carpenter, carrying on business at Folkestone, and the defendant was a brewer in the same town, who had formerly kept the Shakespeare Inn in that place, which he held under his father. According to the plaintiff’s case, in April, 1870, the defendant was anxious to let the Shakespeare Inn, and in order to induce the former to take it off his hands he represented to him that he had power to let the premises by the year. The plaintiff having entered into possession, and having incurred various expenses with the view of carrying on the trade of a beerhouse on the premises, was ultimately turned out without notice by the father of the defendant, on the ground that the latter had no right to let the premises to a yearly tenant, but only for the remainder of his term, which expired a few months after the plaintiff entered into possession. The plaintiff now sought to recover compensation for the loss he had thereby sustained.

The defence was that the plaintiff had notice when he took the premises that the defendant could only let them to him quarter by quarter.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £20.

Kentish Gazette 4-2-1873  

Court of Exchequer, Jan. 28: Payne v Tite

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentation of the 

right of the defendant to let to the plaintiff a certain dwelling house and beershop at Folkestone, 

whereby the plaintiff sustained the loss of profits.

The defendant pleaded “Not Guilty”.

Mr. Willis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prentice. Q.C., and Mr. Byron for the defendant.

The plaintiff was a carpenter, carry­ing on business at Folkestone, and the defendant was a brewer in the same town, who had formerly kept the Shakespeare Inn in that place, which he held under his father. According to the plaintiff's case, in April, 1870, the defendant was anxious to let the Shakespeare Inn, and in order to induce the former to take it off his hands he represented to him that he had the power to let the premises by the year. The plaintiff having entered into possession, and having incurred various expenses with the view of carrying on the trade of a beerhouse on the premises, was ultimately turned out without notice by the father of the defendant, on the ground that the latter had no right to let the premises to a yearly tenant, but only for the remainder of his term, which expired a few months after the plaintiff entered into possession. The plaintiff now sought to recover compensation for the loss be had thereby sustained.

The defence was that the plaintiff had notice when he took the premises that the defendant could only let them to him quarter by quarter.

The jury re­turned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £20. 

Folkestone Express 16-8-1873

Friday, August 15^th: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Charles Lott, Bathchair man, was charged with being drunk and of indecent conduct in Guildhall Street.

Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, proved the case, and said prisoner was drunk in front of his house, and was guilty of indecent conduct in front of a number of children and ladies who were passing. As he would not go away, witness sent for the police, and prisoner was locked up.

A previous conviction for drunkenness in June was proved.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs for the first offence, of 14 days` hard labour. For the second offence, 14 days` hard labour without the option of a fine, and the addition of a few strokes of the lash would not have been out of place for such a besotted offender against morality and decency.

Note: This will actually be Shakespeare 

Folkestone Express 23-8-1873

Erratum

In the report of the Police Court on Friday 15^th instant Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, was stated to have proved a case. It should have been Mr. Herwigg, Shakespeare Inn.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21-3-1874

Wednesday, March 18^th: Before The Mayor and J. Clarke Esq.

William Tite applied for a temporary license for the Shakespeare, under the license granted to Henry Herwigg. Granted.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1877

Monday, June 18^th: Before J. Kelcey Esq., and Alderman Caister

Thomas Hogan was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Sunday evening.

P.C. Knowles deposed that he was on duty in the police station on Sunday evening shortly before eight o`clock, when he was sent for from the Shakespeare Hotel, and on proceeding there he found the prisoner, who refused to leave. When he got the prisoner outside he commenced helloing and throwing a spade which he was carrying about in the street. Witness advised him to go away, but he refused. The prisoner was very drunk and caused a great disturbance.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner, who was an old offender, having often been before them on similar charges, to twenty one days` hard labour, and promised if he came before them again to send him for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Recorder being able to deal more severely with him than they could.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-11-1879

Notice

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, and to the Superintendent of Police of the said Borough.

I, William Thomas Allard, now residing at the Shakespeare Inn, Guildhall Street, in the Township of Folkestone, in the Borough of Folkestone, the holder of a Strong Beer Licence, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the Special Sessions to be holden at the Town Hall in the said Borough, on the Third day of December next, for a licence to hold an additional Excise Licence, to sell by retail at a house situated at Cheriton Road, Folkestone, aforesaid, Beer, to be consumed off the premises in pursuance of the Act 62 and 27 Vict., cap. 33, sect. 1, of which premises John Tite, of Folkestone, aforesaid, is the owner of whom I rent them; and it it my intention to apply to the Justices to insert in such licence a condition that I shall keep the said premises closed during the whole of Sunday.

Given under my hand this Sixth day of November, One Thousand eight hundred and seventy nine.

William Thomas Allard.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-5-1882

County Court

Saturday, May 13^th: Before G. Russell Esq.

John Scott v Heath: This was a peculiar case, Mr. Minter appearing for plaintiff, and Mr. Mowll for defendant.

Defendant is Clerk of the Works to a builder, and plaintiff a retired warrant officer and brewer`s agent. According to the evidence of the latter, on the 13^th March he called at the Shakespeare Inn. He was sitting in a compartment of the bar by himself, and did not know the defendant was there, until he went round and struck him (plaintiff) in the face, knocking him down, and he then kicked him in the side and threw his drink in his face. It was a very serious affair, and defendant might have killed him. He went to Dr. Parry, who ordered him to rest for some time. He was indoors three weeks from the effects of the assault. He had not given the defendant any provocation at the time. They were previously acquainted, and had had a dispute about three months before.

Supt. Taylor was called to prove the charge. On being called to visit plaintiff he found him very ill. On the other hand, Heath declared that plaintiff had insulted him, and when he demanded an explanation Scott struck the first blow.

His Honour considered the case proved against Heath, and gave judgement for £5 and costs.

Folkestone Express 20-5-1882

County Court

Saturday, May 13^th: Before G. Russell Esq.

John Scott v Horace Heath: Claim, £50 damages for an assault in the Shakespeare on the 13^th March.

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

Mr. Minter said that the action was brought by Scott, a retired warrant officer and brewer`s agent, who was at that time in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent in Folkestone, against the defendant, the clerk of the works at the new Grammar School, to recover damages for a most unjustifiable assault committed by defendant on the 13^th March in the Shakespeare Hotel.

John Scott, the plaintiff, said he was a retired warrant officer, and at the time the assault was committed he was in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent at Folkestone. On the 13^th March he was going to Dover, and on his way called in at the Shakespeare and asked for some refreshment. He was sitting in a compartment of the bar by himself, and did not know the defendant was there until he went round and struck him (plaintiff) in the face, knocking him down, and he then kicked him in the side, and threw his drink in his face. It was a very serious affair, and defendant might have killed him. He went to Dr. Perry, who ordered him to rest for some time. He was indoors for three weeks from the effects of the assault. He had not given the defendant any provocation at the time. They were previously acquainted, and had had a dispute about three months before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He never threatened to knock defendant`s brains out at any time. He did not strike the first blow on the 13^th March. Through that occurrence he partly lost his situation, which was worth about £4 a week to him.

Superintendent Taylor said that on the 13^th March the plaintiff complained to him about the assault. He went to his house, and saw him lying on a sofa. He appeared to be very ill, as if suffering from violence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He had seen a number of persons after fighting, but they did not all show their marks the same. Plaintiff was an elderly man and appeared very much shaken.

Horece Heath, the defendant, who is clerk of the works at the Grammar School, in the employ of the Trustees, said that he had been in the town since the 18^th August, 1881. On the 31^st December the plaintiff insulted him, and he then told him that he would have to answer for it some day when he met him alone. On the day in question, he went round into the compartment where plaintiff was and asked him what he meant on the 31^st December, and if he was prepared to defend himself. The plaintiff immediately struck out and hit him right and left. He did not strike the first blow. He had never heard anything about kicking the plaintiff until that morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He could not swear that the barmaid at the Shakespeare had never visited him at his lodgings. He was intimate with her. He had been trying for some time, but had never got hold of plaintiff.

Fanny Hewson, the barmaid at the Shakespeare, said that she remembered the assault taking place. Mr. Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself. Plaintiff then struck out and the defendant hit him back.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: When Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself, Scott put up his hand and pushed defendant, and he knocked over the form. She did not visit the defendant at his lodgings. She walked out with him.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said that there was no doubt but that the defendant nourished a deliberate intention to punish the plaintiff for the insult in December. The defendant was a man in the prime of life, while the plaintiff was much older, and certainly not competent to defend himself against a man like the defendant. It was perfectly immaterial who struck the first blow, as the defendant had expressed his intention to commit the assault. He would give judgement for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, and costs.

Folkestone Express 28-7-1883

Saturday, July 21^st: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., and Alderman Banks

Henry Webb was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse, and George Sider with being drunk. Sider pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Knowles said on the 12^th inst. he saw the two defendants in a pony and trap at the bottom of Shellons Street. They were both drunk. They drove on to Rendezvous Street and stopped opposite the Prince Albert. He followed them with Sergeant Pay. Sider either got out or fell out of the cart. He took him into custody, and afterwards went back to help Sergt. Pay bring Webb to the station. He had received complaints previously about them. They were both incapable of taking care of a horse and cart.

Sergt. Pay said he saw Sider come out of the Gun Inn, get into a cart, and drive up the Bouverie Road, and afterwards return. He stayed about five minutes, and then went to the Shakespeare Inn, leaving his cart outside the Gun. He saw the two defendants afterwards, about nine o`clock, in the cart, coming up Grace Hill. They were both drunk.

Sider was fined 5s. and 8s. costs, and Webb 10s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 10-7-1897

Local News

The Guildhall Street improvement has, it appears, been the means of another, which cannot but “lift up” the neighbourhood hereabouts. The corner house known as the Shakespeare Hotel is about to be rebuilt, under the auspices of the Army and Navy Brewery Company, and Mr. Thomas Dixon, the present proprietor, will give way to another boniface. Mr. Dixon, who has always held a high reputation in Folkestone as a worthy man and a useful Vice President of the local Licensed Victuallers` Association, will leave his well-conducted establishment with every respect, and the best of wishes for his future career.

 

Folkestone Herald 18-9-1897

Police Court Report

On Wednesday – the Mayor presiding – a transfer licence was granted to Mr. George Coles, Shakespeare Hotel, former tenant Mr. Thomas Dixon

Folkestone Up To Date 16-4-1898

Wednesday, April 13^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Woolcott`s application for a licence for the Shakespeare, Cheriton Road, was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30-4-1898

Local News

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel has been transferred to Mr. Woolcott, of Aldershot.

Folkestone Up To Date 30-4-1898

Wednesday, April 27^th: before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Licence was granted on the application of Mr. J.C. Woolcott, of the Shakespeare, corner of Guildhall Street and Cheriton Road

Folkestone Herald 30-4-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday a transfer was granted to Mr. Woolcott for the Shakespeare Inn.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-7-1898

Saturday, June 25^th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and W. Wightwick.

Mr. Charles Sparrow was granted temporary authority to sell at the Shakespeare Hotel.

Folkestone Up To Date 2-7-1898

Saturday, June 25^th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

On the application of Mr. Hall, the necessary authority was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow, who formerly had the Globe, to carry on the Shakespeare Hotel, Cheriton Road, until next licensing day.

Folkestone Herald 2-7-1898

Police Court Report

On Saturday last – the Mayor (Col. Penfold) presiding – a temporary authority was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow for the Shakespeare Hotel. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the applicant. 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6-8-1898

Wednesday, August 3^rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Charles Sparrow had the transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel granted him. 

Folkestone Up To Date 6-8-1898

Wednesday, August 3^rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.

On the application of Mr. Hall, a transfer was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow, Shakespeare Hotel.

Folkestone Herald 6-8-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. C. Sparrow, Shakespeare Inn

Hythe Reporter 13-8-1898

Folkestone Police Court

At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following licence was transferred:

Mr. F. Hall applied on behalf of Mr. Charles Sparrow for a transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel; granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 10-6-1899

Folkestone Police Court

Yesterday (Friday) Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates of the West Kent Militia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Frank Lawrence deposed that at half past one the previous day he saw the two defendants turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel in Guildhall Street, both being drunk. He followed them, and they stopped three gentlemen, taking hold of their coat sleeves. He cautioned them, but Reardon struck a civilian in front of the Town Hall. P.C. Simpson and witness asked them to go away, but Reardon commenced shouting and using obscene language. They fell to the ground. When they were on the ground he commenced obscene language. A good many people collected. Reardon was very violent the whole way to the station and they had to handcuff him.

One of the defendants said they were struck by two civilians, trying to take a rise out of them. He got his head cut open.

Witness further stated that the defendants went in, but were refused to be served. He had heard they got drunk at Cheriton, but could not say for certain.

An officer of the regiment gave Reardon a good character and Hall a fairly good one.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs in each case, or seven days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 10-6-1899

Friday, June 9^th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westrop.

Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates in the West Riding regiment, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on the previous day.

P.C. Frank Lawrence proved the charge.

The prisoners were turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel, were disorderly in the street, rude to a passer by, and violent when taken into custody, and were each fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, in default seven days`.

   

Folkestone Express 17-6-1899

Friday, June 9^th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates in the Royal West Kent Militia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Thursday.

P.C. Frank Lawrence said he saw the two defendants turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel, and the landlord complained to him of their conduct. He followed them and saw them go into Mr. Franklin`s shop. He spoke to them, and Reardon struck a civilian and used very bad language. He was very violent all the way to the station. He thought Reardon was the vilest and foulest-mouthed man he had ever met. At the Shakespeare they were refused to be served. He requested them to go away several times.

Mr. Bradley: Do you know where they got drunk? – I have heard at Cheriton.

An officer of the regiment gave Reardon a good and Hall a fair character.

They were each fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days` in default.

They had no goods, and the officer said he was instructed not to pay any fine.