Two Bells (2), Canterbury Road 1841 - c March, 2006

25-6-2020

The Two Bells, 1978

Two Bells, 1965. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown

Two Bells, May 2012

 

Two Bells 1923 Credit Alan Taylor

Two Bells 1999. Credit Martin Easdown

 

Ron & Dolly Mercer in front of the "Heart of Folkestone" mural on the Two Bells in 1984. Credit Two Bells

Two Bells, 1990. Credit Philip Dymott (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Two-Bells-Folkestone.html)

Two Bells, date unknown. Credit Steve Schmid (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Two-Bells-Folkestone.html)

 

Licensees

Jacob Fagg 1841 c1851

Susannah Fagg ???? ????

Thomas Spicer c1851 c1851 (1851 Census)

William White 1854 1866

Louis Furminger 1866 1871 From Wheatsheaf (2)
George Prebble 1871 1871

Charles Sinden 1871 1880 From Royal Oak (1)

George Burchett 1871 c1901 (1901 Census)

Arthur Burchett c1901 1915

Albert Butler 1915 1935

Harry Drye 1935 1937

William Reeves 1937 1948

Henry Spencer 1948 1953 From Lifeboat Inn

Charles Welling 1953 1971

Kenneth Champion 1971 1980

Ronald Mercer 1980 1986

Brian Harrington 1986 1988

Stuart Lawton 1988 1989

David Stokes 1989 1991

Bryan Jones and Sandra Jones 1991 1992

Andrew Franklin and Jane Flisher 1992 1997 Andrew Franklin Also Royal Standard 1995-96

Susan Brown 1997 1998
Duncan Brown 1998 1998

John Uden and Richard Large 1998 1999

James Burfitt 1999 1999

Ian Smart, Louise Smart and Martin Broderick 1999 2000

Lee Bradshaw and Nichola Cooper 2000 2001

Mervin Marriott 2001 2004 + 

Maidstone Gazette 9-9-1851

Annual Licensing Day; Before R. Hart Esq., Mayor, D. Major, W. Bateman and W. Major Esqs.

There were three applications for new licenses, viz., James Gaby Breach for a license to sell spirits &c., at the refreshment room on the harbour; Thomas Spicer for the Two Bells, Bridge Street, Canterbury Road; Thos. Taylor for the Darlington Arms, Shellons Lane.

Mr. Eves, of the Black Bull, attended, and objected to a license being granted to Thomas Spicer as unnecessary and injurious to his business; he handed in a memorial signed by the incumbent, churchwardens, and Lord Radnor`s agent (Mr. Hinton) &c.

The Magistrates having consulted, the Mayor, in giving their decision, stated that it had been the invariable custom here to grant licenses to all applicants, without reference to the necessity for them, a course he objected to, but as the majority of the Magistrates present were in favour of the applicant his license would be granted, as well as the other two.

All the old licenses were granted, except to Robert Baker, Cooper`s Arms; George Norris, Engine Inn; and Charles Hill, Radnor Inn. The sessions were adjourned for a fortnight, when the renewal of their licenses will be reconsidered by the Magistrates.

Note: Robert Baker, Coopers Arms previously unknown.

Canterbury Journal 13-9-1851

At the Annual Licensing Day there were three applications for new licenses, viz., James Gaby Breach for a license to sell spirits &c., at the refreshment room on the harbour; Thomas Spicer for the Two Bells, Bridge Street, Canterbury Road; Thos. Taylor for the Darlington Arms, Shellons Lane. Mr. Eves, of the Black Bull, attended, and objected to a license being granted to Thomas Spicer as unnecessary and injurious to his business; he handed in a memorial signed by the incumbent, churchwardens, and Lord Radnor`s agent (Mr. Hinton) &c.

The Magistrates having consulted, the Mayor, in giving their decision, stated that it had been the invariable custom here to grant licenses to all applicants, without reference to the necessity for them, a course he objected to, but as the majority of the Magistrates present were in favour of the applicant his license would be granted, as well as the other two.

All the old licenses were granted, except to Robert Baker, Cooper`s Arms; George Norris, Engine Inn; and Charles Hill, Radnor Inn. The sessions were adjourned for a fortnight, when the renewal of their licenses will be reconsidered by the Magistrates.

Note: Robert Baker, Coopers Arms previously unknown

Southeastern Gazette 29-8-1854, Canterbury Journal, Dover Chronicle 2-9-1854

Local News

Petty Sessions: Before W. Major, S. Mackie, J, Kelcey, and W. Bateman, Esqs.

Alice Hobday, a prostitute, was charged with breaking into the house of Peter Penfold, 4, Bridge Street, Folkestone, and stealing three dresses, a shawl, a pair of gloves, a green fall, and 30 farthings, from a box in the house.

Maria Henzen deposed that she left her lodgings, at 4, Bridge-street, on the day of the races, at 2 p.m., and returned at 2 o’clock the next morning, when she missed from a box on the mantel piece some farthings, and several articles from her bed-room. The dresses and shawl produced were her property.

William White, landlord of the Two Bells, Bridge Street, deposed that he saw the prisoner in a meadow looking over the fence at the back of the house, at about 8 p.m. on the 17th inst.; in about an hour he saw the prisoner pass with a bundle in her possession.

Police-constable Edward Barry apprehended the prisoner in a field about a mile from the town, with a bundle in her possession; she acknowledged having stolen them from Penfold’s house.

Committed for trial.

Note: No mention of White in More Bastions.

Southeastern Gazette 24-10-1854

Quarter Sessions.—These sessions were held on Monday, before James John Lonsdale, Esq.

Alice Hobday pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with breaking open, and stealing, from the dwelling-house of Peter Penfold, one silk dress, value 20s., 1 coburg dress, value 1s., and a shawl, value 5s., the property of Maria Kenyon. The prisoner, at the suggestion of the Recorder, withdrew her plea of guilty, and pleaded not guilty.

Maria Kenyon deposed that on the 17th August last she left her home, having shut all the windows, and, on her return, between two and three o’clock the next morning, the articles named in the indictment, which were hanging up behind the door in the bed-room, were gone. She left Edward Page in the house; he was a lodger. When she returned she found the back window open; the windows were so low that any one could get into the house from the ground.

Edward Page, musician, deposed that he was left in the house, but went out a few minutes after the last witness. Not feeling well, he returned home, and got in through the front window—no, the back window. He went out again, and returned with Peter Penfold, but did not recollect which way he went in, though it was by the door. Was sober; had been playing at the Bird-in-Hand; it was bout three o’clock in the morning.

William White, landlord of the Two Bells public-house, two doors from Peter Penfold’s house, deposed that on the 17^th August he saw the prisoner at the back of his house, between 8 and 9 o’clock in the evening; it was not quite dark. Saw her get over the gate at the back of the house, and then go round to the front of it. Shortly afterwards saw the prisoer pass with a bundle.

Edward Barry, police-constable, apprehended the prisoner about a mile from the town on the Cheriton Road. She had a bundle of clothes. Witness asked her where she got it from, and she said, “From Peter Penfold’s,” and that she was very sorry for what she had done.

The Recorder, in summing up, said that he adopted the course of examination of the witnesses, doubting whether the act of braking into the house could be sustained , thought that it could not, and should direct them to acquit her of the graver charge and find her guilty of larceny.

The jury returned a verdict accordingly.

There was a second indictment against the prisoner for obtaining, by false  pretences, on the the 19th August, nine pair of shoes and boots, value 18s., of Mr. George Francis, of Sandgate.

 From the evidence of the prosecutor it appeared that the prisoner obtained the goods, stating that they were for her sister, who was in service at Sandgate. As she did not return them, he informed the police.

James Steer, Superintendent of police, stated that vhen the prisoner was brought to the station-house, three pair of shoes were found in the dress which had been stolen from Peter Penfold, the prosecutor in the last case.

The prisoner, in her defence, stated that she did not intend to steal the shoes, but to go the next day and pay for a pair.

The jury, after some consideration, found her guilty.

The Recorder, in a feeling address to the prisoner (who was but 16 years of age), sentenced her to twelve months’ imprisonment for the first offence, the first fortnight solitary, and six months` for the second offence, the last fortnight solitary.

Dover Telegraph 15-12-1855

Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before the Mayor, W. Major, J. Kelcey, and G. Kennicott Esqs.

Charles Hazeltine, a labourer, was placed at the bar on a charge of stealing a pair of stockings, value 1s 6d, from the Two Bells public house, Bridge Street, the property of Daniel Dawn. It appeared that the prisoner had been lodging at the house, and left on the morning of the 6^th inst. After his departure the stockings were missed; but a prompt search was instituted, and the prisoner traced as far as Bridge, near Canterbury, where he was found with the stolen stockings on his feet, and brought back to Folkestone. In reply to the Bench, the prisoner chose to be tried at once, and had the audacity to plead Not Guilty. One month`s imprisonment and hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-12-1855

Wednesday December 12^th :- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, James Kelcey esq., William Major esq., and G. Kennicott esq.

Charles Hazeltine, who had been remanded from Friday last, was brought up on a charge of stealing a pair of stockings, value 1s 6d, the property of Daniel Down. It appeared that the prosecutor had lodged for some time at the house of Mr. White, the Two Bells, in Bridge Street, and that on the nights of Tuesday and Wednesday week, prisoner (who stated that he was working at Shorncliffe Camp) lodged there, and slept in the same bed with the prosecutor. On Thursday morning prosecutor got up first and went to his work, leaving the prisoner in his bed, who said that he should sleep a little longer. At that time a pair of stockings of the prosecutor`s were hanging on a rail at the foot of the bed. About 8 o`clock Mr. White, the landlord, got up, and on going into prosecutor`s room, prosecutor, prisoner, as well as the stockings were gone. The prisoner had not paid for his lodgings. Mr. White immediately took the road to Canterbury, calling at the roadside houses by the way; and on getting to the Lion public house, at Bridge, he found the prisoner, procured a parish constable, and the missing stockings were found upon the prisoner, who at once admitted that he had taken them. Prisoner was now asked if he consented to have the case decided summarily by the magistrates, under the New Criminal Justice Act, and replying in the affirmative, the depositions were taken, on which, having been called upon, he pleaded not guilty, but was convicted, and sentenced to one month`s imprisonment and hard labour in the house of correction.

This is the second case which has been decided summarily under the new act since the last Quarter Sessions, which but for that act must have been committed for trial. There is consequently every probability of our ensuing court of Quarter Sessions being a “Maiden” one.

Kentish Gazette 18-12-1855

Charles Hazeltine, a labourer, was had before the magis­trates on Wednesday, charged with stealing a pair of 

stockings from the Two BeIls public-house, the property of Daniel Down. The prisoner had been lodging at the 

house, and after his departure the stockings were missed; he was traced as far as Bridge, near Canterbury, where 

he was found with the stolen stockings on his feet, and taken back to Folkestone. One month's imprisonment and 

hard labour.

Southeastern Gazette 18-12-1855

Local News

Monday: Before James Tolputt Esq.

Charles Hazeltine was convicted under the New Criminal Justices Act, with stealing a pair of stockings from Mr. White,  Five Bells (sic), Canterbury Road, Folkestone, and sentenced to 1 month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-4-1861 

Quarter Sessions, Wednesday April 3^rd:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Edward Harris was indicted for stealing, on the 19^th day of February, 1861, 11 pieces of lead and 2 pieces of solder, of the value of 13s., the goods and chattels of the South Eastern Railway Company, he being a servant of the said company.

Mr. Biron appeared for the prosecution, the prisoner being defended by Mr. Minter.

Mr. Biron said:- Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner in this case is charged with stealing lead, from a plumber`s shop, at the upper station of the South Eastern Railway Company, he then being a servant of the company. The short facts the witnesses to be brought before them would prove were the following: That the lead, on the 16^th February, was safe in the shop that the prisoner had access to; that on the 2^nd March the prisoner sold lead, afterwards identified as that which was in the shop, and that on his apprehension he denied knowing the person to whom he had sold it, the place where he lived, or that he had ever sold any lead at all.

The learned counsel then called Edward Allen, who being sworn, deposed he was a plumber in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, that there was a shop at the upper railway station, that witness worked in the shop, that when not there it was generally kept locked, though sometimes left open; that prisoner was a servant of the company, and had occasionally to go to the shop for stores, that the lead produced was safe in the shop on the 16^th of February; identified piece of 1¼ in. piping, and a lump of solder, as also some cuttings of lead, and the end of a urinal pipe – the piece of pipe when in the shop was not beaten together as it now appeared, identified it by its general appearance, and from clay which still adhered to it, from being used as a suction pipe in a brick field near the upper railway station.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Minter, who did not succeed in shaking his testimony, the witness in answer to a question having positively sworn to the lump of solder produced, from the peculiarity of its form, he having run it himself on a flag stone, and also from having used it as a weight in the shop to hold something down he was cutting.

William Peel, examined by Mr. Biron: Knew the prisoner at the bar, who came to his shop about ten minutes before seven on the evening of the 2^nd March, and produced the lead; it weighed 44 lbs., and witness after enquiry if he came honestly by it, gave him 4s. 7d. for it, being at the rate of 1¼d. per lb. Did not know that any of it was solder.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Prisoner told me he came honestly by it. Did not say he picked it up, he said it was kicking about; the original depositions were then put in by request of Mr. Minter, and referred to, but nothing material appeared in them.

By the Recorder: Did not think it suspicious that so much lead was in the possession of the prisoner; gave the market price for it as far as he knew, but he had not much learning; did not know the difference between the lead and the solder. The Recorder then asked witness why he kept such a shop if he did not, adding that he was afraid he (witness) was very little better than a receiver of stolen property, to pretend that he did not know the difference between lead and solder. A silver mug might be brought to him and he would buy it as metal, and pretend he did not know any difference between it and metal; the Recorder then advised him to be very cautious how he acted, or he would some day find himself in the dock instead of the witness box, as he was even then almost in the position of a man who had received stolen goods; the Recorder added “You may go down now”, and the witness hastily left the box.

Ingram Swain, examined by Mr. Biron: Was a police constable. From information received he, on the 5^th March, went to the shop of the last witness with the witness Allen, who identified some lead produced, which Peel said he had purchased of a person whose name he gave, and whom he described. Witness afterwards apprehended prisoner on the pier, who on being told the charge against him denied he had ever been to Peel`s shop, said he did not know him, nor where Darlington Place was, and that he had ever sold any lead to Peel.

This closed the case.

Mr. Minter, for the prisoner, made a most powerful appeal, calling upon them to discharge from their minds anything which the Recorder might have said to the witness Peel, as that did not affect his client; that the witness might be mistaken in the lead, the swearing of which Mr. Minter characterised as bold and reckless on the part of the witness Allen, and that if they had the least doubt they would give the prisoner the benefit of it.

Mr. Minter then called witnesses to character.

Mr. White, who deposed he was landlord of the Two Bells, Bridge Street, had known the prisoner for five years, that he had lived in his house for two years, and that he used to leave him in charge of his bar and till and never missed anything.

Henry Castle also deposed that he knew prisoner for three years, and knew nothing against his character during the whole time.

The Recorder in summing up said the first real point for their consideration was the proof of the property being that of the South Eastern Railway Company; the witness Allen had positively sworn to it, to the piece of pipe produced, and as far as the solder was concerned he gave strong evidence; that he had poured it on a flag stone, and had afterwards used it as a weight; he identified the small piece of pipe too from having a hole in it. The Recorder commented on the remainder of the evidence, and concluded by calling upon the jury, if they had reasonable doubt of the prisoner`s guilt to give him the benefit of it.

The jury then retired, and after a short absence returned into Court and gave a verdict of Guilty.

The Recorder then, in suitable terms, addressed the prisoner, and sentenced him to six months` hard labour.

Folkestone Observer 3-10-1863

Wednesday September 30^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Helen Townsend was charged with stealing a blanket, a sheet, and sixteen bedroom towels.

Mary Ann White, wife of the landlord of the Two Bells, said the prisoner engaged a furnished room for herself and her husband, a man named Sinick, on the 26^th of July. On Saturday night the 19^th instant she told prisoner in the presence of her husband, and in the presence of her own husband, that she had taken one of the sheets from her bed. She at first denied it, but afterwards admitted that she had taken it. Prisoner and her husband said that they were going to Hastings in the morning, and witness said she should fetch her back. They went out before witness was up on Sunday morning. The sheet was missed by her on Saturday afternoon about three o`clock and she had not since seen it. On Monday morning she missed a towel from prisoner`s room, fifteen towels from a chest on the landing, and a blanket from the front bedroom. Prisoner sometimes went into the front bedroom to scrub it out. She pawned some things before, and witness had to get them out. Prisoner promised to pay the cost of redeeming these things, but had not done so. Witness went to Hastings yesterday, and caused prisoner to be apprehended and brought here. Prisoner owed 17s. 10d. for rent &c. The value of the sheet was 10s. and of the towels and blanket, 10s.

William White, landlord of the Two Bells, said that on Saturday his wife charged prisoner with cutting up the sheet and making a shift of it. She admitted she had done so, and that she then had the shift on. Her husband said he would see the bill paid if witness would let her go. On Monday witness`s wife missed other things, and he then sent to Hastings to have prisoner arrested.

The magistrates sent the prisoner to Dover jail for a month`s hard labour

Folkestone Observer 3-6-1865

Wednesday May 31^st:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

Thomas Godden, a mariner, was charged with having on the 27^th instant assaulted assaulted James Godden.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Complainant said he was a labourer, residing in Folkestone. About 12 o`clock on Saturday night last he was opposite the Wheatsheaf – he had just left the Two Bells at the bottom of Bridge Street – when two men said to him “What do you think of our mate?”. He asked what they meant; when the prisoner and another man rushed out and kicked him about the face and head, making the marks he then had between his eyes. His ear was put into two.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Never spoke to defendant. Had a quarrel with him five weeks before. Saw a fight between two workmen and defendant. Told defendant he would fight him. Was not drunk when he left the Two Bells. Defendant rushed out of the Two Bells and knocked him down. Did not square up to defendant before he struck him. Did not return the blows and kicks.

Mr. Minter said the man undoubtedly had received some blows. Wherever there was a brickyard there were plenty of men addicted to fighting, and two men, Thompson and White, had been trying to induce the defendant to fight, and they succeeded. The complainant worked in the brickyard, and said he did not mind having a round with the defendant, and on this Saturday night repeated it, squared up too, and they had a fight, and because he got the worst of it he brought the case before the magistrates.

Clement Gosby, a labourer in the brickyard, said he was in Bridge Street on Saturday night. He went into White`s at the Two Bells and saw the defendant. He went up to the Wheatsheaf and the defendant followed him, and tried to kick up a row with him. Could not say that complainant was drunk. He stood there and saw the defendant come out and square up to the complainant, and said he would knock him down. Complainant squared up and struck defendant, and he squared up and hit complainant in the forehead and then on the ear. He did not see defendant kick complainant. He did not see defendant rush out of the house. He had had two or three pints of beer and was sober at the time.

The magistrates said it appeared to be an aggravated case on the part of the complainant, and they should dismiss the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-10-1866

Wednesday October 24^th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Temporary license was granted to Louis Furminger for the Two Bells

Note: Date for Furminger is at odds with that given in More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-12-1870

Wednesday, December 21^st: Before W. Bateman Esq., and Ald. Tolputt

Sydney Hammond was summoned for assaulting Louis Furminger.

Complainant, who is a publican residing in Bridge Street, said that between seven and eight n the pervious Friday evening defendant came in his house with two females. There was a horse in his stables belonging to one of the women, and she accused defendant of stealing some corn from the stables. Some conversation ensued with respect to the stables, and he refused to remove the horse. The woman then abused him, and he told her he would not have such language in his place. The biggest woman struck him, and all three abused him in the most scandalous manner. Defendant came up to him and pushed his fist in his face and threatened him. He was the worse for liquor. He sent for the police. Defendant constantly threatened him, and even when he was sober frequently abused him.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Express 24-12-1870

Wednesday, December 21^st: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Sidney Hammon was summoned for assaulting Mr. Louis Furminger, the landlord of the Two Bells public house, Canterbury Road.

The plaintiff said: Between seven and eight o`clock on Friday night last the defendant came to my house with two females. A horse belonging to one of the females was in a stable which I let to the defendant. She accused him of stealing the corn, and wanted me to remove the horse into that part of the stable belonging to myself. I told her I should do no such thing and they all commenced to bully me. The tallest of the two females struck me two or three times in the face, and also struck my housekeeper. Defendant also stood over me with his clenched fist and threatened to knock my brains out.

The defendant made a rambling defence.

He was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, which was paid.

Folkestone Chronicle 8-4-1871

Tuesday, April 4^th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Louis Furminger, landlord of the Two Bells public house, was charged with keeping his house open during illegal hours on the 2^nd of April last.

P.C. Smith said he was on duty on Saturday last between one and two o`clock in the neighbourhood of defendant`s house. About half past one o`clock he heard a man, who he saw come from defendant`s house, say “Here`s a Bobby. I shall go back and tell old Furminger”. He followed the man, and went through the back-way door, which he found open. He found five men in the tap room, who were ready for starting. There was a jug and a glass on the table with beer in them. Defendant said he went to bed about twenty minutes to one o`clock, and called James Hands as his witness, who said the house was not open at the late hour the police constable had sworn to.

The Bench considered the offence proved, and fined defendant £1, 11s. costs, or fourteen days` imprisonment

Folkestone Express 8-4-1871

Wednesday, April 5^th: Before R.W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Louis Furminger, of the Two Bells Inn, Canterbury Road, was summoned for having his house open at half past one on Saturday night.

P.C. Smith deposed to visiting the house and finding some people there.

The Bench fined defendant 20s. and 11s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-4-1871

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

Martha James v Louis Furminger: This was a claim for 14s. 2d. for ginger beer supplied, and judgement was given for the amount claimed.

Folkestone Express 22-4-1871

County Court

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

M. Jones and Son, ginger beer merchants &c. v Louis Furminger, publican: The sum due was 14s. 2d., the balance of account.

Defendant disputed a portion of the account relating to the non-return of ginger beer bottles.

His Honour gave judgement for plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

Folkestone Express 29-4-1871

Transfer of License

The license of the Two Bells Inn was transferred on Saturday last from Mr. Louis Furminger to Mr. George Prebble.

Note: No mention of this transfer in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 20-5-1876

Local News

On Thursday last a report was circulated in Folkestone to the effect that Mr. Sinden, the landlord of the Two Bells Inn, had committed suicide. We are requested to contradict this statement. Mr. Sinden has for some time been in a weak state of health, but on enquiry we learnt that there was no grounds for the report alluded to.

Folkestone Express 25-10-1879

Wednesday, October 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Carter, General Cannon, and W.J. Jeffreason Esq.

James Dungate, remanded from Tuesday on a charge of stealing money from a till at the Two Bells Inn, Canterbury Road, was again brought up.

No prosecutor appeared and the prisoner was discharged.

Folkestone Express 17-5-1884

Saturday, May 10^th: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, Alderman Sherwood and J. Fitness Esqs.

Stephen Smith was summoned for selling beer to be drunk on the premises, on the 6^th March, without having a license to sell.

Mr. Jones, the Acting Supervisor of Inland Revenue, appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Minter defended.

Patrick Joseph Stanton, Inland Revenue Officer of Folkestone district, said the defendant held an off license to sell beer. On the 6^th March, about half past nine, he called at Mr. Smith`s house, and found there in the front room Wm. Lester. He was standing at the counter. He asked for Mr. Smith, and asked how he could account for Mr. Lester being on his premises drinking beer. He said he knew nothing about it, and he hoped witness would take no notice of it. He told him it was a very serious thing and he should report it. He did not go the next day and tell Smith what he intended to do, but Smith, on the following day, called and expressed his sorrow, and hoped witness would say no more about it. He replied that it was a very serious thing, and must go forward. He then said he would rather have given £50 than it should have occurred, as he was in hopes of getting a full license for the house later on and it might mitigate against that. He also said he would give witness £5 if he would say nothing about it. He told Smith he was not to be bribed, and that that was an offence in itself.

Cross-examined: The shop is a general shop, and his wife was serving. He sent Lester there, so that he might drop in and trap him. It was necessary to do so. There was not another man in the shop at the time he went in. There was one who went out.

Re-examined: I had never seen Lester before that evening.

William Lester, a painter, living at 78, New Bridge Street said he went to Smith`s house on the evening of the 6^th March, at half past nine. He called for a pint of beer. Mrs. Smith served him. He gave her 6d., and received 4d. out. The defendant was not in the shop. He drank the beer in the shop. He was not there more than ten minutes. Smith went round the same evening and asked if he would say he had half the beer in the house, and half out. He had never been supplied with beer in the house before except supper beer. When he went in there was a glass in front of a man named Kennett. He saw him drink the contents – ale or beer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: How much money did Mr. Stanton give you to go into the place? – Sixpence

How much money were you to have for going to trap this man? – Nothing.

Then you pocketed 4d., and guzzled the beer? (Laughter) – That is it. I had a pint of beer, and paid for it out of the 6d.

You kept the 4d.? – Of course I did.

You know what you went there for, of course? – No, I did not.

Did you know what you received the 6d. for? – No.

Where did you receive the 6d.? – In the Two Bells.

Is that Burchett`s? – Yes.

When you received the 6d., what did Mr. Stanton tell you to go and do with it? – He told me I could go and get a pint of beer up at Smith`s.

Then what do you mean by saying you did not know what you were to do with it? – Well, he did not exactly tell me.

Did he tell you to take care to drink the beer on the premises? – He did not say anything about it.

Did he tell you to bring the beer outside or drink it on the premises? – He did not tell me to drink it inside. It did not matter to me where I had it. I had it inside.

You wish the magistrates to believe you don`t know what the 4d. was for? – I don`t know. It was my money. I don`t know what the officer gave it to me for.

You say there was a man named Kennett in there? - Yes.

When you got your beer, did Mrs. Smith tell you to take it outside? – No.

You are in the habit of getting your supper beer there? – Yes.

Re-examined: Did Mr. Stanton tell you why he sent you there? – Yes, because Smith was selling beer on the premises.

Mr. Minter: Smith summoned you to the County Court for breaking his ladder, didn`t he? – Yes.

And you had to pay for it? – Yes.

Edwin George Burchett, landlord of the Two Bells, was called to prove a conversation he had had with the officer about Smith`s house, but the Magistrates` Clerk told the supervisor it was not evidence.

Mr. Jones said he wanted to show that it was from complaints made that this man was sent up.

Mr. Bradley said the magistrates could only hear evidence, and that was not evidence.

Mr. Jones then claimed the right to reply, but was told he could not.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench for the defendant, pointing out that the prosecution did not come before them with clean hands. It did not want much perception to see that the case had arisen from the jealousy of Mr. Burchett, a rival landlord, who no doubt looked on the defendant as antagonistic to him in his trade, inasmuch as he sold beer for supper, and so on. The case rested solely on the evidence of that worthless character, Lester, who had lied backwards and forwards, whom it was admitted had been sent on purpose to entrap Smith, but who had told the Bench that he did not know what he went for.

He called Richard Kennett, a carter, living at 48, Sidney Street, who said he dealt at Smith`s shop for bread and vegetables, and was there when Lester went in. It was false to say he took up a glass of ale or beer. He did not touch a glass of any description. He heard Lester call for a pint of beer. Mrs. Smith said “Where is your jug?”. He said “I haven`t got one”. She said “All my cans and jugs are out. I`ll lend you a glass to take it home”. She drew the pint of beer and gave it to him. He started drinking it directly. Mrs. Smith told him he mustn`t drink it there – he must take it home.

Cross-examined: I went for bread and vegetables. I did not ask Lester if there was a police officer outside. Mrs. Smith did not call her husband to put him out.

Mr. Jones frequently interrupted Mr. Minter during his speech, evidently being stung by his caustic remarks.

Mr. Bradley told Mr. Jones that he ought to know how to conduct the case.

Mr. Jones: I think I do know.

Mr. Bradley: You have been most irregular.

Mr. Jones: The counsel for the defendant has been most irregular in his remarks. (Laughter)

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant £5, including costs.

Folkestone News 17-5-1884

Saturday, May 10^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Fletcher, Alderman Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.

Stephen Smith, a beer seller, of Folkestone, was charged by the Inland Revenue authorities with unlawfully selling a pint of beer, he having only an off licence, on May 6^th. Mr. Jones, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Dover district, prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Jones, in his opening remarks, said the case was brought forward in consequence of complaints that had been made of defendant selling beer to be drunk on his premises.

Patrick Joseph Stanton, an officer in the Inland Revenue, said he called at defendant`s shop on the 6^th, and found a man named Wm. Lester there drinking a pint of beer. Witness asked for Mr. Smith and then questioned him as to how it was he accounted for the fact of this man drinking beer on the premises. Defendant said he knew nothing about it and hoped no notice would be taken of it. Witness told him it was a serious thing and he should report it, and should take the next day or two to think over it. He did not, as he said he should, go down the next day and tell Mr. Smith, and the latter came up to him, expressed his regret at the affair, said it should not occur again, and hoped that the officer would not think anything more about it. Witness told him that after consideration he thought it was a very serious thing, and ought to go forward. Defendant then said that he would rather have paid £50 than have it occur, as he was anxious to get a full licence later on, and was afraid this would injure his prospect of so doing. Witness told him he could not help that, and that he should report the case. He then said he would rather give witness a £5 note to say nothing about it. Witness replied that he was not to be bribed, as that was an offence in itself. In cross-examination witness said he had never taken money from defendant.

Wm. Lester, of 73, New Bridge Street, said that on 6^th March at half past nine he went into defendant`s to call for a pint of beer. It was served to him and he changed 6d. and got 4d. out. Mr. Smith was not there. That was all he had; he drank it there. Smith came to him afterwards, and asked him whether he could not say he drunk half inside and half outside. A man named Kennett was there with a glass with some beer in it.

By My. Minter: Mr. Stanton gave him the 6d. to go and get the beer with. He was not to have anything for going. It was given to him in the Two Bells and Mr. Burchett was present at the time.

Mr. Minter: Did he (Mr. Stanton) tell you to take care you were to drink the pint of beer on the premises?

Witness: He told me to go and get a pint of beer, and didn`t say about being careful.

Mr. Minter: Then why did you drink it inside instead of out on the pavement?

Witness: I don`t know.

Mr. Minter: Why did you drink it inside? Do you mean to state that you did not know why you went up there to get a pint of beer?

Witness: I don`t know anything more about it.

Mr. Minter: You knew how to keep the 4d. in your pocket. Do you know what that was for?

Witness: No. It`s your own money if you have it given to you, I suppose.

Mr. Minter: The defendant, I believe, summoned you at the County Court for breaking his ladder?

Witness: Yes, that`s right.

Mr. Jones explained that this case was instituted before the summons was issued.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court at great length in support of the defence, and characterised the proceeding of the Revenue authority as constituting an unfair snare on the occasion, in employing a man who customarily went to the house to get beer to take away. It was unfortunate that in this case the man`s wife could not be permitted to give evidence.

A witness named Kennett, a carpenter, said he dealt at Smith`s shop for bread and vegetables. He was in there on the evening in question. It was false that he drank or bought any ale there or touched a glass of any description. When Lester came in, he asked for a pint of beer, and Mrs. Smith said “Where is your jug?” He replied that he had not got one. She said all her cans and jugs were out, and she would lend him a glass to take it home in. She drew the beer in a pint glass. Directly he got it in his hand he commenced drinking it. She told him he must not drink it there, but take it home.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jones: He went to pay an account. Mr. Smith ordered the man out twice. He did not see him leave the house.

The Mayor said that the magistrates considered the case proved, and fined defendant £5.

The prosecution asked for their costs to be allowed.

The Bench decided that this could not be done.

Southeastern Gazette 28-7-1884

Local News

On Tuesday a serious accident happened to a youth, the son of Mr. Burchett, of the Two Bells Inn, Canterbury Road. He was driving his father’s horse and cart, when the animal bolted, and when opposite Walton Terrace, it fell. The youth was thrown out, and the cart went over him. His collar-bone was broken, and he sustained other serious injuries, but he is now progressing towards recovery.

 

Folkestone Express 20-4-1889

Saturday, April 13^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.

Alfred Court, a lad of about 17, was charged with having assaulted Arthur Burchett.

Complainant said he was thirteen years of age, and lived with his father at the Two Bells, Canterbury Road. On Wednesday he was leaving school and going home. When near Mr. Glasscock`s house the defendant threw a stone at him. It hit him on the eyelid and cut it. He did not speak to defendant, but ran home.

Sidney West said he left school with Burchett. When they met defendant he said “Hello, Hacker”. Defendant then threw a stone and they both ran away. Burchett got behind a cart, and defendant threw a stone over it, and it struck him in the eye.

Defendant said the boys were continually teasing him. He admitted throwing the stone, but not with any intention of hurting Burchett.

The Bench imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-10-1890

Wednesday, October 22^nd: Before Major H.W. Poole, Surgeon General Gilbourne, J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

George Thomas McLean was summoned for being disorderly at the Two Bells on Saturday evening.

Edward George Burchett, the landlord of the Two Bells said the defendant came in the worse for liquor, and as he refused to serve him he was very disorderly. He used obscene language and refused to quit the premises.

Defendant, who pleaded Guilty, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-6-1893

Wednesday, June 21^st: Before Colonel De Crespigny and Mr. W. Wightwick

George Burchett, landlord of the Two Bells, Canterbury Road, was summoned for using an unstamped pint glass for the sale of beer on the 16^th June.

In this case it transpired that the glass had been stamped on the bottom by the maker with the word “pint”, but it had not the necessary verifying stamp of the Inspector.

The defendant, who said he bought stamped glasses in order to protect himself, was fined 6d. and 10s. costs.

The Inspector said he gave notice to the publicans in the town nearly three months ago that it would be enforced, and some had complied with the requirements.

Folkestone Express 24-6-1893

Wednesday, June 21^st: Before Colonel De Crespigny and W. Wightwick Esqs.

George Burchett was summoned for selling beer in a glass not marked. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Evidence of the use of the glass having been given, defendant produced the glass, and it was marked at the bottom “pint” – the maker`s mark.

The Inspector said the defendant told him the glass was marked and he did not intend to have it stamped, and defendant denied it.

Defendant said the manufacturers were at fault. He bought the glasses to be safe under the Act. He thought he was doing what was right.

Mr. Major said he had given every publican notice three months ago that the Act would be enforced.

Defendant was fined 6d. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 24-6-1893

Police Court Notes

On Wednesday morning the sitting Justices, Col. De Crespigny and Mr. Wightwick, were engaged in the Borough Court in adjudicating upon a number of charges instituted by Inspector T.C. Major under the Weights and Measures Act.

George Burchett, of the Two Bells, Canterbury Road, was summoned for serving a pint of beer in a glass which was unstamped, and not in accordance with the requirements of the 29^th Sec. of the Weights and Measures Act, at Folkestone on 16^th June.

Evidence of a similar character was given by the same witnesses as in the last case. Mr. Major added that when he told the defendant he must take away the glass in which the beer was served, defendant became cross and said he never allowed anybody to take anything away from his house, except a policeman. He asked witness for his authority, which he produced to the defendant, and he then took the glass away. The glass was not stamped as required by the Weights and Measures Act, and it was not marked as required by the recent regulation of the Board of Trade, and the denomination on the bottom of the glass was insufficient; it must be marked on the side.

Mr. Wightwick: Have all been told this is necessary?

Mr. Major: Yes.

Mr. Wightwick: What did Mr. Burchett say?

Mr. Major: That he did not intend to have it done.

Defendant said he told the Inspector the glasses were manufactured to meet the requirements of the Weights and Measures Act. It was stamped “Pint” on the bottom, and what more was wanted than this? Mr. Major came into his house with bounce and ....

The Deputy Clerk said they could not have this. By the 29^th Sect. of the Act the measures must be verified and stamped by an Inspector working under the Act.

Defendant said if Mr. Major had come round in a proper way they would have avoided all this bother.

Mr. Wightwick said defendant was supposed to know the law; he was supposed to have read every Act of Parliament.

Mr. Major said three months ago every precaution was taken to warn the publicans that this Act would be enforced, and since then several had complied with it`s requirements.

The Bench fined the defendant 6d., and costs 10s. Paid.

Folkestone Visitors` List 28-6-1893

Police Court Notes

“You are supposed to know the law” said the Magistrates to a defendant at the court on Wednesday, but he would be a wise one who could carry in his head one thousandth part of all the crotchety rules and regulations known by the comprehensive term of law as laid down in our statute books.

The defendant was Richard Knott, landlord of the Brewery Tap, in Tontine Street, and the Magistrates were Col. De Crespigny and Mr. W. Wightwick. The former had to appear before the latter for using an unstamped pint glass.

Defendant said he had used them for the last twenty years, and he was not aware they were bound to be stamped.

This drew forth from the Bench the dictum with which this par started. As this was the first offence since the passing of the Act in 1872, defendant was let off with a fine of 6d. and 10s. costs.

Geo. Burchett, landlord of the Two Bells, Canterbury Road, had a similar experience.

Folkestone Up To Date 29-6-1893

Hall Of Justice

Wednesday, June 21^st: Before Justices De Crespigny and W. Wightwick

Two licensed victuallers were charged with selling pints of beer in glasses which were not marked by the inspector. This is the first prosecution of the kind which has taken place in Folkestone for 21 years.

The defendants pleaded ignorance of the technicalities of the law, and were informed by Mr. Justice Wightwick that it was their duty to read every Act of Parliament. One of the accused replied that were he to do so he would be unable to carry on his ordinary business.

In justice to the accused we are pleased to state that there no question but that the glasses held their full measure.

Mr. Justice Col. De Crespigny informed the accused that they would be let off lightly, viz., 6d. and costs.