Folkestone Chronicle 8-8-1891
Monday,
August 3rd: Before J. Clark, S. Penfold, J. Dunk and J. Fitness
Esqs.
Alfred Smith
was charged with stealing one shilling from the till at the Cutter Inn on the
morning of the 3rd inst., the property of George Burgess, the
landlord.
Fanny Burgess
said she was the wife of the landlord of the Cutter Inn. About ten minutes to
eight that morning she went to the till in the bar. She saw a shilling and some
coppers in it, and took a penny out and closed the till. She left the bar for
two or three minutes and when she returned she saw the prisoner there. He was
reaching over the counter. The till was open, and he had his hand upon it. He
asked for a glass of ale, and when she accused him of going to the till, he
replied “That`s nothing to do with it”. She examined the till. There was a
shilling missing, and she sent for her husband.
George
Burgess, the landlord of the Cutter, said he put a shilling in the till shortly
after seven o`clock that morning. There were no other silver coins in it. He
was called into the bar about a quarter to eight that morning by his wife.
Prisoner was there and witness`s wife said he had stolen a shilling from the
till. Prisoner denied it and said “You may search me if you like. You won`t
find a shilling on me”. Witness sent for the police. There was a trough filled
with sawdust in front of the counter. The floor had been swept and fresh
sawdust put down just before the prisoner entered the bar. He afterwards found the
shilling covered up in the sawdust. He showed it to the prisoner and he said he
knew nothing about it.
Prisoner, who
was a stranger, said he belonged to Bury St. Edmund`s in Suffolk, and had been
picking fruit in Kent. There was a soldier in the bar all the time.
P.C. Smith
said he found 8½d. in bronze on the prisoner.
He was
sentenced to 21 days` hard labour.
Folkestone Express 8-8-1891
Monday,
August 3rd: Before J. Clark, J. Dunk, J. Fitness and S. Penfold
Esqs.
Alfred Smith
was charged with stealing a shilling from the till of the Cutter Inn, Dover
Street, the property of George Burgess.
Fanny
Burgess, wife of the landlord, said that morning about ten minutes to eight she
went to the till in the bar. She saw there was a shilling and some coppers in
it. She took out a penny and closed the till. She left the bar for about three
minutes, and when she returned saw the prisoner there. He was reaching over the
counter and had his hand on the till, which was open. He said he wanted a glass
of ale. She accused him of going to the till, and he said “That has nothing to
do with it”. She examined the till and missed the shilling, and then sent for
her husband.
George
Burgess, landlord of the Cutter, said he put a shilling into the till shortly
after seven that morning. There was no other silver coin in it. About a quarter
to eight his wife called him. Prisoner was in front of the bar, and his wife
said “This man has stolen a shilling from the till”. Prisoner denied it and
said “You may search me if you like. You won`t find a shilling on me”. He sent
for the police. There was a trough filled with sawdust in front of the counter.
The floor had been swept, and fresh sawdust put down just before the prisoner
came in, and in the sawdust he found the shilling, covered up. He showed it to
the prisoner, who said he didn`t know anything about it.
Prisoner said
there was a soldier in the bar all the time.
P.C. Smith
said the prisoner had 8½ d. in bronze upon him. A soldier entered the bar
behind him.
Prisoner was
a stranger, and said he belonged to Bury St. Edmund`s, in Suffolk. He had been
picking fruit in Kent. He was sentenced to 21 days` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle 11-6-1892
Local News
At the Police
Court on Tuesday before Councillor J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Dunk, and Mr. J.
Fitness, a man named Thomas Smith was charged with breaking 2 glass tumblers,
the property of George Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter.
The
prosecutor stated that the man was in his house on Monday evening. He missed
two glasses, and believing defendant to have them followed him down the street
and saw him take the glasses out of his pocket and throw them against the wall
of the Pavilion Shades. He asked the prisoner what he did it for, and he was
very abusive. He was not sober, but he spent no money in prosecutor`s house.
The value of the glasses was 4d.
Prisoner said
he did not know he had the glasses in his pocket He had been drinking all day.
When he felt the glasses, he pulled them out and threw them on the pavement.
Prosecutor
said the defendant went into the house with 10 or 12 militiamen.
Prisoner was
fined 2s. 6d., damage 4d., and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days.
Folkestone Express 11-6-1892
Tuesday, June
7th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Dunk and J. Fitness Esqs.
Thomas Smith
was charged with breaking two glass tumblers, the property of George Burgess,
landlord of the Folkestone Cutter.
Prosecutor
said the man was in his house on Monday evening. He missed two glasses and
followed the defendant down the street, and saw him take the glasses out of his
pocket and throw them against the wall of the Pavilion Shades. He asked
prisoner what he did it for, and he was very abusive. He was not sober, but he
spent no money in prosecutor`s house. The value of the glasses was 4d.
Prisoner said
he did not know he had the glasses in his pocket. He had been drinking all day.
When he felt the glasses, he pulled them out and threw them on the pavement.
Prosecutor
said the defendant went into the house with 10 or 12 militiamen.
Prisoner was
fined 2s. 6d., damage 4d., and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.
Folkestone Chronicle 16-7-1892
Saturday,
July 9th: Before Mr. Fitness, Alderman Pledge, Mr. Holden, Mr.
George Spurgen, and Mr. E.T. Ward.
George
Burgess, landlord of the Folkestone Cutter, was summoned for keeping his
premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on
Sunday, the 26th of June.
Mr. Minter
appeared for the brewers – Messrs. Ash & Co., of Canterbury.
Sergeant
Lilley said on Sunday morning, the 26th ult., he watched the
Folkestone Cutter in company with Sergeant Swift from half past five till
quarter to seven. During that time 35 persons went in. At quarter to seven he
saw four persons enter, and he and Swift then went into the house. One man had
a pint glass, three parts full of beer, drinking. Three pint glasses were
standing on the counter. They had recently contained beer. He asked the
landlord what business the men had there, and he replied “You can see what they
are doing”.
Defendant
pleaded Guilty to the charge and said he was very sorry it had happened. Trade
had been very slack lately, and he was tempted. He had long been a publican in
the town, and no complaints had been made against him before.
Mr. Minter
pointed out that all he had to look to on behalf of his clients was that the
licence should not be endorsed, and he thought the defendant`s own statement
that he had been a publican in the town for 30 years and had never had any
complaint against him was a justification for the brewers having him as a
tenant. He asked them not to endorse the licence, as it would punish the
landlord for the action of the tenant. If the Bench desired it, his clients
would undertake to find a fresh tenant.
Superintendent
Taylor said the house had been a very rough one, and a difficult one to manage.
He should like to call attention to the great difficulty the police had in
watching the house. People were posted in various parts of the street and
enquired where the police were, even within the hearing of the officers who
were watching.
The Bench
inflicted a penalty of £5 and 9s. costs, Mr. Holden remarking that the
defendant was not only injuring himself, but the landlord`s property. As it was
the first offence the licence would not be endorsed.
Folkestone Express 16-7-1892
Saturday,
July 9th: Before J. Fitness, J. Holden, J. Pledge, E. Ward, and G.
Spurgen Esqs.
George
Burgess, of the Folkestone Cutter, was charged with having his house open for
the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 26th
June.
Sergeant
Lilley said he watched the house on Sunday morning from 5.30 to 6.45, and saw
35 persons in all enter the house. Defendant was constantly on the look out,
and had people in the streets on the look out. He and another constable went
into the house and found four men there. Three pint glasses which had contained
beer were on the counter, and there was fresh beer spilt on the table in the
taproom. He asked the landlord what the men were doing there, and he replied
“You can see what they are doing”.
Mr. Minter
appeared for the owner.
Defendant
said he was very sorry. Trade had been very slack of late, and he gave way to
temptation. He had been a licensed victualler for 30 years, and it was the
first time he had been in trouble. He hoped the Bench would be lenient with
him.
Mr. Minter,
who appeared for Messrs. Ash, the owners of the house, said all he had to look
to was the endorsement of the licence, and to point out to the Bench that what
the defendant himself said, that he had been a licensed victualler for 30
years, and never had a single complaint against him, justified Messrs. Ash in
letting the house to him, believing he would conduct it properly. If the Bench
desired, they would get another tenant for the house.
The Bench
thought it an aggravated case, and inflicted a fine of £5 and 9s. costs, but
did not endorse the licence.
Folkestone Herald 16-7-1892
Police Court
Jottings
The erring
publican is hardly “at rest” just at present. Of late we have had several cases
in which these recalcitrant members of “the trade” have had to pay somewhat
dearly for their lapses.
On this
occasion two of them were requested to hand over a £5 note each, with, of
course, the accompanying costs, for having sold liquor during prohibited hours
on Sunday, the 26th of June. They were George Burgess, landlord of
the Folkestone Cutter, and Geo. Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf.
In the first
case Sergts. Lilley and Swift proved they saw about 40 persons go into the
house between half past five and a quarter to seven. On going into the house
they found four men there drinking. And in the second, the same officers stated
that they saw eight persons enter the house, and on going in they found them
all drinking.
Mr. Minter,
who represented the owners of the houses, Messrs. Ash and Co. in the one case,
and Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe in the other, did the best he could, but the
result was as we have previously stated.
Sandgate
Visitors` List 16-7-1892
Local News
George Burgess, landlord of the Cutter public house,
was charged at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday with having his house
open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday, 26th
June. The case was proved by Police Sergt. Lilley. Defendant was fined £5 and
9s. costs, but the licence was not endorsed.
Folkestone Chronicle 23-7-1892
Wednesday,
July 20th: Before Major H.W. Poole and Mr. W. Wightwick.
Thomas Baker,
Alfred Marks, Patrick Cox, and Henry Dorrell were also summoned for being on
licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 26th of June, and
pleaded Guilty.
Sergeant
Lilley said he watched the Folkestone Cutter in company with Sergeant Swift on
the 26th ult., and at a quarter to seven saw the four defendants
enter the house. He followed them in almost immediately, and found Marks in the
act of drinking beer. There were three pint glasses on the counter containing
beer. He asked the landlord what the defendants were doing there, and he
replied “You can see what they are doing”.
The Bench
imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.
Folkestone Herald 23-7-1892
Police Court
Jottings
On Wednesday
Messrs. Poole and Wightwick had their attention engaged with some very ordinary
cases, that of thirsty souls charged with having been found on licensed
premises during prohibited hours, presumably, of course, for the purpose of
purchasing beer. They all pleaded Guilty.
Geo. Brewer
and Harry Richards were found at the Wheatsheaf on the 26th of June
(Sunday), at six in the morning, by Sergeants Lilley and Swift, and were fined,
Richards 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, and Brewer 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, the extra
shilling in the way of costs was because he did not put in an appearance, and
the constable had to prove the service of the summons, for doing which,
however, he does not get the shilling.
Thomas Baker,
Albert Parker, Patrick Cox, and Harry Durrell, for being found under similar
circumstances at the Cutter, were similarly fined.
Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1892
Wednesday,
August 24th: Before Mr. J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, Councillor
Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick.
Annual
Licensing Session
Folkestone
Clergymen on Licensing
Mr. A.H.
Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance
Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that
they might know the Society`s views upon the subject, to put before them a
resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev.
M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen
representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not
to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be
used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was
particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to
grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences,
inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that
the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider
the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had
been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the
great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west
of the Gardens.
The Bench
then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.
Adjournments
The
Superintendent of Police having reported that convictions for offences against
the Licensing Act had been obtained against the following in the course of the
past year, the Bench decided to refer their applications for renewals to the
Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28th: Chidwell Brice,
Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren Inn; Laslett,
Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday, Wheatsheaf Inn.
Folkestone Express 27-8-1892
Wednesday,
August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J.
Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.
Annual
Licensing Day
Mr. A.H.
Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance
Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the
justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that
they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a
resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the
justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or
restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer`s licenses were peculiarly
fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought
that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced,
especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did
not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had
been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such
houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the
number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra
Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to
the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties
117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.
Adjourned
Applications
The
applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the
Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had
been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the
adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of September.
Folkestone Chronicle 1-10-1892
Adjourned
Licensing Session
The Adjourned
Licensing Session for the Borough was held at the police Court on Wednesday
morning, on which occasion considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings
by reason of the fact that the renewal of the licenses of several well known
and old established houses in the town was opposed by the Superintendent of
Police, acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee of the Bench.
The
Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and
Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.
Mr. Martyn
Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the objections of the police, and Mr. J.
Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared on behalf of the claimants.
At the
opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the business commenced he wished
to make one announcement. It referred to something which had been done in other
towns, and which the Committee thought it best to do in Folkestone. It was the
opinion of the Committe that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone,
and they therefore suggested that the owners of the houses should talk the
matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to which houses it would be best
to close. If nothing was done before the next Licensing Session, the Committee
would be obliged to suppress some of the licensed houses themselves. But if the
owners would talk the matter over amongst themselves and agree upon the houses
to be closed it would save a great difficulty.
The
Folkestone Cutter
Mr. Gatley
(sic) applied for the renewal of the licence of this house.
The usual
grounds of objection were taken by Mr. Mowll. In this case there were 14 houses
within a distance of 100 paces.
Mr.
Wightwick: Are there any churches near?
Mr. Mowll: No
doubt. There generally is in the neighbourhood of public house. They generally go together.
The renewal
was granted, the applicant in this case being a new tenant.
Folkestone Herald 1-10-1892
Police Court
Jottings
Considerable
interest was manifested on Wednesday in the proceedings at the adjourned
Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing Committee had instructed the
police to serve notices of six objections. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared to
support the police in their opposition by instruction of the Watch Committee.
The Chairman,
Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been suggested that the same plan
adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was the unanimous opinion of the
Licensing Committee that there were too many licensed houses in Folkestone and
they would suggest that the owners of licensed houses should talk it over among
themselves and agree, before the next annual meeting, which houses should be
dropped out. The Licensing Committee felt compelled to suppress some of the
houses in the town, and if the owners would carry out that suggestion it would
do away with a great difficulty and relieve the Magistrates of an invidious
task.
The licenses
of the Wheatsheaf (Geo. Holliday), the Folkestone Cutter (Joseph Gatley, a new
tenant), and the Wonder Tavern (Geo. Laslett), were renewed.
Folkestone Chronicle 22-10-1892
County Court
Tuesday, 18th
October: Before Judge Lucius Selfe
Souter,
Mackenzie & Co. (Mineral Water Manufacturers, Folkestone) v George Burgess:
The plaintiff in this case sought to recover from the defendant the sum of £1
5s., balance of an account in respect to goods supplied to the defendant.
His Honour
made a minute examination of the multitudinous accounts produced by the two
parties, with the result that he found defendant was indebted to the firm for
19s. 6d., instead of the amount claimed, and he gave judgement accordingly.
Payment to be made in a month.
Folkestone Express 22-10-1892
County Court
Tuesday,
October 18th:
Souter &
Co. v George Burgess: This was a claim for mineral waters supplied to the
defendant, formerly an inn keeper. Mr. Watts for plaintiffs. His Honour
investigated the items, and as there were discrepancies in the items paid and
those credited, he gave judgement for 19s. 6d., payment in a month.
Folkestone Express 4-3-1893
Wednesday,
March 1st: Before H.W. Poole, W.J. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
The licence
of the Folkestone Cutter was transferred to Francis Bailey.
Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1893
Local News
Not many
hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company
who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a
very different nature took place within it`s walls at eleven o`clock on
Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been
denuded of all it`s tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put
on it`s everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special
Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the
licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.
At the end of
the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for
the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o`clock the chair
was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge,
Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.
Immediately
in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other
members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for
Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for
the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the
attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of
the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of
the police force who were present to give evidence.
Objection to
a Temperance Magistrate
Mr. Glyn,
barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses,
made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the
Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the
Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection
was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to
consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not
accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr,
Pursey.
Mr. Glyn`s
Opening
Mr. Glyn said
he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take
first the case of the Queen`s Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal
of the licence. The Queen`s Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the
Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable
number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a
valuable property, worth some £1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than £305
valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence
was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been
renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was
now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept
disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these
licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that
it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made
in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing
Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the
circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to
the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the
justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The
Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections
“in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those
gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having
themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He
knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate
upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be
brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their
attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary
to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going
to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these
licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order,
when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.
There was
another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single
ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal
of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses
were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was
prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been
given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the
instructions of the Bench.
He understood
that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be
expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the
matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of
depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to
say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case
where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required,
simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be
brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any
objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping
perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.
He was
dealing with the case of the Queen`s Head, but his remarks would also apply to
the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses
of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was,
therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses,
they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population
of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they
were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and
were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a
population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured
to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an
absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an
opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all
the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was
nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single
conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the
renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point,
because it decided the whole thing.
Some of the
objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required;
others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that
the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction
before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making
the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had
there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses
for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he
understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would
not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the
house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an
opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had
been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a
single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal
without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a
general charge to the Licensing Committee.
Mr. Bodkin,
who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the
renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of
Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been
granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the
fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been
considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be
re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were
in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except
that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of
any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He
ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away
licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.
Mr. Minter
said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that
had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf
of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold
since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while
the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past
twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single
record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he
could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not
required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct
evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four
or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face
of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?
Mr. Bradley
then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance
Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no
locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this
contention was upheld by the Bench.
The Bench
then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the
opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had
decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be
limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last
year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent
should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might
know what the objections were.
Folkestone
Cutter
Mr. Glyn said
this was a very old fully-licensed house, belonging to Messrs. Moxon, brewers.
The present tenant was James Ward. It was suggested that the house was not
required. A fair business was being done.
Note:
No record of a James Ward at the house according to More Bastions.
It was stated
that there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces of this one.
Mr. Taylor
said there were 130 houses in Dover Street, four being licensed. This house had
had four tenants since 1891.
Mr. Glyn: It
has never been held yet that that is a ground for refusing a person`s licence.
Mr. R. Moxon
said the house was valued at £1.000. The present tenant was a very respectable
one, and there had been no complaint during the past twelve months.
By Mr.
Taylor: He knew there had been four changes since 1891.
Mr. Taylor:
Do you know what the reason of it is?
Witness: Some
of the tenants were evidently not conducting the house to the satisfaction of
the police. The present tenant is a very good man, and is increasing the trade.
A Doctrine Of
Confiscation
This
concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the
result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the
Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he
challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant
licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a
summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard
to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not.
Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly
and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive
the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of
those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench
to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent
objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had
been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one
particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs?
Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench
deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward
they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to
other Benches in the county to do the same.
The Decision
The Bench
adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced
that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be
granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.
Mr. Glyn
thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and
asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to
appeal, the Magistrates` Clerk would accept service.
Mr. Bradley:
Yes.
Folkestone Express 16-9-1893
Adjourned
Licensing Session
The special
sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the
Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday.
The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G.
Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.
Mr. Lewis
Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners,
instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall,
and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf
of the Good Templars.
Before the
business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he
carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.
Mr. Glyn, who
appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application
to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should
retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return
Mr. Holden was not among them.
Mr. Glyn then
rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for
the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. It was known to all the
gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for
a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it`s
value was £1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than £305 for
valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years
ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now
opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a
disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent,
he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was
making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in
consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing
Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question
might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general
observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in
raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing
Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting
to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench
would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put
the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what
their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer
objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses
were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important
action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the
law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined
to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving
his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that
in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where
a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because
some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the
Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses
existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of
their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year.
With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at
a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and
the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from
time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not
required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their
licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present
time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply
because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one
case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of
Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would
be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on
their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard
to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which
there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time,
he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to
deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses
having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they
prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an
opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a
great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.
Mr Bodkin
followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v
Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way
of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year,
and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who
seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with
them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact
that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses
had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and
there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses
in the past year.
Mr. Minter,
who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the
other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any
lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased
twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important
matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had
increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the
last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred
to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the
fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but
in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of
the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of
licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence
against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the
offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence.
They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the
legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to
say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants,
notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted
before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial
account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement,
that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger
argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt
bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the
licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the
Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he
thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be
renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and
in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That
course would save a great deal of time.
Mr. Montagu
Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.
The Court
held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the
applicants that he was going to oppose.
Mr. Bradley
thereupon withdrew.
The
Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates
had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be
limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to
the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases
should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.
Mr. Glyn
enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following
order:
The Welcome,
Dover Street
This house,
otherwise “The Cutter” belongs to Messrs Moxon, brewers. Mr. Glyn said it was a
very old house, and doing a fair business.
Sergeant
Swift said there were eight licensed houses within 100 paces.
Superintendent
Taylor said there were about 150 houses in Dover Street, and four licensed
houses. There had been four tenants since 1891.
Mr. Glyn: It
has never been held that that is a ground for refusing a licence. I should like
to see the case.
Richard
Moxon, of the firm Ash and Co., said the house had belonged to the firm many
years – it might be 150. (Laughter) It`s value was close on £1,000. It had a
very respectable tenant against whom there were no complaints.
By
Superintendent Taylor: there have been four tenants.
Mr. Minter:
Oh, Burgess was convicted, and they got him out. They wanted a respectable
tenant.
Mr. Glyn then
addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever
refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the
Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out
several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked,
could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no
doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a
licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the
neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it
were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his
clients` licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It
was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The lowest value was put
at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted,
although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums
of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices`
predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population
had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses
because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they
would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of
their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and
their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the
licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed
any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise
those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a
member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the
proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under
all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their
licenses.
There was some
applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.
The Justices
then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.
On their
return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question
under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses
be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)
Mr. Glyn said
he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother
Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway
Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding
to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their
Clerk.
Mr. Bradley
said there was no objection to that.
Mr. Glyn said
his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which
Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.
The business
then terminated.
Folkestone
Herald 16-9-1893
Editorial
The large audience who crowded into the Licensing
Justices` Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently
representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every
stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was
impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been
committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in
all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law,
were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were
asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long
hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the
tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the
provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal.
As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is
not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the
proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset,
therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of
those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was
rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate
as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses
objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the
manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more
harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if
not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have
taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any
licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a
teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a
Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of
passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of
those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench
was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a
written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the
result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had
originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel
for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach
special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of
earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper
impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of
licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the
discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is
at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the
previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had
been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of
public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now,
and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the
general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed.
In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on
the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these
circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these
licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for
saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the
licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their
origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was
at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the
chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as
the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one
solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no
conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of
persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against
them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last
year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were.
Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent
of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in
support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and
straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the
commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience.
Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of
the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an
appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will
leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid
upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own
object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law
fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in
teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the
houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the
licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory
lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of
houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was
given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the
close of the investigations.
Licensing
It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult.
the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of
objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British
Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street),
Cinque Ports, Queen`s Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen
in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large
room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices
were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy,
Pursey, with the Justices` Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).
Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by
Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the
property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr.
Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good
Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John`s Branch of the
Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the
borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal
assistance.
Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned
friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the
Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you
commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I
have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you
would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some
Temperance societies in Folkestone.
Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no
locus standi.
The Justices now retired to a private room, and after
about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned
into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the
appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a
strong Temperance advocate.
Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be
convenient if you take the Queen`s Head first, and I have formally to apply for
the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. That is a house which is well
known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of
addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very
considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It
is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when
he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a
great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to
time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds
that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As
to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all
others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection
in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions
received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has
occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether
under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied
with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as
agent for the Justices, he had any locus
standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided
as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do.
He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must
be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been
raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will
find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of
Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his
report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates;
therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent
these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with
humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon
which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now,
sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is
not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which
he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a
particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I
am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this
Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after
very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you
retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing
I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single
person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don`t know exactly
what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a
single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these
licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain
that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to
object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property
simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before
them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us
see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first
ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed,
and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can
be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No
notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who
has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the
Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that
in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get
the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests,
there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the
Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by
some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don`t know whether it is any
of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to
have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of
depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture
to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in
which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates
thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the
Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen`s Head, but
among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the
Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although
notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there
has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might
have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir,
with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of
course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what
it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have
been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that
although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of
inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not
required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I
venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course
I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are
clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow
me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this
County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant
of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any
rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this
County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the
decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that
ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where
a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which
you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to
express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that
it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private
individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when
those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid
large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many
years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be
very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving
them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to
a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a
time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now
you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has
become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted.
Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider
this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great
deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those
circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having
regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last
renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago
and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there
has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year,
and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was
condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these
objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others
refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses
have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the
Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides,
but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or
not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that
inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed
the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and
if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to
consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does
not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in
respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of
the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary
proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because
it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner
has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some
counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under
the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had
been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the
tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel,
and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done
in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I
am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in
Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been
suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted,
although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a
right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of
such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single
case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal
following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that
house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not
going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of
any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those
licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer
upon it, it would save us a deal of time.
Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the
legal questions involved in the application.
Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear
for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you
on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has
been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr.
Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences
were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is
this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of
these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right
in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now
under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but
there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have
named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon
owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the
tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into
consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of
the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the
tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the
Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third
such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited
altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is
no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding
that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates
did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any
argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have
decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not
of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that
conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One
other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put
before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been
said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be
pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and
if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn
has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the
applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in
which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed
as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on
the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put
it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I
appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the
box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support
of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to
the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction;
the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I
am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation
does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared
to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving
business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is
it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not
wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you
like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today
unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public
accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you
will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not
a single complaint against them.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the
Bench.
Mr. Minter: I object.
Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.
Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the
Section under which he objects to my locus standi.
Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend
appears – by whom he is instructed.
Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance
Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.
Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the
practice is clear.
Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought
to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.
Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you
have not given notice of objection.
Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he
proposes to establish his right.
Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.
Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the
Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.
Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.
The Justices now retired to their room.
The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have
decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to
within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case
previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that
Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in
order that we may know what these objections are.
The cases not eliminated by this decision were then
proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were
called.
The Welcome, or Folkestone Cutter
The ground of objection to this house was the same as
in the last case.
Sergeant Swift found eight other licensed houses in a
radius of 100 paces, and of 130 houses approximately in Dover Street, four of
them were licensed, said the Superintendent, but Counsel said this could not be
held as evidence that the house was not required.
Mr. Richard Moxon, of the firm of Ash and Co., brewers,
said his firm purchased the house many years ago, and it`s value was £1,000. He
admitted that since 1891 there had been four tenants, and he supposed they had
been got rid of because they had been complained of. The present tenant was a
very respectable man, and there was no complaint against him.
On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said:
The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except
the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It
is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made,
and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had
notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the
house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege
that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded
to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had
had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the
tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the
slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with
regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right
of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted
or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most
ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to
deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and
he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how
can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence
to the other three? I must again put
before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a
licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that
case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you
are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not
wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have
felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon
the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it
would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor
pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the
time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred
with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they
should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this
Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call
it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the
County by confiscating my clients` property in any of these cases, having
regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that
the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that
nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to
deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that
you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no
small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of £10 or £15, for
the lowest in value of the houses before you today is £800, and the licences
have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has
largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr.
Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under
these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of
their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no
other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these
licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of
opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper
body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the
objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken
part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of
Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases
brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have
listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the
result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their
licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in
the body of the court)
It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour,
returning into court just before 4 o`clock.
The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this
question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the
licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed
applause)
Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal,
notice of appeal served on the Justices` Clerk should be accepted by the
Justices.
This was at once acceded to.
Mr. Glyn: My clients all feel, sir, what the
professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr.
Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment