Harbour Inn 1890s

Holbein`s Visitors` List 16-4-1890

Inquest

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (John Minter Esq.) on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, aged 35, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street.

Frederick Adams, an attendant at the Exhibition, identified the body as that of his brother. Deceased had been at the Oddfellows Arms about seven years; he was married and had five children. Previous to taking the Oddfellows Arms, he was a steward on board the South Eastern Company`s boats. Witness saw him alive on Sunday night at his house. He was then quite cheerful, and had always been in the best of spirits. He was in comfortable circumstances and had a happy home. He was in the habit of getting up early in the morning to go for a walk on the pier – that was his constant walk. He could swim “like a fish”. Witness` own idea was that he must have slipped over from the pier, and struck something in falling, which was the cause of his body floating so long. There were no external marks of violence on the body and deceased was not subject to fits.

Bartholomew Noonan, a navy pensioner, now employed as Harbour Porter, said he knew the deceased, and had seen him several times on the pier. Had seen him that morning about 7.10 when he was on the promenade near the station extension, going towards the pier. The deceased said “Good morning” to witness and his mate. Did not see anything strange in his manner. There was no boat coming into the harbour, but a small boat belonging to one of the steamers was going out. After doing a little work, which occupied him about ten minutes, witness saw something floating about six or seven yards from the end of the pier. On looking again, saw it was the body of a man, floating face downwards. He ran to get a boat hook, and also told the three men in the boat that there was a man in the water. They recovered the body and brought it ashore.

Henry Young, harbour boatman, said that at about 7.40 the previous witness sang out to him and his mate that there was a body at the end of the pier. They rowed to the place and got hold of the body with a boat hook. Witness, who was in the stern of the boat, then got hold of it with his hands, keeping the head up out of the water, and his mate rowed back to the pier as quickly as possible. The body was about 100 yards from the pier. It did not occur to them that it was possible to attempt to restore animation before reaching shore, but they were only a few minutes reaching the pier, and all the usual methods for restoring the apparently drowned were then employed, but without success.

Edward Morris, who was in the boat with last witness,  having corroborated his evidence, Dr. Frederick Eastes said that he was called at eight o`clock to see the deceased. Had not found any external marks of violence on the body. He was not certain that the cause of death was drowning, because the body was found floating so soon after the man had been seen alive. There was froth coming from the mouth, which was one of the signs of drowning. There was no other external sign which would point to drowning or any other cause of death. The body of a person drowned did not usually rise to the surface for some days. There were several things, such as fits, concussion of the brain, a blow received when falling, syncope, &c., which would cause the body to float. If any of those things happened the water would not be drawn into the lungs so much as in the struggles of a drowning person, and the body would be more likely to float.

The Coroner said he remembered holding an inquest on a gentleman who was thrown out of a boat by it`s capsizing, and fell in the water face downwards, his head and body never going under water.

Dr. Eastes said that the best proof that death was by drowning would be the quantity of water found in the stomach, but he had not made a post mortem examination.

John Boorn (one of the jury) tendered himself as a witness. At 7.10 the deceased called at witness` house, the Harbour Inn, and had two pennyworth of rum and a halfpennyworth of milk. He was perfectly sober and asked witness “how things were looking”. In reply to witness he said that things were pretty well, and that he had had a fair day on Sunday. Had known deceased a good many years, and on that morning he was as well as he had ever seen him. It was about 7.15 when he left, and he was all right then.

The Coroner said they had two questions to decide – what was the cause of death, and was it accidental or self-inflicted. It seemed to him that all the evidence pointed to accidental death by drowning, but as the doctor was not positive as to whether it was really a case of drowning they must word their verdict as they felt best.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead, and, at the suggestion of the Coroner, added the words “supposed through accidentally falling into the water”.

Folkestone Chronicle 19-4-1890

Inquest

The Folkestone Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, who was found dead in the sea off the Lighthouse Jetty at Folkestone on Monday morning.

The jury having viewed the body, Frederick Adams said he was turnstile keeper at the Exhibition Palace. The deceased was his brother. He was 35 years of age. He identified the body which the jury had just viewed as that of his brother, Charles Tilley Adams. The deceased was the landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street. He had occupied the house seven years, and was married with five children. Previous to taking the Oddfellows Arms he was Chief Steward in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He last saw him alive at his house on Sunday night at ten o`clock. The deceased was very cheerful. He was always cheerful, and witness had never seen him in a desponding condition. Deceased was in the habit of getting up early in the morning to take a walk on the pier. The deceased was a good swimmer. Witness was of opinion that he must have slipped over the side of the pier whilst watching the boats come round, and it was very probable that he struck something in falling.

By the Foreman: Deceased was not subject to fits.

Bartholomew Noonan, a harbour porter, stated that he knew the deceased, and had seen him several times walking on the pier. Witness saw him between five and ten minutes past seven that morning. Witness was standing behind the Customs House. The deceased said “Good morning” as he passed. Did not notice anything strange in his manner. There was no boat going in the harbour. One went out about half an hour afterwards. Witness followed down on to the pier about ten minutes after the deceased and, happening to look over the head of the pier, observed the body of deceased floating in the water about six yards to the west of the pier (the Lighthouse Jetty). The body was floating head downwards. Witness saw one of the Company`s little boats going out of the harbour, and they picked it up.

Henry Young deposed that he was a harbour boatman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. About twenty minutes to eight that morning he was going out of the harbour with a little boat to get the steamer alongside, when the last witness told him there was a body floating at the end of the pier. He rowed to the place and secured the body with a boathook. It was about 100 yards off the pier.

Edward Morris, another harbour boatman, said he was in company with Young when the body was recovered. It appeared to be quite dead. They moved the legs and arms when they got ashore, but there were no signs of life.

Dr. Frederick Eastes said he was called upon to see the deceased at eight o`clock that morning. Upon examining the body he found him to be dead. There were no marks of violence, but he was not certain that death resulted from drowning. There was froth in the mouth, which was one sign of drowning. There were no other signs of drowning, or death from any other cause. The body was floating, and that was one reason why he could not say positively that death resulted from drowning. A body did not generally rise to the surface for several days. There were several causes why the body might not sink. Apoplexy or a fit would cause it to float, or concussion of the brain from injuries received in falling. He had not held a post mortem examination.

John Boorn, a juryman, elected to give evidence. He said that the deceased called at the Harbour Inn at ten minutes past seven that morning. He had 2d. of rum and 1/2 d. of milk. He was quite sober, and asked witness how things were looking. Witness said “Very well. What sort of day did you have yesterday?” He replied “Very good”. He was in good spirits and left about quarter or twenty minutes past seven.

The Corner, in summing up, said it was a very curious fact that the deceased`s father, who was formerly Chief Steward on board the South Eastern boats, was drowned whilst bathing in East Wear Bay. He was also a splendid swimmer. He (the Coroner) believed the deceased`s elder brother was drowned in Hong Kong whilst bathing.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead; the supposed cause being through drowning.

Folkestone Express 19-4-1890

Inquest

An inquest was held on Monday before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Charles Tilley Adams, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), Dover Street, who was found in the sea near the Pier, on the morning of the 14^th inst.

Frederick Adams, cash-taker at the Exhibition, identified the body as that of his brother, his age being 35. He was a married man with five children. He had been landlord of the Oddfellows Arms seven years, and previous to that he was a steward in the S.E.R. Company`s service. He last saw deceased at his house on the previous night at ten o`clock. He was in the best of spirits, and had always been of a cheerful disposition. He was in comfortable circumstances, and had a happy home. He was in the habit of going for a walk early in the morning on the pier and harbour, that being his usual habit. Deceased could swim very well. He imagined that deceased was leaning over looking at the boat, when he slipped over, and swam about as long as he could, and was then drowned.

Batholomew Noonan, a harbour porter, said he knew the deceased by sight. He had seen him several times walking up and down the pier. He saw deceased that morning at about five minutes to seven. He was going towards the pier, and said “Good morning” to him. That was just by the gate leading from the beach to the pier. The boat would be going out of the harbour about twenty minutes later. About ten minutes after he went down on to the pier, and happening to look over into the sea, he saw a body floating about six or seven yards from the west end of the S.E.R. pier, face downwards in the water. He hailed a boat coming out of the harbour and told the occupants, who went and picked the body up.

Henry Young, harbour boatman, said about twenty minutes to eight that morning the last witness shouted to him and George Bates that there was a body floating in the water at the end of the pier. They rowed to it, and recovered the body and brought it ashore. The body was a few yards from the west pier.

Edward Morris, a mariner in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, said he rowed out with the last witness and brought the body ashore. When the body was brought up on to the pier they tried the usual means to produce artificial respiration, but without success.

Dr. F. Eastes said that morning at eight o`clock he was called to the pier to see the deceased. On examining the body he found him to be dead. He could find no external marks of violence. He was not certain that the cause of death was drowning, because of the body floating. There was froth in the mouth, which was one of the signs of drowning, and there was no other sign that would point to drowning or any other cause of death. The body was floating so soon after he was seen alive. A body did not rise for some days usually. A fit or injury would cause a body to float immediately after death.

John Boorn, a juryman, said that the deceased called at the Harbour Inn at about ten minutes past seven that morning. He had two pennyworth of rum and some milk. He was perfectly sober, quite cheerful, and in good spirits.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Dead, the supposed cause being drowning through accidentally falling into the sea.

Folkestone News 19-4-1890

Inquest

Mr. John Minter, Borough Coroner, held an inquest at the Town Hall on Monday evening, touching the death of Charles Tilley Adams, whose body was found floating off the pier head at Folkestone harbour on Monday morning.

The jury having been sworn, the following evidence was adduced:

Frederick Adams, living at 32, Dover Street, and employed by the Folkestone Pleasure Gardens Company said: The deceased was my brother. His age was 35. He was married, and has left a wife and five children. He was landlord of the Oddfellows Arms (sic), 34, Dover Street. The body now viewed by the jury I identify as my brother. On the body being found it was brought to 32, Dover Street. He has had the Oddfellows for seven years, and was previously the chief steward in the S.E.R. Company`s boats. I last saw deceased alive on Sunday evening at 10 o`clock at his house. He was then in the best of spirits, and has always been cheerful. He was in comfortable circumstances, and had a happy home. He was, to my knowledge, in the habit of getting up early and taking his accustomed walk on the harbour. He could swim like a fish, to use a common saying, and my idea is that he fell over the pier head accidentally when watching the boat coming round from the harbour to the pier head. He was leaning over most likely where there are no chains, and lost his balance and fell over. He must have struck something in falling, and that accounts for him swimming so long on the water. There are no marks upon him.

Batholomew Noonan said: I am a Navy pensioner and harbour porter, and am working on the pier. I knew deceased by sight, and have seen him several times walking on the pier. I saw him this morning between five and ten minutes past seven. He was going through the gates at the entrance to the two stations, which leads to the beach, and went towards the promenade. He said “Good morning” to me and another man. He went in the direction of the pier, and I noticed nothing strange in his manner. There was no boat coming in. A boat would be coming out from the harbour about half an hour later. I went to the end of the pier about ten minutes after, and, looking over into the sea, saw something floating on the water about six or seven yards from the corner of the pier, to the west. I told the man at the enging, and afterwards found it was a body floating, with the face downwards. I told the man in a boat, and they went and picked him up.

Henry Young said: I am harbour boatman. This morning, about twenty minutes to eight, Noonan sung out to us that there was a woman or man afloat outside the harbour. I was in my boat with George Bates and we rowed out to the body, and got hold of it with a boat hook and brought it ashore. I did not see deceased on the pier that morning. The body was floating about a hundred yards off the west pier.

Edward Morris, mariner, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, said: At half past seven I was with the last witness in the boat and we recovered the body. After we got him on the pier we tried to restore him, but found there was no life in him. I was in the stern of the boat and held the body up with the head out of the water. I did not know then who it was.

Dr. Fred. Eastes said: At eight o`clock I went to the pier to see the deceased. I found him dead, and on examining the body saw no external marks of violence. I cannot be certain that the cause of death was drowning, because the body was floating. There was one sign of drowning, froth from the mouth. No other sign could be found externally. In cases of drowning the body doesn`t usually float on the surface of the water for some days. Other causes of death might be apoplexy, syncope, fits of different kinds, when the body would be kept from sinking, as the water would not be drawn into the lungs like it is in the struggles caused by drowning. If the jury desired, it could be decided whether deceased was drowned by seeing if there was water inside the body.

John Boorn, one of the jury, offered to give evidence, and the Coroner said he was entitled to do so. He said: About ten minutes past seven this morning the deceased called into the Harbour Inn, and had two pennyworth of rum and a half pennyworth of milk. He was quite sober and asked how I was getting on. I asked him how he was; he said he was pretty well, and was going on the harbour for a walk. He was perfectly cheerful.

The Coroner summed up, and said it appeared to him that all the circumstances pointed to the fact that the deceased came by his death through an accident in the manner described by his brother. With regard to the doctor`s evidence, he remembered the case of a man falling into the sea from a boat, when he was drowned although the body floated on the water till picked up. There was no evidence to show how the deceased in the present instance came into the water, and it was for the jury to say by their verdict how, in their opinion, death was caused.

After a short consultation the jury found a verdict of Found Dead.

The Coroner suggested that the jury were of opinion deceased was drowned, and that he came into the sea by an accident.

This was assented to by the jury.

The Coroner said it was a curious fatality in the family that the father of deceased was drowned in East Wear Bay while bathing, and the eldest son, he understood, was also drowned at Hong Kong.

Folkestone Express 26-4-1890

Wednesday April 23^rd: Before J. Clarke and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Fanny Boorn

Folkestone Express 15-11-1890

Saturday, November 8^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

Licence Transfer

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mr. Jos. Arch.

Folkestone Express 13-12-1890

Wednesday, December 10^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Transfer

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Joseph Arch.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-2-1892

Saturday, February 6^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks. Major H.W. Poole, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

James Alfred Hawkins and Henry Trevy, gunners belonging to the Royal Artillery, were summoned for breaking a window at the Harbour Inn.

Joseph Arch, landlord of the Harbour Inn, said he heard a crash as he was closing his house at 11 o`clock on the 15^th ult. He went outside and saw the defendants, who now pleaded Guilty.

They were each fined 5s. and 11s. costs, also 3s. damages.

Folkestone Express 13-2-1892

Saturday, February 6^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

James Alfred Hawkins and Andrew Trevy, privates in the Atillery, were charged with breaking a window at the Harbour Inn.

Joseph Arch said on Friday, January 15^th, at five minutes to eleven, he was closing the house, when he heard a crash and found the sitting room window was crushed in. He ran outside and saw the two defendants. He spoke civilly to them, and asked why they broke his window, and they abused him. The value of the glass was stated by Mr. Waddell, who repaired it, to be 6s.

An officer of the battery said the defendants expressed regret, and had tendered the value of the damages to the complainant.

Mr. Arch said the 6s. was not offered until after the summons was issued. He had waited then for a week. He offered to withdraw the summons if the expenses were paid.

Defendants were fined 5s., 1s. costs, and damage 3s.

Folkestone Herald 13-2-1892

Saturday, February 6^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, Mr. Poole and Mr. Herbert

James Hawkins and Henry Truby, privates in the R.A., were charged on the complaint of Mr. Joseph Arch, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, with breaking a pane of glass. They pleaded Guilty.

On Friday, January 15^th, the complainant was closing his house, when he heard the smashing of glass, and found that a window of the sitting room had been broken. He went outside, and seeing defendants near, asked them civilly why they had broken his window, when they became abusive, and threatened to strike him. The damage done amounted to 6s. He communicated with the commanding officer, and getting no reply for a week, took out a summons.

An officer present in Court said the six shillings were sent to Mr. Arch. But that, the complainant said, was after he had taken out the summons.

The Mayor told them they were liable to two months` imprisonment without the option of a fine. It was disgraceful that men wearing Her Majesty`s uniform should act in such a manner. They were fined 5s. each, and ordered to pay 3s. damage, and 11s. costs; total for the two, 38s.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-3-1892

Monday, February 29^th: Before Major H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Mr. J. Arch applied for a licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the football ground on Wednesday, on the occasion of the match between Chatham and the Highland Light Infantry. It was mentioned that a special licence was sometimes granted for cricket matches, but Superintendent Taylor said it was not on all fours with a cricket match, as a football match would probably last only about an hour.

The Bench refused the application.

Folkestone Express 5-3-1892

Monday, February 29^th: Before H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Arch applied for an occasional licence for the football field on the occasion of the match on Wednesday. The Bench considered it unnecessary and refused the application.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-7-1892

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before Mr. H.W. Poole, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Mr. Richard Cooper, on behalf of the Overseers of the Poor, applied for a commitment warrant against Joseph Arch, late landlord of the Harbour Hotel, who had failed to pay the Poor Rate. He stated that the defendant`s furniture was claimed by the owners of the house – George Beer and Co.

The Bench issued a warrant for one month`s imprisonment.

Monday, July 25^th: Before Mr. H.W. Poole, Messrs.J. Brooke, J. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Alderman Dunk.

On behalf of Samuel Barker, a chair maker, Mr. F. Hall applied for transfer of the licence of the Harbour Inn. He stated that Barker was already in possession, and he intended carrying out his duties in accordance with the terms of the licence. A testimonial was produced from Mr. J. Lea, of Harbour Street. Mr. Hall further stated that when application was made to Arch for him to give up the licence, it was not forthcoming, and it was subsequently found that it had been deposited with a solicitor, for him to hold as collateral security on an advance made to Arch.

Mr. Bradley held it was not necessary to produce the licence. The fact that it was registered in the books of the Court was sufficient evidence of it`s existence.

Mr. Hall held that Arch had no right to pledge the licence.

Mr. Bradley said he did not agree with him. Arch had a right to do as he pleased with his own property.

The transfer was granted.

Folkestone Express 30-7-1892

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne

Poor Rate Warrant

A warrant of distress was issued against Joseph Arch, of the Harbour Inn, and when Mr. Barton made a levy he met with a notice that the goods were the property of the brewers, Messrs. Beer and Co.

Mr. Richard Cooper, the Assistant Overseer, therefore asked for a committal order against the defendant, and the Bench issued a warrant of commitment for a month.

Wednesday, July 27^th: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick, J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Samuel Barker applied for temporary authority to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Hall, who appeared for the applicant, said the licence was not forthcoming. He believed the previous holder had deposited it as collateral security for an advance.

The Magistrates` Clerk said the register of licenses was sufficient for that day`s purposes. When the licence holder went out of the premises, it was his duty to give it up.

Temporary authority was granted.

Folkestone Herald 30-7-1892

Police Court Jottings

A legal question cropped up consequent upon the application of Mr. Samuel barker, for whom Mr. Hall appeared, for a temporary licence to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Hall explained that the previous tenant was a man named Arch, who had already given up possession, but when the applied for the licence, it was not forthcoming. He believed the secret was, judging by a letter he had received from a solicitor in the town, that Arch had pawned his licence as collateral security for an advance to a Mr. Geo. Beer. Of course, he had no right to do that, and he asked the Bench to exercise the powers they had, under the Act dealing with the wilful withholding of a licence, to give the required endorsement.

The Magistrates` Clerk ruled that it would be sufficient for the application to be made on transfer day. With regard to pledging the licence, he was of opinion the man had a right to do so, as it was his, but when he left the house he should have given it up to the landlord, whose property it became. As he did not give it up, that would amount to wilful withholding, and it would be right for the Bench to grant the permit without seeing the licence, and this was accordingly done.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-8-1892

Wednesday, August 3^rd: Before Mr. J. Holden and Mr. Fitness.

Mr. Hall, on behalf of Samuel Barton, applied for the licence of the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Rooke said he was instructed to watch the case on behalf of the mortgagee, who was the presaent holder of the licence.

Mr. Hall said in this case the previous tenant had yielded up possession of the house, and held that it was now open to the magistrates to grant a new licence.

Mr. Rooke contested this point, and cited a case from Stone`s Justices Manual.

Mr. Hall said the licence had been pawned to the mortgagee, but a licence was of no value.

Mr. Bradley explained that the late tenant (Mr. Joseph Arch) had yielded up possession of the house, and Mr. Hall now applied for a new licence. If a man were fool enough to lend money on an ale-house licence it was his own look out.

Mr. Rooke: Then I submit that fourteen days` notice should have been given.

Mr. Bradley said no notice was required in this case. The application was granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: 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.

The Harbour Inn

Mr. Rooke, who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Party, asked the Bench to adjourn granting the renewal of this licence, as he wished to obtain a writ of certiorari in order that the validity of renewing this licence might be considered by a higher Court. As the Bench knew, the former landlord parted with his licence for a pecuniary consideration to a certain gentleman, who now held the same. In the face of this, he held, the Bench could not grant another licence, and hence his request for an adjournment.

Mr. Hall said the Bench had already granted the licence to his client – Barker – and that day they came before them for a renewal only. Mr. Rooke had let the time go by when he ought to have taken action in the matter.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll appeared for the owners of the property, and he said that Mr. Hall was perfectly correct in his application. The licence had been granted by the Bench, and all Mr. Hall wanted now was a renewal.

Mr. Rooke said the law allowed them six months in which to apply for a writ. They had taken counsel`s opinion upon this subject, and he held that they were right in their application.

Mr. Bradley advised the Bench to grant the licence.

The Chairman announced that it would be granted.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: 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.

The Harbour Inn

Mr. F. Hall appeared in support of the application for a renewal of the licence of the Harbour Inn to Mr. Barker.

Mr. Rook asked that it might not be considered until the adjourned licensing day, in order that he might have time to give notice of a technical objection.

Mr. Hall said he appeared on behalf of the applicant when the licence was granted. He applied under the Act 9 George IV, and he read the section and contended that he was entitled to claim the renewal of the licence. Mr. Rook was under a wrong impression as to what had occurred. His proper course was to appeal or to apply for a writ of certiorari to bring up the licence to have it quashed. Instead of that he asked for it to be adjourned.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared for the owners of the property; and of course the Bench knew that notice of objection had to be given both to owners and tenants. What Mr. Hall had said was perfectly correct. The Bench gave their decision, and it was optional for Mr. Rook to have applied for a certiorari, but he allowed it to go by. Therefore the man was there under his licence. Whether the licence was properly granted or not did not then matter at all.

Mr. Rook replied that he could apply for a certiorari within six months. But it was rather for convenience than otherwise. He quite agreed with what Mr. Mowll had said. He might say that they had taken counsel`s opinion.

Mr. Hall said he objected to counsel`s opinion being introduced.

Mr. Bradley said he had seen the counsel`s opinion, but he could not understand what case was submitted upon which the opinion was given.

Mr. Mowll said he did not say it to flatter the Magistrates` Clerk, but as far as the licensing law was concerned, his (Mr. Bradley`s) opinion was as good as any counsel`s opinion that could possibly be obtained.

Mr. Bradley said that under the Act of `29 no notice was required.

Mr. Rook said he concurred that no notice whatever was required under the Act of `29. But he submitted that the 74<sup>th</sup> section of the Licensing Act of `72 defined what a transfer of licence was.

Mr. Mowll said they were quite ready to take the renewal of the licence, and run the risk of the certiorari.

Mr. Bradley said, assuming the order was bad, the man was perfectly entitled to come and ask for a renewal. Then there could be two writs applied for, one to quash the original order and one to quash the present order.

The renewal was granted.

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.

The Harbour Inn

Sergeant Swift said there were twelve licensed houses within 100 paces of this house. On the 31^st December, 1892, he visited the house after closing time, and found four seamen there.

Mr. Glyn: Were any proceedings taken?

Mr. Taylor: A summons was applied for but not granted.

Sergeant Swift said the house was resorted to by sailor lads and young girls, and dancing went on in a back room. There was an entrance to the house in Harbour Street, and a back entrance in South Street.

By Mr. Glyn: There had not been any summons taken out with respect to the house since the licence was renewed. He did not know there had been a conviction with regard to one of the houses in the street not objected to.

Sergeant Harman said he found the conduct at the back part of the house disorderly. Young men and girls stood outside and caused a disturbance to the neighbourhood. This generally occurred when there were colliers on the harbour.

Mr. Glyn said it had been pointed out to him that there was a passage in Mr. Taylor`s report to the effect that his representations as to the houses conducted in an unsatisfactory manner did not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship, or Harbour. The house having been conducted in a satisfactory manner, the evidence did not apply.

Mr. Taylor said he would withdraw it. Continuing, he said there were seven houses in South Street, five holding licenses, and, as touching the question of requirement, he mentioned during the past few years the house had changed hands several times.

Mr. Minter: It shows they made their fortunes rapidly.

Mr. Taylor: It shows they could not get a living.

In answer to Mr. Glyn, Mr. Taylor said he objected to two licenses in South Street – that of the Harbour and the Victoria.

Mr. G. Sandeford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., said the house was rated at £48 a year. The tenant was a respectable man, who was doing an increasing business.

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 Harbour Inn

The only objection to this house was that it was not necessary.

Sergeant Swift said there were 12 other houses within 100 paces. On the 31^st December, 1892, he visited the house after hours and found three seamen there. It was reported, but the landlord was not summoned. The house was used by sailor lads and young girls. There were two entrances, one in Harbour Street, and one in South Street. The people who went there made a noise.

By Mr. Glyn: There has been no charge against the house since it was last renewed. There are several other licensed houses in the street not objected to. I did not know that there was a conviction in respect of one of them.

Mr. Glyn: Will you tell the Magistrates how they are to pick out what licenses they are to refuse, and which to renew? – I can`t do that.

Sergeant Harman said the persons who resorted to the house were disorderly. Young girls and men stood outside the back part and caused disturbances. It generally happened when there were colliers in the harbour.

Mr. Glyn pointed out a paragraph in the Superintendent`s report, which said the disorderly conduct did not apply to the Harbour. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor: That is a newspaper report.

Mr. Glyn: I beg you pardon. It is your own writing. (Laughter)

Superintendent Taylor dropped the point. He then desired to show the number of tenants.

Mr. Minter objected. It only showed that the tenant made his fortune rapidly and retired.

Superintendent Taylor: Or lost it.

Mr. Bradley said there were four tenants.

Superintendent Taylor said there were seven houses in South Street, and five held licenses.

By Mr. Glyn: I am objecting to two – the Harbour and Victoria. I do not know what the rent of the Harbour Inn is. It is rated at £48 a year.

James Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., said the Harbour Inn belonged to them. It was purchased in 1888. He did not know the estimated value. The tenant was a respectable man, and doing an increasing business. He entered in August, 1892.

Mr. Minter said the annual value would be £50.

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 23^rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13^th 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 case of the Harbour Inn was next investigated, and Sergt. Swift deposed that there were twelve other licensed houses within 100 paces thereof. On 31^st December, 1892, he visited the house after closing hours and found four seamen there, drinking, but no summons was issued. It was resorted to at night by girls and sailor lads, whose conduct was very noisy. There were two entrances to the house, one in South Street and one in Harbour Street.

Questioned by Mr. Glyn, he said he did not know that as to one of the houses in this street not objected to there had been a conviction.

Sergeant Harman said he thought the conduct of the customers who resorted to the back part of the house in South Street was generally very disorderly, More especially when colliers were in the harbour.

At this stage, when Mr. Bodkin was cross-examining Sergeant Harman, Mr. Glyn interposed, saying: I have found something, and I think the Superintendent will drop this point. Reporting to the Justices, he says “some of these houses have been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, the Victoria, the Ship, or the Harbour.” That, I think, is conclusive. (Laughter) That is in the Superintendent`s report, and I am sure he will, with his usual fairness, give the case up after that.

Superintendent Taylor: I will give Mr. Glyn the benefit of the report in the newspapers.

Mr. Glyn: But it is the Superintendent`s report to the Justices. It is quite clear.

Superintendent Taylor, having looked at the report, said he would not trouble the Bench further on this point, and withdrew the notice of objection so far as it related to the disorderly conduct. But he went on to urge that seeing that there had been four tenants since 1889, it showed that the house was not required, because if the tenants were making a good living they would not want to turn out of it.

This led Mr. Minter to humorously observe that probably they made their fortune quickly and retired.

Mr. Glyn then called to give evidence Mr. J. Gilbert Sandiford, manager to Messrs. Beer and Co., owners of this house, who purchased it in 1883. It was rented at £32, and rated at £48 per annum. The tenant was a most respectable man, and he did a steady increasing business. He had lived there since July, 1892.

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.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893

Licensing

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13^th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it`s conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin`s work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen`s arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

Harbour Inn: Same objection taken – twelve houses within the same distance. Sergeant Harman said the persons who resorted to it were disorderly, but no complaint was made against it when the licence was renewed.

 

Folkestone Express 13-4-1895

Saturday, April 6^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred from Mr. Barker to Mrs. Woolmer.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-6-1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mrs. Wontner

Folkestone Express 8-6-1895

Wednesday, June 5^th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Harbour Inn was transferred to Mrs. Watner 

Folkestone Herald 22-7-1895

Police Court Record

James Gray and William Grist were charged with being found drunk on licensed premises on the 18^th July.

Mrs. Wontner, the landlady of the Harbour Inn, said that on Thursday afternoon they came in drunk. They upset a table and smashed a flower pot. They refused to leave, and witness sent to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs each, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-8-1895

Local News

The friends of Mr. Joseph Arch, junr., formerly of the Harbour Inn, Folkestone, will be interested to learn he received a warm compliment from the Recorder at Old Bailey on Saturday last, for arresting two dangerous criminals, convicted of a burglary in the cloakroom of the Charing Cross Station.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-2-1896

Saturday, February 22^nd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. David Thomson was granted temporary permission to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Folkestone Express 29-2-1896

Saturday, February 22^nd: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

David Thomson was granted temporary authority to sell at the Harbour Inn.

Folkestone Visitors` List 13-1-1897

Kaleidoscope

A policeman`s lot is not a happy one, it is said. Neither is the life of an hotel proprietor under certain circumstances. On Saturday at the Police Court, Mr. Minter observed that in the neighbourhood of the harbour the greatest difficulty was sometimes experienced in keeping those licensed houses respectable.

Not long ago the present landlord of the Harbour Hotel took possession of that place, and he was determined that it should be conducted in a proper manner, and that he would not sere anyone who appeared to be in an intoxicated condition. He meant, said Mr. Minter, to get rid of a certain class of persons who were nothing more or less than “loafers”, and whose language was anything but “desirable” on any occasion.

Then there was a system of persecution, for it so happens that the Harbour Hotel has an entrance from Harbour Street, and also an entrance from South Street. The “passage” leaves the bar on the one hand, and those “loafers”, whom it was found were not desirable customers, and who would not be served, made a practice of making a “short-cut” from Harbour Street. In order to stop this, the South Street door was closed up, and no doubt had the desired effect.

But on the 12^th of December several young men of the seafaring type endeavoured to “force the passage”, and the defendant, who was the “leader” of this noble band, was turned out by the landlord, who would not allow him into South Street, or serve him with drink, because he appeared to have had enough already. When the landlord was doing this kindly action he was struck in the face, and the defendant, like a good many others, “took to his heels” immediately after,

He had, in fact, left the town, probably on board one of the coaling vessels, but returned with the commencement of the new year, and was ultimately summoned. The Mayor, who was in the chair, told him, after hearing the evidence, that it was no use for young fellows to think that they could do just as they liked in a public house. The defendant`s conduct was most reprehensible, and would have to be stopped. Defendant would be fined 10s., with eleven shillings costs, or in default fourteen days` imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-1-1897

Saturday, January 9^th: Before The Mayor, General Gwyn, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Martin Roach was charged with assaulting William Holton, manager of the Harbour Inn. Mr. J. Minter prosecuted.

The prosecutor stated that the joint proprietor of the house with him was Mr. Thompson. The house was near the harbour, and he was greatly annoyed by some former customers coming in either drunk or feigning to be. There were two entrances, one in Harbour Street, and one in South Street, and they merely walked through from one to the other without having anything to drink, making use of the passage as a thoroughfare. He had several times refused to supply the defendant with liquor, as he was drunk and used bad language. On the 12^th December he went in between 10 and 11 p.m., apparently drunk. He was ordered out by witness, and witness was immediately assaulted. He was struck in the face, and some of his whiskers were torn out. A policeman was sent for, and defendant was given into custody.

Edward Bell and James Tiddy corroborated.

Fined 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Express 16-1-1897

Saturday, January 9^th: Before The Mayor, General Gwyn, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Martin Roach was charged with assaulting William Holton, the managing proprietor of the Harbour Inn.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution, and explained the difficulty there was in houses near the harbour to keep them in an orderly way, but the present landlord had conducted his house in an exemplary manner, being determined to put an end to the rowdyism which was going on there. There were two entrances to the house, and some of the former habitués of the house had persistently annoyed the complainant by going in drunk or imitating drunkenness, and walking through without having anything to drink – in fact using the house as a thoroughfare. On the occasion when the assault was committed by the defendant, the kandlord refused to serve him, and requested him to leave, which he refused to do, and struck him. He was then ejected, and a policeman sent for.

William Holton, manager of the Harbour Inn, said the proprietor was Mr. Thompson, with whom he was in partnership. He explained the situation of the house, and said he had on several occasions refused to supply the defendant with liquor, on account of his being in a state of intoxication and using bad language. On the 12^th December he went in, and was apparently drunk. Witness ordered him out, and was immediately assaulted by him and another person who had not been brought before the Bench. Defendant struck him a blow in the face and pulled some of his whiskers out. He sent Mr. Thompson for a policeman, who took him into custody. In the struggle defendant knocked an automatic machine off the counter and broke it all to pieces. The time was between 10 and 10.30 at night.

Edward Bell, a smith, said he was in the house when the disturbance occurred. Defendant was either drunk or acting drunk. Witness`s chair was knocked from under him in the scuffle, and he saw defendant ejected.

By the defendant: I heard the landlord tell you not to make a thoroughfare of his house. You entered from Harbour Street and went through to South Street.

James Tiddy gave similar evidence. He saw defendant strike the manager and pull his whiskers and make his face bleed.

The Bench severely admonished the defendant and fined him 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days`.

 

Folkestone Herald 16-1-1897

Police Court Record

On Saturday – the Mayor presiding – Martin Roach was summoned for assaulting William Holton on the 12^th December.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the complainant, said that the latter is the landlord of one of the small hotels at the harbour. The house had been the resort of a good many of the loafers about the harbour, who went in drunk and created a disturbance, and the present landlord had refused to serve these loafers when in a state of intoxication. There were two entrances into the house, one in Harbour Street and the other in South Street, and the men sought to inflict annoyance on the landlord by going in at one door and out at the other, without buying anything. The defendant was one of the principal offenders in this way. It was on one of these occasions that the assault was committed.

William Holton said he was the manager of the Harbour Hotel. When he first came there he found that a number of persons came in drunk and created disturbances. There were two entrances, both leading to the bar-room. Previous to December 12^th, he had refused to supply the defendant with liquor in consequence of his being in a state of intoxication, and the language he used. On 12^th December he came in drunk, from the Harbour entrance, and witness immediately went forward and ordered him out the way he came in. Witness was then assaulted by defendant and another person, the latter having been since summoned. The defendant struck witness in the face and pulled his whiskers out, causing his face to bleed. Witness sent for the police, and, with assistance, ejected the defendant. The defendant then ran off, but the policeman overtook him. In the struggle the defendant knocked an automatic machine off the counter, breaking it. This happened at about half past ten at night.

Two other witnesses gave evidence, one corroborating the previous evidence as to the assault.

The defendant said he could only say he never struck the complainant.

Fined 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-3-1898

Wednesday, March 23^rd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

William Holton, the licence holder of the Harbour Inn, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting Mrs. Marion Morford on the 17^th March. Mr. G.W. Haines prosecuted, and Mr. Stainer defended on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association.

From the evidence of Mrs. Morford, who was in a delicate state of health, and Mrs. Lizzie Clout, it appeared that the former sent her little girl to the inn to see if her uncle was there. The girl came back crying, saying Holton had hit her. He came out, and complainant asked him why he struck her. In reply, he hit her in the eye. (Witness`s eye was very much swollen and discoloured).

Mr. Stainer asserted that the two witnesses were in the habit of using the house, and that he had refused to serve them, which they denied.

Henry Waddell said Holton did not strike the complainant, but she assaulted him.

The Bench considered the charge proved, and inflicted a fine of £1 and 12s. costs, or 14 days`.

Note: No record of Holton listed in More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 26-3-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday William Holton, landlord of the Harbour Inn, was fined £1 and 12s. costs for assaulting Marian Morford.

Mr. Haines prosecuted, and Mr. Stainer defended on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2-7-1898

Wednesday, June 29^th: Before The Mayor and Mr. J Fitness.

John Tyler was charged with assaulting John Mackay on the 18^th inst.

Prosecutor, an elderly man, apparently in ill-health, and with his right arm in splints, said he was a waiter out of employment. On the 18^th he was seated in the bar of the Harbour Inn, when the prisoner entered, drunk, and the landlord refused to serve him. He then copmmenced to abuse witness, and afterwards struck him. There was a scuffle and witness fell, breaking his right arm.

Defendant said Mackay struck him, and in the scuffle that ensued his arm was broken. He did not do it.

The Chairman said if they thought defendant wilfully broke Mackay`s arm they should have inflicted the full penalty. As it was, he would be fined 20s. and 9s. costs, or 21 days` hard labour.

Defendant asked for time to pay, but it was refused, and he was removed to the cells.

Folkestone Up To Date 2-7-1898

Wednesday, June 29^th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

John Rivers, a labourer, was summoned for assaulting John Mackay, a butcher and ex public house waiter.

The complainant said: I used to be a waiter. On Saturday, the 18^th inst., I was in the Harbour Inn. The defendant came in, and was rather noisy. I only asked him to be quiet, when he knocked me on the chest with a sieve. I then put out my hand to push him away; he went for me, and a struggle took place, during which my arm was broken. He had been refused drink shortly before because he was so drunk.

The defendant said he went into the Harbour Inn on Saturday night with another man to have a glass of beer, when the complainant insulted him.

The Mayor said that if the Bench had thought that the broken arm had been given intentionally and not in the struggle a much heavier sentence would have been inflicted. As it was the defendant was fined £1 and 9s. costs, in default 21 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 2-7-1898

Police Court Report

On Wednesday – the Mayor presiding – John River was charged with assaulting John McKie.

Complainant deposed that on the 18^th at about a quarter past nine he was sitting at the Harbour Inn. Defendant knocked him and, on being pushed away, came for him again. He was not sober, and they would not serve him.

Defendant said he went to the Harbour Inn and the complainant insulted him.

Fined £1, 9s. costs, or 21 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 8-4-1899

Local News

We regret to learn that Mr. David Thompson, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, died suddenly on Tuesday morning. Mr. Thompson was a well known and most popular man among the employees at the Harbour and Harbour Works. Sympathy with his bereaved brother, Capt. Thompson, has been generally manifested.

Folkestone Express 29-4-1899

Wednesday, April 26^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

John Duncan Thompson applied for a transfer of the licence of the Harbour Inn. Granted.

Folkestone Herald 29-4-1899

On Wednesday last a transfer of the Harbour Inn to Mr. J. Thompson was granted.

Folkestone Up To Date 29-4-1899

Wednesday, April 26^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

The following transfers was granted: Harbour Hotel, David Thompson to John Duncan.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19-8-1899

Local News

The Harbour Inn: Mr. Justice Selfe has granted an order for the partnership of Holden and Thompson, proprietors of the Harbour Inn, to be dissolved, and the business to be disposed of bt the 30^th September. Holden put £130 into the business along with Thompson`s brother, who found £20. The brother died a few months back, willing his property to Holden. The present Thompson took out letters of administration, and he and Holden had since carried on the business jointly, but they had decided to discontinue working together. Mr. W.H. Barton is said to be appointed the receiver.

Folkestone Express 19-8-1899

County Court

Tuesday, August 15^th: Before Sir William Selfe

In the case of Holton v Thompson, the plaintiff asked for the appointment of a receiver and for the dissolution of the partnership. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ward for the defendant.

Mr. Haines explained that the plaintiff and the defendant`s brother took over the Harbour Inn, plaintiff putting in £130, and the other man £20. The brewers advanced the balance. In May of this year Thompson died, leaving his property by will to Holton, but the will was not attested. Thompson`s brother took out letters of administration, and the business had been since carried on jointly, but differences arose which rendered it advisable for the partnership to be dissolved and an account to be taken.

His Honour granted the application, and directed the business to be disposed of before the 30^th September. It was understood that Mr. H.H. Barton would be the receiver.

This case was heard in His Honour`s private room.