Thanks And Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Kent Libraries and Archives - Folkestone Library and also to the archive of the Folkestone Herald. For articles from the Folkestone Observer, my thanks go to the Kent Messenger Group. Southeastern Gazette articles are from UKPress Online, and Kentish Gazette articles are from the British Newspaper Archive. See links below.

Paul Skelton`s great site for research on pubs in Kent is also linked

Other sites which may be of interest are the Folkestone and District Local History Society, the Kent History Forum, Christine Warren`s fascinating site, Folkestone Then And Now, and Step Short, where I originally found the photo of the bomb-damaged former Langton`s Brewery, links also below.


Welcome

Welcome to Even More Tales From The Tap Room.

Core dates and information on licensees tenure are taken from Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney`s two fine books on the pubs of Folkestone, Tales From The Tap Room and More Tales From The Tap Room - unfortunately now out of print. Dates for the tenure of licensees are taken from the very limited editions called Bastions Of The Bar and More Bastions Of The Bar, which were given free to very early purchasers of the books.

Easiest navigation of the site is by clicking on the PAGE of the pub you are looking for and following the links to the different sub-pages. Using the LABELS is, I`m afraid, not at all user-friendly.

Contrast Note

Whilst the above-mentioned books and supplements represent an enormous amount of research over many years, it is almost inevitable that further research will throw up some differences to the published works. Where these have been found, I have noted them. This is not intended to detract in any way from previous research, but merely to indicate that (possible) new information is available.

Contribute

If you have any anecdotes or photographs of the pubs featured in this Blog and would like to share them, please mail me at: jancpedersen@googlemail.com.

If you`ve enjoyed your visit here, why not buy me a pint, using the button at the end of the "Labels" section?


Search This Blog

Saturday 19 January 2013

Packet Boat (2) 1890s (No reports in 1880s)



Holbein`s Visitors` List 18-3-1891

Wednesday, March 11th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Henry Smith, of the Packet Boat Inn, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs for having his dog unmuzzled in the Tram Road on the 6th March.

P.C. Nash proved the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-8-1892

Saturday, August 6th: Before Messrs. J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, W.G. Boykett, and Alderman Pledge.

Mrs. Ada Jane Smith, of the Packet Inn, was charged with knowingly having in her possession 2¼ lbs. of goods, the same being uncustomed goods. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Rolt, chief officer of Customs at Folkestone, stated that from information he received he caused the house of the defendant to be searched, and in a chest of drawers in one of the bedrooms the officers found 2¼ lbs. of cigars, upon which duty had not been paid.

Charles S. Jones, a Customs officer, said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of Exchequer and searched the house. He found seven boxes of cigars, each containing 25, in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2¼ lb.

Mr. Bradley asked what there was to distinguish uncustomed goods from customed goods.

Witness replied they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof lay with the defendant. He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and then that it was her son`s room. Her son was a second engineer on board one of the steamers.

The single value duty was said to be £1 13s. 9d.

Defendant said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over the house, and those cigars were found in her son`s room. Her son had his own room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had been putting them by for a long time, to get dry.

Mr. Bradley said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.

The Bench asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.

Mr. Rolt said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar from the ship without paying duty.

Mr. Bradley said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.

The Bench said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and they therefore dismissed it.

Mr. Bradley: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.

Mr. Bradley: What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not allowed to remain, and be summoned?  It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.

Mr. Rolt: We knew nothing of her.

Mr. Boykett: Very harsh.

Supt. Taylor said she was only in custody ten minutes.

Mr. Bradley: The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven`s sake, was she arrested on the trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town, and well known, taken into custody. She was not going to run away.

The Chairman: It was very harsh.

Supt. Taylor: What is to be done with the cigars?

Mr. Rolt: We keep those on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Fitness: Have the Bench no power over it?

Mr. Rolt:No, sir.

Folkestone Express 13-8-1892

Saturday, August 6th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Mary Ann Smith was charged with having knowingly in her house 2¼ lbs. of cigars, the same being uncustomed goods.

Mr. Rolt, Customs Officer, said he caused Mrs. Smith`s house to be searched, and in a chest of drawers they found 2¼ lbs. of cigars which had not paid duty.

Charles S. Jones said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of Exchequer, and searched the house, and found seven boxes of cigars in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2¼ lbs.

Mr. Bradley asked what there was to distinguish the cigars.

Witness said they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof laid with the defendant. He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and then that it was her son`s room. The son is a second engineer on board one of the steamers.

The single value and duty was said to be £1 13s. 9d.

Defendant said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over the house, and those cigars were found in her son`s room. Her son had his own room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had been keeping them a long time to get dry.

Mr. Bradley said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.

Mr. Bradley asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.

The officer said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar without paying duty.

Mr. Bradley said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.

The Bench said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and dismissed it.

Mr. Bradley asked: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.

What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not allowed to remain and be summoned? It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.

Mr. Boykett: Very harsh.

Supt. Taylor said she was only in custody ten minutes.

Mr. Bradley: The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven`s sake, was she arrested on the trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town,, and well known, taken into custody. She was not going to run away.

The Chairman: It was very harsh.

Supt. Taylor: What is to be done with the cigars?

Mr. Rolt: We keep those on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Holden: Have the Bench no power over it?

Mr. Bradley: No, sir.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-8-1892

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, Councillor Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Henry Smith, an engineer of one of the Channel steamers, was charged with being concerned in harbouring and concealing uncustomed goods, viz., 2 lb. 4 oz. of cigars on the 5th inst. The defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the prosecutors, the Honourable Board of Customs, and he called Mr. C.L. Jones, who deposed to finding the cigars in a chest of drawers in defendant`s bedroom at the Packet Boat Inn as reported in our last issue. He also stated that the single value and duty of the cigars was £1 13s. 9d.

Mr. Minter said he contended that the penalty as prescribed by the law was that the single value and duty should be trebled, but the Magistrates` Clerk held that it was only the value that should be trebled, and not the duty.

Mr. Andrews pointed out that that was immaterial in this case as the Bench had the power of fining a defendant the single value and duty ony in cases where the value was under £20.

Mr. Jones said the value of the cigars was 10s. per lb., and the duty 5s. per lb.

The defendant said he kept the cigars for his own use. He thought he was justified in doing what he had done.

The Bench fined the defendant £1 13s. 9d., the value of the cigars, and 11s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 20-8-1892

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Smith was summoned for being concerned in harbouring uncustomed goods – 2 lb. 4 oz. of foreign cigars. The defendant is the son of Mrs. Smith, who was on the previous Saturday charged with a similar offence and dismissed.

Mr. Minter appeared for the Customs authorities. He said at the outset that attention had been called to the remarks that were made at the hearing of the charge against Mrs. Smith by the Clerk to the Magistrates, when the officers were out of Court searching for a witness in another case which was coming before the Bench. The consequence was they had no opportunity of answering the remark, but he was quite sure the Bench would allow him to make an explanation. He read the report of the proceedings which appeared in this journal, and then said he must take exception to the observations made by the Clerk to the Magistrates that it was a trumpery charge. It was a very serious charge if it had been proved, but the Bench did not feel that it was proved, and the Customs at once submitted to their judgement. At the same time it was a very serious charge, and not a trumpery one. The Customs had two ways of dealing with it, either by bringing the parties at once before the Magistrates, or by issuing a summons. He thought it almost went without saying that the Customs, in the discharge of their duties, never wished to act in a harsh manner, and under the exceptional circumstances which he was going to tell them, they would see there was no pretence for saying there was any hardship, and that what was done was to accommodate the lady herself. He rather wondered she did not state what actually took place. When the officers found those cigars, to which a young fellow, a son of Mrs. Smith, had pleaded guilty to having in his bedroom in his mother`s house, it was the imperative duty of the Customs officers to charge someone with the offence with which they, in the first instance, charged Mrs. Smith – that of harbouring those cigars on her premises. They would have been guilty of neglect of duty if they had not directed proceedings to have the matter enquired into. The lady was in a very hysterical condition when the things were found. He did not wish to trouble the Bench with her observations. It was for her to show she did not know they were there. The officer explained to her what must be done. If he had been her own son he could not have acted in a kinder manner. He explained to her what he should have to do. He did what Mr. Bradley said he should have done. He told her he would have to issue a summons against her and she would have to appear before the Magistrates. Her reply was “Can`t you get rid of this matter without that? Can`t you have it settled at once?” The officer as kindly as possible said the only way in which she could have it settled was by technically submitting to an arrest, by going to the police station, and signing a police bond to appear on the morrow. She said she would rather do that than wait for a summons. The lady walked up to the police station herself – not in custody – technically in custody if they liked, and waited till the officer and the Superintendent of Police came up. She signed the bail bond and walked home, and was much obliged to the officers for having done what they could in order that the charge might be disposed of next day. Then, when it came on the next morning, somehow or other, it got into the mind of Mr. Bradley, that she had been there and then arrested and dragged up through the streets. The officers would have been perfectly justified in doing it. They intended to summon her in the ordinary way. He thought after that explanation they would say nobody had been guilty of harsh or unfeeling conduct. The officers, on the other hand, did everything they could for the lady in order to facilitate the hearing.

Alderman Sherwood: Then there is an end of it.

Alderman Pledge: Just consider for a moment. This lady, in giving evidence, said she had no idea they were there. They were in her son`s bedroom, and she knew nothing about them.

Mr. Minter: And you believed her and dismissed the case. We don`t complain. E say that the officers searching and seizing these contraband goods, it was their duty to summon everybody in the house in order that the Magistrates should have judicial knowledge of it.

The Magistrates then proceeded to discuss the matter.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed not to press harshly, but there was the Act, under which the Bench must adjudicate, and which decided what the defendant must pay. As he had said before, the game was not worth the candle.

Mr. Rolt, the Customs officer, said the single value and duty was £1 13s. 9d.

Mr. Minter said there was some difference between himself and the Magistrates` Clerk as to what fines were payable. He contended that the single value and duty should be trebled. Their Clerk did not agree with him; he said the value should be trebled, and single duty.

The Magistrates` Clerk said the question would hardly arise in that case. It was the first offence, and they would hardly press for a heavy penalty.

Mr. Minter said he was not pressing, but there was the penalty under the Act.

The Magistrates` Clerk read the Section, from which it appeared that the Magistrates had discretion, where the amount of value was under £20, to inflict not less than single value and duty.

Defendant said he had the cigars entirely for his own use, and he thought he was doing no harm.

Mr. Minter asked for costs, and for his own costs for appearing.

The Magistrates` Clerk said it appeared that his object in appearing was mainly to make an explanation.

The Bench imposed a penalty of £1 13s. 9d. single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Herald 20-8-1892

Police Court Jottings

In some of our London contemporaries there recently appeared a sensational paragraph headed “Harsh Doings In Folkestone”. It related to the case of a Mrs. Smith, who was charged before the Bench with being in possession of, or, in legal phraseology, “harbouring” contraband tobacco, in the shape of 2 lbs. 4 oz. of foreign cigars that had not paid the requisite tribute to the Customs.

The case against her was dismissed, it being shown that she was an innocent party, inasmuch as the cigars were the property of her son, who had left them in his bedroom unknown to her.

During the hearing of the case the Magistrates` Clerk, whose indignation seemed to have been somewhat strongly aroused, took occasion to advert in forcible terms upon the harsh usage to which the defendant was put in, having been, as was alleged, taken into custody, and marched a prisoner to the police station, instead of being summoned in the usual way. Hence the uncomplimentary heading to the report of the case in the London papers.

After all, though, it seems to have been a case of “much ado about nothing”, for when Henry Smith, the son, was, at the following court, charged before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, and Messrs. Fitness and Holden with the offence, the doyen of the legal profession who attend our courts, Mr. Minter, who represented the Customs, put a very different complexion upon the matter.

Mrs. Smith was not taken into custody in the ordinary sense of the term, although perhaps strictly speaking she was; that is, she surrendered herself to expedite matters. When the Custom House officer made the discovery of the unduty-paid goods, Mrs. Smith, as perhaps was only natural, became slightly hysterical, and wanted to have the affair settled at once, and to avoid the delay of waiting for a summons. The officer, who, said Mr. Minter, could not have treated her more kindly if he had been her son, pointed out to her that the only way in which that could be done was by his taking her into custody, and her going to the police station to sign a bond that she would appear on the following morning. To this she was only too glad to consent, and Mrs. Smith walked up, in her own company only, to the station, there entered into the required surety, and returned home. The Magistrates Clerk also alluded to the case as a “trumpery” one. This Mr. Minter protested against, as if it had been proved it would have been a very serious one.

Henry Smith pleaded Guilty, and the Bench imposed a fine of £1 13s. 9d., the single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 9-9-1899

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

An application was made on behalf of Albert Newman for authority to sell at the Packet Boat Inn. Granted.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday, Mr. Albert Thomas Newman had his authority renewed for the Packet Boat

Folkestone Herald 28-10-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday the Packet Boat was transferred from Mary Smith to Albert Thomas Newman.
 


 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment