Royal George 1890 - 1895

Folkestone Express 3-5-1890

Wednesday, April 30^th: Before F. Boykett, J. Brooke, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mary Ann Tritton was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, the 20^th April. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Lawrence said he was on duty on Sunday week in the neighbourhood of the Royal George, and at 4.30 saw two men enter the house. Witness went in after them, and saw five men standing in the passage opposite the bar. A man named Bates was drinking porter or stout. There were four glasses on the bar door containing beer. Miss Tritton and a young woman named Fanny Godden were in the bar. He asked what was the meaning of that, and they made no answer. He called in Stannage and took the names of the five men; two of them were soldiers stationed at Shorncliffe. Miss Tritton said she had served the two Folkestone men, but not the soldiers. She said her father and mother were gone out for a walk and left her in charge of the house.

Cross-examined: She did not say she served the gentlemen who came in with a South Eastern man, thinking they came by boat.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had held a licence for 16 years and had never before been before the Bench, but in that case there might have been a technical offence. Mr. and Mrs. Tritton were out, but they expected someone to come from Boulogne, and the little girl thought those people were from Boulogne.

Defendant was called, and said they expected a gentleman from Boulogne. She and her husband were out for a walk. Her daughter was told to serve no-one who came, except passengers from the boat. She refused to supply the soldiers.

The Bench dismissed the case, and advised the defendant to leave a more competent person in charge in the future.

Folkestone Express 10-5-1890

Wednesday, May 7^th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred Engram, William Henry Stone, George Betts, Patrick Campbell and Walter De Burgh were summoned for being upon licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, April 20^th. Mr. F. Hall represented three of the defendants.

This charge arose out of the recent prosecution of the landlady of the Royal George Hotel for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday.

P.C. Lawrence repeated the evidence he gave on that occasion.

Walter De Burgh, a corporal in the Leinster Regiment, said that about 4.30 on the Sunday, having walked from Hythe and seeing the door of the Royal George open, he went in. He asked for refreshments, but was refused. He saw no drink served.

The Bench fined each defendant 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, in the case of the two who were soldiers, and 9s. in the other cases.

Folkestone News 10-5-1890

Wednesday, May 7^th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Five men, whose names were Stone, Bates, Ingram, Campbell, and De Burgh – the two latter being corporals of the Leinster Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe – were charged with being in the Royal George Hotel on Sunday, the 20^th of April, during prohibited hours.

Mr. F. Hall appeared for Ingram, Campbell, and De Burgh, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Lawrence said that he was passing the hotel about 4.30 and saw Stone and Ingram enter. He went for P.C. Stannage, and then, on entering the hotel found the five defendants in the passage facing the bar. Bates was drinking as witness entered, and there were four glasses on the ledge of the half-door which contained beer. Miss Tritton and a young woman, Fanny Godden, were in the bar. He asked what was the meaning of it, but Miss Tritton made no answer. He then called in Stannage and took the names of the defendants. The two soldiers said they had nothing to drink.

Cross-examined: The front door of the hotel was open. The other glasses contained liquor when he went in. The soldiers said they considered they were entitled to be served as they had walked from Hythe. There was an information against the landlord for having his house open on the same occasion, and it was dismissed by the Magistrates.

P.C. Stannage saw the five defendants at the bar. Miss Tritton said the men told her they were travellers. There were four empty glasses on the ledge of the bar door.

Mr. Hall, in defence, called attention to the fact that the landlady had been dismissed, and he could not understand why the defendants were summoned after the summons against Mrs. Tritton had been heard. The Magistrates` Clerk said the landlady had sworn that she had given instructions to her daughter that she was to serve no-one, and the two soldiers were corporals, and if convicted it might have the effect of their being reduced to the ranks. He urged the Magistrates if they found a technical offence had been committed to deal leniently with Campbell, DE Burgh, and Ingram, whom he represented.

He called Ingram, who said he had been for a long walk and thought he was entitled to a drink. He found the door open, but he was refused to be supplied. The two corporals came in, but were not served.

Corporal De Burgh said he was passing the hotel, and knowing the proprietor very well and seeing the door open, he went in, but was refused the glasses of ale he called for. No-one was served while he was there; as soon as he got in the policeman came in.

The Magistrates considered the case proved. The charge was “being on licensed premises during prohibited hours”. Each defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and costs; the costs against De Burgh and Campbell were 10s., and against the others 9s.

Folkestone News 16-8-1890

Wednesday, August 15^th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, J. Fitness Esq., Alderman Pledge, and E.T. Ward  Esq.

Wm. Court and Fredk. Court, brothers, were summoned to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.

P.C. Lilley said that on the night of the 3^rd August he was on duty in Beach Street and saw the defendants fighting outside the Royal George. There were twenty or thirty persons looking on. He had a difficulty in separating the defendants. They were not drunk, but had been drinking. There was not much harm done, but they knocked each other down. Frederick went away, but returned in about ten minutes, when the fighting was renewed. The crowd persuaded them not to fight and Fredk. went away, but William remained among the crowd for half an hour. They talked about meeting again the next day, and that was why he asked that they should be bound over to keep the peace. Both were very quarrelsome when in drink.

Frederick said the constable`s account was altogether wrong. What happened was, his brother had a cigar in his mouth and he took it away and put it in his own. His brother tried to get it back, and knocked it on the ground. In the scuffle to obtain possession of it they both fell to the ground, and at that moment the constable appeared and “ran them in”.

The Chairman said it was very disgraceful that such scenes should take place on Sunday evenings, whether in fun or earnest, but the Bench would take a favourable view of the matter, and instead of binding the prisoners over would discharge them.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1890

Annual Licensing Session

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Superintendent Taylor asked that the licence of the Royal George (Mrs. Tritton) might be adjourned. On the 20^th of April some men were found drinking on the premises during prohibited hours. The men were fined but the landlady was discharged.

The adjournment was granted.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1890

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Royal George

In the case of this house, Supt. Taylor asked for the application to be adjourned. He had had reason to complain of the way in which the Globe was conducted, of which Mr. Tritton was the landlord. When the Globe was given up the licence for the Royal George was granted to Mrs. Tritton. On the 20^th of April last, on a Sunday afternoon, several persons were found drinking in the house, and their addresses were taken. Summonses were issued, and the case against the landlady was dismissed, but the people in the house were fined. On those grounds he asked that the application should stand over.

It was ordered accordingly.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-9-1890

Saturday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor, and Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, was summoned for keeping a disorderly house and allowing prostitutes to remain on the premises longer than necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. Mr. Minter defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Harman said on the 31^st of August he was on duty at the lower part of the town, and at ten minutes past nine he was outside of the Royal George. He saw a woman named Hall leave with an Artillery soldier. At quarter past nine witness looked in at the front door. In the passage, which was used as a bar, he saw 20 soldiers, and two prostitutes named Wright and Lillian. They were all drinking. At 9.30 witness saw Lillian come out of the house with several soldiers and some strange women. They had an altercation outside for a few minutes and went back again. Witness paid another visit to the house at five minutes to ten, when he saw a prostitute named Hopkins. In the bar he saw Mrs. Hall talking to about a dozen soldiers. Wright and Lillian were in the passage with a number of soldiers. They were all drinking and the defendant was supplying the liquor. In the smoking room there were a number of soldiers and three strange women. Witness spoke to defendant. Witness said to her “You see those women, Mrs. Hall, Lillian and Wright. You know they are prostitutes and I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house”. She said “I know the women, but I don`t know they are prostitutes”. It was not the first time he had seen the women there. He had seen them there about 30 or 40 times during the past three months.

By Mr. Minter: There were a lot of soldiers there. Did not know that it was a farewell night, or that they were bidding their friends goodbye. He knew the Regiment was going abroad on the following Tuesday.

P.C. Osborn gave similar evidence to that of Sergt. Harman.

P.C. Lawrence said he watched the house in June, and he saw Lillian, Philpott and Wright, all prostitutes, using the Royal George nightly. He saw them leave the house in company with soldiers.

P.C. Stannage stated that he watched the house during the month of July, and saw that the house was frequented by prostitutes every night.

P.C. Read, who watched the house during the month of August, gave similar evidence.

Mr. Minter said he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last witness, as it had nothing to do with the present charge. If the Superintendent had found charges on all those dates, why had he not brought one against defendant before? On the night in question there were two or three hundred soldiers in the house, and the landlady had much difficulty in keeping order. He believed the soldiers were going away the next day and were bidding their friends goodbye. There was no evidence that the women went to the house for the purpose of prostitution, nor was there any evidence as to how long they remained there. He had not heard that the women might go in as often as they liked, but he believed it had been decided over and over again that the “reasonable” time for refreshments was 20 minutes. The defendant always gave instructions that the principle should be carried out.

John Hawkins, barman at the Royal George, said his instructions were that he was never to allow prostitutes to remain in the house longer than a quarter of an hour. On the night in question there were two or three hundred soldiers in the house, and they were unable to serve them all. The Regiment to which they belonged was going away on the Tuesday. They were in the bar from 6.30 till 10 minutes to 10. Witness did not serve any prostitutes that night.

Frederick Tritton, husband of the landlady, said he assisted in conducting the house. Prostitutes were never allowed to remain on the premises more than a quarter of an hour.

After a short consultation the Bench fined defendant £2 and 15s. costs, and reminded her that her licence had already been held over until the adjournment.

Folkestone Express 20-9-1890

Saturday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor and Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, was summoned for allowing reputed prostitutes to frequent her house and remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment.

Sergt. Harman said on Sunday, the 31^st of August, he was on duty at the bottom of the town. About 10 minutes past nine he was outside the Royal George. He saw a woman named Mrs. Hall leave the house with a soldier belonging to the Artillery, and go in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. At a quarter past nine he looked in at the front door, and in a passage, which is used as a bar where they serve liquor, he saw about 20 soldiers and two prostitutes – Wright and Lillian. He did not see the women drinking. He watched the house, and at 9.30 he saw Lillian leave the house with three soldiers and several strange women. Lillian was having an altercation with a woman about being struck, and they then returned into the house. At five minutes to ten he went into the house with P.C. Osborne, and met a prostitute nemed Hawkins standing at the inner door, talking to soldiers. In the front bar on the right he saw Mrs. Hall and about ten soldiers drinking. He did not see her return; she could get in by another door. Among a dozen or 20 soldiers in the passage he saw Wright. The defendant was supplying the liquor. The smoking room was full of soldiers, and three or four strange women. He spoke to defendant`s husband, and afterwards to defendant, who was in the bar serving. He said “You see that woman, Mrs. Hall standing in the bar. Lillian and Wright are present. You know those women, and they are prostitutes, and I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house and harbouring them”. She said “I know the women, but don`t know they are prostitutes”. He left the house, and it was cleared shortly afterwards. He had frequently seen the three women, Wright, Lillian, and Hall in the house. He saw Lillian there on Friday night.

By Mr. Minter: I did not go upstairs; there were a great many soldiers there. I do not know the regiment was leaving, and that the party assembled to say goodbye to their friends. I do not know that it was a “farewell night”. Defendant told me she did not know the women were prostitutes.

P.C. Osborne gave similar evidence. He said he was on duty in Queen`s Square from 6.30 till 10 o`clock. At 6.30 he saw Lillian and Wright in the passage with several soldiers. At various times during the evening he saw the same women there.

P.C. Lawrence said in the month of June he watched the Royal George. He saw Lillian, Philpott, and Wright, three prostitutes, frequently in the Royal George. They were there almost nightly, in and out with soldiers.

P.C. Reed said he watched the Royal George during August, and saw Lillian and Wight frequenting the house, in company with soldiers and civilians.

Mr. Minter said his answer would be more directed to the time mentioned in the summons, and he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last three witnesses altogether. On the Sunday referred to the regiment was leaving, and there were about 200 or 300 soldiers in the house – the house was full, the landlady had great difficulty in keeping order, it was an exceptional occurrence. The landlady always gave instructions to her servants not to permit women to remain in the house, and he felt sure the Bench would not strain the case to convict her. He asked if there was anything unreasonable in there being four or five women among 200 or 300 soldiers. Mrs. Tritton emphatically denied that she ever allowed prostitutes to remain longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. He did not contend that they were not prostitutes, but there was no evidence that they resorted to the house for the purpose of prostitution. There was the testimony of the policemen that the women went in to obtain liquor, and they were entitled to do that. He had never heard that they might not go in as often as they liked, so long as they did not remain. No offence had been proved in June, July, or August. If the defendant had been infringing the law, he asked why the defendant was not summoned. It was hardly fair play at that distance of time to allege those three occasions to support the charge. The character the defendant and her husband had when they came to Folkestone was a good one of eight years duration from the Superintendent of Police at Hastings, and they had used every possible exertion to make the house more respectable, and he challenged the Superintendent to say that it had not improved. On this particular occasion the house was cleared and closed at a quarter to ten.

John Hawkins, barman, in the service of the defendant, said he had been there a little over four months. His orders were never to allow prostitutes to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour, and he had carried out those instructions. On the Sunday night in question there were between 200 and 300 soldiers in the house, which was so full that many could not be served. The house was cleared at a quarter to ten. The provosts were standing outside. He served no prostitutes at all, and good order was kept in the house.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, witness said he did not see the three women on Sunday the 31^st.

Frederick Tritton, husband of the landlady, said he assisted in conducting the house. Prostitutes were never allowed to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour. They did not want them there and did not encourage them. They would rather they did not come. On the occasion in question there were over 200 soldiers in the house. Witness kept order and there was no row during the whole time. He closed the house about ten minutes to ten.

By Mr. Bradley: I don`t know Wright by name – is she a dark girl? (Laughter)

After a consultation with the other Magistrates, the Mayor said they considered the women were there. They had the sworn evidence of the police constables as to that, and they were bound to receive it. The maximum fine was £10, but they mitigated it to £2 10s., and the costs were £5, levyable by distress, or one month`s imprisonment. They did not endorse the licence, but they called attention to the fact that the licence was held over until the adjournment.

Folkestone News 20-9-1890

Saturday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor, and Aldermen Dunk and Pledge.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George Inn, was charged with harbouring prostitutes on the premises by allowing them to remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.S. Harman said that on Sunday, 31^st August he was on duty outside the Royal George at ten minutes past nine. He saw Mrs. Hall, a prostitute, leave the house with an Artilleryman and go in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. He looked in the front door at 9.15, and saw at the bar about twenty soldiers, with two prostitutes, Wright and Lillian. He saw the soldiers drink, but not the women. At 9.30 Lillian came out with two or three soldiers and several strange women. Lillian had an altercation with another woman about having been struck. They all went into the house again. Wright had been inside all the time. At 9.55 he and P.C. Osborne returned and saw a prostitute named Hawkins standing at the inner door, talking to soldiers. Mrs. Hall was also there and about ten soldiers. The defendant was supplying about twenty soldiers with liquor. The smoking room was full of soldiers and there were three or four strange women whom he only knew by sight. He first spoke to Mr. Tritton, and then to the defendant when she was in the bar serving. I said “You see that woman Hall in the bar, and Lillian and Wright are there. You know those women, and know that they are prostitutes. I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house and harbouring them”. Defendant said “I know the women, but I don`t know they are prostitutes”. The house was cleared shortly afterwards. This was not the first time by a great many that he had seen prostitutes there. He had seen Lillian, Hall, and Wright there very frequently, perhaps 30 or 40 times. Lillian and Wright were there on the previous evening (Friday).

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There were a great many soldiers there, but not 200 or 300. I do not know that the regiment was leaving and that it was the farewell night in Folkestone. Defendant said she did not know that the women were prostitutes, but did not add that she was surprised to hear it.

P.C. Osborne said he was on duty from 6.30 till 10 in Queen`s Square. About 6.30 he looked into the Royal George and saw Lillian and Wright with several soldiers. He visited the house about every half hour and saw the same women there. The prostitutes left when the house was cleared, about 9.55.

P.C. Lawrence gave evidence that in June last he was on duty near the oyal George and watched the house. He saw Lillian, Philpott and Wright, who were prostitutes. They were constantly in and out of the house with soldiers.

P.C. Stannage said that he had watched the house during July, and saw prostitutes constantly entering and leaving with soldiers. Had seen them drinking with soldiers.

P.C. Read said that on about five evenings in August he saw Lillian and Wright enter the house with men.

In the course of a long address, Mr. Minter said he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last three witnesses, because it had nothing to do with the offence charged against them in the summons. On the occasion in question there were some 200 or 300 soldiers in the house, the reason being that the regiment was leaving Folkestone, and that was their jubilee night. The place was full both upstairs and down, indeed it was impossible for the landlady to supply all the customers, but everything possible was done to keep order, and as a matter of fact there was not the slightest disorder during the evening. All the evidence against them was that four or five women went in and out during the evening, and he was sure the Bench would not strain the law in order that a conviction might follow. There was nothing unreasonable about four or five women being unobserved amongst 200 or 300 soldiers, in fact it reflected well upon the defendant that under the circumstances there was no disorder, and Mrs. Tritton absolutely denied that her house was the resort of prostitutes. Her strict instructions were, as he should prove, that no prostitutes should be allowed to remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment, and it had been held time and again that fifteen or twenty minutes was a reasonable time. They had a right to necessary refreshment, and defendant could not refuse to serve them as long as they behaved in an orderly manner. There was no evidence as to how long any of the women remained on the night in question, and it was impossible in such a crowd for the landlady to say to certain women “Go out”. As to the evidence which referred to months ago, why was not a summons taken out then? It was hardly fair to bring it up after that time. The defendant and her husband came to Folkestone with an excellent character for eight years from the Superintendent of Police at Hastings. They were told at the time the Royal George was taken that it was a rough house, but they had done their utmost to improve it`s tone, and to a very great extent they had succeeded. There had only been one disturbance there during the defendant`s tenancy, and that was quelled at once. He would ask the Bench to dismiss the case, because even if they thought there was only a doubt, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of thet doubt.

John Hawkins said he had been barman in the employ of defendant about four months. His orders were not to allow prostitutes to remain longer than fifteen minutes, and he had obeyed those orders. There were over 200 soldiers in the house on Sunday night in question; the regiment was going away on Tuesday, and some of them on Monday. They were crowded from 6.30 to 9.45 when they commenced to close.

In cross-examination witness said he knew Mrs. Hall and “Big Annie” by sight, but did not see them on the Sunsay evening; he was in the other bar.

Frederick Tritton, defendant`s husband, said the arrangements of the house were to serve prostitutes and let them go. They generally allowed them 15 minutes. It was not their wish that prostitutes should come there at all, as they had grown-up children, but they were obliged to serve them when they came.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: I know Mrs. Hall by sight, and know her to be a prostitute.

Do you know a woman named Wright? – Not by name. Is it the dark girl? (Laughter)

In reply to further questions, Mr. Tritton said that sometimes they would not see these women for a week, and sometimes they would come in every evening, but never in the daytime.

The Mayor said the Bench had come to the conclusion that the women were there, as they had the sworn evidence of the constables, which they were bound to accept. The full penalty was £10, but the Bench would mitigate it to one fourth of that sum, and the costs were 15s., leviable by distress, or in default one month`s imprisonment.

In reply to Mr. Minter, the Mayor said the Bench would not go as far as to endorse the licence, but they drew his attention to the fact that it was already held over till the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-9-1890

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 24^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

Mrs. Tritton, of the George Hotel (sic), appeared for the renewal of her licence.

Two offences were brought up against the house, which Mr. Minter, as her advocate, admitted, and in defence made a very able speech, assuring the Bench that in future the house would be conducted differently. No women had been served since the last conviction a fortnight ago, and there was a card in the window stating that no women were served on the premises.

The Mayor said the Bench would give defendant one more chance and the renewal would be granted.

Folkestone Express 27-9-1890

Wednesday, September 24^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Royal George

Mrs. Tritton applied for a renewal of her certificate.

The Superintendent opposed on the ground that the house had been kept open at improper hours, and that the applicant had been convicted of allowing prostitutes to use the house, and that, on the first occasion the defendant was proceeded against, but escaped conviction.

Mr. Minter took exception to the term “escaped conviction”, and contended that his client did not escape conviction because it was a “righteous judgement”. The objection that the house had been used for harbouring prostitutes, he said, ought not to have been taken, because it had occurred after the General Licensing Meeting. He, however, reviewed the facts of that case, and said the Bench, while inflicting a mitigated fine, said they would not endorse the licence, which showed they intended to give the lady another chance. Acting on his advice, the landlady had refused to supply such woman and run the risk of consequences, and would continue to do so. A notice was in the window that no women were supplied on the premises, and it had had the effect of keeping them away.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had very grave doubts as to whether they ought to renew the licence to the applicant. Mr. Minter had taken advantage of the leniency of the Bench in not endorsing the licence. The Watch Committee, the Magistrates, and the whole public were clamouring for better conducted houses and for fewer houses. The Bench hoped there would have been some offer on the part of the owners as to the conduct of the house, but there was none, and they would take the word of the applicant as a lady, and renew the certificate.

Mr. Minter said any undertaking the City of London Brewery could give, they would give as to the future conduct of the house.

Folkestone Express 11-10-1890

Monday, October 6^th: Before Capt. W. Carter, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness, S. Penfold, and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Thomas Clayton, a young man of decent appearance, was charged with stealing 18s. in silver and bronze, the property of Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers` Arms.

Joseph Whiting said: I am landlord of the Bricklayers` Arms, in Fenchurch Street. Prisoner came to my house and slept there on Friday last. He was also there on Saturday about the house, sometimes in the kitchen and sometimes in the bar. He was there on Saturday evening. Just before, he said he was not going to stay as he had no money to pay for his bed. About seven o`clock he went out of the front door which leads to the bar. I left the bar about the same time as prisoner was leaving the bar and went to the back part of the house and left the bar unattended. When prisoner told me he had no money to pay for his bed he was in front of the bar. I was absent about a minute, and I went to the till to pay a girl for some fish, when I found I had been robbed. I had just before been to the till, and whatever had been taken was done between the time I was absent from the bar and my return. Prisoner could easily have got at the till by leaning over the counter. Prisoner came back and said he would pay for a bed, and for that of a friend. He went upstairs and I followed him, and saw him come back, and he paid me 1s. 6d. for his and another man`s bed and for some beer. I missed from my till about 15s. in bronze and about four or five shillings in silver. I never mentioned my loss until I gave him in charge about nine o`clock. I told prisoner then that it looked very suspicious on his part, and gave him in custody. Prisoner said nothing. P.C. Swift said “You will have to come along with me” and he replied “All right”.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: You had money on Friday night and changed money on Saturday morning. The time you paid for the bed was about nine o`clock. On Saturday morning you might have spent about 6d. or 8d. You told me when you left to take charge of the parcel until you returned.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, said prisoner went to his house on Saturday evening. He was alone. He called for a small soda. There were other people in the bar. He treated people in the bar to the amount of 2s., which he paid for in coppers. He saw he had 2s. 6d. in silver with the coppers.

Jane Tritton said prisoner came to the bar of the Royal George on Saturday evening. Two men went with him. He called for drinks for himself and companions, which he paid for in coppers, to the amount of one shilling. He asked her if she would mind coppers. She said she was short of them, and gave him 2s. 6d. in silver for that amount of coppers.

Stephen Hall deposed to prisoner treating him, and his having a large quantity of coppers in his possession.

P.C. Swift, who apprehended the prisoner, said he asked him “How long have you been in the bar?” He replied “Oh, I don`t know. Anything wrong or anybody robbed?” He replied “Yes”. Prisoner said “What`s the charge?” and he told him and prisoner answered “All right”. On searching him he found on him 5s. and a halfpenny in bronze, and 2s. 6d. and two sixpenny pieces in silver. He was charged before the Superintendent in his presence and he replied “All right. It is true”.

Prisoner said he did not remember saying that.

In reply to a question, the constable said he was sober.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench, and said that he had been hopping, and the money he had about him was what he had been paid. He denied that he told prosecutor that he had no money.

The Chairman told prisoner that the Bench considered him Guilty. Tradesmen must be protected in their business. It was a gross theft. He would be sent to gaol for six weeks` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 31-1-1891

Wednesday, January 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, J. Holden, J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Samuel Todd, well known to the police was charged, on suspicion, with stealing a pair of shoes, value 7s. 6d., the property of some person unknown.

Thomas Kearns, a labourer, living at 24, Pavilion Road, said he was in the bar of the Royal George Hotel on Tuesday afternoon, when prisoner asked him to go to Joseph`s to pledge the pair of boots produced for half a crown. He went there, and Mr. Joseph detained him until P.S. Lilley arrived. He took the sergeant back to the Royal George and pointed the prisoner out.

Mr. Joseph recognised the last witness as the man who went to his shop; he detained him because he failed to give a satisfactory account of the boots.

Sergeant Lilley proved apprehending prisoner. On the way to the station he said he bought the shoes from a man in the Sandgate Road. When charged he gave the name of William Smith, 14, Radnor Street.

Supt. Taylor said prisoner had other property in his possession for which he could not give a satisfactory account. He asked for a remand, which was granted.

Prisoner objected to a remand. He would prefer to be punished for this offence now.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 4-2-1891

Wednesday, January 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Councillor Holden, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

Samuel Todd took a fancy to someone`s shoes, with the inevitable result.

Thomas Cairns, a labourer, said that while he was in the Royal George on the previous afternoon, the prisoner came in with a pair of shoes and asked him to go and pawn them at Mr. Joseph`s. He went and asked half a crown on them. Mr. Joseph, however, suspecting something wrong, detained him and sent for Sergeant Lilley. The Sergeant asked witness where he got the shoes, and he went back with him to the Royal George and pointed out the prisoner,

Solomon Walter Joseph deposed to sending for the police. The witness said they were his own property and cost 5s. 6d.

Sergeant Lilley said prisoner told him he bought the shoes. In response to his query “Where?”, prisoner replied “Do you think I stole them?”, and witness, being in doubt, said “I don`t know”. He took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner was remanded for a week on the application of the Superintendent, who said several other things had been found in the prisoner`s possession, of which he could give no account.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-2-1891

Wednesday, February 4^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Poole, W. Wightwick Esq., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Samuel Todd was charged, on remand, with being in possession of a pair of boots, which were supposed to have been stolen.

Superintendent Taylor said he had been unable to trace the owner of the shoes or the other property which he found in the possession of the prisoner.

Todd was then discharged.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 11-2-1891

Wednesday, February 4^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Todd, remanded from the previous Wednesday, was again placed in the cage. Mr. Todd was arrested on suspicion of stealing shoes, and remanded because other property had been found in his possession, which, judging by appearances, he was not in a position to purchase.

Superintendent Taylor now stated that he had failed to trace the ownership of the boots &c.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner as there was no evidence against him, but warned him to be very careful in future.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-4-1891

Monday, March 30^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, valued at 15s. 6d., and the property of William Bull.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn shortly before nine o`clock on Saturday evening, when the prisoner went into the bar and offered a pair of boots for sale. He asked witness if he knew where he could sell them, and he took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He went back to the Royal George and found Murray waiting.

Joseph Whiting stated that Harford lodged at his house, the Bricklayer`s Arms, and on Saturday evening both prisoners called at his bar for some beer, but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting identified Murray as the man who called at her uncle`s house on Saturday afternoon with a pair of elastic side boots. He waited until Harford came in and they both went out together.

P.C. Keeler deposed that he found Harford at 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Mr. Whiting as a lodging house. Witness asked him if he had a pair of new boots, and he gave him the pair produced. He said he bought them at the Bricklayer`s Arms for 3s. 6d. from a man whom he did not know. Witness took him to the police station, and later on he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, where he found Murray in the bar. He had been drinking.

Both prisoners denied the charge. Murray stated that he bought the boots from a strange man and sold them to Harford.

Each prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 4-4-1891

Monday, March 30^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, value 15s. 10d., the property of William Bull, of High Street.

Prosecutor said on Saturday night, about a quarter to nine, he missed a pair of boots from outside his shop. P.C. Swain called upon him and about five minutes after he was gone he missed a second pair.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when the prisoner Murray went in with a pair of boots and offered them for sale. Murray asked him if he knew where he could sell them. He took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He returned to the George with the boots. Murray was still there. He thought one of the loops of the boots was broken.

Joseph A. Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, said Harford lodged in his house. Both prisoners went to his bar between seven and half past seven on Saturday evening. They called for beer but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting said she recognised Murray as having gone to her uncle`s house about half past four on Saturday afternoon with a pair of new elastic side boots. He asked for Dan, meaning Harford, and she told him he was not at home. He waited until he came and they then went out into the back yard together.

P.C. Keeler said he went to No. 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Whiting as a lodging house, and found Harford there. He asked i he had a pair of new boots, and he showed him those produced, saying he bought them from a man he did not know, whom he met at the Bricklayers Arms, and gave 3s. 6d. for them. Witness took him into custody, and when charged by Sergt. Ovenden he made no reply. About half past eleven he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, in Radnor Street, and found Murray in the taproom asleep. He had been drinking. When charged at the police station with stealing two pairs of boots he made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. Harford pleaded Not Guilty, and Murray Not Guilty. Murray said he bought the boots of a man and sold them to Harford.

The Bench convicted both prisoners and sentenced them to a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-6-1892

Saturday, June 11^th: Before Councillor J. Holden, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, and Mr. J. Fitness.

Edward Mockridge, a typical fisher-lad, was summoned for having, on the 3^rd June, been disorderly on licensed premises – The Royal George – and unlawfully refusing to quit the same when requested to do so by the landlady – Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton.

Mrs. Tritton told the Bench that defendant came into the house at about 7.30 on the day named, and asked for beer. She refused to serve him, and he then said “If you won`t serve me with that, perhaps you will let me have three pennyworth of whiskey?” Witness again repeated that she could not serve him, and he then called for a glass of cold water. Witness requested him to leave the house, but he refused to do so, and straightway began to abuse her in the most unwarrantable and obscene manner. Eventually he was ejected by P.C. Reed, but he returned again to the house, and the constable was forced to remove him a second time. Before he quitted the house, defendant told witness that if she refused to serve him they would have “more windows broken before long”.

The Clerk: Are you troubled with this sort of conduct in your house? – Yes, sir, and we are determined to stop it.

P.C. Reed deposed that whilst he was ejecting the defendant, he used most obscene language.

The Chairman: Now, Mockridge, this is a very bad case. The Magistrates fine you 10s., and if you come up again, just you bear in mind you will be fined considerably more. The fine today is 10s. and 10s. costs.

The Superintendent said he wished to state, for the information of the friends of the defendant in Court, that he had received many complaints from Mr. and Mrs. Tritton about the behaviour of certain parties in the house, and as they were determined to stop it they would receive every possible assistance from the police.

The fine was paid.

Folkestone Express 18-6-1892

Saturday, June 11^th: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge and J. Sherwood Esqs.

Edward Mockridge was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises on the 3^rd June.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, said the defendant went in about 7.30, and called for a pint of beer. She refused to serve him. He said he would have three pennyworth of whisky, which he was refused. He then said he would have some cold water, and she told him he would not be served with anything in the house. He became very abusive, and used very obscene language, saying that if they refused to serve him they would have some more windows broken. She believed he was drunk. P.C. Reed was sent for and ejected him twice.

Defendant said he was drunk and excited, and did not know what he said.

P.C. Reed said he was called to the Royal George and heard the defendant using bad language to the landlady`s daughter. He put him out of the house twice.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 10s. costs, and told that he would be much more heavily fined if he came up again.

Supt. Taylor said he had received repeated complaints from the landlady about the conduct of lads like the defendant. She did her best to keep the house respectably, and she had the support of the police.

Folkestone Herald 18-6-1892

Police Court Jottings

The Magistrates present at the Court on Saturday – Messrs. Holden, Pledge, Fitness, and Sherwood – did not have any very important case on which to exercise their judicial faculties.

An illustration of how some people cannot understand a denial was given in the case of Edward Moggeridge, who pleaded Guilty to having been disorderly and refusing to quit licensed premises, to wit the Royal George, on the 3^rd.

On the evening of that day he went into the house and called for a pint of beer, with which the landlady refused to serve him, upon which he declared he wouldn`t budge until he was put out, and that i he did not get the beer he would break her windows. He eventually had to be ejected by Police Constable Reed, not, however, until after he had crowned his bad behaviour by striking the landlady with a five shilling piece. Her reason for refusing to serve him was that whenever he came in he always created a disturbance. She had “denied” him for the last six months, but he made it a rule to look in once a week and demand beer.

“Sorry for it”, pleaded the defendant, “but I was drunk”.

“Not the slightest excuse” said Mr. Pledge. “And you would look rather strange”, added the Chairman, Mr. Holden, “if we inflicted the full penalty. It will, however, be inflicted in the future, as we are determined to put down this conduct. As it is you will have to pay a fine of 10s. with 10s. costs, or go for seven days` hard labour”.

The money was paid.

Superintendent Taylor, looking round the Court, remarked he had no doubt some of the defendant`s companions were present, and he wished to state in their hearing that he had received repeated complaints of insolent insults to which they had subjected the landlady. He hoped that defendant`s associates would take notice of what the Bench had said. Mr. Holden said he would assure those who were inclined to offend in that way that the Magistrates would certainly carry out what they had said.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-7-1892

Monday, June 27^th: Before Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

George Haynes, labourer, and John Johnson, a pensioner, were charged with stealing a silver Egyptian War medal, value 4s. 6d.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the bar between one and two o`clock on Saturday, the 25<sup>th</sup> ult. He was showing an Egyptian War medal to Corporal Shorley. They were discussing the weight of it. Haynes joined in the conversation, and asked to look at the medal. Witness handed it to him, and he went outside the house. He returned in about quarter of an hour, and witness asked him for the medal. He replied “I have given it to the corporal, who said it belonged to him”. Witness sent for the corporal, and, in his presence, told him what he said. The corporal said it was not true. Johnson was present when he gave the medal to Haynes, and sat in the bar till Haynes returned. About half past one he gave Haynes into custody. At ten o`clock in the evening Johnson went to the bar again, and said he wished to return the medal. He refused to take it, and sent for a policeman. Sergeant Harman came, and Johnson was given into custody. The medal belonged to Mr. Crookshank, who had now left the Army. The value, he believed, was about £2.

Frederick Shorley, corporal in the Royal Engineers, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he was in the Royal George on Saturday, between one and two o`clock. The two prisoners were in the bar. He and the landlord were in conversation about an Egyptian War medal. The landlord said it weighed over an ounce. Haynes said he did not believe it, and asked to look at it. Mr. Tritton showed it to him, and he walked away with it. He did not say he was going to get it weighed. Haynes did not give him the medal. Haynes was not sober, but he knew what he was about.

Haynes said he had been drinking in the house from six in the morning till three in the afternoon.

Sergeant Swift said Mr. Tritton sent for him, and told him he charged Haynes with stealing an Egyptian War medal. Prisoner replied “I haven`t got it, and if I have, it belongs to me as much as it does to you”. On the way to the station he said “I gave it to a man that works on the Harbour, and I expect he has taken it back by now. I would have told him where he could have found it if he had not charged me”.

Police Sergeant Harman said he went to the Royal George at a quarter past ten on Saturday night, and there saw Johnson. He said to him “Have you anything you wish to give to the landlord?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Hand it up to me then”. He gave up the medal produced. He told him there was already a man in custody for stealing the medal, and he should charge him with being concerned in stealing it. He replied “You have got one locked up for stealing; am I to be locked up for bringing it back?” Witness took prisoner to the police station, and the two men were then charged together with stealing the medal. Haynes said “You have brought it back”. Johnson made no reply.

Haynes stated that he gave the medal to a friend to have it weighed. Johnson said he knew nothing of the matter. It was only “a drunken silly affair”.

The Bench fined Haynes 20s., or 14 days` imprisonment. Johnson was discharged.

Folkestone Express 2-7-1892

Monday, 27^th June: Before Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

George Haynes and John Johnson were charged with stealing an Egyptian War medal, value 4s. 6d.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the bar between one and two on Saturday, the 25^th inst. The two prisoners were together in one compartment, and a Corporal of the Royal Engineers, named Shorey, in another. Witness was showing an Egyptian War medal to the Corporal, and they were discussing the weight of it. Prisoner Haynes joined in the conversation, and asked to look at the medal. Witness handed it to him and Haynes left the bar and went outside the house. He returned about a quarter o an hour after, and he asked him for the medal. He replied “I have given it to the Corporal, who said it belonged to him, and I gave it to him”. The Corporal left the bar after Haynes. He sent for the Corporal, who went back to the bar, and in Haynes`s presence, he told him what he said. The Corporal said it was not true. He had not seen the prisoner, nor had he had the medal in his hand at all. Johnson was present when he gave the medal to Haynes, and sat in the bar till Haynes returned. Witness supposed he heard the conversation between them and the Corporal. About half past one witness gave Haynes into the custody of Sergeant Swift. About ten o`clock on Saturday evening, Johnson went to the bar again, and said he wished to return the medal; he refused to take it and sent for a policeman. Sergt. Harman came and Johnson was given into custody. The medal belonged to Mr. Crookshank, who had now left the army, and was in his keeping with another. The value, he believed, was about £2.

By Haynes: You asked me about the weight of it, and asked me to let you look at it. You said you would have it weighed. I don`t know whether you went into the grocer`s shop. You did not tell me that you had sent Johnson out to have it weighed. You told me you had given it to a corporal in the Engineers. I have not trusted you with anything.

Fredk. Shorey, corporal in the Royal Engineers, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he was in the Royal George on Saturday between one and two o`clock. The two prisoners were in the bar at the same time. He and the landlord were in conversation about an Egyptian War medal. Haynes joined in the conversation about the weight. The landlord said it went over an ounce. Haynes would not believe it and asked to look at it. Mr. Tritton showed it to him, and he took it and walked away with it. He did not say he was going to get it weighed. Witness did not see Haynes outside. He did not give him the medal. He was sent for again by the landlord and found Haynes in the bar. The landlord said “This man accuses you of having the medal”. He replied “It`s false. I haven`t had the medal in my hand”. Haynes went up to him in a fighting attitude. Haynes was not sober, but he knew what he was about.

Hatnes said he had been drinking in the house from six o`clock in the morning till three in the afternoon.

Sergeant Swift said Mr. Tritton sent for him and told him he charged Haynes with stealing an Egyptian Was medal. Prisoner replied “I haven`t got it, and if I have, it belongs as much to me as it does to you. You have no business with it”. On the way to the police station he said “I gave it to a man that works on the Harbour, and I expect he has taken it back by now. I would have told him where he could have found it if he had not charged me”. At the police station he made the same statement.

By Haynes: You did not say you gave it to a man named Johnson to have it weighed.

Police Sergeant Harman said he went to the Royal George at a quarter past ten on Saturday night, and there saw Johnson. He said to him “Have you anything you wish to give to the landlord, Mr. Tritton?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Hand it up to me then”. He gave up the medal produced. He told him there was a man already in custody for stealing the medal, and he should charge him for being concerned in stealing it. He replied “You have got one locked up or stealing; am I to be locked up for bringing it back?” Witness took prisoner to the police station, and the two prisoners were then charged together with stealing the medal. Haynes said “You have brought it back”. Johnson made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried summarily and pleaded Not Guilty. Haynes made a statement to the effect that he gave the medal to a friend to have it weighed. Tritton knew him to be straightforward and he wished “to unveil some of his secrets”. He was proceeding to do so when the Magistrates` Clerk told him it had nothing to do with the charge. Johnson said he knew nothing of the matter. It was only “A drunken silly affair”. He produced a militia discharge, and said he was working at the fruit boats.

Superintendent Taylor said Haynes had been charged with a woman with being an idle and disorderly person. That was in connection with a robbery from a drunken soldier. Johnson was a stranger.

Haynes said he was now working for the Corporation.

The Magistrates decided to convict Haynes and fined him 20s. or 14 days`, with a caution. Johnson was discharged.

Folkestone Herald 2-7-1892

Police Court Jottings

“Don`t go into the public houses to seek this confounded beer. If you want a glass, have it at home and have done with it”. Such was the advice of Alderman Banks to a couple of defendants in a case which was heard before him and Surgeon General Gilbourne on Monday.

The defendants, John Johnson and George Haines, were charged with stealing an Egyptian War medal, the property of Fredk. Tritton, landlord of the Royal George. Although it was stated to be of silver, this token of bravery was only valued at the comparatively trifling sum of 4s. 6d.

It seemed, from the story told by the prosecutor and a Corporal Storey, stationed at Shorncliffe, that about midday on Saturday the landlord exhibited the medal in question, and a discussion arose as to the weight of it, amongst those who took part in it being the two defendants. Haines asked to look at it, and it was handed to him, upon which he put it in his pocket and walked out of the house. On his return shortly after he was asked for the medal, when he said he had given it to the Corporal, as he claimed it as his. This, however, proved not to be the case, as he had given it to the other defendant, Johnson. He was then given into the custody of Sergeant Swift. The next day Johnson went to the public house and offered to return the medal, but the prosecutor refused to take it, and he was handed over to the charge of Sergeant Harman.

Tritton, asked by the Bench how he came to be possessed of the medal, replied it belonged to a Mr. Crookshank, who had asked him to “take care” of two.

Haines, when apprehended, said he had not got the medal, but, he added, it belonged to him just as much as the prosecutor, as he had no business with it, while Johnson expressed his opinion that is was very hard he should be locked up for bringing lost property back.

Called upon for their defence, Haines said he gave the medal to Johnson to go and have it weighed. Johnson, who declared he had been a soldier 27 years and had a good character discharge said it was all through “a drunken silly lark”. They had been drinking in the house since a quarter to six in the morning, and he knew nothing about it until he found the medal in his pocket.

Haines, who Superintendent Taylor remarked, was in the employ of the Corporation – “And trying to do right if I can” added the defendant – was fined 20s; the case against Johnson, which the Magistrates did not think had been quite brought home, being dismissed.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1892

Tuesday, August 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick.

John McKew and William Fitzpatrick, Highlanders from the Camp, were severally charged with stealing, on the 22^nd August, 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of John Thomas Warman, landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street.

The prosecutor stated that the prisoners came to his house on Monday evening and had two glasses of ale. He left the bar shortly after serving them, and when he returned he missed the cigars from a case over the spirit jars at the rear of the bar. In order to reach them a person would have to stand on a seat in the bar. When he missed his property, he followed the prisoners into Tontine Street, where he found them talking to two young women, smoking cigars similar to those he had missed. He gave information to the police and P.C. Smoker followed the men into the Royal George, where he asked them for the missing cigars, and one handed him the case produced.

P.C. Smoker deposed that he went to the Royal George, and there found the prisoners smoking in the bar. Warman said he would give them into custody for stealing his cigars, and in response to this McKew put his hand into his pocket and drew out one packet of cigars (produced), saying that was all he had.

McKew denied that he gave the police constable the cigars. He asserted that a corporal of Military Police put his hand into his pocket and withdrew the packet from it. He did not say “There you are, guv`nor”.

The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and both pleaded Not Guilty. McKew stated that he purchased the cigars of a sailor for 6d., and Fitzpatrick said he was not in the habit of smoking.

The Captain of the Company, who was present, said both men had extremely good characters.

The Bench considered the case proved against McKew, and fined him 10s., and in the case of Fitzpatrick, they gave him the benefit of the doubt and dismissed him.

Note: No record of Warman at the Tramway according to More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1892

Tuesday, August 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Banks, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John McHugh and William Fitzpatrick, Cameronian Highlanders, were charged with stealing 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of James Thomas Boorman.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street. He said the prisoners went in on Monday evening about a quarter past seven and called for two glasses of beer. He served them and left them there, and on his return they had two more glasses He left the bar again, and on his return, missed the cigars from a case on the shelf. The prisoners left the bar as he returned. He followed them, and saw them talking to two girls and smoking cigars similar to those produced. He spoke to P.C. Smoker, and together they followed the prisoners to the Royal George, where McHugh handed him the packet of six cigars produced.

P.C. Smoker said on Monday night he was on duty at the bottom of High Street, when the prosecutor spoke to him and they went together to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners with three other soldiers. Prosecutor gave them into custody for stealing four packets of cigars. McHugh took a packet of cigars from his pouch and handed them to witness.

They both pleaded Not Guilty. McHugh said he bought the cigars from a sailor for 6d.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoners bore an exceedingly good character, and one of them had eighteen months service.

The Bench considered the case proved against McHugh, and fined him 10s. Fitzpatrick was dismissed with a caution.

Folkestone Herald 27-8-1892

Police Court Jottings

Two privates in the Cameronians made their appearance in the iron grating known as the “dock” on Tuesday before the Mayor and Messrs. Pledge, Banks, Herbert, and Wightwick, with having been concerned in obtaining a surreptitious smoke at the expense of Jno. Thos. Foreman, landlord of the Tramway Tavern.

The evidence was very simple. The man, who were named John McKew and Wm. Fitzpatrick, went into the house the previous evening, and, having had some beer, left, the landlord, as they were drinking what they had ordered, having occasion to go out of the bar. On his return he missed four dozen of cigars, which he valued at 4s. Suspecting the prisoners, he followed them, and saw them talking to a couple of fair ones and smoking cigars similar in appearance to those he had lost. He invoked the aid of the police, and curiously found a representative of the law in the person of P.C. Smoker, with whome he went to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners. Smoker asked for the “smokes” they had stolen, and McKew handed over a packet of twelve with the remark “It`s all I`ve got, guvnor”. They were taken to the station, and on being searched, nothing except what was their own property was found upon them.

McKew now asserted that he had bought the cigars from a sailor, whilst Fizpatrick declared that he knew nothing about the matter, and as for himself, he was a non-smoker.

An officer of the Regiment, who was in Court, gave each of the men a good character, in consequence of which the Bench dismissed the charge against Fitzpatrick, and let McKew off with a fine of 10s.

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 Royal George

Supt. Taylor said he found in this case he could not proceed on the ground of the manner in which the house was conducted, as there had not been any conviction during the year, but he would put in evidence as to whether the house was required for the accommodation of the public.

Sergeant Swift said there were twelve licensed houses within 100 paces from the house.

By Mr. Bodkin: He did not know that there was an hotel business done at the house. He did not know that there were eight bedrooms at the house which are let night after night.

Mr. W.H. Wray, representative of the City of London Brewery Company, the owners of the house, said the house was let to Mrs. Tritton at £60 a year rent. The trade was a good and increasing one. An hotel business was done there. The tenant was a very respectable person, and no complaints were made against her.

Mr. Bodkin: This is a very old house, is it not?

Witness: Yes.

I believe the Mayors of Folkestone used to hold their dinners there? – Yes, I believe that is so.

Mr. Taylor: Do you stay at the Royal George when you are in Folkestone?

Witness: No.

In answer to the Bench the witness said they drew ten barrels a week at the house.

Agnes Tritton, wife of George Tritton, said she held the licence of the Royal George. They had a good class of visitors, and all the rooms were let in the season.

By Mr. Taylor: The bulk of the trade was done in the bar. There had been quarrels in the house, but not lately.

Mr. Bodkin: On glancing through the Visitors` Book I see there is testimonial after testimonial as to the quietness of the house and the excellent accommodation.

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 Royal George

Superintendent Taylor: This is a case in which I am, under your decision, unable to proceed, and with your permission I will withdraw the opposition, except as to the house not being required.

Sergeant Swift said there were 12 licensed houses within 100 paces.

By Mr. Bodkin: I do not know there is an hotel business done there.

William Henry Wray, representative of the City of London Brewery Company, the owners, said he went to the Royal George once a month. It was let to Mrs. Tritton at £60. It was doing a good and increasing trade. The tenant was most respectable. £300 was paid for valuation by her. There were bedrooms let out night by night and there was a large room in which food was provided. It was a very old house, and the Mayor of Folkestone`s dinner used to be held there.

By Mr. Herbert: The present tenant has been there three years and a half.

By the Bench: the beer drawn is an average of 10 barrels a week.

Mrs. Tritton, the tenant, said she and her husband held a licence at Hastings for 8½ years, and also kept the Globe at Folkestone. There were 14 rooms in the house without the basement. They let a lot of bedrooms. Eighteen members of D`Oyley Carte`s Company stayed there, and a clergyman sent his choir there. The business was a good one.

By Superintendent Taylor: The hotel business does not last long. The greater part of the trade is done in the bar. All classes of customer come. They had gentlemen one side and common people the other. There had been no disturbances recently – not for two years.

Mr. Bodkin said he had testimonial after testimonial as to the excellence and quietness of the hotel.

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 Royal George

In this case Sergeant Swift proved that within one hundred paces of the Royal George in Beach Street he found no less than twelve licensed houses.

On behalf of the owners, the City of London Brewery Company, their representative, Mr. William Wray, stated that he visited the Royal George once a month. The house was purchased by the company, who let it to Mrs. Tritton at £60 a year rent, and the trade she did was fairly good, and increasing from year to year. He found the tenant a most respectable person, and had no cause for complaint against her, but just the reverse. The amount of valuation paid was £300. She dealt with them solely for beer. He knew the house, and it was a fact the bedrooms were let out from night to night, and there was a room below where people could get refreshments, which were kept for those who chose to go. If it was not an hotel she would be unable to pay the rent.

Counsel: It is a very old house, and I am told the Mayors of Folkestone dinners occurred there. (Laughter)

Witness said he did not know it.

Counsel said he was satisfied that it was only the more modern Pavilion that had cut out the Royal George. (Renewed laughter)

Questioned by Superintendent Taylor, witness said he did not stay at the Royal George when in Folkestone.

By the Bench: The tenant paid £43 per month, therefore drawing about ten barrels a week.

Mrs. Tritton, wife of G. Tritton, said the house was in her name, as the money invested in the business was her private property. The house contains fourteen rooms, and she had a good class of visitors there in the season. Last week she had 26 of Mr. D`Oyly Carte`s Company staying there, while a clergyman sent his choir, 26 of them, to her house.

When cross-examined by Superintendent Taylor, the witness admitted that this hotel business did not last for very long, and that the greater part of the trade was done in beer. They had two classes of persons who resorted to this house; the gentlemen on one side, common people on the other. There had been disturbances at the house, but not recently.

Mr. Bodkin said  looking through the visitors` book he found testimonial after testimonial as to the respectability of this hotel from persons who had stayed there.

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.

Royal George: The Superintendent withdrew the opposition except that it was not required. There are twelve licensed houses within 100 paces. Evidence was given showing the house was a most respectable one, and that Mrs. Tritton, the landlady, was doing excellent business.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-12-1893

Local News

A point of interest to the licensed trade was raised in the Police Court, heard on Wednesday, when Agnes Jane Tritton, of the George Hotel, was summoned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures for having in her possession for use in trade a measure which was not stamped, as required by the Weights and Measures Act.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hall for the defence.

It appeared from the evidence of Boat Inspector Brice that he was sent to the house by the Inspector of Weights and Measures. He asked for half a pint of stout and was served by Miss Tritton in a glass which was marked half-a-pint, but had no verification stamp upon it.

For the defence it was stated by Mr. Hall that Brice went into a private bar, in which a notice was exhibited “No half pints served here”. Miss Tritton told him they did not serve half pints in that compartment, and asked him id he would have a “glass” of best stout, and he replied that would do nicely.

This was contradicted by Brice, who in his evidence stated that when he asked for the half pint of stout Miss Tritton asked him whether he would have the best, and no further conversation took place between them.

Mr. Hall having called evidence in support of his statement contended that by decision of the Courts of Law a publican was entitled to sell a “glass” of liquor when asked for it, and it was a common custom throughout the county. He urged that in this case there was no sale of half-a-pint of stout, but that Brice being told by Miss Tritton that no half pints were sold in that bar, fell in with her suggestion that he should have a “glass” of stout.

The case was adjourned for a week to enable the Magistrates` Clerk to look into the point of law which had been raised.

Folkestone Express 30-12-1893

Wednesday, December 27^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.

Agnes Jane Tritton was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act.

The Magistrates who were members of the Corporation could not adjudicate in this case, and Mr. J.R. Davy was sent for. Subsequently Surgeon General Gilbourne arrived and took part in the hearing of the summons.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecution and Mr. F. Hall for the defendant.

William Brice, Boat Inspector, said from instructions received he visited the Royal George on the 12^th inst. at about a quarter to eight. He went into the bar and asked for half a pint of stout. Mrs. Tritton`s daughter served him with a glass of stout. Mr. Welch, the Inspector of Weights and Measures, then went in. There was no stamp on the glass, and when the Inspector went in he pointed out the glass to him.

By Mr. Hall: I don`t know if it is called a private bar, or that the words “Private Bar” are written on the door. I saw Mrs. Tritton there after I was served. Miss Tritton did not say “We don`t serve half pints in this bar”. I did not see the card produced. She did not say “We don`t serve half pints in here, will a glass of best stout do?” She did not draw the stout in the bar. Two soldiers and a girl were in the bar. It is the custom to sell pints and half pints of beer in glasses. The Inspector instructed me to go into the house. I am a police constable and was on duty. I did not receive any instructions from the Superintendent of Police to go there.

By Mr. Haines: The Inspector said it was my duty to assist him.

James S. Welch, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said he instructed Brice to go into the Royal George, and subsequently went in himself. Brice pointed out the glass he was using, which was not stamped. Next day, in the afternoon, he went again to the Royal George and examined the various measures. In Mrs. Tritton`s presence, Mr. Tritton produced to him a glass and said it was the glass P.C. Brice had used the day before. He saw the words “Half Pint” on the bottom. Four dozen pint glasses and some half pint glasses had since been sent up to be stamped.

Mr. Haines: Under the Licensing Act it should have the words....

Mr. Bradley: You are not proceeding under the Licensing Act, but under the Weights and Measures Act. Show me the section under which you are proceeding.

The section was pointed out, and the witness described the design and number of the Folkestone stamp.

By Mr. Hall: I did not see the words “Private Bar” written up. I have no assistant, and I was ignorant of the fact that it was against Brice`s duty. I saw Mr. Tritton, and told him Brice had asked for a half pint of stout and he was served on the glass produced. There was a notice up “No half pints served in this bar”. Miss Tritton, recognising me, said it was a glass of best stout. She asked Brice if he would have a glass of stout, and he said “Yes, that will do nicely”. If people ask for half a pint they usually get a stamped glass.

Annie Thorpe said she was in the Private Bar at the Royal George and saw Brice go in. He asked for half a pint of stout. Miss Tritton went to speak to her mother.

Mr. Bradley advised that the evidence was irrelevant. Brice did not see the notice exhibited.

Mr. Hall said Welch did see it.

Witness said Miss Tritton returned and told the Inspector they did not serve half pints in that bar, and asked if he would have a glass of the best stout.

Herbert Tritton was called to prove that the notice was up in the bar, but it was held he was not entitled to give evidence.

James Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was called, and said it was the custom of the trade to sell stout by the lass – eighty percent of customers asked for glasses. If they asked for pints and half pints they were served in glasses which were not stamped.

Mr. Hall contended that the case was not made out. There was a saving clause in the Act under which publicans could sell beer or stout in glasses in less quantities than half a pint, and he urged that there was no sale in that case of half a pint, Brice having “made a mess of it”. Under Section 8 of the Licensing Act, Mrs. Tritton was entitled to sell as she had done in a glass. Publicans were subject to a good many burdens, but they were permitted this privilege.

Mr. Bradley: In point of fact you apply for exemption under Section 22?

Mr. Hall: Combined with Section 8 of the Licensing Act.

The Bench decided to reserve their decision for a week.

Folkestone Herald 30-12-1893

Police Court Notes

An interesting point of law in connection with the interpretation of the Weights and Measures Act has arisen in Folkestone, and is yet sub judice. It appears that on the 12^th December inst., P.C. Wm. Brice, of the Borough Force, was acting for Mr. Stephen Welch, the local Inspector of Weights and Measures, and while engaged in that duty paid a visit to the Royal George Hotel, in Beach Street, kept by Mrs. A.J. Tritton. Acting under his instructions, Brice went to the bar at 8 p.m., and asked to be served with a half pint of stout. Miss Tritton, who was serving in that particular bar, asked if Brice wanted the best stout, to which he replied in the affirmative. Miss Tritton then drew the stout in a glass and handed it to the police officer, no further conversation having taken place between them. At this stage of proceedings, the Inspector of Weights and Measures entered the premises, and joining Brice at the bar, was shown the glass in which the stout had been served. The girl who had served Brice immediately addressed Mr. Welch, and pointing to the glass said “Mind, that is not a half pint; that is a glass”. On examination it was found by Inspector Welch that the glass was unstamped, but subsequently, in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Tritton, it was perceived that the words “Half pint” were blown in the bottom of the glass, and the Inspector contended, therefore, that this glass constituted a measure within the meaning of the Weights and Measures Act and ought, therefore, to have been stamped I accordance with the provisions of that Statute. Such being the facts, the matter was brought to a test by summoning the landlord of the hotel for having in his possession a measure which was unstamped, and the case was before the Borough Bench on Wednesday morning, the sitting Justices being Mr. Fitness, Mr. Davy, and Surgeon General Gilborne.

Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared in support of the prosecution, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Hall.

A material element in the facts was brought forward in the evidence of a girl who was sitting in the bar at the time Brice was served by Miss Tritton. According to this witness, when Brice asked for a half pint of stout, Miss Tritton replied “We do not sell half a pint here. If you want half a pint you must go to the next bar. We only serve glasses here”.

After the point of law had been ably put before the court by the learned advocates, the Justices reserved their decision on this novel, interesting, and rather important case.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6-1-1894

Local News

Decision was given at the police court on Wednesday in the case in which Agnes Jane Tritton, of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures for having in her possession an unstamped glass measure. The decision was given in writing, and was read by the Chairman (Mr. J. Fitness). The Bench stated that it had not been made out to their satisfaction that there was a sale by measure  in the case on which the proceedings had been taken. They therefore gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the summons, making no order as to costs.

Folkestone Express 6-1-1894

Local News

The prosecution of Mrs. Tritton: Mr. Tunbridge asks us to say that in his evidence he stated that it is the custom of the trade to sell pints and half pints of ale and stout in glasses which are stamped – not unstamped.

 

Folkestone Herald 6-1-1894

Local Jottings

The point of law raised in the Tritton case, in which the defendant was summoned for having in possession for use in trade a measure which was not stamped in accordance with the weights and Measures Act, has been decided by the Justices in favour of the defendant. The particulars of the case were fully given in last week`s Herald. The decision of the Justices was given last Wednesday. 

Folkestone Express 10-1-1894

Wednesday, January 7th: Before J. Fitness, J.R. Davy and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilborne

The case of Agnes Jane Tritton, who was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, was resumed for the purpose of hearing the decision of the Magistrates, which had been reserved for a week.

The Chairman then read the decision, which was as follows: The defendant is charged on the information of the Inspector of Weights and Measures with having on the 12^th December unlawfully had in her possession for use, for trade, a measure not stamped as required by Section 29 of the weights and Measures Act, 1878. The object of the Act is to force uniformity of weights and measures, and the Scotch case of Craig v McPhee, cited to us by Mr. Hall, decided that the Act does not apply to sales of articles which, though capable of being sold by weight or measure, are not in fact so sold. In other words, the Act prohibits only sales by weight or measure other than Imperial weight or measure, but it does not prevent sales otherwise than by weight or measure. The material portions of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, bearing upon the question which we have to decide are Sections 19, 22, 25, and 59, and the second schedule of the Act, which specifies the measure of capacity. Briefly stated, the effect of these sections appears to be (1) that if beer is sold by measure, i.e. pints, half pints, etc., it must be sold by Imperial measure; (2) the possession of an unjust measure for use for trade is forbidden under penalty, and if the trader is found in possession of an unjust measure, he is deemed to have it for use for trade until the contrary is proved; (3) sale of beer in any vessel is legal if such vessel is not represented as containing any amount of Imperial measure.

The result of what has been stated is this, that beer may be sold in glasses containing less than half a pint, if they are not represented as holding half a pint, a question of fact to be decided in each case. We have to decide upon the evidence given in this case (which is contradictory) whether there was a representation that the glass of stout sold to Brice contained any amount of Imperial measure; in other words whether there was a sale by measure. If there was, then the glasses would be a measure requiring to be stamped in conformity with the statute.

It has not been made out to our satisfaction that there was any such representation, and we therefore give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the summons.

Mr. Hall asked that the summons might be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Minter desired that the costs of the adjournment be allowed the prosecution.

The Chairman: We make no order as to costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17-2-1894

Saturday, February 10^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Poole, and Wightwick.

George Haynes, alias Whaley, was charged with breaking a window at the Royal George Hotel on the 10^th inst. Damage £3.

Frederick Tritton, the landlord, said there was a disturbance in his bar on Saturday night. Prisoner wanted to bite another man. Witness tried to persuade him to leave, but he refused, and witness put him out. He tried to force his way back, threatened to blind witness, and eventually put his foot through the window. He then put his face through the hole and said “How do you like that?” The window was about three feet from the ground.

In reply to prisoner, Mr. Tritton said he had seen Haynes kick six feet high.

Private Fuller, of the Buffs, corroborated, and prisoner was fined 10s., costs 5s. 6d. and damage £3, or one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 17-2-1894

 

Monday, February 12^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Dunk, and J. Holden Esq.

George Haynes, alias Whaley, was charged with breaking a window in the Royal George Hotel, and doing damage to the extent of £3, on the 10^th inst.

Frederick Tritton said about ten o`clock on Saturday night he was called to the public bar. There was a disturbance and prisoner wanted to bite another man. Witness went and tried to persuade him to leave the house, but he refused to go and witness put him out. He tried to force his way back again. He threatened to blind witness, and then put his foot through the plate glass. The glass was about three feet from the ground. He put his face in the hole he had made with his foot and asked “How do you like that?” The glass was not insured. It would cost £3 to replace.

By prisoner: I have seen you kick six feet high. You were perfectly sober.

Private Fuller, of the Buffs, said he saw the prisoner put his foot through the window of the door. Previous to his doing this, witness saw him try to force his way into the house. Prisoner was sober.

Prisoner said he was drunk. He had been in the house drinking nearly all day. He was shoved through the window.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner had been drinking when taken into custody.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, and the value of the glass £3, and in default of payment one month`s hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 17-2-1894

Local Jottings

George Haynes, otherwise Whaley, aged 30, who has been a visitor to Folkestone on and off since 1891, was convicted on Monday morning before the Borough Justices of a piece of wanton and malicious damage to property.

On Saturday night he was at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, and as he was connected with a disturbance that was started there he was ordered out by the landlord, Mr. Tritton. Refusing to go, he was ejected, and then took his revenge by kicking at and smashing a sheet of plate glass, doing damage to the extent of £3, which was not covered by insurance.

He was ordered to pay £3 15s. 6d., including damages, fine, and costs, or a month to prison. He was removed in custody to partake of the hospitality of the State at Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-6-1894

Saturday, June 16^th: before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. G. Spurgen.

George Haynes and Maud Wells, two most disreputable looking characters, were the principals in a police scrimmage as related by P.C. Knowles.

Both prisoners the previous evening about 20 past 11 were outside the Royal George. The woman, using frightful language and refusing to go away, was taken into custody. As she was struggling on the ground the man stood on her dress and defied the constable to take her. Knowles blew his whistle, when P.C. Smoker came, and took Haynes with the assistance of P.C. Lemar, and the two prisoners were conveyed to the police station.

As previous appearance before the Bench were recorded against both prisoners, Haynes was sent to prison for one month, and Wells was sentenced to 14 days`.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-3-1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Friday, a young man named William Lacy, aged 34, was brought up in custody charged with committing wilful damage and an assault.

It appears prisoner went to the Royal George Inn, Beach Street, at about half past six on the previous evening, and created a disturbance by refusing to quit after making use of filthy language to the barmaid, Agnes Tritton. He also threw two or three pint glasses at her head, and damaged a looking glass with them.

When P.C. Stannage took the prisoner into custody, he laid a charge against the barmaid of throwing a glass at him.

The Bench imposed a fine of 10s., with 16s. 4d. damage, and 5s. costs, or in default 14 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 24-8-1895

Wednesday, August 21^st: Before W. Wightwick and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

John Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting the police.

P.C. Prebble said he was on duty at 7.30 in Beach Street. He saw prisoner, who was very drunk, and had been fighting. He asked him to go away, and prisoner replied “If  you want anything, I can give it to you”. He was very rough on the way to the station – kicking and biting witness and P.C. Sharp.

Corporal Fuller, of the Military Police, said P.C. Prebble called on him to assist in taking prisoner to the station. Prisoner kicked, and had to be forced along. It took four to take him to the station.

P.C. Sharp gave evidence as to the conduct of the prisoner after he got to the top of High Street, where witness handcuffed him.

Mr. F. Tritton, of the Royal George Hotel, said he refused to serve the prisoner, as he was drunk. He was very violent, and they sent for a policeman to remove him. A great crowd assembled. Prisoner was very violent, but witness did not see him attempt to bite or kick anybody.

Superintendent Taylor said during the whole time he had been in the police force he had never seen such brutal conduct. They had to keep the prisoner handcuffed for some hours. Prisoner had been in the town two months.

Prisoner: Send somebody down to examine that cell and see the blood there is there. It would make you turn white.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 14 days` hard labour, and, for resisting the police, fined him £2 and 6s. 6d. costs, or one month`s hard labour, the sentences to run consecutively.

Folkestone Herald 24-8-1895

Police Court Record

John Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Monday evening, and with resisting the police.

P.C. Prebble said that on the evening in question he saw the prisoner in Beach Street, surrounded by a crowd of about 200 persons. He was challenging people to fight. As he refused to go away he was taken into custody, then he was very violent and kept kicking and biting. Witness had to get the assistance of one of the military police, a civilian, and P.C. Sharp, to take him to the station.

Corporal Fuller, of the military police, corroborated, and added that the prisoner was so violent that it was necessary for the four of them to hold him.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George public house, said that the prisoner came in there about seven o`clock in the evening, and as he was drunk they did not serve him. He was told to go away, but he refused and wanted to fight. They managed at last to put him out. It was after this that P.C. Prebble took him into custody.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner, who had been about the town for two months, had a bad character. When he was brought up to the police station he behaved in a brutal and ruffianly manner. When he was put in the cell he was so violent they had to put the handcuffs on.

The Bench sentenced him to 14 days` hard labour for being drunk, and fined him for the other offence £2 and 6s. 6d. costs, or one month`s hard labour.