Folkestone Express
3-5-1890
Saturday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, Capt.
Carter, Alderman Pledge and J. Clarke Esq.
Charles Kosh was charged with stealing money from a till at
the New Inn on the previous afternoon.
Susan Standing, barmaid at the inn, said the prisoner went
in for a glass of ale. She served him and left him there alone. As she turned
away she heard the money rattle. The till contained seven sixpences and a
threepenny piece, and about 3s. in bronze. When the prisoner left she missed
four sixpences and some coppers. Anyone on the outer side of the bar could
reach the till, the key of which was left in the lock.
Sergeant Pay said he apprehended the prisoner at the Wonder
Tavern in Beach Street. He was sitting in the smoking room. He was not
drinking, and was sober. He charged him with stealing four sixpences and 2s. in
coppers from a till at teh New Inn. He replied “You have made a mistake. I went
in with a man who treated me to a glass of ale, and I came out with him”. At
the police station he said he knew nothing about any till. He aws searched and
three sixpences and 3d. in bronze found upon him.
Prisoner said he was out of work, and had walked from
London. He had been drinking and hardly knew what he was up to. He admitted
that he had done wrong, and was sorry for it. He had work to go to, and would
leave off drinking from that day. He had a wife and four children, and he knew
he ought to know better.
The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Sessions,
he having been previously convicted.
Holbein`s Visitors`
List 9-7-1890
Quarter Sessions
At the Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall on Monday,
there were only two prisoners for trial, but there were two indictments in one
case and three in the other. The Recorder was unable to be present, and Mr.
Abel John Rann acted as his deputy. It is an open secret that the Recorder is
engaged in a case at present pending in the High Courts, in which the Victoria
Pier sharehiolders are deeply interested.
A true bill having been returned against Charles Kosh, he
was indicted for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, of the New Inn, on
the 28th April.
Mr. Hume Williams appeared for the prosecution, and having
briefly stated the facts, called Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn. She
deposed that about five o`clock on the evening of 28th April
prisoner came in and ordered a glass of beer. He tendered sixpence and she gave
him the change. She went into a side room behind the bar, and heard the chink
of coppers. Had counted the money just before, when there were six sixpences, a
threepenny bit, and about 4s. worth of coppers. When she heard the noise she
went at once to the till and again counted the money. There were only two
sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about 2s. in coppers. The till could be
reached from the front of the counter. No-one else was in the bar at the same
time as the prisoner.
In reply to prisoner, witness admitted that she did not see
him touch any money or the till. Mr. Gower sent Sergeant Pay after him at once,
but he did not find him until about 6.40. Prisoner asked further questions as
to the number of sixpences in the till, contending that if there were six at
the time they were counted there must have been seven after he had paid another
one. He had no recollection of having been in the house at all.
P.S. Pay proved apprehending Kosh at the Wonder, in Beach
Street, about 6.40. Prisoner said he had made some mistake, but went quietly to
the station. On being searched there were found on him three sixpences and
threepence in bronze.
Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement which
was virtually an admission of his guilt.
The jury expressed a desire to retire, on the ground that
they were not satisfied as to the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder
explained to them that if they were satisfied the prisoner took any money from
the till their verdict must be one of Guilty.
After a brief consultation the jury returned a verdict of
Guilty, and prisoner was then charged with having been convicted of a felony
before the borough Magistrates.
The Recorder: Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?
Prisoner: I don`t know (Laughter)
The Recorder: But what did the magistrates say; did they
find you guilty?
Prisoner: They fined me ten and sixpence (Laughter)
The Superintendent of Police said prisoner formerly belonged
to the Engineers, and left with a good character. He had been in the town for
some time, but except the two charges brought that day there was nothing
against them.
The Deputy Recorder told prisoner he had been convicted on
the clearest possible evidence, and that was not his first conviction. He would
take into consideration the fact that prisoner had already been imprisoned more
than two months, but warned him that if he came there, or before any court,
again he would receive a long sentence of imprisonment, or else penal
servitude. The sentence would be three months` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle
12-7-1890
Quarter Sessions
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh, described as a bricklayer, was charged with
stealing 4s. from the till of the New Inn, Dover Road, the money of Henry
Gower, on the 28th April.
Mr. Hume-Williams prosecuted, and the prisoner, who was
undefended, pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he did not remember going into the
house.
Susan Stanley stated that she was barmaid at the New Inn,
and on Monday, the 28th of April, she remembered prisoner being in
the bar. He called for a glass of beer and put down a sixpence. Witness gave
him the change and went out of the bar into a side room, leaving in the till six
sixpences, four shillings, and some bronze money. After she had left the bar a
few moments she heard a rattling of coin and went back to see what it was. She
got there just in time to see the prisoner leaving the house. Witness examined
the till and found that the prisoner had taken four sixpences, a threepenny
piece, and about two shillings in coppers. There were two sixpences left.
No-one but the prisoner was in the bar, and anyone standing in front of the bar
could reach over to the till. Witness counted the money in the till a few
minutes before the prisoner was served.
Prisoner remarked that he did not remember anything about
the offence, but it seemed a strange thing that the witness should say she
counted six sixpences before he was served, and that there were only two left
when she missed the money, because she had admitted that he had paid her
sixpence for the drink. He should have thought four from seven left three.
The witness appeared to be rather muddled as to the actual
number of sixpences in the till and afterwards stated that there were three
left.
Sergeant Pay said in consequence of information which he
received he went in search of the prisoner on the evening of the 28th
of April, and found him in the Wonder Tavern. He told him he would be charged
with stealing the money, and he replied “You have made a mistake. I went in
with a man who treated me and I came out with him”. On searching him he found
three sixpences and some coppers.
The prisoner`s statement before the Magistrates was then
read, in which he said he had been out of work for some time, and had been
drunk ever since the previous Saturday night. He admitted that he had done
wrong, and he was sorry for it. He ought to have known better, when he had a
wife and four children at home.
The Recorder having summed up, the jury expressed a wish to
retire, and in answer to The Recorder, Mr. Mercer stated that there was a
difference amongst them as to the number of sixpences.
The Recorder pointed out that it was not exactly a question
as to the number of sixpences. What they had to decide was whether the prisoner
was guilty of taking any money at all.
After a little further consideration the jury returned a
verdict of Guilty.
Superintendent Taylor stated that the prisoner was convicted
for felony at Folkestone on the 23rd of February, 1890.
The Recorder (to prisoner): Is that correct? Did the
Magistrates find you Guilty?
Prisoner: No, sir; they fined me 10s. 6d. (Laughter)
Supt. Taylor said the prisoner formerly belonged to the Royal
Engineers, and was discharged in 1882 with a good character. He had lived in
the town for several years, but he knew nothing further against him.
Mr. Hume Williams said in fairness to the prisoner he would
like to remind The Recorder that he had been in prison since April 28th.
The Recorder said he was sorry it was not the occasion on
which the prisoner had been in trouble. There were two serious charges of
felony against him. He had already been three months in prison, and under those
circumstances he would deal lightly with him, but he would warn him that if he
was ever taken before another court he would receive a term of imprisonment
three times as long as he was about to pass upon him, and perhaps penal
servitude. Drunkenness appeared to be his evil and he would recommend him to
overcome it in the future. He would be sentenced to three months` hard labour.
Folkestone Express
12-7-1890
Quarter Sessions
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh, a bricklayer, was indicted for stealing 4s.,
the money of Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on the 28th
April. The prisoner said he did not remember going into the house. The facts of
the case were very simple. The prisoner went into the bar and called for a
glass of ale. He was served, and the barmaid went into the bar parlour, leaving
the prisoner standing in front of the bar. She heard the money in the till
rattle, and on going in missed 4s. Mr. Hume Williams prosecuted.
Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn, Dover Road, said on
Monday, the 28th April, the prisoner went to the bar and asked for a
glass of beer, and tendered 6d. She served him and gave him 4½d. change. As she
was leaving the bar to go into a side room she heard the money in the till
rattle. There were six sixpences, four shillings, and some coppers. She went
back and found two sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about 2s. in coppers in
teh till. Anyone standing in front of the bar could reach over the counter and
reach the till. No-one but prisoner was in the bar at the time. She had counted
the contents of the till a few minutes before the prisoner went in.
In answer to the Deputy Recorder, the witness said there
were three sixpences left in the till.
Sergt. Pay proved apprehending the prisoner at 6.40 p.m. at
the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street. He told him the charge, and he replied “You
have made a mistake. I went in with a man, who treated me to a glass of ale,
and I came out with him”. On being searched there were found on him three
sixpences and some coppers.
Prisoner`s statement before the Magistrates was read. He
admitted in it that he had done wrong. He had been out of work and had been
drinking about for several days.
The jury expressed a desire to retire and consider the point
as to the number of sixpences.
The Recorder told them, however, that the number was
immaterial. The only question was whether prisoner took any money. It was clear
there were not so many sixpences when he left as there were when the young
woman counted the money.
The jury consulted for some minutes in the box, and then
returned a verdict of Guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against him of felony in
February, 1890, when he was fined 10s. 6d.
Supt. Taylor said the prisoner was formerly in the
Engineers. He had resided for several years in the town, and with the tow
exceptions named he had borne a good character.
Mr. Hume Williams drew the Deputy Recorder`s attention to
the fact that the prisoner had been in custody for two months.
A sentence of three months` hard labour was passed upon the
prisoner. The Deputy Recorder called the prosecutor and asked him as to the
position of the till, which he was informed had been altered.
Folkestone News
12-7-1890
Quarter Sessions
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Charles Kosh,
bricklayer, for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, landlord of the New
Inn, on the 28th April.
Mr. Hume Williams, barrister, briefly stated the case for
the prosecution and called Susan Stanley, who said she was barmaid at the New
Inn. At 5 o`clock on Monday, 28th April, the prisoner came into the
bar and ordered a glass of beer. He gave her sixpence, and she gave him the
change. As she was going into a room behind the bar she heard the rattle of
coppers, and at once went out to the till and counted the money. She knew what
was in the till, having counted it just before prisoner came in. When she
counted it first there were six sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 4s. in
coppers. At the second count there were only two sixpences, one threepenny bit,
and about 2s. in coppers. No-one else came into the bar while prisoner was
there. The till could be reached from the outside of the counter. The coins
were certainly taken while prisoner was in the bar.
In answer to the prisoner, witness said she found only two
sixpences in the till after prisoner had left. Prisoner contended that if he
had given a sixpence, as witness said, there must have been three, if there
were six before, and he had only taken four.
P.S. Pay said he apprehended prisoner about 6.40 on the 28th
April, at the Wonder, in Beach Street. Prisoner said he had made a mistake, as
he only went in with a man who treated him to a glass of ale. On being searched
at the station there were three sixpences and threepence in bronze found on
him.
Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement before
the Magistrates that he had walked from London in search of work and had been
drinking about in Folkestone for several days. He admitted that he had done
wrong and was sorry for it. He would leave off drinking for the future.
In reply to the Recorder, the prisoner said it was quite
true he had been drinking about, and he did not know whether he was in the New
Inn or not on the date in question. He hoped it would be taken into
consideration that he had already been in prison more than two months.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, as they were not
satisfied as to the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder said all they
had to consider was whether prisoner took any money from the till. After a few
minutes consultation a verdict of Guilty was returned. In sentencing the
prisoner to three months` imprisonment with hard labour, the Deputy Recorder
said he had taken into consideration the long time prisoner had been in gaol,
but he warned him that if he came before any Court again on a similar charge he
would receive a sentence of a long term of imprisonment or else of penal
servitude. The Deputy Recorder called Mr. Gower forward and questioned him as
to the till. It was very wrong of people to put temptation in the way of their
fellow creatures. Mr. Gower said he had since had the till removed, and the
Deputy Recorder expressed his satisfaction.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-9-1890
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor,
Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.
In the case of the Wonder Tavern (Mrs. Laslett), police
constable Lilley stated that on the morning of the 29th of December
(Sunday), about twenty minutes past seven, he saw some people go into the
Wonder Tavern. Witness went inside and saw two men in the bar and asked them
their business. They made no reply. He saw Mrs. Laslett drop her apron over
something, and when he asked her what they wanted she said they had come to pay
some money.
Mr. Minter defended, and the licence was granted with a
caution.
Folkestone Express
27-9-1890
Wednesday, September 24th: 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 Wonder Tavern
Mr. Laslett applied for a renewal of the licence of the
Wonder Tavern.
The Supt. of Police opposed on the ground that on the 29th
of December there were persons found on the premises during prohibited hours,
on a Sunday morning.
P.C. Lilley said the two men he found on the premises said
nothing in reply to the question as to why they were there. The landlord said
they came to pay him a little money.
Mr. Minter said that was the real fact. Applicant would be
very careful in future.
The Bench cautioned the applicant as to his future conduct
of the house and granted the renewal.
Folkestone Chronicle
6-2-1892
Saturday, January 30th: Before J. Holden Esq.,
and Alderman Pledge.
George Laslett, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was summoned
for allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises during
prohibited hours on the 24th January.
P.S. Swift stated that he watched the defendant`s house on
Sunday morning, the 24th of January, in company with Sergeant
Lilley. At half past seven the blinds were drawn up and the private door opened
by the defendant. At 7.40 three men went to the private door, knocked, and were
let in by the defendant. They remained in the house five minutes, and when they
came out two men went in. They came out at 7.50, and two more men went in,
being admitted by the defendant. They remained five minutes, came out, and one man
went in. At five minutes past eight – four minutes later – two more men were
admitted by the defendant, and witness then went to the private bar door. He
saw the defendant there cleaning his kettle. Witness said “Do you know me?” He
replied “Yes”. Whilst he was speaking to defendant he saw Mrs. Laslett walk
from the direction of the bar engine to the other side and stand a pint of beer
on the window ledge, and put some money into a man`s hand. Witness then went to
the passage, where the two men were. One man, named Nash, had a pint of beer in
his hand. Witness said to defendant “What are these men doing here?” He replied
“There is only one. I didn`t know they were there”. Sergeant Lilley was then
let in the private door by the defendant. He told defendant he should report
him for keeping his house open, and he replied “All right”.
Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, and also for the
brewers, Messrs. Flint, said the owners were a highly respectable firm and did
all they possibly could to compel their tenants to conform with the licensing
laws. They would not overlook any breach on the part of their tenants, and he
thought Supt. Taylor would confirm what he said about the conduct of Messrs.
Flint. The Licensed Victuallers Association, for whom he had appeared several
times, tried to impress upon their members the necessity of obeying the law. He
had also pointed out the folly to them. Pecunarily they were not benefitting
themselves, because, for the sale o a paltry half a dozen pints of beer, they
ran that great risk. The defendant had been fourteen years in the house and had
never had a conviction, and probably, if there were some intimation from the
Bench, the brewers would allow him to remain. The defendant was extremely sorry
for what had happened. It was his living, and he had imperilled it; and, as the
Bench were strong, he asked them to be merciful to him.
The Chairman said the Bench thought considerable praise was
due to Sergeant Swift for the way he had brought the case under their notice.
The police had had great difficulty in that neighbourhood. When he received the
charge sheet he was very much surprised to see the defendant`s name on it,
because he had always known him as a respectable man. The case was as clear as
daylight. The maximum fine was £10, but they would reduce it to 50s. The
licence would not be endorsed.
Folkestone Herald
6-2-1892
Editorial
Prohibited Hours
A subject that the Licensed Victuallers` Association of
Folkestone should take in hand, and endeavour to enlighten their members upon,
is the question of whether a publican has the right or not to keep his house
open during what are called prohibited hours. It is a common and a fallacious
belief that on the Sunday every house should be strictly closed with the
exception of the respite allowed by law. This is a mistake, and it is one into
which not the police, but the Magistrates themselves, fall. A reference to the
Licensing Act proves this. The offence in keeping open does not consist in the
mere fact that a landlord has left his doors unclosed, but that he has done so
for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating liquors. Every door and window upon
a publican`s premises may be left open from the beginning of the week until the
end, provided that the object is not to facilitate the sale of commodities
which have to pay a certain duty to the Inland Revenue. For a like reason
no-one has to fear the pains and penalties of the law if found upon licensed
premises during prohibited hours provided he can prove he was not there for the
purpose of purchasing liquor. Of course the law naturally presumes that de facto a man being found on licensed
premises, he is there with that object in view. Publicans, any more than other
tradesmen, do not as a rule make free gifts of what they vend to those who
choose to favour them with their company. But when P.S. Swift told an erring
landlord, as he did according to his evidence on Saturday, that he should
report him for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, he was charging
him with an offence that does not exist. And the Chairman of the Bench was
equally abroad when he told the defendant that he had been found guilty of
doing so. The offence did not lie in the mere fact that the doors of the house
were open, and that men had been seen to enter and leave, but rather that the
landlady was stated to have served some of them. Even, however, in that respect
the offence was not brought home, for it was not shown there had been any sale,
without which an infringement of the Act could not take place. On the face of
such a transaction Magistrates would rule, as they are entitled to, that the
case has been established, subject to the version which might be given on oath
by the landlord and those found upon his premises. In the case to which we are
alluding, the solicitor who defended did not attempt to upset that presented by
the police – he could hardly do so – but he contented himself with an ad misercordiam plea, which was most
ably and judiciously argued, and was not without it`s effect. Our only reason
for alluding to this case is that a great many people seem to fancy that during
what are known as prohibited hours a publican has no right to admit even the
fresh air of Heaven by opening his doors, and that the presence of a friend or
a stranger upon his premises during them is sufficient to draw down upon him
some of those pains and penalties which are held over his head. To show the
foolishness of such an idea we have only to ask anyone to refer to the Act
itself and see if they can find in it any section which expressly exempts any
doctor or minister of the Gospel from the possible penalties which ordinary
people risk in entering upon licensed premises during prohibited hours. They
would fail to find anything of the kind. We remember a case tried a few years
ago in an adjoining county where the landlord was charged with a breach of the
licensing laws. He proved upon his oath, as did the guests themselves, that
those whom he was entertaining were his own relations. The Bench admitted his
plea, but were sorry that according to the Act (their own construction of it)
they had no option but to inflict a fine. When their decision was appealed
against they were speedily set right and the conviction was of course quashed.
Local News
At the Police Court on Saturday before Mr. Holden, Aldermen
Sherwood and Pledge, and Mr. Spurgen, George Laslett, landlord of the Wonder
Tavern, was charged with selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours.
The defendant was represented by Mr. Minter, who, on his behalf pleaded Guilty,
and made a very powerful appeal, commending him to the tender mercies of their
Worships, pointing out that if they so decreed it the firm by whom the
defendant was engaged, Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, would have to give him
notice to leave the house. This in itself would be a severe punishment, but he
trusted the Bench, by their action, not to render it necessary. Representing
the Licensed Victuallers as a body, he had endeavoured to point out to them all
the necessity of completely obeying the law, and not opening their houses
during prohibited hours. He had spoken to men in the position of the defendant
of the folly of doing so. He had tried to make them understand that pecuniarily
they were not benefitting themselves, for the money to be gained by selling
half a dozen pints of beer was nothing in comparison with the risk they ran. In
many instances the Society had prevailed upon it`s members to take that view.
With regard to the present case, it was a lamentable one, for the defendant was
a respectable man, who had been getting an honest and comfortable living until,
for the sake of a few paltry pence, he committed the egregious folly with which
he was charged.
Sergeant Swift then proved the case, showing that on Sunday,
the 24th of January, he saw a number of men admitted by the
defendant into his premises, who (paper torn here), and upon one occasion, when
he entered in company with P.S. Lilley, he saw the defendant`s wife serve men
with drinks.
Mr. Pledge asked if there was anything against the
defendant.
Mr. Minter said he had never been before the Bench before.
Not a single summons had been taken out against him.
The Superintendent added there had been no conviction, but
in November, 1890, he was cautioned by the Bench as to the conduct of his
house.
Mr. Minter said it was a very difficult house to keep in
order on account of the neighbourhood, but they had always done the best they
could, and he was quite sure the defendant would reform in the future.
The Bench, after consultation, decided to fine the defendant
50s. and 9s. costs, the licence not to be endorsed, a decision for which Mr.
Minter, for the defendant, thanked them “very much”.
The Chairman also complimented P.S. Swift upon the manner in
which he had brought the case before the Bench.
Folkestone Chronicle
13-2-1892
Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Banks. Major H.W. Poole, and W.G. Herbert Esq.
Richard Nash, who did not appear, and Frederick Collins were
charged with being found at the Wonder Tavern during prohibited hours on Sunday
the 24th ult.
P.C. Swift proved the charge.
Collins was fined 1s. and 9s. costs, and Nash 1s. and 10s.
costs.
Folkestone Express
13-2-1892
Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Richard Nash and Frederick Collins were summoned for being
on licensed premises on Sunday, 24th January. Nash did not appear,
but he had sent to the police saying he was going to sea, and was ready to pay
any fine the Magistrates might inflict.
Sergt. Swift said he found the defendants at ten minutes
past eight on Sunday morning in the Wonder Tavern, the landlord of which house
was convicted the previous Saturday, and fined 50s. and 10s. costs.
Defendants were fined 1s. each, and 10s. in one case, and
11s. costs in the other.
Folkestone Herald
13-2-1892
Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Banks, Mr. Poole and Mr. Herbert
Fred Collins and Richard Nash were summoned for having “been
on licensed premises during prohibited hours”. They pleaded Guilty, and offered
no explanation.
“Then you will have to pay for it” said Mr. Poole, and they
were fined 1s. and 9s. costs in the case of Collins, and in that of Nash, 1s.
and 10s. costs, the service of the summons having to be sworn to, as he did not
appear.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-8-1892
Wednesday, August 24th: Before Mr. J. Clark,
Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W.
Poole and W. Wightwick.
Annual Licensing Session
Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing
Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church
of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the
Bench, but in order that they might know the Society`s views upon the subject,
to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the
Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect
that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully
asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and
restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He
also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any
additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very
mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women.
Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also
desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the
licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in
conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of
Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.
The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.
Adjournments
The Superintendent of Police having reported that
convictions for offences against the Licensing Act had been obtained against
the following in the course of the past year, the Bench decided to refer their
applications for renewals to the Adjourned Session, Wednesday, September 28th:
Chidwell Brice, Alexandra Hotel; Burgess, Folkestone Cutter; A. Mutton, Warren
Inn; Laslett, Wonder Tavern; Weatherhead, Cinque Ports Arms; and Halliday,
Wheatsheaf Inn.
Folkestone Express
27-8-1892
Wednesday, August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman
Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.
Annual Licensing Day
Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church
of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to
appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the
Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and
he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the
vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private
hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer`s licenses were
peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also
thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced,
especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did
not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had
been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such
houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the
number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra
Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to
the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties
117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.
Adjourned Applications
The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the
Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms,
where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand
over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of
September.
Folkestone Chronicle
1-10-1892
Adjourned Licensing Session
The Adjourned Licensing Session for the Borough was held at
the police Court on Wednesday morning, on which occasion considerable interest
was evinced in the proceedings by reason of the fact that the renewal of the
licenses of several well known and old established houses in the town was
opposed by the Superintendent of Police, acting under the direction of the
Licensing Committee of the Bench.
The Magistrates present were Mr. J. Clarke, Alderman Pledge,
Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole and J. Wightwick.
Mr. Martyn Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the
objections of the police, and Mr. J. Minter and Mr. Hall, severally, appeared
on behalf of the claimants.
At the opening of the Court, the Chairman said, before the
business commenced he wished to make one announcement. It referred to something
which had been done in other towns, and which the Committee thought it best to
do in Folkestone. It was the opinion of the Committe that there were too many
licensed houses in Folkestone, and they therefore suggested that the owners of
the houses should talk the matter over amongst themselves, and agree as to
which houses it would be best to close. If nothing was done before the next
Licensing Session, the Committee would be obliged to suppress some of the
licensed houses themselves. But if the owners would talk the matter over
amongst themselves and agree upon the houses to be closed it would save a great
difficulty.
The Wonder Tavern
George Laslett applied for the renewal of the licence of
this house.
Mr. Mowll said there were 20 licensed houses within a
distance of 100 paces.
The Bench granted this application.
Folkestone Express
1-10-1892
Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J.
Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.
This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said:
Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done
in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the
unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed
houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they
should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be
best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the
magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if
the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to
drop, it would save us great difficulty.
The Wonder
Mr. Laslett, who had been convicted, applied for the renewal
of the licence to this house. Mr. Mowll opposed, and Mr. Minter appeared for
the applicant, who was convicted for Sunday trading on the 24th
January, and was fined 50s. and costs, and the licence was not endorsed.
Sergeant Swift said he measured the distance of the licensed
houses from the Wonder. There were two adjoining, and 20 within a distance of
100 paces.
Mr. Wightwick: How far from it is the Pavilion? (Laughter)
Mr. Mowll said they limited the distance to 100 paces.
Mr. Minter then said the applicant was a most respectable
man, and the house had been licensed 26 years ago. He produced a list of the
earlier tenants, and said the applicant could only lose his licence on one of
four grounds, as it was granted before 1869. He also said at the time of the
conviction he offered to turn the man out if the Bench desired it, but on the
intimation then conveyed Messrs. Flint allowed him to remain.
The licence was renewed.
Folkestone Herald
1-10-1892
Police Court Jottings
Considerable interest was manifested on Wednesday in the
proceedings at the adjourned Licensing Meeting for the Borough as the Licensing
Committee had instructed the police to serve notices of six objections. Mr.
Mowll, of Dover, appeared to support the police in their opposition by instruction
of the Watch Committee.
The Chairman, Mr. J. Clark, at the outset said it had been
suggested that the same plan adopted elsewhere should be pursued there. It was
the unanimous opinion of the Licensing Committee that there were too many
licensed houses in Folkestone and they would suggest that the owners of
licensed houses should talk it over among themselves and agree, before the next
annual meeting, which houses should be dropped out. The Licensing Committee
felt compelled to suppress some of the houses in the town, and if the owners
would carry out that suggestion it would do away with a great difficulty and
relieve the Magistrates of an invidious task.
The licenses of the Wheatsheaf (Geo. Holliday), the
Folkestone Cutter (Joseph Gatley, a new tenant), and the Wonder Tavern (Geo.
Laslett), were renewed.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-8-1893
Licensing Sessions
The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the
Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge,
Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.
The Opposed Licenses
Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll
said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases
of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police,
he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting
the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been
utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be
necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the
matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the
hearing of these cases – say the 15th of September. No doubt it
would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to
adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle
might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to
be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on Saturday
night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the mass of
facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did not
think there would be any objection to the adjournment.
The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and
a special sitting would be held on the 13th September at 11 o`clock.
Mr. Minter asked that the case of the Wonder, Beach Street,
one of the houses to which objection had been made, might be dealt with that day. As he was
instructed, it was licensed before 1869 and the Magistrates consequently had no
power to refuse the licence except for certain things, which did not arise on
the notice of objection. He understood from Mr. Andrews that he was under the
impression that the licence was not granted until 1870.
Mr. Andrews: It was granted on the 1st May, 1869.
Mr. Minter said he thought there must be some mistake in the
register. In the spring of 1869 he applied to the County Court Judge to
restrain the then tenant from removing the beer fixtures and fittings, the
licence having been granted in the year previous.
After some further remarks, Mr. Minter said as there seemed
to be some doubt about the matter he would ask that it stand over, and that in
the meantime the widow of the late tenant should be given temporary authority
to sell.
This course was adopted.
The Superintendent`s Report
Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: In
accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number
of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130,
these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off,
the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit
licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house
licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South
Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been
granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to
premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the
last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held
on the 9th instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal
of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British
Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship,
Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and
Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of
these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these
licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of
the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to
the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The
second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an
unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship
or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in
Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street
seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate
Street three.
The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to give you
the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under
the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for
the trouble you have taken.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Folkestone Express
26-8-1893
Annual Licensing Meeting
Wednesday, August 23rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H.
Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad
Esqs.
The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants were
Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Clarke-Hall
(barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.
Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I
mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been
objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr.
Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications
for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application to
make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to prepare
facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been objected
to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is that you
will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13th
September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the
whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases.
Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with
these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with
regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him
whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may
at once state that the houses objected to are the Jubilee, Radnor Street; the
Harbour Inn, Harbour Street; the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; the Granville,
Dover Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the Royal George, Beach Street;
the Victoria, South Street; the Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; the Wonder, Beach
Street, the British Colours, Beach Street; the Ship, Radnor Street; the
Oddfellows, Radnor Street; and the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street. There are
13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same
principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the
facts and statements connected with every case are different, and it is
necessary that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench
before they give their decision.
The Chairman: Will the 13th be the adjournment?
Mr. Bradley: No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will
be on the 27th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll`s
application?
Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18th?
Mr. Mowll: I am in the Bench`s hands entirely as to the day.
The 13th would be the most convenient day.
Mr. Boykett: The 13th is on Wednesday.
Mr. Bradley: This day three weeks.
The Chairman: The Bench will grant your application, Mr. Mowll.
Mr. Minter: Except as to the Wonder. I should like you to
dispose of that today if you can, because it is a case in which the licence was
granted before `69, and consequently the Magistrates have no power to refuse
the licence except upon certain grounds which don`t arise in the objection.
Mr. Bradley: You want to except that one?
Mr. Minter: Yes.
Mr. Bradley: My impression is that the licence was not
granted till `70.
Mr. Minter: I think it was in September 1869 that I applied
to the County Court Judge to restrain the tenant from taking away from the
house certain fixtures, and I believe the licence was granted in the year
previous. I have been up to the County Court office and applied to look over
the register. I know I applied on behalf of Mr. Beaney to restrain the tenant
from removing those fittings, engines, and things.
Mr. Bradley: We can ascertain it by looking at the minute
book.
Mr. Minter: The register may say 1870, but I don`t know
which is right. But as there appears to be some doubt about it, it would be
better to let it stand over. I simply now ask you to give the widow –the tenant
is dead, and the notice was served on the widow – I ask you to give authority
to the widow to sell until this day three weeks. I don`t suppose there will be
any objection to that.
The Chairman: There will be no objection to do that.
Mr. Minter: Then it stands adjourned with temporary
authority to the widow to sell.
The Superintendent`s Report
The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:-
“Borough of Folkestone Police, 23rd August, 1893.
Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the
honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual
licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist of 82 full ale-house licenses,
12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment
houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the
public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate
in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front.
No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence
being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon
the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed
at the special sessions held on the 9th instant, I have given notice
of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George,
Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports,
Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the
Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed
the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the
objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are
required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to,
and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short
distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for
some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply
to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of
these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and
beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five,
in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
John Taylor, Supt.
To The Licensing Committee”.
The Chairman: Superintendent, I am requested to give you the
thanks of the Magistrates for that report. You have only been acting on the
directions of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the
trouble you have taken and the report you have presented.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Mr. Mowll: The Bench will not object to me having a copy of
the report. I don`t know whether the shorthand writers took it – the
Superintendent read it very rapidly.
Mr. Bradley: There is no objection to that at all.
The unopposed licenses were then granted.
Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting
would be held in the large room.
Folkestone
Herald 26-8-1893
Police Court Notes
On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of
this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J.
Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H.W.
Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.
The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr.
Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would
have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance,
inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of
licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application
reported below, the question was postponed until the 13th September,
and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that
had been looked forward to by the resident community.
There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests
of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr.
Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations
were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).
The Black List
The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the
thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being
given also:- (1) British Colours, 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley; (2) Cinque
Ports, 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead; (3) Folkestone Cutter, 24, Dover
Street, ---- Warman; (4) Granville, 63, Dover Street, F.G. Stickles; (5)
Harbour Inn, South Street, S. Barker; (6) Jubilee Inn, 24, Radnor Street, J.L.
Adams; (7) Oddfellows, The Stade, G. Whiddett; (8) Queen`s Head, 11, Beach
Street, W. Tame; (9) Royal George, 18, Beach Street, A.J. Tritton; (10) Ship
Inn, 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman; (11) Tramway Tavern, 4, Radnor Street, J.
Bayliss; (12) Victoria Inn, 26, South Street, J. Watson; (13) Wonder Tavern,
13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My
application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to
adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13th of September.
No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as
well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be
involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I
saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the
circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at
the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been
objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with
them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements
connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be
very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.
The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench):
Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.
Mr. Minter: Except as to the Wonder. I should like you
to dispose of that today. The house was licensed before 1869, and the
consequence is that the Magistrates have no power to refuse the licence except
on certain grounds that do not arise on the notice of objection. In the Spring
of 1869 I applied to the County Court Judge to restrain the then tenant from
removing the fixtures, and the licence had been granted the year previous. Mr.
Scott was then County Court Judge, and I applied before him, on the part of the
brewer, for an injunction to restrain the then tenant from pulling out the
fixtures. The house was occupied in 1868.
Mr. Bradley: My impression is that the licence was granted
in 1870.
Mr. Minter: There appears to be some doubt about it,
and therefore I will simply ask for temporary authority to the widow to sell.
The tenant is dead, and the notice was served upon the widow.
The Chairman: There is no objection to the course you
suggested.
Superintendent`s Report
Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in
the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the
honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual
licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house
licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to
refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The
bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of
premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road,
and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last
beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne
Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting
in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9th
instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the
Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville,
Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows.
With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former
licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The
general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none
of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the
boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed
houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that
the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but
this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference
to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are
four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight,
Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.
The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to
convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel
obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.
Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.
Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of
the report, and the application was at once acceded to.
The remaining licenses were then renewed.
Southeastern Gazette
29-8-1893
LICENSING
SESSIONS
The intention of
the Folkestone Borough Magistrates to make a substantial reduction in the
number of licensed houses within their jurisdiction has caused great excitement
not only among the licensed victuallers and brewers connected with the borough,
but among the trade generally throughout the kingdom. The question has been
taken up by brewers representing many millions of capital, and it will be
stubbornly fought out.
The annual
Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, and the Town Hall was densely
crowded. Gentlemen from London connected with the trade were present, and also
representatives of the London Press; but their visit was fruitless, as it was
arranged that the contentious business should be taken at an adjourned session.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented various brewing firms: Mr. Minter, the
proprietor of the Wonder Tavern ; Mr. Hall,
solicitor, several applicants for licences ; Mr. Montagu Bradley, solicitor,
Dover, the Licensing Committee of the borough; Mr. W. Clarke Hall, barrister,
certain societies connected with the temperance cause.
OPPOSED RENEWALS
ADJOURNED.
On the Court
being opened Mr. Mowll stated that the Superintendent of the Police had served
notice of objection to the renewal of 13 licences, on the ground that these
licensed houses were not required for the accommodation of the public. It was
impossible for him (Mr. Mowll) in the seven days which had elapsed since the
service of the notices to prepare the facts necessary in each case to enable
the justices to arrive at a right decision. He therefore asked them to adjourn
the whole of the cases to the 13th September, when possibly not only
the whole of that day, but of another day would have to be devoted to them,
inasmuch as although no doubt the same principle was involved in regard to
every house, yet the facts would differ widely, and it was necessary that those
facts should be carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates.
Mr. Minter wished the case of the Wonder
to be excepted from the adjournment. The house was licensed before 1869, and,
as a consequence, the
Bench had no power to refuse the licence except upon certain grounds which were
not raised. He understood that Mr. Andrews (clerk to the justices’ Clerk) was
of opinion that the licence was not granted until 1870. The reason he had for
knowing that the Clerk was mistaken was that in the spring of 1869 he (Mr.
Minter) applied to the Judge of the County Court (Mr. Scott), on behalf of the
owner, Mr. Beaney, brewer, of Wye, for an injunction to restrain the then
tenant, Mr. Bowen, from pulling out the fixtures. He had searched the County
Court records in proof of his contention.
The Bench thought
the documentary proof should be given, and the case was adjourned with the
others; temporary authority being given to the widow of the late landlord, who
had died since the service of the notice.
SUPERINTENDENT’S
REPORT.
Supt. Taylor then
read the following report to the justices “In accordance with your instructions
I have the honour to report that the number of licences granted at the general
annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist ot 82 full ale-house
licences, 12 beer-house
on-licences, and six beer-house off- licences; the remainder being wine
licences to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licences, and grocers’
licences. The bulk of the public-house and beer-house licences are granted in
respect of premises situated in the area bounded by South Street, High Street,
and Dover Road, and the Sea Front. No full licences have been granted for many
years. The last beer-house licence was granted in 1886 to premises
situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the
licensing meeting in 1892, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the
licences of the Jubilee, Radnor Street; Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, Tramway
Tavern, Radnor Street; Granville, Dover Street; Queen’s Head, Seagate Street;
Royal George, Beach Street; Cutter, Dover Street; Victoria, South Street;
Oddfellows, Radnor Street ; Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; Wonder, Beach Street;
British Colours, Queen’s Square (Harbour) ; and the Ship, Radnor Street. With
the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria, and Ship, I have at former
licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licences to these houses. The
general grounds of objection to the renewal of these licences are that none of
these houses are required for the accommodation of the public, being within the
boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed
houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that
the houses have for some years been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner; but
this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship, or Harbour. With reference
to the necessity for these houses, it will be found that in Harbour Street
there are four ale-houses and beerhouses; in Beach Street, seven; in Radnor
Street, eight; in Dover Street, five; in South Street, two; in Seagate-street,
three.”
The Chairman (Mr.
Boykett) said he was requested to give the thanks of the Licensing Committee to
Supt. Taylor for his report. Supt. Taylor had only been acting under the
directions of the Licensing Committee, and they all felt obliged to him for his
report.
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.
Beer Houses
With regard to the British Colours, Cinque Ports and the
Wonder beer-houses, Mr. Glyn said they existed before 1869, and no objection
could be made unless it was suggested that there had been impropriety. Evidence
as to the dates of the existence of the licenses was given by Mr. F. Nops,
Supervisor of the Inland Revenue, and the matter was not gone further into.
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 British Colours
Mr. Glyn said this was a house which had existed before
1869. There was nothing against it.
Francis Nops, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, said the British
Colours, the Cinque Ports, and the Wonder were all licensed before 1869.
Superintendent Taylor said he proposed to give evidence as
to disorderly conduct at teh British Colours.
It was ruled that it could not be given.
Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases,
and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no
complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases
ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to
refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice
for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no
Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted.
Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone
was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and
to confiscate his clients` licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that
confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The
lowest value was put at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the
licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and
the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the
licenses which the justices` predecessors had granted, and which they
themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the
Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were
sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had
refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the
Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been
any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would
be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch
Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to
support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not
present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without
any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not
going to deprive his clients of their licenses.
There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.
The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the
cases.
On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The
Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to
the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the
Tramway Tavern. (Applause)
Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to
the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the
matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in
the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would
do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.
Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.
Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the
very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.
The business then terminated.
Folkestone
Herald 16-9-1893
Editorial
The large audience who crowded into the Licensing
Justices` Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently
representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every
stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was
impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been
committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in
all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law,
were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were
asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long
hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the
tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the
provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal.
As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is
not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the
proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset,
therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of
those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was
rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate
as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses
objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the
manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more
harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if
not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have
taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any
licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a
teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a
Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of
passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of
those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench
was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a
written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the
result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had
originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel
for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach
special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of
earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper
impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of
licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the
discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is
at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the
previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had
been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of
public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now,
and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the
general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed.
In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on
the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these
circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these
licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for
saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the
licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their
origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was
at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the
chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as
the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one
solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no
conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of
persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against
them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last
year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were.
Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent
of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in
support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and
straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the
commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience.
Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of
the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an
appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will
leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid
upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own
object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law
fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in
teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the
houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the
licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory
lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of
houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was
given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the
close of the investigations.
Licensing
It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult.
the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of
objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British
Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street),
Cinque Ports, Queen`s Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen
in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large
room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices
were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy,
Pursey, with the Justices` Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).
Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by
Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the
property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr.
Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good
Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John`s Branch of the
Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the
borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal
assistance.
Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned
friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the
Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you
commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I
have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you
would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some
Temperance societies in Folkestone.
Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no
locus standi.
The Justices now retired to a private room, and after
about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned
into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the
appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a
strong Temperance advocate.
Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be
convenient if you take the Queen`s Head first, and I have formally to apply for
the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. That is a house which is well
known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of
addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very
considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It
is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when
he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a
great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to
time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds
that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As
to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all
others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection
in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions
received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has
occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether
under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied
with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as
agent for the Justices, he had any locus
standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided
as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do.
He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must
be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been
raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will
find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of
Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his
report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates;
therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent
these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with
humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon
which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now,
sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is
not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which
he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a
particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I
am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this
Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after
very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you
retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing
I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single
person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don`t know exactly
what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a
single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these
licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain
that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to
object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property
simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before
them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us
see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first
ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed,
and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can
be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No
notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who
has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the
Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that
in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get
the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests,
there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the
Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by
some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don`t know whether it is any
of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to
have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of
depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture
to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in
which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates
thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the
Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen`s Head, but
among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the
Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although
notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there
has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might
have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir,
with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of
course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what
it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have
been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that
although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of
inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not
required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I
venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course
I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are
clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow
me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this
County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant
of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any
rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this
County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the
decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that
ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where
a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which
you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to
express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that
it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private
individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when
those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid
large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many
years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be
very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving
them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to
a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a
time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now
you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has
become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted.
Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider
this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great
deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those
circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having
regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last
renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago
and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there
has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year,
and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was
condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these
objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others
refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses
have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the
Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides,
but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or
not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that
inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed
the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and
if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to
consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does
not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in
respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of
the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary
proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because
it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner
has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some
counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under
the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had
been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the
tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel,
and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done
in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I
am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in
Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been
suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted,
although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a
right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of
such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single
case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal
following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that
house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not
going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of
any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those
licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer
upon it, it would save us a deal of time.
Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the
legal questions involved in the application.
Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear
for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you
on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has
been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr.
Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences
were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is
this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of
these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right
in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now
under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but
there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have
named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon
owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the
tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into
consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of
the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the
tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the
Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third
such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited
altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is
no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding
that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates
did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any
argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have
decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not
of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that
conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One
other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put
before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been
said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be
pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and
if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn
has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the
applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in
which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed
as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on
the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put
it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I
appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the
box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support
of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to
the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction;
the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I
am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation
does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared
to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving
business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is
it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not
wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you
like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today
unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public
accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you
will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not
a single complaint against them.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the
Bench.
Mr. Minter: I object.
Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.
Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the
Section under which he objects to my locus standi.
Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend
appears – by whom he is instructed.
Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance
Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.
Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the
practice is clear.
Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought
to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.
Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you
have not given notice of objection.
Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he
proposes to establish his right.
Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.
Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the
Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.
Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.
The Justices now retired to their room.
The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have
decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to
within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case
previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that
Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in
order that we may know what these objections are.
The cases not eliminated by this decision were then
proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were
called.
The British Colours, Cinque Ports and Wonder
Mr. Glyn said this was a beerhouse which existed before
1869, and therefore no objection could be taken to it, unless the
Superintendent suggested that there had been any impropriety in the house.
Mr. Francis Knops, Superintendent of Inland Revenue
proved that the licences of the British Colours, Cinque Ports, and Wonder
existed before 1869.
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 24-1-1894
Police Court Notes
Mr. G.W. Prior has obtained temporary authority to draw
at the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street, the licence of which has been held by
Jane Laslett.
Folkestone Chronicle
31-7-1897
Local News
At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, before The Mayor
and Messrs. Salter, Pledge, and Wightwick, Henry Ratcliffe was charged on
remand with having assaulted his wife, Jane Ratcliffe, on Tuesday, the 20th
inst. At the previous Court, prisoner had pleaded Guilty.
Jane Ratcliffe, the prosecutrix, who had been too ill as the
result of the ill-treatment she had received to attend at the previous hearing,
now gave her evidence. The prisoner, she said, was her husband, and she was in
his company near the Wonder Tavern about five o`clock on the afternoon of July
20th. She could not remember anything beyond that prisoner ran up
behind her and kicked her with a pair of heavy hob-nailed boots that he was
wearing. He gave her one hard blow and she fell. She did not know what he did
it for, as she had had no quarrel with him. He had had some drink. He had often
kicked her before, and she had several other bruises on her body. The next
thing she recollected was that two women assisted her into a cab and went with
her to the hospital, and that the Relieving Officer afterwards accompanied her
to the Union, in the infirmary of which she had been until that day, under the
care of Dr. Fisher. She still felt the effects of the blow in her back and
head. She had been married to prisoner about nine years, and had four children.
They were in the habit of travelling about from town to town in Kent selling
watercresses. Mrs. Brough, present in Court, was one of the persons who helped
her into the cab.
In reply to prisoner, complainant said he had not seen her
go into the Wonder Tavern just before the occurrence, nor did anybody give her
“a pint” just as she was leaving, with the remark “Here`s a pint for you, and
I`ll see you after the old man`s gone”. Her husband never said to her “You
ought to have asked that man what he meant by saying that to you”.
Dr. Percy Wheeler Kemp, house surgeon at the Victoria
Hospital, spoke to complainant having been admitted to the Institution on the
evening of the 20th inst., between half past four and five o`clock.
She had lost a fair amount of blood. Her underclothes had bloodstains upon them
and she had others upon her body. In her condition it would be necessary for
either a blow or fall to produce the blood. It would not necessarily take a
heavy blow, as she was enceinte. She
appeared to be in pain, and was suffering from slight shock to the system. In
answer to the prisoner, the witness said the injury might have been produced by
a blow from a basket.
In defence, prisoner said he had been driven out of their
good home by his wife`s bad conduct. He was proceeding to make some irrelevant
remarks respecting her conduct at Ramsgate, when the Clerk interrupted him and
told him to confine himself to the present case, one of aggravated assault. The
prisoner went on to say that he did not kick his wife, but swung round the
basket of cresses which he was carrying and struck her with that. She had
provoked him by her taunts. He alleged that she had deserted her children, and
said it took him all his time running after her from town to town with them. He
had previously been on a good farm, but her bad conduct had got him sent away.
In sentencing prisoner to four calendar months` hard labour,
the Chairman said the Bench were satisfied, on Mrs. Brough`s evidence, that he
did brutally kick his wife, and if she had died, he might have been tried for
murder. Instead of protecting his wife, he appeared to have systematically
ill-treated her.
On hearing his sentence, the prisoner merely observed “Thank
you, sir”, and was removed to the cells.
Folkestone Express
20-11-1897
Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman
Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly was charged with stealing from a hut on the 8th
November a live tame rabbit, value 4s., the property of William Stone, of 21,
Mill Bay.
Prosecutor, a labourer, said the rabbit produced was his,
and it was kept at the back of his house in a hutch in Mill Bay in the yard. He
saw it on Monday evening at seven o`clock. At nine o`clock he saw the door of
the hutch was open, and on going to look for the rabbit found it was gone. He
saw it again on Thursday in the possession of a man named Bell, at 38,
Bradstone Road. Its value was 4s. The yard was open to several houses, and
prisoner had been there several times.
William John Bell, of 38, Bradstone Road, a mariner, said he
bought the rabbit of prisoner at the Blue Anchor about a quarter to nine on
Monday night. Prisoner asked half a crown for it, and witness bought it for 2s.
and a pint of beer. Prisoner said it was his rabbit, but he had no convenience
for keeping it.
Sergeant Dunster apprehended the prisoner and charged him
with the theft. He said “Yes. I bought the rabbit from a man they call “Chalky
Harry””. Afterwards he said he bought it from a man called “Bricky Tom”. At the
police station, when charged, he said he did not steal the rabbit – ho bought
it from another man and gave 1s. for it.
Prisoner persisted that he bought it, but did not know
whether he could find the man from whom he bought it. He was remanded
tillMonday.
Monday, November 15th: Before W. Wightwick and
W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly, who had been remanded on Friday, was charged
with stealing a rabbit.
Joseph Compron, of 14, Radnor Street, said he was in the bar
of the Wonder Tavern on Monday evening, when he saw “Navvy Tom” speaking to
prisoner. Afterwards they went out, and when they came in prisoner was carrying
a parcel. Prisoner gave Tom a shilling and called for a quart of beer.
Adelaide Warman, of the Providence Inn, said that “Navvy
Tom” came into the bar one night, and asked her if she wanted to buy a tame
rabbit. She said “No”.
The Chairman: Well, prisoner, although you have called these
witnesses, there seems no doubt that you stole the rabbit. We might send you to
prison, but we think a fine will answer the purpose. We shall fine you £1, and
in default you will have to go to prison for 14 days.
Folkestone Herald
20-11-1897
Police Court Record
Thomas Riley was charged on remand with stealing a live,
tame rabbit.
In addition to the evidence previously taken as to the
rabbit being missed from a hutch in the back yard of William stone, 21, Mill
Bay, labourer, Joseph Compton, a labourer, 14, Radnor Street, deposed that on
the night of the 8th inst. he saw a man known as “Navvy Tom” speak
to defendant in the Wonder Tavern and hand him a parcel. The defendant returned
later and gave “Navvy Tom” a shilling, which “Tom” handed to another man, and
called for a quart of beer.
The daughter of the landlady of the Providence deposed that
one night a watercress seller (known as “Navvy Tom”) asked her if she wanted a
tame rabbit, and she replied in the negative.
The defendant`s defence at the first hearing of the case was
that he got the rabbit from another man.
The Bench fined defendant £1, or 14 days` hard labour.
The man called “Navvy Tom” was then charged with stealing
the rabbit from a hutch.
In view of the Bench`s decision in the previous case,
Superintendent Taylor asked that the charge might be withdrawn.
This was agreed to by the Bench.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-3-1899
Local News
Yesterday (Friday) at the
Folkestone Borough Police Court, Messrs. Fitness, Pursey, Wightwick, and
Herbert had before them two cases, which brought to the Court a large number of
the public.
The first was a charge of
stealing an overcoat from the Wonder Hotel, the property of Mr. George Prior.
The accused was a man named Edward Benjamin Weston, who was one of the crew of
the Brocklesby, and made himself conspicuous as an avowed American citizen.
George Prior, landlord of the
Wonder, Beach Street, said he recognised the prisoner as a customer at his
house for the last few days. On Thursday night he missed an overcoat from a row
of pegs in the bar passage. He hung the coat up at nine o`clock, and at ten it
was missing. He next saw the coat in the possession of Police Inspector Lilley.
Inspector Lilley said about half
past ten on Thursday night, in company with P.C. Lyons, he went on board the
ship Brocklesby in the outer harbour, and in the seamen`s quarters were several
men, among them the prisoner, who was sitting on the bench under his hammock.
Folded up in the hammock was the coat produced. Weston said “I took it for a
joke”. Lilley asked “Took what?” He replied “His coat. I only did it for a
joke”. Lilley took Weston into the town and met Mr. Prior, who identified the
coat. Prisoner asked Mr. Prior “Didn`t I take it as a joke?” Mr. Prior replied “No,
you had no right to joke with me. I know nothing of you”. So Lilley took Weston
to the lock-up. There prisoner said “Oh well! I suppose I must put up with it
for the time being”.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty, but
said he was intoxicated and didn`t intend to steal the coat. He meant to take
it back.
He was sentenced to twenty one
days` hard labour.
Folkestone Herald
11-3-1899
Folkestone Police Court
Yesterday (Friday) Edward Benjamin Weston was charged with
stealing a coat, value £3 10s., on the 9th March, the property of
George William Prior.
The landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, deposed
that he recognised the defendant, who had been a customer for a few days. He
hung the overcoat on a peg in the bar, and he missed it the previous evening.
He identified the coat. The value was £3 10s.
P.S. Lilley deposed that as a result of inquiries made,
about half past ten, accompanied by P.C. Lawrence, he went on board the ship
Brocklesby, which was to proceed to sea at six o`clock that morning. He went to
the seamen`s quarters, where there were several men, amongst them the
defendant. He was sitting on a bench under his hammock, and folded up in the
hammock witness saw a coat, which he produced. The following dialogue ensued:
Witness; “Which is Weston?” Defendant; “I took it as a joke” Witness; “Took
what?” Defendant; “His coat. I only took it for a joke” Witness: “You will have
to see him with me about it”. Witness took him into Beach Street. The
prosecutor identified the coat. Witness to defendant; “I shall charge you with
stealing this coat from the inside of the Wonder Tavern”. He turned to the
prosecutor and said “Didn`t I take it as a joke?” Prosecutor said “No, you have
no right to joke with me, I know nothing of you”. Witness brought him to the
police station, where he was charged. In reply he said “I suppose I will have
to put up with it for the time being”.
Defendant said he was guilty of taking it; he did not mean
in any shape or form to steal and not return it; he had said “Well, I ill take
it down for a skylark”.
A Magistrate: I think I should have taken it to the passage
where it was found instead of taking it on the vessel.
Defendant said he knew he was a little intoxicated.
The Bench sentenced him to 21 days` hard labour. The
Chairman said he thought they had come to a very lenient decision.
Folkestone Up To Date
11-3-1899
Friday, March 10th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Col.
Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Henry Benjamin Watson, a seaman, was charged with stealing
an overcoat, valued £3 10s., the property of George William Prior, the landlord
of the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street.
George William Prior, the first witness, said: I recognise
the prisoner, who has been a customer at my house during the last three or four
days. I missed an overcoat from my house at 8 - 10 last night. The coat hung on
a peg by the bar, and I went for it at 9 p.m., when I missed it.
Police Sergeant Lilley deposed: About 10.30 last night, in
company with Police Constable Lawrence, I went on board the vessel Brocklesby,
lying at the outer harbour, which was to proceed to sea at six o`clock this
morning. I found the prisoner in the seamen`s quarters, and the coat was
wrapped up in his hammock. The prisoner said “I only took his coat as a joke”.
I replied “You will have to come with me to see him about it”. I took him into
Beach Street, and told him I should charge him with stealing the coat. In
reply, he said “I suppose I shall have to put up with it for the time being”.
The prisoner said he only took the coat as a “skylark”, while
he was under the influence of drink. He took the coat too openly to intend to
steal it.
He was sent to prison for 21 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment