Guildhall Hotel/Tavern 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Chronicle 26-5-1900

Wednesday, May 23^rd: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Spurgen, and Stainer.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an extension from 9 until 3 a.m. on Friday, the occasion of the Yeomanry Ball.

Folkestone Express 26-5-1900

Wednesday, May 23rd^th: Before J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the Town hall on the occasion of the Yeomanry Ball.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9-6-1900

Saturday, June 2^nd: Before Messrs. Fitness, Banks, and Wightwick, and Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to serve intoxicants, etc., at the Folkestone Cricket Ground on Tuesday.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1900

Saturday, June 16^th: Before J. Pledge and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted a temporary licence to sell spirits at the match between Folkestone and Hythe cricket match on the Plain.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1-6-1901

Saturday, May 25^th: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold, Messrs. Peden, Pledge, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Mr. J. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell on the Folkestone Cricket Ground on Whit Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 1-6-1901

Saturday, May 25^th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for a cricket match on the Plain on Monday.

Folkestone Herald 1-6-1901

Friday, May 31^st: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for and was granted occasional licences for the cricket field for Saturday and Wednesday next.

Folkestone Express 8-6-1901

Friday, May 31st: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted occasional licences for cricket matches on Saturday and Wednesday on the Sandgate Plain.

  

Folkestone Chronicle 27-7-1901

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, Messrs. Wightwick, Salter, Pursey, and Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Arthur Owen, a respectably dressed excursionist, who visited the town on Saturday, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Sharp said that about 2.40 he was called by the landlord of the Guildhall for the purpose of ejecting prisoner. Prisoner was ejected, and both in and out of the bar he used filthy language. This caused a crowd to assemble. Prisoner refused to go away, and continued to use bad language, so he was taken into custody.

Prisoner told the Bench that he had been an abstainer for six months, and a few drops on Saturday must have overcome him.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`. The fine was paid.

Folkestone Express 27-7-1901

Monday, July 22^nd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, Col. Hamilton, and W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Arthur Owen, an excursionist, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Sharpe said about 3.40 p.m. on Saturday he was called to eject the prisoner from the Guildhall Tavern. He did so, and as the prisoner continued his disorderly behaviour and made use of most disgusting language he was obliged to arrest him.

The prisoner said he was an excursionist, and had a glass too much.

He was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days. The Chairman said when an excursionist drank too much he lost himself and his character.

Folkestone Chronicle 8-3-1902

Monday, March 3^rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, and Messrs. W. Wightwick, W. Salter, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.

James Smith, a private in the Royal Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing a glass, the property of Mr. James Tunbridge, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults.

P.C. James Ashby said: At 9.40 last night, near the Town Hall, I saw the prisoner cross the road from the Guildhall Vaults and get on to the Cheriton bus with a glass in his hand, partly covered by his tunic. I followed him to the top of the bus and said “What have you done to that glass?” At the same time he let the glass drop on the floor of the bus. I said “Can you give any account of this glass?”, and he replied “No, what is it all about?” He was sober, but had been drinking. I took him to the station and detained him while enquiries were made, and subsequently charged him with stealing the glass from the Guildhall Vaults.

James Tunbridge said he could not say that he had lost the glass the previous evening, but since Friday three had been taken from his bar.

The Chairman said that P.C. Ashby had done quite right in bringing the accused before the Bench. Prisoner had had a very narrow escape, but the evidence was not strong enough to convict.

Note: This appears to indicate that at this time Tunbridge was landlord of both the Guildhall and the Railway Bell.

Folkestone Express 8-3-1902

Monday, March 3^rd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Pte. James Smith, of the Royal Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with stealing a glass tumbler from the Guildhall Vaults on Sunday evening.

P.C. James Ashby said at 9.40 p.m. on Sunday he was on duty in front of the Town Hall, when he saw prisoner cross from the Guildhall Vaults to get on to the Cheriton omnibus. As he was going up the steps he noticed he had a glass in his hand partly covered with the sleeve of his tunic. Witness went to him and said “What have you done with that glass?”, and at the same time it rolled on to the floor, and to the edge of the top of the bus. When asked to give account of the glass, he said “No; what`s it about?” He was taken to the police station and charged with stealing it from the Guildhall Vaults.

James Tunbridge, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the glass produced was similar to those used in the house. He had lost four glasses since Friday. He valued it at 5d.

P.C. Ashby was re-called, and said the glass was damp with beer.

Mr. Wightwick: That beer might come from many places. – Oh, yes.

 The Chairman said the Bench did not consider the evidence sufficient to convict the prisoner, and he told him he had had a narrow escape. They therefore dismissed him.

Folkestone Express 15-3-1902

Wednesday, March 12^th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Jeffrey was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Vaults.

Folkestone Express 26-4-1902

Wednesday, April 23^rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Dudley Jeffrey was granted a transfer of the Guildhall Vaults

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-8-1902

Saturday, August 9^th: Before Lieut. Colonel Penfold, Alderman Vaughan, and Mr. C.W. Carpenter.

Paul Latsha and George Washington Camp, Canadians, stationed at the Colonial Depot, Shorncliffe Camp, were charged, the former with being drunk and disorderly, wilful damage, and assault, and the latter with being drunk and disorderly and with assault.

Dudley Jeffrey, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the prisoners came to his house on Friday afternoon about 5 p.m. Noticing that they were not sober, he refused to serve them. He was then assaulted by the accused. He eventually got them off the premises, and Latsha rushed at the door, putting his fist through the glass panel, which was valued at £2. The police were called, and the prisoners were given into custody.

P.C. Thomas Taylor formally proved the arrest of prisoners, which was accomplished after assistance had been obtained.

Latsha, in defence, alleged that it was the landlord`s own fault. They (prisoners) were excited over a bet they had made between themselves. Mr. Dudley was appealed to, and, in reply, said they were drunk, and refused to serve them. At the same time he attempted to throw them out.

The Chairman said that it being Coronation Day, the Bench were going to be very lenient, but he was sorry to see Colonials in such a position. Latsha would have to pay £2 damage, 2s. 6d. fine, and 4s. 6d. costs for breaking the window, 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for the assault, and 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly. Camp would be fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, and a similar amount and the same costs for the assault. In default prisoners would be committed to Canterbury for 14 days in each case, the sentences to run concurrently.

The fines were paid.

Folkestone Express 16-8-1902

Saturday, August 9^th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Paul Latsher was charged with wilful damage, assault, and being drunk and disorderly, and George Washington Camp with assault and drunkenness. Both men are Canadians.

P.C. Taylor said on Friday evening, about five o`clock, he was on duty close to the Town Hall, when he saw the prisoners drunk and fighting. He requested them to go away, and as they refused, he took them into custody.

Dudley Jeffrey, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the prisoners came into his house about 4.30 p.m., but he refused to serve them because they were drunk, and were using vile language. He attempted to put them out, but they came in again. Latsher punched him, and drew a knife, remarking that he “would give him a foot of steel”.  Witness got them out after a struggle, when Latsher broke the glass door, valued at about £2.

Latsher denied ever having a knife, and Camp said they had had a bet, and the landlord put them out. He asked to be allowed to get his money. This was refused by the proprietor, who said he would put two black eyes on him. They were served with two glasses.

The Chairman said he was sorry to see Canadians disgracing themselves in such a manner. Latsher would be fined £3 1s. for the three charges and the damages, and Camp 14s.

The money was paid.

Notes By The Way

Two Canadians who got into trouble through having too much to drink on Friday night were before the Magistrates on Saturday. One of them had the misfortune to break a square of glass in a bar door, and he was ordered to pay the damage. Altogether the penalties amounted to upwards of £3, and as the defendants had no money, the Magistrates and the Magistrates` Clerk were in a Coronation mood and, as I am informed, they did not like the idea of sending loyal Canadians to prison, so they had a “whip round”, and paid the fines, costs and penalties which they had imposed. When the men, who seemed to be very respectable fellows, get back to Canada they will entertain very grateful recollections of Messrs. Penfold, Carpenter, Vaughan and Bradley, who certainly did on this occasion temper justice with mercy.

Folkestone Herald 25-4-1903

Saturday, April 18^th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Councillor G. Peden, Messrs. J. Pledge and J. Stainer.

James Dogherty was summoned for having been drunk on licensed premises on the 18^th inst.

P.C. Sales stated that he saw the defendant drunk in Rendezvous Street, in company with three soldiers. Shortly afterwards he went into the Guildhall Vaults, but the barmaid refused to serve him. When he told him that he would be reported, defendant said that he was not drunk, and that he had gone in for some more beer.

Dogherty denied being drunk, stating that he could not get drunk on 5½d., which was all he possessed.

The Chief Constable said that defendant was last before the Court on the 18^th March.

Addressing defendant, the Chairman said they were going to give him another chance by only imposing a fine of 2s. 6d., without costs. If he came again on a similar charge he would be more severely dealt with.

Defendant asked for a week`s time in which to pay the fine, but the money was paid for him by Mr. Bickers, the Police Court Missionary.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20-6-1903

Friday, June 19^th: Before Alderman Penfold, Col. Fynmore, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. G. Peden.

Pending transfer, Mr. James Filmer, late of the Black Lion, North Street, Canterbury, was granted temporary authority to sell on the premises of the Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone, vacated by Mr. Dudley Jeffrey.

Folkestone Express 27-6-1903

Friday, June 19^th: Before Colonel Penfold, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G. Peden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was temporarily transferred from Mr. Jeffrey to Mr. James Filmer, late of Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11-7-1903

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority, full transfer of licences in relation to the following house was granted:- The Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. Dudley Jeffrey to Mr. James Filmer, late of Canterbury.

Folkestone Express 11-7-1903

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was transferred from Dudley Jeffrey to James Filmer.

Folkestone Herald 11-7-1903

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The following licence was transferred: Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. D. Jeffrey to Mr. Filmer

Folkestone Express 24-10-1903

Monday, October 19^th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Leo Bartholomew Noonan, who appeared to feel his position in the dock very keenly, pleaded Guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Bourne stated that he was on duty outside the Town Hall at 8.30 the previous evening, when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, trying to force his way into the saloon bar of the Guildhall Vaults. When prevented from entering by the landlord, prisoner used obscene language and refused to go away when requested by witness; consequently he was compelled to take him into custody.

Prisoner, who told the Bench that he was heartily ashamed of his conduct, was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26-12-1903

Saturday, December 19^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Aldermen Salter and Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Albert Charles Lewis were charged with obtaining £2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from Stephen Collard on the previous Thursday.

Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, said he had only just received instructions to appear on behalf of the prosecutor, and he would like the case remanded until Monday.

Of course the Magistrates heard some evidence before making their decision on this point, and the prosecutor entered the witness box, and said he resided at 33, Bouverie Square and had no occupation. On Thursday he was in the Guildhall Tavern when the three prisoners came in. They all got into conversation, and he paid for some drink. Eventually he said he must be off, as he had to go and pay his gas bill, whereupon McKay told him he need not trouble about that, as the collector was there and would take it, McKay pointing out the prisoner Blake as the collector. Blake said “That will be all right, guv`nor; you pay me”, and asked for pen and ink. He (prosecutor) handed Blake £2 1s. 6d. and the Water Company`s printed form and asked him for a receipt. Blake took the money, but not the printed form, and then said he would send the receipt along in the morning. There were four men present at the time. About ten minutes later Blake wanted him (prosecutor) to have a drink, but he declined, and then all the men left by the back way. As they did not return, he became suspicious, and gave information to the police.

On this evidence Mr. Haines asked for a remand.

Blake began to make a statement that he was superintendent of the Royal Irish Insurance Company, but he was advised not to say anything at this point.

All three prisoners were remanded until Monday morning and were granted bail, each in the sum of £20 and one surety in a like amount.

Monday, December 21^st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick and Alderman Herbert.

When the three men, Lewis, McKay, and Blake were again charged with obtaining the sum of £2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from the man Collard, Mr. Haines, who appeared for the prosecutor, said h would offer no evidence against Lewis, and Lewis was therefore discharged, though Mr. Minter, who represented him, made a protest against his being arrested and then being dismissed without even an apology.

The evidence given by the prosecutor on Saturday was read over and considerable additional evidence was called, the witnesses being Mrs. Filmer, the landlady of the Guildhall Vaults, where the theft was alleged to have taken place, and Walter Stephen Page, collector for the Gas and Coke Company who proved that the money owed by the prosecutor had not been paid to the company, and that the prisoners were not authorised to receive money on behalf of the company, and Sergt. Dunster.

Each of the prisoners gave evidence on their own behalf, entering into details as to what took place in the Guildhall Vaults while they were there with the prosecutor. Their statements amounted to a total denial of the charge.

The Magistrates, however, considered it was a case for a jury, and so committed the prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions, which will be held on January 1^st.

Prisoners were allowed bail, themselves in £25 each, and one surety of £25 each.

Folkestone Express 26-12-1903

Monday, December 21^st: Before W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay and Albert Chas. Lewis were brought up on remand, charged with being concerned together in obtaining, by means of false pretences, £2 1s. 6d. from Stephen Collard.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Minter for Lewis.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that he did not intend to offer any evidence against the prisoner Lewis, and asked for his discharge.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for Lewis, and, of course, he had no business to complain of the charge being brought against him, but, nevertheless, he wanted to point out that a respectable man was arrested in his own bed at midnight, locked up and brought before the Magistrates, and afterwards discharged without an apology.

The Clerk: There is no evidence against him.

Mr. Minter: Then he had no business to be arrested. Those responsible will be called upon to answer it.

Mr. Wightwick: I must say that I didn`t think there was the slightest evidence against him.

Lewis was then discharged, and the case against the other two prisoners proceeded with.

The evidence of the prosecutor, given at the previous hearing, was to the effect that on Thursday last he was in the Guildhall Vaults. Whilst there the two prisoners came in and called for drinks. He entered into conversation with them, and they all had drinks together. About half past three prosecutor said he must be off as he had a little account to pay at the Gas Works. The prisoner McKay thereupon remarked “You need not trouble about that. Here`s the collector (pointing to Blake)”. He took £2 1s. 6d. out of his pocket and Blake took it, saying he would send the receipt in the morning as he didn`t have the book with him.

Blake: is it a fact that you were intoxicated?

Prosecutor: No.

How many drinks do you think you had in the house? – Five or six.

You say that you handed me the money? – Yes.

Prisoner: Well, I don`t know anything about it.

Fanny Filmer, wife of the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, stated that on Thursday last she remembered the prosecutor being in the bar with the prisoners. They were in conversation together, and subsequently prosecutor asked for a pen and ink. One of the prisoners, when the articles were brought, said he didn`t require them, as the receipt would be sent in the morning. All three were perfectly sober or else they would not have been served with drink.

By Blake: How many were in the bar at the time? – Three or four besides you.

Mr. Page, collector for the Folkestone Gas Company, said the prosecutor was indebted to the Company for £2 1s. 6d., which amount was still owing. Neither of the prisoners had been in the employ of the company, and they were not authorised to receive any money.

P.S. Dunstan gave evidence as follows:- From information received I went in search of the prisoners, and on Friday I saw them in the Dover Road. I told them that they answered the description of two men who, in company with a third man, obtained £2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from Stephen Collard, whilst in the bar at the Guildhall Vaults. Blake said “I know nothing about any money”. While on the way to the station he said “I have some money, but I don`t know who, and I shall have to rectify it”. He further said “Never mind. I shall have to go through it. There, though. Never mind”.

Blake went into the witness box, and on his oath said: I am a collector and assistant superintendent for the Irish Provident Association, and came to Folkestone last Thursday week. McKay, being one of our sub-agents, had done business with Mr. Filmer regarding plate glass insurance, and that accounted for my being in the house. I called at the house on this occasion to collect a premium off Miss Newman, a barmaid in Mr. Filmer`s employ. Whilst there the prosecutor asked me and four or five others who were in the bar to have a drink and cigars. I paid for some, and my friend for others, but the majority were settled for by prosecutor; I should say about eight or nine. There was a phonograph in the bar and it was playing most of the time we were there. The prosecutor seemed to enjoy it and commenced to dance in the bar. I stayed there until 4.30, and no mention was made of any Gas Company, nor did I receive any money.

Mr. Haines: Then you admit that what the police officer stated was correct? – No. I deny it partly. I may have mentioned something about some money I should have to make up, but it was to do with the insurance.

Blake called the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults (James Filmer) as a witness. He stated that he saw no money handed to him (the prisoner) because he was in the billiard room. The prosecutor was a little jolly, but nothing out of the way.

Mr. Wightwick: What do you mean?

Witness: Well, the phonograph was going, and he wanted to jump about, but I stopped it.

Blake: Is it correct that you have a policy with our company? – Yes.

Was the prosecutor sober? – I should say that he was sober. I saw nothing the matter with him.

McKay`s statement on oath was as follows:- I was formerly agent for the Irish Provident Association. My superintendent came down from London with Mr. Blake and explained to me that as business was very quiet Mr. Blake was going to take my book over. I have two good references with the company, and a bond. The superintendent looked over the books and everything was settled.

The Clerk: Get on with the facts connected with the case and to what happened in the Guildhall Vaults.

McKay: Well, I went to the Guildhall Vaults with Mr. Blake and another gentleman – Mr. Lewis – and we had several drinks together. When we were in the company of prosecutor he started to talk about different things, and I heard him say something about gas. I visited the convenience, and when I came back Blake had gone, and I, with Lewis, had a drink with the prosecutor. As to any money being passed, I know nothing about it. I am innocent, and I think it is very hard after being in Folkestone five years.

Mr. Wightwick, addressing the prisoners, said it was a case for a jury to decide, and therefore they would be committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Each prisoner was offered bail in a sum of £25, and a further sum of £25.

Folkestone Herald 26-12-1903

Saturday, December 19^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Albert Chas. Lewis were charged with obtaining, by false pretences, from Stephen Collard, of 33, Bouverie Square, the sum of £2 1s. 6d.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that he had only that moment been instructed to prosecute, and he wished, after evidence had been heard, to apply for a remand.

Prosecutor said that on Thursday afternoon he was in the Guildhall Tavern. It was about half past three in the afternoon when the prisoners came into the public house together. Subsequently witness entered into conversation with the prisoners, and they drank together. After staying in the bar for a while, witness wished to go, and exclaimed that he had to go to the Gas Office to pay a little account. Prisoner McKay said “Oh, you need not trouble about that. Here is the collector; he will take it” (pointing to Blake). Witness paid £2 1s. 6d. to Blake, believing that he was the Gas Company`s collector. Soon after Blake was paid, all the men went out of the house by the back door, and then witness became suspicious. He gave information to the police, and the prisoners were subsequently arrested.

The Bench remanded prisoners until Monday, bail being allowed in a surety of £20 each.

Monday, December 21^st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, and Alderman W.G. Herbert.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Chas. Lewis were charged, on remand, with obtaining by false pretences, from Stephen Collard, of 33, Bouverie Square, the sum of £2 1s. 6d.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. J. Minter represented the prisoner Lewis.

Mr. Haines said that, after reviewing the evidence, he did not wish to proceed with the case against Lewis, although he was in the company of the prisoners.

Mr. Minter, while aware that he had no right to complain of the charge being made against Lewis, pinted out to the Bench that the prisoner, who was a respectable man, was arrested at twelve o`clock at night, when in bed, “lugged” up to the police station, brought before the Magistrates, remanded on bail, and then the prosecution did not offer any evidence against him.

The Clerk to the Justices: There is no evidence against him.

Mr. Minter: Then why has he been arrested? Whoever is responsible for the arrest will have to answer for it.

Lewis was then discharged.

Stephen Collard was called, and the evidence given by him at the initial hearing was read over. In answer to prisoner Blake, witness said that he was not intoxicated in the Guildhall Tavern the previous Thursday afternoon. He had five or six drinks with prisoners. Blake was the man to whom he handed the money, and who ha been called the Gas Company`s collector.

Mrs. Filmer, wife of the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, deposed that she was in the bar when the prisoners and prosecutor were there. They were all drinking and conversing together. Prosecutor asked for a pen and ink, but when witness brought it, one of the prisoners said that they did not require it, as they would send the receipt in the morning. All the men were perfectly sober. There were four or five men in the bar.

Walter Page, the Gas Company`s collector, said that the prosecutor was indebted to his form in the sum of £2 1s. 6d. Neither of the prisoners was in the employ of the Company, nor were they authorised to collect the money.

Sergt. Dunster proved arresting the prisoners on Friday night, in Dover Road. Blake said “I know nothing about the money”, and on the way to the station exclaimed “I took some money from someone, but I don`t know who. I shall have to rectify it. Never mind, I shall have to go through with it. There, though, never mind”. McKay had 5s. in his possession, and Blake 1s. 5½d. In one of Blake`s papers, which were found on him, was a noted stating that enclosed was sent 8s. 11½d.

Mr. Haines now asked for the prisoners to be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Arthur Blake, on oath, said that he was a collector and assistant superintendent of the Irish Provident Association, stationed at Folkestone. McKay, being one of the sub-collectors of the Association, had done business with the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, and it was the collection of a premium from a barmaid that took him to the house. In there they met the prosecutor with four or five other men.  They all drank together, in all about eight drinks. Prosecutor drank whisky, and while a phonograph was playing he wished to jump about. He stoutly denied hearing of, or seeing, any money pass from Collard.

James Filmer, the landlord of the house in question, said that none of the men were drunk. He was not in the bar all the time, but while he was there prosecutor became a little bit jolly when the phonograph was playing, but he was stopped.

McKay denied all knowledge of the affair.

The Bench committed both Blake and McKay for trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail in their recognisances of £25 and a surety each of £25 being allowed.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-1-1904

Quarter Sessions

Friday, January 1^st: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Blake and McKay were found Guilty, and they received sentence of three months` hard labour. Blake, it is said, had previously been convicted of burglary.

Folkestone Herald 2-1-1904

Quarter Sessions

Friday, January 1^st: Before J.C.L. Coward Esq.

Arthur Blake (28), agent, and Ernest McKay (31), agent, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment against them of “unlawfully and knowingly obtaining by false pretences, of and from Stephen Collard, the sum of £2 1s. 6d., the monies of the said Stephen Collard, on the 17^th December, 1903, at Folkestone”. Mr. Matthews again appeared for the prosecution, and McKay was defended by Mr. Wiegall, barrister. Blake was not legally represented.

Counsel for the prosecution briefly outlined the facts of the case, which, as given at the Police Court proceedings, were fully reported in last week`s Herald, so that they are fresh within the memory of our readers. It will be remembered that the prosecutor and the two prisoners, who were said to be canvassers in the employ of the Irish Provident Assurance Association, were drinking together in the Guildhall Tavern, the former standing treat. After some time prosecutor announced that he was going to the Gas Office to pay a bill, whereupon McKay, it was alleged, turned round and told prosecutor that he had no need to do so, as his companion (Blake) was the Gas Company`s collector. Collard thereupon handed the £2 1s. 6d. to Blake, and shortly afterwards the two prisoners disappeared.

Evidence to this effect was given by Stephen Collard, the prosecutor, who resides at 33, Bouverie Square, Folkestone.

In reply to Blake, witness denied that he was intoxicated, or that he commenced to jump about when a phonograph was playing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Weigall, Collard admitted that he had been dismissed from his employment at the Harbour because he absented himself without leave. On that occasion he went to Chatham to see his son, but did not let his family know, because his wife would not have allowed him to go. (Laughter) He was not aware that his family went to the police with the object of ascertaining his whereabouts, but they might have done.

Mr. Weigall: Did the police find you?

Witness: No, sir.

The Recorder: Did you find yourself, or who found you? (Laughter)

Witness: I found myself. (Loud laughter)

Without having lost yourself? (Laughter) – I never lost myself.

Mr. Weigall: It was a little mental aberration? – Yes.

Replying to Mr. Matthews, witness admitted that he did not understand the meaning of mental aberration. (Laughter)

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Mrs. Filmer, Walter S. Page, collector of the Gas Company, and P.S. Dunster repeated the evidence given at the police court, and were subjected to slight cross-examination.

Blake emphatically denied that he took any money from the prosecutor, or that he was introduced to Collard as the Gas Company`s Collector by McKay.

On his oath, McKay, who said he had lived in Folkestone for three years, stated that prosecutor was “absolutely drunk”, and was dancing about in the bar, with the result that the landlord had to tell him not to knock the gas stove over. He did not introduce Blake as the Gas Company`s collector, nor did he see any money change hands.

Arthur Charles Lewis, pianoforte tuner, Canterbury Road, was called as a witness for the defence, but he gave it as his opinion that prosecutor was not drunk, although he was a “little lively”.

George Kirby, landlord of the George Hotel (sic), by whom McKay was formerly employed as billiard marker, testified to his good character during the eight or nine months he was in his employ.

Addressing the jury on behalf of McKay, Mr. Weigall laid emphasis on the fact that they were dealing with a man of proved good character. After reviewing the evidence at considerable length, counsel contended that it was perfectly clear that prosecutor`s evidence was not reliable because of defects in his memory. Prosecutor`s whole story was that McKay was there all the time, but it was proved that McKay went to the lavatory with Lewis, and when they returned to the house the other two men had gone. Under the circumstances, therefore, he appealed to them to regard the whole evidence with care, and if they had any reasonable doubt, it was an act of mercy and justice to return a verdict in favour of the prisoner.

Mr. Matthews also addressed the jury for the prosecution.

Both prisoners were found guilty.

Chief Constable Reeve reported that Blake, who belonged to London, was, in 1896, at the Central Criminal Court, indicted on a charge of burglary and bound over; whilst in 1899, on a charge of housebreaking, he was sentenced to 21 calendar months with hard labour. Nothing was known against McKay.

The Recorder: Where is this Irish Provident Association that employs these ex burglars and housebreakers.

The Chief Constable: I have never heard the name before.

Blake said the head office was in Chancery Lane. When appointed he had to find two references and a bond, and before that he was employed for three years at the London Docks, handing to the Recorder a letter from the latter testifying to his good conduct.

McKay said he was a single man, but hoped to be married next month. (Laughter)

In passing sentence, the Recorder said he entirely agreed with the verdict. He shut his eyes against Blake`s previous convictions, because he believed he had been trying to earn an honest living since he was last discharged. He was afraid McKay`s matrimonial engagement would have to be slightly deferred, as the sentence he passed upon each of them was imprisonment, with hard labour, for three calendar months.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-1-1904

Gossip

An amusing incident occurred at the Quarter Sessions. After Blake and McKay had been found Guilty by the jury, Mr. Minter, the solicitor who had briefed Mr. Weigall for McKay, expressed his belief that McKay was a married man. Mr. Weigall called this statement to the attention of the Recorder in the hope, perhaps, of mitigating his sentence. Mr. Matthew, the counsel for the prosecution, from information received, denied the statement. Mr. Weigall then rose to say that McKay was engaged to be married the following month. We understand that the lady in question was in Court at the time. The Recorder, in passing sentence, remarked that McKay would have to defer his matrimonial arrangements. Earlier in the same trial Mr. Matthew was trying to establish the fact that Mr. Collard, the prosecutor, was sober at the time of the alleged trickery. It had been asserted that he had danced about in the bar of the Guildhall Tavern. “My experience is”, said the Recorder, “that when a man is drunk he does not dance about. What do you think?” I really know nothing of these things replied Mr. Matthew shortly. “You are very cruel” was the Recorder`s good humoured response.

Folkestone Express 9-1-1904

Quarter Sessions

Friday, January 1^st: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Arthur Blake (28), agent, and Ernest McKay (31), agent, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment against them of “unlawfully and knowingly obtaining, by false pretences, of and from Stephen Collard, the sum of £2 1s. 6d., the monies of the said Stephen Collard, on the 17^th December, 1903, at Folkestone”.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the prosecution, and McKay was defended by Mr. Weigall, barrister. Blake was not legally represented.

Counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case, dwelt upon the facts elicited at the Police Court (and which were fully reported in our columns a week or so ago). It will be remembered that the two prisoners went into the Guildhall Tavern, where they met the prosecutor. All three entered into conversation, and prosecutor stood several drinks. After remaining in the house for close upon two hours and a half, the prisoners were informed by the prosecutor that he had a gas bill to pay, whereupon McKay said “You need not trouble about going to the Gas Works. Here is the collector (pointing to Blake)”. The amount of the bill - £2 1s. 6d. – was then paid to Blake, and the prisoners promised to send the receipt in the morning. After the transaction both Blake and McKay left the house.

Evidence to this effect was given by the prosecutor (Stephen Collard), who said he was perfectly sober at the time.

The Recorder: Why did you give this money to Blake?

Prosecutor: Because he represented himself to be the collector of the Gas Company.

Prisoner Blake: You say you were not intoxicated in that house? – No.

Why did you commence to dance and sing? – I did not do so.

How much money do you think you gave to the concertina man? – Two shillings.

Mr. Weigall: You have told us that you are not in any employment now?

Prosecutor: No.

You were employed at the Harbour as a flagman, I believe? – Yes.

When did you leave? – About two months ago.

Was that after a visit to Dover? – No.

Why did you leave? – Because I was absent without leave.

Where had you been? – To Chatham.

It was a sudden disappearance, I believe? – Oh, no. Not at all.

Did your family know you were there? – My son knew.

Did your family go to the police? – They might have done.

You have lost your memory? – No, not at all.

Then why do you suppose that your family went to the police station to make inquiries about you? – I don`t know.

They must have thought it was rather a sudden and eccentric disappearance? – I don`t know.

Did the police eventually find you? – No.

Did they bring you back? – No.

The Recorder: Did they find you, or did you find yourself? – I found myself.

Without having lost yourself? (Laughter) – I never lost myself.

Mr. Wiegall: You suffer from a little mental aberration, I believe? – Yes.

Do you know what it is? – No. (Loud laughter)

In further cross-examination, prosecutor said that he knew perfectly well what transpired. He was quite collected.

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Mrs. Filmer, Walter S. Page (collector to the Gas Company), and P.S. Dunster were also called to bear out the evidence that they gave when the prisoners were first charged.

In cross-examination Mr. and Mrs. Filmer both said they did not see the money handed to Blake.

Addressing the petty jury, Blake made a long statement, in which he emphatically denied that he took any money from the prosecutor, or that he was represented to be the collector of the Gas Co. If collector was mentioned it must have been in connection with his business as an agent of the Irish Provident Association.

McKay elected to give evidence on oath, stating that Blake came to Folkestone to take over his book, as business had been slack of late. The prosecutor was absolutely drunk and danced about, and the landlord told him to be careful, or else he would knock the gas stove over. He did not introduce Blake as the collector of the Gas Company – he told Collard that he was the collector of the Irish Provident. Something was said about gas, but he did not know what.

Albert Charles Lewis, a pianoforte tuner, residing in Canterbury Road, said he was in company with the two prisoners in the Guildhall Tavern. The prosecutor seemed a “little lively”, but he was not drunk. Blake left the house before witness, who went in a cab with McKay to the Black Bull. Witness was the worse for drink, and was away sick and bad when the job happened.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, deposed that McKay was in his employ nine months as billiard marker, and he was very honest indeed.

Mr. Weigall, on behalf of McKay, delivered a forcible address to the jury, asking them to remember that they were dealing with a man of proved good character. Reviewing the evidence, counsel urged that the statement of the prosecutor was not to be relied upon, because of defects in his memory. He appealed to them to say that the evidence was not sufficient to convict.

Mr. Matthew also addressed the jury, who brought in a verdict of Guilty after a few minutes` consultation.

Chief Constable Reeve reported that Blake, who belonged to London, was, in 1896, at the Central Criminal Court, indicted on a charge of burglary, and bound over; whilst in 1899, on a charge of housebreaking, he was sentenced to 21 calendar months, with hard labour.

The Recorder: Where is this Association that employs these housebreakers?

Supt. Reeve: I don`t know anything about it. I have never heard the name before.

Blake: The London office is in Chancery Lane. I have been in regular employment since I was released from prison. When I was appointed I had to find two referees as a bond. Before this I was employed at the London Docks – first as an extra hand for eighteen months, and then a similar term as a regular hand, but owing to slackness of work I had to go.

Blake handed to the Recorder a letter testifying as to his character while employed at the London Docks.

Much to the amusement of those in Court, McKay said he was a single man, but hoped to be married next month.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said: The jury have found you Guilty of conspiring to defraud this man Collard, and it is a verdict I entirely agree with. I much regret to find men standing before me who are described, and there is no reason to doubt it, as men of good education, well-instructed, and in a position apparently of agents responsible to an insurance company of repute. In the sentence I am going to pass, I intend to shut my eyes to the previous convictions of Blake, because I believe that he has tried to earn an honest living since he was released on the last occasion, inasmuch as there is a certificate from the Docks to the effect that he left with a good character. I must point out that men, even when they are the worse for liquor, must be protected against men such as you are. As for you, McKay, I am afraid your matrimonial engagement will have to be slightly deferred. Each of you will be imprisoned with hard labour for three calendar months.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-4-1904

Wednesday, April 13^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Alterations to the Gun Tavern, Cheriton Road, and the Guildhall Tavern were approved.

Folkestone Express 16-4-1904

Wednesday, April 13^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer Esqs.

The Magistrates agreed to slight alterations at the Railway Tavern, the Gun Tavern, and the Guildhall Tavern being made.

Folkestone Herald 16-4-1904

Wednesday, April 13^th: Before Ald. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Permission was granted for alterations to be carried out on the following premises:- The Railway Inn (sic), The Gun Tavern, and The Guildhall.

Folkestone Chronicle 19-11-1904

On Tuesday morning the first of a series of Excise prosecutions was opened at the Folkestone Police Court (the Woodward Institute), before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

Great interest was taken in the proceedings, which lasted from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. The summonses were laid against well-known traders, and in all cases related to the alleged selling of beers, wines, or spirits without a licence. The prosecution, at the instance of the Inland Revenue Department, was conducted by Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister.

The first defendants were Teresa and Louis Maestrani, mother and son, restaurant keepers, of 26, Guildhall Street (now closed) and 2 & 4, South Street, both premises being unlicensed in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors. Defendants also had a licensed restaurant in Sandgate Road.

There was quite an array of Revenue Officers, and as the case proceeded it was evident that the prosecution had been most carefully prepared in every detail, and with such skill, that all Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendants, could do was to withdraw the plea of Not Guilty and plead mitigating circumstances. The technical objections raised by the defence were all overruled, but those in Court generally commended the success of the various solicitors engaged in getting their clients off with such a light penalty as £1 on each information, when the maximum penalty was £50.

Briefly, there were six informations against the Maestranis. Mr. Davies, an Inspector of Inland Revenue, from Somerset House, together with Mr. Cope, an officer from the same department, at various dates entered the premises in Guildhall Street and South Street, after having placed two other preventative officers (Messrs. Hayward and Bates) at a point of observation. During dinner or lunch Messrs. Davies and Cope also ordered wines and spirits. In five cases liqueur brandy was ordered, and 6d. per glass paid. The waiter, having asked for the money in the usual way, proceeded to adjacent licensed houses and purchase eight pennyworth of brandy, which was served up in two sixpenny portions. In one case a portion was left after the division. In the case of the wine, a bottle of St. Julienne was ordered, and 4s. paid for it; this was purchased at a neighbouring hotel for 2s.

After a long hearing the Chairman announced that all cases had been fully made out, and although the pnalty inflicted could be £50 in two instances, and £20 each for the remainder, the Bench had decided to be very lenient. The penalty on each information would be £1 and 9s. costs, making a total of £17 6s. 

Folkestone Express 19-11-1904

Tuesday, November 15^th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Teresa Maestrani and Louis Maestrani, restaurant proprietors, were summoned in four instances for selling wines, spirits, and beer without a licence at their restaurant at 26, Guildhall Street, on August 14^th. Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister, of the solicitors` department, Somerset House, prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Shaw, having given details of the offences alleged, called the following evidence:

James John Hayward, an officer of Inland Revenue, said on August 14^th, in company with Mr. Bate, he went to the Guildhall Restaurant. They went in at seven minutes past eight in the evening. Mr. Louis Maestrani held a refreshment house licence for it. There was a wine list similar to the one produced on the tables in the restaurant. Witness ordered supper, and at 8.20 witness called the waiter and ordered a small bottle of St. Julien. The price on the wine list was 2s. The waiter asked for the money and witness gave him a sovereign. He left the premises and returned at 8.26 and said he could not get St. Julien, but asked if a bottle of Bordeaux would do. Witness replied “Yes”. The waiter had it with him, and said it was 1s. 6d., and gave witness 18s. 6d. change. At 8.37 Mr. Bate ordered one liqueur of brandy and an Allsopp`s lager beer. The waiter said the brandy was 6d. and the beer 3d. Mr. Bate gave the waiter 2s. At 8.41 the waiter returned and served them with the lager and the brandy, giving Mr. Bate 1s. 3d. change. They paid for their supper and left at 8.45. On August 16^th Mr. Bate and himself went to the restaurant at 7.53 in the evening. At 7.55 witness ordered two black coffees and two liqueur brandies, giving the waiter 1s. for brandy. He left the premises, and at one minute past eight he returned and served them with the liqueur. He gave them no change. After that he kept observation outside, and afterwards saw Mr. Cope enter the house, keeping observation until he came out again.

Percy Hart Bate, another Inland Revenue Officer, corroborated the former witness`s evidence.

Alfred William Cope, another officer, said on August 14^th he was with Mr. Davies outside the Guildhall Restaurant keeping observations from the time the last witnesses entered until they left. At 8.21 witness saw a waiter leave the restaurant. He followed him and went to the Guildhall Vaults. There he was served with a small bottle of Bordeaux, and the proprietor said to him “It is tenpence to you”. The waiter placed a sovereign on the counter and received change, and a check till on the counter showed 10d. The waiter returned to the restaurant with the wine. At 8.37 a waiter and a boy left the restaurant. Witness followed them. The boy went into the public house, and the waiter went to Maestrani`s licensed premises in Sandgate Road. Witness followed him in and heard him speak to a man behind the counter, and he received from the man a bottle wrapped in paper. He returned to the restaurant with the bottle. He did not see him pay any money. Witness also saw the boy join the waiter and go in with him. The boy was carrying a glass which appeared to contain brandy. On the 16^th August he again watched the restaurant with Mr. Davies. At 7.56 in the evening, witness had previously seen the two officers go into the restaurant, a waiter went to the Guildhall Vaults. Witness followed, and the waiter obtained brandy in a tumbler, placed 1s. on the counter, and received two pennies change. He returned to the restaurant with the brandy, Mr. Davies following the waiter into the restaurant. In consequence of directions from Mr. Davies he went into the restaurant after the other two had left. He saw a tumbler containing brandy on a shelf behind the counter. He asked for a coffee and brandy. The waiter went to the tumbler containing the brandy, filled the liqueur glass, and served it to witness. As the waiter served the brandy, a customer asked the waiter if he could have brandy. He gave the waiter some money, and the waiter poured the brandy from the tumbler into the liqueur glass. On the 29^th August he went with Mr. Davies and saw the landlord of the public house and Mr. Louis Maestrani.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not hear what the waiter said when he went to the Sandgate Road restaurant. It appeared to be a bottle he received.

Re-examined, he said he did not lose sight of the waiter.

James Blake Davies, Inspector of the Inland Revenue Preventive Department, corroborated Mr. Cope`s statement. He said when the waiter returned with what appeared to be a bottle, he followed him into the restaurant and went to the counter and asked for a sponge cake. He stood there and saw the waiter take the wrapper from the bottle and place it on the counter. It was a small bottle of Allsopp`s lager beer. The boy who went in with the waiter handed a tumbler containing a liquid the colour of brandy, and pulled the till out and put a copper in. The waiter placed the beer on the tray, and poured out a portion of the brandy into a liqueur glass and placed it on the tray, and took it across to a table at which Messrs. Bate and Hayward sat. Witness then left, and shortly afterwards came out. On August 16^th he also made observations with Mr. Cope. At 7.56 he saw the waiter go towards the Guildhall Vaults. On his return witness followed him into the restaurant. He had in his hand a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy. He pulled the till out, threw two penny pieces into it, took down two liqueur glasses, and filled each from the tumbler, leaving in the tumbler about half, and placed the tumbler on the shelf behind him, and placed the two liqueur glasses on a tray and went across to Messrs. Bate and Hayward. Witness went out and gave certain directions to Mr. Cope, and remained on observation. Immediately Bate and Hayward left, he and Mr. Cope entered. From that time until Mr. Cope came out no-one left or entered the restaurant. On August 29^th he went to the Guildhall Vaults and saw Mr. Filmer, who made a statement which witness took down. On August 30^th he went to Mr. Louis Maestrani`s private residence. Witness told him who he was, and in consequence of complaints received certain steps had been taken, and officers had visited his premises and made purchases of beer, spirits, and wine. Witness also told him he had seen a Mr. Filmer and obtained the following statement from him: I charge over the counter 1s. for Bordeaux, but 10d. to the restaurant. I should be satisfied with a profit of 3d. or 4d. per bottle. If 10d. worth of brandy, I should say that it was cognac, according to the quantity obtained”. Mr. Maestrani then said “I am in partnership with my mother in the businesses at Sandgate Road, Guildhall Street, and South Street. As to Guildhall Street, if intoxicants were ordered, money would be asked for in advance, and the beer would be fetched from Mr. Filmer`s, next to the tobacconist`s, except on the Sunday; the waiter would fetch beer and wine also from Mr. Filmer”. Witness then said “I will put it to you a waiter went from Guildhall Street to Sandgate Road and brought back lager for a customer at Guildhall Street”. He replied “Well, I am aware that would be wrong”. Witness asked him which business he particularly attended, and defendant replied “I am generally at Guildhall Street”. Witness then said “I will put it to you that wine has been brought from Mr. Filmer`s to customers at Guildhall Street, and the customers charged much more for it than was paid at Mr. Filmer`s”. He replied “ I make a little profit. Perhaps he charges 10d. for a bottle of medoc, and I would charge 1s. or else we should not get any profit”. Witness asked him what his practice was with regard to liqueur brandies, and he said “If two liqueurs of brandy were ordered, we would pay 10d. for it and charge 1s. We would sell the whole of the brandy to the customers and charge 1s. We do not keep liqueur glasses. We should not sell the brandy in the timblers”. Witness then told him tenpennyworth of brandy had been purchased, and that he knew three liqueur glasses charged at 6d. had been secured from that. Witness showed him the wine list which was obtained from the restaurant, and he replied “We have an arrangement with Mr. Hammerton, but we have not had a settlement yet. Our arrangement was made about three months ago”. Then witness pointed to champagne shown on the list, and he replied “We would charge 11s. a bottle, and pay Mr. Hammerton 7s. 6d. for it. We should get a profit of 1s. 6d. on a 2s. bottle of wine. That is, we should charge 3s. 6d. for it by our arrangement with Mr. Hammerton”. Witness told him if he would go down to Guildhall Restaurant, perhaps he would be able to show him liqueur glasses. He accompanied him, and witness pointed out the liqueur glasses behind the counter on a shelf. Afterwards witness saw the other defendant and read over the statements to her. Mrs. Maestrani`s daughter was present and she said she was part proprietor of the shops, and that her husband was manager over them. She also said that they had applied for licences nine times. Mrs. Maestrani said “I cannot say anything”.

Edward Pinnex, and officer of the Inland Revenue stationed at Dover, said he produced his entry book and survey book. There was no excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors at 26, Guildhall Street, although there was a refreshment house licence, which was in the name of Louis Maestrani. Neither of the deendants had made an entry in those books.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendants, said the summonses were most unfairly worded because they simply said that wine, spirits, and beer were sold in the Borough of Folkestone. He thought he might fairly say that the summons was insufficient. On account of their vagueness he thought they ought to be dismissed. They would remember that the learned gentleman who appeared for the Inland Revenue said it was a joint offence. What was the evidence which showed that it was a joint offence? There was not one single bit of evidence against Mrs. Maestrani. The evidence of Mr. Pinnex showed that the refreshment house licence was held by Mr. Louis Maestrani, not by Mrs. Teresa Maestrani. There was no proof whatever, with the exception of Mr. Louis Maestrani`s statement that Mrs. Teresa Maestrani was connected with the restaurant. However, in his opinion, that statement was not legal evidence. The person who was responsible was the man who held the licence. That being so, they were entitled to have the summons against both defendants dismissed.

Mr. Shaw submitted that no evidence had been called to disprove the fact that Mrs. Maestrani was not in partnership.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of opinion that the summons was not vague, and that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Maestrani was in partnership with her son.

Mr. Minter thereupon submitted that there was no evidence to show that the liquid was either wine, spirit or beer, because none of the witnesses stated that they had drank the liquid.

The Chairman said the Bench had considered the cases, and had come to the conclusion that they were proved in every case. Although the penalty was in two of the cases £50, and £20 each in the other two cases, yet the Magistrates had decided to make it as light as possible. Each defendant would be fined 20s. and costs in each case.

Mr. Shaw applied for special costs as the witnesses had all come from London.

Mr. Minter said they could only plead for mercy.

The Chairman said the Court fees were 9s. in each case, which totalled up to £3 12s. Therefore they did not feel justified in allowing any further costs.

Folkestone Herald 19-11-1904

Local News

At the sitting of the Folkestone Bench on Tuesday, the hearing of a bunch of summonses taken out by the Excise Authorities against several local tradesmen was commenced. The Magistrates present were Alderman W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

The cases of Mrs. Teresa Maestrani and Mr. Louis Maestrani were taken first. The former defendant was unable to appear owing to illness, but Mr. L. Maestrani was present. Mr. J.H. Shaw, a barrister in the legal department of Somerset House, appeared for the Inland Revenue Office, and Mr. J. Minter for the defendants, who pleaded Not Guilty.

In outlining the case, Mr. Shaw said there were four informations against Mr. Louis Maestrani in respect of the Guildhall Restaurant, as follows:- 1) For retailing spirits on the 14^th October at the Guildhall Restaurant, 2) For retailing wine without a licence on the 14^th October at the Guildhall Restaurant, 3) For retailing beer without a licence on the 14^th August at the same premises, 4) For retailing spirits on the 16^th August without a licence. It had come to the notice of the officers of Inland Revenue that the law was being evaded by a certain number of restaurant keepers in the town, hence the proceedings.

James John Hayward, an officer of Inland Revenue, said that on the 14^th August, in company with another officer, he went to the Guildhall Restaurant at seven minutes past eight in the evening, instructions having been given to him by Mr. Davies. Mr. Louis Maestrani held a refreshment house licence. He saw a wine list similar to that exhibited on the tables of the house. When in there he ordered supper, and at 8.20 p.m. he called the waiter and ordered a small bottle of St. Julien. The price on the wine list was 2s. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him a sovereign, and he (the waiter) at once went for it. He returned at 8.26, saying that he could not get St. Julien, but would a bottle of Bordeaux do? Witness replied in the affirmative, and the waiter handed him the bottle which was in his hand. He said that it was 1s. 6d., and he tendered 18s. 6d. change. At 8.37 p.m. witness`s companion ordered one liqueur brandy and a bottle of Allsopp`s lager beer. The waiter stated that the former would cost 6d., and the latter 3d. Mr. Bate (the witness`s companion) gave the waiter 2s., and at 8.41 p.m. the waiter came back, and served them with the brandy and lager, and returned 1s. 3d. change. Three shillings and fivepence was paid for supper, and witness and his companion left at a quarter to nine. On the 16^th August he went again, at 7.53 p.m., and two minutes later he ordered two black coffees and two liqueur brandies, giving the waiter one shilling for the latter. He (the waiter) left the premises, and at one minute past eight he returned, and served them with a liqueur. There was no change given out of the shilling. Sixpence was paid for the coffee, and witness left at six minutes past eight. Witness kept observation, and as he was about to leave he saw Mr. Cope, another officer, enter the place. He kept observation until he came out again.

Percy Hart Bate, an officer of the Inland Revenue, attached to the Preventive Staff of Somerset House, corroborated in every way the evidence of the last witness.

Alfred William Cope deposed that on the 14^th August he was with Mr. Davies outside the Guildhall Restaurant, keeping observation from the time the last two witnesses entered till they left. At 8.21 p.m. he saw the waiter leave the restaurant, so he followed him to the Guildhall Vaults public house. There the waiter was served with a small bottle of Bordeaux, and the proprietor said, when handing it over “It`s tenpence to you”. The waiter placed a sovereign on the counter, received the change, and a check till facing the counter showed that 10d. had been paid. The waiter then returned to the restaurant with the wine. At 8.37 p.m. a waiter and a boy left the restaurant, and witness followed. The boy went to the public house, and the waiter to Maestrani`s licensed premises in Sandgate Road. Witness followed the waiter in. He spoke to a man behind the counter, and received from him a bottle wrapped in paper, and with that he returned to the Guildhall Restaurant. He did not pay any money at Maestrani`s Restaurant in Sandgate Road. The boy joined the waiter at the shop before coming to the restaurant. He was carrying a glass, which appeared to have brandy in it. On the 16<sup>th</sup> August, witness was again stationed outside the restaurant, and at 7.56 p.m. – having previously seen Messrs. Hayward and Bate enter – a waiter left the restaurant and went to the Guildhall Vaults public house. Witness followed, and saw a waiter obtain brandy in a tumbler, place 1s. on the counter and receive two pennies in change, and then return to Maestrani`s with the brandy. When witness saw Messrs. Bate and Hayward leave, he went into the restaurant, and saw a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy standing on a shelf. He asked for a coffee and brandy. The waiter asked for the money, and was handed sixpence, which he said was the cost of the brandy. The waiter went to the tumbler, filled a liqueur glass, and served it to witness. As the waiter served the brandy, a customer sitting near him asked if he could have a brandy. He gave the waiter some money, and the waiter poured some more brandy from the same tumbler into a liqueur glass. On the 29^th and 30^th August witness went to see Messrs. Filmer and Louis Maestrani at their residences and obtained statements from them.

Witness, in reply to Mr. Minter, said he did not hear what the waiter said when he went to the Sandgate Road shop, but he obtained what appeared to be a beer bottle wrapped in paper.

James Blake Davies, an Inspector of Inland Revenue, stationed at Somerset House, in charge of the Preventive Department, corroborated Mr. Cope`s evidence as to details. He added that when the waiter returned from the Sandgate Road shop with a bottle, and met the boy outside, he followed them in. Witness went to the counter, asked for a sponge cake, and saw the waiter take the bottle from the wrapper and place it on the counter. He then saw that it was a small bottle of Allsopp`s lager beer. The boy, at the same time, handed a tumbler, containing what appeared to be brandy, and put something into the hand of the man who was there. He pulled the till out, and threw a copper into the till. The waiter placed the Allsopp`s lager on a tray, poured out a portion of the brandy into a liqueur glass, placed it on the tray, and took it across to the table at which Messrs. Bate and Hayward were sitting. Witness left, and shortly afterwards the waiter came out. On the 16<sup>th</sup> he was again keeping observation, and he saw a waiter leave and go in the direction of the Guildhall Vaults, followed by Mr. Cope. On the waiter`s return witness followed, and saw that he had in his hand a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy. He pulled the till out, threw two penny pieces into it, and took down two liqueur glasses and filled each from the tumbler, leaving about half in the tumbler. The tumbler was once more placed on the shelf, the two liqueur glasses on a tray, and the waiter went across with it to Messrs. Bate and Hayward. Witness went out and gave certain directions to Mr. Cope, and remained on observation. Immediately Bate and Hayward came out, and they received certain instructions. From that time until Mr. Cope came out nobody entered or left the restaurant. On the 29^th August he went to the Guildhall Vaults and saw Mr. Filmer, who made a statement, which witness took down at the time. On the 30^th August he went to the defendants` house, and told them that he (witness) was a Preventive Officer, and in consequence of complaints received at Somerset House that certain steps had been taken, that officers had visited his premises, and made purchases of spirits and wines. Witness also told him that he had seen Mr. Filmer and obtained a statement from him. Witness said to Mr. Maestrani that Mr. Filmer had said “I charge over the counter 1s. for Bordeaux, but tenpence to the restaurant. I should be satisfied with a profit of threepence or fourpence per bottle. If ten pennyworth of brandy was ordered, I should say Cognac (that meaning the quality) would be served”. Defendant said “I am in partnership with my mother in the businesses at Sandgate Road, Guildhall Street, and South Street. As to Guildhall Street, if intoxicants were ordered, money would be asked for in advance, the beer would be fetched from Mr. Filmer`s, next to the tobacconists, except that on Sunday the waiter would fetch beer and wine from Mr. Filmer”. Witness replied “I put it to you that a waiter has gone from Guildhall Street to Sandgate Road and brought back lager for a customer at Guildhall Street”. He said “Well, I am aware that that would be wrong”. Witness asked him which of the businesses he particularly attended to, and he said “I am chiefly at Guildhall Street”. Witness then said “I put it to you that wine has been brought from Mr. Filmer`s to customers at Guildhall Street, and the customers charged much more for it than was paid at Mr. Filmer`s”. He replied “I make a little profit. Perhaps he charges me 10d. for a bottle of Medoc, and I would charge the customers 1s. or else we should not get any profit”. Witness asked him what his practice with liqueur brandies was, and he said “The two liqueur brandies that were ordered we would pay 10d. for and charge 1s. We would serve the whole of the brandy to the customers. We do not keep small glasses; I mean liqueur glasses. We should serve the brandy in the tumbler”. Witness told him that ten pennyworth of brandy had been purchased, and that he knew of three liqueur glasses of brandy being supplied. He then showed Mr. Maestrani a wine list, saying that it had been obtained from the Guildhall Restaurant. He replied “We have an arrangement with Mr. Hammerton, but we have not had a settlement yet. Our arrangement was made about three months ago”. Witness pointed to Heidsieck, and he said “We should charge 11s. for it on the list, and pay Mr. Hammerton 7s. 6d. for it. We should get a profit of 1s. 6d. on a two shilling bottle of wine. That is, we should charge 3s. 6d. for it by our arrangement with Mr. Hammerton”. Witness asked him about the wine list, and he said “The Big Tree Brand Co. printed the list, and Mr. Hammerton arranged as to our profit”. Witness asked him to come down to Guildhall Street, that he would be able to show him the liqueur glasses, and this he agreed to do. There witness saw the liqueur glasses on the shelf. Witness saw Mrs. Teresa Maestrani and read over the statements, and while he interviewed her, Mrs. Josephine Roncko said that she was part proprietress of the business, adding that her husband was manager of the three shops. They had applied for wine and beer licences nine times, as it would be of convenience to the customers. Mrs. Maestrani said “I can say nothing”.

Edward Pinnix, an officer of Inland Revenue stationed at Folkestone, having given formal evidence, Mr. Minter objected to the wording of the summonses, inasmuch as they only said that wine and beer were sold in the borough of Folkestone. He might fairly say that they were insufficiently worded, and on account of their vagueness should be dismissed. Again, Mr. Shaw had said, in his opening statement, that it was a joint offence on the part of the defendants, who were supposed to be living at the shops. The evidence showed that it was not a joint offence, for there was not one tittle of evidence before them to that effect. He asserted that the only offence, if it was an offence, took place at No. 26, Guildhall Street, and only Mr. Maestrani had been connected with it. Then again, it had been said that the brothers and sister were joint partners. Why were they not all summoned? There was no proof whatever that Mrs. Maestrani had anything to do with the Guildhall Street shop. It had been proved that Mr. Maestrani held the refreshment licence, so that Mrs. Maestrani could not be connected with the matter. With regard to the case itself, Mr. Minter said that he did not think there was any law to prevent the refreshment licence holder charging something for sending out for intoxicating drinks.

The Bench overruled Mr. Minter`s objections.

Mr. Minter proceeded to deal with the case of selling brandy, and said that no evidence had been given that it had been tasted. The bottle of beer was a mysterious bottle wrapped in white tissue paper. That had been said to be lager beer, but nobody had said that they tasted it. Therefore they had not proved that the actual article was an excisable article.

The Bench came to the conclusion that the cases were proved. Although the penalties were, in two cases, £50, and in the two other £20, they would make it as low as possible, and therefore ordered that the defendants each be fined £1 and 9s. Court fees on each of the four informations.

Mr. Shaw made a claim for the special costs of witnesses, who had had to journey from London, but the Bench refused to allow them.