Swan (2) 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Express 10-2-1900

Saturday, February 3^rd: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, and W. Medhurst Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Elizabeth Brett was summoned for permitting gaming on licensed premises, the Swan Inn. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant.

Inspector Swift said at a quarter past nine on the evening of the 27^th of January, in company with detective Officer Burniston, he was near the Swan public house and heard voices from the taproom, which abuts on the Folly Road. He listened, and heard a voice say “I`ll try one”, another “Pass me”, another “I`ll try two”, and another “You get `em”. He heard cards being placed heavily on the table, and in some instances the name of the card was given – such as “Ten”, “Jack”. Another voice said “Got `em. Pay up”. He then heard the chinking of money. Shortly after, another voice said “Deal `em out”. Then came other remarks, similar to those mentioned, indicating gaming. At the end of each hand he heard the chinking of money. After about five minutes they entered the room by the door in Folly Road. The defendant was in the bar, and the door was open which led from the bar into the smoking room, where the men were. They entered the room and saw five men seated at a table close to the window where they had listened. They each had three cards in their hands, and two cards were lying on the table in front of each. On seeing witness, they dropped their hands under the table. One of them, named Clark, remarked “Oh, you did not see any money on the table”. He called defendant`s attention to it, and said to her “I shall report you for permitting gaming on licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know they were gambling”. Anyone in the bar could hear all that was passing in the smoking room if the door was open.

In answer to Mr. Haines, he said he did not see any cards stating that gambling was not permitted, nor did defendant show him four of them. There were other men in the room, who were not playing. He, of course, could not say whether money was put on the table to pay for drink when he heard the chinking. He was certain the words he heard used were “Pay up” and not “Play up”. He believed they called the game “Nap” they were playing. There was only one pack of cards – an incomplete pack – ten were missing. He did not suggest that it was usual to play “Nap” with a pack of cards with 10 missing.

Detective Officer Burniston gave similar evidence, and with the pack of cards in Court he demonstrated the noise of shuffling and cutting, manipulating them quite expertly.

In answer to Mr. Haines, Burniston said if other men in the room said there was no playing for money, it would not be true. He saw no cards about gambling in the house. He could not tell the difference in the chink of money paid for cards and that paid for drink. He thought it was a suspicious act for men to put cards between their legs under the table.

Mr. Haines: But you don`t suppose they were going to show you what sort of hands they had, do you? (Laughter)

Mr. Haines said it was not suggested that it was an unlawful game, unless it was played for money, and he contended there was no evidence that money was played for, except the statement of the constables that they heard money put down on the table. He submitted that there was no knowledge on the part of the defendant or her husband that there was any playing for money. If the Bench thought differently, he should show them that every step had been taken to prevent it.

Mrs. Brett, the defendant, was sworn, and said there were four cards in the room stating that no gambling was permitted. On the evening in question, she and her husband and her daughter were all busy in the bar. Her daughter attended on the smoking room when anything was knocked for, and the door was usually kept open. Nothing occurred to lead her to suppose money was being played for. From the bar, in the ordinary way, they could not see what was going on at the further table. Had she known that playing for money was going on she would have stopped it.

In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said the cards were hers – they were on the shelf in the smoking room.

Percy William Brett said the table was not in view of the bar. He did not allow gaming and had the cards printed to warn people. He allowed customers to play whist or cribbage, but not for money.

The Bench retired to consider the points raised, and on their return said they considered there was a doubt in the evidence, and they gave the defendant the benefit of it. The summons was dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday morning last a case of considerable interest to licensed holders was heard before the Borough Justices; Mr. Hoad, Col. Westropp, and Mr. Medhurst being on the Bench.

Mrs. Elizabeth Brett, the landlady of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for permitting gaming on licensed premises. Chief Constable Reeve conducted the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared for the defence. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

Inspector Swift deposed: At a quarter past nine on the evening of the 27^th ult., accompanied by Detective Burniston, I was near the Swan public house, Dover Road, and heard voices from inside the tap-room, the window of which abuts on the Folly Road. I listened and heard a voice say “I will try one”. Another voice said “Pass me”, another “I will try two”, and another “You get them”. Then the cards could be heard being played on the table with the knuckle. In some instances the name of the card was given; “Ten” and “Jack”. Then a voice said “Got them. Pay up”, after which I heard the chinking of money. Shortly after another voice said “Deal them out”, and there were similar voices making like remarks, indicating gaming. At the end of each hand I heard the chinking of money. After about five minutes we entered the room by the door on the Folly Road side of the house. The door was open which leads to the bar on the smoking room I am speaking of, where the men were. I then went into the smoking room and saw five men seated at a table close to the window where we had listened. They had each three cards in their hand, and two cards lying on the table in front of each. On seeing me they dropped their hands under the table. One man named Clark remarked “Ah, you did not see any money on the table”. I then called the attention of the defendant to it, and said “I shall report you for permitting gaming on your licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know they were gambling”. The door opened from the bar to the smoke-room when the door was opened.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that when standing at the head of the room he could see the defendant, her daughter, and Mr. Brett. The bar was in the form of a crescent. He did not see any cards. The windows were not open. He might have been outside ten minutes. Had the men called for a drink, he thought that he might have heard it. There were several other men present, but these players were very close to the window, a cottage one. The words used were “Pay up”, not “Play up”. When he got in there was no money on the table. He believed they called the game “nap” which the remarks indicated.

Mr. Haines: A sort of blind chess-man business. He believed that ten cards were missing from the pack.

By the Chief Constable: He was quite clear about “Pay up”, and he heard the chinking of money immediately afterwards. No-one was seated at the table except the men playing cards. He did not hear drinks ordered whilst listening at the window.

Detective Burniston corroborated the evidence of the last witness. In his cross-examination as to the men`s reaction on the police entering, Mr. Haines suggested it was natural for the players to put their cards under the table when they did not want to show what hands they had.

Mr. G.W. Haines, for the defendant, said that he need hardly say that the section under which the proceedings were taken was that of suffering gaming. It was not suggested that the game of “nap” was an unlawful one, but it was unlawful if played for money. It was for the police to satisfy the Bench that the game being played was played for money, and he contended that the words used might have been “Play up”. The men might have been wanting to go on. It was simply trusting to their ears, and he suggested that the money might have been for drinks ordered before, or put down for when the waitress might come in. The Magistrates must be satisfied that the police could actually swear it. The licensed holder could not be everywhere, and there were three bars to serve. They could not fix him with the knowledge of it.

The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that in this section the word “knowingly”, which occurred in most sections, was omitted.

Mr. Haines thought that Mr. Justice Day had said that the absence of the word did not prevent knowledge being necessary.

Mr. Bradley said of course not.

Mr. Haines said that it was for the defence to show that they had no knowledge. The cases were somewhat conflicting. It was hard on the licensed holder if he did not know that he should come within the section. He quoted a case in which the licensed person was engaged in another part of the house, and the justices dismissed the information. In this case he submitted that it was not within his connivance, and he had no knowledge that money was played for. He asked the Bench to dismiss the case, or, on the other hand, it would be a serious question for the licensed holder.

Mrs. Brett, the defendant, deposed: I caused cards to be printed with the object of preventing any gambling, and four were fixed round the smoke room, where the cards were being played. Their attention was drawn to it. On the evening in question my daughter, husband, and myself were busy in the bar. My daughter went to wait in the smoke room when anything was knocked for. The door of the smoke room was usually kept open. Nothing attracted my notice to lead me to believe that money was being played for. I cannot see the table from the bar when serving. I must come to the bottom of the bar to see what they really did want. There were many people in that evening, several being in the room. When the police came in, Mr. Brett called their attention to the cards. Had I known the gambling was going on I should have stopped it. It is not my wish that it should take place. I did not know they were playing.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: The playing cards were for private use. They were not provided for her customers, although they were allowed to use them. The men seated at the table were drinking beer. She could not tell how long before. If the men knocked they could not hear, as business was brisk. They had only had one drink, and did not empty their glasses. Her daughter served them. They called for their beer and paid for it as they came in. They did not pay on the table. If the police heard money chinking, it might be for the other gentlemen`s beer.

By Mr. Bradley: She fancied they had taken the cards from the shelf in the smoke room. They could not hear all that went on in the smoke room; it was a very long way to hear.

Re-examined by Mr. Haines: She did not take particular notice of these five men. She had not served them. They came in from the room.

Mr. Bradley thought that the witness had just said that they came and took it in the bar.

Witness said that she did not notice them when they first came in.

Mr. W. Brett, the defendant`s husband, deposed that on the night in question he was busily engaged at the other end of the bar with his wife. He did not know that there was any gaming, and had never allowed it. He allowed them to play whist and cribbage, but not for money. They sat down and played a game quietly.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: He did not see the five men enter the house. The men took the cards off the shelf. He had always thought that whist or cribbage was permitted, but not for money. Sometimes these men had played. He had been in the room when they were playing cards. He did not know that the men were there, and he had not served them with any drink in that room. He could not say whether his daughter served.

After retiring, the Chairman announce the decision of the Bench in these terms:- Mrs. Brett, the Magistrates have considered this matter. They think there is a doubt in the evidence, and therefore give you the benefit.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-2-1900

Before Messrs. J. Hoad, W. Medhurst, and Vaughan, and Col. Westropp.

Elizabeth Brett, landlady of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was charged with permitting gambling on licensed premises. Mr. Haines defended.

Inspector Lilley stated that at 9.45 p.m. on Saturday, January 27^th, in company with Detective Burniston, he was near the Swan Inn, on the Folly Road side. Listening near the window, he heard a voice say “I`ll go one”, another voice “I`ll go two”, then “Pass me”, “You get `em”, “Pay up”, etc. A chinking of money followed, and shortly afterwards another voice said “Deal them out”, and some cards were played. After about five minutes witness and the detective entered the room by the door on the Folly side of the house. The defendant was in the bar. The door opened which led from the bar into the room near which witness had been listening, and there he saw five men seated at a table close to the window. Each man had three cards in his hand, and two in front of him on the table. A man named Clark remarked “Ah! You did not see any money on the table”. Witness called the attention of the defendant to the circumstances and said “I shall have to report you for allowing gambling to take place on licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know they were gambling”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He did not see a card in the bar “No Gambling Allowed”, but he would not swear there was not such a card in the room. From the outside he could not see the men through the window. There were no drinks called for while he stood outside. He was certain the words he heard used were “Pay up”, and not “Play up”. There was no money on the table when he went in. He believed the game was Nap.

Detective Burniston corroborated.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that the fact of playing cards in a public house was not unlawful; the illegality came in when cards were played for money. He suggested that in this case the police had had to rely entirely upon their ears, and listening on the outside of a window they could not properly distinguish between the words “Play up” and “Pay up”. Their ears had deceived them. He should produce evidence that four cards hung round the room notifying that gambling was prohibited, and that his client had done all that was possible for the proper conduct of the house. Unfortunately there were several conflicting decisions as to whether a tenant was responsible if he or she were unaware of what was taking place.

Mr. Bradley (the Magistrates` Clerk): The summons is for permitting, etc. The words “knowingly permitted” are not used.

Mr. Haines, continuing, said that even if gambling had taken place, which was not admitted, it would be hard on his client to be convicted, seeing that she had done everything that she could to prevent this kind of thing. In giving their decision he hoped the Magistrates would take this into consideration.

Elizabet Brett, the licensee, then stated that she had six of the cards produced printed – stating that anything in the way of gambling was not permitted – and four of them hung in the smoking room where the men were playing. She could see the men, but had no idea that money was being played for. Had she known, she would certainly have stopped it.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: The cards are my property; my customers are allowed to use them.

Would it not have been more effectual to do away with the playing cards? – (No reply).

The men at the table, the defendant continued, were drinking beer; they had not been in the room ten minutes.

Dain William Brett, the husband of defendant, corroborated her evidence, but did not do very well under the cross-examination of the Chief Constable.

Mr. Haines said he would not address the Bench further, unless their decision were against him.

The Bench (except Mr. Vaughan, who did not adjudicate), retired. On returning to Court, the Chairman said there seemed to be a slight doubt in the evidence, and they gave the defendant the benefit of it. The case was, therefore, dismissed.

(By a printer`s oversight the above case, though in type, was omitted from our last issue.)

Folkestone Chronicle 23-6-1900

County Court

Tuesday, June 19^th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.

Alfred Finn, farmer, Hawkinge v Perrin Brett, husband of the landlady of the Swan Inn, Dover Road: The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Haines, and the defendant by Mr. Stainer. This action was mixed, and terminated with the mystery of the vanishing note being unsolved.

The plaintiff said: I cashed a cheque on May 9^th for £20 14s. 9d., receiving four £5 notes, and the balance in small change. I went to dinner at Mr. Sharp`s eating house, and settled an account for 6s. with Mr. Kirby at the Royal George. I then went to the Swan in Dover Road. Defendant made a remark about a sum of money I had promised to contribute for a “free and easy” to celebrate the alterations at his house. I said I would pay it, and removed the four £5 notes from my pocket. While I was undoing them, Brett snatched them from my hand and put them in his pocket. There were several people in the bar. I waited some minutes, thinking he was joking, and then asked him to give me the notes back. Defendant then said he had not got them, but afterwards he gave me one back over the counter. A man named Bryan snatched another out of his hand and gave it back to me. Brett then laid three sovereigns on the counter, and said he would raffle me £10 or nothing. I refused, and said I wanted the other notes back. Brett said he had not got them, called me a liar, and said I could search him. Next morning I obtained the number of the notes, and went to the Magistrates` Clerk to take out a warrant. He advised me to consult a solicitor before taking steps.

Mr. Sharp and Mr. William Warne, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff was perfectly sober on the day in question. Mr. Sharp added that earlier in the day a question arose about the purchase of a cart. Plaintiff then pulled out a bundle of notes from his pocket, but did not buy the cart.

John Bryan, a dealer, corroborated the evidence of Finn. He added that previously he had driven Mr. Finn up from the Fish Market, that Brett had been having a little too much to drink, and that when he got home his wife “jawed” him.

Perrin Brett said: on the 9^th of May I was in the Fish Market with Mr. Spearpoint. My legs and back were “queer”, so I asked Bryan to give me a ride. When we got to the Swan we saw Finn`s horse outside. Bryan went into the bar, and saw a man named Lee. Lee went out and down Dover Street, and returned with the plaintiff. Finn said “Don`t think I have not got any money”, and waved four notes before me. I took them out of his hand, looked at them, and put them in my pocket for a joke. After keeping them there a minute or two, I handed them back to plaintiff. Plaintiff said “I will put £2 to your £2 for a free and easy in the big room”, and gave me back a note which he held in his hand. I then gave him three sovereigns from my pocket. Bryan then snatched the note out of my hand, and gave it to the plaintiff, who then asked me to give him back the other notes. I said I had not got them, and told him he could search me. He came behind the bar and did search me, and found nothing. Next day Finn came down and demanded the notes. I am three sovereigns out of pocket over the matter.

In cross-examination by Mr. Haines, witness said things a little to the detriment of Bryan. Then came the sharp query “How was it that you came to be riding with him on the day in question?” Witness replied that his legs were painful, and he was glad to ride home.

Mrs. Brett, wife of defendant, entered the box, and corroborated her husband`s evidence in detail.

His Honour, who looked rather puzzled, said he did not pretend to know what had become of the notes, and gave judgement for the defendant with costs.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1900

County Court

Tuesday, June 19^th: Before Sir William L. Selfe.

Alfred Finn, Hawkinge v Perrin Brett: Claim of £7 for money alleged to have been withheld by defendant and £3 damages. Mr. Haines appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Stainer for defendant.

The plaintiff said on May 9^th he cashed a cheque at the London and Counties Bank for £20 14s. 9d., receiving four £5 notes and the balance in small change. After dining at Sharpe`s eating house and settling a little account for 6s. at the Royal George, he went up to the Swan in Dover Road. Defendant made some remark about his not having paid £2 which he had promised to contribute towards a free and easy to celebrate some addition to defendant`s premises. He said he would pay it, and took out the four £5 notes from his inside pocket, and while he was undoing them defendant snatched the lot out of his hand and put them in his pocket. There were several people in the bar when defendant took these notes. He waited for some minutes, thinking he was joking, and then asked him to give them to him back. Defendant said he had not got them. He then gave him one back over the counter. A man named Bryan snatched another out of defendant`s hand and gave it to him. Brett laid three sovereigns down on the counter and then said he would raffle him for £10 or nothing. He refused, saying he wanted his money back. He asked him for the other notes, and defendant said he had not got them, called him a liar, and told him he could search him. Next morning he went to the police station, and also obtained the numbers of the notes. When he went to get a warrant, the Magistrates` Clerk advised him to consult a solicitor before taking any steps. He had advertised for the notes, but up to the present without any result.

Mr. Sharpe gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff dined at his eating house in Harbour Street on the day in question, and afterwards, in company with Lee and himself, went across to the Alexandra Hotel and had a small Bass each. A conversation arose regarding a cart which witness had for sale and plaintiff said if he bought it he would pay for it. He then pulled out a bundle of notes to show that he could pay for it. Plaintiff was perfectly sober.

William Warne, the landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, said that plaintiff came to him on the day in question and complained that he had lost some money. He was perfectly sober.

John Bryan said he was in the Swan on the 9^th May. Plaintiff came in and called for a drink and said “Don`t think I haven`t got any money to pay for it”, and pulled the notes out of his pocket. Brett snatched them away and put them in his pocket and kept them there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. When they were talking, Finn said he would do £2 to defendant`s £2 for a free and easy in the big room. Brett gave him one £5 note back and £3 in gold. Finn said “I want two more £5 notes. You took four out of my hand”. Brett said “I never – I only took two”. Brett had one note in his hand, and witness took this out of his hand and gave it to plaintiff with the remark “Here`s one of them”. Brett had been having a little too much to drink. He drove him up from the Fishmarket, and when he got to the Swan his wife jawed him.

The defendant said on the 9^th May he was in the Fishmarket with Mr. Spearpoint. His legs were queer, and his back also, and he asked Bryan to give him a ride. They saw Finn`s horse outside the Swan. Bryan went into the bar and saw Lee, who went out, and afterwards returned with plaintiff. Plaintiff said “Don`t think I haven`t got any money”, and waved four notes before him. He took thm out of his hand, and after looking at them, put them in his pocket for a joke. After keeping them there a minute or two he handed them back to plaintiff. Plaintiff said he would do £2 to his £2 for a free and easy in the big room, and gave him back a note, which he held in his hand, and at the same time gave plaintiff three sovereigns. Bryan then snatched the note out of his hand and gave it to plaintiff. Plaintiff asked witness to give him back the other notes, but he said he had not got them, and told him to search him. He came round and searched him and found nothing on him. Next day Finn came down again and demanded the notes from him. He was three sovereigns out of pocket over the matter.

By His Honour: When Finn took the notes out of his pocket they were in a bundle. He kept them in his pocket for about three minutes and then handed them back without untying them.

Mrs. Brett, the defendant`s wife, said on the afternoon in question Bryan and Lee came in first and said “Has Mr. Finn been here?” She said “I have not seen him”. Lee said “I know where he is. I`ll go and fetch him”. He drove away in Bryan`s cart, and Finn and Lee came back together. Finn said “I have got some money”, and took out of his pocket some notes, which he put in Mr. Brett`s face. Mr. Brett snatched them out of his hand and put them in his pocket. Finn asked for his notes back, and Mr. Brett passed them back to him. Plaintiff then said “I`ll be as good as my word. I`ll put £2 to your £2 for a free and easy in the big room”. Mr. Brett said “Alright”. Finn took a £5 note from his bundle of notes and Mr. Brett took out his purse and put three sovereigns on the counter. Finn took them and put them into his pocket. Mr. Brett was holding the note which Mr. Finn had given him, when Bryan snatched it away and gave it back to plaintiff. She afterwards saw Lee put his hand in Finn`s pocket and show him some papers. Finn said Mr. Brett had got two of his notes. Mr. Brett said “I have not. In your own interest come round and search me”. Finn said “I`d rather not”. He, however, came round and searched him, and then said “I am satisfied you have not got them”.

His Honour said he did not pretend to know what had become of the notes, but there would be judgement for the defendant with costs.

Folkestone Herald 23-6-1900

County Court

Tuesday, June 19^th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.

The plaintiff in this case was Alfred Finn, farmer, Hawkinge; the defendant was Perrin Brett, of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, Folkestone, husband of the landlady of that house. The action was brought to recover the sum of £7, under the peculiar circumstances explained in the evidence. Mr. Haines appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Stainer for the defendant.

Plaintiff, examined by Mr. Haines, deposed: My father lives at Hawkinge. I know the defendant. At one time I promised to pay or give £2 towards the opening ceremony of his house, as we supply him with milk. On the 9^th May I cashed a cheque for £20 14s. 9d. at the Capital and Counties Bank, and got four £5 Bank of England notes, half a sovereign, two 2s. pieces, and ninepence. That was about 2.20p.m. After that I went down to Mr. Sharpes, in Harbour Street, and had my dinner and paid for it. I then went round to Mr. Kirby, at the Royal George. I owed him 6s. on a little deal we had, and I paid him and had a glass of ale. Then I went to the Swan, Dover Road, and got there about 3.15. Defendant made a remark about my not having paid this £2. He said I was a pretty fellow. I said “I will pay it”, and I took out the four £5 notes from my side pocket. While I was doing so, the defendant snatched the lot out of my hand and put it in his pocket. There were several persons in the bar at the time, but I don`t know who they were. When he took the notes I waited some few minutes because I thought he was joking, and I then asked him to give them back. He said “I have not got them”. I said “You took them”. He then gave me one note back over the counter; he took it out of his pocket. He said “Here you are; here is one”. A man named Mr. Bryan, who was standing by, snatched another note out of defendant`s hand and gave it to me. I then had two of the notes. As regards the next note, defendant gave me three sovereigns and said “I will raffle you £10 or nothing”. I said “No”. I asked him to return the other two notes, and I would give him the £3 back. He said “I have not got them”, and called me a ---- liar. He said “You can search me if you like”. The other men in the bar said they wanted to go, and asked me to search them. I said “No; I know that Mr. Brett took them out of my hand”. I paid nothing else in the town that dat, except this 6s. In fact, I wanted to change one of the notes, and asked Mr. Sharpe to change it, but he could not. After I left the Swan I went to see my brother, and on my way home I called at the Black Bull and had a glass of ale. I gave information to the police. I went to the bank with the Inspector, and obtained the numbers of the notes. The police issued an advertisement. As a fact I went to get a warrant issued, but the Magistrates` Clerk thought it was a matter in which I should be advised by a solicitor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stainer: A man named Ben Lee was in the bar. The cheque I cashed was for goods, and I paid a counter account.

Have you not a good many judgements against you in this Court? – I might have.

Do you think it is proper to spend £2 on a free and easy when you owe several judgements in the Court? – Never mind that; it was my own money.

Did Bryan go into the bar with you? – No, sir; he was there. Lee came in after him.

Where was your horse when you were there? – Outside. I gave a man an allowance to look after it, a man named Richards, who I felt was capable of taking charge of it.

You have advertised the numbers of these notes, have you? – I don`t know whether the Super has. I have been to him twice. He said it was not likely that he could hear anything about them yet.

John H. Sharpe, examined, deposed: I keep an eating house in Harbour Street. As a rule the plaintiff, when in Folkestone, comes for his dinner. He came on this day on horseback, and asked me to get a steak ready in ten minutes. When he came back, after having his dinner, he asked me if I could change a £5 note. He paid the girl 2s., and she gave him change. He asked me if I would go across to the Alexandra and have a drink. I and Lee and Finn went across and had a drink; we had a small Bass each, and Lee had a gin. They wre talking about horses and carts. I said “I have a good sort of cart which I could sell you”. He said “If I buy I will pay for it”. He put his hand in his pocket and pulled out some notes. We stayed in the bar, drinking. Finn said “I shall not be a minute”, and went out. He was perfectly sober. You don`t often see a drunken man ride a horse.

Wm. Warne deposed: I keep the Black Bull. On the 9^th May the plaintiff came to my house and made a complaint to me that he had lost money. He was perfectly sober when he came and asked me for refreshment.

John Bryan, called on subpoena, deposed: I was in the Swan on the 9^th May and saw Finn come in. I saw him take some notes out of his pocket. They were folded up, and I could not say what notes they were. I was having a conversation with defendant. Plaintiff called for a small bottle of ale, put his hand in his pocket, and said “Don`t you think I have the money to pay for it?” Mr. Brett snatched them out of his hand and put them in his pocket and kept them there for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. They went on talking, and Finn said “I will put £2 to your £2”, and Brett then gave him one £5 note back and £3 in gold, and then Finn said “I want two more £5 notes. You took four £5 notes out of my hand”. Brett had a £5 note in his hand, and I took it and said “Here is one of them, Mr. Finn”. Lee, myself, and ever so many more were in the bar. I drove the defendant from the fishmarket up home, because he asked me to give him a ride. He appeared to have had a little too much to drink, and I thought I would drive him home. (Defendant: Speak the truth, and don`t tell lies.) When he came home his wife jawed. Mrs. Brett said “My husband has not got them (meaning the notes); some of the people in the bar have got them”. We all asked to be searched, and Mr. Finn refused to do it.

This was the case for the plaintiff.

Defendant, on being sworn, deposed: On the 9^th of May I was in the fishmarket with Mr. Spearpoint. Mr. Bryan was down there with his horse and trap. As I was going up the road he said “Jump up here”. I did so, and rode up with him as far as the Swan. He got out and saw Finn`s horse with a man. Lee was in the bar, and Bryan turned round to him and said “Go down and fetch Finn; he is down below” When they came back, all three came into the bar. Finn said “How are you, old Brett? I have got plenty of money”. I said “Let`s have a look”. I don`t know what he took out of his pocket, whether it was one, two, three, or a dozen, but I took them and put them in my pocket. I then took them out of my pocket and gave them back. He then undid his notes and said “I`ll be £2 to your £2 and give a free and easy in the big room”. He took one of the notes out and I put down three sovereigns. Bryan snatched the note out of my hands, and Finn snatched up the three sovereigns. I asked Finn to come round and search me, and I stood quite still. He did search me, and could find nothing else on me. There were plenty in the bar, and my wife was close to me and saw all that happened. The next day Finn came down and demanded the notes of me. I said “I have not got them”. He said “I will make it hot for you; I will ruin you”. The next day, Lee, Bryan, and Finn came in together, and I refused to serve them. I did not have those notes, and I am three sovereigns out of pocket.

Mrs. Brett gave corroborative evidence, adding that she saw Lee put his hand in Finn`s pocket, but could not say whether he took anything out or put anything in.

His Honour gave judgement for the defendant, with costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville, Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope, Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting; and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel, as to her husband`s conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear)

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man`s living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel`s observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

In renewing the licence to the owner of the Swan Inn, they warned Mrs. Brett not to permit her husband to manage the house when in a state of intoxication, as they were informed was frequently the case.

The following licences were then formally renewed, each applicant answering to his name:- Swan Inn (Elizabeth Brett); Royal Oak (William Henry Collar); Chequers (John. G. Dorrell); London And Paris (George B. Gray); East Cliff Tavern (John G. Grigg); Wheatsheaf (Fred. E. Hall); Imperial (James Hill); Packet Boat (Albert T. Newman); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Queen`s Head (Walter Tom Tame); Eagle Tavern (Frederick D.G. Taylor); Brewery Tap (William Thos. Thomason); Mechanics Arms (Geo. J. Lawrence); Castle (Albert Pollard); Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting); Perseverance (Harry William Morgan); Duke Of Edinburgh (Frederick Ralph); Cinque Ports (Samuel R. Webster); Lifeboat (Alice A. Setterfield); Prince Of Wales (James Weaver).

Folkestone Chronicle 13-2-1904

Gossip

The Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. Only one licence was refused – to the Swan Inn, Dover Road. No new licences were granted.  Mr. Wightwick, the Chairman of the Sessions, holds very strong views upon the subject. He regards the possession of a licence as a piece of property, which it is not just to take away without proof of misconduct. The Temperance advocates will not be able to make much headway in reducing the number of public houses in Folkestone under these circumstances.

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report, which contained interesting figures with regard to drunkenness, etc. No person in Folkestone had yet been convicted a sufficient number of times to be placed on the “black list”. The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and asked that the consideration of this licence might be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 13-2-1904

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, 10<sup>th</sup> February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139 – an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last year`s return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers` Arms, Granville, and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31^st December last year, 154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with 1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).

The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary powers they would at this year`s meeting decide in a fair and equitable spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament last week it was announced in the King`s speech that the Government intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and Channel Inn. 

With regard to the Swan Inn, the police will serve notice upon the owner.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-3-1904

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 9^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Hamilton, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Minter applied for a renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road. The only objection on the part of the police had been to the tenant, and now a new tenant – Mr. Alfred Robert Clarke – was about to occupy the premises.

The Chief Constable had no objection to urge against the incoming tenant.

The Bench allowed the renewal of the licence on condition that the transfer to Mr. Clarke should be effected.

 

Folkestone Express 12-3-1904

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 9^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp, W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The Swan Inn

Mr. W.G. Haines, on behalf of the tenant (Mrs. Brett), applied for the renewal of the licence, adjourned at the last licensing meeting. The police had served notice of objection to the renewal, on grounds simply applicable to the tenant and not to the house. It was felt that a change should be made, and he was pleased to say that he had a new tenant in the person of Mr. Alfred Robert Clark, on whose behalf he would also apply for a temporary authority to sell until the actual expiration of the licence held by Mrs. Brett.

The Superintendent stated that Clark had held a licence before, and he bore a high character for the manner in which he conducted his house. Under the circumstances he would withdraw his objection.

The Chairman: We grant these licences.

Folkestone Herald 12-3-1904

Wednesday, March 9^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Westropp.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Swan Inn

Mr. G.W. Haines applied, on behalf of the brewers, for the renewal of the licence for the Swan Inn. Notice had been served by the police, objecting to the renewal on grounds simply applicable to the tenant and not the house. The brewers had thought that a change should be made, and with that view, before asking for the renewal, he would produce a new tenant, to whom it was desired permission to draw until transfer day should be given.

The licence was then temporarily transferred from Mrs. Brett to Mr. Alfred Robert Clarke.

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.

The Bench granted transfer of the licence of the following premises: The Swan Inn, from Elizabeth Brett to Alfred Robert Clarke

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.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the Swan Inn from Elizabeth Brett to Alfred Robert Clark. Granted.

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.

Licence was transferred as follows:- The Swan, from Elizabeth Brett to Alfred Robert Clark