Wheatsheaf (2) 1900s

Folkestone Chronicle 18-8-1900

Saturday, August 11^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Spurgen, Pledge, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Colonel Westropp.

Thomas Holliday and George Tanner were summoned for being drunk and disorderly on the 4^th inst. Mr. Haines represented the defendants, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Lawrence said that on Saturday evening, August 4, he was on duty in Canterbury Road and saw a crowd of people in Bridge Street, outside the Wheatsheaf public house. On going to see what was the matter he saw George Tanner and Holliday (who is the landlord of the Wheatsheaf) drunk and fighting. When Holliday saw him he went indoors. Tanner went up Bridge Street. Witness went up to Tanner, took his name and address, and told him he should report him. Tanner replied “I suppose you will report Tom, too”. Witness then went and saw Holliday and told him he should report him also. He replied “I put the man out and he hung to me”. About 11.20 witness was told that he was wanted in Arthur Street. He went up and saw Holliday and a crowd of about 50 people, including a young man named Smith, whom Mrs. Smith was trying to get away. Holliday was drunk.

Cross-examined: He formed the opinion that Holliday was drunk from his appearance.

By the Chief Constable: He had known Holliday for some years.

Michael Coughlan, of 110, Canterbury Road, who gave evidence on a police subpoena, said that on Saturday, August 4, he saw Holliday in Bridge Street. A young man was sitting upon the window sill of the Wheatsheaf and Holliday was trying to fight him. He was drunk.

Mr. Haines said there had been a little disturbance in the house, and what the constable had taken for drunkenness was in reality excitement. The facts were that a woman entered the Wheatsheaf and became objectionable. The landlord wished to remove her. Tanner was going to assist, but the landlord thought he was interfering instead of helping, as he actually was. The intention was misunderstood. The defendants were explaining to one another when the constable came up, and that was how the apprehension arose.

Thomas Holliday was sworn, and said that on the night in question a woman came in at 20 minutes to 11. Her behaviour being disorderly, he reached out to put her out of the house. Tanner interfered and caught hold of him, and in the struggle both fell in the road. He asked Tanner what he meant. Tanner replied that he was very sorry. The constable came up. After he had closed his house he went out again. He was smoking his pipe, and a young man named Smith was sitting upon the window ledge. They both walked up the street having a quiet conversation. They had no row at all, and wished each other goodnight at the top of Arthur Street. He denied that he was drunk.

By the Chief Constable: It was about 10.45 when he ejected Tanner. He put him out because he interfered with him in ejecting the woman. He insisted upon saying that he was perfectly sober, and denied seeing any woman come up to take Smith away from him.

George Tanner, the other defendant, corroborated. In cross-examination he said he was drinking beer and ginger beer. He admitted having a pint or two, but Holliday and himself were perfectly sober.

Daniel Bryan, a newsaget, lodging at the Wheatsheaf, said both defendants were sober at the time in question.

By the Chief Constable: Tanner had “hopped in and out” during the evening.

Richard Dyer, a labourer, said he was in the Wheatsheaf the same evening. There was no fighting; only a disturbance when the ejectment took place. He was sure the defendants were perfectly sober.

By the Chief Constable: He used the Wheatsheaf, and had had a pint or so. He was a friend of Holliday`s.

Alfred Smith said he resided at 54, Sidney Street, and was in the Wheatsheaf on the 4^th inst. He saw Tanner apologise to Holliday after the scrimmage. Defendants were both perfectly sober. There was no truth in the suggestion that witness had fought with Holliday. They had no difference at all.

The Chairman said the Bench had carefully considered the case. They were not unanimous, but the majority considered the case not proved. At the same time, they considered the police had done their duty in bringing it to the Court. They hoped the defendants would take this as a warning. In Holliday`s case, he being a licence holder, such a charge was very serious.

 

Folkestone Express 18-8-1900

Saturday, August 11^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, and George Tanner were both summoned for being drunk and disorderly. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for both defendants, and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Laurence said on Saturday night, the 4^th inst., about 10.45 p.m., he was in Canterbury Road, and heard a disturbance in Bridge Street. He went to discover the cause of the turbulence, and saw defendant Holliday outside his house and fighting with the other defendant. When Holliday saw witness he went indoors, and Tanner went up Bridge Street. When he took his name and address, defendant said “A good job, too”. About 11.20 p.m. he was told he was wanted in Arthur Street. He proceeded at once and saw a large crowd, and in the centre he saw defendant Holliday and a young man named Smith, both causing a disturbance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, he said nothing struck him particularly that defendant Holliday was drunk.

Michael Coughlan, a collector in the employ of the Folkestone Amusements Association, and residing at 100, Canterbury Road, said he saw defendant Holliday sitting on a window, and he wanted to fight with Smith. There was a large crowd present.

Mr. Haines said the offence before them was of a very serious character, and the defendant`s licence was liable to be endorsed. He said he was able to submit evidence that defendant was not drunk, but was excited. He had just ejected a woman, and somehow or other defendant Tanner interfered, and consequently the three went into the road, but there was not much disturbance, and he contended in the locality where it took place it did not take much to cause a crowd.

Thomas Holliday was then sworn, and stated that on the night in question, about quarter to eleven, he had a woman come into his house, and in consequence of her behaviour he had reason to put her out. While he was ejecting her the defendant Tanner interfered, and he was in the scuffle. Subsequently they fell into the road, and they both got up. Witness asked Tanner why he interfered, and he replied he was very sorry. The constable appeared upon the scene and took the names and addresses. As it was time, he closed his establishment, and he took a walk (which he usually did) and he met Smith. They had a conversation and smoked their pipes. No miswords passed between them, and the word “fighting” was not mentioned. Subsequently he bade Smith “Goodnight”, and they parted. He went straight home and retired to bed.

Questioned by Supt. Reeve, he said he ejected Tanner because he interfered. A crowd of about 20 or 30 gathered. He ejected the woman, whose name is E. Small, because she was disorderly. He was positive that they had no words, and he did not see Smith`s moter and did not hear her tell Smith to go to bed. He considered the constable`s evidence about his drunkenness was false. During the evening he had only consumed four glasses of ale, which he usually took.

George Tanner stated that on Saturday he was in Bridge Street, and about 10.20 p.m. he was in the bar at the Wheatsheaf public house, and there was a woman who drunk a glass of ginger beer. She then became disorderly, and it became necessary for the landlord to eject her. He interfered because he thought Mr. Holliday was handling her a bit too rough. They both went out together into the road, and then got up and went away. He denied that he was drunk.

Daniel Brien, a lodger at the Wheatsheaf, said the defendants were not drunk, only a little excited. They did not fight.

Alfred Smith gave evidence to the same effect. In reply to Supt. Reeve he said defendant was not drunk, and they did not have a fight by the window. He could not say why his mother told him to go home. It was not because of the great disturbance.

The Bench said they were not unanimous, but as there was a certain doubt on the evidence they dismissed the case.

Folkestone Herald 18-8-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last, Thomas Holliday and George Tanner were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 4^th August. Mr. G.W. aines defended.

P.C. Charles Lawrence deposed that on Saturday night at 10.45 he saw the defendants drunk and fighting.

A witness named Coghlan also stated that the defendant Holliday was drunk.

Thomas Holliday, who is a licensed victualler, deposed that on the night in question a woman came into his house, the Wheatsheaf, at about 20 to 11, and as she was disorderly, he ejected her. In doing so, Tanner interfered, pulling him out of the door. He asked what he meant by interfering, and Tanner said that he was very sorry. The constable then came up. He was not drunk.

Tanner gave similar evidence.

Three or four other witnesses were called.

The Chairman said that they considered the police had done their duty in bringing the case before them, but the Bench thought there was a certain doubt in the evidence. The constable might have been mistaken, and they hoped he was. They hoped the defendants would take it as a warning in future to avoid as much as possible anything of a similar character. The case was therefore dismissed.

Folkestone Daily News 30-10-1900

Local News

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf, made an appearance in the dock at the Folkestone Police Court this morning on a charge of being drunk and disorderly, and also on a charge of assaulting P.C. Allen in the execution of his duty. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

P.C. Taylor said that at 11.30 on the previous evening, when he was on duty in Bridge Street, he had occasion to speak to three men who were the worse for drink. When he had got them to go home, prisoner, who was standing at the door of the Wheatsheaf, shouted disgusting phrases at him, and said that if he took off his uniform he would kill him. Witness subsequently told him that he would report him for being drunk and disorderly. A few minutes after, witness saw prisoner in Canterbury Road, in company with a man named Court. Prisoner was telling Court that if he caught hold of him (witness) he would murder him. Witness took him into custody, and, as prisoner became very violent, blew his whistle for assistance. P.C. Allen came up and assisted him. Prisoner became still more violent and had to be handcuffed. While they were putting on the handcuffs prisoner kicked llen in the mouth, causing blood to flow. While going down Dover Road, prisoner was so troublesome that they had to strap his legs together. Prisoner promised to walk quietly if his legs were released, but all the way to the station he was very violent.

P.C. Allen gave corroborative evidence, and Police Sergeant Osborne said that, when brought to the station, prisoner was drunk.

William Court, who was in company with the prisoner at the time of his arrest, said that he did not know why the arrest was made, for prisoner had done nothing. He only used bad language after he had been arrested, and that was enough to make him.

A cross-examination by the Chief Constable seemed to prove that he was not present at the time when the offence was committed, or if so he was too drunk to know what was going on.

Harry Barrett said that he saw the prisoner on the ground in Dover Road with one policeman on his legs and one on his stomach. The kick which Allen received was purely accidental. He gave as his opinion that Holliday was sober.

Prisoner said that he was arrested because Taylor had an old grudge against him. He was sober and had done no harm.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return said that it was the unanimous decision of the Bench that prisoner was Guilty on both charges, and that their only hesitation was whether they should perform their duty and send the prisoner to gaol for what was a most brutal and cowardly assault. On the charge of drunkenness, prisoner would be fined £2 and 5s. 6d. costs, or one month; for the assault, £5 and 5s. 6d. costs, or two months`; in all £7 11s., or three months`.

The fine was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3-11-1900

Tuesday, October 30^th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Ward, Pledge, Stainer, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Westropp

Thomas Holliday, described as the landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, Folkestone, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening, also with assaulting P.C. Thomas Allen at the same time.

P.C. Thomas Taylor deposed: About 11.30 on Monday evening I was on duty in Bridge Street. I had cause to speak to three men, who were the worse for drink. I asked them to be quiet and go home properly, and they did so. I saw the prisoner, who was not with these men, standing in the doorway of his own house with two other men. He swore at me, saying “You ----, I`ll kill you if you take off your uniform”. Soon afterwards, Mrs. Holliday, prisoner`s wife, came out and pulled him indoors. Previously I had taken his name and address and told him I should report him for being drunk and disorderly. He was drunk and using very bad language. A few minutes afterwards I again saw the prisoner in company with a man named Court, in Canterbury Road. Immediately the prisoner saw me coming he used such remarks as “I`ll murder you, you ----“. I took him into custody and blew my whistle for assistance.  P.C. Allen came running up and assisted him. Prisoner became very violent, and we had to handcuff him. During this operation he became more violent, and gave Allen a kick in the mouth, which caused blood to flow. The violence continued, and in Dover Road it became necessary to strap his legs. He was very violent all the way to the police station, where he was charged.

P.C. Thomas Allen, who answered the last witness`s whistle, said: When I got into Canterbury Road I saw the last witness holding the prisoner, who was very drunk and violent, and also using bad language. Prisoner was taken into custody, and when in Dover Road he became so violent he had to be handcuffed. He kept kicking and continually shouting “I`ll knock your ---- brains out”. He then deliberately kicked me in the mouth and caused blood to flow. He was very violent all the way to the station and used most disgusting language. At the station he was charged with assaulting me whilst in the execution of my duty. He made no reply.

Sergeant A. Osborne proved the prisoner being brought to the police station at five minutes past midnight. He was drunk.

William Court, called for the defence, said he was a bricklayer, and resided at 35, Alexandra Street. He met Holliday at 11.30 p.m. in Canterbury Road. They commenced a conversation, when P.C. Taylor came up and said “I`ve got you this time, Tom”. Witness said to Holliday “I`m going home”. Taylor interfered and said “I may want you yet”. Holliday said “What for?” The constable then blew his whistle and P.C. Allen came running up. Taylor, pointing to the prisoner, said “That`s the man you want”, and together they took Holliday to the police station. He was sober and did not use bad language until the constable took hold of him.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: The constable did not give the prisoner a chance to be quiet. In my opinion the prisoner was arrested without a cause. I was quite sober. I did not see any disturbance, and left the Wheatsheaf at eleven, after being there fifteen minutes. I did not know the constable called upon me to help him. I did not know that he took my name and address at the police station.

The next witness was Harry Barrett. He said he was locking up his house in Dover Road when he heard cries, as of pain. He ran into the road, and found the prisoner on his back, handcuffed, and crying out “Take your knee off my stomach”. One of the constables was on his legs, and as he was strapping them he received a kick in the mouth quite accidentally. Holliday was not using filthy language, and in his opinion was not drunk.

By the Chief Constable: Holliday was sober, but he might have had a little to drink.

 

Holliday, in his own defence, said that P.C. Taylor had been given no cause to arrest him. The persons sent away had no connections with him, and had not been to his house. As to the alleged assault, th constables were on his stomach and nearly “winded” him. When he was struggling he might have kicked Allen in the mouth, but it was accidental. He was arrested because Taylor had an old grudge against him.

The Magistrates retired to consider their verdict. On their return into Court, the Chairman said that it was the unanimous decision of the Bench that the prisoner was Guilty of both charges, and their only hesitation was whether they should send him to gaol for what was a most brutal and cowardly assault, or fine him. However, they had decided to give him one more chance. On the charge of drunkenness he would be fined £2 and 5s. 6d. costs, or one month; on the assault charge he would be fined £5 and 5s. 6d. costs, or two months; in all £7 11s., or three months.

The fine was paid.

Folkestone Express 3-11-1900

Tuesday, October 30^th: Before J. Hoad, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and further with assaulting P.C. Allen, to which offences he pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Thomas Taylor deposed that at about 11.30 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Bridge Street, where he had cause to speak to three men who were the worse for drink. He asked them to be quiet and go home properly, which they did. The prisoner was not among them. He saw him standing in the doorway of his own house with two other men, and he swore at witness, saying he would kill him if he would take off his uniform. Soon after his wife came and pulled him indoors. Previously witness took his name and address and told him he would report him for being drunk and disorderly as he was drunk and using very bad language. A few minutes afterwards witness again saw him in Canterbury Road in company with another man named Court, and immediately the prisoner saw him coming he used such remarks as “I`ll murder you”. Witness took him into custody and blew his whistle three times for assistance, in answer to which P.C. Allen came running up and assisted him. The prisoner became very violent and it became essential to handcuff him, during which time the prisoner gave Allen a kick in the mouth and caused blood to flow. He continued his violence, and in Dover Road it became necessary to strap his legs. He admitted that the prisoner said “If you will let my legs go I will walk properly”. The prisoner was very violent all the way to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Thomas William Allen stated about 11.30 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Dover Road opposite the Swan public house, where he heard a policeman`s whistle blown three times. He ran in the direction of the sound, and as soon as he arrived in Canterbury Road he saw the last witness holding the prisoner, who was very drunk and very violent; also using bad language. He was taken into custody, and when in Dover Road he was very violent and had to be handcuffed. He kept kicking, and continually shouted out “I`ll knock your brains out”. He then deliberately kicked witness in the mouth and caused blood to flow, and was very violent all the way to the police station and used most disgusting language. He as there charged by witness with assaulting him while in the execution of his duty, and the prisoner made no reply.

Sergt. Osborne said he was on duty in the police station office about 12.05 a.m. at midnight when the prisoner was brought in by the last two witnesses. He was drunk.

William Court, by trade a bricklayer, and residing at 35, Alexandra Street, said he met prisoner Holliday about 11.30 p.m. in Canterbury Road. They commenced a conversation, when P.C. Taylor came up and said to the prisoner “I have got you this time, Tom”. Witness told prisoner he was going home, when the constable interfered and said “I might want you yet”. The prisoner exclaimed “What for?” At this the constable blew his whistle four times. P.C. Allen then came running up and Taylor said, pointing to the prisoner, “That`s the man you want”, and together they took him to the police station. He was perfectly sober and did not use any bad language until the constable took hold of him.

Questioned by Supt. Reeve, witness said the constables did not give the prisoner a chance to be quiet, and in his opinion the prisoner was arrested without a cause. He was quite sober. Witness did not see any disturbance, and left the Wheatsheaf Inn at eleven o`clock after being there fifteen minutes. He did not hear the constable call upon him to help him and did not know why he took his name and address at the police station.

Henry Ballad said he was locking up his house in Dover Road about 11.35 p.m., when he heard cries of pain. He ran out into the road, and opposite Bridgland`s he found prisoner over on his back handcuffed. He was crying out “Please take your knee off my stomach”. The other constable was on his legs and as he was strapping them he received a kick in the mouth quite accidentally. He never used filthy language, and in his opinion he was not drunk.

In answer to Supt. Reeve, he said the man was quite sober, but he might have had a little to drink.

The prisoner said the constable Taylor had no cause to arrest him, and the persons he sent away had no connection with him and did not come to his house. As regarded the assault, they were on his stomach and nearly “winded” him, and in his struggling he might have kicked P.C. Allen in the mouth, but it was accidentally.

The Bench retired, and on their return said they were of the unanimous opinion that both cases had been proved, and for being drunk and disorderly they fined him £2 and 5s. 6d. costs or one month, and in the case of assault they considered the police ought to be protected, and for the cowardly assault they fined him £5 and 5s. 6d. costs, with the alternative of two months hard labour to follow the first.

The money was paid.

Folkestone Herald 3-11-1900

Tuesday, October 30^th: Before J. Hoad Esq., Alderman Pledge, Lieutenant Colonel Westropp,, and Messrs. T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and E.T. Ward.

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Hotel, Bridge Street, Folkestone, was charged with having been drunk and disorderly, and also with having assaulted P.C. Allen whilst in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Taylor deposed that at 11.30 on the previous evening he was on duty in Bridge Street, and had to speak to three men, who were the worse for drink. He got them to go away, and then prisoner, who stood in the doorway of his house, said “If you take your uniform off I will knock you down; I will kill you”. Prisoner`s wife came out and pulled him in, but witness told him he would report him for being drunk and disorderly. He was very drunk. A few minutes afterwards witness saw him in Canterbury Road, in company with a man named Court. When prisoner saw him coming he used disgusting language towards Court, and witness took him into custody, at the same time blowing his whistle three times for assistance. P.C. Allen came up, and prisoner became very violent, and they had to handcuff him. During the time P.C. Allen was putting the handcuffs on, prisoner kicked him in the mouth, causing blood to flow. They took him down Dover Road, and he was so violent they had to strap his legs together. He afterwards said “If you let my legs go I will walk properly”. All the way to the police station he continued to be very violent.

P.C. Allen said that at 11.35 the previous night he was on duty in Dover Road, when he heard a policeman`s whistle three times. He ran up into Canterbury Road, and saw P.C. Taylor at the bottom of Princess Street, holding prisoner, who was very drunk, and using obscene language. He assisted P.C. Taylor to take prisoner down the road. He was very violent, and shouted out “I will knock your brains out”. They were obliged afterwards to handcuff prisoner, and strap his legs together, and whilst being handcuffed prisoner kicked witness in the mouth. He was very violent all the way to the police station, and used disgusting language.

Sergeant Osborne said at 12.05 midnight he was on duty at the police station when the prisoner was brought in. He was very drunk.

William Court, bricklayer, of 25, Alexandra Street, gave evidence for the defence. He said he was standing talking with the prisoner in Canterbury Road at 11.30 the previous night, when presently up came Constable Taylor, and said “I have got you this time, Tom”. Witness said “I`m going home, Tom”, but the policeman said “Oh, he might want you again”. Prisoner said “What for?”, and P.C. Taylor then pulled out his whistle and blew it four times. When the whistle had blown, Allen came up, and Taylor said “That is the man we want”. With that they took prisoner away. Witness accompanied them to the police station, and left prisoner there. Prisoner was perfectly sober, but after the police got hold of him he used bad language, and said “You are paying your old debts off, are you?”

By the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve): Prisoner would have gone to the station like a lamb had they let him alone. They made him violent by going and arresting him without cause. He was at prisoner`s house on the previous night, and had also been there that morning. He had not seen a disturbance outside the house. He was sober. He did not hear the constable call upon him to assist to arrest prisoner. The constable took his name at the police station, but he did not hear him say that he would report him for refusing to assist him in the execution of his duty. He would not swear that he did not say it. He was not with Holliday between eleven and 11.30 that night, but was walking about by himself.

Harry Barratt, of Dover Road, said he was going to lock up his shop at about 11.35 on Monday night, when he heard a noise. He looked out of his door and saw prisoner down below. He heard a cry, as if of pain, and on going down found prisoner handcuffed and crying out “Please take your foot off my stomach”. What had transpired between the constable and prisoner he did not know, but he heard prisoner say “You are a bad man to do it”. As prisoner was being helped up his foot hit P.C. Allen`s mouth. He could not help it. P.C. Allen then strapped his legs up. In reply to a question put by witness, Holliday said he would walk quietly if they would unstrap his legs. Witness went with them to the police station, and prisoner was neither violent, nor used bad language. He would not say he was drunk.

By the Chief Constable: He would say he was perfectly sober.

Prisoner said he did not know what caused P.C. Taylor to charge him with being drunk and disorderly. The three men in Bridge Street did not come from his house. He could not help using obscene language at the way he was treated by the two constables. They put him on his back without any warning, and put the handcuffs on. If he kicked Allen in the mouth, it was accidentally.

The Bench retired to consider their verdict, and after about ten minutes` absence, the Chairman said they considered both cases proved. The only question was whether they ought to do their duty and send him to prison. They were willing, however, to give him another chance, and on the first charge of drunk and disorderly he would be fined £2 and 5s. 6d. costs, or one month`s hard labour. In the second case they considered it their duty to protect the police in the discharge of their duty. It was a most cowardly assault, and he would have to pay £5 with 5s. 6d. costs, or go to Canterbury Gaol for two months` hard labour.

The money, £7 11s., was paid.

Folkestone Herald 16-2-1901

Saturday, February 9^th: Before Messrs. Stainer, Fitness, Swoffer, Wightwick, Pledge, and Pursey.

Frederick Hall was granted leave to carry on the business at the Wheatsheaf Hotel until the next transfer day.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9-3-1901

Wednesday, March 9^th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pledge, Pursey, Stainer, and Salter.

The licence of the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, was transferred to Mr. F. Hall.

Folkestone Express 9-3-1901

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before W. Wightwick, W. Salter, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Licence

Fredk. Edward Hall applied for a transfer of the Wheatsheaf, for which he held temporary authority. It was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6-7-1901

Wednesday, July 3^rd: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Herbert, Pursey, and Swoffer.

Thomas Holliday answered a summons charging him with using obscene language. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. J. Minter, pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Thomas Taylor said that about 7.50 on the 24^th of June he was in Canterbury Road in plain clothes, where he met the defendant, who stopped him and began to question him about a case witness had a few months ago. He took no notice of the man, but walked away. Defendant thereupon challenged him several times to fight, and said “You ----, when you ever leave the police force I`ll flatten your ---- head. You are not fit to breathe, you ----“. Witness added that Holliday was drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, witness denied continually interfering with defendant. He remembered seeing defendant on one occasion coming out of the Wonder Tavern, but he did not then say to him “I`ll have you one of these days, Holliday”. Witness never twitted defendant with having got him a night`s lodgings on a previous occasion. Nor did he say to him “The first time I get a chance I`ll have you again”.

By the Chief Constable: There is not one word of truth in these allegations.

In the course of a lengthy opening for the defendant, Mr. Minter said that if the evidence of the witnesses he proposed to call was worthy of credence, the constable who had given evidence was not fit to be in the force. Defendant, who was formerly the landlord of the Wheatsheaf, had been convicted and lost his licence. Up till then he had borne an irreproachable character, and although he could not comment upon that conviction, defendant did suggest that had he been defended on that occasion there might have been a different result. However, he could not go into that, but his client did allege that the constable`s evidence could not be relied upon.

Defendant, sworn, said he formerly held the licence of the Wheatsheaf for four years, his father having kept the house for the previous 25 years. Witness was obliged to give up the licence upon conviction at the Court for an assault on P.C. Taylor. Since the conviction Taylor had annoyed him on more than one occasion. When Taylor met him on Monday, the 24^th of June, witness had been to the fishmarket. Between 7 and 8 in the evening, when opposite the Swan, he met a man named Tutt, who walked along with him. Witness was perfectly sober. When he passed through the skew bridge he saw P.C. Taylor was in conversation with two or three persons. He did not say anything to the constable, but proceeded up the Canterbury Road. P.C. Taylor shortly afterwards overtook him at the corner of Gladstone Road, and said “Holliday, how did you like your night`s lodgings?” Witness replied “Don`t you think you have done enough for me without tantalising me?” Witness continued walking towards his house, being followed by Taylor, who said “I`ll report you, Holliday”. Witness replied “You can`t; there is nothing to report me for”. Taylor was losing his temper, and said “I`ll have you the first chance I get”. He did not threaten Taylor, but merely said to him “It may be my turn to see you in trouble one of these days”.

The Chief Constable: We can take it for granted that you are not friendly disposed towards of the police force.

Defendant: I am friendly with the members of the force, with the exception of Taylor and P.C. Allen.

The Chief Constable: Is this the first accusation you have made against the police?

Defendant: Yes, it is.

In further cross-examination, defendant said he had been in the Ship Inn that afternoon, and might have called at other houses. He did not remember everywhere he had been that afternoon.

Fredk. Tutt, a carter, in the employ of Bricknell and Sons, said he was sure that he heard Taylor say either “lodge” or “lodgings” to Holliday. The constable and Holliday walked along the road together. Witness did not hear all that they said to each other, but formed the opinion that both were losing their temper. At the bottom of Denmark Street he heard Taylor say “The first chance I get, I`ll have you, Holliday”. Holliday replied “A ---- job, you have nothing else to do but look after me”. Witness heard Taylor say “I`ll report you”, and defendant rplied “You can`t; you have nothing to report”.

The Chief Constable cross-examined witness at considerable length. Tutt admitted that Holliday might have used the language attributed to him, but he did not hear it.

Louisa Sellwood said she saw the defendant in High Street on the afternoon of the 24^th. He was not drunk. She would not say he had not had any. That was all she knew.

The Bench retired, and on returning into Court the Chairman said they were unanimous in their decision. Defendant was Guilty, and the police must be supported. There would be a fine of 10s. and 12s. costs

 

Folkestone Express 6-7-1901

Wednesday, July 3^rd: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thomas Holliday, late landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, was summoned for using obscene language on June 24^th. Mr. Minter defended.

P.C. Taylor said about 7.50 p.m. on June 24^th he was in Canterbury Road in plain clothes, where he met the defendant Holliday, who stopped him and began questioning him about a case he had four months ago. Witness took no notice of him and walked away, but defendant challenged witness several times to fight. He swore at witness, and said in addition “Whenever you leave the police force, I`ll flatten your ---- head. You are not fit to breathe”. Witness told him he would report him.

By Mr. Minter: Defendant was disorderly, but as he went home he did not take him into custody.

By Supt. Reeve: Everything said by Mr. Minter about him persecuting the defendant as to a previous conviction was untrue.

Mr. Minter asked for the report from P.C. Taylor, which, when read, said the defendant challenged him to fight, and used the expression “The defendant was drunk”.

In extenuation, Mr. Minter said this was a very serious offence. He was able to bring witnesses who would give evidence in entire contradiction to the constable`s evidence. It was a question of whose testimony the Bench believed. If they believed that of the defence, the constable was not fit to be in the force, but on the other hand it was a grave offence against the defendant, who had been previously convicted.

Thomas Holliday said he was formerly landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn for five years. He had held two similar positions for eight years each. He was obliged to give up tenancy of the Wheatsheaf in consequence of a conviction by the Bench on the evidence of P.C.s Taylor and Allen. The constable Taylor had persecuted him, and the result was that charge. On June 24^th he was going to his home, 21, Bridge Street, from the Fish Market, and when opposite the Swan Inn he met the witness Tutt and they walked together. He was sober. When they had passed the Skew Arch they saw P.C. Taylor talking to two people. They did not say anything to him. At the corner of Gladstone Road the constable overtook them, and he spoke to him first. He said “Holliday, how did you like your night`s lodgings?” Witness said to him “Don`t you think you have done enough to me without tantalising me?” Witness did not stop, and went home. At Denmark Street P.C. Taylor said to him “I`ll have you the first chance I get”, and when at the corner of Bridge Street he said “I`ll report you, Holliday”, and witness said he had nothing to report him upon. Witness did not challenge the constable, nor threaten him.

Questioned by the Chief Constable, witness said that when he came out of the Wonder Tavern P.C. Taylor said he would report him, but no-one heard it. He spoke very friendly to all the police force except Taylor and Allen. He did not remember how many public houses he had visited.

Frederick Tutt, a carter, said he was employed by Messrs. Bricknell and Sons. On Monday, the 24^th, he met Holliday opposite the Swan Hotel and walked with him through Skew Bridge. They continued their walk up Canterbury Road. P.C. Taylor overtook defendant at the top of Gladstone Road, and he first spoke to Holliday, and not vice versa. He heard the word (as he was in the road) “lodge” or “lodgings” mentioned by the constable. They were both losing their tempers. At the bottom of Denmark Street he heard P.C. Taylor say “The first chance I get I`ll have you, Holliday” and the defendant told him it was a pity he had nothing else to do.

Mrs. Louisa Sellwood said she saw Holliday in Dover Road with s tring of fish, and he was not drunk. She saw him subsequently with the constable, who she heard say “I`ll report you” and then Holliday used a foul expression.

The Bench retired, and on their return said they were unanimous that the defendant had made use of obscene language and they inflicted a fine of 10s. and 12s. costs, which was paid.

Folkestone Herald 6-7-1901

Wednesday, July 3^rd: before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and W.G. Herbert.

Thomas Holliday was charged with having used obscene language. Mr. Minter defended.

P.C. Taylor said at about 7.50 p.m. on the 24^th June he was in Canterbury Road in plain clothes when he met defendant, who stopped him and began talking about a case witness had three or four months ago. Witness walked away without taking any notice of defendant, who challenged him to fight several times. He then used obscene language, stating that witness was not fit to breathe, and that when he left the police force he would flatten his head.

By Mr. Minter: I have cautioned defendant many times. I did not say to defendant a short time ago “Look out, Holliday, I`ll have you before long”. On the day mentioned I did not say “How did you like the night`s lodgings I gave you?”

By the Chief Constable: There is no word of truth in the allegations made by Mr. Minter.

Mr. Minter said they utterly denied the use of bad language. If his instructions were correct, the case was a very serious one. If so, and the evidence was trustworthy, the policeman was not fit to be in the force. Defendant alleged that, not being satisfied with having ruined him, Taylor persecuted him every time he met him by referring to the previous conviction. He was instructed that Taylor`s evidence was false from beginning to end. Either the policeman was deliberately perjuring himself, or defendant and Tutt had conspired to perjure themselves.

Thomas Holliday went in the box, and said he was formerly the landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, in which house he was five years. In consequence of an assault on P.C.s Taylor and Allen he had to give up the Wheatsheaf. Since that conviction Taylor had, on more than one occasion, annoyed him by referring to it. On Monday, the 24^th June, he was going home in company with Tutt. He was quite sober. Under the Skew Bridge he passed Taylor, talking to two or three people. He never said a word to him. He and Tutt then went along the Canterbury Road, and at the corner of Gladstone Road P.C. Taylor overtook him. Taylor walked behind and said “Holliday, how did you like your night`s lodgings?” In reply to this, defendant said he had done enough for him without tantalising him. He never stopped for a minute, but went straight on to Bridge Street. Taylor followed him, and at the bottom of Denmark Street, Taylor said “I`ll have you again the first chance I get”. There were people passing, and if he had thought of getting a summons he could have got other evidence.

By the Chief Constable: I cannot give the name of anyone who has heard Taylor tantalise me. As far as I know, this is the first occasion on which I have made a serious accusation against the members of the police force.

Frederick Tutt said he was a carter at Bricknell`s. On the afternoon in question, he walked along the Canterbury Road with Holliday, who was quite sober. Along the Canterbury Road witness walked just off the path. When Taylor came up he was the first to speak to Holliday, mentioning something about lodge or lodgings. Witness could not hear all that was said, but at the bottom of Denmark Street Taylor used the words alleged by Holliday.

By the Chief Constable: Holliday might have used the language complained of without me hearing it.

Louisa Sellwood was called, but could not swear to any conversation which took place.

The Chairman said they considered the case proved, and would fine defendant 10s. and 12s. costs, or fourteen days`.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-8-1905

Tuesday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Alderman Spurgen.

Thomas Holliday was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road on Monday evening.

P.C. Allen gave evidence as to the offence and said that he also used very obscene language.

Accused owned that he had had enough, but said he was not disorderly. He left Mr. White`s, The Martello, at 9.30 p.m. There was a woman opposite who had fainted, and all he said was “Give her a chance”. It was not likely that Mr. White would have served him if he had been drunk. P.C. Allen came up at once and said “I`ve been waiting for a chance”, and took him into custody.

The Mayor lamented the increasing use of bad language in the borough, and told defendant that he knew his father, a most respectable man.

The Chief Constable said the defendant formerly kept a public house. There were three or four convictions against him for drunkenness and assault upon the police, but none during the last three or four years.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, and allowed until Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Express 12-8-1905

Tuesday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road the previous night. Prisoner said he was the worse for drink, but not disorderly.

P.C. Allen said at 9.30 he was in Dover Road, near the Drill Hall, when the prisoner, who was very drunk, came across to him and used bad language. He requested him to go away several times, but he refused, and commenced to dance on the pavement. A large crowd of people gathered round the prisoner, so with the assistance of P.C. Prebble witness took him to the police station.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner once kept a public house in the town. There were three or four convictions against him for drunkenness and assaulting the police.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 12-8-1905

Tuesday, August 8^th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Alderman G. Spurgen.

Thomas Holliday was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road the previous evening.

P.C. Allen stated that he requested Holliday to go home several times, and as he refused to do so, he obtained assistance and took him to the police station.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d., with 4s. 6d. costs; in default, seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Daily News 22-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Stainer, Boyd, Swoffer, and Leggett.

William Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, namely the East Cliff Tavern, on May the 7^th. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mercer appeared for defendant.

Inspector Lilley deposed: On Tuesday, the 7^th inst., at 12.55 p.m. I saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a statement he made to me I kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation till 1.30. Then, in company with him and P.C. Johnson, I went into the house by the front door, where I saw defendant sitting in a chair with his back to the bar. From his appearance I came to the conclusion that he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. I went through the passage and knocked, and the landlord`s son came, and I asked him for his father. At that time the landlord came in. I went to the bar again and said to Hall “I think you have had too much to drink, and should advise you to get off the premises”. He rose partly from the chair, and said “Do you think so?” I replied “Yes”. He said “Then I don`t”. I went outside, and in a minute or two he came out with his brother, followed by the landlord. He got into a hackney carriage, and said “You are a piece of ---- ,you are. You are a ---- rotter. I know you of old”. I said “I shall report you for being drunk on licensed premises”. He said “You can do what you ---- well like”, and continued to swear till the carriage drove away.

By Mr. Mercer: The police constables said nothing to defendant.

Where were the other constables? – They followed me.

And you did the talking? – Yes.

He made a sensible remark when you told him he had had enough? – Well, I should hardly call it sensible.

P.C. W. Prebble said: I saw the defendant in Dover Road at eleven in the morning, and had a conversation with him and his brother. Defendant was then under the influence of drink. I accompanied Inspector Lilley on the day in question. I kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation from 12.30 to 1. I saw defendant sitting in the bar with his back to the counter. Inspector Lilley called the landlord`s attention to defendant`s condition. The landlord said ”He has only had one glass here”. I then went outside, and shortly afterwards defendant came out and got into a trap that was waiting. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, defendant became very excited and said to Lilley “You are a ---- rotter. I don`t care a ---- for all three of you”.

Mr. Mercer: Why didn`t you lock him up? – There was no need of it; he was in a trap.

How far is it from the door of the house to the trap? – About three or four yards.

How many were in the bar? – Three or four, I believe.

Do you know their names? – No.

How long have you known the defendant? – A long time.

P.C. Johnson said: On the day in question I accompanied Inspector Lilley and P.C. Prebble to the East Cliff Tavern. I had previously seen defendant in the morning, and he was then in a drunken condition. Defendant was in the bar of the East Cliff Tavern, and was decidedly drunk.

Mr. Mercer: You saw him in Dover Road in the morning, didn`t you? – Yes.

How was he then? – Drunk.

Defendant was sworn, and in reply to Mr. Mercer, said: I have lived in the town 25 years. On the day in question I went to see my brother, who had been left sole executor of my father`s will. My brother refused to see me, and threatened to give me into custody. I did not see the other constable Johnson, but only Prebble. I afterwards went with my brother Frederick to the East Cliff Tavern, and we had a bottle of ale together. We sat down. My brother and I drank the ale. Inspector Lilley came in, and said “Are the Halls here?”, and my brother replied “Yes, they are both here”. I had ordered a cab to meet me there at 12.30. I didn`t like the idea of being told by the Inspector that I was drunk, and I dare say I opened my mouth a little too wide. The same evening I went to Rugby to do some work.

The Chief Constable: Haven`t you forgotten to tell the Bench about another visit you paid to a certain house that same morning? – I don`t think so.

Try and refresh your memory. – Well, I might have done.

Did you go into Mr. Southall`s? – Yes, I think I did.

And you went to your brother`s house? – Yes.

How many drinks had you altogether? – One at my brother`s and one at the East Cliff Tavern.

Didn`t you have anything at Mr. Southall`s? – No, I don`t think so.

You are not quite sure? – Yes, I am certain.

Mr. Mercer, on behalf of the defendant, said it was a fact that defendant was very excitable on the day in question, and it was no doubt due to a mistake by the police that the defendant was summoned. He was labouring under very great excitement.

Frederick Hall deposed: I am the licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn, and on the 6^th May we buried my father. On that day we went to see my brother, who had been left sole legatee under my father`s will. My brother refused to see us, and that made defendant very excited. I spoke to P.C. Prebble about the family trouble, and said we did not want any trouble. We afterwards went for a walk, and went to the East Cliff Tavern about 12.30. The police came there about 25 minutes after we got there. Lilley said to my brother “I think you have had enough”, and my brother replied “Well I don`t, and rather than make any bother in the man`s house, I`ll walk out”. He did so.

The Chief Constable: No-one accused you of being drunk? – No.

Or anyone else? – No.

Do you think his excitement misled the police? – Yes, I do.

Did you go into Mr. Southall`s during the morning? – No.

Are you sure? – Yes, I don`t think we went there.

William Featherbe deposed: I was in the East Cliff Tavern on the day in question with the defendant. I was in his company about 20 minutes, and we sat together. We talked about the ship Adriatic, and he gave me the dimensions of her. He also told me about his family affairs. The police came through the passage, and Lilley accused the landlord of having the Halls drunk in his house. Defendant then walked out of the house and got into a carriage that was waiting.

Joseph Lock, a seaman, deposed: I was in the East Cliff Tavern on the 7^th May. The defendant was also there, sitting about two feet away from me. He had a glass of ale, which he did not finish. The police came in, and one of them said “Is Hall in here?”, and the landlord said “Yes”. The constable then said “I shall report him for being drunk on licensed premises”. Hall then left the house and got into a carriage. He was not drunk.

This concluded the case, and the Magistrates then left the Bench to consider their decision. On returning, Mr. Herbert, as Chairman, said they had come to the conclusion that the charge had not been proved, and the case would therefore be dismissed.

The case against the landlord was withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 25-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Stainer, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (East Cliff Tavern) on May 7^th. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared on defendant`s behalf.

Inspector Lilley said on Tuesday, the 7^th inst., at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to him he kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation until a few minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C.s Prebble and Johnson, he went into the house. In the bar he saw defendant sitting, and from his appearance he came to the conclusion he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. The landlord subsequently came in through the front door. Witness told defendant he thought he had had too much to drink, and advised him to get off the premises. Defendant said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”, and defendant said “Then I don`t”. Witness went outside and defendant followed with his brother and the landlord. He got into a hackney carriage and used abusive language. Witness told defendant he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He had no doubt as to defendant`s condition.

P.C. Prebble said on Tuesday, May 7^th, about 11.15, he saw defendant in Dover Road with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both of them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. Later witness accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had previously kept observation on the house from 12.35 to one o`clock. On entering the house witness saw defendant sitting in the bar. He heard Inspector Lilley call the landlord`s attention to defendant`s condition. He heard the landlord say that defendant had only had one glass of ale there. Witness then went outside, and shortly afterwards defendant came out and got into a Victoria that was waiting. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, defendant became very excited and used abusive language towards the Inspector. Defendant was drunk.

P.C. H. Johnson said on May 7^th, shortly after eleven o`clock in the morning, he saw defendant and his brother in Dover Street. Witness did not speak to them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. About 1.15 the witness accompanied Inspector Lilley and P.C. Prebble to the East Cliff Tavern, where he saw defendant sitting in the public bar. In his other evidence witness corroborated the previous evidence.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he had lived in the town twenty five years and was a builder. His brother kept the Wheatsheaf. On May 7^th he went to his brother`s and had a glass of ale there. He had recently lost his father, and his youngest brother, Arthur, was left sole executor and beneficiary of the will. Witness and his brother Frederick went to the youngest brother`s house in Dover Road. There was an argument, and witness`s brother said he would give him in charge. Later witness and Frederick Hall went to the East Cliff Tavern, and Frederick Hall called for a bottle of ale. They each had a glass. Witness did not drink all of his ale. He had been in the bar about half an hour when the police came in. Witness admitted he lost his temper, but he was not drunk and did not like being told about it. He had never been drunk in his life. The same evening witness went to Rugby.

Cross-examined, witness said he was perfectly sober. When the constables came in he became excited.

Frederick Hall said he was the licensee of the Wheatsheaf. He had been in the trade six years. On May 6^th he buried his father, and on May 7^th witness, accompanied by defendant, went to see his youngest brother about the will. Defendant became excited when his brother said he would give him in charge. About a quarter to ten that morning defendant had a glass of ale at witness`s house. At 12.30 they went into the East Cliff Tavern The police entered about twenty five minutes afterwards. Witness saw defendant walk to the cab, and he walked as straight as anyone.

William Edward Featherby, a ship`s carpenter, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern on May 7^th. He was in the bar at the same time defendant was. Witness entered into conversation with defendant, and his talk was quite rational. He was perfectly sober.

Joseph Lott, a seaman, who was in the East Cliff Tavern on the day in question, said he heard defendant talking to Featherby, and he was sober.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. The police had acted perfectly fairly, but had mistaken excitement for drunkenness.

The summons against Martin G. Price, the landlord of the East Cliff Tavern, for permitting drunkenness, was withdrawn on the Chief Constable`s application.

Folkestone Herald 25-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, and Councillor G. Boyd.

Wm. Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (the East Cliff Tavern). The Chief Constable prosecuted, and Mr. R.M. Mercer represented the landlord (Mr. M.G. Price). Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. All the witnesses were ordered to leave the Court until called upon.

Inspector Lilley deposed that on Tuesday, May 17^th, at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to witness, he kept the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff, under observation till three minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C. Prebble and P.C. Johnson, he went into the house. In the front of the bar he saw defendant, sitting with his back to the bar, in a chair. From his appearance, witness came to the conclusion that he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. Witness went through the passage to the entrance door behind the bar, and knocked. At that moment the landlord came in the front door from the street. Witness went back to the front bar again, and said to Hall “I think you have had too much to drink; I should advise you to get off the premises”. He rose partly up out of the chair, and said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”. He said “Then I don`t”. Witness went outside, and in a minute or two defendant came out with his brother, followed by the landlord. He got into a waiting hackney carriage, and said “You are a nice lot of ---- you are. You are a ---- rotter; I know you of old”. Witness said “I shall report you for being drunk on licensed premises”. He said “You can do what you ---- well like”. He continued to swear until the carriage drove away. He had no doubt at all as to the defendant`s condition; Hall was drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The constables were not with him all the time in the house. They came in after him. He thought it was a proof of drunkenness for a man to say to three police officers “You can do what you like”.

P.C. Prebble deposed that on the 7^th May, about 11.15 a.m., he saw defendant fall in the Dover Road. He was then with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both. Defendant at that time was very much under the influence of drink. Witness later accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had been keeping observation on the house from 12.35 to one o`clock. Defendant did not enter the house during that time. On entering the public bar witness saw defendant sitting there with his back to the counter. He heard the landlord say to Inspector Lilley “He has only had one glass of ale here”. Witness then went outside. Shortly afterwards he saw defendant come out, and get into a Victoria which was waiting outside. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, who came out with defendant, defendant became very excited, and said to Inspector Lilley “I know you Inspector; you are a ---- rotter. I don`t care a ---- for all three of you. Do as you like”. There was no doubt that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined:  He did not see any need to arrest the man. If he had been in the road instead of in the trap he would have done so. Defendant stepped into the Victoria without assistance.

P.C. H. Johnson also stated that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined: He saw P.C. Prebble talking to defendant in the Dover Road. Witness was standing in the middle of the road, and could not hear what the conversation was about. He thought defendant was drunk at that time, because his face was flushed, and his voice was excited, and he was moving his hands about.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Defendant, on oath, said he had lived in the town about twenty five years, and was a builder. One of his brothers – Frederick – kept the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7^th May he left home to go to his brother Fred`s, and had one glass of ale there. He then went, in company with Frederick, to see his other brother, Arthur, who lived in the Dover Road. Witness`s father had recently died, and Arthur was the sole executor and beneficiary under his will. He and his brother Frederick did not think that was right, and they were going round to see Arthur about it. Arthur would not see them, and told him (defendant) that if he did not leave his door he would give him in charge of a constable. He was very excited over the will, and had some conversation with P.C. Prebble about it. That was between 11.30 and 12. Witness then had a walk round, and afterwards went to the East Cliff Tavern with his brother Fred. There Frederick called for a bottle of ale, and defendant and his brother halved it. Each had one glass. The landlord supplied the bottle. Witness sat down when he went into the house. Defendant`s brother took the ale and poured it out, handing defendant his, but he (defendant) “did not drink more than about a couple of inches”. He was talking to Mr. Featherbe about the new White Star liner when the constable entered. There were several other people in the bar at the time. Witness had been in there about twenty minutes or half an hour before the police entered. Inspector Lilley said “Are the Halls here?”, and witness`s brother said “We are both here”. Witness got out of his chair and walked straight out, without staggering; nobody assisted him. He had ordered a cab to wait outside, and he got into it. Defendant did not like being accused of being drunk when he was not, so he lost his temper, and, he was afraid, opened his mouth a bit too wide. Witness had never been accused of drunkenness before. The same evening he went on to Rugby to some work he had to do there.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He did not think he and his brother Fred called at another house before going to see Arthur. He was pretty sure they did not.

The Chief Constable: May I refresh your memory. Did you not go to Mr. Southall`s?

Witness (after hesitation): Perhaps we did. Yes we did. Continuing, he said that when the police officers entered the house, they accused nobody of being drunk. Outside they said they should report him. They did not accuse anybody else of being drunk. He did not know why they picked on him. The sight of the three policemen excited him, and frightened him. He thought he should get into trouble. Perhaps the policemen mistook his excitement over that and his family trouble for the effects of drink. He had only been in his brother`s house before that morning. He had had one glass there, and one at the East Cliff. That was all he had had that morning. He did not think he had any at Mr. Southall`s; he was certain of that.

Mr. Mercer then briefly addressed the Bench, drawing particular attention to the rational answers of defendant to Inspector Lilley in the bar. With regard to the evidence of P.C. Johnson as to defendant`s condition in the Dover Road, he said it was simply ridiculous to say that, from the middle of the road, he was such an experienced man that he could tell from the defendant`s gestures, colour, and tone of voice – although he could not hear what he was saying – that he was drunk. Nobody would hang a dog on such evidence. After referring to the fact that defendant had had family troubles with regard to the will, which had excited him, Mr. Mercer proceeded to call further witnesses.

Frederick Hall, brother of the defendant, said he was licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7^th inst. witness and defendant went to see their younger brother about the will. When they got there Arthur said that if defendant did not go away he would give him in charge. That made defendant very excited. Defendant came into witness`s licensed house at 10.15, and had a glass of ale only. Then they went out together. After they left Dover Road, they went over Radnor Bridge to the cliff for a walk, and then to the East Cliff Tavern. They got there about 12.30. The police came in about twenty five minutes later. Witness then corroborated defendant`s evidence as to what took place then. His brother walked quite straight to the cab, and was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: No-one accused witness of being drunk. He supposed that the excitement as to the family trouble misled the police to think that his brother was drunk. He had no recollection of himself and his brother going into Mr. Southall`s.

Wm. Edward Featherbe, a ships` carpenter, said that he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He was in defendant`s company about twenty minutes, sitting by him. He talked to defendant about ship-building in Liverpool. The latter was giving witness dimensions of a new liner – the Adriatic. He was perfectly sober. Defendant was quoting figures as to the size of the ship, and spoke quite rationally. When the police entered Inspector Lilley accused the landlord of having “the Halls” drunk on the premises. Defendant walked out perfectly straight; there was no sign of staggering.

Joseph Lopp, seaman, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He saw defendant and some other people there. He was sitting about two feet from defendant, who had a bottle of ale to drink, but did not drink a whole glassful. The talking was quiet, and there was no disturbance. Defendant was sober, and walked straight.

Cross-examined: Defendant was a little bit excited in the bar when the police came.

The Magistrates then retired to consider their verdict, and, returning after a brief absence, the Chairman said that the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. They considered that the police had acted perfectly fairly, but mistook excitement for drink.

There was slight applause in the Court at this decision.

The Chief Constable then asked permission to withdraw the summons against the landlord for permitting drunkenness, and he was allowed to do so.

Folkestone Daily News 19-10-1907

Saturday, October 19^th: Before Messrs. Stainer, Linton, and Boyd.

Frederick W. Hall was summoned by T. Philpott for an alleged assault at the Wheatsheaf public house, of which defendant is the landlord.

Complainant deposed that he went to the Wheatsheaf on the 14^th October at 2 o`clock and had two raffles, when Mr. Hall came in and struck him. The defendant gave him the dice to raffle with.

In defence, defendant said complainant was gambling, to which he objected, and he therefore put him out.

The case was dismissed with costs.

Folkestone Express 26-10-1907

Saturday, October 19^th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick William Hall, the landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was summoned by Thomas Philpot for assaulting him.

The complainant explained that on Monday he was in the defendant`s house with a man named Middleton. After he had had two raffles with the man, the landlord supplying the dice, the defendant came in and said “Philpot, you have not bought any ---- beer for twenty minutes”. He then hit him under the jaw with his fist, knocking him on the table, and he followed that up by a blow on the shoulder.

The defendant`s story was that the complainant was causing a disturbance with Middleton and wanted to toss him for a shilling. He (defendant) told him gambling was not allowed, and if h could not behave himself he had better leave the house. Philpot said he would go when he pleased and then struck at him. He therefore got hold of him and put him out of the house.

Frederick Mullett and Albert Boxer, both whom were in the house at the time, corroborated the landlord.

The Mayor intimated that there was a great conflict of evidence, and the case would be dismissed, Philpot having to pay 4s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 26-10-1907

Saturday, October 19^th: Before The Mayor, Councillor G. Boyd, Messrs. J. Stainer and R.J. Linton.

Frederick William Hall was summoned by Thomas Philpott for assault.

Thomas Philpott stated that he was a baker, and was in defendant`s house (a public house) at about 2 p.m. with a friend (Mr. Middleton). After a time complainant proposed to have a raffle with Mr. Middleton. He (Philpott) won, and also won a second. Defendant then came and said “You haven`t bought any beer here for the last twenty minutes”. Complainant had no time to explain himself before defendant struck him and knocked him on the table. He struck him again, and witness rushed out of the house, leaving his cap and pipe behind.

Defendant stated that complainant was causing a disturbance in his house. Mr. Middleton was asking to toss him for a shilling. Defendant said to him “Do you see that notice?; no gambling” Complainant said that he would please himself. Defendant told him to leave the house, whereupon Philpott struck him, so he (Hall) “caught him by the middle” and carried him out.

Frederick Mallett and Albert Boxer corroborated the statement of defendant.

The case was dismissed, complainant having to pay 4s. and costs.

Folkestone Daily News 2-12-1908

Wednesday, December 2^nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Fynmore, Swoffer, Linton, and Boyd.

An application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street.

The application was granted.