Bricklayers` Arms 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Express 17-2-1900

Monday, February 12^th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.

Fredk. Frost was charged with being in the unlawful possession of nine military blankets.

Detective Officer Burniston said at 20 minutes to one on Saturday he saw the prisoner in Little Fenchurch Street with a sackful of something which appeared heavy, and going into the Bricklayers` Arms. Witness waited a few minutes, and then followed prisoner in, and saw him taking six blankets out of the sack. They were marked “W.D.”, and the broad arrow. He said to prisoner “Well, Frost, what have you got this time?” He made no reply. He asked him where he got the blankets from, and he said “I bought them this morning about 10 o`clock off a man at Cheriton, and gave him 4s. for them. I don`t know who he is, and have never seen him before”. Later on he went to prisoner`s house, No. 7, Norris Place,, where his mother handed him three more blankets, and made a statement respecting them. He took them to the polic station and showed them to the prisoner, who said “They are mine”. He told him that his mother said he took the blankets home on the previous evening, and took six of them out in the morning in a sack. Prisoner said “That`s a lie”. He charged prisoner with being found in unlawful possession of the nine blankets, the property of the War Department. He replied “I bought those three yesterday, and those six this morning off the same man at Cheriton”.

George Shirley, barrack warder at Shorncliffe Camp, identified the blankets as War Department property. The value of the nine was £2.

The prisoner said he bought them of a young man who said he bought them in the barracks. He gave 4s. for six and 2s. for three.

The Bench imposed a fine of £3, or in default one month`s imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 17-2-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Monday last Frederick Frost was charged with being in unlawful possession of nine blankets, the property of the military authorities, on Saturday night. Defendant said that he was Guilty of having the blankets.

Detective Burniston deposed that at twenty minutes to one on Saturday he was in Little Fenchurch Street, where he saw the defendant carrying a full sack, which appeared to be heavy. He followed him down the street, and saw him go in at the back entrance of a public house. Witness watched a few minutes and then went in himself. In the yard he saw the defendant putting the six blankets (produced) out of the sack he was carrying. They were marked with the arrow. He said to him “Well, Frost, what have you got this time?” He made no reply. Seeing the broad arrow and the stamp “W.D.” he asked where defendant got them from. Defendant said “I bought them this morning about ten o`clock of a man at Cheriton. I gave him 4s. for them. I don`t know where he is. I have never seen him before”. He brought the defendant and the property to the police station, and, later on, went to the defendant`s house, where his mother handed witness three more blankets marked in the same way, making a statement respecting them. Witness brought them to the police station and showed them to defendant. He said “Yes, they are mine”. Witness subsequently charged him with being found in unlawful possession of the property, and he replied “I bought those three yesterday (meaning what his mother handed witness), and these six (found in his possession) this morning of the same man at Cheriton. I don`t know who he is”.

George Shirley, barracks wardsman, deposed that he had seen the blankets, and he identified them as War Department property by the letters. The value of the nine was about £2.

Defendant said that he did not know that there was anything wrong. He had bought them from a young fellow who said that he had just purchased them in the barrack himself. He asked 4s. for the six. He bought the other three from the man on Friday, giving 2s. for them.

The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. H.B. Bradley): Do you call him as a witness?

Defendant: I have not got any witnesses, sir.

The Chairman said that the evidence was very clear against defendant, and he would be fined £3, or a month`s imprisonment, no time being allowed for payment.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-5-1901

Monday, May 13^th: Before Messrs. Pledge, Peden, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

George Gunner and Joseph Hemborough were jointly charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the property of S. and W. Joseph, tailors, etc., of Tontine Street.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed that on Saturday night, at 10.55, he went to the Bricklayers` Arms lodging house. In the back yard, behind the dustbin, he found a new pair of trousers (produced), and close by them was a clothier`s ticket, numbered and marked 5s. 11d. He took possession of the trousers. Later in the evening he returned to the Bricklayers` Arms, and in consequence of what the landlady told him he went to the Lower Sandgate Road, where he found Hemborough asleep. Witness woke him and said “I shall charge you with stealing from the outside of the shop in Tontine Street a pair of trousers, the property of Messrs. Joseph”.

Prisoner: He is telling a pack of lies. I hope he may drop dead.

Witness, continuing, said he cautioned the prisoner, who said “I met the other man in London, and only came in the town today. You want to look after the thin man”. Witness brought him to the station, and on Sunday evening charged the men jointly. Both replied that it was the first time they had seen the trousers. Previous to the arrests witness had seen prisoners together with another man. When Gunner was arrested, the other two ran down Tontine Street. He then followed Hemborough to the Bricklayers` Arms and searched him, but found nothing at that time in connection with the charge.

Isabella Susannah Carden, employed at the Bricklayers` Arms, said that while in the scullery of the Bricklayers` Arms on Saturday evening she saw the prisoners come into the yard. Gunner had something on his arm, which looked like a dark article of clothing. She heard one of the prisoners say to the other “Why did you not put them on?” Ultimately she saw them stop about five minutes by the dustbin.

At this point the Magistrates expressed the opnion that the evidence was not sufficient to convict, and Hemborough (who looked very much surprised) was discharged.

The Magistrates` Clerk (to Hemborough): Look here, you are discharged, because there is not sufficient evidence. There may be another charge against you before the day is out. I should advise you to leave the town.

Hemborough: Yes, sir. Thank you.

(Gunner had earlier been sentenced to two months` hard labour for theft of clothing and a bag).

Folkestone Express 18-5-1901

Monday, May 13^th: Before Alderman J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and G. Peden Esqs.

George Gunner and Joseph Hemborough were jointly charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the property of Messrs. Joseph Bros. They pleaded Not Guilty.

Det. Sergeant Burniston said about 10.55 o`clock on Saturday he went to the Bricklayers` Arms lodging house, and he there searched the premises. In the back yard, behind the dustbin, he found a new pair of trousers (produced) and a ticket, which bore the price 5s. 11d., and a private mark. He took them to the police station, where they were identified by Messrs. Joseph. At 1.55 p.m., from what the servant at the lodging house told him, he went in search of the prisoner Hemborough, and found him asleep on the Lower Sandgate Road. He charged him with the theft, and after cautioning him, he answered “I met the other man in London. We both walked down together. We only came in on Friday evening. You ought to look after the other man”. He took him to the police station, and charged them together, and they both replied “It is the first time I have seen those trousers”. Witness was in Tontine Street about 10.30 p.m., and he saw the two prisoners in company with another man. They stopped outside Vickery`s boot shop, and they both looked suspicious. When prisoner Gunner was arrested by P.C. Wellar the other two prisoners ran away, and witness followed and searched the prisoner Hemborough in the Bricklayers` Arms, and found nothing on him.

Isabella Susannah Carden, servant to Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers` Arms, said about 8.10 on Saturday evening she was in teh scullery, where she saw the two prisoners coming from the lodgers` kitchen, and they went into the street. About ten minutes afterwards they returned, and the prisoner had some article which was dark, and appeared to be like a pair of trousers, on his arm. He said to his companion “Why didn`t you put them on?” They went into the house and subsequently returned with the trousers on his arm. They went to the dustbin and stopped there about five minutes.

The Bench here dismissed the case owing to insufficient evidence.

Folkestone Herald 18-5-1901

Monday, May 13^th: Before Alderman J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Messrs. Stainer and Peden.

George Gunner and Joseph Hemborough were charged with having stolen a pair of trousers from the shop occupied by Messrs. Joseph, 11, Tontine Street.

Det. Sergeant Burniston said at 10.55 on Saturday night he went to the Bricklayers` Arms lodging house and searched the premises. In the back yard, behind the dustbin, he found the pair of trousers produced, to which a clothier`s ticket was attached. He returned later and searched for prisoner, but did not find him, but at 1.55 on Sunday morning he found him asleep in the Lower Sandgate Road. He awoke him and told him he would be charged, to which he replied “I met the other man in London, and we came down together. We only came into the town on Friday evening. You want to look after the other man”. In reply to the charged at the police station both prisoners replied “It is the first time I have seen them trousers”. When Gunner was arrested Hamborough and another man ran down Tontine Street. Witness followed him then to the Bricklayers` Arms and searched him, but found nothing on him connected with the charge.

Isabella Susannah Carden, servant to Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers` Arms, said at 8.10 on Saturday evening she saw the two prisoners coming from the lodgers` kitchen together. About ten minutes after, they came back to the house, and Gunner had something dark, which looked like a pair of trousers, hanging over his arm. When in the kitchen Gunner held up the trousers and said to Hamborough “Why didn`t you put them on?” Then they went into the yard and stopped about five minutes by the dustbin, afterwards going into the street.

Both prisoners denied that they knew anything about the trousers.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought there was not sufficient evidence to convict, and they would therefore dismiss the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-1-1902

Inquest

An inquest was held on Monday into the death of Isaac Henry Gale, a man well known in East Folkestone as the trumpeter in the 17^th Lancers (Death or Glory Boys), who sounded the charge at Ulandi in the Zulu war.

Joseph Whiting said: I am the landlord of the Bricklayers` Arms public house, Fenchurch Street. I identify the body as that of Isaac Gale. He was about 49 or 50 years of age, and lived with me at a cottage adjoining the Bricklayers` Arms. He shared a bedroom with a companion of his. He depended principally on a pension, and did other casual work. He drew his pension on the 1^st of January. It was about £5. The last time I saw deceased was about 11 o`clock on Friday night. Before going to be I went to look round, and found deceased on the bed, fully dressed. I thought he had been enjoying himself too much. I have had occasion to speak to Gale more than once in connection with taking too much to drink. On Saturday morning, between eight and nine o`clock, deceased`s bedmate came and reported to me that Gale was dead.

By the Chief Constable: I tried to rouse the deceased, but he did not take much notice. I thought he had been drinking too freely and was in a deep slumber. I had seen deceased drunk before, but he did not seem any different than on other occasions.

By Dr. Barrett: I could not say whether deceased always snored when he was drunk.

Sarah Betts said: I live at 20, Great Fenchurch Street, and am the wife of George Betts, a fisherman. I have known Gale a long time. I saw him between twelve and one on Friday. He was coming up Great Fenchurch Street. To me he appeared to have been drinking. He was staggering from one side to the other and fell upon the back of his head. I went to his assistance. I had seen deceased drunk before several times. I asked a passer-by to help me pick Gale up. I could then smell his breath, which was very strong of drink. When picked up, Gale said “Thank you very much for picking me up; thank you all round”. He also said “I`ve had some drink, I know”. He did not complain about his fall; he staggered along beside the wall and went indoors.

By Dr. Barrett: He only had about 10 yards to walk to the house from the place where he fell.

Arthur Stokes said: I live at 13, Fenchurch Street, and am a labourer. I help Mr. Whiting at times. I knew the deceased well. The first time I saw him on Friday was at 9.30 p.m. I was going round the rooms, and upon going into deceased`s apartment I found him lying between the two beds. He was on his side asleep and snoring. I called for assistance to help him on to the bed. A man named John Thomas came and gave me the required assistance. We put him on the bed, and I did not see him again until the following morning. I had seen him drunk before, and thought he was so on this occasion. On Saturday morning, between 8 and 9, I went into deceased`s room and found him dead. He was on the bed, and I at once went and told Mr. Whiting.

Harry Pope said: I live at No. 16a, Fenchurch Street, and I shared a bedroom with Gale. On Friday I saw him about one o`clock. I met him in the street. He was sitting on the window ledge of a shop. He aid to me “Hello, Popey”, and I went on. He had had a little to drink, quite sufficient to let me know he was moderately “full”. We have slept together for about two years. He always had been a drinker. When I got home that night it was twenty minutes to two. I struck a match and looked at him. He was on the bed with his clothes on. I had seen him once before with his clothes on at night time. Deceased stopped snoring about a quarter or half past two. I looked over my shoulder when I woke about 8.30 and found that Gale was dead.

Dr. W.P. Barrett said: I have today made a post mortem examination on deceased. I found a large clot of blood covering about one third of the left side of the brain. I also examined the organs of the body and found strong indications of heart disease and disease of the main arteries. The liver was small and very hard. I formed the opinion that the man died from what we usually term apoplexy. He had been drinking, but that was not the actual cause of death, but had accelerated death.

The jury found that deceased had died from apoplexy, accelerated by excessive drinking.

Folkestone Express 11-1-1902

Local News

On Saturday morning the death of Isaac Henry Gale, who was formerly a trumpeter in the 17^th Lancers - better known as the “Death or Glory Boys” – took place at the Bricklayers Arms. The deceased is said to have sounded the charge at Ulundi in the Zulu War. He had given way to excessive drinking of late, which brought on apoplexy, and he died at the early age of 50 years.

Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, who identified the deceased, said he was 50 years of age, and he was formerly trumpeter in the 17^th Lancers. He had been in Folkestone for 12 years. He died at a cottage adjoining his house, where he shared a bedroom with another man. He supported himself by means of his Army pension, and he drew £5 on January 1^st. On Friday evening, about 11 o`clock, witness saw him fully dressed on the bed, and his appearance showed he had been drinking heavily. He did not think he required medical assistance. The deceased died on the following morning about eight a.m.

In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said he tried to rouse deceased, but he was in a collapsed state of intoxication, and was snoring rather heavily. There was no drink in the room.

Sarah Jane Betts, of 20, Great Fenchurch Street, said on Friday, between 12 and 1 o`clock, she saw the deceased stagger and fall backwards on his head. He was staggering from one side to the other, and he suddenly fell backwards on to the stone pavement. She had seen deceased drunk before, and he staggered in just the same manner. She called to a person, who helped him home. Deceased smelt strong of drink.

Arthur Stokes, of 13, Fenchurch Street, labourer, said he knew the deceased, and an Friday, about 9.30 p.m., he saw him on the floor in a drunken state in his bedroom. With the assistance of a man named John Thomas he was put on to the bed. The next morning between eight and nine o`clock he went to wake him up and found he was dead.

Harry Pope, a “lumper”, said he lived at the cottage adjacent to the Bricklayers Arms, and shared a bedroom with the deceased. He saw him drunk, sitting on the pavement in Dover Street on Friday morning. Witness went to bed about two o`clock next morning and the deceased was snoring very loudly. He was outside his bed with his clothes on. Witness went to bed and woke up at 8.30 a.m. He saw deceased was dead, but to assure himself he said to deceased “Aren`t you going to get up? You`ve been there since yesterday”, but he received no reply.

Dr. W.P. Barrett said he had made a post mortem examination of deceased`s body, and he found he had a large clot of blood on the left side of the brain, extending to a little way on the right side. Deceased also had heart disease; the liver was affected, and the arteries were diseased. He formed the opinion that he had died from apoplexy.

The Coroner: Would the fall in any way cause the clot of blood on the brain?

Witness: I think not. Haemorrhage must have been coming on, which was no doubt accelerated by drink. Probably it was a combination of both.

A verdict of “Apoplexy brought on by excessive drinking” was returned by the jury.

Folkestone Herald 11-1-1902

Inquest

An inquest was held on Monday afternoon on the body of an Army pensioner names Isaac Harvey Gale, who has had a lodging at the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, for a number of years.

Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, said deceased, who was about fifty years of age, had been lodging at his house about twelve or fourteen years. He shared a bedroom with another man in a cottage adjoining the Bricklayers Arms, but had his meals in the house. He did casual work, but depended principally on his pension for his means of living. On the 1^st January he drew his pension, which would be about £5. At 11 o`clock on Friday night witness saw him lying on his bed with his clothes on, and thought he had been enjoying himself too much. He was generally of sober habits, but occasionally he indulged too much. When witness went into the room he was lying on the bed and snoring. He thought deceased had been indulging too freely. Next morning witness was told that Gale was dead.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve): Did you try to rouse him?

Witness: We tried to rouse him, but he did not seem to take the interest I should have liked.

The Chief Constable: You did not think he was bad enough to have a doctor?

Witness: No.

Dr. Barrett: Did he always snore when he was drunk?

Witness: I could not say, as I had not taken much notice.

Mrs. Betts, wife of George Betts, fisherman, of 20, Great Fenchurch Street, said she had known Gale some time. Betwoon 12 and 1 o`clock on Friday morning she saw him coming up Fenchurch Street. He was staggering from one side of the pavement to the other, and fell whilst she was watching him. Witness assisted him to the door, and he thanked her for so doing, at the same time saying “I`ve had some drink”.

Arthur Stokes, labourer, of 13, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he had known deceased for some years. He looked after the rooms for Mr. Whiting. Part of his duties was to look round the rooms two or three times during the day. At 9.30 on Friday night he went into deceased`s bedroom and saw him lying on the floor between the two beds. He was snoring, and witness got him on to the bed with assistance. He had seen deceased in the same condition before. Next morning witness went to call the lodgers as usual, and found Gale lying dead on the bed.

Harry Pope deposed that he shared a bedroom with Gale. He worked on the boats as a “lumper”. He saw Gale on Friday dinnertime. He looked then as if he had been drinking. Witness had shared the room with deceased two years. Deceased snored heavy regularly. Witness went home between one and two o`clock in the morning on Saturday, and saw deceased lying snoring on the bed with his clothes on. About 2.30 deceased stopped snoring. At 8.30 in the morning witness got up, and on looking at deceased said “You`re dead, Ike, I expect”. He spoke to deceased, but getting no reply, reported to Stokes that he was dead.

Dr. Barrett said he had made a post mortem examination, and found a large clot of blood on the left side of the brain. He also found signs of extensive heart disease. He formed the opinion that death was due to what was called apoplexy, accelerated by rupture of blood vessel and heart disease. Nothing could have been done for him had medical assistance been called.

A verdict that death was due to apoplexy, brought on by excessive drinking, was returned.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 10-5-1902

Tuesday, May 6^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and Alderman Salter.

Frederick Holmes and Alfred Charles Dalton, giving an address at the Bricklayers Arms, were charged in being concerned in stealing 29 feet of lead piping, weighing 59 lbs., and valued at 9s. Holmes was undefended, but Dalton was represented by Mr. G. Haines, who appeared at the request of Mr. Dalton senior, a respected trader of Margate.

Fredk. Vant, a carpenter in the employ of Mr. Steven Vant, and employed on an uncompleted house in Kingsnorth Gardens, said that on the lawn beside the house was a coil of new lead water piping, connected to the inside fittings but not to the main outside. At eight o`clock the previous morning he saw the lead, but about twelve o`clock was told that some of it had been cut off. Going down to the Castle public house he found it in a bag upon the ground outside the house. He waited until the prisoners came out. Holmes picked up the bag and placed it upon his shoulder, and both prisoners went across the road to the Red Cow. Holmes laid the bag down outside and prisoners went inside. They came out in about 15 minutes. Holmes again picked up the bag and carried it along Black Bull Road, Dalton accompanying him. They went to Mr. Baker`s, marine store dealer, Canterbury Road. Witness followed, and heard Holmes offering the lead for sale, describing it as “some old lead”. On seeing it, Mr. Baker said he could not buy it. Holmes added that he had bought the lead from a house close to the Wampach. Dalton said nothing. Witness then went forward and said to Holmes “You have stolen that lead from a house in Kingsnorth Gardens”. Holmes replied “Where? I do not know Kingsnorth Gardens. I have bought it and paid for it”. Witness said “That is lucky for you”. Dalton still said nothing. Sergt. Dunster came forward, and witness gave the men in charge. Witness identified the piping produced.

William Haines, a rag and bone collector, said that on the previous morning while on his round near the Central Station, at about a quarter to 12, he met the prisoner going through the railway arch, in the direction of Kingsnorth Gardens, or to the top of the town. Dalton was carrying a bag. Shortly afterwards he was in Kingsnorth Gardens, when he again saw the prisoners, coming from the top end, where there is a house in the course of erection. Dalton was still carrying the bag, but it seemed bulky, whereas when he first saw the men it was empty.

Police Sergt. Dunster proved the arrest. Vant, he said, having identified the piping at Mr. Baker`s, Dalton ran away up Canterbury Road, through James Street, into a meadow. Witness overtook him and brought him back to where Holmes was standing. The two were charged together, and Holmes (pointing to Dalton) replied “He can tell you where he got it”. At the police station he found on Holmes two knives, and on Dalton six keys.

By Mr. Haines: Dalton had also 6s. 5d. upon him, and Holmes one farthing.

The prisoners both pleaded Not Guilty.

Holmes preferred to make a statement instead of giving evidence on oath. He said that he did not know where Dalton got the lead from. He was calling at one set of houses and Dalton at the other. When he got to the bottom of the street, Dalton said that he had got some lead. He (Holmes) replied “You had best let that alone”. He admitted that afterwards he assisted to carry the lead, but declared that he did not steal it.

Mr. Haines then put Dalton into the box. He said: I was formerly a greengrocer living at Dover. On Sunday morning, at 8.50, I left Dover with my wife and child, my home having been sold up. I had a little money with me when I came to Folkestone, and I took rooms at the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street. I first saw Holmes there on Sunday afternoon, but did not speak to him until yesterday. From a conversation I had, I understood that there was going to be a fight outside the town, so I asked Holmes if I could go out with him. He agreed, and we went out together. We then had no bag. The fight did not come off. I had thought of getting some oranges at Wilson`s, but it came on to rain and Holmes suggested to me that he could earn some money “totting” if he had some coppers. I told him that I would let him have some money and we would share the profit. Holmes went to Baker`s and got three bags.

Holmes (interposing):They were three of my own bags. I had left them on Saturday.

Dalton (continuing): I carried one bag, and Holmes two. The little knife produced is mine; the big one I know nothing about. I cannot account for how it came into my possession. I do not remember seeing any new building in Kingsnorth Gardens. I was standing at the corner of Kingsnorth Gardens, when Holmes came along and gave me the bag to carry. I said “What have you got there?”, and he replied “All right. I found the bag to be heavy, dropped it, and found it to contain lead”. I did not say anything to Holmes about it, as I did not think. If Holmes said that I knew all about it, I did not remember. I was too far gone, having had too much to drink. I did not go into any house in Kingsnorth Gardens, as Holmes was collecting there. I have been a greengrocer, and I am afraid that it was owing to drink that I was sold out. Before having the lead in my possession I should say that we had had five or six pints each.

Cross-examined by Holmes: I was standing at the corner of the road when you brought me the lead. I was drunk; you were not.

Holmes (triumphantly): Then I ought to know what I was doing, gentlemen.

By the Chief Constable: I did not borrow the big knife from a man, so far as I can remember, and I am quite sure that I did not use it to cut the lead off.

Holmes: He borrowed the knife from me.

The Chief Constable said that seeing the turn the evidence had taken he should like to call another witness.

The Deputy Clerk: You have closed your case, and to call a witness now would be contrary to all procedure.

The Chief Constable: But I did not anticipate that Dalton would make such a statement, and I would like the matter cleared up, as there is a witness who actually saw him cut the lead off.

The Chairman decided that the case for the prosecution was closed.

The Chief Constable then said that there was no previous conviction against Dalton, who was the son of a respectable tradesman of Margate, but Holmes had undergone one or two trifling convictions.

Mr. Haines then addressed the Bench in mitigation, and urged Dalton`s past good character, asking the Bench to extend the provisions of the First Offenders` Act to him.

The Chairman, addressing Holmes, commented upon this not being his first conviction, and sentenced him to six weeks` hard labour. Then, turning to Dalton, he said that he, not having any previous conviction, would be sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Upon the pronouncement of the sentence Dalton seemed dazed. His grey-headed father sobbed loudly, and his wife, with a young baby in her arms, cried hysterically.

Mr. Bickers, the Police Court Missionary, did all in his power to soften the blow upon those who, through no fault of their own, were placed in such a painful position.

At the conclusion of the case, Haines was commended for giving such valuable information and straightforward evidence.

Folkestone Herald 10-5-1902

Tuesday, May 6^th: Before Mr. Wightwick, Mr. Swoffer, Alderman Salter, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Frederick Holmes and Alfred Chas. Dalton were charged with stealing 29ft. of lead piping, the property of Mr. Vant. Mr. Haines appeared for Dalton.

Fred. Vant, a carpenter, in the employ of Mr. A. Vant, said he was at work on Monday, at Kingsnorth Gardens. The coil of piping was connected with the fittings, but was not on the water main. He missed it about twelve o`clock. He then went down by the Castle Inn, and he saw a bag containing the lead lying outside. When prisoners came out he followed them to the Red Cow, and afterwards to Baker`s marine stores, in Canterbury Road. Holmes offered the lead to Baker for sale, but Baker would not buy it. Witness went forward and said that Holmes had taken the lead from Kingsnorth Gardens. He replied that he had bought it and paid for it. Witness identified the piping produced.

William Hayes, a rag and bone dealer, deposed that he was on his rounds near the Central Station, when he met the prisoners going under the railway arch. He saw them shortly afterwards coming away from Kingsnorth Gardens, Dalton carrying a bag similar to the one produced.

P.S. Dunster said that on Monday he went to Baker`s marine stores, and saw prisoners and Vant there. Dalton ran away when witness spoke to them about the piping. Witness overtook him and brought him back. He then charged prisoners with stealing the piping. Holes replied, pointing to Dalton “He can tell you where he got it”. When he searched the prisoners he found two knives on Dalton.

Both prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.

The prisoner Dalton, who elected to give evidence on oath, said that he came from Dover to Folkestone on Sunday morning with his wife and child, and stayed at the Bricklayers Arms. On Monday Holmes and he went out. Holmes said that if he had some money he could earn more by “touting”. Witness agreed to provide the money, and go half profits. Witness went one road, and Holmes went another. Holmes came along with the bag carrying the piping, and asked him to carry it. Witness afterwards saw what was in the bag, but did not ask any questions. They had been drinking all the morning. He did not know how the large pen-knife came in his possession. It did not belong to him.

The Chief Constable proved previous convictions against Holmes.

Holmes was sentenced to six weeks` hard labour and Dalton to a month.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-8-1902

Monday, August 18^th: Before Messrs. J. Banks, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Herbert John Jeffrey, and Annie Jeffrey, his wife, were charged with stealing one mattress, two blankets, one sheet, two metal teapots, and one pair of boots, the property of some person or persons unknown.

Detective Sergeant A.W. Burniston said: About 10 p.m. last evening, accompanied by P.C. Sharp, I went to the Bricklayers Arms, in Fenchurch Street. I was directed to a bedroom which was in the occupation of the two prisoners, who were then in bed. I informed the male prisoner that I was a police officer, and that I wished to ask him a few questions about a pair of boots which that morning he had sold in the kitchen. At the same time I observed a sack of horsehair standing at the side of the prisoner`s bed. On looking under the bed I found two more sacks filled with horsehair. In another sack, which was in the room, I found two blankets, one sheet, and miscellaneous articles of clothing. Beside the sack was some pewter, which had formed part of two metal teapots. I then asked the male prisoner where he got the horsehair from, and he replied that he had bought the mattress from a lady in the West End of the town for 1s. 6d. I questioned him as to where the house was situated, and he told me that he was a stranger to the town. I told him that I was not satisfied with his statement, and he replied “Just to prove to you that I have bought the mattress, I will take you to the west end of town and show you where I bought it”. Later I took him to the West End, and we walked about until two o`clock this morning looking for the house. Prisoner then said “I cannot find the house, and I do not know who the person was”. I then said to prisoner “I shall charge you with stealing the mattress”. I cautioned him, and he replied “I did not steal it; I bought it”. Subsequently I returned with the male prisoner to the Bricklayers Arms, and told him and the female prisoner that I should charge them with stealing the articles mentioned in the charge. The male prisoner then said “I broke into a house in the West End and stole the mattress, two blankets, two teapots, and one pair of boots. My wife does not know anything about it”. The female prisoner then said “My husband brought the things home, but he did not tell me where he got them from”. I then went and examined a house in Trinity Gardens, and found that the area door had been broken open, and in the chimney I found the pair of boots (produced).

The prisoner: I never said that I had broken into the house. I said that I had found the back door open.

Sergeant Burniston: Prisoner said he had broken into the house. He did nor say that he had found the back door open.

Isabella Susannah Carden, a woman employed as a servant at the Bricklayers Arms, said the accused came to the house about four days previous to the arrest. On Saturday evening, between eight and nine o`clock, she was in the pantry, when she saw the male prisoner carrying something, and upon asking him what he had there, received the reply that it was a mattress he had got for someone.

On the application of the Chief Constable the prisoners were remanded until Monday.

Folkestone Express 23-8-1902

Monday, August 18^th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, G.I. Swoffer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Herbert John Jeffrey and Annie Jeffrey were charged with larceny.

Det. Burniston said about 10 o`clock on Sunday night, accompanied by P.C. Sharp, he went to the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, where he saw the prisoners in bed. Witness told the male prisoner he was a police officer, and wanted to ask some questions about some boots he had sold in the kitchen. Witness saw a sack containing horsehair standing beside the bed. On looking under the bed he found two other sacks containing horsehair and a further sack contained two blankets, one sheet, and other clothing. There was also a bundle in the room which contained two broken metal teapots. When asked where he obtained the articles, prisoner replied “I bought the mattress in the West End. I gave 1s. 6d. for it”. When questioned as to the person, prisoner said “I am a stranger here”. When told that his statement was not satisfactory, prisoner replied “To prove that I bought it, I will take you to the west end and show you the house”. He then dressed himself, and they went to the west end. They walked about until two o`clock for the house. Prisoner said “I can`t find the house. I don`t know who the person was”. Witness then said he would charge him with stealing the mattress, and cautioned him. Witness brought him to the police station, and later on went to the Bricklayers Arms boarding and arrested the woman. They were charged at the police station with stealing a mattress, two blankets, one sheet, a pair of boots and two metal teapots, the property of some person unknown. The male prisoner said “I broke into a house in the West End and stole a mattress, one sheet, two blankets, two teapots and a pair of boots. My wife does not know anything about it”. The wife said “My husband brought the things home. He did not tell me where he got them”. Witness went to 3, Trinity Gardens, and found the area door had been forced open and the furniture of the room thrown about. The caretaker had since identified the articles at the police station as the property of his employer.

Isabella Carden, employed at the Bricklayers Arms, said the prisoner had been staying at the house about four days. On Saturday evening she was standing in the pantry and saw the male prisoner come in between 8 and 9 o`clock. He was carrying something large covered with a sheet. Witness asked him what he had, and he replied “A mattress I had to get for someone”. Prisoner then took it upstairs. The female prisoner came into the yard just behind her husband.

The Superintendent asked for a week`s remand, and it was granted by the Bench.

Folkestone Herald 23-8-1902

Monday, August 18^th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman Herbert, Mr. W. Wightwick, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

Herbert John Jeffrey and Annie Jeffrey were charged with larceny.

Detective Burniston gave evidence as to going to the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and seeing the prisoners in bed. There were sacks of horsehair in the room, and blankets, a sheet, etc., and a bundle containing two broken metal teapots. Prisoner said he bought the mattress at a house in the West End. Witness and prisoner went to the West End to see the house where it was bought, but prisoner said he could not find it. Prisoners were charged with stealing a mattress, two blankets, one sheet, a pair of boots, and two metal teapots. The male prisoner said he broke into a house, but his wife knew nothing about it. Witness went to 3, Trinity Gardens, and found the area door forced and the furniture thrown about. The caretaker had since identified the property.

Isabella Carden, of the Bricklayers Arms, gave evidence as to seeing the male prisoner come in with a large bundle covered with a sheet. The female prisoner entered afterwards.

Prisoners were remanded for a week on the application of the Superintendent.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1902

Monday, August 25^th: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. Wightwick, Herbert, Swoffer, and Salter, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Herbert John Jeffrey and Annie Jeffrey, his wife, were brought up on remand charged with stealing a quantity of horsehair (from a mattress), two metal teapots, two sheets, a blanket, and a pair of boots, the property of Miss Campbell, from an uninhabited house, No. 3, Trinity Gardens.

The evidence given on the previous Monday was read over, this proving the arrest of the prisoners at the Bricklayers Arms by Detective Sergeant Burniston, who found in their possession three sacks containing the stolen property.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for Miss Campbell, said that owing to a communication from the doctor at Canterbury relating to the female prisoner`s condition, he would ask that she be discharged.

In this course the Bench acquiesced.

Albert Carden was then called. He said he was at the Bricklayers Arms on Sunday week, when he saw the male prisoner, who asked him if he wanted to buy a pair of boots, and wanted 2s. for them. Witness said he had not got 2s., and gave prisoner 1s. 6d. and a silk handkerchief for the boots, which, later, he showed to Detective Sergeant Burniston. Witness had asked the prisoner whether he had stolen the boots.

Mr. Minter: Why did you do that?

Witness: You see, people do steal boots. (Laughter)

William James Pope, in the employ of Miss Campbell, proved locking up No. 3, Trinity Gardens on the night of the 18^th, and the next morning finding a door burst open and the mattress and other articles missing. He could not identify the teapots, but the marks (presumably dust marks) in the cupboard showed where they were taken from, and they were of the same material as the broken up parts now produced.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he was very sorry. He was out of work and took the things to provide for his wife`s coming illness.

The Chairman: One month`s hard labour. If the house had been occupied you would have been treated far differently.

Prisoner, with evident relief: Thank you, sir.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1902

Monday, August 25^th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Herbert John Jeffrey and Annie Jeffrey were brought up on remand charged with larceny.

The Superintendent said he had received a letter from the doctor of the gaol stating the woman`s condition.

Mr. Minter appeared for the owner of the property and did not wish to press the charge. He would therefore withdraw the charge against her.

The Bench granted this application.

Albert Carden said he was at the Bricklayers Arms about nine o`clock on Sunday morning when the prisoner asked him to buy a pair of boots. Witness asked him if they were stolen and he replied “No”.

Mr. Minter: What made you ask that? – Because people steal things and want to sell them.

Witness said prisoner asked him two shillings for them. Witness gave 1s. 6d. and a silk handkerchief for the boots. He afterwards showed the detective where they were.

William Charles Pope said on Friday, the 15^th inst., the premises, 3, Trinity Gardens were secure. On the 18^th inst., from something said to him, witness went to the house. The door had been burst open, the rooms were disturbed, and several things were missing.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 11-10-1902

Tuesday, October 7^th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. Carpenter.

Margaret Harrison was charged with having been drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Lawrence gave evidence, and stated that the previous evening he was in Fenchurch Street, near the Bricklayers Arms, and he saw the prisoner drunk and shouting. He requested her to go away and she refused. He then took her to the police station, and charged her with being drunk and disorderly. She replied “Now I have got a bed”.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and said she was very sorry.

The Chairman said to her that if she would promise to leave the town at once, they would discharge her.

Prisoner gave her word and was therefore discharged.

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.

The Bricklayers Arms

In opposing this house Inspector Lilley was called, and examined by the Chief Constable. He said that the class of people using the common lodging house were mainly composed of those who tramped from town to town. He had known the house 19 years, and very few genuine working men frequented it as lodgers. The class of lodgers who did use the house included thieves and bad characters. In his experience he had known people arrested on the premises, both for local charges and for other forces. Within a radius of 200 yards of the Bricklayers Arms he had counted 19 licensed houses. The back door was within seven paces of the George III in Fenchurch Street.

Mr. Hughes: Have you known tramps to stay at the house one single night?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Hughes: Can you swear to any one person or one particular night?

Witness: No, I am speaking from general experience.

Mr. Hughes: In your experience I suppose you have seen people arrested on other licensed premises?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Glyn, representing the brewer, said that his clients would follow any suggestion in relation to the common lodging house which the Bench might think well to make.

Inspector Pearson proved the house was registered as a common lodging house.

By Mr. Hughes: The conditions of the Sanitary Laws were duly observed.

A little girl of 12 was called, who seemed very nervous and frightened.

Mr. Hughes at once objected to her evidence.

The Chairman asked the child where she would go if she did not speak the truth, and the reply was “To prison”. Upon that the Chairman decided not to hear the evidence.

Fredk. Barton said he knew the Bricklayers Arms, and had taken betting slips and sometimes money to the house many times. He gave the papers to the landlord, the landlady, or the son.

Mr. Glyn objected. No notice of this class of evidence, he said, had been given. A betting case was for another Court to try. If the alleged betting had been adjudicated upon then the evidence could be given. As it was, it was simply general evidence, and not satisfactory.

The evidence, however, was allowed to proceed.

Barton said he tad taken the notes for some years, and on occasions had taken money back to the sender.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hughes, witness admitted that he was rather near-sighted; he, however, must have seen the notes, as he wrote out many of them himself. He had also taken cheques to be changed for the sender of the slips.

Mr. Hughes: I suggest to you that you were told, when you took the notes, cheques, or documents, that you were to take them to the private house on the other side of the road. You know there is a private house there?

Witness: I know that, but I was not told to go there.

Mr. Hughes: Now, did you not go to the public house because you could get a glass to drink? (Laughter)

Witness: No, sir; I`m a semi teetotaller. (Loud laughter)

What do you mean by that?

A counsel (sotto voce): He means that he has meals all day. (Laughter)

Mr. Glyn submitted that there had been no prosecution of any sort, and no evidence of betting on the premises which could be accepted. To accept such evidence as had been called would be unfair to owner and to tenant. Because a person carried papers from one person to another was not legal evidence of betting. In his experience he had never heard such grounds of objection put forward. There had been no prosecution; consequently no prima facie case existed. (Applause)

The Chairman: There is no evidence of betting.

Mr. Glyn: Then that only leaves the question of the common lodging house. We will undertake to do away with that, and we will guarantee proper accommodation for the public.

Mr. Hughes gave the same undertaking.

The Bench consulted for about two minutes, and the Chairman said on that understanding the licence would be renewed. (Applause)

Folkestone Express 7-3-1903

Wednesday, March 4^th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.

Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench, withdrawn.

The flowing counsel were engaged:-  Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for the two new licences.

The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would, by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.

The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable spirit decide what reduction should then be made.

Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered, was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair, for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.

The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear all the evidence.

The Bricklayers Arms

Inspector Lilley, in this case, said he had visited the house several times, and found very few genuine working men lodging there. Formerly the house was frequented by bad characters and thieves. He had arrested several persons on the premises himself, who had either been convicted at this police Court or were wanted elsewhere. He also stated the number of houses in the same locality and their distance from the Bricklayers Arms.

In answer to Mr. Hughes, he said the house was registered as a common lodging house. He could not say of his own knowledge that persons only stayed there for a single night. He had arrested people in other licensed houses in the town, and those licences were still in existence.

Mr. John Pearson proved that the house was registered as a common lodging house.

A little girl, aged 12, was called as a witness, but after testing her knowledge as to the nature of an oath, her answer to the question as to what would happen if she did not speak the truth being “I should go to prison”, the justices declined to have her sworn.

Fredk. Barton, who described himself as a Parish Clerk, of 29, Dover Street, said he had taken betting slips to the house for a Mr. Crisp, of Linden Villas, and taken money back to him. He knew the slips of paper had reference to horses, because he wrote them himself for Mr. Crisp.

Mr. Glyn said if anything turned on those written slips, they must be put in. He asked that the evidence be struck out, and further, if the evidence was accepted, that a note should be taken of his objection, as it was contrary to the rules of evidence.

Eventually the Bench decided not to accept the evidence.

Mr. Glyn said there was no other question except the old ground of not wanted. He could not tell them verbally what the trade was, but would hand it in to the Bench if they pleased. It was a large trade. They were prepared to do away with the common lodging house. They would provide separate bedrooms, and also make any required alteration in the matter of the bar and an opening to it from an adjoining room, and have a fence erected to close an objectionable entrance.

The Chairman said on those undertakings the licence would be granted.

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.

The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed, between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.

At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.

The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.

Mr. Glyn: I think it would be fairer to the “trade” to postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.

The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.

With regard to the Bricklayers Arms, the next case taken, Inspector Swift stated that during the last 19 years very few genuine working men had visited the house, a large percentage of the lodgers being bad characters. He had arrested several persons at the house himself, and had known many others who had been arrested on the premises, or known to be living there at the time of arrest, and who had been convicted at Folkestone or “wanted” by other forces. Within a radius of 208 paces there were 189 other licensed houses.

Mr. Wightwick: What do you mean by “bad characters”?

Inspector Swift: Well, when they get a few pence they get drunk, become a nuisance to the public, and have to be locked up.

Mr. Glyn protested against the evidence on the ground that they were not charged with improper conduct.

Inspector Pearson stated that the house was registered as a common lodging house, with accommodation for 22 persons.

In reply to Mr. Hughes, the Inspector stated that the bye-laws relating to common lodging houses were satisfactorily carried out in the house.

A little girl, 12 years of age, was called as a witness by the police, but the Justices, after a protest had been raised by Mr. Glyn, declined to accept her evidence.

Frederick Barton, an old man, said he knew the Bricklayers Arms, and had taken slips of paper relating to betting to the house on behalf of another man, and the slips were received by the landlord, his wife, and son.

Asked the reason why he knew the slips had a relation to betting, witness replied “Because I have written the slips myself, and so know what is on them.

Mr. Glyn at this point objected to this evidence being entertained, and asked the Bench to take note of the objection, as the evidence was illegal. Mr. Hughes also objected on behalf of the tenant. Considering that that was not a Court, but simply to discuss the question of licences, such evidence was not admissible.

The Chairman said they would take note of the objection.

Continuing, witness said he had aken money back to the house.

Answering Mr. Hughes, he said he knew applicant had a house on the opposite side of the road.

Mr. Hughes: I suggest you were told to take it to that house, and that is where you had taken it on several occasions.

Witness: that is the first time I have heard such a thing mentioned.

If you are told to take a cheque, document, or note of any sort to Mr. Whiting would it not be proper for you to take it to his private house? Were not those your instructions?

Witness: No.

Was it because you wanted a glass of ale at the same time? – No. I am a semi teetotaller. (Laughter)

What is a semi teetotaller? – One who does not take drink between meals. (Renewed laughter)

Witness was being further questioned by the Chief Constable regarding slips of paper, when Mr. Glyn gain raised an objection to the evidence being received. No warning had been issued, or any prosecution brought against them for betting, and at the last moment it was suggested that betting was allowed on the premises. If betting was allowed, why not prosecute? How could they say, upon the statement of the last witness, that betting was allowed? They could not convict a man for betting unless there was proper evidence. Personally – and he had had a good deal of experience in licensing – he had never heard such grounds of objection, where there had been no prosecution of any kind whatever, and yet a suggestion of this sort was allowed.

The Justices having decided not to admit any further evidence on that point, Mr. Glyn observed that, as in the other case, they would do away with the common lodging house, and provide proper accommodation for the public, and as to the question of one bed in each room, he thought there would be no difficulty about that.

After a brief consultation with his colleagues, Mr. Wightwick said that, subject to such undertaking being given, the licence would be granted. 

Folkestone Express 11-4-1903

Wednesday, April 8^th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Mr. Mowll, of Dover, made an application on behalf of the owners of the Bricklayers Arms for the approval of plans. He said at the annual licensing sessions they undertook to do away with the lodging house. To do that necessitated certain alterations to the ground floor of the premises. They proposed to shut off communication with the back portion of the premises, and so do away with the lodging house.

The Magistrates approved the plans.

Folkestone Herald 11-4-1903

Wednesday, April 8^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, G.I. Swoffer, and E.T. Ward.

Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover, applied on behalf of the owner of the Bricklayers Arms for the sanction of the Bench to certain alterations to be executed on licensed premises. At the Annual Licensing Sessions, he said, they undertook to do away with the lodging house altogether, which necessitated alterations in the ground floor plan of the premises. They now proposed to shut off all communication whatever with the back premises, and also to do away with the lodging house.

Sanctioned.