Folkestone Herald
8-12-1900
Monday, December 3rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman
Pledge, Councillor Carpenter, and Messrs. Hoad, Ward, Vaughan, and Stainer.
Edward Holbrook, fisherman, was brought up on a charge of
having been drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on Saturday night.
P.C. Sales said on Saturday night he was called to eject
prisoner from the Railway Inn. He ejected him, and he then started using bad
language in the street, challenging witness to lock him up.
Fined 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.
Folkestone Chronicle
25-5-1901
Saturday, May 18th: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold,
Messrs. Peden, Pledge, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.
George Barton was charged with being drunk on licensed
premises on the 14th inst.
Inspector Swift said that at 10.15 p.m. he was called to the
Railway Inn, Beach Street, where defendant was having an altercation with the
landlord. He was drunk. Witness requested him to leave, which he did.
Fined 1s. and 9s. costs, allowed seven days to pay.
Folkestone Express
25-5-1901
Saturday, May 18th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman
J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, W. Wightwick, and Geo. Peden
Esqs.
George Barton, of 38, Walton Road, was summoned for being
drunk on licensed premises, to which he pleaded Guilty.
Insp. Swift stated that about 10.30 p.m. on the 11th
inst., he was called to the Railway Inn, where he saw the defendant drunk and
altercating with the landlord. Witness asked him to leave, and ultimately he
did so.
The defendant was fined 1s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14
days` imprisonment.
Folkestone Chronicle
4-7-1903
Monday, June 29th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick,
Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.
James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly on
Saturday evening.
P.C. Lemar said that at 7.20 p.m. he saw the prisoner drunk
and with his coat off outside the Wonder public house, from which he had been
ejected. Witness requested him to go away quickly. Instead of that, he went to
the Railway Inn, and was ejected from there. He then returned to the Wonder,
and challenged the people to come out and fight. With the assistance of P.C.
Sharpe witness conveyed prisoner to the police station.
Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs (leviable by distress), or seven
days`.
Inspector Lilley: Haven`t you got any goods?
Prisoner: No, and I don`t want any.
Folkestone Express
4-7-1903
Monday, June 29th: Before Lieut Col. Hamilton, W.
Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
P.C. Lemar stated that he was in Beach Street at 7.30 on the
27th inst., where he saw prisoner in a drunken condition outside the
Wonder public house. He then went to the Railway Inn, but was ejected, and
returned to the Wonder public house and wanted to fight. With the assistance of
P.C. Ashby prisoner was conveyed to the police station.
Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. ciosts; in default seven days`
imprisonment.
Folkestone
Daily News 28-3-1906
Wednesday, March 28th: Before The Mayor,
Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.
Victor Whitworth Uniacke was charged with being drunk
and incapable in Beach Street the previous evening.
P.C. Ashby stated that he was on duty in Beach Street
the previous evening about 6.45 when he saw the accused. He was drunk, and
reeled from Beach Street to Harbour Street. He went into the Railway Inn, but
he was refused to be served. Witness advised him to go home, but he did not
take the advice, and as he was incapapable of taking charge of himself, he was
conveyed to the police station and charged.
Prisoner, a well dressed young man, admitted that he
was drunk, but denied that he was unable to take care of himself. He said he
had been in ill health, and a little drink overcame him. He much regretted his
conduct.
He was fined 2s. 6d. with 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`
hard labour.
As the only assets accused appeared, by his statement,
to possess were a portmanteau and an umbrella, he was taken below.
Folkestone
Daily News 16-1-1907
Wednesday, January 16th: Before Messrs.
Ward, Spurgen, Vaughan, and Fynmore.
The temporary transfer of the licence of the Railway
Tavern (sic), an old Folkestone house, formerly known as The Dolphin, which has
been in the occupation of the Hart family for many years, was granted to Mr.
William Hopkins, one of the oldest Hackney carriage drivers in Folkestone.
Folkestone
Express 19-1-1907
Wednesday, January 16th: Before E.T. Ward
Esq., Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and G. Spurgen Esq.
The licence of the Railway Inn was temporarily
transferred from Arthur James Hart to William Hopkins.
The following licence was transferred: The Railway Inn, from Arthur James Hart to William Hopkins.
The licence of the Railway Inn, Beach Street was transferred from Arthur James Hart to Wm. Hopkins
Folkestone
Herald 19-1-1907
Wednesday, January 16th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Alderman G. Spurgen, and Mr. R.J. Fynmore.
An application was made for the temporary transfer of
the licence of the Railway Inn from Mr. Arthur Hart to Mr. William Hopkins, and
this was granted.
Folkestone
Express 26-1-1907
Wednesday, January 23rd: Before E.T. Ward
Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, Major Leggett, and W.C. Carpenter,
W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames Esqs.
The following licence was transferred: The Railway Inn, from Arthur James Hart to William Hopkins.
Folkestone
Herald 26-1-1907
Wednesday, January 23rd: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Colonel Hamilton, and
Messrs. T. Ames, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore.
The licence of the Railway Inn, Beach Street was transferred from Arthur James Hart to Wm. Hopkins
Folkestone
Daily News 5-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Tuesday, February 5th: Before Messrs. Ward,
Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr.
Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats
on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.
The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of
houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that
the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of
the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions.
He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any
licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during
the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing
betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that
these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this
public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such
offences.
The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the
Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in
various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some
instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines
was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were
illegal. Every licence hiolder must understand that they were to be immediately
removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the
automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them
on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance
to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be
removed.
The renewal licences for the Black Bull Hotel, the
Railway Inn, the Chequers, Queen`s Head, Channel Inn, Alexandra Tavern,
Perseverance, and Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, were adjourned till the 4th March, some on
account of convictions, and some for the consideration of closing them under
the Licensing Act. The other applications were granted, a full report of which
will appear in our next issue.
Folkestone
Express 9-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward
Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut.
Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
The Chief Constable read his report as follows:
Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, 6th
February, 1907.
Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are
at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail
of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6;
beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total
128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to
every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a
reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year,
as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual
licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one
full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been
ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation
Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were
subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of
compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since
the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred,
viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the
year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale
of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and
thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence
holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During
the year ended 31st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25
females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17
discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less
than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164
were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been
proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences:
Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a
child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1;
total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been
given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are
registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for
music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to
the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the
houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory
manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the
evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and
money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I
desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such
practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their
premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute
the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on”
licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan,
and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the
powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the
licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the
Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of
4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion
of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to
every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider
excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices
from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the
following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets
off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief
Constable.
The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly
satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the
number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report
he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in
public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic
machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally
they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided
to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched,
and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken
against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year.
There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical
instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all
licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other
instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.
The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not
required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the
Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the
Perseverance, Dover Street.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Folkestone
Herald 9-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor
W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey
The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for
details see Folkestone Express report).
The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory,
and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of
drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like
to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every
house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny,
pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny
back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as
illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must
be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and
their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the
same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to
the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful,
and not create nuisances with these machines.
The licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen`s
Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street,
and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition
being given on the ground of redundancy.
Folkestone
Daily News 4-3-1907
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 4th: Before Messrs. Ward,
Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.
There were seven licences to be considered: The Black
Bull, Railway Tavern (sic), Railway Hotel, Perseverance, Chequers, Channel Inn,
and Queen`s Head.
The Railway Inn
Mr. Hills, of Margate, appeared for the tenant, Mr.
Hopkins, and Mr. Minter for the owners, Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury.
The Chief Constable said he opposed on similar grounds
to the Channel Inn, viz., that the house was not required. The present tenant
obtained the licence on January 23rd of this year. The rateable
value of the house was £20. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 15 other
public houses. The house was the lowest rated house in Beach Street, and was
much inferior to any of the other houses in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Hill: Do I understand you personally reported to
the Bench that this house was unnecessary? – Yes.
You took the initiative? – No, sir.
Did you accompany the Sub-Committee? – Yes.
Did you raise any objection? – No.
Why do you today? – By order of the Committee.
Is this the first time that you have objected to this
house? – Oh, dear, no.
How long ago? – Eight years ago.
Has this house been included in the list before? – I
could not say.
Do I understand that you had already closed eight
houses in this area? – Yes, under the Compensation Act.
If it was in your mind at that time, don`t you think it
would have been right to tell Mr. Hopkins when he invested his money in the
house? – I intimated to him that the Bench were closing houses in that area,
but I could not tell him his house would be one of those selected.
What does his trade consist of? – I believe he supplies
the cabmen principally.
Do you know this licence has been in existence for over
100 years? – I do not.
Have you had any complaint against this house? – I do
not remember one single complaint.
Do you know the tenant has been in the employ of
Messrs. Ramell? – Yes.
And that he was for 20 years in the employ of the
proprietor of the Pavilion Shades? – I shouldn`t be surprised.
Have you considered the abnormal population in the
summer? – I have.
Don`t you think this house would do a very good trade
in the summer? – I do not.
Don`t you think this house very convenient for the
class of men it supplies? – Yes.
Do you think these men would go to the Royal George to
get what they need? – Yes, there is ample provision for them there.
Don`t you think this house is absolutely necessary for
the supplying of refreshments to this particular class of men? – No, sir,
decidedly.
Don`t you think if the necessary alterations, to which
you have referred, were carried out, it would still be a hardship on the
tenant? – I do not.
If I prove that this house is doing an excellent trade,
isn`t that sufficient cause for the existence of such a house? – No, sir.
If the plans put in are carried out and approved of, do
you think it right to do away with this old house in preference to a modern
one?
The Chief Constable said if this house is reconstructed
he should say take some other house that was less suitable for public
convenience. He did not know what trade was done at the house.
Mr. Minter: Why haven`t you an idea as to the trade
done at this house? You had in the case of the Channel Inn. – No, sir, I have
an idea that the men who go there can drink a lot.
Mr. Minter: That`s because it`s good liquor.
Inspector Burniston corroborated the Chief Constable,
and said in his opinion the landlord could get a living there.
Mr. Hills dealt with the age of the house, character of
the tenant, and the fact that he had not been sufficiently warned before
investing his savings by going into the house. He asked the Bench to put
themselves in his position. He had so improved the trade that he was drawing
nearly a barrel a day, which would be increased 30 or 40 percent during the
summer. The trade was for particular persons employed at the Harbour.
W. Hopkin, the tenant, bore out the statement made by
Mr. Hills. He admitted that the Chief Constable told him that they were closing
some houses in that neighbourhood, but did not say that his house would be
interfered with.
Mr. Moxon, manager to Ash and Co., deposed that the
average trade was:- 1900, £401; 1901, £350; 1902, £222; 1903, £244; 1904, 202;
1905 £197. The reason why it fell off was on account of the licence being
transferred from Mr. Hart to his son, who was not so well fitted for a licence
holder. (Note: Figures relate to barrelage, not
takings, as reported)
Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he did not
want the house reported. There was no evidence of redundancy because the house
in question was doing a very satisfactory trade. If a gin palace with glaring
windows with all attractions was drawing trade, it could not be compared with
an unassuming house that did not unduly attract customers. They should not
remove an old landmark. The house had been doing a good trade for 100 years,
and even the teetotaller should support this house rather than the gin palace
and all its attractions. Ash`s ales were a household word. They supplied good
stuff, and had had already five licences taken away. He appealed to the Bench
not to remove an old landmark, and if they granted the licence he should
immediately ask them to pass the plans for remodelling the house.
The Bench decided to refer it.
Folkestone
Express 9-3-1907
The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at
the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or
not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee
for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq.,
Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J.
Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major
Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.
The Railway Inn, Beach Street, was the next licence to
be considered.
Mr. Walter Hills (Margate) represented Mr. William
Hopkins, the tenant, and Mr. Minter appeared for the owners.
The Chief Constable put in the plan and figures of the
congested area, and also the notice of objection to the licence on the ground
that it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. Continuing, he
said the house was situate in Beach Street and the licensee was William
Hopkins, who obtained the transfer of it on January 23rd last. The
registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury, and the rateable value
of the house was £20. The house was next door to the Alexandra Hotel, and
within a few doors of the Royal George Hotel. In Beach Street there were 24
houses altogether, six of them on-licensed houses, two beer and four full. That
was a fully licensed house. The premises were old and very low pitched. There
was only one entrance to the house, and that was from Beach Street, which
opened into a small front bar, and from that small bar was an inner room called
the bar parlour. He believed there was no outer window looking into that bar
parlour, and the only light obtained was from the front bar. That bar was only
about 6 ft. 6 in. or seven feet high at the most. Within a radius of 100 yards
there were 15 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there
were altogether 27 other houses with on licences. At the back of the house
there was an entrance by a passageway from Harbour Street. A window from the
kitchen opened into the yard of the adjoining house. The rateable value of the
house was £20, and was the lowest of any of the licensed houses in the street.
The premises and the accommodation for the public were inferior to any of the
other licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood. He considered the licence
was unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Hills congratulated the Chief Constable upon his
notice of opposition. He said it was the most concise of any he had seen
throughout the whole of East Kent.
In cross-examination by Mr. Hills, Mr. Reeve said when
he first came to Folkestone eight years ago he considered the licence was not
necessary. They had already closed ten houses in that neighbourhood within two
years. When the licence was transferred to Hopkins he told him that the
Magistrates had come to the conclusion that certain licensed houses in that
neighbourhood should be closed, and although he did not know, probably his
house would be one of them. Since Mr. Hopkins had gone into the house, he
believed the chief trade was from the cab drivers on the stand close by. The
tenant was a most respectable man. He should say that the house was not likely
to do a considerable trade during the summer season. There would be ample
accommodation elsewhere for the men who used that house. It was true that plans
for extensive alterations to the house had been put before the Bench, but they
remained in abeyance until after that opposition was dealt with. Although that
may be the oldest house, the others were better adapted for the trade.
In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he would not call
the trade done by the house an excellent trade, but a fair trade for such a
small house.
Det. Sergt. Burniston gave evidence of frequently
visiting the house, and stated that in his opinion it was inferior to any of
the other houses in the street, and was not necessary for the requirements of
the neighbourhood.
Mr. Hills, in appealing to the Justices to renew the
licence, commented upon the hardship it would be to Mr. Hopkins if it was
refused.
William Hopkins, the tenant, said he was, previous to
taking the house, in the employment of Messrs. Ramell for eight years, and
previous to that for a period of twenty years in the employ of Mr. Peden, of
the Pavilion Shades. He invested £145 in the house when he took it over. When
he took it over the only reference he had from the Chief Constable was that
they were closing some of the houses down there. There was no suggestion to him
that his house would be reported. From January 17th up to February
26th he had sold 35½ barrels of beer, twelve bottled beer. He
considered he would do a great deal better in the summer. The men who used his
house were cab drivers, the men working on the colliers, and the fishermen. He
was getting a good living from the house, and was well satisfied with it.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he paid
£19 a year rent. He would get about 50 customers in his front bar. He did not
think if his licence was not renewed that the other houses in the neighbourhood
would be able to meet the class of trade
at his house. He thought all the licences in that part were necessary.
Messrs. Ash and Company`s manager then gave evidence as
to the amount of beer they supplied to the house, which was perfectly free for
spirits and wines. He wished to hand in a statement of the figures, but the
Chairman said the Justices thought they should have the figures before them.
The witness then gave the figures, which were as
follows:- In 1900, 400 barrels; 1901, 352; 1902, 222; 1903, 227; 1904, 244;
1905, 202; 1906, 197. The reason he gave for the trade falling off was that the
late tenant, who was the son of the former tenant, was not a suitable tenant or
a suitable man to be a publican.
Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said the house was
100 years old. According to the Chief Constable, the house ought to be done
away with because it did not try to draw people to take their liquor by
extraneous aids. If they remove that house, they would remove a very ancient
landmark. There was not room in that house for the Chief Constable to breathe
because it was too low-pitched for him. They had anticipated that by placing
plans before the Justices to enlarge the rooms in order to give him an
opportunity of breathing when he made his inspection. They had done a good
trade at the house, and it seemed hard that because some neighbours had built
up palatial mansions by the side of them that the licence should be done away
with. Rather the teetotallers should support them in their application and do
away with their neighbours, who were trying to attract people into drink. They
really did good to the neighbourhood. The Justices had certainly been very hard
on the owners of that house, for they had taken away no less than five of their
licences already.
After retirement by the Justices, the Chairman
announced that they had decided to refer the licence to the County Licensing
Committee.
Folkestone
Herald 9-3-1907
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and
G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.
The Railway Inn
The next case was that of the Railway Inn, Beach
Street. Mr. Hills appeared for the tenant (Mr. Wm. Hopkins), and Mr. Minter for
the owners.
The Chief Constable handed in the plan submitted in the
last case, and said the licence was objected to on the ground that it was not
required for the wants of the neighbourhood. The tenant obtained the transfer
in January of this year. The owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The
rateable value of the house was £20. Within a few doors was the Royal George.
In Beach Street there were 24 houses altogether, and 6 of them were on licensed
public houses, two being beerhouses, and four fully licensed houses. This was a
fully licensed house. A plan of the premises was put in. The premises were old
and very low-pitched. There was only one entrance from the street, which opened
into a small bar. Through that there was an inner room called the bar parlour.
There was an outer window looking into the inner parlour, and the only light
obtained was from the front bar. This bar was only about 6 ft. 6 in. or 7 ft.
high. Within a radius of 100 yards of
the house there were 15 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200
yards there were altogether 27 other on licensed houses. There was at the back
of the house an entrance from Harbour Street. There was also a window in the
landlord`s kitchen, which opened into the private garden of the adjoining
house. This was the lowest rated licensed house in that street. The premises
and the accommodation for the public were inferior to any of the other licensed
houses in that immediate neighbourhood. Witness considered the licence
nnecessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hill: The house was included in a
list that he reported on five years ago, but the Compensation Act was not then
in force. He believed that the case had been mentioned since, but the Licensing
Committee thought that others should go before it. When the tenant received the
licence witness told him that his house might be one of those selected this
year for opposition. He had no authority to tell the landlord that it would be
opposed. He believed that since the new tenant had been there the major part of
his business was with cab-drivers, colliers, and fishermen. He should not be
surprised if the licence had been in force for 100 years or more. He did not
know that it was in the hands of the Dunn family for 50 years, and the Hart
family for 35 years. Witness did not remember a single complaint against the
house. The tenant was a most respectable man, and had been in the employ of
Messrs. Ramell. From the tenant`s point of view, he would not say it was a
great hardship to lose his licence.
The Chairman: I think that is a matter for the
Committee.
Witness, further cross-examined, did think that the
abnormal population of the town would affect that house in the summer months.
Thehouse was very convenient to those unloading the colliers. He thought the
landlord of the Royal George would be very glad if the class of men using the
Railway Inn could not use that inn, and were to use his house. There was ample
accommodation for these men there. It was a fact that improvements were
contemplated in the house, but the consideration of the plans was left in
abeyance pending this enquiry. If the Bench saw fit to insist upon the
accommodation being equal to that in the adjoining houses he saw no reason for
opposing on the score of the adaptability of the house.
The Chairman: The house is objected to on the grounds
of redundancy.
In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he had reason to
believe that the people who went to the house could drink a lot.
Mr. Minter: No doubt, for they get such excellent
liquor.
Mr. Reeve had no idea of the amount consumed, but he
had reason to think that there was a fair trade for a small house.
Detective Burniston corroborated, and gave as his
opinion that the Railway Inn was inferior to any house in the street. He
considered the licence unnecessary.
Mr. Hills, having addressed the Bench, called Mr.
William Hopkins, who said that previously he was for 20 years at the Pavilion
Shades. He saved £200, and paid for the valuation of the house £145. From the
17th January to the 26th February he disposed of 35¼
barrels of beer and 12 dozen bottled beer. He knew when he went into the house
that a great deal of summer trade could be done. His customers consisted of
cab-drivers, fishermen, and seafaring men. He was perfectly satisfied with what
he was doing at this time of the year.
Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve: He paid £19 a year. There
was one front and one back door. He was firmly of opinion that it was necessary
to have sixteen houses within 100yards of his house.
The Chief Constable: Do you know why the late tenant left?
Witness: Bad trade.
Mr. Charles Moxam, manager to the owners, gave
particulars of the business done in the house. In 1900, 401 barrels were
consumed; 1901, 352 barrels; 1902, 222 barrels; 1903, 227 barrels; 1904, 244
barrels; 1905, 202 barrels; and 1906, 197 barrels. The reason that the business
fell off after 1901 was that the then tenant was not altogether a suitable man
for a publican, he having merely taken over the house at his father`s request.
The present tenant had done 35¼ barrels, and he was of opinion that the figures
of 1900 could be equalled.
Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of the owners.
If a house did a good trade it could not be said to be redundant. He pointed
out that the refusal of the renewal would mean the removal of an old landmark.
He though he could claim that the teetotallers should support him, because his
clients did not go to the extent of advertising their establishment as a
flaming gin palace. It was not fair that the house should be done away with
simply because two houses had been erected on either side of the Railway Inn.
Noless than five of these owners` houses had been taken away.
The Bench announced that they would refer the case to
the East Kent Committee.
Folkestone
Daily News 12-7-1907
Local News
Our readers will remember that at the recent Folkestone
Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer the licences of the Channel
Inn, High Street, the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach
Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, to the County Licensing Authority.
At a meeting of this body on Thursday the question came up for consideration,
and eventually it was decided to withdraw the licences of the Channel Inn, the
Perseverance, and the Queen`s Head. The licence of the Railway Inn was renewed.
Compensation will, of course, be granted to the owners and tenants of the
closed houses.
Folkestone
Express 13-7-1907
Local News
At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices
decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to
the houses being closed and compensation given.
The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided
to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head,
Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of
the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the
others will be compensated.
Local News
Wednesday, October 9th: Before The Mayor,
Major Leggatt, E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and G. Boyd Esqs.
Folkestone
Herald 13-7-1907
Lord Harris presided at the principal meeting of the
East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Thursday.
The Committee had referred to them twenty four houses,
including four from Folkestone, viz., the Channel, High Street; the Railway
Inn, Beach Street; the Perseverance, Dover Street; and the Queen`s Head, Beach
Street.
The Railway Inn
Mr. Matthew appeared for the Justices, Mr. Bodkin for
the brewers (Messrs. Ash and Co.), and Mr. H. Morris for the tenant (Mr.
William Hopkins).
Mr. Reeve stated that of the twenty four houses in
Beach Street, six were licensed premises. This house was the lowest rateable
value of the six, and within 100 yards of it there were 15 other licensed
houses, while within 200 yards there were 27. The tenant had held the licence
since January, and before he took it witness told him to hesitate, as the
Justices had a tendency to close houses in the congested area. The tenant was
formerly a cab driver.
In reply to Mr. Bodkin, witness said he had nothing to
say against the conduct of the house at all. He was aware that five others of
Ash and Co.`s houses in this district had gone.
In reply to Mr. Morris, witness said he believed the
Dunn and Hart families had held the house for a great many years.
Mr. Bodkin said it would be a particular hardship to
Messrs. Ash and Co. if they were made to lose this house in addition to the
five they had already had to surrender. He also commented upon the apparent
action of the Justices in choosing houses for reference, saying that they
seemed to think that because a licensed house was a small one of no great appearance
it ought to go. A strict enquiry into all the circumstances would show these
houses to be even more useful to the community than some of the large ones
allowed to remain.
Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, gave evidence as to
proposed alterations to improve the pitch and tone of the house, involving an
expenditure of between £500 and £600.
Mr. P. Brothers, Secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said
the premises were freehold property, and had been in their hands about forty
years. The trade had greatly improved during the present tenancy. His firm were
quite prepared to spend the sum Mr. Bromley had mentioned on improvements.
In reply to Mr. Matthews, witness said the firm had
other houses in Folkestone, but not in the immediate neighbourhood.
The tenant stated that he was a cab driver for 29
years, and saved £200, which he had invested in the house. He paid £140
valuation. He handed in a memorial signed by 250 persons in favour of the
retention of the licence.
The Decision
The Committee decided to renew the Railway Inn, but to
refuse those of the Channel, Perseverance, and Queen`s Head.
Folkestone
Express 12-10-1907
Mr. De Wet, on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., brewers,
produced plans of alterations to the Railway Inn, Beach Street, and made an
application to the Magistrates for their consent to their being carried out. He
said no doubt the Magistrates would remember the renewal of that licence was
referred back to the adjourned licensing sessions, when a report against the
renewal of the licence was made on the ground that it was not wanted and on
several other points. The Chief Constable, in his report, then stated, first,
that there was only one entrance; secondly, that the bars were very low
pitched, being from six to seven feet; thirdly, that it was very poorly
lighted. He also said that the premises provided the worst accommodation of any
of the premises in the area. They would see from the plans put before them that
Messrs. Ash and Co. had done their very best to satisfy the exact suggestions
of the Chief Constable. The case was referred to the Compensation Authority,
and the evidence of the Chief Constable was again gone into. After due
consideration, that authority agreed to grant the renewal of the licence.
Messrs. Ash and Co. felt that they had won the day, yet they ought to fall in
with the proper suggestions to a certain extent of the Superintendent. There
were one or two points he asked them to consider in connection with the plans.
First, they provided for two entrances. Then, with regard to the pitch, the old
premises were 6 ft. 9 in., but it was proposed to make the pitch of the bars 9
ft. There would also be ample accommodation in the public and private bars and
bar parlour. They would also see that it was proposed thare should be an
apartment for bottles and jugs. The ventilation would also be greatly improved,
and there would be an extra bedroom. The application was for consent to certain
alterations wherby increased facilities might be given for trade.
Mr. A. Bromley, in explaining the plans to the
Magistrates, said a small cottage next to the house was proposed to be taken,
in order that the inn could be altered in accordance with the new plans.
Mr. Ward said the Bench considered that the plans were
practically for new premises, for which a fresh licence would have to be
applied for.
Mr. De Wet said the area of the premises would be about
doubled, but the drinking facilities would not be doubled. The same thing was
allowed to the Eagle Inn.
The Magistrates, however, refused to allow the plans.
Folkestone
Herald 12-10-1907
Wednesday, October 9th: Before The Mayor,
Major Leggett, Councillor G. Boyd, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and J.
Stainer.
Mr. De Wet, on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., made an
application in respect of the Railway Inn. He said the Bench would remember
that at the general annual licensing sessions the renewal of the licence was
referred back to the adjourned sessions. Then a report was made against the
renewal of the licence of the house on the ground that it was not wanted, and
also on several other points which he would enumerate. The Chief Constable had
stated that there was only one entrance to the premises, that the bars were
very low-pitched, being from 6 ft. to 7 ft., and that a certain parlour,
sometimes called a tap room, was very badly lighted, the light only coming from
the small front bar; also that these premises were the worst for accommodation
of any of the houses in that neighbourhood. From the plans put forward it would
be seen that Messrs. Ash and Co. had done their very best to satisfy the exacting
requirements or suggestions of the Chief Constable. The case of the Railway Inn
had been referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee, and the question was
gone into. After due consideration that authority agreed to renew the licence.
Messrs. Ash and Co., although they had won the day at Canterbury, felt that
they should fall in with the suggestions of the Chief Constable. He therefore
submitted to the Bench and explained the plans, which Messrs. Ash asked them to
approve.
Mr. A. Bromley, architect, also explained the plans to
the Bench. He said that provision was made for two entrances.
The Bench, after scrutinising the plans, considered
that when the alterations proposed were made, they would not be old premises at
all, but would be new ones, for which a fresh licence would be required. The
area of the premises would be quite double that of the present.
Mr. De Wet argued that the Bench had adopted proposals
similar to that which he put before the Bench in the case of the Eagle Tavern.
Folkestone
Daily News 4-12-1907
Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Messrs. Herbert, Fynmore, Boyd, Carpenter, and Leggett.
Mr. De Wet made an application on behalf of the Railway
Inn. He said the business had been considerably improved since he last applied
to them. The revised plans showed that the owners had acquired the old cottage
adjoining in order to provide greater accommodation to the public, and also to
provide a second entrance for the convenience of the police. Extra light had
also been provided, which disposed of the objection of the house being badly
lighted. The bar was a nine foot one, and as far as the facilities for drinking
were concerned no extra facilities had been provided.
Mr. Bromley gave evidence as to the plans providing the
extra accommodation referred to by Mr. De Wet. He said in order to raise the
bar to nine foot it would be necessary to raise the roof.
In reply to the Chief Constable, Mr. Bromley said the
estimated cost would be about £400. There were two backs of other houses that
led to the back of the house.
The Chief Constable said he was still of opinion that
the house was unnecessary. It was situated in the congested area, and it was,
in his opinion, the most unsuitable house for the renewal of the licence.
The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on
their return the Chairman said they had come to the conclusion that they
thought the matter had better be adjourned till the next Sessions.
An application by Mr. Filmer, of the Guildhall Vaults,
to alter his billiard room so as to give him wider space, was granted.
Mr. Goldsmith, of the Packet Boat Inn, applied for
permission to remove a cottage that at present supplied the roof of the
taproom, and utilise the space for improving the house.
The matter was adjourned till the Annual Licensing
Sessions, the Magistrates, in the meantime, promising to go down and inspect
the premises.
Folkestone
Express 7-12-1907
Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward
Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G.
Boyd Esqs.
Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make in
respect of the Railway Inn. The plans had already been deposited. They would
remember on the last occasion he applied to them he laid elaborate plans before
them, which they refused on the ground that the alterations destroyed the
identity of the premises, and they stated a new application should be made. In
the present plan they had provided for the objections that were raised at the
annual transfer day, viz., only one entrance from the street, that the bars
were low pitched, that it was badly lighted and ventilated, and that the public
accommodation was bad. In teh revised plan they would see that the owners had
acquired an old cottage, next to the Railway Inn, and they proposed to
absolutely pull that down and to brick up that portion at the back where there
had been a right of way to the inhabitants of the cottage. They proposed to put
a wall there 6 ft. in height. They would see on the east side they were
providing a second door, which led into the public bar and also communicated
with the urinal. They would also see that in the serving place there was a
window that now looked out into its own yard. That window also provided ample
light for the private bar and further light for the public bar. It also
promised ventilation for both bars. In addition to those they complained that
the bars were low pitched. They now proposed to make the bar 9 ft. in height.
Originally it was 6 ft. 9 in. As far as facilities for drinking were concerned,
it was not giving persons greater facilities for drinking, but it gave the
police far better supervision. In making these alterations, the owners had had
to go to considerable expense, but they felt it was justified in order to meet
the requirements of the police.
Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, then went into the
witness box, and in his evidence bore out Mr. De Wet`s statement. He added if
the plans were passed the premises would be completely self-contained.
In answer to the Chairman, witness said with regard to
the bar, they would practically rebuild that part, having to heighten the roof.
By the Chief Constable: He estimated the cost of
alterations at about £400. He could not that say within a radius of 200 yards
there were 27 other licensed houses.
The Magistrates were about to retire to consider the
plans, when the Chief Constable said he should like to point out the house was
situated in the centre of a congested area. At the last annual licensing
sessions it was his opinion that the house was unnecessary, and that was his
opinion now. He thought it was the least suitable house in the whole
neighbourhood.
Mr. De Wet considered those remarks most unfair.
The Chairman, in giving the Magistrates` decision said
the annual licensing sessions were not very far off, and they thought the plans
had better be adjourned till then. If the licence was renewed, then they could
bring forward the plans.
Folkestone
Herald 7-12-1907
Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, Messrs. W.G.
Herbert and R.J. Linton.
An application was made for sanction to alterations at
the Railway Inn.
Mr. De Wet, who appeared for the applicant, said he had
provided for the principal objections that were raised at the annual Licensing
Sessions. They were that the building was badly ventilated, that the bars were
low, and that the place was badly lighted. The plans that the owners had
produced remedied all these defects.
Mr. A. Bromley, who was called as the architect, said
that he estimated the cost of the alterations at about £400.
The Chief Constable said that this building was
situated within the congested area. He thought this house was unnecessary, and
he hoped the Bench would consider that point.
The Bench deferred the matter to the next Licensing
Sessions.
Folkestone
Daily News 5-2-1908
Annual Licensing Sessions
The Annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday.
The Magistrates present were Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Linton, and
Leggett.
The Chief Constable read his annual report, which the
Chairman said was very gratifying and satisfactory.
The following licences were under consideration:
Railway Inn, Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern, Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and
Packet Boat.
The licences of the Bricklayers Arms, Eagle Tavern,
Packet Boat, and Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, were adjourned till March 2nd.
Folkestone
Express 8-2-1908
Annual Licensing Meeting
Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward,
W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
Superintendent`s Report
This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows:
Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction
129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.;
Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15;
grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an
average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons,
or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off”
licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had
been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider
and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were
granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March,
five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation
Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the
preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the
licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the
Queen`s Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance
beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen`s Head
and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of
December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation
has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore,
be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two
houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in
quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single
bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities
without a Magistrates` certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for
the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of
the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven
occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises
not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of
closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were
being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December
last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for
drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six
persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons
when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for
permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was
recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the
Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just
previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16
of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction
was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I
beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway
Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no
objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of
misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The
order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all
automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once
complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is
sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places
licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would
respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the
licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with
under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four
applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full
licence and three beer “off””.
The consideration of granting licences to the following
licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn,
Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High
Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge
Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.
Folkestone
Herald 8-2-1908
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 5th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.C. Carpenter,
Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.
The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) read his report.
(For which see Folkestone Express).
The Chairman said that it was a very satisfactory
report. The Bench were glad that there was a decrease in drunkenness in the
borough, and also that as a rule all the houses in the borough were well
conducted.
The various licensees then came forward for their
renewals.
The Magistrates formally gave notice that the granting
of the following licence would be deferred till the adjourned licensing
meeting, and that in the meantime notice of opposition would be served:-
The Railway Inn, Beach Street, Folkestone; lessee Mr.
Wm. Hopkins.
Folkestone
Daily News 2-3-1908
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 2nd: Before Messrs. Ward,
Carpenter, Herbert, Leggett, Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, and Stainer.
Railway Inn, Beach Street.
Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of the owners and tenant
(Mr. William Hopkins).
The Chief Constable said he opposed on the same grounds
as in the previous case, viz., that the house was not required in that area.
The present tenant had occupied the house since February, 1907, and the owners
were Messrs. Ash and Co., the rateable value being £20. There were 24 houses in
Beach Street, and 5 of them were on licensed houses. Within a radius of 150
yards there were 14 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 250 yards
there were 24 licensed houses. The house had been conducted in a very
satisfactory manner. For a small house there was a fair trade done there, but
in his opinion if the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation
in other houses.
Mr. Mercer said there had been no less than ten
applications made since January, 1907, and the chief objection seemed to have
been the construction of the house. The owners had tried to meet all
requirements in this respect. The licence came before the compensation
authority on July 11th, 1907, and the licence was allowed to be
held. The owners had spent over £600 on alterations, and he submitted that the
class of customers catered for at this house would not go to an hotel. The
trade was an enormous one, both in beer and spirits, and if compared with a
certain neighbouring house the Bench would find that his client was doing five
times as much trade as that house. They did 362 barrels of beer a year, and 132
gallons of spirits.
Mr. Hopkins, the landlord, in reply to the Chief
Constable, said he thought his house was required. His customers were chiefly
composed of cabdrivers and seafaring men.
The Chairman said they would take the other case before
giving their decision.
The Bench decided to refer the case.
Folkestone
Express 7-3-1908
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place
on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut.
Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J.
Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was
adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the
ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had
been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations
could be submitted to the Justices.
The Railway Inn
The next for consideration was the Railway Inn, in
Beach Street, the applicant for the licence being Mr. William Hopkins. Mr. R.M.
Mercer (Canterbury) appeared for the owners and the tenant.
The Chief Constable said the licence was objected to on
the ground that it was not required. He put in the figures of the congested
area given in the previous case. The house was situate in Beach Street and the
tenant was William Hopkins, who obtained the transfer of the licence on January
23rd last year. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co.,
Canterbury. The rateable value of the house was £20. Next door to the house was
the Alexandra Hotel, with a rateable value of £140, and 36 yards away was the
Royal George, with a rateable value of £56. There were 24 houses altogether in
Beach Street, and five were on licensed houses. The house was old, low pitched,
and had only one entrance from the street, which opened from the tap room.
Behind the tap room was a small bar parlour, which was very dark, as the only
light was obtained from the front bar. That was all the accommodation for the
public. There was also a back way from the house to Harbour Street, and which
led from the kitchen. There was a right of way down the passage for the
adjoining property owners, and the window in the living room or kitchen opened
into the yard of the adjoining house. The premises and accommodation were much
inferior to those in the neighbourhood. Within a radius of 100 yards there were
14 other on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 24
others. The house, in Mr. Hopkins` time, had been conducted in a very
satisfactory manner. The customers were men chiefly employed at the Harbour and
cab drivers from the stand opposite. For so small a house there appeared to him
to be a fair trade done there, and in his opinion there would be ample
accommodation in the remaining houses if the licence of that house were taken
away. Commencing at the Princess Royal there were seven houses practically all
in a row, finishing at the Royal George. He considered that number unnecessary
and excessive. The house was undoubtedly the smallest and the least suitable,
and, in his opinion, doing the least trade of the seven.
Cross-examined, he said there might have been ten
applications for permission to alter the premises since January 27th,
1907. The licence was renewed by the Compensation Authority last year. He did
not know that the owners purchased the adjoining property seven days after
that. He did not see why the Alexandra Hotel should not do more trade than the
Railway.
Mr. Mercer said he thought the Magistrates, when they
had heard what the trade of the house was, would say they (the owners) were
justified in offering some resistance to the opposition. Whether in those days
of doubt and difficulty it was worth trying to preserve a licence he was not in
a position to say. Perhaps they would be better able to say in three months`
time. While there was hope, however, they were struggling to keep what they had
got. He thought the Bench would admit that they had endeavoured to better those
premises. They had been put to the expense of obtaining plans and putting them
before the Bench ten times. Under those circumstances, he ventured to say, the
licence ought not to be taken away. It had the additional misfortune of being
referred to the Compensation Authority last year. It was suggested that if the
licence was taken away not only did they lose the licence and the value it was
to them, but the money which had been expended on the neighbouring property had
been entirely thrown away. It should not be suggested that the rateable value
affected the question of compensation. According to the Kennedy judgement, the
compensation was based practically entirely on the trade done. They were doing
an enormous trade. He was inclined to think, although he had no means of
judging, that if the Magistrates compared the trade that house was doing with
the neighbouring house they would find that house was doing five times the
amount done by the other.
William Hopkins, the tenant, said he had been in the
house since January 17th, 1907. He had taken out his trade for that
year until December 31st. The figures given on the paper handed in
was the amount of trade done.
The Chairman said they had always had the figures read
out.
Mr. Mercer said the business done amounted to 362
barrels of beer, including six barrels done in the bottled trade. They had also
sold 132 gallons of spirits.
Mr. Hopkins said he was satisfied with the amount of
trade he had done. He had had no trouble with the police. Practically at every
special sessions plans had been submitted for alterations to his house.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he
considered twenty five houses within 200 yards were not too many for the needs
of the neighbourhood. The passage leading to the back of the house also led to
a restaurant.
The Bench decided to hear the other case before they
gave their decision.
The Magistrates retired for a short time. On their
return into Court the Chairman announced that they had decided to refer both
the Railway Tavern and the Eagle Tavern to Canterbury.
Folkestone
Herald 7-3-1908
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Councillor G. Boyd, Col. Fynmore, Col. Hamilton,
Messrs, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer.
The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of
Folkestone were held at the Town Hall on Monday morning, when the licences of
three houses, the Railway Inn, Beach Street (Beer and Co.), the Eagle, High
Street (Style and Winch), and the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street (Ash and
Co.), were referred to the Compensation Authority for East Kent.
The Railway Inn
Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared for the owners and tenant, and
admitted all the formal evidence as given in the last case.
The Chief Constable stated that the objection to the
house was on the ground of redundancy. The house in question was in Beach
Street. A plan had been sent showing the present house, and alterations that
the owners were anxious to make. The owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., of
Canterbury. The tenant was Mr. Wm. Hopkins, and the rateable value of the house
was £20. Next door to the house was the Alexandra Hotel, the rateable value of
which was £140, and 36 yards away was the Royal George, with a rateable value
of £56. There were twenty four houses in Beach Street, and five of them were on
licensed premises. The house in question was old and low pitched, and there was
only one entrance from the street, which opened into the tap room. Behind the
tap room was a small bar parlour, which was very dark, as the only light was
obtained from the front bar. That was all the accommodation there was for the
public. There was also a back way to the house from Harbour Street, and that
led to the kitchen door. There was a right of way down the passage for the
adjoining property owners, and the window in the living room of the landlord
opened into the backyard of the adjoining house. The premises and accommodation
were much inferior to any other licensed house in that neighbourhood. Within a
radius of 100 yards there were 14 other on licensed houses, and ithin a radius
of 200 yards there were 24 other on licensed houses. The house in the present
tenant`s time had been conducted in a very satisfactory manner. The customers
were chiefly men employed at the Harbour and cabmen from the cab rank opposite.
For so small a house there appeared to be a fair trade done there, but in his
opinion if the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation in the
adjoining houses for the customers that used the house. Commencing at the
Princess Royal, there were practically seven licensed houses in a row. He
considered that number to be excessive and unnecessary. The Railway was
undoubtedly the smallest, least suitable, and, in his opinion, doing the least
trade of the seven.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The chief objection has
been as to structure. There had been ten applications to the Bench for
alterations. The licence had been renewed by the Compensation Authority. He did
not know that in consequence of the renewal by the Compensation Authority the
owners acquired the adjoining premises and submitted plans. There was no doubt
the owners had tried to improve the place. He did not think the trade could be
compared with the Alexandra. There had only been two applications for transfer
of the house for 38 years.
Mr. Mercer, addressing the Court, said he hoped by
showing the amount of trade and the desire to improve the premises to prove the
necessity of resisting the opposition. Whether in these days of doubt and
difficulty it was worthwhile preserving a licence at all he did not know. Probably
they would know in three months, but whilst there was life there was hope. If
it was thought compensation should be based on rateable value that was entirely
wrong. Speaking as Clerk of the Peace in a City Borough, he could say that the
main figure in arriving at the question as to compensation was entirely as to
trade. The Railway was doing an enormous trade from the point of view of
barrelage and spirits. He suggested that a paper should be handed to the Court
showing the amount of trade done, and he asked that it should not be divulged.
His client, who held another house in that particular property, would show that
the Railway did more trade than some of the neighbouring houses, and five times
as much as the Alexandra.
William Hopkins, tenant of the house, said that he had
got out the amount of trade done at the Railway Inn for twelve months, and the
figures showed the exact figures. There were 362 barrels of beer, including six
barrels done in bottled beer, and 132 gallons of spirits. Since January, 1907,
when he went in, he was quite satisfied with his house. He had had no trouble
with the police. His customers consisted of seafaring men and cab drivers.
Witness was the tenant when the house was referred, and practically at every
special session plans had been submitted for alterations to the place.
Cross-examined: He did think that 24 houses in a radius
of 200 yards were necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
The Bench decided to hear the other case before giving
their decision.
The Bench then considered the cases of the Railway Inn
and the Eagle, and on their return the Chairman announced that the cases would
be referred to the Compensation Authority at Canterbury.
Folkestone
Express 11-7-1908
East Kent Licensing
At the Licensing Committee`s sitting at Canterbury on
Thursday, the three licences referred by the local justices, namely the Eagle
Tavern, High Street, the Railway Tavern, Beach Street, and the Bricklayers
Arms, Fenchurch Street, were considered, and the Court decided not to renew any
of them. They will be dealt with by the Compensation Committee.
Folkestone
Herald 11-7-1908
Local News
The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing
Committee was held at Canterbury on Thursday, when Lord Harris presided.
The following Folkestone houses came up for decision: The
Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, an alehouse, belonging to
Messrs. G. Beer and Co. Mr. Joseph Wormold tenant; the Railway Inn, Beach
Street, Folkestone, alehouse, belonging to Messrs. Ash and Co. Mr. William
Hopkins tenant; The Eagle, High Street, Folkestone, a beerhouse (ante 1869),
belonging to Messrs. Style and Winch. Mr. William Henry White tenant.
The Railway Inn
This was the only house contested, Mr. Matthew
appearing for the licensing justices, Mr. Joseph for the brewers, and Mr.
Morris for the tenant.
Chief Constable Reeve gave evidence as to the number of
licences in the borough. Within 100 yards of this house there were 14 other
licensed houses, and within 200 yards 24. The accommodation was poor, but the
house had been well conducted, and there was a fair trade done for so small a
house. In his opinion the house was not necessary, and there would be ample
accommodation left if it was done away with.
In reply to Mr. Joseph, witness said it was true that
there had only been five changes at the house for 38 years. The present tenant
was a very respectable man. This was a house he personally caused to be
scheduled some six or seven years ago. It was referred last year, and renewed
by the local Committee. He admitted that plans for improvements had been got
out, but these had never come before the Licensing Justices. He did not know of
any cottage being purchased – which adjoined the licensed house – so as to make
the improvements. He did not think there was so much trade done at the
Fishmarket, and down at the Harbour, as there was six months ago.
Mr. Joseph: Is that the only altered circumstance since
a year ago? – That is about all.
How many licences were sent for compensation last time?
– Five, I believe.
And those five would counterbalance the depression in
trade, would they not? – The whole five were not referred for compensation.
In reply to the Chairman, witness said Messrs. Ash and
Co. had another house almost directly opposite, and two others in the vicinity.
Mr. Joseph submitted that this licence ought to be
renewed. It was a great hardship upon the owners and tenant, and to everybody
concerned, that this house should have been referred again this year. It was
referred last year by the Licensing Authority, when it was considered most
carefully by that Committee, who ordered the licence to be renewed. No fresh
circumstances had arisen that would cause the Committee to alter their decision
of last year. Having given figures of the increased trade now done at the
house, and referred to the respectable class of trade done, Mr. Joseph referred
to the alterations it was suggested should be made, and urged that it would not
be fair to either the owners or the tenant to take away the licence now.
Mr. Andrew Bromley, architect, gave evidence as to
preparing plans for improvements to the house to the extent of £500 or £550.
Messrs. Ash and Co. were quite prepared to carry out the suggested
improvements.
In reply to the Committee, it was stated that Messrs.
Ash and Co. gave £250 for the cottage adjoining the house.
Evidence was given by the tenant, Mr. Hopkins, to the
effect that he last year did as much as 362 barrels, and he was perfectly
satisfied with the living he was getting there.
Mr. P.G. Brothers, secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co.,
gave figures showing the increased trade under Mr. Hopkins.
Mr. Matthew: But you could place Mr. Hopkins elsewhere
if this house was referred?
Mr. Brothers said they had nowhere else to put him.
Mr. Matthew: But it is easy to create vacancies.
(Laughter)
Mr. Morris submitted, on behalf of the tenant, that it
would be a very great hardship if he had to go now after the decision of the
Committee only a year back.
The Committee decided to send the house for
compensation.
Folkestone
Express 24-10-1908
East Kent Licensing
At a meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee on
Monday, many cases were dealt with.
In the case of the Railway Inn, Beach Street,
Folkestone, of which Mr. W. Hopkins is the tenant, and Messrs. Ash and Co., of
Canterbury, the registered owners, Mr. P. Brothers, secretary to the brewers,
handed in a signed agreement for £1,655, of which the owners will receive
£1,520, and the tenant £135.
Folkestone
Herald 24-10-1908
East Kent Licensing
A supplementary meeting of the East Kent Licensing
Committee was held at the Sessions House, at Canterbury, on Monday, when Lord
Harris presided. The following Folkestone houses were considered for
compensation:-
The Railway Inn
An alehouse in Beach Street; tenant, Mr. William
Hopkins; owners, Messrs. Ash & Co.
Mr. Percy Brothers, secretary to the brewers, said the
owners and tenant had agreed to £1,655 as compensation, the owners to receive
£1,520, and the tenant £135.
Folkestone
Herald 23-2-1929
Obituary
In her ninety third year Mrs. Luisa Ann Hart passed
away at 3, Richmond Street on Tuesday.
Mrs. Hart will be remembered by many as the widow of
the late Mr. James Hart, licensee of the Railway Inn, Beach Street.
She leaves five sons and three daughters. One of the
former is Mr. Albert Hart, who at one time was the landlord of the Black Horse
Inn, Swingfield, and an energetic late Secretary of the Folkestone and District
Licensed Victuallers` Society. Mr. Hart is now a builder at Hawkinge.
The late Mrs. Hart belonged to old Folkestone stock,
and was widely esteemed.
The funeral took place yesterday at the Cemetery.
Folkestone Herald 2-5-1970
Stroller
One thing leads to another. My reference recently to the mini-display
of old documents and photographs of the wine trade in Folkestone before and
after the turn of the century has prompted a townsman to let me see some more
interesting papers and early photographs of Folkestone.
In particular, they reveal that 100 years ago there
was a Railway Inn in Beach Street, not many steps from the Tram Road and the
Fishmarket. No doubt it took its name from the nearby railway, linking the old
Junction station with Folkestone Harbour. The licensee, James Hart, one of a well-known Folkestone
family, paid Thomas Ash, “common brewers of the City and County of Canterbury”,
a yearly rental of £15. In those days £15 was £15. One of the conditions of the
tenancy was that Mr. Hart should “bear and pay all rates and taxes whatsoever,
with the exception of the land and property tax, chargeable in respect of the
said premises”. Twenty-nine years later the licence was transferred from father
to son, Arthur James Hart. At that time the licensee paid a publican`s licence
of £14 5s. 3d. to the Inland Revenue for the privilege of carrying on business.
There`s no doubt that the Beach Street of those
days was almost the hub of Folkestone`s business life. There were other inns, notably
Horlock’s Royal George Hotel (almost destroyed in the last war). Its immediate
proximity to the railway and harbour was described as being “peculiarly
adapted to the convenience of the continental tourist . . . with extensive
and beautiful views of the sea and the coast of France”.
For all the faults of our civic
fathers, they cannot be blamed for the disappearance of Beach Street and
adjacent narrow, picturesque streets with their little shops. The Luftwaffe did
the deed in the later part of 1940. The instrument-in-chief was a land mine.
For those who knew old Folkestone well and never failed to be charmed by a
stroll through the narrow, cobbled thoroughfares, that particular piece of
Blitzkreig is still hard to forgive.
The Railway Inn had disappeared
before 1914, also the Blue Anchor at the entrance to The Stade. There were,
however, plenty of other drinking and eating-houses in the closely-knit huddle
of byways and highways.
For a number of details I have to
thank Mr. Bill Hart, one of the senior members of the printing staff at the
Folkestone offices of Messrs. F.J. Parsons (Kent Newspapers) Ltd. His father
was Mr. Arthur James Hart, who became licensee of the Railway Inn in 1899. Mr.
Arthur Hart`s brother, Albert, was long associated with Folkestone Football
Club before and after the First World War, and will still be remembered by some
older townsmen. He was also a Folkestone Councillor, builder and Kent football
legislator.
No comments:
Post a Comment