Folkestone Herald
9-2-1901
Local News
On Wednesday afternoon the mortal remains of Mr. John
Procter, the late landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, who died on February 1st,
were laid to rest in the cemetery, Cheriton Road.
Folkestone Chronicle
9-3-1901
Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. Wightwick,
Pledge, Pursey, Stainer, and Salter.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from the late Mr. Proctor to Mrs. Proctor, his widow.
Folkestone Express
21-9-1901
Friday, September 13th: Before T.J. Vaughan and
J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. W. Keilly Westropp.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily
transferred to John Kohlhammer, a German.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-10-1901
Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W.
Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
Mr. Kohlhammer was granted the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel.
Folkestone Express
26-10-1901
Wednesday, October 23rd: Before W. Wightwick,
W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred to John Kohlhammer.
Folkestone Herald
26-10-1901
Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W.
Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swofer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.
Mr. Kohlhammer was granted the transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel
Folkestone Express
12-4-1902
Saturday, April 5th: Before W. Wightwick, W.G.
Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and W. Salter Esqs., and ColonelC.J.
Hamilton.
Mr. Wm. Everest was granted a temporary transfer of the
licence of the Rendezvous Hotel.
Mr.
Wm. Everest was granted a transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel
Folkestone Express
26-4-1902
Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G.
Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and
J. Stainer Esqs.
Folkestone Express
31-1-1903
Wednesday, January 28th: Before Alderman Vaughan
and Liuet. Col. Westropp.
Jack Marley was summoned for being drunk on licensed
premises, and Peter Kelly for attempting to procure drink for an intoxicated
person. Neither of the defendants put in an appearance. This is believed to be
the first case under Section 7 of the new Act.
Wiliamm Everitt, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said on
Saturday night about 9.15 two men came into the bar. One of them, Marley, was
drunk, and Kelly, who was sober, called for two half pints of beer and put down
2d. Witness refused to serve the men, and ordered them off the premises.
P.C. Sales said about 9.25 on the night in question his
attention was drawn to the Rendezvous Hotel by a crowd assembled there. He went
into the bar, where he heard the last witness say “What do you want to bring
that drunken man in here for? Here`s your money. You get outside”. Turning to
witness he then said “Constable, I want these men outside. They have had no
drink in here”. Witness obtained Marley`s name and address. In company with
Inspector Lilley he searched for the defendant Kelly, and at last found him in
the Granville Inn, Dover Street. Witness took his name and address and told him
he would be reported for attempting to procure liquor for a drunken person, to
which Kelly replied “You won`t find me for I shall be missing”.
A fine of 5s. and 9s. costs, in default seven days` hard
labour, was imposed on Marley, and in the case of Kelly a fine of 10s. and 9s.
costs was inflicted, in default fourteen days` hard labour.
Folkestone Herald
31-1-1903
Wednesday, January 28th: Before Mr. Vaughan and Lieut.
Colonel Westropp.
Jack Morley was summoned for being drunk on licensed
premises, and Peter Kelley was summoned under the new Act for attempting to
procure drink for a drunken person. Neither of the defendants appeared.
William Everest, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said the
defendants came into his bar on the previous evening. The sober one asked for
two half pints of beer, and laid down 2d. Witness refused to serve him.
P.C. Sales stated that he went into the bar and heard the
last witness refuse to serve defendants. He saw the two defendants, and Morley
was drunk. The last witness told him to order the men out of the bar, and he
did so.
Morley was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, and Kelley 10s. and 9s.
costs.
Folkestone Chronicle
30-5-1903
Monday, May 25th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick,
Alderman Salter, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I.
Swoffer, and C.J. Pursey.
Charles Kosh was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on
Saturday afternoon, in High Street and Rendezvous Street.
P.C. Charles Johnston said that at 6.15 on Saturday he saw
prisoner in High Street “rolling drunk”. He went into the Rendezvous Hotel,
where the landlord refused to serve him. On coming outside he caused a
disturbance, and witness was compelled to take him into custody.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he had got some work to
do. If the Bench would give him a chance, he could get back in time to commence
at 1 p.m.
The Chief Constable casually mentioned that this was Kosh`s
twelfth appearance.
Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`. He elected to
do the seven days`.
Folkestone Express
30-5-1903
Monday, May 25th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton,
Alderman Salter, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer
Esqs.
Charles Kosh was charged with being drunk and incapable.
P.C. H. Johnson stated that about six p.m. on Saturday he
saw prisoner in High Street, rolling drunk. He went to the Rendezvous Hotel,
but was refused drink. As he made a disturbance, witness took him into custody.
There were 12 previous convictions against prisoner, the last offence being on
the 2nd of the present month.
Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days`.
Folkestone Chronicle
20-2-1904
Saturday, February 13th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick,
Mr. C.J. Pursey and Mr. W.G. Herbert.
Mr. G.A. Godfrey, manager of the Northumberland Arms Hotel,
Tottenham Court Road, London, applied for the transfer to him of the licence of
the Rendezvous Hotel, at present held by William Everist.
The Chief Constable said that he had made inquiries of the
Metropolitan Police, and that there was no objection against the transfer of
the licence to the applicant.
The transfer was accordingly granted.
Folkestone Express
20-2-1904
Saturday, February 13th: Before W. Wightwick,
C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily
transferred from William Everest to John Godfrey.
Folkestone Herald
20-2-1904
Saturday, February 13th: Before Mr. W. Wighwick,
Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Alderman W.G. Herbert.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily
transferred from William Everest to George William Godfrey.
Folkestone Chronicle
5-3-1904
Wednesday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Westropp, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from Mr.
William Everest to Mr. George Albert Godfrey.
Folkestone Express
5-3-1904
Wednesday, March 2nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq.,
Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp, and W.G. Herbert Esq.
The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from
William Everest to Gorge Albert Godfrey.
A temporary authority was recently granted.
The
licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was permanently transferred from William
Everest to George Albert Godfrey
Folkestone Herald
5-3-1904
Wednesday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
Folkestone Chronicle
19-3-1904
County Court
Tuesday, March 15th: Before Sir William Lucius
Selfe.
William Everist v Flint and Co.: In this case William
Everist, licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, brought an action against Flint and
Co., the proprietors, for damages in consequence of the refusal of the defendants
to allow plaintiff to sell certain fixtures on disposing of the business to
Mrs. Barnes.
Mr. de Wet appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendants
were represented by counsel (Mr. Hayward), instructed by Messrs. Nicholson,
Graham and Graham.
Counsel for the defendants stated at the commencement of the
proceedings that the articles in dispute had originally numbered twelve, but of
this his clients had withdrawn their claim to ten, leaving only a copper and a
kitchen dresser in dispute.
Mr. William Everist, the plaintiff, said that he had entered
into possession of the Rendezvous Hotel on April 2nd, 1902, and had
left on February 11th, 1904. On entering he had paid his
predecessor, Mr. John Coalhammer (sic), for the dresser and the copper, which
were included in the inventory. On Jan. 12th, 1904, he disposed of
the lease and fitting to Mrs. Barnes, who was then informed by Mr. Hayward, who
acted for him upon this occasion, that some of the articles could not be sold.
Mr. Hayward had advised him, however, to proceed with the transfer, and
afterwards sue Messrs. Flint and Co. for damages.
Under cross-examination witness said that the copper was
built into the wall. He did not claim the things, but their value.
Mr. Henry Hayward, estate agent, said that he had had 35
years` experience in the transfer of licensed premises. It was usual to take a
tenant`s inventory as his title deed. No new fixtures could come into the
inventory without the brewers` knowledge. He himself knew that the dresser had
been included in the valuation of the incoming tenant for 22 years. Witness
remarked that the copper would be a landlord`s fixture in any but a public
house.
Mr. Benjamin Twyman, who took the oath in Jewish fashion,
said that his position was that of outdoor manager to Messrs. Flint and Co.,
but he had also a private practice as a valuer. It was the custom in
transferring a business to hand on the inventory of the previous tenant.
Mr. Alexander Ward, managing director of the defendant
company, was then called for the defence. From 14 years` experience he stated
that incoming tenants did not purchase landlord`s fixtures from the outgoing
tenant, as they were part and parcel of the freehold. Messrs. Flint and Co.,
when they purchased the business, had paid for the fixtures. The copper was an
integral part of the building, and not a trade fixture, but for the use of the
inmates of the house.
John William Truman, auctioneer and hotel valuer, spoke from
40 years` experience. When acting for Mrs. Barnes he had decided not to
purchase the copper and dresser, as he had never known these things included in
an inventory before.
Questioned by His Honour, witness confessed that he had
omitted the fixtures after learning of the objection by the company.
Counsel then addressed His Honour at considerable length,
and laid stress upon the importance of this case to his clients, who had
purchased 114 licensed houses when taking over the business of Messrs. Flint
and Sons.
His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff, with costs, on
£6 7s.
Folkestone Express
19-3-1904
County Court
Tuesday, March 15th: Before Sir William Lucius
Selfe.
William Everist v Flint and Co. Ltd (formerly Fliunt and
Sons): This was an action brought by the plaintiff, late licensed victualler
and holder of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, against the defendants,
brewers, of Canterbury, and the owners of the hotel, to recover a sum of £6 7s.
for certain articles, and £5 5s., expenses incurred through having to take
proceedings. Mr. De Wet appeared for plaintiff, and the defendants were
represented by Mr. Haydon (barrister).
The case occupied a considerable amount of time,, and from
the brewer`s point of view as looked upon as an important one.
Mr. Everist, who ormerly held the licence of the King`s
Head, Whitstable, entered into possession of the Rendezvous Hotel on May 2nd,
1902, taking over the inventory of the outgoing tenant (Mr. Colehammer), which
cost him £808 17s. 6d. The inventory included, among the fixtures, a dresser
and copper, which were now in dispute. On the one hand the plaintiff claimed
for the value of them, but on the other the brewers objected, saying the
articles were their property. Other fixtures were set out in the claim, but
these had been admitted as being the property of the plaintiff. Mr. Henry
Hayward (of the firm of Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Dover and London), told
His Honour that the items in dispute had been included in the valuation of the
tenant`s fixtures for a number of years. He valued them at £2 15s.
Mr. A. Ward, managing director of the Company, said
undoubtedly the dresser and copper were landlord`s fixtures, and that being the
case it was not the custom of an outgoing tenant to sell them to the incoming
tenant. The Company, as buyers of the property, bought and paid for the
fixtures, and the copper and dresser could not be claimed as a trade fixture.
In cross-examination it was gathered from Mr. Ward that
there would be cases of a similar character.
His Honour: What is the importance of £2 15s. to your firm?
Witness: The actual sum is not of any importance.
His Honour: Then you have answered the question wrongly.
Witness: Well, your Honour, we are doing it on principle.
Mr. Haydon, for the defence, submitted that the proper
course was to claim damage for depriving the tenant of the right to remove his
fixtures, and the action must be taken against the new tenant.
His Honour, after a lengthy summing up, gave judgement for
plaintiff for £6 7s., and allowed witnesses` costs. He also remarked that he thought
the defendants would see that it would not be worth their while to contest the
point further by going to the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Haydon: I am instructed that my clients will not appeal
in this case, but reserve it for another.
Folkestone Herald
19-3-1904
County Court
Tuesday, March 15th: Before Sir William Lucius
Selfe.
William Everest v Flint and Co. Ltd: Claim for £6 7s., the
value of property retained by defendant, and £5 5s. damages.
Mr. H. Douglas De Wet appeared for the plaintiff, while the
defendant company was represented by Mr. A. Haydon, barrister.
Mr. Haydon, at the opening of the case, said it was one of
very great importance to the defendant company, who were brewers, and he would
ask His Honour to take a note.
The Judge consented.
Mr. William Everest, a retired sea captain, and late
landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said that he was now residing at the York
Hotel, Dover Road. For some time he had been a licensed victualler in the town.
On the 2nd April, 1902, he entered into possession of the Rendezvous
Hotel, where he carried on business until the 11th February of this
year. Before coming to Folkestone he was the tenant of the King`s Head, at
Whitstable, a house – as in the case of the Rendezvous – belonging to Messrs.
Flint. He was persuaded to change houses by Mr. Flint, and the company`s agent,
Mr. Twyman. He thereupon succeeded Mr. J. Kohlhammer as tenant, and paid that
gentleman £808 17s. 6d. for his interest in the business. As his predecessor
had not been long in the house, witness agreed to take over the household
furniture and effects for £570 5s., an inventory of which he produced. In that
inventory were enumerated the whole of the articles comprising the furniture
which witness had claimed. From his experience of the trade, one could always
sell to the incoming tenant the same articles that were included in the
inventory. On the 12th January, 1904, he entered into a contract to
sell the household fixtures to Mrs. N.E. Barnes, who agreed to the purchase.
Witness employed Mr. Hayward, of Worsfold and Hayward, to value for him, while
Mr. Twyman, of Messrs. Flint, represented the brewery company, and Mr. Truman,
of London, acted for Mrs. Barnes. The brewery company refused to allow 12 articles
to be sold, including stoves, a copper, and a dresser. Eventually they
abandoned their claim to all but the latter two, which were valued at £2 15s.
These articles were in the inventory as having been the tenant`s property.
Mr. Henry Hayward (of Worsfold and Hayward, Dover) said that
for 35 years he had been a valuer of licensed property. Twenty two years ago a
dresser was in the valuation of the then tenant, while the copper was in the
inventory of Mrs. Proctor, who preceded Mr. Kohlhammer as tenant of the
Rendezvous. This claim had never been disputed before.
Mr. Benjamin Twyman proved acting as valuer for Mr. Everest
when that gentleman took possession. Witness did not then object to any items
being entered in the inventory as tenant`s fixtures.
Mr. Alexander Ward, managing director of the defendant
company, said that his company bought the business from Messrs. Flint and Sons
Ltd., in September, 1903. He was managing director of the Dartford Brewery as
well as the Canterbury one, and he considered that the dresser and the copper
referred to were purely and solely the property of the brewers, and not of the
tenants.
Mr. John Truman, auctioneer and hotel valuer, gave it as his
opinion that the fixtures referred to were the property of the brewers.
Eventually His Honour, after a long summing up, gave
judgement for the plaintiff for £6 7s. in respect of the articles retained, but
refused an amount for damages. Leave was given to appeal, but the defendant
company`s counsel intimated that no appeal would be made.
The costs of witnesses were remitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment