Folkestone Herald
13-1-1900
Folkestone Police Court
On Saturday last the remand case in which a young man named
Christian Olaf Palndan Stephenson was charged with stealing shoes was again
before the Court.
The Chief Constable said that he had an additional witness
to put in the box.
Mr. Skinner deposed that he was the landlord of the Tramway
Tavern, Radnor Street. On the 19th December last, defendant came to
his house about seven in the evening for the purpose of taking lodgings with
him. Witness asked defendant where he came from. He told him that he came from
Dover, and was just paid off from a ship there. He said he had nothing with
him. He took lodgings in witness`s house. On the 30th December he
was still a lodger, and witness saw him between 11 and 12 o`clock in his
wash-house. There were a pair of shoes to put on, similar to those produced.
They were new shoes. Witness said “Oh, a new pair of boots this morning”. He
replied that they were given to him by a friend of his at Sandgate.
The Chief Constable said that that closed the case for the
prosecution.
Defendant, who did not speak English very well, pleaded Not
Guilty, and was understood to say that he gave a ring for 6s. for the shoes to
a German. When asked where he got them from, he had said “From a German
waiter”.
The Clerk to the Justices asked where was the German waiter.
Defendant had better call him.
Defendant said that he had been in a shop to try and sell,
not far from there. He found him.
The Bench sentenced defendant to 21 days` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle
13-4-1901
Tuesday, April 9th: Before Messrs. Fitness,
Swoffer, Pursey, Herbert, and Vaughan.
John Field was charged with breaking a plate glass panel of
a window at the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street.
Frederick Skinner, the landlord of the Tramway Tavern in
Radnor Street, said shortly after six o`clock the previous night prisoner came
to his house drunk. He had been lodging at the house. He was refused drink, and
was asked to leave the house. He did so, and then threw his boot brush
(defendant is a shoeblack) through the glass panel of the door, the damage done
being £2.
Prisoner admitted his guilt, and was fined 10s., 4s. 6d.
costs, and 40s. damages, or one month`s hard labour.
Prisoner signified his intention of doing the month, and
then paying another visit to friend Skinner.
Folkestone Express
13-4-1901
Tuesday, April 9th: Before J. Fitness, W.G.
Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
John Field, a shoeblack, pleaded Guilty to a charge of
wilfully damaging a plate glass panel on the door of the Tramway Tavern, to the
value of £2.
Fredk. Skinner, the landlord of the Tramway Tavern, said
about 6.50 p.m. on Monday the prisoner went in the worse for drink, and witness
refused to serve him in consequence of his bad language. He then went outside,
and taking a boot brush from the rack threw it through the glass panel, and it
hit witness`s wife. The amount of damage was £2, but he could not say if it was
insured, as it was the property of the brewers. The prisoner had been lodging
at his house for the past three weeks.
Defendant said he asked no mercy, and he was sorry he had
hit the lady. He was willing to serve his sentence, but he thought the
prosecutor ought to accompany him. (Laughter)
The Chief Constable said there were several offences
recorded against the defendant, the chief being a sentence of nine months in
October, 1900, and in February this year he was sent to imprisonment from Hythe
for stealing watercress.
A fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and 40s. the amount of
damage was inflicted, with the alternative of one month`s hard labour.
The defendant: I`ll do the one month and stick there till I
come out, and then I`ll smash his window again.
Folkestone Herald
13-4-1901
Tuesday, April 9th: Before Messrs. Fitness,
Swoffer, Pursey, Herbert, and Vaughan.
John Field, a shoeblack, was charged with having broken a
plate glass window, valued at £2, the property of Alfred Skinner, landlord of
the Railway Tavern (sic).
Prisoner said prosecutor ought to be doing time at
Canterbury with him. There were three previous convictions against prisoner,
who was fined 10s., 4s. 6d. costs, and the damages 40s., or to go to Canterbury
for two months`.
Folkestone Chronicle
7-3-1903
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town
hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade”
sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the
anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court
presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick,
Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col.
Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal
luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed
respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants
in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury,
instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague
Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The
Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These
gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the
principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the
town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.
The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full
licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment,
enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was
instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The
Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville,
Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope,
Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting;
and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses,
however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria,
the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17
houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the
Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then
ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel,
as to her husband`s conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And
Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which
convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various
landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their
licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the
Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural
alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition
that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14
days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply
to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.
Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the
Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population,
and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904
Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench
invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving
at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter
into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and
equitable basis. (Hear, hear)
Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw
their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his
learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation
in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before
taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood
happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man`s living and
to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.
The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel`s
observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.
The Tramway
On the Tramway Tavern (Mr. Frederick Skinner) being called,
Inspector Swift entered the box and was examined by the Chief Constable. His
evidence was to the effect that there were 28 licensed houses within 200 paces
of the Tramway.
Detective Sergt. Burniston said the house was a common
lodging house, used by people who tramped from town to town. There was only one
public room, and the house had two entrances (one from Radnor Street).
Mr. Glyn: What do you mean by common lodging house? Do you
mean to say that it is used by tramps, or anybody?
Witness: I did not say tramps. I said people tramping from
town to town.
Mr. Glyn: You said tramps. When was it used by tramps?
Witness hesitated.
Mr. Glyn: I said “when”? You know the meaning of when?
Witness said that he had made observations, but had not
noted any definite or individual instances. He was speaking from general
knowledge.
Mr. Glyn: The objection is to the common lodging house. I
take it the tenant is a respectable man?
Witness: The house is very clean indeed, and the tenant is a
very respectable person.
Mr. Glyn said that with his friend, Mr. Percival Hughes, he
appeared in support of the renewal of the licence, and he would ask the Bench
to define what was a common lodging house. At Canterbury, the Chairman of the
Bench, a gentleman of great experience, laid it down that where persons
occupied separate rooms the house was not a common lodging house. If that
definition were right, he would only have to address the Bench on this
question: Was the house unnecessary? This also could be answered. Nine years
ago, the Bench, in their discretion, refused the renewal of the house on that
ground. An appeal was made to Quarter Sessions, and the decision was reversed,
it being held that for no offence it was unfair to take away the licence of one
house for the benefit of another.
Mr. Skinner was then examined by Mr. Percival Hughes. He
said he only let to working men. Three of his lodgers had been with him three
years and worked on the harbour; two others had been with him two years.
The Chief Constable: Do you say that they are all
respectable men who come to your house?
Witness: Yes, I believe so.
The Chief Constable then read a list of names to witness,
who said he believed they were all respectable men.
The Bench retired, and on returning to the Court asked Mr.
Glyn whether an undertaking would be given for an additional public room to be
supplied, and for each lodger to have a separate room?
Messrs. Glyn and Hughes consulted the tenant and brewer, and
at once gave the required undertaking.
The Chairman: On those conditions the licence will be
renewed. (Applause)
The
licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his
brother Charles.
Folkestone Express
7-3-1903
Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col.
Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey
Esqs.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices
ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the
Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the
Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.
Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases
plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria,
the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench,
withdrawn.
The flowing counsel were engaged:- Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr.
Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone
Licensed Victuallers` Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew,
instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue
Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing
the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for
the two new licences.
The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would,
by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they
proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief
Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had
inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief
Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the
Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be
proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the
licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been
convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain
structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery
Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.
The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number
of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the
borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all
proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the
Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction
shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to
agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of
licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action
to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the
Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable
spirit decide what reduction should then be made.
Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs.
Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course
they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it
would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over
for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing
Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered,
was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair,
for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.
The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear
all the evidence.
The Tramway Tavern
The Superintendent of Police conducted the opposition, and
called evidence.
Inspector Swift said there were within a radius of 200 paces
28 public houses. There were altogether in Radnor Street 158 houses, including
eight fully licensed houses.
The Superintendent said that was a mistake – there were only
69 houses in Radnor Street, including eight licensed houses.
Sergt. Burniston said the Tramway Tavern was a common
lodging house. There was only one room for the general public, and adjoining
that was a large kitchen. There were two entrances – one on to The Stade.
Mr. Glyn said there were three – two in front.
Witness said the place was used by tramps, who often stayed
only one night. Persons of bad character had lodged at the house.
Mr. Glyn, in his address to the Bench, assured them that
tramps were not taken in. There were bedrooms in which several people slept,
but they were those who stayed for a considerable time. Some had been there for
three years. The licensee had improved the business of the house, and he was
quite willing to agree not to allow more than one person to sleep in one room.
Fredk. Skinner, the licence holder, said he took the house
in 1899 at a valuation, and there was nothing against it. He was ready to
accept any suggestion the Bench might make as to the sleeping arrangements. He
had never had a tramp in the house. His lodgers were of the working class men.
In answer to the Superintendent, witness said he did not
know of any of the lodgers at his house who had been arrested and convicted.
Two men who had been staying there at one time had been charged before the
Magistrates, but only, he believed, for assaults. He occasionally supplied a
pint or two of beer to his lodgers on Sunday mornings, but if the Magistrates
wished he would not do so in future. All his lodgers, as far as he knew, were
respectable men.
At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Glyn suggested that it
would be more satisfactory to deal with each case separately, and the Bench
accepted this suggestion and retired to consider this one case.
On returning into Court, the Chairman asked Mr. Glyn if he
was prepared to give an undertaking that there should be another public room,
and also whether h would provide separate bedrooms for each bed?
Mr. Glyn said he would give the undertaking. With regard to
the second public room, they would provide that upstairs – the large room, if
that would do?
The Chairman: Probably.
Mr. Glyn said they would do that.
The Chairman: On that condition we grant the licence.
Folkestone Herald
7-3-1903
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of
Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition
by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was
evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in
the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously
represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious
bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn,
Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business
the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the
doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The
Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G.
Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr.
C.J. Pursey.
Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced
that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23
full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to
give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine
houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage);
Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick
Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms
(Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former
sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered
the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result
that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection
served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to
persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne,
Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15
full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and
deal with them next year according to the circumstances.
The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of
licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of
Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood
of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed,
between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain
information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction
should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of
licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary
surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of
licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing
Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners,
the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers
decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.
At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll,
solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the
circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be
postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.
The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.
Mr. Glyn: I think it would be fairer to the “trade” to
postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any
structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the
tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.
The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.
Consideration of the applications for the renewal of
licences to which objection was taken by the police was then proceeded with,
the Tramway Tavern being the first case on the list.
On behalf of the brewers, Mr. Glyn supported the application
for renewal, and the opposition was conducted by the Chief Constable (Mr. H.
Reeve).
Inspector Swift, the first witness called for the
opposition, deposed that within 200 paces of the house in question there were
28 public houses.
In answer to the Chief Constable, the Inspector said that
altogether there were 69 houses in Radnor Street, including eight fully
licensed public houses.
Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that the Tramway was
used as a common lodging house. There were two entrances.
Counsel asked witness to define the meaning of a “common lodging
house”, to which he replied that it meant a place where tramps were admitted
for the night.
Mr. Glyn: Will you undertake to swear that any tramp has
been admitted there, and only remained one night.
Witness: On some occasions.
Counsel: Within one year?
Witness: Oh, yes.
Counsel: Now, understand what you are swearing. Do you mean
to say that within a year a person has been allowed to come in there and remain
for one night only?
Detective Sergeant Burniston: I swear that. He disappeared
the next morning.
Mr. Glyn: Your only objection is on account of the lodging
house? – Yes, sir.
Counsel the addressed the Justices. As far as he could make
out, he said, the only objection to the licence was that because it had been
used as a common lodging house. In this case he could at once state that the
house, in future, providing the licence was renewed, would not be used as a
common lodging house. But they claimed that it had not been so used. In the
immediate neighbourhood there were a number of other houses, and he considered
that it was not fair to single out this one house. Whatever alterations the
Justices desired, they would undertake to carry out.
Mr. Wightwick here interposed with the remark that there was
only one room for the public.
Proceeding, Counsel stated that in addition to this room for
the public there was a large kitchen. As to the one room, he pointed out that
the lodgers, who were all respectable men employed in Folkestone, were not
allowed to remain in the room throughout the day. They went out to work in the
morning, returned in the evening, had supper, and went to bed at nine o`clock.
It was not suggested that the house was conducted in any other but the proper
way. All sorts of objections, counsel said, were now being made against these
unfortunate holders of licences, and the only objection against this man was
because his only accommodation was a large kitchen, which Mr. lyn argued was
more comfortable than even some of the men had at home.
In his evidence, Frederick Skinner, the licensee, said he
never served any beer on Sunday morning. He had never had a tramp lodging with
him, only working men, and he did not take them in unless they could guarantee
to stop three or four nights. At present he had two or three men who had lodged
with him three years, and two others who had been with him a year.
Chief Constable: You say you do not sell anything on Sunday
morning. Do you supply your lodgers on Sunday morning? – Well, I supply them
with a pint, but if that is your objection, I won`t do so.
With regard to your lodgers, you say they are all
respectable men? – I should say so.
How many men have been convicted from your house during the
last two or three years? – I can`t say.
Have any? – I don`t know. There has never been a man
arrested in my house.
Do you know a man named Field? – Well, he got one month for
doing wilful damage to my premises.
Questioned by Mr. J. Percival Hughes, barrister, (instructed
by Mr. Haines), who appeared for the Licensed Victuallers, applicant said there
were four bedrooms in the house, one of which contained six beds, two four, and
the other three.
Mr. Glyn: Are you prepared to divide the rooms or do
anything the Bench say you have to do?
Witness: I am prepared to do anything the Magistrates wish.
The Justices retired, and on returning into the Court in
about five minutes, the Chairman, addressing Mr. Glyn, said: Are you prepared
to give an undertaking that there will be a second public room provided, and
are you also prepared to give each lodger a separate room?
On Mr. Glyn undertaking to do this, Mr. Wightwick intimated
that on that condition the renewal would be granted.
This announcement was received with applause, which was,
however, immediately suppressed.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-4-1903
Wednesday, April 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick,
Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. E.T. Ward.
Folkestone Express
11-4-1903
Wednesday, April 8th: Before Lieut. Col.
Hamilton, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
Fredk. Skinner made an application for the transfer of the
licence of the Railway Tavern (sic) to his brother, Charles Skinner.
The application was granted.
The
licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his
brother, Charles Skinner, the Chief Constable offering no objection
Folkestone Herald
11-4-1903
Wednesday, April 8th: Before Messrs. W.
Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, G.I. Swoffer, and E.T. Ward.
Folkestone Chronicle
23-5-1903
Saturday, May 16th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen,
Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Mr. T.J. Vaughan,
Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G. Peden, and Mr. J. Stainer.
Jane Featherbee, the wife of a mariner living in Radnor
Street, was charged under the new Act with being drunk while in charge of a
child under 7 years (this being the first case under this Section of the Act
heard in Folkestone).
P.C. Leonard Johnson said that at 8.15 on the previous
evening, in Seagate Street, he saw prisoner drunk in charge of the child. He
advised her to go home. She refused, and he took her into custody. She then lay
down, and he had to have the help of P.C. Prebble and P.C. G. Johnston to place
her upon a truck. Witness had previously been called by the landlord of the
Tramway Tavern, who had refused to serve the woman. He ejected her from the
Tavern, and tried to persuade her to go home, but she refused.
The Chairman asked prisoner if she had any questions to ask
the constable.
Prisoner: What I say is – speak the truth and shame anybody.
She then commenced a rambling statement, admitted that she
had been “upset” and had a few glasses, but denied that she was drunk. Would
not anybody lie down, she asked, if a policeman wanted to take them up? (In the
meantime the constable had withdrawn from the box.)
The Chairman told prisoner she could make a statement later,
but had she any questions to ask?
Prisoner (looking at the empty witness box): What`s the
good? They have gone. (Laughter)
P.C. G. Johnston corroborated the last witness.
Prisoner: What did you say to me? Did not you tell me to go
home and look after my dirty children? My children are at St. Peter`s School.
You go up there and see if they are dirty. (Laughter)
In defence, accused said there had been a little disturbance
in Radnor Street. She had a difference with her husband, and took a few
glasses.
The Bench were in some doubt – the child not being in Court
– as to proving its age.
The voluble lady settled the question herself by blurting
out “The child is four years of age, and always comes with me when I go out”.
The Chairman: That settles it.
The Chairman then told the woman that she had placed herself
in a very serious position. She was liable to a fine of 40s., or one month. She
would be fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days.
Prisoner: I`ve not got a farthing. I`ll have to do the seven
days.
The fine was paid later in the day.
Folkestone Herald
23-5-1903
Tuesday, May 19th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and
Vaughan, Councillor Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Messrs. W.C. Carpenter and
J. Stainer.
Jane Featherbee, a married woman, living in Radnor Street,
was charged under the new Licensing Act with being drunk when in charge o a
child under the age of seven years, to wit, four years. She pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that at 8.15 on Monday evening
he saw the prisoner drunk in Seagate Road, in charge of the child. When he attempted
to take her into custody, she refused to let him bring her by the arm, and laid
down in the road. With the assistance of P.C.s H. Johnson and Prebble, prisoner
was conveyed in a trap to the police station. Here the child was handed over to
prisoner`s sister-in-law. Witness had previously, at the request of the
landlord, ejected the woman from the Tramway Tavern. The child was with her
then, and he persuaded her to go home.
Similar evidence was also given by P.C. H. Johnson.
Prisoner denied being drunk, and said she had had only a few
glasses of beer. There had been a little disturbance between her and her
husband, and that was the reason she went out. She always took the child with
her wherever she went, as she did not think it was doing anything wrong.
The Chairman, after consulting with his colleagues, reminded
the prisoner that she had placed herself in a serious position. Under the new
Act she was liable to a fine of 40s., or a month`s imprisonment without the
option of a fine, for being intoxicated whilst in charge of a child. The Bench,
however, had decided to give her another chance. She would be fined 5s. and 5s.
6d. costs, with the alternative of seven days` imprisonment.
Musings of the Week
No-one will accuse the Magistrates sitting at the Town Hall
on Tuesday with having erred on the side of severity in fining a woman 5s. and
5s. 6d. costs for being intoxicated whilst having a child under seven years of
age in her care. The prosecution was instituted under the new Licensing Act.
There is a good deal of discussion with reference to the wisdom and
practicability of some of the clauses in this measure, but there can be no
question as to the desirability of making such an offence as that of Jane
Featherbee was convicted as one punishable by the law, and the Chairman of the
Bench did well to remind the accused that the Justices had the power to fine
her as much as forty shillings, or even to send her to prison for a month
without the option of a fine. There are few more pitiable spectacles than that
of children of innocent and tender years in the company and charge of adults in
a state of intoxication. In this case the poor little child was only four years
old, and the mother stated that she “always took it with her, and it did not
matter wherever she went”. It is often said that half the world knows not how
the other half lives. Doubtless one half is saved a good deal of mental anguish
by such ignorance.
Folkestone Express
19-11-1904
Saturday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Ald.
Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.
Dangerfield Pitcher was summoned for being drunk on the licensed
premises of the Brewery Tap on November 7th. Defendant pleaded
Guilty.
P.C. Sales said about 10.30 a.m. on November 7th
he had to eject defendant from the Tramway Tavern. At 1 p.m. he saw defendant
go into the Brewery Tap in company with another man. He was drunk, and witness
drew the landlady`s attention to him. She refused to serve the defendant and
asked him to go out. He refused, so witness had to eject him.
Defendant said he “owned” being drunk, but he never caused
any disturbance.
Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.
Folkestone Herald
19-11-1904
Saturday, November 12th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Spurgen, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. J.
Stainer.
Dangerfield Pitcher was summoned for being drunk on licensed
premises.
P.C. Sales stated that on the 7th inst. he was
called to the Tramway public house by the landlord to eject the prisoner, who
was drunk. Subsequently witness saw him go into another public house in Tontine
Street. Witness requested the landlord not to serve him, as he was drunk. The
prisoner was ejected, and when he got outside he became very abusive, and
refused to go away, whereupon witness took him into custody.
Defendant, who had nothing to say, was fined 5s., and 9s.
costs; in default 14 days`.
No comments:
Post a Comment