Thanks And Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Kent Libraries and Archives - Folkestone Library and also to the archive of the Folkestone Herald. For articles from the Folkestone Observer, my thanks go to the Kent Messenger Group. Southeastern Gazette articles are from UKPress Online, and Kentish Gazette articles are from the British Newspaper Archive. See links below.

Paul Skelton`s great site for research on pubs in Kent is also linked

Other sites which may be of interest are the Folkestone and District Local History Society, the Kent History Forum, Christine Warren`s fascinating site, Folkestone Then And Now, and Step Short, where I originally found the photo of the bomb-damaged former Langton`s Brewery, links also below.


Welcome

Welcome to Even More Tales From The Tap Room.

Core dates and information on licensees tenure are taken from Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney`s two fine books on the pubs of Folkestone, Tales From The Tap Room and More Tales From The Tap Room - unfortunately now out of print. Dates for the tenure of licensees are taken from the very limited editions called Bastions Of The Bar and More Bastions Of The Bar, which were given free to very early purchasers of the books.

Easiest navigation of the site is by clicking on the PAGE of the pub you are looking for and following the links to the different sub-pages. Using the LABELS is, I`m afraid, not at all user-friendly.

Contrast Note

Whilst the above-mentioned books and supplements represent an enormous amount of research over many years, it is almost inevitable that further research will throw up some differences to the published works. Where these have been found, I have noted them. This is not intended to detract in any way from previous research, but merely to indicate that (possible) new information is available.

Contribute

If you have any anecdotes or photographs of the pubs featured in this Blog and would like to share them, please mail me at: jancpedersen@googlemail.com.

If you`ve enjoyed your visit here, why not buy me a pint, using the button at the end of the "Labels" section?


Search This Blog

Saturday 22 June 2013

Tramway Tavern 1900 - 1904



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)

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.

The licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his brother Charles.  

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.

Folkestone Herald 11-4-1903

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

The licence of the Tramway Tavern was transferred from Frederick Skinner to his brother, Charles Skinner, the Chief Constable offering no objection 

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