London And Paris 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Express 17-5-1902

Monday, May 12^th: Before Aldermen S. Penfold, G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and G. Peden Esq.

Vladimir Hausen, a seaman of the Catherine, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday in Harbour Street.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said about eight o`clock on Sunday evening he was called into Harbour Street, where he saw the prisoner opposite the Paris Hotel, drunk and shouting at the top of his voice “Come out, you ----“ With assistance of another constable he handcuffed him and he was taken to the police station. On the way he acted like a madman.

George Gray, landlord of the Paris Hotel, said on the evening in question prisoner asked for a pint of beer, and there was an altercation about payment, witness being called. Eventually the man paid and went out, but he returned and brandished a knife. He was turned out by a police constable, but he again returned, and as he was violent he was taken to the police station.

A fine of 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days` was imposed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28-6-1902

Wednesday, June 25^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman Salter, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey.

Robert Thompson, a private in the North Lancashire Regiment (Militia), was summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises of the London and Paris Hotel.

On the case being called, the Chief Constable put in a letter from the defendant`s commanding officer, in which it was stated that the man had been dealt with by the military authorities for the offence for which he was now summoned. Under those circumstances the Chief Constable said it was not his wish to punish the man twice for the same offence, and he would therefore ask leave of the Bench to withdraw the summons.

The Chairman said the Bench were quite agreeable that such a course should be adopted.

George Barclay Gray, proprietor of the London and Paris Hotel, was then called upon to answer a summons charging him with serving a drunken person, namely the man Robert Thompson.

The Chief Constable explained that the summons was taken out under Section 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872.

Mr. Minter (who appeared for the defence): Does this case refer to that which has just been before the Bench?

The Chief Constable: Yes

Mr. Minter: Then a more disgraceful thing I have never heard of. However, I`ll speak on that matter later. That letter should not have been tendered to the Bench.

On behalf of Mr. Gray, Mr. Minter then formally pleaded Not Guilty, and asked that all witnesses should  be ordered to leave the Court, which request was granted.

The case for the prosecution was then opened by Inspector Swift, who said: On Wednesday, the 18^th inst., at 9.30, I was on duty in South Street, accompanied by P.C. Thomas Sales, when I saw a soldier of the North Lancashire Regiment leave the public bar of the London and Paris Hotel. He was drunk and swayed about. I called P.C. Sales` attention to the condition of the soldier, who. After about two seconds, returned to the bar. I followed in after him to prevent him being served with any drink. I called out to the barmaid who was standing with her back to me and talking to someone in the other compartment. I said “Don`t serve this man – he is drunk”. The soldier then said “I`ll have my ---- beer”, and then staggered to the counter, from which he took a full glass of beer and drank from it. The barmaid saw this and, as the man drank some of the beer, I said “Have you served him?”, and she replied “Yes, I have served him with a half pint of beer, but I did not think he was so drunk as he is”. The barmaid then gave the soldier a penny back, and took the remainder of the beer from him. I then asked to see the landlord, Mr. Gray, who came into the bar. I said to him “You see the condition of this man?”, meaning the soldier, who said “Am I drunk, Mr. Gray?”, and Mr. Gray replied “Well, you are not sober, and I wish you would leave my premises”. I then said to Mr. Gray “Your barmaid has already served this man with a half pint of beer”. The barmaid then said “I did not serve him. I served that one (pointing to another soldier); two or three of them came in together”. The soldier then left the bar, and when in South Street he became disorderly, and I handed him over to the custody of the policeman. He was brought to the station, his name and number were taken, and he was then handed over to the military police. I told Thompson that I should prefer a second charge against him, that of being drunk and disorderly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I did not see the soldier with two others go into the house. Two other soldiers did not come out with him. When the man left I did not demand his name. I asked for his name, and he refused to give it. I persisted, certainly. I should have had his name under any circumstances. He denied being drunk. I took him into custody. At the station I made the charge, but did not enter it in the charge book. I did as I usually do in such cases, handed the man over to the military picquet. The picquet were in front of the Town Hall, and came down at my request. I did not serve a summons upon the man to attend here today. The summons was served on Monday. I do not know that the Regiment has now gone from the Camp. I think it is still here. I did not see a drunken civilian go into and come out of the house. In my opinion that would aggravate the case.

Mr. Minter: We don`t want your opinion.

Witness, in further cross-examination, said: I did not say to the barmaid “These soldiers are drunk”, neither did I open the door. I followed the soldiers in as the door was open.

Mr. Minter: Did you see any men in the bar? – Yes.

Did you know any of them? No. I expect I should recognise their faces again.

Mr. Minter then called forward three witnesses for the defence.

Witness: I do not recollect seeing them in the bar. They mat have been there.

Mr. Minter: Perhaps it was not convenient to see them?

Re-examined by the Chief Constable: What first drew your attention to this man?

Witness: He was swaying and swinging about. I deliberately say that when I spoke to the barmaid she said that she did not know that the man was as bad as he was.

P.C. Thomas Sales said: About 9.30 in the evening of the 18^th inst., I was in the company of Inspector Swift, when I saw a soldier who was drunk go into the bar of the Paris Hotel. The Inspector followed him into the bar, and I stood in the entrance. I heard the Inspector say to the barmaid “Don`t serve this man, miss; he is drunk”. At the same time the soldier picked up a glass from the counter which contained liquor and drank from it. The Inspector then said “Have you served him?” and the young lady said “Yes, he came in quietly”. The Inspector then asked to see Mr. Gray, who came into the bar, and Inspector Swift said “You see this man`s condition?”, and the soldier said to Mr. Gray “Am I drunk?” Mr. Gray replied “You certainly are not sober”. Mr. Gray then took a glass containing some liquor from the counter and the barmaid handed the soldier some money. In reply to a question put to the barmaid she said she had served the other soldier. The Inspector asked the soldier for his name and number. The man refused to give them and was taken into custody and subsequently handed over to the Military Police.

By Mr. Minter: I did not see any drunken civilian go into the bar and come out again. I was not watching the house. I saw this particular soldier go in. Another soldier went into the bar after him. When appealed to by the soldier, Mr. Gray did not say “No, you are not drunk”. The coin was not handed to another soldier. I saw it handed to this particular one. The Inspector was between me and the barmaid, so I could not say whether it was one or more coins. The soldier did protest that he was not drunk.

P.S. Lawrence said: I was on duty at the station on Wednesday evening, the 18^th inst. About 8.40 the soldier was brought in by Inspector Swift and P.C. Sales for the purpose of obtaining his name and address. He was afterwards handed over to the Military Police.

Mr. Minter: Was the charge taken down in a book? – Yes, sir.

Be careful. Was the charge taken down in a book? – Yes.

Let us have the book then.

The witness produced the book, which was inspected by Mr. Minter, who handed it to the Magistrates with the remark “Yes; I think that`ll explain it all”.

Witness, in further cross-examination, said: Two or three companions followed the man to the station. The man gave me his name and number willingly.

Mr. Minter: Just so!

Sergt. Elfick (6^th Dragoon Guards) said: I saw Thompson on the night of the 18^th of June about 9.50. The man was drunk and rolling all over the street. He was being marched to the Camp by the picquet.

By the Chief Constable: I had no doubt whatever as to the man`s condition.

Mr. Minter: Where were you? – On the Cheriton Road.

Were you in charge of the picquet? – No; a corporal was in charge of the picquet. I passed them and went on to Cheriton.

Mr. Minter, in opening the defence and in the course of a long speech, said: Mr. Gray has of course to answer this charge, and you will see from the evidence that I am going to call that he really has nothing to do, or knew nothing whatever about the charge until the dispute arose. Unfortunately the law says that the landlord is responsible for his servants. I know, but from the evidence I am going to call before you I shall show you that the landlord is a perfectly innocent person. I said just now “The disgraceful thing the Superintendent did at the opening of this case”, and I now repeat it. It was done to prejudice Mr. Gray`s case, and I say now, a more disgraceful thing I never heard of. Even a common criminal, if 50 times convicted, is at times protected. Take a case at the Quarter Sessions. The knowledge of previous convictions is kept carefully from the minds of the jury, and here before you, the Superintendent, who thoroughly appreciates what he is doing, instead of holding back this information purposely brings it before you. I dispute that the man was drunk.

Mr. Minter then referred to the charge book, which mentioned that one corroborative witness was present. That witness, however, was not there that morning. Again, the charge in the book amounted to “permitting”. Yet to secure a conviction he would suggest that permitting had been converted into selling when the summons was made out. It was a curious thing that this hawk-eyed, intelligent person (the Inspector) did not see a civilian that was drunk refused drink, but he did manage to see a soldier who was not drunk served. (Laughter) Was it likely that the landlord of a respectable hotel would imperil his licence by selling a penny glass of beer? He would ask the Bench to dismiss from their minds the Superintendent`s preliminary remarks, and to say after hearing the evidence that no ofence against the licensing laws had been committed.

George Barclay Gray, the defendant, said: The barmaid, Miss Hookham, has been in my service about three or four months. She served in the bar. I knew nothing of this case until called by Miss Hookham, when I saw three soldiers, among them being the man referred to. I went to the Camp to bring him here as a witness today, but his regiment went away the next morning. Inspector Swift spoke to me on the night of the 18^th, and said “Your young lady has served these men with beer”, and I said “Quite right”. At the time there were three glasses in front of them. Inspector Swift did not say anything else. The soldier said to me “Am I drunk?”, and I replied “As far as I am concerned, no, but Mr. Inspector thinks that you are, so I will give you your money back”. My barmaid gave the pence back to one of the other soldiers, but not to Thompson. The glasses were then collected up. My instructions to my barmaids are that upon no consideration whatever are they to serve intoxicated persons, under pain of instant dismissal.

By the Chief Constable: I admit that the man was served in my house with a glass of beer. I could not tell you how long the men had been in the house previously to the Inspector coming in. I did not see the man walk, neither did I see one of the soldiers go out and come back in again. As far as my judgement goes the man was perfectly sober. I cannot give you a single instance of a policeman on any other occasion following a man in and making a mistake. The police have been to the house on a former occasion and cautioned the barmaids not to serve persons whom they alleged to be drunk.

Miss Hookham said: On the evening of Wednesday, the 18^th, I had several civilians in the bar. One asked for a glass of stout. The stout not being kept in that department, I left the bar to get it. At that time there were no soldiers in the bar. As I came back a drunken civilian came in, and I refused to serve him. Three soldiers came in before the civilian and stood at the counter and ordered three glasses of beer. A companion of Thompson`s paid for the beer. The Inspector came in and said “Have you served these men? Can you see they are drunk?” Mr. Gray came in, and the man Thompson said “Am I drunk?”, and Mr. Gray said “No”. Mr. Gray added “If the Inspector thinks you are drunk I`ll have no bother here” and directed me to return the money. It is not true that I said to Inspector Swift that I did not think the man was as bad as he was. The soldier Thompson was sober, or he would not have been served. Occasionally we get people in a state of intoxication, and I refuse to serve them. I do not suppose the soldiers had been in the house four or five minutes.

By the Chief Constable: I admit serving drink to the soldiers. They were in the house about four or five minutes altogether. I could not say whether one of the soldiers went out and then followed the Inspector in. Thompson was perfectly sober. On one occasion I have had a policeman call my attention to a man who was drunk. On that occasion the man went out without being served.

Leslie Edwards, an employee on the Harbour extension works, corroborated the last witness. In his opinion the man Thompson was perfectly sober.

By the Chief Constable: The police did not accuse more than one man of being drunk. He could not give any reason why this particular man should be picked out. He had no conversation with the soldier, but saw him come into the bar and go out.

Re-examined: He saw a drunken civilian come in.

Frederick Pettifer and William Martin (both harbour employees) also gave corroborative evidence.

This concluded the case for the defence, and the Bench retired for private deliberation.

After seven minutes` absence the Magistrates returned, and the Chairman said that after a long hearing, the Bench had come to a unanimous decision. They found that the soldier Thompson was drunk and was served upon Mr. Gray`s premises. He would mention that the full penalty was £10, but in this case it would be reduced to £1 and 19s. 6d. costs. The police having been attacked in the course of the case, the Bench wished to say that they did quite right in bringing the case forward, and that they had behaved in a very proper manner in the conduct of the case. Finally, the licence would not be endorsed.

Folkestone Express 28-6-1902

Wednesday, June 25^th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs., Alderman Salter, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Robert Thompson, a private in the 3^rd Militia Battalion of the North Lancashire Regiment, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

The Superintendent said this charge had been dealt with by the officer commanding the regiment, and as he had no wish to punish a man for the same offence twice he would ask the Magistrates to dismiss the case. This was done.

George Barclay Gray, landlord of the London and Paris Hotel, was summoned for selling liquor to Robert Thompson while he was in a drunken state. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Inspector Swift stated that about 9.30 p.m. on the 18^th inst. he was in South Street at the junction with Harbour Street, in company with P.C. Sales. He saw a soldier come out and hold on to the knob of the door. He swayed to and fro and went inside again. Witness went inside and said to the barmaid “Don`t you serve that man – he is drunk”. The soldier exclaimed “I will have my ---- beer”, and took a full glass from the counter and drank some of it. Witness asked the barmaid if she served the soldier, and she replied “Yes. I served him with half a pint, but I did not think he was as bad as he is”. She then gave him back a penny and took away the remainder of the beer. Witness asked for Mr. Gray, who came into the bar. Witness said “You see the condition of this man?” The soldier said “Am I drunk?” Mr. Gray replied “You are not sober. I wish you would leave my premises”. The soldier went into South Street, and as he refused to give witness his name and number he took him to the police station, and after having ascertained his name and number, handed him over to the Military Police.

Mr. Minter spent some time in cross-examining the witness.

P.C. Sales corroborated.

Mr. Minter: You were watching the house? – No.

Sergt. Lawrence deposed to taking the charge.

Sergt. Elphick, of the garrison police, said he superintended the pickets. About 9.50 p.m. on the 18^th inst. he overtook a picket in Cheriton Road. They had Robert Thompson with them; he was drunk and rolling about.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench and said he would bring witnesses to prove the soldier was not drunk. He referred to the evidence of the police, and spoke of that body in the most offensive way. He would bring honest witnesses who would speak the truth.

Alice Hookham, a barmain, said that one soldier ordered beer for three, and it was the same man who she gave the money back to. When the soldier said to Mr. Gray “Am I drunk?”, Mr. Gray replied “No”.

Leslie Edwards corroborated.

In reply to the Superintendent, he said he had no conversation with the soldier, but only inferred he was sober because he did not stagger on going in or coming out of the door. The distance was about three or four steps.

Frederick Pettifer and W. Martin also gave evidence for the defence.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had given the matter a great deal of consideration, and they had no doubt as to the soldier`s condition. A fine of £1 and 19s. 6d. costs would be imposed, but the licence would not be endorsed. The Chairman also remarked that the police had behaved uncommonly well and they did not deserve the censures which had been passed upon them by the defendant`s solicitor.

Folkestone Herald 18-10-1902

Thursday, October 16^th: Before Alderman Banks, Mr. Wightwick, and Mr. Swoffer.

Alfred John Pope, in khaki, was charged with unlawfully wearing a military uniform, he not being a soldier. Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he did it as a joke.

P.C. Lemar deposed that he saw prisoner in Harbour Street, and turning into South Street. Witness followed him into the bar of the Paris Hotel, and, calling him out, said “What is the meaning of this, going about as a soldier?” Witness knew prisoner personally, as he was a resident of the town, and not a soldier. He replied “Oh! It`s only a joke. I am just going aboard to take it off”. Prisoner sometimes went to sea, and worked also at the harbour. He said the tunic and trousers were given to him by a reservist of the Royal Engineers, and the puttees and spurs were lent to him by a man named Godfrey, of the Colonials. This witness subsequently found to be correct.

The Chairman said it was a very serious offence. It was not a joke. They had the power to inflict a fine of £5, or a month`s hard labour. Prisoner had no right to wear the uniform. Prisoner would be fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days` hard labour.

Prisoner asked for a couple of hours in which to get the money, which was granted. However, a friend in Court stepped forward and paid the amount.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-2-1903

Saturday, February 7^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert.

Mary Graham was charged with having been drunk and incapable on Friday night. On being called upon to plead the lady said she supposed that she was Guilty, but could not remember anything about it.

P.C. Kettle said at 8.45 p.m. on Friday he saw defendant lying on the path near the London and Paris Hotel. Having lifted her up and found that she was drunk and incapable, he, with the assistance of P.C. Watson, took her to the police station.

Mary had no defence, except that she had recently been unwell.

The Chief Constable proved a conviction for a similar offence in 1893.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Express 14-2-1903

Saturday, February 7^th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mary Graham was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Kettle said about 9.45 the previous evening he was in South Street, where he saw prisoner lying on the pavement outside the London And Paris Hotel. Witness picked her up and found she was drunk and incapable. He obtained the assistance of P.C. Watson and conveyed her to the police station, where she was formally charged.

Prisoner was charged with a similar offence in 1893.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

Saturday, February 28^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer.

William Frederick Godfrey, on bail, was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Nash said on Saturday night he was called by Mr. Gray, of the Paris Hotel, where he found Godfrey drunk. He had not been served by Mr. Gray, who requested the man`s removal. Witness persuaded defendant to go, and then he tried to get drink at the Harbour Inn and the Prince Arthur (sic). In both cases defendant was refused, and he then made his way back to the Paris Hotel. Witness took him to the police station.

Defendant pleaded Guilty to being drunk, but took exception to the statement that he was incapable.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days`.

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.

Folkestone Express 7-3-1903

Monday, March 2^nd: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Fredk. Godfrey was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Nash said about 6.20 on Saturday evening he was called to the London And Paris Hotel, and there saw prisoner. At the request of the landlord witness turned him out. Prisoner then went to the Princess Royal Hotel, where he was refused drink. He then went to the Harbour Inn, where he was again refused drink. About 7.20 p.m. witness was again called by Mr. Gray to eject prisoner. On getting him outside, witness found he was drunk, and consequently arrested him.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

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.

They warned the holder of the licence of the London And Paris Hotel, who was convicted on the 25^th of June last year for selling beer to a drunken man, that any future breach of the licensing laws would jeopardise his licence.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31-10-1903

 

Wednesday, October 28^th: Before Mr. J. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 9.30 p.m. on the 24^th inst. he saw Harry Johnson and William Quintet drunk in Tontine Street. He spoke to them for using bad language. Ten minutes later he saw them go into the London And Paris Hotel. He followed them in and told the barmaid not to serve them. He took their names and addresses. Neither of the defendants appeared.

Fined 5s., costs, 9s, in default seven days`.

Folkestone Express 31-10-1903

Wednesday, October 28^th: Before E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Harry Johnson and William Quintet, who did not appear, were summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales deposed that about 9.30 p.m. on the 24^th inst., he was on duty in Tontine Street, where he saw defendants in company with several other men in a drunken condition. He had occasion to speak to Johnson for using bad language. The men then went to the Brewery Tap, but were refused drink. About 9.40 they went to the London and Paris Hotel. Witness followed and told the barmaid not to let the men have drink. He then took their names and told them that he should report them. They were both drunk when served with the summons.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 31-10-1903

Wednesday, October 28^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward and C.J. Pursey.

Harry Johnson and William Quintet were summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the London And Paris Hotel, Tontine Street.

Defendants, who did not appear, were fined 5s. and 9s. costs; in default, seven days`.