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, 7 March 2015

Blue Anchor 1905 -



Folkestone Express 22-7-1905

Wednesday, July 19th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The licence of the Blue Anchor was temporarily transferred from Walter Whiting to George Walter Stoner.

Folkestone Herald 22-7-1905

Wednesday, July 19th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. Stainer, and Colonel Hamilton.

The licence of the Black Anchor Inn was transferred from Wm. Stone to George Waller.

Note: A misreporting of the 1st order. This is the Blue Anchor from Whiting to Stonar! 

Folkestone Daily News 30-8-1905

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Ald. Herbert, Messrs. Carpenter, Salter, Fynmore, Vaughan, Westropp, and Hamilton.

An application for the transfer of the Blue Anchor from Joseph Whiting to George Edward Stoner was granted. 

Folkestone Chronicle 2-9-1905

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Aldermen Salter and Vaughan. Alderman Vaughan did not adjudicate.

The Blue Anchor: Temporary authority having been previously granted, Mr. G.W. Stonar applied for the transfer of the licence of the Blue Anchor from Walter Whiting.

Mr. Loftus Banks (an agent) proved the service of the usual notices, and the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 2-9-1905

Wednesday, August 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Salter, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Blue Anchor from Walter Whiting to George Walter Stone (sic).

The Chief Constable explained that the temporary transfer was granted in June.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Herald 2-9-1905

Wednesday, August 30th: Before Aldermen W.G. Herbert, W. Salter, and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Westropp, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

The licence of the Blue Anchor was temporarily transferred from Walter Whiting to G.W. Stonar.

Folkestone Daily News 7-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs. Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.

The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone Chronicle)

Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases of drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police in carrying out their duties.

The Welcome public house was objected to on the ground of misconduct. The Hope, the Channel, the Providence, the Tramway and the Blue Anchor were objected to on the ground that they were nor required. All the other licences were granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C. Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.

On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his annual report, which was as follows:-

“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.

This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons.

Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons.

At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences were refused and two renewed,

The licences which were refuse were:- the Victoria Inn, South Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street; and Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the houses closed.

Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.

During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises.

During the year ended 31st December last 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.

Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year, viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and costs for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred the licence and left the house.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the congested area, also the public houses within the area.

Within this area there is a population approximately of 4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 109 persons.

There are also situate within the area six premises licensed for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”.

The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained.

The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were then renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover Street, in which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were not required, the houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope, Fenchurch Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.

Folkestone Express 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See Folkestone Chronicle for details)

The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their premises.

All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notices with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of misconduct.

The adjourned licensing sessions, when the six licences will be considered, were fixed for March 5th.

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Chronicle)

It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions the licences of the Blue Anchor, the Providence, the Welcome, the Tramway, the Channel, and the Hope would be opposed, on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood. The licence holders of those houses received this information as they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.

Southeastern Gazette 13-2-1906

Local News

The annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held on Wednesday, before E.T. Ward Esq., in the chair.

The Chief Constable reported that there were 136 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, viz., full licenses 85, beer “on” 9, beer “off” 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 5, and confectioners' 3. This gave an average, according to the census of 1901, of one license to every 225 persons, or one “on” license to every 326 persons. Three of the “off” licenses (two held by spirit dealers and one by a chemist), would not be renewed, as the premises were no longer used for the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one to every 230 persons. During the year ended 31st December, 183 persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164 were, convicted and 19 discharged. This was an increase of 12 persons proceeded against, and 8, convicted as compared with the preceding year. Only one license holder had been convicted during the year. All the licenses were granted with the exception of six. The Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of the following houses on the ground that they were not necessary: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach Street; Blue Anchor Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also instructed to serve notice with regard to the Welcome Inn, on the ground of misconduct.

Folkestone Daily News 24-2-1906

Saturday, February 24th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, G. Spurgen, T. Ames, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

Mr. George Stonar appeared to answer a complaint of letting his chimney catch fire.

P.S. Lawrence stated that on Tuesday he saw a chimney on fire at the Blue Anchor, Beach Street, kept by the defendant. He went into the bar and saw a small fire, with soot falling down. Defendant`s wife was trying to put the fire out, and witness assisted her. He told her he should report the circumstance. She informed him that there had been no fire previously in the grate during the seven months they had occupied the house.

He was fined 2s. 6d., costs remitted.

Folkestone Daily News 5-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 5th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Blue Anchor

This licence was opposed on the grounds of its not being required, and the Bench decided to refer it to Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Mercer appeared in the above case for the owners.
 
Folkestone Chronicle 10-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

The Adjourned Annual General Licensing Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Monday, when the Chief Constable opposed the renewal of five licences on the ground of redundancy, and one on the ground of misconduct. The evidence was of the usual technical order, where a whole host of police witnesses testified to an extraordinary state of things which had apparently gone on for years. The sitting lasted from 11 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., and was only relieved by one little light episode when Mr. Mercer on two occasions quoted the Folkestone Herald as bearing upon a case heard at the Court, and on each occasion the Chairman saying that the report was wrong, whereupon Mr. Mercer intimated that he should give up taking the Herald.

The Bench sitting on Monday morning were Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. W. Linton, and Major Leggett.

The Blue Anchor

This house is next door to the Providence, is the property of Messrs. Ash and Co., and the tenant is George Walter Stonar.

Mr. Mercer again appeared for the brewers and tenant to oppose the application for the non-renewal of the licence. The facts as to statistics relating to the congested area were the same as the last case, and admitted without reiteration.

The Chief Constable said there was an entrance to the house on both sides. The accommodation for the public was a bar and tap room. The licence had been transferred eight times in 12 years. There appeared to him to be a very small trade done, and in his opinion the renewal of the licence was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood.

By Mr. Mercer: The house was well conducted.

Mr. Mercer, addressing the Magistrates, wondered why the Chief Constable had got the idea that the house was not wanted. They had an average of 175½ barrels and 77½ gallons of spirits for a five years` average, besides extra profits, such as from teas (laughter) and refreshments. Only that morning, when viewing the property, he had seen a man emerge from one of the houses with a large piece of bread, etc. There was a very good trade with this class of refreshment.

The Chairman: The Bench have decided to report to Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 10-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday, when the six licences which were adjourned from the Brewster Sessions were considered. On the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The Blue Anchor

The licence of the Blue Anchor Inn was next considered. The tenant and the owners were represented by Mr. Mercer.

The Chief Constable said he would first put in a plan on which he had marked the whole of the public houses in a congested area, which was formed by a line from the Harbour, up High Street, along the Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and then over Radnor Bridge to the sea. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,500, five to a house. There were 42 on-licensed houses within the area, being 36 fully-licensed and six beer “on”, giving a proportion of one on licence to every 109 inhabitants within that area, whilst for the borough at large the number was one to every 326 inhabitants. There were also situate within the area six licences for the sale of beer, liquor, and spirits off the premises, one refreshment house with a licence, and one off licence, making a total of 50 houses for the sale of drink by retail, being one licence for every 92 persons within that area, against one to every 230 in the borough. There were also four registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a membership of 898, within the area. During the year 1905, out of 183 charges of drunkenness, 93 arose within that congested area. The Chief Constable said the house was situate in Beach Street, and the licensee was George Walter Stoner, who obtained a transfer of the licence on August 30th last year. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value was £20. The house was one of the block to which was referred in the last case, and it adjoined the Providence. The licence had been transferred eight times within the past twelve years. There appeared to him to be a very small trade done at the house, and in his opinion it was not in accord with the requirements and needs of the neighbourhood.

In answer to Mr. Mercer, the Chief Constable said the house was well conducted. There had been three changes of the licence within seven years, and two within six.

Mr. Mercer said he could not imagine a place where they had better provision for police supervision. In that case he would like to hear why the licence was not wanted. The trade done at the house averaged 175½ barrels and 77½ gallons of spirits for the past five years.

The Chairman: You will have to go to the Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Mercer: I am afraid I shall be busy if I go on.

Folkestone Herald 10-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Mr. T. Ames.

The Blue Anchor

In the case of the Blue Anchor Mr. Mercer also appeared for the owners.

The Chief Constable said the house was situated in Beach Street. The present licensee was George Walter Stoner, who obtained a transfer of the licence on 30th August last year. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury. The rateable value was £20. The house was also one of the block referred to in his last evidence, and adjoined the Providence. There was an entrance on each side of the house. The accommodation consisted of a bar and tap room for the use of the public. The licence had been transferred eight times within the past twelve years. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards 31; and within a radius of 200 yards there were 33. The house appeared to do a very small trade, and, in his opinion, the licence was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The house had been well conducted. There had been two changes in six years.

Mr. Mercer said this house had a back entrance, and he could not imagine any position better for police supervision. The trade was 175½ barrels in five years, and 77½ gallons of spirits. That was good enough.

The Chairman said the case would have to go to Quarter Sessions, but Mr. Mercer was right in saying that it was very hard to choose one house among so many.

Folkestone Daily News 30-6-1906

Saturday, June 30th: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Leggett, and Stainer.

George Walter Stonar was charged with permitting drunkenness at the Blue Anchor.

Mrs. Sings deposed that she went to the Blue Anchor in Beach Street, and saw her husband leaning at the counter of the bar. He was very drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and her husband`s beer was on the counter. Her husband swore at her, and she took the glass of beer and threw it out the door. She told the landlady she should fetch a policeman.

Cross-examined: It was my husband`s beer that I threw away.

P.C. Smith deposed that he went to the Blue Anchor, and saw the beer had been thrown away. He went into the bar and found Sings very drunk. The landlady was behind the counter, and there was an empty glass on the bar. The landlord said “I want this man outside”. Sings said he was a better man than witness. Witness, however, ejected him and took him to the police station, where he was charged with being drunk.

By Mr. De Wet: Mrs. Sings said “Here he is”. I asked him to leave the house. When he got outside he called his wife a bad name. I told him to go away. A man and a boy were singing. The other men had beer.

Sergt. Osborne said he was at the police station when Sings was brought in drunk.

G.W. Stonar, landlord of the Blue Anchor, deposed that Sings came into his house with two other men. They hadthree pints of beer, and were all sober. Some others came in, and they went on chatting for an hour. Sings then became excited. Mrs. Sings came in, and left to fetch a policeman. Witness asked Sings to go. The policeman came, and then Sings went out himself. Mrs. Sings came to the house three months since and complained of drunkenness, and said if they served her husband with drink she would report them.

Mrs. Stonar, landlady, deposed that between 6 and 7 she served the three men with a pint of beer each. She said to Sings “Teddy, you had better go, or your wife will come and swear you are drunk”, as she had previously threatened to do. Sings had two pints and a half of beer. Mrs. Sings went for a policeman, who came and took Sings into custody.

The Chairman: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that the case is proved. He defendant knew perfectly well that the man was in teh habit of getting drunk, therefore his conduct was very bad. The penalty is £10, but the fine will be 50s. and 13s. costs, or one month.

The fine was at once paid.
 
Folkestone Express 30-6-1906

Friday, June 22nd: Before W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Edward Sings was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night in Beach Street. Defendant admitted the offence.

P.C. Smith said at ten minutes past nine the previous evening he was called to the Blue Anchor public house, where he saw the prisoner sitting just outside. The landlord was ordering him out as he was drunk. However, he refused to leave, so he (witness) ejected him. When outside he began to use very bad language, and refused to go away when requested. He caused a large crowd to assemble, so witness had to take him into custody. Owing to his violence prisoner had to be handcuffed in order to get him to the police station.

Inspector Lilley said the prisoner had not been before the Magistrates for the last six years.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Prisoner`s wife was in the Court and refused to pay the fine.

Folkestone Express 7-7-1906

Saturday, June 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggett, and J. Stainer Esq.

George Walter Stonar, the landlord of the Blue Anchor public house, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on June 21st. Mr. De Wet represented the defendant.

Emma Sings, of 9, St. John`s Road, said she was the wife of Edward Sings, a pilot and boatman. On Thursday, June 21st, she went to the Blue Anchor in Beach Street between eight and nine o`clock. She went into the bar, where she found her husband leaning on the counter. He was very drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and there were three other men in the bar. Her husband had a pint glass half full of beer in front of him. She asked him if he was going home and he swore at her. He took up the glass and drank some of the beer, and then stood the glass on the counter, and she took it up and threw the contents out into the street. She told the landlady she should fetch a policeman. Her husband had been there frequently drunk. She went and fetched P.C. Smith, who was at the bottom of the Tram Road. She took him to the house, and on the way she showed him the beer which she had thrown out of the door. The constable went into the bar, and as her husband abused him he put him out. Outside there was a disturbance and a large crowd collected, and eventually her husband was arrested. When she saw her husband leaning on the counter, she could tell he was drunk by his attitude.

Cross-examined, she said she was not aware that it was someone else`s beer her husband was drinking. She had had a lot of trouble with her husband. She went into the Blue Anchor three months ago and told the landlady not to serve him. She denied calling the landlady a bad woman. She had threatened to fetch a policeman before if they served her husband with drink. She had known him go into the house sober, and come out drunk.

Re-examined, she said she did call the landlady a bad woman for trusting her husband to the amount of 35s. for beer.

P.C. Smith said the last witness came to him on the evening of June 21st and made a complaint to him. In consequence he went to the public bar of the Blue Anchor with her. On the path outside the house he saw a wet mark, and Mrs. Sings made a statement with regard to it. He entered the public bar, which was a very narrow one. Inside he found Edward Sings with three other men. The defendant was behind the bar. Sings was drunk, and was standing about a foot away from the counter. There was an empty glass opposite to where he was standing. As he entered the house, the landlord pointed to Sings and ordered him out. He (witness) asked him to go out quietly. As he refused to go, he ejected him on account of his disorderly conduct, and at the landlord`s request. Outside the house the prisoner became disorderly, so he took him into custody. Anyone could have noticed he was drunk.

Cross-examined, he said when outside he told Sings to go away quietly. Sings was of an excitable nature when he was drunk. A boy was singing, and a man was playing outside the Queen`s Head. The landlord told him he wanted Sings out of the house. He certainly ejected him.

P.S. Osborne said shortly after nine o`clock on June 21st, Sings was brought into the police station by two constables. He was very drunk.

Cross-examined, witness said Sings was not charged with being found drunk on licensed premises, but with being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street. He was convicted for the latter offence.

The defendant went into the witness box. He said he had held the licence since July 9th of last year. Previous to that he had held an off licence in Sharlston, near Wakefield. Sings came into his house on June 21st with two other men, Philpott and Peden. His wife served them with a pint of beer each. All three were perfectly sober. Two others came in, and they all began chaffing one another. They bagan to ask Sings questions about his work as a pilot, and also suggested that he could not do certain things. Sings became excited, and it went on for an hour, when the two who had come in last went into another room, because they were asked to stop the chaffing as Sings was making too much noise. His wife also said to Sings “You know what your wife has promised to do. You had better get out before she comes”. Soon after that Mrs. Sings came. The beer which was by the side of Sings on the counter was his (defendant`s) beer, for which a customer had paid. After Mrs. Sings went out he asked her husband to go, so as not to get them into any bother. Sings then turned stupid or stubborn, and said he would stop there until his wife returned with the constable. He advised Sings to go when the policeman came, and he went out without being ejected. When he got to the door he said all the policemen in Folkestone could not lock him up. When his wife came Sings got agitated, and he did not know whether he was on his head or his feet.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said the chaffing went on for an hour. Sings` wife made him stupid, and added to his excitement. He had read in the papers that Sings pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He saw Sings supplied with a pint and a half after the first pint of beer.

Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar said on June 21st she served Sings and his two companions with a pint of beer each. She corroborated her husband as to the chaffing, and said it went too far. Shortly after, Mrs. Sings came and said she would fetch a policeman and swear he was drunk. She also said she (witness) encouraged him there, and further said she was a bad woman. The man was only served with two pints and a half during the time he was in the house. Sings was only excited, and became more excited when his wife came and threw the beer into the street. There was no truth in the statement that he owed 30s. for beer.

Mr. De Wet alluded to the fact that Sings was not charged with being drunk on licensed premises. That case was an act of spite on Mrs. Sings` part. He urged that every reasonable step was taken by the defendant that drunken people should not be served, and he thought the evidence of Mrs. Stonar would show that everything possible to be done was done.

The Chairman, in announcing their decision, said they thought the defendant knew perfectly well Sings was in the habit of getting drunk, and they considered his conduct was very bad. They were unanimously of opinion that the case was proved. They could fine him £10, but they would mitigate the penalty to a quarter of that amount, 50s., while he would also have to pay 15s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 7-7-1906

Saturday, June 30th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, and Mr. J. Stainer.

George Walter Stonar, landlord of the Blue Anchor, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. De Wet appeared on his behalf, and denied the offence.

Mrs. Sings, 9, St. John`s Road, deposed that her husband was a pilot. On Thursday, 21st June, she went to the Blue Anchor, in Beach Street, a few minutes nine o`clock. She saw her husband inside at the counter of the public bar. He was leaning against the counter, and was very drunk. The landlady was behind the bar, and there were three other men on the same side of the bar as her husband. He had a pint glass, half full, close to him on the counter when witness went in. She asked him if he was coming home, and he swore at her – a thing he usually did when he was like that. He took the glass up and drank some beer, and when he put it down on the counter witness took it up and threw the contents out of the bar, saying he was very drunk, and ought not to have any more beer. She then told the landlady she would fetch a policeman, as she could not stand it any more, and she should fetch one because the landlady had served her husband with the beer, and he was very drunk. She could not tell what answer the landlady made, because she did not wait to hear. She found a policeman (P.C. Smith) at the bottom of the Tram Road, and took him to her husband inside the bar. Mr. Sings would not go out when the policeman asked him to. He was accordingly put out, and as there was a disturbance outside, her husband was eventually arrested. She could tell her husband was drunk by the attitude in which he was leaning against the bar counter.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: She was not aware it was someone else`s beer she threw away. If it had been, the landlady would have told her. She had had a great deal of trouble with her husband. She remembered going into the Blue Anchor about three months ago. She called Mrs. Stonar a bad woman, and said at that time “If ever he comes in here again I will fetch a policeman, and I shall report you for serving my husband when he is drunk” Her husband might have called her a bad name, and said it was all her fault when the policeman put him outside. It was outside that he was arrested.

Re-examined by the Chief Constable: They had had a most unhappy life through her husband`s drunkenness. When she called Mrs. Stonar a bad woman, she was referring to her trusting her husband for the money for the beer.

P.C. Smith deposed that he went with Mrs. Sings to the Blue Anchor. He entered the public bar; it was a very small and narrow one. Inside he found Edward Sings with three other men. Defendant was behind the bar. Sings was drunk, and was standing just inside the bar when witness entered.  An empty glass was on the counter opposite Sings. As witness entered the house the landlord pointed to Edward Sings, ordering him out, and said “I want this man outside”. Witness told Sings to go outside quietly. The landlord did not say why he wanted Sings out. The latter refused to go, and said “I am a better ---- man than you are”. Witness accordingly ejected him. Outside Sings became disorderly, and witness took him into custody. Sings was in such a state of drunkenness that anyone could notice it. His conduct caused such a crowd to assemble that the street was blocked up. It was necessary for witness and another constable to handcuff Sings on the way to the station.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Mrs. Sings did not say “That is him”. Witness did not say “Come along, Ted, and get off home”. When Sings got out of the house, he turned round to his wife and called her a bad name. Sings seemed all right when he was sober, but was rather excitable when he was drunk. Witness was aware there was a boy singing and playing outside the Queen`s Head at the time, and there were several people listening. He only saw one empty glass on the counter, but there were others containing beer.

P.S. Osborne deposed that he was on duty at the police station on the night that Sings was brought in by the last witness and another constable. Sings was very drunk, and had handcuffs on.

George Walter Stonar, the defendant, called by Mr. De Wet, said he was the licence holder of the Blue Anchor, and had held it since 1905. Previously he had had an off licence in another part of the country for several years. He had never before been summoned for any contravention of the licensing laws. He knew Sings, and saw him come into his house on the 21st June. He came in with two other men. Witness`s wife served them with three pints of beer. This was between 6.30 and 7 p.m. The men were perfectly sober, and there was nothing to lead one to suppose that they were otherwise. They remained there “talking and chaffing”, and afterwards someone else came in. They were asking Sings certain seafaring questions, suggesting he could not do this and that. The chaff went on for about an hour. The two men, Hart and Featherbe, then went into another room. During the whole time Sings was in the bar witness personally did not serve him. The other men had excited Sings too much by their chaff, and witness asked them to stop it, as he was getting too excited. Witness`s wife said to Sings “Well, look here. Ted, you know what your wife has promised to do, and you had better get off before she comes”. Witness was not there when Mrs. Sings entered, but came in when she had gone to fetch a policeman, and said to Sings “Don`t get us into any bother; your wife has gone to fetch a policeman, and you be outside when he comes”. What with the chaffing, and the excitement of his wife`s coming, Sings had turned stupid-like, and refused to go. Witness was advising him to go when the policeman came and ordered him out. Sings was not ejected, but went out of the house himself, and when he got to the door he said that all the policemen in Folkestone could not lock him up. What with the chaffing, and his wife throwing the glass away, he did not know whether he was on his head or his heels, and he made a dirty remark to his wife. About three months ago Mrs. Sings came into the house seeking her husband, and said she had had too much drunkenness at one place and another, and if she saw him in the Blue Anchor again she would fetch a policeman at once.  On that occasion her husband was there. The day on which Sings was ejected was the first time Mrs. Sings had been to the Blue Anchor and found her husband there since the threat. She had, however, been in three or four times, and not found him there. He had given his wife instructions as to the requirements of the Licensing Act. They were that if anyone came in the worse for drink she was not to serve them, and also if she thought it was better that they should not have any more she was not to serve them.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Sings had never been indebted to him to a greater extent than a shilling at one time for drink. The man`s excitement had been on for about an hour. He did not think the drink had anything to do with that, because he had not had enough. Witness was not present in Court the next day when Sings was brought up, but he saw in the paper that he pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street.

Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar, the wife of the defendant, said that on June 21st she was in the bar. She corroborated her husband`s evidence as to the chaffing taking place. It went a bit too far, and she asked the other people to desist, saying if Sings` wife came in she would swear he was drunk, as she had threatened to. Mrs. Stonar also confirmed her husband`s testimony as to Mrs. Sings` threat about three months before. She was the only person who served Sings on this occasion, and he had two pints and a half of beer altogether. It was very usual for a person to come into a house and buy a glass of beer, and remain in the house for about an hour with that one glass. The witness then detailed the scene in the house. When the policeman came she said “This is nothing to do with us”. In her opinion Sings was only in a very excited condition. There was no truth in the statement that at one time Sings owed her 30s. for drink.

Cross-examined: Sings was very excited and became stupid. He became more excited when the policeman came. Two and a half pints of beer should not make him excited. She supposed that as he was excited the policeman was justified in arresting him outside. She asked him to go outside before the policeman came.

Re-examined: She asked him to go before Mrs. Sings came.

Mr. De Wet contended that in view of the seriousness of the charge and inconclusiveness of the evidence, the Bench should give his client the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case. He had intended to call one of the three men concerned to prove the chaffing, but they were at sea.

Alderman Herbert said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case was proved, and that defendant knew perfectly well that Sings was in the habit of getting drunk. It was a very bad case, and defendant would be fined 50s. and 13s. costs.

Folkestone Daily News 1-10-1906

Canterbury Licensing Sessions

At the Canterbury Licensing Sessions today the question of the renewal of the licences of The Hope, The Tramway, The Providence, and The Blue Anchor came up for hearing. Lord Harris presided. The Folkestone Licensing Justices were represented by Mr. T. Matthew, instructed by Mr. H.B. Bradley.

The case occupied some time, and eventually the justices unanimously decided not to grant the renewal of either of the licences, but to uphold and confirm the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Bench.

The question of compensation will come up for consideration at a later date.
 
Folkestone Express 6-10-1906

Local News

On Monday last the East Kent Licensing Bench at Canterbury considered the question of renewing the licences of the Providence, the Hope, the Tramway Tavern, and the Blue Anchor, public houses referred to them by the Folkestone licensing justices. In each case they decided to refuse the granting of the licence, and the next matter for them to consider will be how much compensation is to be paid to the brewers and holders of the licences for the closing of the houses.

Folkestone Herald 6-10-1906

Local News

The Compensation Authority for East Kent sat at Canterbury on Monday and Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding.

Amongst the 31 houses scheduled, there were four from Folkestone. These were; The Providence, Blue Anchor, the Hope, and the Tramway.

In the cases of the Blue Anchor and the Tramway, the owners and tenants did not seek for renewals, but the owners of the Providence and the Hope sought for renewals.

On Tuesday the Committee fixed the compensation of the Tramway at £894, the owners to have £745, and the tenant £149.

In the cases of the Providence, Blue Anchor and the Hope, the fixing of the compensation was adjourned to a subsequent meeting.

Folkestone Daily News 16-10-1906

Tuesday, October 16th: Before Messrs. Stainer, Ames, and Leggett.

Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.

Mrs. Stonar deposed that she was the landlady of the Blue Anchor. The prisoner came into the bar and begged of two customers. She asked her to go, and she threw a glass at her. It just touched her face. Two men held her till her husband came, when she went for a constable and gave her into custody.

Mary Ann McCarthy said nothing.

The Chief Constable said she was a nuisance to East Kent. She had numerous convictions against her.

She was sentenced to a month`s hard labour.
 
Folkestone Express 20-10-1906

Tuesday, October 16th: Before J. Stainer Esq., Major Leggett, and T. Ames Esq.

Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with assaulting the landlady of the Blue Anchor Inn the previous evening, and also with being drunk on licensed premises.

In answer to both charges she said she did not know anything about them whatever. She had certainly had a drop of drink.

Elizabeth Stoner, the landlady of the Blue Anchor public house, said the previous evening the woman came to her house about ten minutes to seven. She was drunk, and went up to two customers in the bar and asked for some coppers, so that she could get a night`s lodgings. Witness requested her to leave the house, in answer to which McCarthy picked up a half pint glass and threw it at her. The glass hit her on the cheek, and was broken by catching on the shelf behind her. She then fetched a policeman and gave the prisoner into custody.

P.C. L. Johnson said about seven the previous day he was called to the Blue Anchor public house, where he saw the prisoner in the public bar drunk. The last witness told him she wanted to give her into custody for assaulting her. He took prisoner to the police station, where she was charged with the two offences.

Prisoner said she did not wish to say anything.

The Chief Constable said the woman was a nuisance to the whole of East Kent, and she had been convicted in almost every Court. She was only before that Court a week ago, and was liberated from prison the previous day. He had seven convictions in his book against her at Folkestone, Dover, and Margate, but there were a number of others throughout the county.

For being drunk on licensed premises, McCarthy was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days hard labour, and for the assault she was sent to prison for 14 days` hard labour, the sentences to run consecutively.

Prisoner: I have no money whatever. I will do the time.

Folkestone Herald 20-10-1906

Tuesday, October 16th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Major Leggett, and Mr. T. Ames.

Mary Ann McCarthy was charged with being drunk on licensed premises, and also with assaulting Mrs. Elizabeth Stonar, of the Blue Anchor, Beach Street.

Mrs. Stonar said the prisoner, who was drunk, came to her house. She did not ask for any drink, but asked two men in the bar for coppers to keep her for the night. As prisoner was going out she took up a half pint glass (the remains of which were produced), and threw it at witness. It caught the side of her face, and hit the shelf behind. One of the customers took hold of prisoner till her husband came, and witness fetched a policeman.

P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that at about 7 p.m. on Monday night he went to the Blue Anchor, where he saw prisoner in the public bar, drunk. The last witness said to him “I wish to give this woman into custody for assaulting me”.

Prisoner, on being asked if she had anything to say, replied in the negative, adding that she did not know anything at all about it.

The Chief Constable said prisoner was a nuisance to the whole of East Kent. There were seven convictions against her at Folkestone, Dover, and Margate, and there were numbers of others throughout the county.

The Chairman said the prisoner was an old offender and would be fined for being drunk 10s. and 14s. costs, or 14 days`, and for the assault she would have 14 days` imprisonment, the sentences to run consecutively.

Prisoner said she could not pay, and “would have to do it”.

Folkestone Herald 2-5-1970

Stroller

One thing leads to another. My reference recently to the mini-display of old documents and photographs of the wine trade in Folkestone before and after the turn of the century has prompted a townsman to let me see some more interesting papers and early photographs of Folkestone.

In particular, they reveal that 100 years ago there was a Railway Inn in Beach Street, not many steps from the Tram Road and the Fishmarket. No doubt it took its name from the nearby railway, linking the old Junction station with Folkestone Har­bour. The licensee, James Hart, one of a well-known Folke­stone family, paid Thomas Ash, “common brewers of the City and County of Canter­bury”, a yearly rental of £15. In those days £15 was £15. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that Mr. Hart should “bear and pay all rates and taxes whatso­ever, with the exception of the land and property tax, chargeable in respect of the said premises”. Twenty-nine years later the licence was transferred from father to son, Arthur James Hart. At that time the licensee paid a publican`s licence of £14 5s. 3d. to the Inland Revenue for the privilege of carrying on business.

There`s no doubt that the Beach Street of those days was almost the hub of Folkestone`s business life. There were other inns, not­ably Horlock’s Royal George Hotel (almost destroyed in the last war). Its immediate proximity to the railway and harbour was described as be­ing “peculiarly adapted to the convenience of the con­tinental tourist . . . with ex­tensive and beautiful views of the sea and the coast of France”.

For all the faults of our civic fathers, they cannot be blamed for the disappearance of Beach Street and adjacent narrow, picturesque streets with their little shops. The Luftwaffe did the deed in the later part of 1940. The instrument-in-chief was a land mine. For those who knew old Folkestone well and never failed to be charmed by a stroll through the narrow, cobbled thoroughfares, that particular piece of Blitzkreig is still hard to forgive.

The Railway Inn had disappeared before 1914, also the Blue Anchor at the entrance to The Stade. There were, however, plenty of other drinking and eating-houses in the closely-knit huddle of byways and highways.

For a number of details I have to thank Mr. Bill Hart, one of the senior members of the printing staff at the Folkestone offices of Messrs. F.J. Parsons (Kent Newspapers) Ltd. His father was Mr. Arthur James Hart, who became licensee of the Railway Inn in 1899. Mr. Arthur Hart`s brother, Albert, was long associated with Folkestone Football Club before and after the First World War, and will still be remembered by some older townsmen. He was also a Folkestone Councillor, builder and Kent football legislator.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment